DVD Talk Forum

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   Religion, Politics and World Events (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-politics-world-events-47/)
-   -   The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition) (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-politics-world-events/592386-one-only-global-warming-thread-part-11-co2-kills-10-billion-people-edition.html)

grundle 02-06-18 07:28 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
New York Times: No Children Because of Climate Change? Some People Are Considering It

Spoilerized for size:

Spoiler:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/c...-children.html

No Children Because of Climate Change? Some People Are Considering It

February 5, 2018

Add this to the list of decisions affected by climate change: Should I have children?

It is not an easy time for people to feel hopeful, with the effects of global warming no longer theoretical, projections becoming more dire and governmental action lagging. And while few, if any, studies have examined how large a role climate change plays in people’s childbearing decisions, it loomed large in interviews with more than a dozen people ages 18 to 43.

A 32-year-old who always thought she would have children can no longer justify it to herself. A Mormon has bucked the expectations of her religion by resolving to adopt rather than give birth. An Ohio woman had her first child after an unplanned pregnancy — and then had a second because she did not want her daughter to face an environmental collapse alone.

Among them, there is a sense of being saddled with painful ethical questions that previous generations did not have to confront. Some worry about the quality of life children born today will have as shorelines flood, wildfires rage and extreme weather becomes more common. Others are acutely aware that having a child is one of the costliest actions they can take environmentally.

The birthrate in the United States, which has been falling for a decade, reached a new low in 2016. Economic insecurity has been a major factor, but even as the economy recovers, the decline in births continues.

And the discussions about the role of climate change are only intensifying.

“When we first started this project, I didn’t know anybody who had had any conversations about this,” said Meghan Kallman, a co-founder of Conceivable Future, an organization that highlights how climate change is limiting reproductive choices.

That has changed, she said — either because more people are having doubts, or because it has become less taboo to talk about them.
Facing an uncertain future

If it weren’t for climate change, Allison Guy said, she would go off birth control tomorrow.

But scientists’ projections, if rapid action isn’t taken, are not “congruent with a stable society,” said Ms. Guy, 32, who works at a marine conservation nonprofit in Washington. “I don’t want to give birth to a kid wondering if it’s going to live in some kind of ‘Mad Max’ dystopia.”

Parents like Amanda PerryMiller, a Christian youth leader and mother of two in Independence, Ohio, share her fears.

“Animals are disappearing. The oceans are full of plastic. The human population is so numerous, the planet may not be able to support it indefinitely,” said Ms. PerryMiller, 29. “This doesn’t paint a very pretty picture for people bringing home a brand-new baby from the hospital.”

The people thinking about these issues fit no single profile. They are women and men, liberal and conservative. They come from many regions and religions.

Cate Mumford, 28, is a Mormon, and Mormons believe God has commanded them to “multiply and replenish the earth.” But even in her teens, she said, she could not get another point of doctrine out of her head: “We are stewards of the earth.”

Ms. Mumford, a graduate student in a joint-degree program at Johns Hopkins and Brigham Young Universities, plans to adopt a child with her husband. Some members of her church have responded aggressively, accusing her of going against God’s plan. But she said she felt vindicated by the worsening projections.

A few years ago, she traveled to China, where air pollution is a national crisis. And all she could think was, “I’m so glad I’m not going to bring a brand-new baby into this world to suffer like these kids suffer.”
‘Some pretty strong cognitive dissonance’

For many, the drive to reproduce is not easily put aside.

“If a family is what you want, you’re not just going to be able to make that disappear entirely,” said Jody Mullen, 36, a mother of two in Gillette, N.J. “You’re not just going to be able to say, ‘It’s not really good for the environment for humans to keep reproducing, so I’ll just scratch that idea.’”

And so compromises emerge. Some parents resolve to raise conscientious citizens who can help tackle climate change. Some who want multiple children decide to have only one.

For Sara Jackson Shumate, 37, who has a young daughter, having a second child would mean moving to a house farther from her job as a lecturer at the Metropolitan State University of Denver. She is not sure she can justify the environmental impact of a larger home and a longer commute.

But for Ms. PerryMiller, the Ohio youth leader, the thinking went the opposite way: Once she had her first child, climate change made a second feel more urgent.

“Someday, my husband and I will be gone,” she said. “If my daughter has to face the end of the world as we know it, I want her to have her brother there.”

Laura Cornish, 32, a mother of two near Vancouver, said she felt “some pretty strong cognitive dissonance around knowing that the science is really bad but still thinking that their future will be O.K.”

“I don’t read the science updates anymore because they’re too awful,” she said. “I just don’t engage with that, because it’s hard to reconcile with my choices.”

‘The thing that’s broken is bigger than us’

People who choose not to have children are used to being called “selfish.” But many of them see their decision as a sacrifice.

Parenthood is “something that I want,” said Elizabeth Bogard, 18, a freshman at Northern Illinois University. “But it’s hard for me to justify my wants over what matters and what’s important for everyone.”

This attitude seems particularly common among people who have seen the effects of climate change firsthand.

Hemanth Kolla is from Hyderabad, in India, where drought and scorching heat waves have been deadly. He lives in California, where the threat of wildfires is increasing and a six-year drought only recently ended. Mr. Kolla, 36, said it felt wrong to have a child when he did not believe the world would be better for him or her.

And Maram Kaff, who lives in Cairo, said she had been deeply affected by reports that parts of the Middle East may be too hot for human habitation by 2100.

“I’ve seen how Syrian refugees, who are running from a devastating war, are being treated,” Ms. Kaff, 33, said in an email. “Imagine how my children will be treated if they have to flee their country due to extreme weather, drought, lack of resources, flooding.”

“I know that humans are hard-wired to procreate,” she said, “but my instinct now is to shield my children from the horrors of the future by not bringing them to the world.”

Ms. Kallman and Josephine Ferorelli, the founders of Conceivable Future, said that the predominant emotion at their gatherings was grief — and that the very existence of these conversations should spur political action.

“These stories tell you that the thing that’s broken is bigger than us,” Ms. Ferorelli said. “The fact that people are seriously considering not having children because of climate change is all the reason you need to make the demands.”

Most of the people interviewed, parents and non-parents alike, lamented having to factor climate change into their decisions at all.

“What kind of nightmare question is that?” asked Ms. Guy, the Washington nonprofit worker. “That we have to consider that?”



I completely support their right to not have children.

What I disagree with, though, is that the environment will be as bad in the future as some of them think it will be.

For example, consider this: (Disclaimer: I wrote some of this)

Spoiler:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznet..._Kuznets_curve

Environmental Kuznets curve


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...nets_Curve.png

Environmental Kuznets curve: The application of Kuznets curve in environmental studies

The environmental Kuznets curve is a hypothesized relationship between environmental quality and economic development: various indicators of environmental degradation tend to get worse as modern economic growth occurs until average income reaches a certain point over the course of development. Although the subject of continuing debate, some evidence supports the claim that environmental health indicators, such as water and air pollution, show the inverted U-shaped curve. It has been argued that this trend occurs in the level of many of the environmental pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, lead, DDT, chlorofluorocarbons, sewage, and other chemicals previously released directly into the air or water.

For example, between 1970 and 2006, the United States' inflation-adjusted GDP grew by 195%, the number of cars and trucks in the country more than doubled, and the total number of miles driven increased by 178%. However, during that same period regulatory changes meant that annual emissions of carbon monoxide fell from 197 million tons to 89 million, nitrogen oxides emissions fell from 27 million tons to 19 million, sulfur dioxide emissions fell from 31 million tons to 15 million, particulate emissions fell by 80%, and lead emissions fell by more than 98%.

However, there is little evidence that the relationship holds true for other pollutants, for natural resource use or for biodiversity conservation. For example, energy, land and resource use (sometimes called the "ecological footprint") do not fall with rising income. While the ratio of energy per real GDP has fallen, total energy use is still rising in most developed countries. Another example is the emission of many greenhouse gases, which is much higher in industrialised countries. In addition, the status of many key "ecosystem services" provided by ecosystems, such as freshwater provision and regulation (Perman, et al., 2003), soil fertility,[citation needed] and fisheries,[citation needed] have continued to decline in developed countries.

In general, Kuznets curves have been found for some environmental health concerns (such as air pollution) but not for others (such as landfills and biodiversity). Advocates of the EKC argue that this does not necessarily invalidate the hypothesis – the scale of the Kuznets curves may differ for different environmental impacts and different regions. If the search for scalar and regional effects can salvage the concept, it may yet be the case that a given area will need more wealth in order to see a decline in environmental pollutants. In contrast, a thermodynamically enlightened economics suggests that outputs of degraded matter and energy are an inescapable consequence of any use of matter and energy (so holds the second law); some of those degraded outputs will be noxious wastes, and whether and how their production is eliminated depends more on regulatory schemes and technologies at use than on income or production levels. In one view, then, the EKC suggests that "the solution to pollution is more economic growth;" in the other, pollution is seen as a regrettable output that should be reduced when the benefits brought by its production are exceeded by the costs it imposes in externalities like health decrements and loss of ecosystem services.

Deforestation may follow a Kuznets curve (cf. forest transition curve). Among countries with a per capita GDP of at least $4,600, net deforestation has ceased to exist. Yet it has been argued that wealthier countries are able to maintain forests along with high consumption by ‘exporting’ deforestation.

It has also been suggested that the Kuznets curve applies to both littering and cigarette smoking.



Based on this, it seems highly likely that at some point in the future, we will reach a point where we are rich enough and technologically advanced enough that our emissions of carbon dioxide will stop rising and start to fall, just as has already happened with those other pollutants. I don't think it's a question of if. Instead, I think it's a question of when. And the same thing holds true for many of our other environmental problems.

DVD Polizei 02-06-18 12:13 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
Luckily, a certain young and naive generation is but one generation, and there will be many more to compensate for such irrational thought processes and knee-jerk behaviors.

Until then...be entertained.

grundle 02-07-18 01:41 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
These people who are avoiding having children in order to save the environment seem to be totally unaware that when they were conceived by their own parents, there was also a move to save the world from overpopulation. It's a good thing for them that their own parents ignored the scaremongering that was around back then.

Today, the world has more people than ever before. And today, the average person in the world has more calories of food, more clothing, more square footage of housing, longer life expectancy, more material possessions, and a better standard of living, than at any previous time in history.

I think it is highly likely that in several decades from now, when these people's non-existent children would have otherwise been in adulthood, that the standard of living will be even higher than it is today. The only possible exceptions to this would be if we end up having some horrible disaster such as global communism, large scale nuclear war, artificial intelligence trying to destroy us, nanobots turning everything into a "grey goo," or some other such thing. But if such a global disaster does happen, it won't be due to any of the environmental reasons that are cited by the people in that article.

The leaders of the doomsayer movement benefit tremendously from the fact that the current generation is largely unaware of the failed predictions of the past.

For example, here are some of the failed predictions from the first Earth Day in 1970:


http://www.reason.com/news/show/27702.html

* Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for the first Earth Day, wrote, “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”

* Senator Gaylord Nelson, the founder of Earth Day, stated, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

* Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, stated, “… by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions… By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

* Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, predicted that between 1980 and 1989, 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would starve to death.

* Life Magazine wrote, “… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.”

* Ecologist Kenneth Watt stated, “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

* Watt also stated, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil.”

Kurt D 02-07-18 02:15 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by grundle (Post 13264357)
These people who are avoiding having children in order to save the environment seem to be totally unaware that when they were conceived by their own parents, there was also a move to save the world from overpopulation. It's a good thing for them that their own parents ignored the scaremongering that was around back then.

Today, the world has more people than ever before. And today, the average person in the world has more calories of food, more clothing, more square footage of housing, longer life expectancy, more material possessions, and a better standard of living, than at any previous time in history.

I think it is highly likely that in several decades from now, when these people's non-existent children would have otherwise been in adulthood, that the standard of living will be even higher than it is today. The only possible exceptions to this would be if we end up having some horrible disaster such as global communism, large scale nuclear war, artificial intelligence trying to destroy us, nanobots turning everything into a "grey goo," or some other such thing. But if such a global disaster does happen, it won't be due to any of the environmental reasons that are cited by the people in that article.

The leaders of the doomsayer movement benefit tremendously from the fact that the current generation is largely unaware of the failed predictions of the past.

For example, here are some of the failed predictions from the first Earth Day in 1970:


http://www.reason.com/news/show/27702.html

* Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for the first Earth Day, wrote, “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”

* Senator Gaylord Nelson, the founder of Earth Day, stated, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

* Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, stated, “… by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions… By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

* Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, predicted that between 1980 and 1989, 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would starve to death.

* Life Magazine wrote, “… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.”

* Ecologist Kenneth Watt stated, “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

* Watt also stated, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil.”

Also, the average person in America makes 52k a year. We're all making 52k right now, right? No more, no less?

grundle 02-07-18 02:30 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by Kurtie Dee (Post 13264386)
Also, the average person in America makes 52k a year. We're all making 52k right now, right? No more, no less?


No, I never said that everyone makes the average income.

These are the kinds of things that I am talking about:


https://ourworldindata.org/food-per-person

https://d33wubrfki0l68.cloudfront.ne...v1_850x600.svg

https://singularityhub.com/2016/06/2...ckx70azj50w6of

https://singularityhub.com/wp-conten...-charts-11.png

https://singularityhub.com/wp-conten...-charts-41.png

https://singularityhub.com/wp-conten...-charts-51.png

https://singularityhub.com/wp-conten...-charts-91.png

https://singularityhub.com/wp-conten...charts-101.png

grundle 02-07-18 02:34 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
Over the years, I have read a huge number of articles written by and about environmental doomsayers. And if there is any one thing that I have learned from them, it is that they absolutely positively do not want people to be aware of the failed predictions of the past.

And the second thing that I have learned from them is that they have exactly zero intellectual curiosity as to why those predictions from the past failed to come true. It's as if they are completely against the scientific method of learning from the mistakes of the past.

Real scientists like to learn why previous predictions did not come true.

Kurt D 02-07-18 03:45 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by grundle (Post 13264398)
No, I never said that everyone makes the average income.

My point was just that averages and (in the case of the graphs) targeted statistics don't tell the whole story, for instance the distribution of a particular benefit such as caloric intake.

In terms of food production for example, factory farming has an impact on the environment that's negative.

For the record, I am all for the notion of things getting better on this planet, as long as we get there in sustainable, equitable ways.

Troy Stiffler 02-07-18 05:17 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by Kurtie Dee (Post 13264386)
Also, the average person in America makes 52k a year. We're all making 52k right now, right? No more, no less?

:lol:

I grew up working class. Maybe combined household (my mom and dad have always been together) was $52k. I've had a job since I was around 13, with only a year-or-so total unemployment. Mostly because I got $0 allowance. My parents are lucky it worked out like that. More often, you have kids who don't get a job until they're 18+, which stresses working class finances even further.

When I see $52k, I'm reminded of FOMO, which is a slang term for fake Facebook happiness. Like someone out there is living a happy life, with a good credit score and social life. But who and where are these people?

Okay, I don't have it too hard anymore. But I still have a lot of empathy for the majority of people who have so little to spend. Been there.

grundle 02-08-18 03:48 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by Kurtie Dee (Post 13264461)
My point was just that averages and (in the case of the graphs) targeted statistics don't tell the whole story, for instance the distribution of a particular benefit such as caloric intake.

In terms of food production for example, factory farming has an impact on the environment that's negative.

For the record, I am all for the notion of things getting better on this planet, as long as we get there in sustainable, equitable ways.


While the richest 1% have thousands of times as much money as the poorest 1%, I'm pretty sure they don't consume thousands of times as many calories.

In fact, poor people are actually more likely to be obese than rich people. (And I'm not going to fall for the bogus, often cited claim that poor people eat junk food because they can't afford nutritious food. Because in the real world, a bag of potato chips weighing less than one pound actually costs more than a five pound bag of fresh potatoes. And as to the food deserts in some neighborhoods, I blame the anti-Wal Mart activists, who have prevented Wal-Mart form opening supermarkets in many different places.)

Kurt D 02-08-18 03:50 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by grundle (Post 13265355)
While the richest 1% have thousands of times as much money as the poorest 1%, I'm pretty sure they don't consume thousands of times as many calories.

In fact, poor people are actually more likely to be obese than rich people. (And I'm not going to fall for the bogus, often cited claim that poor people eat junk food because they can't afford nutritious food. Because in the real world, a bag of potato chips weighing less than one pound actually costs more than a five pound bag of fresh potatoes. And as to the food deserts in some neighborhoods, I blame the anti-Wal Mart activists, who have prevented Wal-Mart form opening supermarkets in many different places.)

I was going to make the same observation about caloric intake, but I would bet that it applies mostly to westernized nations.

grundle 02-08-18 07:17 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8200506.html

Hillary Clinton: Women will bear brunt of survival tasks as climate change takes effect

Females 'primarily burdened' by natural disasters brought about by global warming

February 8, 2018

Women will "bear the brunt" of tasks ensuring survival when the effects of climate change bite, Hillary Clinton has warned.

Speaking at an event at Georgetown University in Washington, Ms Clinton criticised the US administration for its plans to take America out of the Paris Climate Change Agreement, urging students to put pressure on the Government.

Asked about the effect of climate change on women, Ms Clinton said: “I would say that particularly for women... they will bear the brunt of looking for the food, looking for the firewood, looking for the place to migrate to when all of the grass is finally gone.

That's an interesting claim. Where is the proof?

From the same article:



Girls are also more likely than boys to be pulled out of school to help with domestic chores after a disaster, according to the UN.

After the 2012 Fiji floods, for example, there were reports girls were being taken out of school to help take care of younger children earn money as sex workers.

Studies have shown women and children are 14 times more likely to die during a disaster than men. The UN attributes this in part to differences in capacity to cope with such events and insufficient access to information and warnings.

That's proof enough for me. Cltinon's claim is true, and backed up by real world evidence.

grundle 02-09-18 01:32 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
The worst case scenario for computer models of global warming is based on 94% of world energy supply coming from coal in the year 2100.

In my opinion, this is like if, in the year 1900, predictions of the amount of horse poop in cities in the year 2000 was based on a prediction of 94% of human transportation being done by horses in the year 2000.

Both scenarios are totally unrealistic.

Spoiler:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-less-terrible

Climate Change Just Got a Little Less Terrible

A new analysis rules out the worst case scenario. But without radical change, we’re still in plenty of danger.

February 9, 2018

There are some 20,000 research papers listed on Google Scholar, a search engine for academics, that mention the worst-case scenario for climate change, one where an overpopulated, technology-poor world digs up all the coal it can find. Basically, it’s the most cataclysmic estimate of global warming.

This scenario is important to scientists. It focuses minds on the unthinkable and how to avoid it. According to a provocative new analysis from the University of British Columbia, it’s also wrong.

This is good news. The researchers contend that current goals of reducing coal, oil and gas consumption may be closer than we think, thus allowing us to set the bar even higher in our efforts to reduce pollution. The bad news is that this is good news in the way a destabilizing climate-shift is preferable to planetary extinction: We are still in a lot of trouble. Nevertheless, if the study is verified by other scientists and catches a wave into the realm of policy makers, it could help accelerate initiatives to arrest global warming.

The basic issue has to do with coal. Quite simply, the more we burn, the faster we destroy the atmosphere. The darkest scenario assumes much more coal burning will take place in this century than is likely to happen, according to the study’s authors. Their first paper, published in May, made it seem like the only people who see more coal use than the Trump administration are climate-scenario designers. For example, the most extreme worst-case storyline assumes that by 2100 coal would grow to 94 percent of the world energy supply. In 2015, that figure was about 28 percent.

The new work, published this week in Environmental Research Letters, shows just how much all that phantom coal may be distorting our picture of what the future may look like. It casts “doubt on whether this outlook is still valid,” the researchers write.

The worst-case scenario is one of four siblings. Their names, from bad to worst, are RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6.0 and RCP8.5. They were introduced in 2011 as a way for researchers running different climate-economic models to do comparable studies regarding how high greenhouse gas concentrations might rise by 2100.

These four storylines range from a 2100 in which aggressive global climate policy leads to low warming, to one in which humanity digs up and burns anything that’ll catch fire.

One big problem with the amount of coal burning assumed by RCP8.5 is that there’s probably not enough extractable coal to make the scenario possible. “We don’t think it’s going to happen,” said Justin Ritchie, lead author of the University of British Columbia study and a Ph.D. candidate. “That’s extremely unlikely and also inconsistent with every year since the late 19th century.”

RCP8.5, the authors said, fails to match up with long-term trends in world energy use. The amount of greenhouse gases emitted as a result of using energy—called the carbon intensity of energy—has been slipping for decades. Burning oil produces less carbon dioxide molecule for molecule than burning coal. Burning natural gas produces much less carbon than burning oil, and renewables such as solar and wind burn nothing at all.

The drop in carbon intensity is likely to continue as coal use peaks, which may happen in the next 10 years, according to the 2017 BP Energy Outlook. Ritchie and his co-author, Professor Hadi Dowlatabadi of the university’s Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, suggest that climate scenarios should be adjusted to capture this “passive decarbonization.” Instead, 210 scenarios used in the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projected the reverse: a “re-carbonization,” as coal’s influence overpowers much-reduced emissions from oil and gas.

As national and state governments enact or update laws designed to lower emissions, policymakers rely on our evolving understanding of what’s happening to the world. If Ritchie and Dowlatabadi are right, and the very worst probabilities aren’t probable, then policymakers can set tighter goals at the same cost. By assuming that humanity, if left unchecked, would burn a lot more coal in the future, RCP8.5 may have wrongly limited the goals in our efforts to cut back.

https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/.../v8/800x-1.png

The 2015 Paris Agreement called for limiting warming to from 1.5 degrees to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). Global average temperatures have already risen almost 1C in the past century. The 1.5C goal may already be impossible, and 2C would require major emissions reductions and, later this century, technological advances to pull enough carbon out of the air.

The disconnect between the historical decarbonization trend and the demands of RCP8.5 shed light on the often-ignored foundation of the world’s climate goals: the baseline. Paying attention to climate goals without studying optimal baselines is like watching the end of a marathon without knowing where or when it started.

“We worry if the 2C pathway is feasible, but we need to apply the same thinking and logic to baseline scenarios,” said Glen Peters, research director of the Center for International Climate Research in Oslo. Peters’s group is working to make climate-research scenarios and modeling more accessible to investors. Noah Kaufman, a research scholar at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, agreed that goals receive vastly more attention than observed baselines, when both are actually important parts of the same story. “There hasn’t been much push toward getting these scenarios right,” he said.

Researchers run hundreds of scenarios to cover the breadth of possibilities the future may hold. For a while—when China was really coaling up a few years back—some thought the worst case looked like the coming future. Those concerns were parried by others, who pointed out that short-term pollution trends don’t mean a long-term commitment, said Detlef van Vuuren, senior researcher at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and lead author of a 2011 overview of the RCPs.

https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/...v44/800x-1.png

He said that just because something has become unlikely doesn’t mean it’s impossible, and given the stakes of climate change, it’s best to be thorough. There could be a coal resurgence, or methane from melting permafrost could supersize emissions, for example. “But decreasing renewable energy costs and emerging climate policy would be reasons to” expect a less calamitous outlook, van Vuuren said.

Bas van Ruijven, a senior research scholar at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, outside Vienna, said the new paper may not be as disruptive as its authors think. He noted even they concede that steps have been taken to improve the accuracy of the RCPs. A new generation of scenarios already harmonize better with existing trends. Three of them even show continued decarbonization—and not a return to the coal bonanza, he said.

“The community is actually already producing ‘better’ baseline scenarios that build upon recent developments in the energy sector,” including shale gas and renewables, van Ruijven said.

There are no crystal balls, particularly on the timelines which govern climate-economic models. It’s not impossible that societies will return to coal in the way they are now fleeing it, particularly if population growth continues apace and technological aspirations fall short. “Humans are very hungry for energy,” van Ruijven said. If renewables hit a wall, oil and gas dry up and we punt forever on climate change, “we might well be excavating all the coal we can put our hands on.”

grundle 02-09-18 01:50 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
On the one hand, this is good news for anyone who has been truly worried that the land area of the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu was getting smaller due to the rising sea level caused by global warming. Although the sea level is indeed rising due to global warming, wave patterns and sediment dumped by storms have actually caused the land area to get bigger.

On the other hand, for environmentalists who use this island's alleged shrinking as an excuse to promote a political agenda, this is bad news, not good news. They will not celebrate this news. Instead, they will ignore this news, and they will get mad at anyone who does bring this news to their attention.


https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pacifi...on-bigger.html

'Sinking' Pacific nation is getting bigger: study

February 9, 2018

The Pacific nation of Tuvalu—long seen as a prime candidate to disappear as climate change forces up sea levels—is actually growing in size, new research shows.

A University of Auckland study examined changes in the geography of Tuvalu's nine atolls and 101 reef islands between 1971 and 2014, using aerial photographs and satellite imagery.

It found eight of the atolls and almost three-quarters of the islands grew during the study period, lifting Tuvalu's total land area by 2.9 percent, even though sea levels in the country rose at twice the global average.

Co-author Paul Kench said the research, published Friday in the journal Nature Communications, challenged the assumption that low-lying island nations would be swamped as the sea rose.

"We tend to think of Pacific atolls as static landforms that will simply be inundated as sea levels rise, but there is growing evidence these islands are geologically dynamic and are constantly changing," he said.

"The study findings may seem counter-intuitive, given that (the) sea level has been rising in the region over the past half century, but the dominant mode of change over that time on Tuvalu has been expansion, not erosion."

It found factors such as wave patterns and sediment dumped by storms could offset the erosion caused by rising water levels.

The Auckland team says climate change remains one of the major threats to low-lying island nations.

But it argues the study should prompt a rethink on how such countries respond to the problem.

Rather than accepting their homes are doomed and looking to migrate to countries such as Australia and New Zealand, the researchers say they should start planning for a long-term future.


"On the basis of this research we project a markedly different trajectory for Tuvalu's islands over the next century than is commonly envisaged," Kench said.

"While we recognise that habitability rests on a number of factors, loss of land is unlikely to be a factor in forcing depopulation of Tuvalu."

The study's authors said island nations needed to find creative solutions to adapt to climate change that take into account their homeland's evolving geography.

Suggestions included moving populations onto larger islands and atolls, which have proved the most stable and likely to grow as seas rise.

"Embracing such new adaptation pathways will present considerable national scale challenges to planning, development goals and land tenure systems," they said.

"However, as the data on island change shows there is time (decades) to confront these challenges."

maxfisher 02-09-18 03:33 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by grundle (Post 13266095)
On the one hand, this is good news for anyone who has been truly worried that the land area of the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu was getting smaller due to the rising sea level caused by global warming. Although the sea level is indeed rising due to global warming, wave patterns and sediment dumped by storms have actually caused the land area to get bigger.

On the other hand, for environmentalists who use this island's alleged shrinking as an excuse to promote a political agenda, this is bad news, not good news. They will not celebrate this news. Instead, they will ignore this news, and they will get mad at anyone who does bring this news to their attention.

In other news, Bob Gunderson was told that his stage 4 pancreatic cancer would cause weight loss before killing him. Although his cancer is still there and causing some other issues, he's actually gained some weight. Bob's family will not celebrate this news, and they will get mad at anyone who brings it to their attention.

grundle 02-09-18 04:51 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by maxfisher (Post 13266168)
In other news, Bob Gunderson was told that his stage 4 pancreatic cancer would cause weight loss before killing him. Although his cancer is still there and causing some other issues, he's actually gained some weight. Bob's family will not celebrate this news, and they will get mad at anyone who brings it to their attention.


It's not the same.

The doomsayers said Tuvalu's land area was shrinking. But it actually got bigger. So a better analogy would be if the cancer went away, and in fact, became negative cancer.

grundle 02-09-18 05:49 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
Recycling of household garbage uses more resources than it saves.

Over the next 1,000 years, all of our garbage in the U.S. would fit into one square landfill that is only 35 miles on each side.

Today's modern landfills are well sealed and environmentally safe.

When today's landfills are full, they get turned into parks and golf courses.

Glass is made from sand. Sand is made from rocks. We are not running out of rocks.

Paper comes from tree farms, and is completely renewable. Paper companies plant more trees than they cut down.

Plastic can be made from any organic material. We can't run out of organic material.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/30/ma...s-garbage.html


Draven 02-09-18 05:54 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by grundle (Post 13266248)
Recycling of household garbage uses more resources than it saves.

Over the next 1,000 years, all of our in the U.S. garbage would fit in one square landfill that is only 35 miles on each side.

Today's modern landfills are well sealed and environmentally safe.

When today's landfills are full, they get turned into parks and golf courses.

Glass is made from sand. Sand is made from rocks. We are not running out of rocks.

Paper comes from tree farms, and is completely renewable.

Plastic can be made from any organic material. We can't run out of organic material.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/30/ma...s-garbage.html

A timely report (from 1996).

Your analysis is overly simplistic, as always.

And here's more about the author of that piece, John Tierney, who seems to have a bit of an axe to grind.


His column about New York, "The Big City", ran in the New York Times Magazine and the Metro section from 1994 to 2002. His criticism of rent stabilization, the war on drugs, Amtrak and compulsory recycling, have been described as questioning "some of the complacent shibboleths of urban liberalism". His 1996 article "Recycling Is Garbage" broke the New York Times Magazine's hate mail record and was praised by libertarians for bringing "libertarian ideas to America's big-government bible". Critics complained that in the article he quoted "not a single representative of the recycling industry", but did cite the head of "an environmental consulting business for hire to solid waste companies". In a 2001 column Tierney cited a study suggesting that global warming would boost the U.S. economy.

Psi 02-09-18 05:57 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
It's like saying that almost everything is made of atoms, and we'll never run out of atoms.

grundle 02-09-18 07:43 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by Draven (Post 13266250)
A timely report (from 1996).

Your analysis is overly simplistic, as always.

And here's more about the author of that piece, John Tierney, who seems to have a bit of an axe to grind.


So are you saying that glass is not actually made from sand?

grundle 02-09-18 07:45 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by Psi (Post 13266252)
It's like saying that almost everything is made of atoms, and we'll never run out of atoms.


Not exactly. It's cost effective to turn sand into glass, but it's not cost effective to turn lead into gold.

At least not yet.

SFX 03-04-18 03:12 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
Authorities in the UK are warning right now there may be a 100 deaths a day from global warming.



No wait, it's from freezing to death.

SFX 03-04-18 03:13 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
Freezing to death in heavy snow, it's the new global warming.

smg669 03-06-18 12:22 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by SFX (Post 13283087)
Freezing to death in heavy snow, it's the new global warming.

We're so glad you recently joined the forum. Otherwise we would have missed out on your discerning, nuanced commentary. Bravo, sir!

Psi 03-07-18 06:24 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
Why recycle? We can always make more.



Troy Stiffler 03-07-18 06:43 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
I wish plastic were more recyclable. It has a very low recover rate.

Basically, our only process for recycling plastic is to clean it, shred it, and use it again. But any contaminants make it useless. The reclaim rate is something like 3%. They don't even want, for example, a Starbucks plastic cup - because it has the sticker on it. If it has a special coating on it, it's non-recyclable.

On the other hand, we have glass, cardboard, and paper to where it's virtually 100% reclaim rate.

We've found second life for scrap textiles and rubber tires (in manufacturing pavement). I hope we figure out plastic.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:04 PM.


Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.