We don't have 12 years to stop climate change, we have 12 years to be
- Thread starter Ardeus
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
@Ardeus,
I just have to ask the a few questions based on your various assumptions. Let’s say your understanding of climate change is correct and we have to act today…right this second. Guess what there are several facts that will get in your way.
Fact one: No government on planet Earth exists that has the will, money, science, man power or political currency to affect the massive change in direction you assert is necessary today or in the foreseeable future. There is no one body of political power that can bring about the rapid changes on a world-wide scale you assert are necessary. So really where is the solution to all this back and forth discussion?
Fact two: Even if you could build a coalition of the willing you would still need the science to actually know how to reverse climate change and have the technical expertise and infrastructure to accomplish the goal today. To this day no one has the ability to affect weather change by scientific manipulation. So, there is that problem. Not to mention there are as many theories about climate change and its source as demonstrated by the discussion of the “settled science” you so mystically believe in. Since no one can agree as to the problem the solution is just as elusive period. Let’s add to that the fact that many sources like wind power and solar actually require outside power sources and fossil fuels to get them to operate properly so they are still dependent on fossil fuels and its by products.
Fact three: This program would kill millions of people as they starved to death as you implemented a complete ban on fossil fuels and their use in all means of travel and agriculture. This would only leave the incredibly rich who can afford to adapt quickly to survive. Is that your end goal? Is that the solution you imagine? Economies would collapse, people would take to the streets like the Yellow Vests in France but on a global scale like you have never seen. I would suggest it would be more like the French Revolution when blood ran in the streets as anyone and everyone who was suspicious would meet Madam Guillotine again. Is that the outcome you would like? Chaos just total chaos with no one strong enough to control the situation and no buy in from the people of planet Earth.
Fact four: Emerging countries would be left out of the mix of survivors since they depend even more on the current energy sources available to them today just to survive in our global economy. They honestly don’t have a power grid that works reliably and in many parts of the world the only source is fossil fuel often brought in from out side the country. How about them? Is it a case of it just sucks to be you if you are one of the billions of people who are not in the elite?
Fact five: Battery powered cars, planes, buses, ships, and all types of locomotion still depend on fossil fuels to make the components, charge the batteries and deliver the products. And the current technology can only imagine the production of most of these necessary items. It is also a known fact that many of the batteries are a toxic waste that we are not even able to re-cycle at this time. So, what do we do with the technology until we can handle the waste? How many unintended consequences will we suffer by jumping to a very young and immature industry as our main source? Again, we are just now entering into the use of these energy sources and so far, the net impact is negative as far as the actual dependence on fossil fuels.
Fact six: Most countries are going away from nuclear power as a possible source since there is a problem with control and disposal of the waste generated. Yet, at this time this is actually the most developed and known alternative to fossil fuel for power generation. It is just not politically accepted because of the waste problem.
Fact six: Not one of the scientists, politicians, business leaders, government leaders or others has enough buy-in to actually stop using homes, computer, cars, planes, helicopters, ships, trains, plastics, or other fossil fuel defendant items to even act as anything less than a hypocrite. Just look at their consumption and fossil fuel carbon foot prints and stop lecturing the rest of us about how bad we are. Al Gore is one of the worst offenders as his carbon foot print makes hundreds of people look like small little candles versus his rocket engine of consumption. Now that is an “Inconvenient Truth” if I have ever seen one. He is joined by the Hollywood elites who jet off to London on a shopping spree or down to Australia for a vacation in private jets. Then they have the temerity to lecture us through individuals who have bought their hypocrisy hook, line, and sinker. There is a reason they are called actors and not academics. Just let that thought sink in for a minute. It should a least make you squirm a little.
Fact seven: The global climate change is about money and political power and who will wield it for the next century period. A tax given to any government will be wasted through graft, waste, and outright ignorance as we have witnessed in all our time on planet Earth. This will only transfer wealth from those who generate it to those who will of course use it for their own purposes. Read history for a primer on what I am saying here and follow the money.
Fact eight: There are no human solutions to this problem. Yes, I agree with you our world is dying. But humans are powerless to prevent it. It is beyond our ability to control or command. Science does not even know how to ask the right questions when we are willing to spend $100,000 on a study to see if Sunfish get drunk. Yes, it actually happened Google it for yourself.
I believe there is a solution but people think Science is a religion and are consumed with worshiping at the altar of self-determination and self-interest. Many have bought the lie of survival of the fittest. People who think that they have the answers and ability to correct the path we are on if only we would give them all our money. Nothing is further from the truth. There is an answer but many are not interested in the actual truth in this situation. You don’t even consider the actual cost from beginning to end of your assumptions. This is why Science is a terrible religion because it offers no hope or solutions. It only offers doom and death. Sorry if millions or billions of us disagree with the assumptions.
P.S. I am still waiting for the Ice Age predicated as “settled science” since I was a teen in the 70’s. I can see by your picture you have no idea what I am referring to since you were not born yet. Live a few more years and get back to us. We will still be here God willing.
P.S.S. “There are three types of lies. Lies, danged lies, and statistics”. Samuel Clemens. Maybe he was on to something. He might have lived long enough to see the truth of it. I hope you live long enough to see the truth of it as well. Wishing you all the best. Try to find a more optimistic outlook and you will live longer and happier. When our time on Earth is done it is done and no Science can stop that truth. There is hope for a future and if you are willing and interested I would share it with you.
I just have to ask the a few questions based on your various assumptions. Let’s say your understanding of climate change is correct and we have to act today…right this second. Guess what there are several facts that will get in your way.
Fact one: No government on planet Earth exists that has the will, money, science, man power or political currency to affect the massive change in direction you assert is necessary today or in the foreseeable future. There is no one body of political power that can bring about the rapid changes on a world-wide scale you assert are necessary. So really where is the solution to all this back and forth discussion?
Fact two: Even if you could build a coalition of the willing you would still need the science to actually know how to reverse climate change and have the technical expertise and infrastructure to accomplish the goal today. To this day no one has the ability to affect weather change by scientific manipulation. So, there is that problem. Not to mention there are as many theories about climate change and its source as demonstrated by the discussion of the “settled science” you so mystically believe in. Since no one can agree as to the problem the solution is just as elusive period. Let’s add to that the fact that many sources like wind power and solar actually require outside power sources and fossil fuels to get them to operate properly so they are still dependent on fossil fuels and its by products.
Fact three: This program would kill millions of people as they starved to death as you implemented a complete ban on fossil fuels and their use in all means of travel and agriculture. This would only leave the incredibly rich who can afford to adapt quickly to survive. Is that your end goal? Is that the solution you imagine? Economies would collapse, people would take to the streets like the Yellow Vests in France but on a global scale like you have never seen. I would suggest it would be more like the French Revolution when blood ran in the streets as anyone and everyone who was suspicious would meet Madam Guillotine again. Is that the outcome you would like? Chaos just total chaos with no one strong enough to control the situation and no buy in from the people of planet Earth.
Fact four: Emerging countries would be left out of the mix of survivors since they depend even more on the current energy sources available to them today just to survive in our global economy. They honestly don’t have a power grid that works reliably and in many parts of the world the only source is fossil fuel often brought in from out side the country. How about them? Is it a case of it just sucks to be you if you are one of the billions of people who are not in the elite?
Fact five: Battery powered cars, planes, buses, ships, and all types of locomotion still depend on fossil fuels to make the components, charge the batteries and deliver the products. And the current technology can only imagine the production of most of these necessary items. It is also a known fact that many of the batteries are a toxic waste that we are not even able to re-cycle at this time. So, what do we do with the technology until we can handle the waste? How many unintended consequences will we suffer by jumping to a very young and immature industry as our main source? Again, we are just now entering into the use of these energy sources and so far, the net impact is negative as far as the actual dependence on fossil fuels.
Fact six: Most countries are going away from nuclear power as a possible source since there is a problem with control and disposal of the waste generated. Yet, at this time this is actually the most developed and known alternative to fossil fuel for power generation. It is just not politically accepted because of the waste problem.
Fact six: Not one of the scientists, politicians, business leaders, government leaders or others has enough buy-in to actually stop using homes, computer, cars, planes, helicopters, ships, trains, plastics, or other fossil fuel defendant items to even act as anything less than a hypocrite. Just look at their consumption and fossil fuel carbon foot prints and stop lecturing the rest of us about how bad we are. Al Gore is one of the worst offenders as his carbon foot print makes hundreds of people look like small little candles versus his rocket engine of consumption. Now that is an “Inconvenient Truth” if I have ever seen one. He is joined by the Hollywood elites who jet off to London on a shopping spree or down to Australia for a vacation in private jets. Then they have the temerity to lecture us through individuals who have bought their hypocrisy hook, line, and sinker. There is a reason they are called actors and not academics. Just let that thought sink in for a minute. It should a least make you squirm a little.
Fact seven: The global climate change is about money and political power and who will wield it for the next century period. A tax given to any government will be wasted through graft, waste, and outright ignorance as we have witnessed in all our time on planet Earth. This will only transfer wealth from those who generate it to those who will of course use it for their own purposes. Read history for a primer on what I am saying here and follow the money.
Fact eight: There are no human solutions to this problem. Yes, I agree with you our world is dying. But humans are powerless to prevent it. It is beyond our ability to control or command. Science does not even know how to ask the right questions when we are willing to spend $100,000 on a study to see if Sunfish get drunk. Yes, it actually happened Google it for yourself.
I believe there is a solution but people think Science is a religion and are consumed with worshiping at the altar of self-determination and self-interest. Many have bought the lie of survival of the fittest. People who think that they have the answers and ability to correct the path we are on if only we would give them all our money. Nothing is further from the truth. There is an answer but many are not interested in the actual truth in this situation. You don’t even consider the actual cost from beginning to end of your assumptions. This is why Science is a terrible religion because it offers no hope or solutions. It only offers doom and death. Sorry if millions or billions of us disagree with the assumptions.
P.S. I am still waiting for the Ice Age predicated as “settled science” since I was a teen in the 70’s. I can see by your picture you have no idea what I am referring to since you were not born yet. Live a few more years and get back to us. We will still be here God willing.
P.S.S. “There are three types of lies. Lies, danged lies, and statistics”. Samuel Clemens. Maybe he was on to something. He might have lived long enough to see the truth of it. I hope you live long enough to see the truth of it as well. Wishing you all the best. Try to find a more optimistic outlook and you will live longer and happier. When our time on Earth is done it is done and no Science can stop that truth. There is hope for a future and if you are willing and interested I would share it with you.
Last edited:
Scrubber_steve
2500 Club Member
Here's some paleoclimate stuff @Muttley000 that's interesting.
This is a graph showing the last five glacial & inter-glacial periods (including the one we're presently in).
The red line is the warmest period of this inter-glacial - The Holocene optimum, a period warmer than present.
Note that three of the four previous interglacials were warmer than The Holocene Optimum despite CO2 apparently only 280ppm.
The graph below shows CO2 (purple line) & temperature (blue line) levels over the geological timescale.
Note that there is no correlation between co2 levels & temperature.
The red line is the iceage temperature nadir. Note co2 levels when the planet went into iceages marked by the three red circles.
Red circle number 3, CO2 was around 4,500ppm, 11 x what it is today. Even CO2 at those levels couldn't prevent an iceage.
This next graph is interesting. The white boxes - A, B, C, D, & E, represent known Major reef building periods by calcifying organisms over the geological timescale.
Note box A & B in particular. Despite atmospheric CO2 levels above 5,000ppm in A, & as high a 4,000ppm in B, reef building organisms were able to calcify.
Box E represents the major reef building period of the corals we have today, the scleractinian corals, with CO2 at 2,000ppm.
Interesting is the prediction that co2 increases will cause ocean acidifciation, lowering pH & greatly affecting calcification. This record puts doubt on this theory & shows that upwelling is what controls ocean upper layer pH levels, not atmospheric CO2 levels.
This is a graph showing the last five glacial & inter-glacial periods (including the one we're presently in).
The red line is the warmest period of this inter-glacial - The Holocene optimum, a period warmer than present.
Note that three of the four previous interglacials were warmer than The Holocene Optimum despite CO2 apparently only 280ppm.
The graph below shows CO2 (purple line) & temperature (blue line) levels over the geological timescale.
Note that there is no correlation between co2 levels & temperature.
The red line is the iceage temperature nadir. Note co2 levels when the planet went into iceages marked by the three red circles.
Red circle number 3, CO2 was around 4,500ppm, 11 x what it is today. Even CO2 at those levels couldn't prevent an iceage.
This next graph is interesting. The white boxes - A, B, C, D, & E, represent known Major reef building periods by calcifying organisms over the geological timescale.
Note box A & B in particular. Despite atmospheric CO2 levels above 5,000ppm in A, & as high a 4,000ppm in B, reef building organisms were able to calcify.
Box E represents the major reef building period of the corals we have today, the scleractinian corals, with CO2 at 2,000ppm.
Interesting is the prediction that co2 increases will cause ocean acidifciation, lowering pH & greatly affecting calcification. This record puts doubt on this theory & shows that upwelling is what controls ocean upper layer pH levels, not atmospheric CO2 levels.
Every few years we get a new end of the world prophecy. I see global warming as just another one of these. They keep telling us this is going to happen in 10 or 20 years and that time passes and then, if they even bother to answer for why it didn't, they spend another million researching excuses on why the temp is colder here, or why this year wasn't as hot or why the sea level hasn't risen here or there. It doesn't help when we have people like Bill Nye the "science" guy trying to influence weak minded people into thinking that Venice, Italy is under water because of global warming.
I also remember being taught in late 70's elementary school science class how we were going into another ice age. So were scientist wrong then or now? Science by definition can't be wrong.
I also remember being taught in late 70's elementary school science class how we were going into another ice age. So were scientist wrong then or now? Science by definition can't be wrong.
Dr. Dendrostein
Marine fish monthly
That a lot info. My headHere's some paleoclimate stuff @Muttley000 that's interesting.
This is a graph showing the last five glacial & inter-glacial periods (including the one we're presently in).
The red line is the warmest period of this inter-glacial - The Holocene optimum, a period warmer than present.
Note that three of the four previous interglacials were warmer than The Holocene Optimum despite CO2 apparently only 280ppm.
The graph below shows CO2 (purple line) & temperature (blue line) levels over the geological timescale.
Note that there is no correlation between co2 levels & temperature.
The red line is the iceage temperature nadir. Note co2 levels when the planet went into iceages marked by the three red circles.
Red circle number 3, CO2 was around 4,500ppm, 11 x what it is today. Even CO2 at those levels couldn't prevent an iceage.
This next graph is interesting. The white boxes - A, B, C, D, & E, represent known Major reef building periods by calcifying organisms over the geological timescale.
Note box A & B in particular. Despite atmospheric CO2 levels above 5,000ppm in A, & as high a 4,000ppm in B, reef building organisms were able to calcify.
Box E represents the major reef building period of the corals we have today, the scleractinian corals, with CO2 at 2,000ppm.
Interesting is the prediction that co2 increases will cause ocean acidifciation, lowering pH & greatly affecting calcification. This record puts doubt on this theory & shows that upwelling is what controls ocean upper layer pH levels, not atmospheric CO2 levels.
OP
OP
1.
You're right, I see no way out. On the other hand I acknowledge our inability to fully understand Earth's climate mechanisms (and even more my own inability).
Therefore, I have just a fool's hope that some unknown negative feedback loop will soon kick in or that someone will come up with a genius win-win solution for the problem.
It's difficult to reply wihout getting to political, but I will give you a couple of examples that hint at why nothing will be done.
China was having serious problems with its rivers that descend from Tibet. They found out that deflorestation was the cause. In an year the deflorestation stopped and reflorestation began.
One of the reasons why Germany did not conclude its nuclear programme in the 1940's was because the german scientists didn't have full political support. At that time no one was sure if such a bomb could ignite the whole atmosphere. Hitler was plainly not enthusiastic about being responsible for wiping out all life on the planet and the project was halted in 1942, but the allies only found out about it after the war.
2.
You're right. There isn't any proven technology to solve the problem. There's lots of research going on and prototypes being built and the costs of decarbonizing the atmosphere are decreasing, but at this time there's no hint that any of these projects will be going ahead any time soon.
Changing to renewables is a step in the right direction, but it doesn't change the fact that we're still harnessing energy and that a lot of that energy will end up producing heating.
3.
You're unfortunately right again. The scenario you describe is in sight. If the changes are put in practice, people will revolt against them immediately. If nothing is done, there will be major crop failures and people will revolt.
4. You're right. It's morally questionable how these changes can be imposed on developing nations, the ones that least contributed to the problem.
On top of that, although countries like India and China are among the biggest sources of CO2 emissions, when you look at emissions per capita, they are really far from being top contributors, which are the US and Europe.
On the other hand developing nations will be the first to be hit hard when the food prices rise, so it's in their interest to act.
5.
I don't know much about this subject. You're probably right. I only have my personal experience. I got 3 solar pannels for my parents house and it paid itself in 4 years. I don't know how much pollution their manufacturing process or demise caused or will cause.
6.
We all live in this system and if you're pragmatic, you know there are only 3 reasons to start avoiding planes, cars, etc.
You may want to set an example to your kids or if you're a celebrity, to wider audience.
You may just want to sleep better at night.
I honestly forgot about the 3rd
In the end, if you're pragmatic, you know that your individual positive or negative contribution won't affect the end result.
7.
I don't agree with you on this. I don't believe scientists are in this primarily because of the money to start with. They could well research many other subjects which would grant them equal or better pay. It's a very depressing subject to have to deal with everyday as your job.
There are many more effective ways of controlling the world that don't involve climate change. As the world is, there must be money to be made in solving the problem or nothing will be done.
If more taxes are the goal, climate change is one of the worst excuses any government can give. They can easily find better excuses.
8. I mostly agree with you.
On the other hand, it's a choice of not doing anything and enjoy the time we have left or going down fighting.
At some point, something drastic will be attempted. As you say, it's impossible to know the full range of consequences of any deliberate action on the atmosphere, but if nothing is done, the collapse is certain.
We do have the power to change it, it's what we have been doing for the last centuries. That power has never been greater than now.
I was born in 1970. On a personal level, I have lived a good life until now and I sure would like to continue for a few more decades. Maybe it will happen and changes will not be as rampant... and then I look at that Arctic ice volume chart. That's just satellite data.
I would not like to witness the collapse though. I fear that.
I live in the countryside and I notice changes. I see now much less than half of the insects I used to see a decade ago. Approximately one third of the trees are dead around me. I don't know why this is happening.
There are days that I look around and everything seems so peaceful with everyone carrying on with their lives as usual that it seems impossible that anything is really changing.
But last summer I had a few days with temperature around 48 degrees C. My old black dog would go outside and lay in the sun at 3 pm
.Portugal had its first tropical storm on record.
I have been aware for some time that a major change is coming and that if nothing extraordinary happens, I will witness it. I made some positive changes in my life because of that.
On the other hand, like someone said, you feel alone in a sea of wounds. It's a sort of mourning process.
I created this post in hope that maybe one or 2 people may wake up.
We don't have 12 years to change.
Last edited:
Scrubber_steve
2500 Club Member
What? Are we playing clips from our favourite Hollywood disaster movies now as proof of the ridiculous?
Well at least Leonardo DiCaprio wasn't in it.
OP
OP
It's a fake news show and yet it's probably the most honest climate news report ever played in the US.
To wrap things up, get your bigger reef tank before it's too late, I just did
To wrap things up, get your bigger reef tank before it's too late, I just did
Last edited:
Scrubber_steve
2500 Club Member
OP
OP
I had forgotten about this show
These kind of talks may well have happened in many governments. At some point in time they could have been plotting on the assumption that climate change wasn't a big deal, but not now. If these talks happen now, the people involved are well aware of what's coming... and keep going.
These kind of talks may well have happened in many governments. At some point in time they could have been plotting on the assumption that climate change wasn't a big deal, but not now. If these talks happen now, the people involved are well aware of what's coming... and keep going.
Muttley000
Valuable Member
I can't keep doing this, and it's not why I come to R2R, but I appreciate the amount of time you spent formulating your well thought out post. The other side of the argument has not shown me (I am not saying it isn't out there somewhere because I am not a scientist, I am just a guy that runs a robotics integration plant) the data to show the rate of change in this small snapshot that is used today is the greatest it has ever been. Understand I am not arguing the earth is warming, or even at a quite interestingly quick rate. I was merely stating why I am unable to accept a comparison of a rate of change that has occurred in the last blink of time geologically and that humans are solely responsible. To answer one of your questions directly I have not asked anyone for the data, and if it exists I would think it would be cited often as it would be a pretty strong piece of evidence. As said I don't reject that the earth is warming, I currently reject the argument that human activity is the sole or majority driver.
You missed the main point of my post. To keep it pithy, you are very clear that you do not have the data nor the skill set to form a hypothesis on the nature of anthropogenic climate change, full stop (although, your career really does sound interesting, and I must say that I did enjoy the well played humble brag).
While I have the training to know when someone is just saying what they “feel”, many folks unfortunately do not, and they subsequently adopt what they see as others presenting what they assume are equally valid hypotheses. I think that this means that you (and, again, many others) should stop opining baselessly about matters on which you have no expertise to base said opinion upon, (it’s destructive) and leave it to the experts to assess the situation, and/or acquire the requisite skill set to actually consume the available peer reviewed literature in a constructive and valid manner, and then spread the informed word.
Thales
Valuable Member
This is spot on. Read it with no connection to climate change. Read it as if you are writing it to to someone that is telling you that fish collection in Hawaii is unsustainable and has decimated the populations of Yellow Tang, that 99% of aquarium fish die within the first year, and that they hobby should be shut down, but won't read any of the data about the fishery or aquarium keeping, and will n0t listen to any experts in either field.
At some point we all have to realize we (humanity) are not the masters of our own destiny. I find great hope in that truth.
As a spiritual person I find great hope in a creator God that loves us and was willing to give His life for humanity to secure our place in the future with Him. I also believe He has been so misrepresented that He had to come personally to explain His universal kingdom and the principles upon which it operates. Principals of selfless love and a natural world that was created perfectly on those principals. The rain cycle, the respiration cycle, all illustrate how our world was designed to depend on inter relationships to create balance. I also believe there is an active agent in our world that misrepresents a loving God at every turn. The greatest lie ever perpetrated is the lie of survival of the fittest. It's unprecieved influence affects every action taken by men in their interactions. The result is selfish actions that create chaos on many levels each day. Theologians call this selfish interaction sin. In the original creation selfishness did not exist nor the distructive forces that resulted from it.
Now I have gone and done it! Those who worship at the altar of human reason and science can now discount anything good I might have written. That said I believe God and science are not mutually exclusive but God is the creator of science and built science to function on the principals of His eternal kingdom. What could be so wrong with a universe where beings seek the best good of others before considering self? Imagine the impact of a universe created to act just that way and you will be able to harmonize science and God and see a glimpse of the original creation.
The moderators can now delete this message. I may have mixed religion with science, politics, chaos theory and several other restricted forms of writing. Humanity is made up of body, mind, and spirit and I have difficulty separating the three!
I wish you all a great day.
As a spiritual person I find great hope in a creator God that loves us and was willing to give His life for humanity to secure our place in the future with Him. I also believe He has been so misrepresented that He had to come personally to explain His universal kingdom and the principles upon which it operates. Principals of selfless love and a natural world that was created perfectly on those principals. The rain cycle, the respiration cycle, all illustrate how our world was designed to depend on inter relationships to create balance. I also believe there is an active agent in our world that misrepresents a loving God at every turn. The greatest lie ever perpetrated is the lie of survival of the fittest. It's unprecieved influence affects every action taken by men in their interactions. The result is selfish actions that create chaos on many levels each day. Theologians call this selfish interaction sin. In the original creation selfishness did not exist nor the distructive forces that resulted from it.
Now I have gone and done it! Those who worship at the altar of human reason and science can now discount anything good I might have written. That said I believe God and science are not mutually exclusive but God is the creator of science and built science to function on the principals of His eternal kingdom. What could be so wrong with a universe where beings seek the best good of others before considering self? Imagine the impact of a universe created to act just that way and you will be able to harmonize science and God and see a glimpse of the original creation.
The moderators can now delete this message. I may have mixed religion with science, politics, chaos theory and several other restricted forms of writing. Humanity is made up of body, mind, and spirit and I have difficulty separating the three!
I wish you all a great day.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
