The last thread got off topic there at the end, but in general, the form of government, and the control it exerts over the populace, makes a difference in energy production, energy usage, pollution, and CO2 emissions. Totalitarian governments can do what the leaders want, and while that theoretically could be a good thing, in practice it's been bad for the people and bad for the environment. Sure, many countries have lower per capita CO2 emissions than the US, but it comes with a much lower standard of living for the populace. Is that correlation, or cause and effect? I think it's obvious it's more than simply a correlation. A higher standard of living requires more, and more reliable, energy per person.

Therefore, it's intellectually dishonest to compare CO2 emissions per capita, while ignoring the associated discrepancies in the standard of living for the people. After all, can't we here agree on a goal of trying to improve well-being of people?

Quote (BridgeSmith)

Therefore, it's intellectually dishonest to compare CO2 emissions per capita, while ignoring the associated discrepancies in the standard of living for the people. After all, can't we here agree on a goal of trying to improve well-being of people?

Keep in mind that there is a LARGE portion of climate alarmists that use the per Capita CO2 issues to assign BLAME to the countries that have emitted CO2. This lines up with their neo-Marxist narrative of victims and oppressors. Their goal is NOT to save the planet. Rather it is to take POWER away from those who have had it (i.e. the countries with high standards of living) by any means necessary.

I'm not saying that all climate science or climate activists have this agenda. But, I'm saying that a large portion of them do. Look at Greta Thunberg. She was protesting the construction of wind farms in Norway. If she really cared about reducing CO2 emissions, she would not have done that. Instead, she was protesting because of some social justice bullshit about indigenous people and caribou herds or such.

CO2 emissions have become political, and this will likely continue. Climate doesn't care if you are a fascist or a communist... the less we do and the longer we wait, the consequences could be that much greater. We are dealing with huge energy systems that have stored a 'pile of power' in the last couple of decades, and continue to do so.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

I should have added... those with the greater per capita CO2 footprints, in general, are the greater abusers.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

I agree with all of that, JoshPlumSE, but I'm hoping that we here can elevate the discussion above that of the power-hungry and greedy climate alarmism 'leaders' and their useful idiot acolytes, and discuss the real causes and effects of CO2 and the impacts to humanity of imposing limitations to curb CO2 emissions.

Quote (dik)

...are the greater abusers

I don't get what you mean by "abusers", I like a warm house in the winter and ac in the summer.

Maybe because I drive an SUV?

Quote:

Fascist politicians have weaponized CO2 emissions have become political, and this will likely continue.

Fixed it for ya.

Quote:

Their goal is NOT to save the planet. Rather it is to take POWER away from those who have had it

Worth noting is that the politicians pushing the recent green agendas are also responsible for the ongoing attempt to bypass our Constitution to disarm Americans via treaty, and the global minimum tax that is about to begin redistributing our wealth to our enemies.

Quote (dik)

Climate doesn't care if you are a fascist or a communist... the less we do and the longer we wait, the consequences could be that much greater.

This isn't necessarily true. There is a very large possibility that our "solutions" to the problem will cause greater harm than the initial problem itself.

In particular, history is absolutely full of such examples in the study of economics. Cases where regulations were added to produce a desired economic outcome, but the regulations only succeeded in making the original problem much much worse.

I should also point out that the political elites that claimed they spoke for "popular demand" of certain policies were frequently at odds with the opinions of the very people they claimed to represent. What I mean is that these people gained political power by misrepresenting the will of the people they were trying to protect. Then the implemented well meaning policies that made the life of the people they claimed to represent significantly worse.

Then, when the people who created these problems are asked about them, their solutions are almost always MORE regulations of the type that make the outcomes so much worse. LOL.

If you don't understand this, you really haven't ever studied the work of Milton Friedman or Thomas Sowell.

I was listening to a podcast this morning, about the 70s oil crisis.

Prior to the 70s oil was very cheap, and so efficient use of oil was low down the list of design priorities.
Before the oil crisis there was some talk from GreenPeace and the like, concerned about our increased use of oil.
But this was, in my words, little more than "hand wringing".

The 70s crisis brought the finance market place to increase the priority of fuel efficiency, to reduce costs.
Then the "oil glut" of the 80s took much of this pressure away, as the price of petrol fell again.
But some retained an interest in fuel efficiency

Then in the 90s came, and the "story" became "CO2 from FF is a doom beyond comprehension. Repent ! Repent!".
My personal opinion is that in some backroom somewhere Al Gore and others were talking about either ...
a) People (damned people) aren't changing enough, we need a new "bogey man" to scare them into change, or
b) How do we enforce our control on others, to bend them to our will ? I know, create a new "bogey man" ...

I am all for being aware of our multi-faceted impact on the environment, but that is too "soft" a position, without "hard" science supporting the case.
I am looking into our ballooning consumption of FFs (coal and petroleum) and I think it becomes a reasonable question "can we carry on like this ? Should we ??"

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

Quote (There is a very large possibility that our "solutions" to the problem will cause greater harm than the initial problem itself.)

Correct or incorrect, climate change will proceed on the path provided for it. This is indifferent to whatever 'solutions' we come up with. They may or may not have an effect.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

dik,

The way I read that, you are now saying that we just need to adapt, rather than trying to change the inevitable. That's what many of us have been saying, but you were one in favor of adopting draconian measures that would change our way of life for the worse.

I suspect strongly that adapting isn't going to be enough. The changes may be too great for simply adapting, except maybe by relocating. I don't know what is on the horizon. We may have to drastically change our lifestyle to make the carbon footprint less of a problem. 'Draconian measures' may be necessary, it depends on how serious the effects of climate change become. If the effects are great, then serious action will have to be undertaken. I don't know or to what extent. We'll have to wait and see what the outcome is, and hope we can still do something about it.

Australia may have an issue... What if your 'wet bulb' temperatures go over 45C... rather than just the dry bulb ones? We have to wait and see. You can then move to Tasmania?

Our current temperature, in Winnipeg, is +3C and it's going up to +8C in two days. Winnipeg's freezing index used to be higher than Moscow's. I know it's just weather, but I cannot recall a January in Winnipeg with such temperatures... we're generally well below zero at this time. My wedding was on February 14, and the temperature that day was -35C. This current weather is exceptional, IMHO.

It's a real dilemma... doing nothing and waiting to see what the outcome will be. Alternatively, addressing the issue and risking the cost for this approach. The outcome which may never occur. I don't have an answer for it. It may be a matter of waiting for a few years to see if there's an increase in climate change effects, and maybe address them at that time. It may also be a matter of waiting for a couple of years after that, and maybe address them at that time.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

BoM senior climatologist Rob Smalley says the highest official wet bulb temperature recorded in Australia to date has been 31C.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Quote:

I suspect strongly that adapting isn't going to be enough. The changes may be too great for simply adapting,

Based on my limited study of human history, I strongly suspect you're greatly underestimating the ability of the human race to adapt to a changing climate, and far overestimating our capacity for foresight of other threats of our own making.

Or the changes may be overwhelming for the majority of them... we just don't know... and it may not be possible to determine/guess who or what may survive.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote (BoM senior climatologist Rob Smalley says the highest official wet bulb temperature recorded in Australia to date has been 31C.)

With climate change, that number could go up... just don't know...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

It could. That's a fairly useless statement to base your economy on. The fact that it is mere 14 deg different to your scary number is a bit of a nudge.

Meanwhile here's a snapshot of high wet bulb temperatures in Australia. the bits above 27 could also be called a graph of where people don't live

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

just a caution...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

A caution about something that could happen, without any evidence that it's likely to happen, is just fearmongering.

No it's just a caution... if the consequences weren't so great... and no one seems to be addressing it in any meaningful way, including our government. Turdeau has a moneypit of a pipeline that he's still pushing taxpayers' money into. Sad

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote (dik)

No it's just a caution... if the consequences weren't so great... and no one seems to be addressing it in any meaningful way, including our government.

My point is that we need to be MORE cautious about the drastic actions we take. As history has proven that our attempts to "correct" anticipated problems are more likely to cause worse problems than the problems that previously existed.

Examples:
1) Every attempt at rent control causes a reduced housing supply and higher housing costs in the long run.
2) Every attempt to manage wild life populations and the environment at Yellowstone or other nature preserves.
3) Venezuela's attempts to create a more equitable economic system.
4) Cuba's attempts to create a more equitable....
5) The Bolshevik's attempts to....
6) The Mao-ists attempts to....
7) The Nazis attempts to....
8) US government attempts to encourage more poor people owning homes, which led to the financial crisis of 2008.
9) US government (fed, state, and local) shutting down schools for two years when it quickly became clear that young people were at almost zero risk of severe sickness from Covid. This caused much, much, much greater overall harm to school age children and families than no government action would have. You can see and obvious difference in outcomes of private schools that opened earlier compared to public schools.
10) Every attempt that California government makes to reduce the cost of healthcare makes the cost go up.
11) Every attempt that California makes to prevent predatory oil companies from profiteering off of consumers makes the cost of oil go up and makes things much worse for CA consumers when compared to neighboring states.
12) All the current attempts at an equitable justice system (getting rid of cash bail, etc). These are all resulting in a justice system that is failing at every level. Crime is up. Especially in the communities that are supposed to be helped by these policies.
13) The DEI attempts at the university have resulted in FALSE equity. These schools standards have gone way down. Academia is failing because of it. Their most well known "scholars" are being exposed as absolute frauds.
14) Attempts to prohibit alcohol resulted in a huge rise in organized crime. Same thing with bans on various drugs. Keep in mind that the legal drugs (alcohol and tobacco) probably cause more deaths than all the others combined. But, there is almost no violence and crime associated with distribution of alcohol and tobacco.
15) Every attempt to "solve" the homeless problem seems to make it worse and worse. What is really needed is to get rid of all these attempts and just enforce our other laws. Like laws against defecating in the street, breaking into cars, shooting up illicit drugs. et cetera. You enforce these laws and homelessness goes way, way, way down.
16) Any government attempt at price controls in any industry usually results in shortages, long lines or such and is bad for the consumer.

You see what I'm getting at?

So where does government intervention work? Let's look at examples:

1) Ozone hole and the banning of CFCs. The key here is that this was a very well understood chemical reaction that could be proven. It wasn't a general amorphous theory. It could be easily demonstrated / proven in a lab.

2) Labor laws: I'm thinking specifically about child labor laws in particular. We, as a society, decided that children should be in school, not in coal mines or factories. The society as a whole was behind these laws. There was a clear and narrow definition of what we wanted to do.

3) Things that ONLY government can do: Military, border security (hah?!), infrastructure and such. You might be tempted to include environmental laws in here as well. I would, but only if they are narrow, well understood and focused. Banning DDT world wide (for example) probably kills more people than it helps.... because of how mosquitos in tropical and poor countries spread malaria.


Caveat: This e-mail contains properties known to the state of California to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.

Quote (dik)

if the consequences weren't so great... and no one seems to be addressing it in any meaningful way,

Perhaps the consequences are not as dire or inevitable as the fearmongering marxists would like us to think they are. People see Al Gore building a mansion on a shore he claims will be underwater in a few years, and they dismiss his warnings for what they are - fearmongering to increase his own wealth.

Quote:

So where does government intervention work? Let's look at examples:

1) Ozone hole and the banning of CFCs. The key here is that this was a very well understood chemical reaction that could be proven. It wasn't a general amorphous theory. It could be easily demonstrated / proven in a lab.

Except the Ozone hole was already decreasing in size before there was any meaningful reduction in CFCs going into the atmosphere. If what I've read is correct, Ozone levels in the atmosphere are self-regulating - when the radiation blocked by Ozone gets through, it reacts with the Oxygen in the atmosphere to create Ozone. The Ozone hole continues to expand and contract cyclically, as it has probably done for millennia, long before we had satellites to know that it was there.

Well, human activity produces a good amount of ozone as well.

I've always wondered if the climate alarmists took into account the ozone hole issue in their "computer models". Because it seems to me that could be a pretty significant driver of temperatures in the area affected by the ozone hole (which is where the ice cores were being taken).

Quote:

Because it seems to me that could be a pretty significant driver of temperatures in the area affected by the ozone hole (which is where the ice cores were being taken).

Yeah, I suppose it could affect the antarctic ice cores...

The poles are warming faster than other areas of the earth. It used to be that with the drastic temperature differences between the poles and the equator that the polar jet streams used to be pretty stable. This is no longer the case.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

The Antarctic is getting colder. So I'll give you 5/10 for that, still a pass, but only just.
NASA

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

I guess the ice loss is due to it cooling?

"The Antarctic ice sheet's mass has changed over the last decades. Research based on satellite data indicates that between 2002 and 2023, Antarctica shed an average of 150 billion metric tons of ice per year, adding to global sea level rise.

These images, created from GRACE and GRACE-FO data, show changes in Antarctic ice mass since 2002. Orange and red shades indicate areas that lost ice mass, while light blue shades indicate areas that gained ice mass. White indicates areas where there has been very little or no change in ice mass since 2002."

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/265/vid...

"Temperature on the Antarctic Peninsula
The Antarctic Peninsula, the part of Antarctica furthest from the South Pole, has been warming rapidly, five times faster than the global average. Since 1950, the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed almost 3°C (5.4°F). That's more warming than anywhere else in the Southern Hemisphere. Overall warmer temperatures along the peninsula are increasing ice melt and have caused several ice shelves to break apart."


https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/climate-chang...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Congratulations. you've changed the subject. You were writing about temperature, not ice loss in your previous note, and have erected a straw man, and shot it down. This is the Straw man fallacy, a common internet technique.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Absolutely not... you stated that the temperatures were getting colder at Antarctica... I suggested that if this were the case, then it's interesting that there has been a huge ice loss accompanying the colder temperatures. The second article stipulates that the temperatures have increased by a factor of four to five. Read the article again, or maybe adjust your glasses.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

dik, UCAR is a political lobbying organization. They're not a high quality resource.

https://www.ucar.edu/what-we-do/advocacy

Red herring to distract?

Sorry tug, the other reference is NASA and seems to confirm UCAR... I think the references and the information are OK.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

NASA reports loss of ice and cooling.

UCAR is claiming warming.

UCAR did not make a correlation between warming and ice loss.

The average temperature is -18°C. Temperature isn't causing the melt.

UCAR states that they exist to funnel money from government (the people's money) to their members. They're like the socialists' poster child of bad capitalists.

Be mindful of your sources' interests.

Must be the area around it is causing it to melt... "Antarctica shed an average of 150 billion metric tons of ice per year", is the result.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Are you saying that the melting is geologic and coming from below?

Quote:

"Antarctica shed an average of 150 billion metric tons of ice per year"

While that seems like alot, on a global scale it's a negligible amount, thus the reason we haven't heard of any massive change in sea levels as a result. My rough estimate of the sea level rise due to the 3087 Gigatons NASA estimates have been lost over the last 21 years (147 Gigatons/year, from your link) amounts to an average increase in water surface elevation (over the 70% of the earth's water-covered surface) of less than 5/16".

According to Wikipedia, the Antarctic ice sheet weighs 24,380,000 Gigatonnes (26,874,000 Gigatons). So the total estimated percentage loss of over the last 21 years is 0.011%. That's about 9" change in an ice sheet that has an average thickness of over 6200 ft.

Of course, that is all predicated on the accuracy of the estimates of the ice sheet thickness. The top of the ice sheet can be measured by satellite, but how do we really know whether the bottom of the ice sheet is the same as it was 21 years ago? Would we know if there have been density changes in the ice down 4000 or 5000 feet deep into this ice sheet?

These ice sheets can disappear rapidly. The Cordilleran (northwestern America) ice sheet was estimated to be 1200km (4500ft) thick. It melted in 4000 years. That's more than 1 foot per year.

This type of information leads me to believe that the Grand Canyon did not take millions of years to form but actually formed recently over a few thousand years. The steep walls should be proof of this.

The Great Lakes were also formed during a similarly short geological timeframe by the even thicker Laurentide ice sheet which was 10,500 feet thick. Greenland is all that remains and has an average thickness of 5000 feet.

The Cordilleran and Laurentide melts occured during human history (the melt started 15-20k years ago. Humans thrived during this time.

There are volcanoes under the ice shelf. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/12/scie...

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Quote:

There are volcanoes under the ice shelf.

So, am I correct in assuming we really have no idea how thick the ice sheet is, so we don't really know how much it's losing or gaining?

Uh, no we have good looking measurements for ice sheet thickness both over water and over the land from satellite surveys,


and we also can estimate how much the elevation has changed



The gray circular blob is where the satellites can't measure.

So, in general not much change but at the fringes it is getting thinner and in some places it gets thicker.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Only 6000 to 8000 years ago.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/archaeolo...

Still before fossil fuels. Dik, can you explain this? Can you explain why it wasn't an extinction level event?

Totally unrelated. You have to compare the correlation of CO₂ and temperatures with the 'spike' in CO₂ levels, to see where this might take us. It hit +13C in Winnipeg today. It's supposed to be above zero all week. There could be a real down side to this lovely weather.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Unrelated? What caused such drastic change? Winnipeg was under thousands of feet of ice not very long ago and you complain about a week above zero? Why must we correlate everything with CO2 and nothing else?

It's called Indian Summer. It was commonly referenced during the 19th century.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_summer#:~:t....

Dik -

I don't know, the alleged 130 meter sea rise during that time seems like a pretty good comparison to the 0.3 meter sea rise that global warming is expected to produce in the next few decades. And, maybe 0.6 meters over the next 100 years.

If humans were easily able to adapt to those massive changes (130 meters in about 2000 years) in sea levels, don't you think it would be reasonable to expect us to be able to adapt to these other changes in sea levels?

Let's use the 0.6 m per 100 years = 0.006 meters per year expected due to global warming.
Back when the ice age ended, our average would be 130 meters divided by 2000 = 130 / 2000 = 0.065 meters per year. That's more than 10 times the "projected" rise from global warming.

That's 100% relevant to concept of human civilization being able to adapt to climate change. We've done it in the past at a rate that was 10 times as bad as the current projections. That would be a pretty good indicator that this isn't an existential threat to humanity. Right?

If the numbers in that article were correct, then I don't see how ANYONE can deny that this is a pretty darn conclusive de-bunking any "alarmist" concerns we should have about rising sea levels.

6 mm per year is about double what we are actually seeing. It's also unevenly distributed. In 30 years the average is about 10cm, orange on this plot



Of course this is altitude relative to some defined geoid, it doesn't account for the much more significant shifts in altitude of coastal cities such as Jakarta, which are sinking because of groundwater extraction, dredging, and draining of marshes (and so on). North America's tectonic plate is tilting at roughly the same speed as sea level rise, NW up, SE down.


You'll see claims that sea level rise is accelerating. Interestingly there is a kink in the line, when a new set of satellites were used. How politically convenient.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Something to chew on... Why has there been no archeological interest in these submerged cities? We seem to have found most of the shipwrecks and one would think they are much more challenging to find.

My answer is that because the sea level rise was gradual, the people living in the cities packed up and moved. They took everything of value with them so there is nothing valuable left to recover. In the event of a shipwreck, the occurrence is sudden and the fun (profitable) stuff for expeditioners to find remains on board.

In the case of sea level rise, the people literally adapted and moved on and without our advanced technology such as horseless carriages. Heck, they didn't even have horse drawn carriages then. To suggest that a small amount of sea level change is somehow a threat to human existence is totally absurd.

dik (Structural)
(OP)
29 Jan 24 15:50
CO2 emissions have become political, and this will likely continue. Climate doesn't care if you are a fascist or a communist... the less we do and the longer we wait, the consequences could be that much greater. We are dealing with huge energy systems that have stored a 'pile of power' in the last couple of decades, and continue to do so.
===========================================================================================================================================

When you refuse to look into the real cause, there is nothing "WE can DO".

Only one reply to this... Fascist and Communist are at extreme opposites of the political scale. Politically I place myself at slightly left of centre
Conservative. I have a real difference from most Conservatives; I have a real social conscience. With climate change, it doesn't matter where you are on the political 'scale'.

Like it or not, climate change is happening. It's largely related to the increase in the CO₂ in the atmosphere caused by man. There's a close correlation of earth temperatures to CO₂. The oceans have warmed significantly; I cannot image oceans in the Florida area have surface temperatures of 100F... body temperature. Given the volume of these oceans; this added warming is indicative of a huge amount of energy. This is reflected in the rapid development of storms. Check California's recent atomospheric 'rivers' of late.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/04/us/california-atmos...

With the uneven heating of the earth, where the poles are warming more than the equator, the polar jet stream is more unstable and results in freaky temperatures. Winnipeg hit +13C a couple of days back. One Feb 14, I know the temperature was -35C; this is a little more representative.

Little appears to be done to correct the problem. Correction of this will be life changing if it occurs. It's not possible to determine where this will end. We simply have to wait it out and see if we can accommodate it.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Fascists and communists are at opposite ends? You're totally delusional.

Grab a book and look it up, tug... Fascists are ultra conservatives and communists are ultra socialists. I didn't make up the definitions.

"Fascism is a set of right-wing political beliefs that includes strong control of society and the economy by the state, a powerful role for the armed forces, and the stopping of political opposition."

and from my farourite (Oxford)

"​(also Fascism) an extreme right-wing political system or attitude that is in favour of strong central government, aggressively promoting your own country or race above others, and that does not allow any opposition"

You might not recall (or maybe have never known) that the NAZI party of Germany were National Socialists (but not in a social sort of way) but were fascists (Ultra Right). They had a strong following in the US by the 'rich'. In addition, most people don't realise that Hitler was actually elected. Shades of current politics?

are you blissful? Just curious...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Funny, you posted a bunch of definitions of fascism but did not post any for communism or socialism. Why? They're the same damn thing. They're all authoritarianism.

Blissful as ever...

ICYC, Fascism is the ultra right and Communism is the ultra left... if you need confirmation, look it up. People sometimes think that fascism is simply a despotic dictatorship... not realising that it is an ultra conservative dictatorship.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Do you believe it is possible to have communism/socialism without authoritarianism?

left wing is meant to mean socialism (distributed political power), an communism is an extreme form of socialism.
right wing is meant to mean concentrated political power, and fascism is an extreme concentration.

the problem is that in practice communism led to a high concentration of power.

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

The association of right vs left with either conservative or liberal parties varies by country so is best avoided on international forums.

Conservatism is a belief that govt should remain small, weak, and decentralized to protect individual freedoms over the collective. Liberalism is the opposite, a belief that a strong central govt must exist to limit individual freedoms which lest they negatively impact the collective. Fascism and communism are both liberal political systems in which a strong central govt severely limits individual freedoms under the claim of benefiting the collective.

Digressing a bit, I don’t know of any countries that are totally socialist. There are a few that are Communist. Many of them are doing poorly.

Regarding Socialism, there are numerous countries that have adopted parts of socialism. Many of the ‘free’ and civilised countries provide many ‘socialist’ benefits. This may include looking after their citizens in older age, providing a level of health care, including medicines and dental, providing free or nearly free university education, providing social assistance, etc. In addition, much of their power systems are state owned or controlled.

As far as freedoms, or lack of them, China has made some remarkable progress with respect to poverty. Their infrastructure is in contrast to their perceived social condition.

"In 1990 there were more than 750 million people in China living below the international poverty line - about two-thirds of the population.

By 2012, that had fallen to fewer than 90 million, and by 2016 - the most recent year for which World Bank figures are available - it had fallen to 7.2 million people (0.5% of the population).

So clearly, even in 2016 China was well on the way to reaching its target."

Vietnam, another Communist country has made some remarkable changes is the the last several decades. In most western democracies, the opposite has happened... the number of street people increases daily.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

In "the the last several decades" in " most western democracies... the number of street people increases daily."

Obviously just one more tragic effect of global warming.

Dik -

So, the Fascism of the 20th century as exhibited by Hitler and Mussolini and such was born out of an ultra-nationalist movement which was, as you suggested extreme right wing. That doesn't mean that it MUST be that way. There are speeches from Ronald Reagan back in the 80's where he talks about how the left had started leaning into fascism. In his definition, this mean that there would still be private ownership, but that there was still total government control.

Communism and Socialism, however are one and the same in my opinion. That's not to say that a country with lots of social welfare programs is a "socialist" country. However, it begins with the Marxist belief in the class struggle of the oppressor and the oppressed, classically capitalists vs proletariats. Both advocate for violent revolution by the oppressed against the oppressors as being the way to "fix" society.

Now, China certainly started off as a Communist / Socialist country under Mao. The government and the communist party completely controlled all means of production in their society. This led to wide spread famine and horrible suffering of their people. Over the last 40 years, they have transformed their economy into a PRIMARILY capitalist one. However, it's still a totalitarian government. The people and the businessmen have no rights. The government can come in and seize all your assets if they want. They can force your business to reveal extremely private information about their customers to them.

I would argue that the form of government in the China of TODAY would be best described as a Fascist government. At least it has morphed into that. Therefore, I think your rigid definitions of Fascism and Communism are not realistic in today's world.

maybe socialism and communism are ideal forms, just as "Democracy" is an ideal.

what we see in the real world is a pale imitation of whichever ideal you are pursuing.

Communism as practiced in Russia is better called Leninism, 'cause in practice political power was concentrated in a very small proportion of the population.

Democracy as practiced in "the west" is either a two party system or multi-party (which usually devolves into a minority government (government by collation) and this usually does work well).
nd in the two party system, the choice often devolves to "those guys have been in power too long", elections are more often than not fought on "fluff"(slagging off the other party) and rarely address the issues Plans are often undercosted, and usually when a new party gets in it's "oh dear, it's much worse than we thought, we can't do XYZ".

Big issues usually fall prey to little concerns ... if Canada's carbon taxes increases costs, people say "why do things cost more ?" and a party will surely say "we'll scrap these carbon taxes, and we will meet the carbon issue without taxes FF"

Thus many are disillusioned with modern democracy.

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

The EU seems to be on the right path...

"The decline in coal and gas usage in 2023 was unprecedented. Coal usage dropped by 26 per cent to a record low, contributing just 12 per cent to the EU’s electricity generation.

Gas saw its largest annual decrease since at least 1990, falling by 15 per cent. This reduction in fossil fuel use led to a 19 per cent decrease in emissions from the electricity sector.

‘Sarah Brown, European program director at Ember, emphasised, ‘Coal is on its way out and, as wind and solar grow, gas will be next to go into terminal decline.

‘However, this is not the time to rest on its laurels. The EU needs to focus on rapid deployment of wind, solar and flexibility to create a system free of the risks of fossil fuels.’

Spain stood out in 2023, with renewable energy sources almost reaching 51 per cent of its energy mix. This significant achievement underlines Spain’s commitment to green energy, with the clean energy sector now representing over 60 per cent of the total national electrical system."

https://euroweeklynews.com/2024/02/07/wind-energy-...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote (Democracy as practiced in "the west" is either a two party system or multi-party)

Democracy as practiced in the west is largely mythical... look up the term Oligarchy for a better description.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote:

Gas saw its largest annual decrease since at least 1990, falling by 15 per cent.

That's just Putin doing his part for the environment.

And not a mention of nuclear?

if "The EU seems to be on the right path ..." ... I'm glad I don't live there.

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

Regarding freedom, equality, rights and such.... Milton Friedman (the brilliant economist) had a very good quote:

Quote (Milton Friedman)

Societies that puts equality before freedom usually get neither. But, societies that put freedom before equality usually get a high degree of both.

I think that pretty much sums up my political philosophy. If your government to limit freedoms (like fascists or socialists) in order to promote whatever type of equality they're searching for, you will get neither freedom or equality. You will instead have human misery.... every dang time. If, however, your government's main purpose is to preserve your freedoms, then your society will generally get lots of freedom and equality.

Absolutely:)

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

freedom to starve is no freedom at all.

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

Like so much stuff, these days, we just have to wait and see how this works its way out... The next few years could be a harbinger... mass starvation could bring some really unwelcome geo-political changes...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote (dik)

mass starvation could bring some really unwelcome geo-political changes.

This idea of "mass starvation" is just silly. Actually, worse than that, it's just complete fear mongering. Please identify a reputable scientist that has suggested this will happen due to global warming!

I say this partly because, the environmentalist left has been predicting mass starvation for 70 years. Yet, they have been proven so incredibly wrong that this sort of claim should make us realize how foolish these people really are. Food is cheaper and more accessible to people now than it has ever been. Granted, that was a prediction based on population growth, not on climate change. The only mass starvation we've seen in my lifetime has been caused by government (i.e. China, North Korea, et cetera). Even the mass starvation we saw at times in Ethiopia or Somalia were caused more my political instability / warlords and such than it was by climate.

Let's look at how atmospheric CO2 and increased temperatures should affect plant life / food production:
1) Plants grow better and faster with increased CO2. So, it should help to INCREASE our food supply.
2) Increased temperatures will allow greater food production in regions that were colder before. Not sure increased temperatures alone would suggest any overall reduction in the production of food. Sure, there can be localized reductions in some areas. But, those should be offset by increased growth in other areas.
3) Water supply. Correct me if I'm wrong, but hotter temperatures correspond to higher moisture content in the air. Meaning more rainfall. Meaning more food production and potentially more reliable water supplies.

I just have never seen a RATIONAL or science based narrative that gives any sound reason why increased CO2 will lead to mass starvation. Please give me something to justify these claims. I want to understand why an otherwise rational person might believe this sort of frivolous claim.

2024 is off to a good start...

"The world just had its hottest year ever recorded, and 2024 has already set a new heat record for the warmest January ever observed, according to the European Union's climate change monitoring service Copernicus.

The service said that January 2024 had a global average air temperature of 13.14 degrees Celsius, or 55.65 degrees Fahrenheit. That temperature was 0.70 degrees Celsius above the 1991 to 2020 average for the month and 0.12 degrees Celsius above the last warmest January, in 2020.

It was also 1.66 degrees Celsius warmer than the pre-industrial average for the month."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/another-global-heat-r...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Maybe millions isn't mass... but it's a bunch...

https://www.redcross.org.uk/stories/disasters-and-...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Reading that quote from CBS posted by dik is funny, it reads as if they think their readers don't know that it's summer in the southern hemisphere. They're expecting us to read 55° and say my God that's hot for winter time.

off to a good start, and it's only the beginning of the new year.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68110...


-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Dik -

The closest that CBS article (which is certainly not a "science" based article) gets to saying that there will be world wide starvation is when Bob Watson (a former chair of a UN Panel on Global warming) says, "we're starting to see less agricultural productivity". It doesn't even give any academic credentials for Watson. LOL.

Next!

The Red Cross article is one mostly intended to be a fund raising drive for their efforts to fight humanitarian crises in Africa. They genuinely do NOT blame this on global warming, it's just one of the catch phrases they're using to raise money to help.

For what it's worth, I can just about guarantee that the other factors mentioned (conflict, population displacement, soaring food and energy prices due to war in the Ukraine) are the real culprits behind any mass starvation that will happen.

Maybe drought is a significant factor, I can certainly believe that. However, we have to realize that this area has a severe drought every few decades.... as part of the natural cycle predating global warming. The real solution is better water processing, water storage.... everything that the Western world does. Heck, there are probably a dozen non-profits (or more) whose sole focus is to modernize water supply and processing in these countries.

A news story from 7 years ago:
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/01/...

A nonprofit that my neighbor used to work for:
https://www.wellsoflife.org/

A movie from my teenage years set in Africa where the the drought vs rain cycle is an integral part of the story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lion_King

A famine from my childhood. This article discusses how 1/3 of the Ethiopian population starved to death in the late 1800s. Then in 1958 another 100,000 died. But, it wasn't until the political situation (i.e. the Red Terror happened) that agriculture industry got devastated... leading up to the deaths of between 300k and 1.2 million.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983%E2%80%931985_fa...

In 1992, Somalia had a terrible famine that as almost entirely caused by the civil war that was going on there. Drought was a contributing problem. But, it was the war that prevented food from getting to hungry people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_famine_in_Somal...

All within the climate change period, and they might get a tad worse...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote (dik)

All within the climate change period, and they might get a tad worse...

Not sure exactly what you mean by that.

If you actually read the Wiki post on the Ethiopian famine, it discusses a famine in the 1880's where 1/3 of their population died of starvation. That essentially predates the climate warming period.

If you want to split hairs, maybe we can claim that the 1850's was the point where the industrial revolution gained enough momentum that CO2 emissions were significantly changed and that's when global warming started. However, it's close enough that we can say it had little to no effect on that famine.

The point is that there has been famines and droughts in African going back centuries. Heck, it's talked about in the Bible!

Remember the onus of proof is on the people who are saying that radical change must be initiated. So, you must demonstrate that such famines are caused by global warming. There is zero evidence of that that I'm aware of. The articles you cited provide no evidence of that outside of a questionable claim (that crop yields are decreasing) by a person that is a relative unknown (Bob Watson).

For what it's worth, I looked up the name Bob Watson and will assume that this was referring to this person who is certainly an expert:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Watson_(chemi...)

As far as his claim that crop yields have decreased, I will offer the following site which clearly shows a pretty steady increase in crop yields that doesn't show much sign of slowing down. Maybe soybeans, but all other crop yields are clearly increasing:
https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2023/12/world-an...

It is astonishing how coal production (as a proxy for coal consumption) has changed ...

in 1900 worldwide 5 TWh, in 2022 50TWh ! and most of this change is China since 1990 (6 to 26) ... nearly 1/2 (20/45 = 4/9 = 44%) the change in 30 years.
meanwhile in the US 1990 to 2022 it 1/2d ... from 6 to 3

yes, but this is coal production ... and coal consumption would include imported coal.

Step back from the trees ... coal production (and by extension coal consumption, 'cause I don't see people storing mountains of coal) has soared in recent history (30 years) to a level (and at a rate) which is unsustainable.

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

Just sayin' .

• https://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=8585fafc-630d-4c00-952d-2

Quote (rb9157)

Step back from the trees... coal production (and by extension coal consumption, 'cause I don't see people storing mountains of coal) has soared in recent history (30 years) to a level (and at a rate) which is unsustainable.

No I don't see that happening. Take a look at Australia, a country that has aggressively moved away from coal power. But, they still mine it. It's a win-win for the politicians. They get to "virtue signal" to their environmental base about all the good they're doing by getting rid of coal power. But, they don't take much of a hit with coal industry, because they still get to mine as much of it as they want..... as long as they export it to other countries.

LOL. This is the EXACT type of "solutions" we can expect government to come up with for our concerns about fossil fuel emissions.

Realistically, if Australia stops mining black coal, Indonesia cheers and starts mining its brown coal.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Quote (JPSE)

LOL. This is the EXACT type of "solutions" we can expect government to come up with for our concerns about fossil fuel emissions.

The irony is that the climatologists are always warning about the future but are always very short sighted in their actions.

It is much more environmental friendly to mine the coal and freight it over the ocean so it can power industry making fidget spinners that are freighted back to your country to be put in the garbage, which is freighted back to massive landfills where they burn the garbage to supplement the coal to make more fidget spinners.

China sure is doing something right, but I'm not sure it has to do with renewable energy...

Rputvin, not quite correct...

“China Invests $546 Billion in Clean Energy, Far Surpassing the U.S.

China accounted for nearly half of the world's low-carbon spending in 2022, which could challenge U.S. efforts to bolster domestic clean energy manufacturing”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-i...

“China on course to hit wind and solar power target five years ahead of time

China on course to hit wind and solar power target five years ahead of time

Beijing bolstering position as global renewables leader with solar capacity more than rest of world combined

China is shoring up its position as the world leader in renewable power and potentially outpacing its own ambitious energy targets, a report has found.
China is set to double its capacity and produce 1,200 gigawatts of energy through wind and solar power by 2025, reaching its 2030 goal five years ahead of time, according to the report by Global Energy Monitor, a San Francisco-based NGO that tracks operating utility-scale wind and solar farms as well as future projects in the country.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/29/chin...

“Owing to its reliance on coal for two-thirds of its electricity supply, China emits more greenhouse gases per year than any other country. Its electricity-related emissions alone roughly equal those of the entire United States economy, and China is planning to speed construction of new coal plants in 2023.

At the same time, China is adding new renewable projects to the grid roughly as fast as the rest of the world combined. In 2020, it added three times as much wind and solar capacity than the U.S. did the same year. In just the first half of 2022, it invested another U.S.$100 billion in solar and wind and plans to add record amounts of wind and solar in 2023.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2023...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

dik -

First, you are assuming that China's numbers are correct. Aren't you? I think that is a very dubious claim since China almost never releases data where they look bad.

That being said, the most important thing to remember is that China is NOT doing this for the benefit of the earth. They are doing it for their benefit alone. They are trying to rapidly increase the standard of living of their citizens. That means providing energy (of all kinds) as quickly as possible. They will re-route and dam rivers regardless of environmental consequences. They will burn coal and build strip mines as much as they can to meet their goals.

Mankind is inherently selfish. So, that it not inherently bad, just human nature. But, it would be wrong to look at their actions and think.... "wow, look at what China is doing for the world, they are leading the way in clean energy." Not at all.

They are also expanding their CO2 emissions at a rate that far outstrips any other country in the world. They will continue to do so as long as it is in their best interests. They are also committing literal "genocide" against the Uyghurs. We have the a whole generation of activists that are convinced that Israel is evil because they are in a land conflict with the Palestinians. But, no one in the US complains about China's treatment of the Uyghurs for some reason.

Per capita, China's genocide rate is lower than Israel.

Quote (TugBoat)

Per capita, China's genocide rate is lower than Israel.

LOL.

Josh... I don't know where the data comes from. Satellite monitoring is somewhat consistent with their output... Coal is an ugly form of fossil fuel, but there are other fossil fuels that contribute to the footprint. Their carbon footprint is increasing at a faster rate than the US, but, on a per capita basis, they are still behind at nearly half the US. The US will continue as long as it is in their best interests, too. Their implementation of alternative energy greatly exceeds that of the US.

In the last few decades, they have brought hundreds of millions out of poverty... this likely has an impact on their carbon footprint. There is a real disconnect on how the Chinese are portrayed when you look at the current state of their infrastructure.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Thought I'd check in on this thread.

Yep, same arguments, no one has learned anything.

See y'all in another 6 months.

Quote (Dik)

The US will continue as long as it is in their best interests, too.

The US is a totally different situation because, it's not a dictator that decides what the priorities for our country are. In the US, every single person gets to make a choice about how to live their lives as far as CO2 emissions go. Right? What's driving the reduction (not increase) in CO2 emissions in the US? Is it government policy? Maybe that plays a part... Though I am skeptical. Certainly, it has helped switch us towards coal.

Instead, I'd argue that the biggest reason is that the CONSUMER in the US wants to reduce their carbon emissions. And, the market is rising up to meet those demands. Last year, I got solar panels on my house. This year, we bought a hybrid car that easily gets 2 or 3 times the gas mileage as our older cars. Altogether, that's probably 80 grand we've spent with an eye on reducing our carbon footprint in a single year. Now, my family can afford to do those things. But, we're not just flushing our money down the toilet. We see value in it as well. Value in the short term, value in the long term. It's like when someone decides to make a 'moral' choice to become a vegetarian or start eating healthier. It might be expensive, it might be inconvenient, but EACH PERSON gets to make that decision for his or her self.

There are plenty of people in the US who cannot afford to install solar panels or buy a hybrid car or such. They will likely not be reducing their CO2 emissions because it's not in their best interests. But, for many of us, it is. Which is why the US has been reducing our CO2 emissions so successfully over the last 10 or 20 years. In fact, our country's CO2 emissions are down to what they were in the early 1990s(approximately). That is a HUGE change in our consumption of energy. It should not be ignored.

Nor should the fact that Chinas are approximately 4 times what they were in the same time period. You see how that difference clearly demonstrates how china doesn't care about reducing CO2 emissions overall. They care about increasing their standard of living. Maybe they'll get to the point where they start reducing their CO2 emissions. But, right now, the entire 1st / western world could cut their CO2 emissions by 30% and that would likely be entirely offset by CO2 emission increases by China and India.

Quote (The US is a totally different situation because, it's not a dictator that decides what the priorities for our country are.)

Don't kid yourself... your method of the courts overturning the government, may even be worse... check the difference in US Covid deaths compared to China's or other Western countries... Modified Harley... 'Live Free and Die'.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/the-sup...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote (dik)

check the difference in US Covid deaths compared to China's or other Western countries.

You do understand that the US probably dramatically over stated their covid deaths. And, that China almost certainly under-reported their Covid deaths? Right.

I think Covid (it's origins, death toll, and such) is a case where you can really, really not trust ANYTHING that China reports to be anywhere close to what really happened. LOL.

I suppose your argument is really that BECAUSE China is an authoritarian country, they could be much more successful in moving towards clean energy. But, remember that only happens if they genuinely care if there is massive climate change in the world. Other countries starve to death or such. I don't have any reason to believe they care about this at all.

Now, my point about the USA (and most western democracies) is that each of us can have a minor effect on our own. And, if those of us who want to have a positive effect on CO2 emissions demonstrate a reasonable about of economic DEMAND, the the market will develop the SUPPLY of CO2 reducing products for us. The cost of those products will go down and the efficiency will go up. And, the world eventually gets better or people adjust to the new world without anyone being forced to commit economic suicide.

If we take a look at renewable energy milestones we may see a pattern.

The solar panel - Fritts - USA
The wind turbine generator - Brush - USA
The lithium ion battery - Goodenough - USA
The water turbine generator - Francis - USA

Do Socialist countries like China have any such contributions?

by half a million to take them outside the rest of the western countries... tell me another one...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

See my post of Feb 12...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

They don't need to invent anything, when they can steal it.

Yeah? I'm on track to hit my solar and wind target too in that I intend to install no wind or solar on my house in the next 5 years. Dik, you're an engineer. If you set a target of half of your buildings not falling down in 5 years is that a good target?

Quote (dik)

by half a million to take them outside the rest of the western countries... tell me another one...

is that a per capita comparison?

With a population of 5x the American, they are even better off with Covid fatalities. As with most things, the US far exceeds the Western world, too.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Complete rubbish, dik. China is still suffering from Covid deaths, and not reporting any.

Really? The same China that punished it's doctors for warning about COVID and has a history of concealing health threats?

https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-accident...

A pretty good summary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_mhBweaVxU

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Are there any key points you would like to share so we don't have to waste 45 minutes and all of the CO2 required to stream it?

Coastal Flooding...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4q3SjqWtvg

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Will you acknowledge that sea levels have already risen 425 feet within human history?

Yup, over millennia and not with the current infrastructure and cities/villages and population densities involved.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

It has risen that much within 14,000 years which averages out to 0.36 inches per year. We haven't experienced 0.36" in the last 150 years since we started burning fossil fuels. Where does your concern come from?

Sea level rise is a bit less than 1/8" per year, but much of that occurs out in the middle of the oceans, near coats it seems a lot less. There are other far more important reasons for changes in tide gage readings, ie sea vs land, which I have written fairly often about. Tilting of tectonic plates, land use changes, and water extraction from underground basins are far more important.

As of yesterday I'm red flagging all posts that just include media links with no explanation as to why they are worth watching.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Quote (dik)

Yup, over millennia and not with the current infrastructure and cities/villages and population densities involved.

What does that matter? There were certainly people and civilizations living in those areas, right?

The point is that they adjusted fine. They moved because the seas rose. They adapted.

I would make the argument that it is much, much easier for our societies to adapt today. Once I decide to leave, I can pack my stuff into a truck and drive to the mountains or a neighboring state.... and I'm there in a few days, max. Easy peasy....

Quote (dik)

Coastal Flooding...

Yet, we are safer from coastal flooding (and other weather related events) as a society than we have ever been in recorded history. Right? The numbers show that very obviously.

Now, if you're making the argument that it will be extremely expensive to deal with these floods and changes and such, then that is a great point! That's EXACTLY what we should be talking about..... how to spend our limited financial resources best to deal with global warming / climate change. Right?

This has always been my point. That there are better ways to spend our money to deal with this than what the climate alarmists want us to do. Essentially, our goal should never be net Zero carbon emissions. But, to be more EFFICIENT with our climate emissions in a way that will not bankrupt our society. How to deal with events as they come up in a way that will be sustainable going forward.

Policy changes that basically suggest that living at low elevations (say within 20 feet of sea level) should make you ineligible for FEMA relief should a flood occur. That sort of thing will encourage people to build elsewhere. The ones that don't care are likely rich enough that it won't matter to them.

It might mean that some thriving communities (say New Orleans) will be abandoned over a period of just a few decades. But, that's okay. That's how we adjust to global warming. It will amount to something that just doesn't affect our everyday lives for the most part. Just like the following predicted catastrophes:

1) The Population Bomb, which predicted worldwide famine in the 1970's. When, in fact, the rates of starvation in the world dramatically declined.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb

2) The impending ice age that was talked about in the 1970's.

3) The Ozone hole.

4) The prediction that Y2K would result in major disruptions in all aspects of our life.

5) Various predictions based on Mayan Calendars. Various predictions from religious sects about when the 2nd coming or the apocalypse would occur.

6) Another big one was the idea that we would all die due to nuclear proliferation. I remember an hour assembly where an activist addressed my entire high school with typical fear mongering tactics. This would have been circa 1988.

The point is that people have made these sorts of predictions for decades (probably centuries) and they have not proven to be very accurate at all. Why should we believe the dire predictions this time around?

Apps from Copernicus... ICYC

https://www.copernicus.eu/es/node/47237

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Josh... I'm not sure what the population bomb is, but population is going to be a problem. The population of the developed countries has fallen below that required to sustain them. This reduction in population will cause serious problems as the developed countries age, requiring a lot more 'support' from a dwindling workforce.

Quote (people have made these sorts of predictions for decades (probably centuries))

That's why I don't make any forecasts, only that there is a potential for a real serious outcome. As I've said, I don't know what it will be, but it has the potential to be really ugly.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

The concept you rae looking for is known as the dependency ratio, (children+retired)/workers.




As a concept the raw ratio is a bit misleading , lumping the ankle biters in with the crumblies masks the future.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Quote (dik)

That's why I don't make any forecasts, only that there is a potential for a real serious outcome

Good lord.

Your constant battle to convince everyone that the most sensationalist negative outcome is the actual endgame IS A PREDICTION.

You can't hide behind that. Your post history indicates that in your mind there is no room for a rational or moderate point of view.

If you actually have a rational or moderate point of view, you need to make a serious change in how you present your ideas.

Until then, backpedaling to 'I'm not forecasting anything, I'm just saying it could maybe get real bad' isn't fooling anyone.

Sorry Swinny... I have no idea of what the real outcome will be. I do know there is the potential for it to be really ugly.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

I think you just wasted a lot of words, SwinngGG.

Climate change has its first lost cause.

Quote (dik)

I'm not sure what the population bomb is, but population is going to be a problem. The population of the developed countries has fallen below that required to sustain them. This reduction in population will cause serious problems as the developed countries age, requiring a lot more 'support' from a dwindling workforce.

The "population bomb" was a very widely popularized concept from the late 1960s that the earth could not possibly sustain it's population and that food would become quite scarce. It was advanced by a Stanford biologist whose specialty was insects and pollination (Paul Erhilich sp?). It was widely believed to be "solid science" and was used by the environmentalist left for years to justify anti-population strategies. Now, I should point out that the point of the book was that we were already so far along that this was essentially unavoidable.

Of course, the widespread starvation never happened. Except maybe in communist countries that made poor decisions about their economy that caused large numbers of people to starve. Why did the supply of food increase so much and the cost of food go down so much while the population was still rising? Well, because of technological advancements made by the free market.

Not only that, but the rate of population growth quickly decreased. Why? Because of technological and medical advancements made by the free market.

Why won't "global warming" be a major problem. Partly from technological advancements by the free market. Partly because of the ability of our societies to adapt. The same reason why casualties related to climate / weather continue to decrease on a per capita basis. We adapt, we build better and safer buildings and cities.

I have no doubt that there will be some dramatic changes to our society in the next 100 years that will be initiated by the effects of global warming. I don't pretend to know exactly what those will be. But, I suspect that they will involve a large number of relatively small steps and no one will even realize the extent of what we're doing until global warming is no longer an issue.

I found this article from 2017 that gives a very detailed history of California's climate with emphasis on changes that occured within human history. The information is well presented and unbiased.

https://planningcommission.org/sites/default/files...

An excerpt as the article is long:

It's only been about the last 20,000 years, or so, that there have been people in the Americas... the far right side of your charts. likely just to the right of your last ice volume 'peak'.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

225,000 years ago is the MIDDLE of that chart. Not 'the far right' or 'to the right of your last ice volume "peak"'

While I don't agree with Tug on a lot of stuff, you're clearly either missing or attempting to obscure the valid point he's making.

Swinny... You may not be aware that 225,000 years ago, there were no people in California... people in the Americas are only a recent addition... about 20,000 years ago. What's his valid point? The data could be valid and unbiased, but for the most part is meaningless... Only the extreme RHS is applicable to people in California. I didn't miss anything.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

The problem I see with the geological historical record is that it is pretty meaningless compared to recent impacts. Coal consumption really kicked off since the 50s, following a trend that really looks unsustainable. This is, IMHO, way too short of a timescale to have any impact on climate, but to change we had to have definitive statements .... yes, yes we've been burning coal and gasoline since 1850s but in much smaller quantities. I think I read that 75% of CO2 has been emitted in the last 70 years.

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

Dik, if you read the image I shared, it says that humans were living in the vicinity of San Diego 130,000 years ago.

Why should we ignore everything but the extreme RHS? There seems to be a very clear pattern. In every previous warming, notice how steep the slopes are. It's exactly the same as what we are seeing today.

You might want to check your source... most credible info regarding people in the Americas indicates they arrived about 20,000 years back. It's only the extreme RHS that might have an impact on people living there... the early weather/climate would have little impact on them.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

That's it, the oldest artifacts have already been found? Nothing older will ever be discovered?

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/0...

Interestingly, 130k years ago corresponds with a warmest period. Perhaps the world was more hospitable and able to support a more diverse range of hominids over a wider habit.

Things are starting to heat up... in Texas, too. More GHGs...:

"Deadly Texas wildfire torches 1 million acres – the largest blaze in state history – as more infernos rage out of control"

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/29/us/texas-panhan...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

for added climate info...

"As global warming accelerates, decisions on infrastructure, energy, mobility, water and food security or urban planning need to be informed by the potential impacts of climate change. The Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) ERA5 reanalysis dataset provides key insights about our past and present climate, helping to foresee the risks, and assisting policymakers in making informed decisions.

The consequences of climate change, anticipated by scientists many years ago, have become a part of our everyday lives. Throughout 2023, almost every corner of the world was affected, and nearly every individual has witnessed, to varying degrees, an increase in the frequency or intensity of extreme weather occurrences such as heatwaves, wildfires, droughts, or heavy rainfall. This transformation is occurring rapidly, and so we need swift adjustments in policies."

https://www.copernicus.eu/en/news/news/observer-co...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Is 1940 really considering "past climate change"? Shouldn't they look back a little further of they want to make meaningful observations?

1940 is still part if our current climate change... most of the 'stuff' has happened in the last decade or so...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Totally not true. We've already established that most of the stuff happened over the last 12,500 years.

...maybe a lot within the last decade?

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

You're going to tell me that the last 410 feet of sea level rise is irrelevant while whining about a completely imperceptible rise between 1940 and now?

Quote (TugBoat)

You're going to tell me that the last 410 feet of sea level rise is irrelevant while whining about a completely imperceptible rise between 1940 and now?

Anything that doesn't fit the narrative is irrelevant.

I have said this before, but to the radical left the very real issue of climate change doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is how they USE that issue to further the revolution, seize power, fundamentally change our society, destroy capitalism or however you want to characterize their political goals. The issue is NEVER the issue, the issue is POWER.

Note: I'm not saying that dik is a radical lefty. He genuinely believes in the importance of this issue, as do I. We really only differ in the solutions and the best way to get there. In that way, he's more of a victim of the radical left narrative.

I periodically read this site on eng-tips. What does "RHS" stand for? I guess I missed when it was defined.

Right Hand Side... as opposed to LHS.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Josh... I'm a conservative, but unlike most conservatives, I have a really strong social conscience.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

dik,

That is insulting. Your conscience is yours, my conscience is mine.

Copernicus Arctic Hub...

"The Copernicus Arctic Hub provides access to data and information in the Arctic. Explore interactive maps and thematic use cases and empower decision-making and sustainable practices."

https://www.arctic.hub.copernicus.eu/

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Great Barrier Reef News... "I'm not dead yet" with apologies to Monty Python...

"Australia's iconic Great Barrier Reef is suffering another mass bleaching event, officials have confirmed.

Often fatal, bleaching occurs when heat-stressed corals expel the algae that gives them life and colour.

It is the fifth time in eight years widespread damage has been detected at the Unesco World Heritage site.

Only two mass bleaching events had ever been recorded until 2016, and scientists say urgent climate action is needed if the reef is to survive.

Stretching over 2,300km (1,400 miles) off Australia's north-east coast, the Great Barrier Reef is the world's largest coral system and one of its most biodiverse ecosystems.

It has been World Heritage-listed for over 40 years due to its "enormous scientific and intrinsic importance", but Unesco says the icon is under "serious threat"."

"Claims that Australia is taking the health of the Great Barrier Reef seriously ring hollow when we continue to expand and subsidise the coal and gas industry to the tune of billions every year."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-68508423

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote (JoshPlumSE)

Note: I'm not saying that dik is a radical lefty. He genuinely believes in the importance of this issue, as do I. We really only differ in the solutions and the best way to get there. In that way, he's more of a victim of the radical left narrative.

Quote (dik)

Josh... I'm a conservative, but unlike most conservatives, I have a really strong social conscience.

Okay, I never said otherwise. Though, I merely think the "solutions" have to be less damaging than the "problem". Perhaps, in your book, that means I don't have a "social conscience". I know you probably weren't directing that specifically to me. Like I didn't specifically call you out (for anything other than having a different view of the solutions).

I don't think you are one of the neo-Marxist members of the political left. Though I do think you've fallen for some of their scare tactics. I have a way of figuring out who is a neo-Marxist on Global Warming. I merely listen to them. If they do the following, then they are neo-Marxist:

a) Claim that the world is going to be horribly disfigured by global warming, yet are 100% against any expansion of nuclear energy as a major factor of trying to combat global warming. They have an internally inconsistent stance on the subject.... a dire "act now" attitude. But, when presented with a wonderful carbon free solution to their problem they say, "nah, I think unicorn farts (i.e. some fantasy of green energy that doesn't exist) will be a better solution".

b) Like Greta Thunberg did, claim that CO2 emissions are destroying our planet. Then turn around and oppose a local green energy solution (like the wind farms proposed in Norway) for some minor petty reason.... like it MIGHT interfere with Reindeer migration and disrupt some indigenous people who rely on the reindeer. Either you support non-CO2 energy sources or you don't. An in between stance would be fine.... if you were not so convinced of the dire situation. Total hypocrisy.

By my definition, Dik is not a neo-Marxist. However, (IMO) many of the politicians, activists, reporters, and "scientists" who champion global warming alarmism are definitely neo-Marxists. And, they are gaining a lot of people to their side. This (IMO) is way, way, way more dangerous than anything that can happen from global warming.

The several times per decade bleaching of the GBR is a non event caused by the El Nino/La Nina cycle. These affect the currents from the top end, as the cold water comes down it kills the warm water coral organisms, and the reef then gets occupied by cold water coral organisms. When the warm current switches on then the reverse happens.

"Only two mass bleaching events had ever been recorded until 2016, and scientists say urgent climate action is needed if the reef is to survive." is cherry picked nonsense, people who study the reef also say this is perfectly nonsense, and the reason only two mass bleachings were seen earlier is because nobody was looking. The qaulity of these bleaching surveys is very poor, people who have checked areas that were claimed to be bleached found them in perfect health.

here's a rather different take on bleaching stories in the mass media.

https://climaterealism.com/2022/03/sorry-wapo-ther...

and here's how coral adapts to higher temperatures

https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-04315-7

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Greg -

The bleaching events are not of ANY concern to the neo-marxist climate alarmists. They're only important so far as they can be used to promote "the revolution".

Josh... it may have an impact on the ecosystem, too.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote (dik)

Josh... it may have an impact on the ecosystem, too.

Did you read either of the articles Greg Locock linked too. They looked a COMPLETE repudiation of the narrative you were spinning with your post. If I remember correctly, one of the articles pretty conclusively stated that the reefs were growing and healthier than measured in the past.

Regardless, you didn't understand my post. The point of it was not that the "bleaching" event was mis-reported or wrong. But, that the "global warming alarmists" genuinely don't care about the great barrier reef. All they care about is pushing their neo-Marxist narrative. And, they will use any event / issue to do it.... Regardless of truth, facts, justice or anything else. In the end, they are interested in increasing their own power. That was the point of my comment.

Also, I should point out that given more power to these people is way, way, way more dangerous to the human population (and probably the planet) than anything we can reasonably expect to happen from Global Warming.

It's just another example of the climate attribution propaganda exercise. There are people, with impressive sounding credentials, who are paid (often by billionaires) to link any weather related event back to the global warming fuss, and then feed those headlines to the mass media, for consumption by the gullible masses. This all sounds like a marvellous conspiracy theory, but even the hive mind at wikipedia mention it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_event_attrib...

The Falsification Principle, proposed by Karl Popper, is a way of demarcating science from non-science. It suggests that for a theory to be considered scientific, it must be able to be tested and conceivably proven false. For example, the hypothesis that “all swans are white” can be falsified by observing a black swan. Or, the GBR is bleaching more often due to AGW, relies on GBR bleaching being measured before 1950, which it wasn't, and the trend since it has been measured seems non-conclusive.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Quote (Did you read either of the articles Greg Locock linked too.)

Yup and I guess we can disagree... I've encountered articles where there is no climate change. I don't agree with them either.

"Climate change is the greatest global threat to coral reef ecosystems. Scientific evidence now clearly indicates that the Earth's atmosphere and ocean are warming, and that these changes are primarily due to greenhouse gases derived from human activities.

As temperatures rise, mass coral bleaching events and infectious disease outbreaks are becoming more frequent. Additionally, carbon dioxide absorbed into the ocean from the atmosphere has already begun to reduce calcification rates in reef-building and reef-associated organisms by altering seawater chemistry through decreases in pH. This process is called ocean acidification.

Climate change will affect coral reef ecosystems, through sea level rise, changes to the frequency and intensity of tropical storms, and altered ocean circulation patterns. When combined, all of these impacts dramatically alter ecosystem function, as well as the goods and services coral reef ecosystems provide to people around the globe."

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coralreef-clim...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

How did coral survive the previous 410 feet of sea level rise?

The land area of most inhabited coral atolls is increasing, not decreasing. Coral responds to higher sea levels by growing upwards, and to warmer water by evolution or substitution of species.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Quote (Greg Locock)

The land area of most inhabited coral atolls is increasing, not decreasing. Coral responds to higher sea levels by growing upwards, and to warmer water by evolution or substitution of species.

Just like how deaths related to weather and climate is at an all time low. Strange that the doom-sayers are constantly pushing a false narrative that we should all about scared of future weather events.

Facts are ignored if they don't fit the proper narrative. I'm not talking specifically about dik, I'm talking about the narrative being pushed by alarmists, the media, activists and politicians.

Quote (JoshPlumSE)

Just like how deaths related to weather and climate is at an all time low

Yeah but that involves counting both sides of the ledger, and only climate denialists do that

This has been shown due to the advanced warning we currently have.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote:

This has been shown due to the advanced warning we currently have.

It also shows our ability to adapt effectively to extreme weather events and changes in climate, at far less cost monetarily and negligible cost to our freedoms. The proposed initiatives to slow climate change will cost far more in money and personal liberties than continuing to adapt to future changes. Unlike the proposals aimed at slowing global warming, adaptation works regardless of whether the current warming trend continues or reverses.

So far...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

I don't know that you've said anything in your last two comments.

There's much more evidence and a much longer history to support humanity's ability to continue to adapt to climate change, than there is for the current warming trend continuing.

We'll have to wait and see 'how things shake out'. We don't know the extent of the change. In addition, adaptation takes time. Things may be changing far faster than they ever have in past.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Sea level rise has averaged 4/10 of an inch per year prior to the industrial revolution. The change is occuring more slowly than it ever has during human history.

It's as if CO2 prevents climate change.

Quote (dik)

We'll have to wait and see 'how things shake out'. We don't know the extent of the change. In addition, adaptation takes time. Things may be changing far faster than they ever have in past.

Independent fact checkers have determined this statement to be false.

Didn't we already talk about how the rate of sea level rise at the end of the ice age was HUGELY greater than any sea rise we're seeing today? By an order of magnitude.

Wasn't that because of something like a 7 degrees Celsius change during a reasonably short period. And, we adapted. In the stone age. With zero technology (other than sticks, rocks and fire). We're worried about something like a 1.5 degree Celsius change.

In the past, we were able to move with our feet. Just pick up our possessions, strap them to our back and move to higher ground or better areas. Now, we can ship our possession in a jet plane to where ever is better. I think we're going to be fine.

That's not to say there won't be costs associated with it. But, the costs of "preventing" climate change are way, way, way higher than the costs of adapting and mediating it.

The irony is that if you take an honest look at the historical data, CO2 may actually prevent climate change. It is an insulator and insulators tend to stabilize conditions, not accelerate them.

Quote (Quote (dik)
We'll have to wait and see 'how things shake out'. We don't know the extent of the change. In addition, adaptation takes time. Things may be changing far faster than they ever have in past.)

Which part?

• We'll have to wait and see 'how things shake out'.
• We don't know the extent of the change.
• In addition, adaptation takes time.
• Things may be changing far faster than they ever have in past.

All are not items that cannot really be fact checked... the first two are uncertain, the third is self evident (few things in nature are instantaneous), and with the exception, of meteorites/and Krakatoa the fourth one is likely true.


-----*****-----

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

We have to wait and see "how things shake out". I have no problem with that statement.

Quote (dik)

We don't know the extent of the change.

Fair enough. But, I'm' rationally looking at the projections that have been made by the scientist that are being promoted by the doomsday alarmists. We don't know that these will be the final numbers. But, it is a reasonable place to start when responding to the alarmist rhetoric. I'm just using the projected changes over the next 40 to 100 years. And, comparing that to things that we've adapted to in the past.

Quote (dik)

In addition, adaptation takes time.

Certainly. It takes some time. Though certainly our advanced technology allows us (as a society, not as a species) to adapt faster than ever before. We can walk on the moon. We can voyage to the bottom of the ocean floor. I think we can figure out to handle a slightly higher temperature. LOL

Quote (dik)

Things may be changing far faster than they ever have in past.

This is the part that's comically false. At least in terms of ocean's rising and reefs "bleaching". We have the data from the ocean's rising 130 meters over about a thousand years or something right? That was 10 times faster than the worst projections from the scientists that is causing the alarmists to poop their pants and worry about the end of our planet. LOL.

CO2 rising. Yes, this is faster. But, temperature changes. Please. We've have global temperature fluctuations way worse than the 1.5 degrees C that everyone is worried about.

How much did Krakatoa affect the climate worldwide? That was something like a VERY rapid temperature change of something like 0.8 degrees C worldwide in 1883. What about Mt. St. Helens? That caused a temperature change of 8 degrees Celsius though that was localized to the northwest. Heck, when the great asteroid hit the planet and wiped out the dinosaurs that's what allowed mammals to thrive because we're better suited for temperature fluctuations than reptiles.

This isn't to say that global warming isn't "bad". But, it does put it into perspective. The world is not going to end. There will be problems, but they will be manageable. It is almost a certainty that the cost associated with preventing climate change will be orders of magnitude higher than the cost of adapting and mediating it. Heck, the loss of life that would be caused by an all out effort to stop climate change would be orders of magnitude larger than the loss of life associated with letting it happen and just adaption to it and trying to lessen our CO2 emissions in a economically efficient way.

The fourth one is certainly not true. The FACT is that sea level rise has occurred at a rate of 4/10ths of an inch per year over the last 12,500 years. Has sea level even risen 4/10 ths of an inch since the industrial revolution where carbon based fuels suddenly became dominant? Is there some other system of units we need to use to make this more clear for you?

Quote (TugboatEng)

The irony is that if you take an honest look at the historical data, CO2 may actually prevent climate change. It is an insulator and insulators tend to stabilize conditions, not accelerate them.

Sigh. You were doing so well.

Quote (The fourth one is certainly not true.)

That's why I used the word 'may'... I suspect it's the case, but cannot confirm it. Insulation makes good things happen, unless it's a matter of trapping heat that would normally be radiated to space.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Geo engineering in force today. Many alto clouds and all are man made. Just look up and study some time.

Dik, it's already happened. How can you say "may"?

I don't have any definite information that it is intensifying faster and is more frequent. I suspect it is, but don't know for sure.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

But you DO have information that it has historically occurred at least 10x faster prior to the industrial revolution.

We're talking compressing time that took millennium into decades...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Please clarify your last statement. It seems contrary to the facts.

The fact is that sea level has historically occurred at a rate 10x faster over the last 12.5 millenia. It is only post industrial revolution that it has slowed nearly to a stop.

New battery information:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cbm9Cz6OdQ

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

It's a supply & demand thing - battery producers overestimated the governments' ability to force people into buying EVs, so now they have more batteries than they can sell.It's not rocket surgery.

Everything I see shows quite the opposite of what you have shared, dik.

The price has been fairly flat. An inflation correction for the last 3 years could certainly cause the appearance of a drop.



https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCU3359133591

Still heating up...

"According to the report, the global average surface temperature reached 1.45C above pre-industrial levels last year, just below the 1.5C threshold that scientists believe will result in accelerating climate chaos.

The temperature was lifted slightly - and temporarily - by the natural El Nino weather event over the Pacific Ocean, but it still shattered the previous record of 1.29C, set in 2016.

Celeste Saulo, WMO secretary-general, said: "The WMO community is sounding the red alert to the world.

"Climate change is about much more than temperatures.

"What we witnessed in 2023, especially with the unprecedented ocean warmth, glacier retreat and Antarctic sea ice loss, is cause for particular concern.""

https://news.sky.com/story/climate-report-issues-r...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Dik, please explain the 10x rate of sea level rise before the industrial revolution.

Quote:

...below the 1.5C threshold that scientists believe will result in accelerating climate chaos.

Gotta love that purposefully vague apocalyptic language!

If things were definite, they could get real scary. They don't know what the full effect is. Change is likely, but extent is not definitive. Like so many things, we have to wait and find out, and hope we can deal with it.

As far as sea level, I suspect with thick ice on land, the sea levels may have been affected. Just a thought, though. Imagine walking from Asia to North America...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote (TugBoatENG)

Dik, please explain the 10x rate of sea level rise before the industrial revolution.

It's simple, right? The ice age was ending and various glaciers and such melted. All that melting ice resulted in a greater volume of sea water. The cause of it was never really in doubt. The key takeaway is that the large and rapid rise in sea levels resulted in whole cities being submerged many meters below sea level. But, this wasn't catastrophic. People picked up and moved away. They ADAPTED to the changing environment. Not only that, but they prospered. They were able to farm more and better crops over wider areas.... blah, blah, blah. The exact opposite of what alarmists claim will happen if we experience a fraction of those sea level changes today.

" scientists believe" Some might, but the 1.5 target was not based on science, it is a political objective. Since we'll undoubtedly go through it in the next 20 years we'll just have to wait for the next target to be set and ignored.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Political, scientific, whatever... we're on our way to passing it.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

If it is political then all the scare mongering is just that. There certainly are tipping points in the Earth's climate, but that 1.5 one was pulled out of somebody's orifice and is used to drive political action. Here's a slightly more useful set of numbers. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abn795...

Happily the first (lowest temperature/fastest change) predicted is low latitude reef die-off. So that's the one I'll be looking at. If that doesn't happen within 10 years of 1.5 then we can be confident it is just attribution science. And here's why think it is tosh. https://www.hawaii.edu/news/2022/03/11/hawaiian-co... Evolution is >> small slow swings in temperature. Incidentally the current fuss about high ocean temperatures refers to temperatures measured in the first mm of water, they are not the bulk temperature as estimated from the Argo buoys.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Quote (but that 1.5 one was pulled out of somebody's orifice and is used to drive political action)

It was a potential rise indicated during the Paris accords that we should set as an upper limit. Due to the inaction of governments this number will likely be exceeded, and has already been exceeded in some conditions. We just have to wait and see what their inaction results in, and hope for the best.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

It's funny when leftists let slip their support for authoritarianism. It's the governments' fault for not cracking down on the prosperity of the people.

The goal of these people is POWER over the populace, not to solve global warming. They don't care at all about global warming. It's only helpful to them so much as they can use it to seize more and more power.

"It was a potential rise indicated during the Paris accords that we should set as an upper limit. Due to the inaction of governments this number will likely be exceeded, and has already been exceeded in some conditions. We just have to wait and see what their inaction results in, and hope for the best."

Right. But, if the prediction was wrong, or over-hyped, then hoping for the best is useless, because the great unwashed populace will now ignore any further predictions of doom since the whole of climate science has been disproven. Thus, the caution you keep hearing from the rest of us, in that you repost hype vs. facts.

Hydrogen powered train:

"The train, developed by CRRC Changchun Railway Vehicles, successfully operated at a speed of 160 kilometers per hour while fully loaded, achieving comprehensive system, scenario and multi-level performance verification, marking a breakthrough in the application of hydrogen energy in the field of rail transportation.

Unlike traditional trains that rely on fossil fuels or obtain electrical power from overhead lines, the hydrogen-powered train is equipped with a hydrogen energy propulsion system, which provides a strong and lasting power source.

Test data indicates that the train's average energy consumption per kilometer is 5 kilowatt-hours, meeting all the design requirements and reaching an internationally leading level, the company said.

Its driving range can exceed 1,000 km.

Following the completion of tests for durability, high and low temperatures, vibration, electromagnetic compatibility and fire safety tests for the hydrogen power system, the company tested the vehicle at different speeds, verifying for the first time the performance of the hydrogen-powered train in temperatures ranging from minus 25 C to 35 C."

https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202403/22/WS65fd4f...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

My apologies for the previous post, now deleted. I was obviously too tired last night to be posting.

The posted portion of the China Daily story, does have some glaring incorrect information, though. Using current technology, at least, Hydrogen is not a power source; it is energy storage medium, in the same class as batteries. Although more energy dense, and arguably less damaging to the environment in their production, Hydrogen fuel cells still use electricity produced by other sources to get 'recharged'. So, a Hydrogen-powered vehicle, of whatever type, just like battery electric vehicles, is a pollution displacement vehicle, not a zero pollution vehicle. In China especially, where a large majority of the electricity is produced by coal, in power plants not nearly as clean as plants in the US and elsewhere, saying it doesn't "rely on fossil fuels" is a farce.

I'd interested to see how its efficiency and total pollution (from electricity production to end use) compares with modern diesel-electric locomotives. I suspect it would not compare favorably, putting it in the category of a publicity stunt, like much of what the CCP does when it comes to 'clean' energy.

Three big numbers to consider are the CO2 produced per kWh by the powerplant, the efficiency of the electrolysis system, and the efficiency of the traction unit/fuel cells.

This will then give you CO2 per kWh at the contact on the rail. The carbon intensity of electricity generation in China was 531.15 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour (gCO₂/kWh) in 2022. Electrolysis is (being nice) 70% efficient, and fuel cells about 60% So the likely CO2 per kWh at the rail is 532/.7/.6
, 1300 g CO2/kWh

Diesel give about 3.2 kg CO2/kg of diesel, from which we'd hope for an sfc of 210 g/Kwh, with say 15% drivetrain losses (strictly the hydrogen one will have some as well) 800 g/ kWh

With diesel there is also the well to bowser efficiency of 83%, so 950 g CO2/kWh

Not quite as ridiculous as I'd thought, rather contingent on the magical electrolysis process, which thus far hasn't proved to be much more use than flushing expensive metal electrodes down the toilet, electrode erosion being a big issue.

Of course the claim will be that the hydrogen will be made from solar electricity. OK, so somebody else will be using electricity made by burning coal instead.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Thanks Greg! I expected it to come out something like that, but didn't know where to find the numbers.

So essentially, this is a publicity stunt, aimed at fooling the gullible econuts into thinking China is doing their part to save the planet.

The leftist infatuation with transportation by rail is an odd one. I've always heard the term "foamer" used to describe people that like trains.

I'm not crazy fond of B triples rumbling along the freeway between Melbourne and Sydney directly alongside the railway track but that's our joined-up thinking for you. Ford had a body stamping and engine plant about 80 km from the assembly plant, both had adjoining railways. Our mighty railroad operators couldn't guarantee next day delivery. More B triples, this time in suburbia.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

As rail becomes more important, that may change.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Trains have been around for a very long time now. With the exception of coal and tar sands hauling, railroad has not become more important over time.

I think the lesson from Australia is you can have a high speed passenger/mail service, or you can have a low speed bulk haulage service. You can't combine them on the same tracks, however clever your scheduling.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Loss of forrests:

"Sadly, most of the other forests around the world are under threat. In just the last 100 years, the world has lost as many trees as the previous 9,000 years combined. To put in perspective just how much forest has been lost in the last century, it is more than the entire South American continent. Most of this deforestation has been caused by the drive to make room for agricultural fields, the vast majority of which are dedicated to animal grazing or growing crops that become animal feed.

This massive decline in global forests has numerous negative consequences. Forests are, for example, home to 80% of the terrestrial biodiversity on Earth, providing habitats for literally millions of unique species of plants, animals, fungi, and microorganisms. In fact, forest biodiversity is so high that famed British entomologist E.O. Wilson wrote in his book The Diversity of Life about an insect collecting trip he took to the Amazon rainforest in which he concluded that there are some beetle species whose entire population exists on and in single, individual trees."



https://www.copernicus.eu/en/news/news/observer-mo...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Dik, does that chart include the loss of forest to 410 feet of sea level rise over that same timeframe?

Oh the horror! Grasslands have been replaced by...grazing land, AKA grasslands.

and as grazing lands comes an additional methane load...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Grazing land = improved grass land. And improved food supply. And the forest lands replaced by other agricultural land has also improved food supply. Thus, our standard of living has been improved by better use of available land. In addition, the remaining forest land is being better managed for timber production. Wins all around.

So as I look at my front paddock, which was originally forest but cleared by fire some time in the last 80000 years, I wonder exactly whether it is classified as wild grass, since it has roos on it, or if my neighbours paddock, which is contiguous to it is classified as pasture because it has cows on it?

The answer to the methane jibe is dung beetles.

200 years ago there were fewer than a billion people and most of them were starving. Now we have 8 billion people and 90% of them are not starving. Yes we need land to grow food.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

The same methane producing bacteria in the cow's gut that decomposes grass is the the same methane producing bacteria that is in the soil decomposing grass. Maybe it's th increased vegetation from cultivation that causes increased methane emissions? That goes contrary to the deforestation narrative, though.

That's the point of the dung beetles, the organic matter becomes soil carbon.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Soon we will need more Co2. Toyota's new engine will use it as fuel.

https://www.autonews.com/mobility-report/toyota-de...

The way I understand the early press releases is the Toyota/Kawasaki system is carbon capture; the fluid capturing the CO2 is not used as fuel. The link you posted requires registration, so I did not see what details it explains. Can you elaboarate?

From a Chinese website...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Yeah, 'cause all the most authoritative polling comes from online polls on websites controlled by the Chinese government! Sheesh!

A problem for one source of renewable power.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hailstorm-destroy...

Coal power continues to expand in China, despite the government's pledges and goals. In the first half of 2023, construction was started on 37 gigawatts (GW) of new coal power capacity, 52 GW was permitted, while 41 GW of new projects were announced and 8 GW of previously shelved projects were revived.



But useful idiots believe the polls.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Coal is ugly fuel, Greg, but a pound of CO₂ produced by petroleum is the same as a pound of CO₂ produced by coal. It is, however, and excuse for not doing anything.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Petroleum doesn't have rb ash content of coal, much less particulate matter.

Then again, maybe the ash from coal based generation counteracts the warming from CO2 in the same way volcanic ash causes cooling.

There is the slight matter that a hydrocarbon has a higher calorific value than coal, and gives off half as much CO2 per kg. But that is of course irrelevant. China's coal usage will not abate for many years.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

It sounds as if you're saying petroleum and gaseous fuels provide more civilization per kg of CO2 than coal.

and when it burns, it doesn't produce CO₂, either... tell me another one Tug...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

When civilization burns jtt certainly will produce CO2.

... and then plants absorb the CO2 and use it to grow. Then the plants get buried, subjected to heat and pressure, and become hydrocarbons, which can be used for fuel by future generations, and the cycle repeats. I think there's a name for it; the carbon bicycle, or something like that.

There is an alternative theory that Earth's hydrocarbons are not of biological origin.

Quote:

There is an alternative theory that Earth's hydrocarbons are not of biological origin.

Of course there is. There's also a theory that the Earth is a flat disc...

It's turtles, all the way down :)

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

So, there is a big difference between the type of pollution we experienced in the 1800 at the onset of the industrial revolution and that which we are experiencing today.

Back then, you could point directly to severe health issues that resulted from the particulate carbon that was in the air. Black lung, asthma, et cetera. We had acid rain issues, we had pollution in our drinking water.

However, today we only have a slight increase in atmospheric CO2 which is not the least bit harmful to any person. And, is actually very beneficial to plant life. This change is a huge benefit to mankind. Even when we're burning coal and other fossil fuels, the amount of particulate pollution we have is so incredibly low.

I think it is extremely likely that we'll find out (in the future) that our temperature increases were:
a) Not as high as we thought they were.
b) Not anywhere near as high as our current predictions.
c) May have been caused by other environmental issues as much or more than increased CO2. Such as:
Particulate matter in the atmosphere
The ozone hole
Natural variations from the sun, or from the earth's tilt, orbit and such.

But, most importantly, we'll realize that the climate alarmism was one big giant fraud intended as a way for neo-marxists to grab power and take down what they see as the great evil of the world.... Capitalism. In reality, it can easily be proven that Marxism (in all it's forms) has been one of the great evils of the last 100+ years. And, that capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty and improved our standards of living than any other single concept in the history of mankind.

Interesting court ruling...

"OXFORD, ENGLAND - Having a safe climate is becoming more of a human right globally with this week's European court decision that says countries must better protect people from climate change, something warming-hit residents of the Global South long knew, said former Ireland President Mary Robinson.

Robinson, who was the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, praised Tuesday's mixed court decision as precedent-setting and change-triggering. The European Court of Human Rights sided with Swiss senior women saying their government wasn't doing enough to protect them from climate shocks, but dismissed similar complaints from Portuguese youth and France's mayor on technical grounds."

https://www.ctvnews.ca/climate-and-environment/eur...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Iran is on the UN commission for human rights... Do you think this organization has any legitimacy?

What's the point, the US is also on this commission?

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Without the US, human rights as you know it would not exist. Try being trans in Iran or China and see where that gets you.

Do you really believe that?

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote:

Do you really believe that?

If you don't, you haven't been paying attention.

China has a workforce of half a million slaves making solar panels. The Uighur. They arrest foreign journalists and release them when politically suitable. Iran is busy flogging or stoning women who are not correctly dressed (and a lot more). I'm a bit surprised that anyone who follows the news concentrates on a stupid court case rather than knowing what Iran and China are up to.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Dik, what planet do you live on? Pluto?

Hey Tug, haven't you heard Pluto isn't planet anymore?

It's as if science isn't certain.

Quote (TugBoat)

Without the US, human rights as you know it would not exist. Try being trans in Iran or China and see where that gets you.

Quote (dik)

Do you really believe that?

Dik -

The US has made plenty of questionable decisions that have led to bloodshed. And, we do tend to be the most aggressive nation in the world (in terms of being willing to go to war). But, we really do a pretty good job with respect to Human Rights.... I'd argue that our entire society was born out of the desire to establish some basic, inalienable human rights.

I'm not sure what the "history" of Human rights really is. But, I have to think that if the US didn't win WWII then most of the world would be under regimes that did not respect human rights very much at all.

Japan raped China (and most of the Pacific) brutally. But, after WWII Japan changed dramatically under the leadership of the US and Admiral MacArthur. I think that Asia (and the Pacific Island nations as well) is in much, much better shape due to the US (at least in terms of Human Rights) than it would have been otherwise.

Then it's safe to say that Germany was a horrible abuser of human rights in WWII as well. Isn't it? Though you might now say that West Germany became one of the great beacons of respecting human rights in the decades that followed. Again, I believe the US is largely responsible for the reconstruction of West Germany post WWII. Wouldn't you agree?

Then let's talk about the Soviet Bloc nations and Communist China. Post WWII they were clearly the worst Human Rights abusers of the last 70 years. Right? The US was the main Super Power that was opposing this during that time.

Are you so brainwashed by whatever anti-US ideology that's been affecting our education that you cannot see these obvious historical truths?

Right on, Josh. But General McArthur would not like being called a Navy man.

Quote (Hokie)

Right on, Josh. But General McArthur would not like being called a Navy man.

OMG, I guess I was conflating him and Admiral Nimitz.

"if the US didn't win WWII".

After the US primed the pump for Stalin with Studebaker trucks , I'd say Russia played a really BIG part in defeating the Nazis.
Admittedly and undoubtedly Stalin had his own agendas all along.

I guess I do too.

Quote (Tmoose)

I'd say Russia played a really BIG part in defeating the Nazis.

For sure.... Though I'd phrase it a little differently. Hitler shot himself in the foot when he decided he wanted to defeat Russia as well. I guess he must have thought that the Communist totalitarian government was his greatest threat.

Also, I don't think Russia did anything about Japan in WWII. Did it? At least not until after Germany had surrendered and after the US had basically defeated Imperial Japan.

Copernicus Climate Atlas:

"As the world struggles to cope with the impacts of climate change, accessible tools to understand our changing climate have never been more urgently needed. Launched on 20 February by the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S), the Copernicus Interactive Climate Atlas (C3S Atlas) is a powerful new tool designed to help policymakers and other climate service users to analyse and interpret climate data. With the upcoming publication of the European State of the Climate report by C3S, we are excited to discuss this new tool that can help users develop evidence-based policies and strategies to work to mitigate the consequences of and adapt to global warming. "

https://www.copernicus.eu/en/news/news/observer-di...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Oh great, now policy makers won't need to understand the drivel the spread. They can get it fed to them from a single shadowy source.

"Artificial Intelligence" come quickly to mind.

Cold water upwelling:

"Research: Cold ocean events causing mass marine mortalities

Scientists are concerned about the threat to the climate from cold ocean events. Researchers say these extreme events are causing mass mortalities in oceans around the world. Michael Holmes speaks with Ryan Daly, a scientist with the Oceanographic Research Institute."

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/21/world/video/cold-oc...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Dik, remember you need to share a thought and not just a link.

It's just another feature of climate change. The change in ocean currents can bring 'cold water' into areas of water that has already been heated, with disasterous effects. The reason for the link is to keep people appraised of current considerations. The effects of climate change can be far reaching. This was one effect that I had not considered; I was aware of the possible AMOC disturbance in the North Atlantic as a possible outcome.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

How does surface heating bring cold, dense water up from the depths?

Quote (dik)

It's just another feature of climate change.

So now any climate event, even one that results from too much cold, is our fault? I thought our actions were releasing too much CO2, and that was causing warming of the planet. How are we suddenly responsible for a "cold water event"?

Quote (even one that results from too much cold, is our fault?)

Substantially...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote (ow does surface heating bring cold, dense water up from the depths?)

The cold 'fresh' water from the melting arctic and antarctic glaciers does this.

"The melting of Antarctic glaciers has significant effects on water circulation. As glaciers melt, they release large amounts of cold freshwater into the ocean. This freshwater is less dense than the surrounding saltwater, which can disrupt the normal patterns of ocean circulation.

Abyssal Ocean Overturning: The melting of Antarctic glaciers can slow down the Antarctic overturning circulation, also known as abyssal ocean overturning. This circulation is responsible for flushing nutrients from the sea floor to fish near the surface. A study published in the journal Nature found that if the world continues to burn fossil fuels and produce high levels of planet-heating pollution, the Antarctic overturning circulation could slow down by 42% by 2050.

Atlantic Ocean Circulation: The melting of glaciers in Antarctica and Greenland influences the circulation of the Atlantic Ocean. As massive amounts of cold glacial-melt water enter warmer ocean waters, it slows down ocean currents. This can have far-reaching consequences, such as changing weather patterns worldwide, affecting fisheries, and increasing the frequency of destructive storms and hurricanes.

Sea Level Rise: As ice on land melts, the runoff significantly increases the amount of water in the ocean, contributing to global sea level rise. This can further impact ocean circulation, as the increased volume of water can alter currents and affect the distribution of heat and nutrients in the ocean.

In summary, the melting of Antarctic glaciers affects water circulation by disrupting ocean currents, slowing down abyssal ocean overturning, and contributing to global sea level rise. These changes can have significant consequences for marine life, weather patterns, and coastal communities around the world."

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Bruh, you're back on sea level rise. Sea levels have already risen 410 feet and didn't cause any mass extinctions. There is only potential for another 50 feet or so.

You argue by ignoring history and facts and that's not fair to the rest of us.

Part of China's carbon footprint, and it's slowly sinking into the 'mud':

"Both studies have shone a light on some of the unexpected effects of urban development. But the Chinese research in particular has highlighted just how rapidly China's cities have developed and the scale of urban expansion in the city.

We can turn to one material, above all others, that has supported this growth: concrete, the second most used substance on earth after water.

During the first 15 years of the 21st Century, China accounted for nearly half the world's total urbanisation. Housing, airports, roads, water supplies, waste treatments, power stations and more have been constructed at astonishing speeds – in one example during the Covid-19 pandemic, the Chinese authorities claimed to have built an entire new hospital in just 10 days. China has been adding nearly two billion sq m (21.5 billion sq ft) of floor space to its cities every year – equivalent to creating an urban area the size of London."

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240419-the-en...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Dik, what is the relevance of your last post?

Just showing that concrete is a big contributor to carbon footprint, and that China is using massive amounts of the stuff...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Is that included in your per capita emissions comparisons?

Quote (TugBoatEng)

Is that included in your per capita emissions comparisons?

Almost certainly not. I believe most of the CO2 reporting is based solely on ENERGY production. So, power plants, cars, trucks, et cetera.

Most likely. The CO₂ per capita is based on the country total output. Not just energy production... the CO2 that China produces in making knick-knacks for the rest of the world... is included.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Most likely? That means you don't know.

I don't know if any knick knacks that produce CO2 during their production. Their CO2 cost is strictly tied to the energy required to produce it. Concrete is the exception as it does produce CO2 during production.

It will be interesting if these events intensify over time...

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/27/weather/plains-midw...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

1996 is so far away now. In 1996 Hollywood was able to make an entire movie about weather "Twister" and not mention climate change once. Today, they can't even make a movie about Barbie without seeding it with climate change.

To be fair the article doesn't mention global warming or climate change (at least on a search). Dik's posting about weather again.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Making windmill less harmful

"Wind turbines can pose a deadly risk to migrating birds, but there are ways to dramatically reduce crashes."

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240425-these-...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Dik -

Thanks for that interesting and informative article. It was a little long, and it took a while to get going, but the crux was the following:
a) Wind Power turbines tend to kill a lot of birds.
b) Painting stripes on the turbine tower helps, So, does painting one of the blades black. The suggestion is that they reduce fatalities by 70%.
c) Also, adding an artificial "hiss" to the tower could better alert birds to the danger.
d) Apparently birds are not very good at avoiding obstructions while flying. Their eyesight is designed differently than humans. And, their evolution means that they don't generally expect to fly into something when they're flying high in the air.

AI use...

"Artificial Intelligence (AI) is not just a futuristic concept; it's a critical tool shaping the present, especially in the field of Earth Observation (EO). This is particularly evident in Copernicus, the Earth Observation component of the EU Space Programme, where, more and more, AI algorithms are employed to process the extensive data streams from Copernicus satellites. This marriage of machine intelligence and big satellite data is enabling a wide range of applications across various domains. From rapidly identifying environmental changes like deforestation or urban expansion to monitoring air quality and ocean temperatures for climate research, the use of Copernicus data with AI is transforming our understanding of the Earth’s surface in unprecedented ways. "

https://www.copernicus.eu/en/news/news/observer-re...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Most of the AI algorithms have been demonstrated to have severe biases. They won't be useful for this.

Interesting name for a glacier...

"Ocean water is pushing miles beneath Antarctica’s “Doomsday Glacier,” making it more vulnerable to melting than previously thought, according to new research which used radar data from space to perform an X-ray of the crucial glacier.

As the salty, relatively warm ocean water meets the ice, it’s causing “vigorous melting” underneath the glacier and could mean global sea level rise projections are being underestimated, according to the study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The Thwaites Glacier in West Antarctica — nicknamed the “Doomsday Glacier” because its collapse could cause catastrophic sea level rise — is the world’s widest glacier and roughly the size of Florida. It’s also Antarctica’s most vulnerable and unstable glacier, in large part because the land on which it sits slopes downward, allowing ocean waters to eat away at its ice.

Thwaites, which already contributes 4% to global sea level rise, holds enough ice to raise sea levels by more than 2 feet. But because it also acts as a natural dam to the surrounding ice in West Antarctica, scientists have estimated its complete collapse could ultimately lead to around 10 feet of sea level rise — a catastrophe for the world’s coastal communities."

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/20/climate/doomsday-gl...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Designed to appeal to headline writers and teenagers.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

...and in Europe, too... AMOC may influence this, we just don't know, yet.

"Since the 1980s, Europe has been warming twice as fast as the global average, becoming the fastest-warming continent. This is due to several factors, including the proportion of European land in the Arctic, which is the fastest-warming region on Earth. Europe’s fast warming is also caused by changes in atmospheric circulation which cause more frequent summer heatwaves. Glaciers are melting, and there are changes in the pattern of precipitation. An increase in extreme rainfall is leading to catastrophic events, such as the widespread flooding seen in Italy, Greece, Slovenia, Norway and Sweden in 2023. Meanwhile, southern Europe has suffered from widespread droughts and wildfires. Overall, the frequency and severity of extreme events is increasing. Estimates indicate economic losses from weather- and climate-related events in Europe reached €13.4 billion in 2023. Millions of people were affected, and at least 151 lives were lost in due to flooding, storms, and wildfires."

https://www.copernicus.eu/en/news/news/observer-es...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote:

This is due to several factors, including the proportion of European land in the Arctic, which is the fastest-warming region on Earth. Europe’s fast warming is also caused by changes in atmospheric circulation which cause more frequent summer heatwaves

So, one of the problems with our "global warming" narrative is that it assumes all areas are affected by Global Warming the same. And, our best data to justify this is from Ice Cores towards the North and South Poles..... Well, there is some good data to suggest that Global warming doesn't affect the temperatures in the tropics much. So, there could be a lot of bias in the temperature data. Bias that is used to drive a political narrative....

Quote (Dik)

Millions of people were affected, and at least 151 lives were lost in due to flooding, storms, and wildfires.

Now do how many people were affected by or lost their lives related to COLD temperatures. I think you'll find that deaths due to cold are an order of magnitude higher than deaths attributed to "climate change" or hot weather. Oh wait, we've already done that many times in this forum!

Quote (Dik)

Overall, the frequency and severity of extreme events is increasing.

Okay, now show how the number of fatalities due to "extreme events" has been increasing. Or rather, I think you'll find that the number of fatalities due to these extreme events has gone down EXPONENTIALLY over the last 150 years or so.... Oh wait, we've done that many times on this forum as well!

Sheesh!

I think it gets very tiring to see the same old (and disproven) talking points posted here ever few days. We do understand that the world temperatures (especially in the artic) are increasing significantly. It's not really a question, it's more along the lines of what we can do about it most efficiently with our limited resources.

This will end well... it will be interesting when the rest of the states follow suit...

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/21/climate/video/flori...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Josh... in spite of having lots of advance warning...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Dik -

What actual "news" is reported in that video you shared? It gave almost no information about what is actually in the Florida law the guy is complaining about. It came off (at least to me) as a guy just ranting about something that he didn't like.

If you want actual information about what Florida is doing, this is a much better article. If you read this article, the law isn't anywhere near as extreme as this clown said it was. Basically, they're just repealing things that gave preferential treatment to green energy projects and punished natural gas (which is still pretty green).

https://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/2024/05/...

For what it's worth, we can expect this sort of "reporting" a lot in the near future. Climate zealots moaning and groaning because certain states (and countries) refuse to enact suicidal energy policies based on their fear mongering.

Yes dik, I hope other states do follow Florida's lead and remove references to the myth of the climate change crisis from their laws. Politically-motivated hoaxes have no place in the law.

For what it's worth so many of these laws and regulations that "support" that climate change agenda are merely "performative" in nature.

The best example I can give would be California's that that states that 100% of cars sold in the state must be electric / zero emission cars. The same state that last summer told people they were not allowed to charge their cars on some days because there wasn't enough electricity. LOL. You'll see this law collapse (or be amended) in 2026 when the first part becomes mandatory... That 35% of all cars sold in the state be plug-in hybrid, electric or zero emission cars. People will merely buy their cars in other states and bring them into CA. Or, voters will rebel and demand that they be allowed to buy the cars they actually want still.

Simply buying a car out of state may not be an option. California law states that residents cannot register cars that don't meet California's specific emissions laws unless the car has over 7500 miles.

I can see car rental companies taking advantage of this. Buy new cars, put 7500 miles on them, and sell them in California at greater than MSRP.

Current fuss and bother about a heatwave in USA



Comprehensively debunked

Atlanta, Georgia:
• Tue 6/18: 89° / record: 101° (1944)
• Wed 6/19: 89° / record: 99° (1933)
• Thu 6/20: 90° / record: 98° (1933)
• Fri 6/21: 93° / 98° (1933)
• Sat 6/22: 97° / 98° (1964 and 2022)
• Sun 6/23: 97° / 99° (1930 and 1944)
• Mon: 6/25: 95° / 99° (1930 and 1988)

Chicago, Illinois:
• Tue 6/18: 93° / record: 98° (1954)
• Wed 6/19: 95° / record: 102° (1953)
• Thu 6/20: 89° / record: 104° (1988)
• Fri 6/21: 92° / record: 101° (1988)
• Sat 6/22: 96° / record: 97° (1988)
• Sun 6/23: 86° / record: 97° (1930)
• Mon 6/24: 85° / record: 97° (1937 and 1953)

New York City, NY:
• Tue 6/18: 89° / record: 95° (1929)
• Wed 6/19: 91° / record: 98° (1994)
• Thu 6/20: 94° / record: 98° (1923)
• Fri 6/21: 94° / record: 97° (1953 and 1988)
• Sat 6/22: 88° / record: 98° (1988)
• Sun 6/23: 89° / record: 96° (1888)
• Mon 6/24: 87° / record: 96° (1888)

Oklahoma City, OK:
• Tue 6/18: 87° / record: 104° (2011)
• Wed 6/19: 89° / record: 101° (1918, 1953 and 2011)
• Thu 6/20: 86° / record: 104° (1918 and 1953)
• Fri 6/21: 91° / record: 104° (1936 and 1988) • Sat 6/22: 95° / record: 107° (1936) • Sun 6/23: 97° / record: 101° (1925, 1933 and 1934)
• Mon 6/24: 98° / record: 104° (1911)

St. Louis, MO:
• Tue 6/18: 91° / 101° (2021)
• Wed 6/19: 95° / 105° (1936)
• Thu 6/20: 96° / 103° (1953)
• Fri 6/21: 98° / 99° (1988) • Sat 6/22: 99° / 102° (1930)
• Sun 6/23: 94° / 101° (1930)
• Mon 6/24: 95° / 102° (1988)

Washington, D.C.:
• Tue 6/18: 92° / 97° (1944)
• Wed 6/19: 89° / 99° (1994)
• Thu 6/20: 92° / 99° (1931)
• Fri 6/21: 96° / 99° (2012)
• Sat 6/22: 97° / 101° (1988)
• Sun 6/23: 97° / 98° (1988)
• Mon 6/24: 93° / 100° (2010)

and of course none of this mentions the urban heat island effect, which is probably 3-5 deg F these days.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Quote (TugBoat)

I can see car rental companies taking advantage of this. Buy new cars, put 7500 miles on them, and sell them in California at greater than MSRP.

Dealers too. There are plenty of dealers who will have loner cars or such where they put on some mileage. But, to the point where they are still considered "new" cars. We did that int 2016 with the GMC terrain we bought. We got a great deal on it because it had just under 4k miles on it already.

I can see dealers all over the country doing this, shipping their loaner cars out to CA (or to the cities bordering CA) so that they can sell them for greater than the cost of a new car to California residents desperate to avoid the insane CA laws. Granted, it won't get to that. Because CA voters will introduce a proposition to change the law before any of this becomes too common place. Or, just as likely, our legislature will realize that this "virtue signaling" will get them voted out of office if they don't repeal the crazy law. And, Newsome (and his presidential ambitions) will be long gone by then.

European power

https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/09/12/wind-and...

60% of US power comes from fossil fuels.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Methane emissions are going up

https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/09/11/two-thir...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote (Dik)

European power

What's most interesting to me about that article is I learned that, for Europe, Nuclear is the largest source of electric power. That's a big deal to me.

I have no problem with replacing as much of our fossil fuel electricity with Nuclear as we can... as fast as we can. That makes perfect sense to me from an economic standpoint and from an environmental standpoint.

As long as it's done properly, there is no issue with nuclear power... it's safe and cheap. China has two or three of the new (actually old) ones they are constructing which apparently are really safe. They also have EV which cost about $17,000 US, but the US wants to put 100% tariffs on them. Only when countries do not use fossil fuels for power do these make any sense.

https://www.livescience.com/china-creates-new-thor...

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/curr...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote (for Europe, Nuclear is the largest source of electric power)

Not quite... nearly 70% is by fossil fuels...

https://www.iea.org/regions/europe



-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

In which dik reveals he is confusing total energy mix and electrical energy mix.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

I guess the supply has to come from somewhere...
This tells pretty much the same story. Funny, China is not the 'the head of the class'.



-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Again with per capita, Dik

It’s such a blatant sleight of hand to downplay China’s massive emissions by simply dividing them by its enormous population.

Monthly check in to see if everyone in this waste of a thread is still firmly entrenched in their positions and talking past each other

Yup.

See y'all in October.

Yearly is probably often enough.

LOL

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

Quote (It’s such a blatant sleight of hand to downplay China’s massive emissions by simply dividing them by its enormous population.)

No slight of hand... they have 5x the population of the US. On a per capita basis, The US has nearly twice the carbon footprint of China.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote (Yearly is probably often enough.)

Yup... Interesting that this year China has had 85 submissions for new coal fired plants refused... they are going for green. With the way they do things, it will be interesting to see how quickly they bring this to fruition. Guess where they get most of their coal? Maybe some coal mines will be shutting down.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote (dik)

No slight of hand... they have 5x the population of the US. On a per capita basis, The US has nearly twice the carbon footprint of China.

For what it's worth, I think the other side (frequently Dik) makes good points. I think looking at the total emissions and the emissions per capita are BOTH quite helpful.

What's also helpful is looking at the trends. Are they accelerating, decreasing or what? And at what rate?


When you look at the trends (the accelerating CO2 per capital or total) coming out of China and the decreasing CO2 (per Capital or total) coming from Europe and the US, then you get a sense of where the biggest obstacles to solving WORLDWIDE global warming will be.

I'll also point out that Australia's efforts to reduce their CO2 footprint are (to me at least) meaningless when it means economic hardship for the citizens.... But, the Coal Mining companies are still booming because they're just selling their Coal to China.

The 'Coal Mining companies' in Australia are not booming. The money goes to prop up the governments, state and federal through royalties.

Quote (dik)

The US has nearly twice the carbon footprint of China.

What is the point you are actually trying to make? That China is an example to be followed?

My personal CO2 emissions statistic of choice is kg CO2 emitted per real dollar of GDP. I like this data point for two reasons:

1) it's a direct measure of how efficient a particular national economy is at extracting actual value from expended energy (which, in my opinion, is the metric that should be the focus for improvement) and

2) it normalizes for geographical size, population, economic focus, etc - a bunch of factors that make the energy consumption of various countries difficult to compare.

Statistics from 2023 for the top 20 world economies:

Switzerland: 0.06 kg/$GDP
France: 0.11 kg/$GDP
UK: 0.12 kg/$GDP
Netherlands: 0.14 kg/$GDP
Brazil: 0.15 kg/$GDP
Spain: 0.15 kg/$GDP
Italy: 0.16 kg/$GDP
Germany: 0.17 kg/$GDP
Turkey: 0.18 kg/$GDP
Indonesia: 0.21 kg/$GDP
Japan: 0.22 kg/$GDP
Mexico: 0.25 kg/$GDP
USA: 0.26 kg/$GDP
India: 0.27 kg/$GDP
South Korea: 0.28 kg/$GDP
Australia: 0.29 kg/$GDP
Canada: 0.31 kg/$GDP
Saudi Arabia: 0.36 kg/$GDP
China: 0.42 kg/$GDP
Russia: 0.44 kg/$GDP

By this metric, we should be studying what they're doing in the EU, Japan, and Brazil - and basically ignoring what is happening in China and Russia completely.

That's a pretty good metric, Swinny.

Commission mulls solar radiation modification to curb global warming

https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/09/24/commissi...

"The European Commission is assessing the viability of technologies designed to modify solar radiation in a bid to slash greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the atmosphere, according to remarks shared by an EU official at an Euronews event held in Brussels today (September 24).

So-called 'geoengineering' refers to techniques aimed at removing CO2 and modifying levels of solar radiation in the atmosphere. Vicky Pollard, policy officer at the Commission’s climate action department, said the term covers a “very wide range of possible technologies”, including strategies to release particles into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight and reduce global temperature."

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

If they limit the amount of solar radiation in the atmosphere won't that negatively impact the power from the wind turbines?

There will likely be all sorts of effects.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Wups, sorry about this ice age, fellas.

Quote (dik)

Commission mulls solar radiation modification to curb global warming