@four_legs_good said in #30:
> Not it's not. It's Bételgeuse. Un bételgeur, une bételgeuse.
I see. So it's not Betelgoise.
> Not it's not. It's Bételgeuse. Un bételgeur, une bételgeuse.
I see. So it's not Betelgoise.
You guys are both Betelnuts.
I relish my every brush with extraordinary coincidence! Certainly, I understand that one can argue convincingly that it's not so astonishing as one might think when somebody wins the lottery twice. My level of mathematical sophistication exceeds that of processed food.
Yet it tickles me each time a startling coincidence occurs. Indeed, it feels a bit like Christmas to me. So imagine how tickled I was when, after watching several-years'-worth of "Young Sheldon" recently, one of my posts was answered in a fashion that would do justice to the writing of Young Sheldon himself (which may no doubt be attributed to some extent to one or more apparently brilliant writers who will likely never get sufficient credit, since "sufficient" would require that it include some sort of parade through a large city, and perhaps some sort of medal from the president).
I am not being sarcastic here: I really appreciate brilliant writing and was quite happy to encounter some in that response to my earlier post. And that the series "Young Sheldon" shows off some brilliant script writing seems self-evident.
My post also received a horsey. Which was nice, too!
So thank you, @Thalassokrator and @david20130321 for taking the trouble to respond so wisely and well!
To be clear, I also find it unlikely that a variable red supergiant with a fickle magnitude (and a domineering presence in the near-infrared wavelengths) could support the rise of life forms during its all-too-brief lifespan.
And similarly, I also find it unlikely that the growing mass of industrial humanity could have no concern-causing effects on our environment and, more specifically, upon the ability of our atmosphere to remain comfortably unchanged indefinitely.
But I must point out that there are other causes for concern, whose solution is, for the time being, genuinely at odds with the solutions to some other problems. Life is a balancing act, during which we must walk, chew gum, stay fed, heated, moving and illuminated all at the same time. Or within the same reasonably narrow time frame.
For the time being, and in the intermediate term, all of those things cannot be accomplished without doing many things that will cause us concern about climate change. If we did none of them, there would be a great deal of genuine discomfort of a different sort, not to mention a possible collapse of civilization and mass death.
Most people understand this, so perhaps I am giving singing lessons to a choir. I certainly don't need to inform China, for example, since they purportedly continue to use coal and build coal-burning power plants.
Does this mean that the Chinese are uninformed or foolish? I don't think so at all! To the contrary, they are probably just using intelligence to try to balance their practical needs -- the need to prevent climate collapse and the need to walk, chew gum or some gum substitute, not starve, not freeze, and read by something other than candlelight at night. No, wait, burning candles, too, emit greenhouse gases. So they couldn't burn candles, either, if their concerns were entirely unidimensional.
My main point is this: wishful thinking cuts both ways. It would be wishful thinking to believe we can ignore climate change. It would be wishful thinking to believe climate change is all that we can worry about, and that we can, in the near or intermediate term, safely and abruptly stop the use of many current technologies (even relatively pacific ones, like fertilizers) and not also find ourselves in a catastrophic pickle.
For example, moonlight seems to remain stubbornly insufficient to power whole nations. But in nearly any given locale, and within practical energy transmission range of that locale, we are saddled with mere moonlight during much of the month. And what about those times when even the moon deserts us, and even the wind refuses to cooperatively blow? I guess we could resort to nuclear power! Oh, wait, nuclear power produces by-products that are also not favored by many of the concerned, and such plants seem to haunt some of their dreams with scary visions of leakage or explosion.
In short, nothing's perfect. And we must balance our needs and concerns.
The good news is that that seems to be what the world is doing! Genuine experts and informed regulators in many places are moving toward solutions, while at the same time trying to keep things from going bad. And so far, many, I'd even say most, seem to have been doing well. I actually have faith in scientists, engineers and regulators, collectively. We've confronted a lot of challenges in the past, and we've gotten through all of them so far. There are even footprints on the moon!
I can't be sure of that, of course. But a swallow of optimism is nevertheless often a wise tonic. After all, last time I looked, nobody was water-skiing in downtown New York. Despite now decades of concern. Indeed, last time I looked, I couldn't see any visible change in the ocean's water level, at least not by gazing out toward the shoreline. If you truly can, please let me know by a responding post in this thread. But please be prepared to show some real data. And understand that, as I here use the term, "visible" from any reasonably substantial distance is probably not measured using mere millimeters, unless your eyes are very, very good. And perhaps they are!
We need to take care and be concerned and do our best. But I don't believe life on Earth is ending any time soon. For the vast majority of us, I mean. After all, I'm no spring chicken.
Yet it tickles me each time a startling coincidence occurs. Indeed, it feels a bit like Christmas to me. So imagine how tickled I was when, after watching several-years'-worth of "Young Sheldon" recently, one of my posts was answered in a fashion that would do justice to the writing of Young Sheldon himself (which may no doubt be attributed to some extent to one or more apparently brilliant writers who will likely never get sufficient credit, since "sufficient" would require that it include some sort of parade through a large city, and perhaps some sort of medal from the president).
I am not being sarcastic here: I really appreciate brilliant writing and was quite happy to encounter some in that response to my earlier post. And that the series "Young Sheldon" shows off some brilliant script writing seems self-evident.
My post also received a horsey. Which was nice, too!
So thank you, @Thalassokrator and @david20130321 for taking the trouble to respond so wisely and well!
To be clear, I also find it unlikely that a variable red supergiant with a fickle magnitude (and a domineering presence in the near-infrared wavelengths) could support the rise of life forms during its all-too-brief lifespan.
And similarly, I also find it unlikely that the growing mass of industrial humanity could have no concern-causing effects on our environment and, more specifically, upon the ability of our atmosphere to remain comfortably unchanged indefinitely.
But I must point out that there are other causes for concern, whose solution is, for the time being, genuinely at odds with the solutions to some other problems. Life is a balancing act, during which we must walk, chew gum, stay fed, heated, moving and illuminated all at the same time. Or within the same reasonably narrow time frame.
For the time being, and in the intermediate term, all of those things cannot be accomplished without doing many things that will cause us concern about climate change. If we did none of them, there would be a great deal of genuine discomfort of a different sort, not to mention a possible collapse of civilization and mass death.
Most people understand this, so perhaps I am giving singing lessons to a choir. I certainly don't need to inform China, for example, since they purportedly continue to use coal and build coal-burning power plants.
Does this mean that the Chinese are uninformed or foolish? I don't think so at all! To the contrary, they are probably just using intelligence to try to balance their practical needs -- the need to prevent climate collapse and the need to walk, chew gum or some gum substitute, not starve, not freeze, and read by something other than candlelight at night. No, wait, burning candles, too, emit greenhouse gases. So they couldn't burn candles, either, if their concerns were entirely unidimensional.
My main point is this: wishful thinking cuts both ways. It would be wishful thinking to believe we can ignore climate change. It would be wishful thinking to believe climate change is all that we can worry about, and that we can, in the near or intermediate term, safely and abruptly stop the use of many current technologies (even relatively pacific ones, like fertilizers) and not also find ourselves in a catastrophic pickle.
For example, moonlight seems to remain stubbornly insufficient to power whole nations. But in nearly any given locale, and within practical energy transmission range of that locale, we are saddled with mere moonlight during much of the month. And what about those times when even the moon deserts us, and even the wind refuses to cooperatively blow? I guess we could resort to nuclear power! Oh, wait, nuclear power produces by-products that are also not favored by many of the concerned, and such plants seem to haunt some of their dreams with scary visions of leakage or explosion.
In short, nothing's perfect. And we must balance our needs and concerns.
The good news is that that seems to be what the world is doing! Genuine experts and informed regulators in many places are moving toward solutions, while at the same time trying to keep things from going bad. And so far, many, I'd even say most, seem to have been doing well. I actually have faith in scientists, engineers and regulators, collectively. We've confronted a lot of challenges in the past, and we've gotten through all of them so far. There are even footprints on the moon!
I can't be sure of that, of course. But a swallow of optimism is nevertheless often a wise tonic. After all, last time I looked, nobody was water-skiing in downtown New York. Despite now decades of concern. Indeed, last time I looked, I couldn't see any visible change in the ocean's water level, at least not by gazing out toward the shoreline. If you truly can, please let me know by a responding post in this thread. But please be prepared to show some real data. And understand that, as I here use the term, "visible" from any reasonably substantial distance is probably not measured using mere millimeters, unless your eyes are very, very good. And perhaps they are!
We need to take care and be concerned and do our best. But I don't believe life on Earth is ending any time soon. For the vast majority of us, I mean. After all, I'm no spring chicken.
Beatleguise
@MrPushwood said in #32:
> You guys are both Betelnuts.
All 30 earlier comments were made by both guys only?
> You guys are both Betelnuts.
All 30 earlier comments were made by both guys only?
Possibilities
Thanks for the measured response!
@Noflaps said in #33:
> I can't be sure of that, of course. But a swallow of optimism is nevertheless often a wise tonic.
I tend to agree.
> After all, last time I looked, nobody was water-skiing in downtown New York. Despite now decades of concern. Indeed, last time I looked, I couldn't see any visible change in the ocean's water level, at least not by gazing out toward the shoreline. If you truly can, please let me know by a responding post in this thread. But please be prepared to show some real data. And understand that, as I here use the term, "visible" from any reasonably substantial distance is probably not measured using mere millimeters, unless your eyes are very, very good. And perhaps they are!
I respectfully disagree, this is where our stances diverge. Don't get me wrong, I am certainly sympathetic to the way hearing about such claims over and over from the media (well, certain media in particular) can make you feel and being kind of "disappointed" when reality doesn't hold up to the catastrophic predictions. When Florida isn't under water yet as has seemingly been promised (it hasn't). I get that!
But there's a really simple reason for that. And it's largely NOT that scientists are bad at their jobs and keep predicting catastrophes that never occur for attention.
It's that climate scientists create ensemble forecasts that range from very optimistic to very pessimistic scenarios. And they obviously transparently show what their model says is the most realistic scenario given the current trajectory. Meta analyses (a class of scientific papers that compile, analyze and compare the results of a great many individual papers in order to gauge the entire body of research instead of individual studies only) show that those "most likely" model predictions (the average of the ensemble) have been matching observations very well and have predicted warming skillfully. Source:
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378
But are those (average of the ensemble predictions) the ones you are most likely to hear about in the media? No.
The most dramatic and therefore the most catastrophic and pessimistic predictions get the most attention. Either by well meaning journalists who recognize the threat (to our way of life and our civilization) posed by climate change just want to get the urgency across (in comparatively good faith but doing their own cause a disservice) or by scrupulous journalists who only care about the number of sold newspapers or clicks and therefore make use of as much clickbait and sensationalist headlines as possible.
Or (sometimes) by people who literally want to paint climate science in a bad light by cherry picking the most extreme predictions out of the models, not mentioning the context (claiming this is "the prediction" when it's only a small part of an ensemble of predictions) and then feigning outrage about how "wrong all of those predictions were, Mike, I tell ya, they said Florida would be underwater by now, clearly these hack 'scientists' are only in it for the money, fear mongers through and through, they don't know what they're doing at all!". Florida is only an illustrative example here, this is not supposed to be a dig at American politics/media per se, the same arguments float around Europe and Australia and most of the globe.
The bias of reporting on more extreme results of individual studies (instead of a balanced overview over the entire body of research) is extremely prevalent in all sorts of media outlets on the left AND on the right. Only a few newspapers would dare publish an article about a meta analysis ("That's boring, nobody wants to read that.", the editor might say) and when they do (some quality newspapers do), such articles do not generate a lot of buzz because of the measured and balanced take on the matter (and the technical language). Hardly anybody gets riled up about a meta-analysis or a cautiously worded IPCC report (at least not because of reading it themselves).
This video is worth a watch in that regard:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4zul0BuO8A
Unfortunately the most likely scenarios are cause of enough concern already:
> If you truly can, please let me know by a responding post in this thread. But please be prepared to show some real data. And understand that, as I here use the term, "visible" from any reasonably substantial distance is probably not measured using mere millimeters, unless your eyes are very, very good.
I certainly can provide you with some data:
"Global mean sea level (GMSL) is rising (virtually certain) and accelerating (high confidence). The sum of glacier and ice sheet contributions is now the dominant source of GMSL rise (very high confidence). GMSL from tide gauges and altimetry observations increased from 1.4 mm per year over the period 1901–1990 to 2.1 mm per year over the period 1970–2015 to 3.2 mm per year over the period 1993–2015 to 3.6 mm per year over the period 2006–2015 (high confidence). The dominant cause of GMSL rise since 1970 is anthropogenic forcing (high confidence)."
Those are the words of the executive summary of chapter 4 "Sea Level Rise and Implications for Low-Lying Islands, Coasts and Communities" of the 2022 IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate:
www.cambridge.org/core/books/ocean-and-cryosphere-in-a-changing-climate/sea-level-rise-and-implications-for-lowlying-islands-coasts-and-communities/5D756335C9C3A6DDFAE0219073349E8D#
Here are some nice visualizations:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
The rate of change is now (2013-2022) at 4.62 mm per year. So it's still accelerating.
public-old.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/wmo-annual-report-highlights-continuous-advance-of-climate-change
The global mean sea level (GMSL) has risen about 25 centimeters (10 inches) since the 1880s. No, I cannot see this change with my own eyes. Neither am I more than 143 years old (and can remember) nor are human eyes the best measurement device to determine the GMSL. Climate proxies, tide gauges and satellite measurements are much more suitable for that task.
You wouldn't try studying bacteria or distant galaxies with your bare eyes either, would you? Why then must the GMSL rise be visible to your naked eye to be relevant? That the global mean is rising also does not imply that this change is equal everywhere. Some places (geographically) are much more prone to sea level rise while others experience little rise due to their geographical location. Some places have huge tides, others don't have very noticeable tides.
Finally sea level rise is neither the only nor the worst consequence of anthropogenic climate change. And it's lagging behind the temperature change (there's some delay between anthropogenic forcing, temperature rise and sea level rise), so it doesn't make for a very good early warning sign.
> We need to take care and be concerned and do our best.
I fully agree!
> But I don't believe life on Earth is ending any time soon.
Neither do I. Life as a whole, certainly unicellular life, is not at risk of dying out any time soon. Climate change is obviously not remotely like the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event (the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs). But many catastrophes more harmless than a mass extinction are still worth worrying about. At the moment, in my mind, climate change is the most pressing. Number one on the list. Not the only one of course, but the most immediate and dangerous.
If we don't act now, our way of life and in an extreme scenario even our civilization might be in jeopardy. Certainly the effects of climate change are already being felt today: With more frequent and more extreme weather events around the globe. Destruction of habitats that has already begun. Making the emergence of zoonotic diseases more and more likely. These effects are only going to get worse and worse (and will cost more and more) until we do something about it. And it starts with energy generation, heat, transportation, manufacturing and buildings. Those are the five human activities that emit the largest amounts of CO2 (ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector) meaning we need to reduce their emissions first:
- sustainable energy (a mix of solar, wind, hydro where possible, a mix of local – consumer based – energy generation and centralized energy generation, massive amounts of energy storage either in batteries, as hydrogen or as potential energy, some amount of nuclear energy in order to ensure the stability of the grid)
- gradual electrification of transport and more importantly extension of public transport, building more bike and pedestrian infrastructure, drastically reducing congestion and emissions
- developing techniques of less carbon intensive manufacturing, hydrogen as industrial fuel
- alternatives to concrete as a building material
It can be done. Individual consumers are not entirely irrelevant of course, but not nearly as relevant as oil companies like BP have tried to make them out to be. Calculating your personal carbon footprint was a marketing idea of the oil corporation BP in 2005, trying to shift the blame to choices made by individuals: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint#Shifting_responsibility_from_corporations_to_individuals
They just want to distract from the systemic issue and the crucial part they play in it. Don't let them.
Currently there are more fossil fuel lobbyists (record numbers) at this year's COP28 climate conference than delegates from the ten countries most affected by climate change combined: www.npr.org/2023/12/07/1217504214/a-record-number-of-fossil-fuel-reps-at-cop28-climate-talks
And the previous record is from last year's conference: www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/10/big-rise-in-number-of-fossil-fuel-lobbyists-at-cop27-climate-summit
This sector (the fossil fuel industry) will never be environmentally friendly (or not detrimental to human health) and they know it. The have known this since the 1970s (but swept their own research under the rug): www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/12/exxon-climate-change-global-warming-research
They are pushing hard against anything that threatens their business. The people in charge of these corporation simply don't care about (or are in denial about) the human suffering, excess deaths (massive amounts of air pollution cause lung diseases: ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh) and destruction of habitats they are causing. Please don't adopt their indifference.
@Noflaps said in #33:
> I can't be sure of that, of course. But a swallow of optimism is nevertheless often a wise tonic.
I tend to agree.
> After all, last time I looked, nobody was water-skiing in downtown New York. Despite now decades of concern. Indeed, last time I looked, I couldn't see any visible change in the ocean's water level, at least not by gazing out toward the shoreline. If you truly can, please let me know by a responding post in this thread. But please be prepared to show some real data. And understand that, as I here use the term, "visible" from any reasonably substantial distance is probably not measured using mere millimeters, unless your eyes are very, very good. And perhaps they are!
I respectfully disagree, this is where our stances diverge. Don't get me wrong, I am certainly sympathetic to the way hearing about such claims over and over from the media (well, certain media in particular) can make you feel and being kind of "disappointed" when reality doesn't hold up to the catastrophic predictions. When Florida isn't under water yet as has seemingly been promised (it hasn't). I get that!
But there's a really simple reason for that. And it's largely NOT that scientists are bad at their jobs and keep predicting catastrophes that never occur for attention.
It's that climate scientists create ensemble forecasts that range from very optimistic to very pessimistic scenarios. And they obviously transparently show what their model says is the most realistic scenario given the current trajectory. Meta analyses (a class of scientific papers that compile, analyze and compare the results of a great many individual papers in order to gauge the entire body of research instead of individual studies only) show that those "most likely" model predictions (the average of the ensemble) have been matching observations very well and have predicted warming skillfully. Source:
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378
But are those (average of the ensemble predictions) the ones you are most likely to hear about in the media? No.
The most dramatic and therefore the most catastrophic and pessimistic predictions get the most attention. Either by well meaning journalists who recognize the threat (to our way of life and our civilization) posed by climate change just want to get the urgency across (in comparatively good faith but doing their own cause a disservice) or by scrupulous journalists who only care about the number of sold newspapers or clicks and therefore make use of as much clickbait and sensationalist headlines as possible.
Or (sometimes) by people who literally want to paint climate science in a bad light by cherry picking the most extreme predictions out of the models, not mentioning the context (claiming this is "the prediction" when it's only a small part of an ensemble of predictions) and then feigning outrage about how "wrong all of those predictions were, Mike, I tell ya, they said Florida would be underwater by now, clearly these hack 'scientists' are only in it for the money, fear mongers through and through, they don't know what they're doing at all!". Florida is only an illustrative example here, this is not supposed to be a dig at American politics/media per se, the same arguments float around Europe and Australia and most of the globe.
The bias of reporting on more extreme results of individual studies (instead of a balanced overview over the entire body of research) is extremely prevalent in all sorts of media outlets on the left AND on the right. Only a few newspapers would dare publish an article about a meta analysis ("That's boring, nobody wants to read that.", the editor might say) and when they do (some quality newspapers do), such articles do not generate a lot of buzz because of the measured and balanced take on the matter (and the technical language). Hardly anybody gets riled up about a meta-analysis or a cautiously worded IPCC report (at least not because of reading it themselves).
This video is worth a watch in that regard:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4zul0BuO8A
Unfortunately the most likely scenarios are cause of enough concern already:
> If you truly can, please let me know by a responding post in this thread. But please be prepared to show some real data. And understand that, as I here use the term, "visible" from any reasonably substantial distance is probably not measured using mere millimeters, unless your eyes are very, very good.
I certainly can provide you with some data:
"Global mean sea level (GMSL) is rising (virtually certain) and accelerating (high confidence). The sum of glacier and ice sheet contributions is now the dominant source of GMSL rise (very high confidence). GMSL from tide gauges and altimetry observations increased from 1.4 mm per year over the period 1901–1990 to 2.1 mm per year over the period 1970–2015 to 3.2 mm per year over the period 1993–2015 to 3.6 mm per year over the period 2006–2015 (high confidence). The dominant cause of GMSL rise since 1970 is anthropogenic forcing (high confidence)."
Those are the words of the executive summary of chapter 4 "Sea Level Rise and Implications for Low-Lying Islands, Coasts and Communities" of the 2022 IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate:
www.cambridge.org/core/books/ocean-and-cryosphere-in-a-changing-climate/sea-level-rise-and-implications-for-lowlying-islands-coasts-and-communities/5D756335C9C3A6DDFAE0219073349E8D#
Here are some nice visualizations:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
The rate of change is now (2013-2022) at 4.62 mm per year. So it's still accelerating.
public-old.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/wmo-annual-report-highlights-continuous-advance-of-climate-change
The global mean sea level (GMSL) has risen about 25 centimeters (10 inches) since the 1880s. No, I cannot see this change with my own eyes. Neither am I more than 143 years old (and can remember) nor are human eyes the best measurement device to determine the GMSL. Climate proxies, tide gauges and satellite measurements are much more suitable for that task.
You wouldn't try studying bacteria or distant galaxies with your bare eyes either, would you? Why then must the GMSL rise be visible to your naked eye to be relevant? That the global mean is rising also does not imply that this change is equal everywhere. Some places (geographically) are much more prone to sea level rise while others experience little rise due to their geographical location. Some places have huge tides, others don't have very noticeable tides.
Finally sea level rise is neither the only nor the worst consequence of anthropogenic climate change. And it's lagging behind the temperature change (there's some delay between anthropogenic forcing, temperature rise and sea level rise), so it doesn't make for a very good early warning sign.
> We need to take care and be concerned and do our best.
I fully agree!
> But I don't believe life on Earth is ending any time soon.
Neither do I. Life as a whole, certainly unicellular life, is not at risk of dying out any time soon. Climate change is obviously not remotely like the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event (the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs). But many catastrophes more harmless than a mass extinction are still worth worrying about. At the moment, in my mind, climate change is the most pressing. Number one on the list. Not the only one of course, but the most immediate and dangerous.
If we don't act now, our way of life and in an extreme scenario even our civilization might be in jeopardy. Certainly the effects of climate change are already being felt today: With more frequent and more extreme weather events around the globe. Destruction of habitats that has already begun. Making the emergence of zoonotic diseases more and more likely. These effects are only going to get worse and worse (and will cost more and more) until we do something about it. And it starts with energy generation, heat, transportation, manufacturing and buildings. Those are the five human activities that emit the largest amounts of CO2 (ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector) meaning we need to reduce their emissions first:
- sustainable energy (a mix of solar, wind, hydro where possible, a mix of local – consumer based – energy generation and centralized energy generation, massive amounts of energy storage either in batteries, as hydrogen or as potential energy, some amount of nuclear energy in order to ensure the stability of the grid)
- gradual electrification of transport and more importantly extension of public transport, building more bike and pedestrian infrastructure, drastically reducing congestion and emissions
- developing techniques of less carbon intensive manufacturing, hydrogen as industrial fuel
- alternatives to concrete as a building material
It can be done. Individual consumers are not entirely irrelevant of course, but not nearly as relevant as oil companies like BP have tried to make them out to be. Calculating your personal carbon footprint was a marketing idea of the oil corporation BP in 2005, trying to shift the blame to choices made by individuals: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint#Shifting_responsibility_from_corporations_to_individuals
They just want to distract from the systemic issue and the crucial part they play in it. Don't let them.
Currently there are more fossil fuel lobbyists (record numbers) at this year's COP28 climate conference than delegates from the ten countries most affected by climate change combined: www.npr.org/2023/12/07/1217504214/a-record-number-of-fossil-fuel-reps-at-cop28-climate-talks
And the previous record is from last year's conference: www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/10/big-rise-in-number-of-fossil-fuel-lobbyists-at-cop27-climate-summit
This sector (the fossil fuel industry) will never be environmentally friendly (or not detrimental to human health) and they know it. The have known this since the 1970s (but swept their own research under the rug): www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/12/exxon-climate-change-global-warming-research
They are pushing hard against anything that threatens their business. The people in charge of these corporation simply don't care about (or are in denial about) the human suffering, excess deaths (massive amounts of air pollution cause lung diseases: ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh) and destruction of habitats they are causing. Please don't adopt their indifference.
Although I don't wish to be contentious, and with all due respect, I do not typically think of famous politicians who majored in government in college as "scientists." And if they announce that New York will be underwater relatively soon, I break out grains of salt. For many years now, I have apparently not been wrong in thinking that things are not remotely as desperate as some like to claim.
Nevertheless, based merely on my readings of his or her posts, and the fact that I have no indication that @Thalassokrator is a politician, I respect @Thalassokrator and take his or her writing and concern seriously.
I believe I need to clarify something, however.
3.62 mm per year is about 14 inches per century. So 100 years from now -- a full century from now -- when nearly all of us are long dead -- if you're standing on the edge of an Atlantic harbor, and if such a rate of sea level rise and my underlying units conversion calculation is correct, then you might notice a difference in the sea level. Will it be a sufficient difference to justify making an enormous number of people suffer or even die, in order to avoid that difference by implementing extreme solutions now?
Really stop and think about that. If we stopped ALL extraction of petroleum and fossil fuels now, it would be disastrous,
Indeed, most people have no idea how many products (besides just fuel) are made with petroleum. If I took a lot of time to type the list, you'd quickly see that there are many products on the list which we must have. Don't believe me. Just go on the internet and search, diligently. Don't expect such things to show up in the first few hits, though. That may be another story.
And indeed, much of our "renewable energy" relies upon the availability of petroleum and fossil fuel for manufacture and inevitable backup. Again, don't believe me. Research it. What do you think goes on when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow?
The extent to which we genuinely depend, in a really big, big way, upon petroleum and fossil fuels and mining is not sufficiently appreciated, and is certainly not publicized much, apparently because it strays from a popular and desired viewpoint.
I'm not trying to pretend that climate change is a hoax, or that we need not continue to work on the problem. But I don't think you should make the mistake of thinking that we could just depend upon renewables immediately or in the short run if only greedy people would stop trying to make a profit (gasp) by extracting things from mother nature.
Because I think you'll find, if you REALLY look into it, that that is not remotely true. Right now, the extractive industries (mining and petroleum extraction) are keeping civilization alive, even if you don't realize it. And by "you" I mean anyone who doesn't realize it.
Again, China is purportedly building and operating coal plants, even though America is shutting down coal plants. I don't think it's because China is foolish or obsessed with "profit." Nope. I think it's more likely because China does a pretty good job of not fooling itself. At least sometimes.
Nevertheless, based merely on my readings of his or her posts, and the fact that I have no indication that @Thalassokrator is a politician, I respect @Thalassokrator and take his or her writing and concern seriously.
I believe I need to clarify something, however.
3.62 mm per year is about 14 inches per century. So 100 years from now -- a full century from now -- when nearly all of us are long dead -- if you're standing on the edge of an Atlantic harbor, and if such a rate of sea level rise and my underlying units conversion calculation is correct, then you might notice a difference in the sea level. Will it be a sufficient difference to justify making an enormous number of people suffer or even die, in order to avoid that difference by implementing extreme solutions now?
Really stop and think about that. If we stopped ALL extraction of petroleum and fossil fuels now, it would be disastrous,
Indeed, most people have no idea how many products (besides just fuel) are made with petroleum. If I took a lot of time to type the list, you'd quickly see that there are many products on the list which we must have. Don't believe me. Just go on the internet and search, diligently. Don't expect such things to show up in the first few hits, though. That may be another story.
And indeed, much of our "renewable energy" relies upon the availability of petroleum and fossil fuel for manufacture and inevitable backup. Again, don't believe me. Research it. What do you think goes on when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow?
The extent to which we genuinely depend, in a really big, big way, upon petroleum and fossil fuels and mining is not sufficiently appreciated, and is certainly not publicized much, apparently because it strays from a popular and desired viewpoint.
I'm not trying to pretend that climate change is a hoax, or that we need not continue to work on the problem. But I don't think you should make the mistake of thinking that we could just depend upon renewables immediately or in the short run if only greedy people would stop trying to make a profit (gasp) by extracting things from mother nature.
Because I think you'll find, if you REALLY look into it, that that is not remotely true. Right now, the extractive industries (mining and petroleum extraction) are keeping civilization alive, even if you don't realize it. And by "you" I mean anyone who doesn't realize it.
Again, China is purportedly building and operating coal plants, even though America is shutting down coal plants. I don't think it's because China is foolish or obsessed with "profit." Nope. I think it's more likely because China does a pretty good job of not fooling itself. At least sometimes.
@pointlesswindows said in #35:
> All 30 earlier comments were made by both guys only?
No. That's why I said "both."
> All 30 earlier comments were made by both guys only?
No. That's why I said "both."
<Comment deleted by user>
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.