@Noflaps said in #38:
> 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.
You're talking about Al Gore, aren't you? Indeed, Gore is not a climate scientist. And his documentary/political speech "An Inconvenient Truth" (2005) – though for the most part accurately describing the then current state of the art of climate science – got several things wrong and in three instances succumbed to sensationalism (Greenland melting, polar bears drowning, island evacuation [the movie implies all of this was happening as of 2005 and/or failed to give the relevant time frame]) and omission of crucial facts. Atmospheric physicist turned science YouTuber Simon Clark has an excellent video about those nine errors of the film if you want to know more.
In my opinion this falls under the "well meaning journalist who recognizes the threat (to our way of life and our civilization) posed by climate change and just wants to get the urgency across (in comparatively good faith but doing their own cause a disservice [by using sensationalism])" I described in my post #37 already. Just replace the word journalist with the word politician. And add in the fact that Gore, perhaps inadvertently, shaped the discourse about climate change along partisan lines, especially in the US, which is absolutely unnecessary and idiotic. The global climate is not a partisan issue. Young democrats, young independents, young republicans will suffer the effects of unabated (or insufficiently abated) climate change equally. Yet Gore somehow managed to at least in part make it about himself and his loss to Bush, thanks Al! It's not about him or any political party. It's about the future and prosperity of humanity as a whole.
> For many years now, I have apparently not been wrong in thinking that things are not remotely as desperate as some like to claim.
You have not been wrong about the most sensationalist horror scenarios not coming true, yes. What does that mean though? That all is fine and dandy? It isn't. Pretty much all of the averages (most likely scenarios) of the ensemble predictions of climate models have come true (agree with observations quite well). And they are alarming enough in their own right.
You're basically saying: "It's not much, much, much worse than climate scientists thought it would be! That means it's not bad!" The second statement doesn't follow from the first. It's exactly as bad as climate scientists thought it would be.
> 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.
Thanks, I appreciate a civil conversation! Indeed I'm not involved in politics.
> 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.
As four_legs_good has rightly pointed out, your assumptions are a bit off. The reason is calculus/kinematics:
Say z_0 = z(t=0) is the global mean sea level at the present time.
z(t) a function of time. Then its first time derivative or rate of change dz/dt is what may be called the velocity v(t) = dz/dt. It's given by the IPCC report as an average velocity within a specified time frame (using calculus you'd need the instantaneous velocity for very accurate results).
The second time derivative of z would be d^2z/dt^2, also called the acceleration a(t) = dv/dt.
What follows is a very rough back of the envelope calculation and all numeric values are truncated (systematically rounded down):
I'll estimate the acceleration as follows. Take the midpoint (arithmetic mean) of the given time frames over which the velocity was averaged as the instantaneous moment at which the velocity was measured:
For the time frame between 1901 and 1990 the midpoint lies at t1 = (1/2)*(1901 + 1990) = 1945.5. Proceed as such:
v(t1) = 1.4 mm/yr: t1 = 1945.5
v(t2) = 2.1 mm/yr: t2 = 1992.5
v(t3) = 3.2 mm/yr: t3 = 2004
v(t4) = 3.6 mm/yr: t4 = 2010.5
v(t5) = 4.62 mm/yr: t5 = 2017.5
Now divide the differences in velocity by the differences in time to get a rough estimate for the acceleration:
dv(I) = (2.1 - 1.4) mm/yr = 0.7 mm/yr and dt(I) = t2 - t1 = 1992.5 - 1945.5 = 47
dv(II) = (3.2 - 2.1) mm/yr = 1.1 mm/yr and dt(II) = t3 - t2 = 2004 - 1992.5 = 11.5
dv(III) = 0.4 mm/yr and dt(III) = 6.5
dv(IV) = 1.02 mm/yr and dt(IV) = 7
a(I) = dv(I)/dt(I) = (0.7 mm/yr)/(47 yr) ≈ 0.014 mm/yr^2
a(II) = dv(II)/dt(II) = (1.1 mm/yr)/(11.5 yr) ≈ 0.095 mm/yr^2
a(III) ≈ 0.061 mm/yr^2
a(IV) ≈ 0.145 mm/yr^2
It appears as though the acceleration is not constant, what a jerk! In order to simplify the subsequent calculation from dynamics to kinematics, we'll assume a constant acceleration. We're interested in the sea level rise over T = 100 years:
∆z(T) = z(t=T) - z(t=0)
When acceleration a is constant the following kinematic equation can be used for the trajectory z(t):
z(t) = z0 + v0 * t + (1/2) * a * t^2,
where z0 = z(t=0) is the global mean sea level at the current time t=0 and v0 = v(t=0) = 4.62 mm/yr is the current rate of change. You apparently used the same v0 and z(t) = z0 + v0 * t, neglecting the acceleration. That equation is not applicable for (uniformly) accelerated motion.
Since we are only interested in ∆z we need not know z0, it cancels out:
∆z(T) = v0 * T + (1/2) * a * T^2
Substituting different values for a into this (more) correct equation, we get:
a = a(I): ∆z(T) = 534 mm = 0.536 m ≈ 21 in (most dated acceleration estimate)
a = a(II): ∆z(T) = 940 mm = 0.94 m ≈ 37 in
a = a(III): ∆z(T) = 769 mm = 0.769 m ≈ 30 in
a = a(IV): ∆z(T) = 1187 mm = 1.18 m ≈ 46.7 in (most recent acceleration estimate)
So much for 14 inches per century. Keep in mind that these back of the envelope calculations (even when considering the acceleration) are very simplistic, there are much more sophisticated methods of determining the acceleration. They also assume a jerk of zero, i.e. a constant acceleration. The acceleration is certainly not constant in practice. The global mean sea level (GMSL) is part of a complex system and for modeling purposes high school mathematics will only take you so far (but it gives you an idea of the order of magnitude).
And to reiterate, the rise of the GMSL is neither the only nor the worst consequence of anthropogenic climate change (although some island nations made up of atolls might disagree).
> 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?
Who says people will suffer and die? Citation needed. If anything it's the continued use of fossil fuels for energy generation that's causing hundreds of thousands of deaths year after year:
ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energyourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-stackedThere are 10,190 TWh of energy production from coal installed worldwide in 2022. There are 24.6 premature deaths per year per terawatt hour installed. This means that there are on the order of 250,000 premature deaths per year due to air pollution by coal power plants alone. Replacing this energy production with renewables would bring this number down to 307 people (assuming 0.03 premature deaths per year per TWh) by the way.
I wasn't calling for the immediate dismantlement of all oil pumps, refineries, gas pipelines, fracking stations or lignite opencast mines.
Perhaps you should read "my" (they are common knowledge, I didn't come up with them originally) suggestions in #37 again and take particular notice of words like 'gradual'.
> Really stop and think about that. If we stopped ALL extraction of petroleum and fossil fuels now, it would be disastrous,
False dichotomy. It's not either stopping ALL fossil fuels at once or letting climate change run its course. Serious strategies exist for gradual phase out of carbon intensive technologies.
> Indeed, most people have no idea how many products (besides just fuel) are made with petroleum.
Actually many people do because oil companies do not tire of reminding them. Supplying elementary schools and high schools with free "informational material". Trying to make little kids sing nursery rhymes like "We need oil, we need gas! Where are the oil products in our class?" No, I haven't made this up (but I wish I had). Petro Pete is a prominent example. Google it.
> 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.
I'm aware of the myriad of uses for hydrocarbons. The fossil fuel industry would probably still be a billion (trillion?) dollar industry even if hydrocarbons weren't used for energy generation and transportation. Even though those other products are only spinoffs and make up a small percentage of the corporations profits. I'm not advocating for a total stop in hydrocarbon production (this would be detrimental due to the prevalence of plastics in areas like medicine). I'm advocating for a gradual phase out of hydrocarbons as fuel and a means for energy generation.
Also, I don't know where you get the idea that such a list would be hard to find. You seem to be implying that there's some censorship going on, please correct me if I'm wrong in that assumption.
I literally googled "products made from oil" and this is the very first thing that popped up, the first hit:
www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/11/f68/Products%20Made%20From%20Oil%20and%20Natural%20Gas%20Infographic.pdfThe list could probably be shortened considerably by replacing all of the consumer products partly made of plastics by the single word plastics.
> 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 lights go out. ;-) No, of course not:
Have you heard of pumped-storage hydroelectricity, nuclear energy, bioenergy, concentrated solar thermal (which heats salts to hundreds of ºF meaning they continue to provide energy even in the dark), high altitude airborne wind energy (high altitude winds are steadier, more persistent and have higher velocity), energy storage as hydrogen or in batteries? Do you seriously believe that people advocating for a gradual phase out of fossil fuels for energy generation have not wasted a single thought on electrical grid stability?
Alternatives to fossil fuels exist and they almost all are cheaper than fossil fuels as well (and still becoming cheaper and cheaper):
ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth> 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.
The dependency is pretty apparent. I haven't said anything against mining by the way, mining for all sorts of resources is essential.
The dependency on fossil fuels has served the previous 5-6 generations (first coal power plant in 1882, generation length 25 years) relatively well (apart from hundreds of thousands of premature deaths due to air pollution each year). It starts really hurting the four generations currently alive. And will continue to hurt the coming generations.
We are now at the critical point where we can still decide how bad we will hurt our children and our children's children.
> I'm not trying to pretend that climate change is a hoax, or that we need not continue to work on the problem.
Good. But we've been saying that for decades now. Without really changing much. Putting our faith in fantasy technologies like "clean coal".
> 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.
Straw man. You are refuting arguments that weren't made, see my response above. Also, where exactly do I object to people making a profit? I object to people making a profit without the slightest consideration for the death and destruction their activity causes (to the environment and their fellow citizens). Not to making a profit per se.
> 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.
Still not about mining at all. Mining is not even in the top 5 carbon emitters.
Also: Things that keep you alive for some time can kill you over time.
> 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.
So you don't worry about climate change because China is still building coal plants? Ever considered that the Chinese leadership might not be an entirely rational actor? When has a decision of theirs ever blown up in their faces later? Their track record so far isn't great:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forwarden.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy 
