Jump to content

LooseGoose

Global Warming - The "settled" science unwinds.

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Euphdude said:

I don't trust anything related to energy or climate coming out of the Trump Administration.  The EIA says its independent, but it's controlled by the Department of Energy, which has a goal of denying climate science and promoting fossil fuels above all else.

Trump's control is a menace, but  I don't think you can turn around the depths of a bureaucracy in 1 term even if you were competent in your attempt, which I'm doubtful Trump is. In cases where the admin has tried to fiddle with basic data it has generally ended up in court. There have been a couple things Trump admin has just stopped releasing. I think that is a tack they have more success with than fudging data and what I also worry about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

I could never respect it - it is completely disingenuous and misses the point.

It's not perfect by any means, but we have to take what we can get from the GOP.  Something is better than nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, belcherboy said:

I think the next ten years will also be a make or break moment for the Democratic Party as well in terms of climate change. I think Al Gore or other political figures who use terms like "doomsday" the "point of no return"  or the "world is going to end", could really damage their cause. They give a short, specific number of years (often 10-12 years from what I remember them saying) and if that prediction doesn't occur, it could have a reverse affect on the cause. 

If the younger generation does not see significant changes to the earth in 10 years, they may just begin to become apathetic to the cause. It a tricky tight rope. They definitely need to ring the bell if they believe that climate change could destroy the entire planet in a short amount of  time. But on the flip side, if man made climate change isn't as bad as predicted, or is still decades away from truly hurting life on earth, they may may lose a lot their support for it in the long run. 

the temperature data will keep coming in, the water will keep rising. I agree that doomsaying is always a bad approach, but the real data just gets stronger every damn year. Then again, we could get lucky - a few really big volcanoes could blow their top and drive the temps back down for a couple of decades, or the sum might enter an unexpected down phase. There are all kinds of things out there that could make stronger action unneeded. That there are possibilities that the premise doesn't come to fruition should never be denied. The question is do you want to bet your civilization on being lucky instead of just spending a few % of GDP (which is really all we are talking about) to change the energy economy and play the better odds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gehringer_2 said:

the temperature data will keep coming in, the water will keep rising. I agree that doomsaying is always a bad approach, but the real data just gets stronger every damn year. Then again, we could get lucky - a few really big volcanoes could blow their top and drive the temps back down for a couple of decades, or the sum might enter an unexpected down phase. There are all kinds of things out there that could make stronger action unneeded. That there are possibilities that the premise doesn't come to fruition should never be denied. The question is do you want to bet your civilization on being lucky instead of just spending a few % of GDP (which is really all we are talking about) to change the energy economy and play the better odds.

I was referring to how the GOP will have to change their climate change stance to court younger voters in the future (next 10  years). These millennial voters may not view climate change the same 10 years from now, if most their information comes from people that are claiming the "sky is falling". I suspect most voters in their 20's and maybe even 30's have little to no clue what level the water is rising or other climate change science. They just have heard that the world will end in 12 years if they don't do something now about climate change. The bottom line is, that climate change policies aren't likely to significantly appear in the next 10 years or so. 

I don't know the true motivation of some of these politicians and other celebrities (I assume they mean the best), but when you claim the end of the world is coming in 10-12 years, you better be darn sure that without significant change things are going to be drastically different. Otherwise there will be a lot of people that tune you out and could become skeptics that truly hurt your cause in the long run. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, belcherboy said:

I don't know the true motivation of some of these politicians and other celebrities (I assume they mean the best), but when you claim the end of the world is coming in 10-12 years, you better be darn sure that without significant change things are going to be drastically different. Otherwise there will be a lot of people that tune you out and could become skeptics that truly hurt your cause in the long run. 

I don't follow people who say the world is going to end in 10-12 years if we don't address climate change.  That kind of hyperbole is sensationalistic and anti-science, and it's nearly as bad as denying climate science.

The science and evidence we have today already shows some the effects from human-induced climate change (extreme weather, extreme temperatures, melting glaciers, rising sea levels, etc).  The most adverse impacts from a humanity standpoint won't be felt for decades -- but they will be felt unless technology that does not exist today is invented that can scrub carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere in a relatively quick manner.

I'm resigned to the most likely possibility that humanity in the future is going to be paying the price for our carbon output.  Famine, displacement, disease, and significant loss of life are all on the table.  Humanity will survive and evolve, but it won't be the same as it is today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Euphdude said:

It's not perfect by any means, but we have to take what we can get from the GOP.  Something is better than nothing.

Obfuscating is not better than nothing.  I'd prefer nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Euphdude said:

but they will be felt unless technology that does not exist today is invented that can scrub carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere in a relatively quick manner.

 

almost impossible. The problem is not invention - it's the thermodynamics - you cannot invent around it. The best we can do is stop putting it in and plant trees (seriously). Mother nature has had 4 billion years to perfect atmospheric carbon sequestration and is much better at it than we will be anytime soon. The problem is the energy input required. We won't have enough renewables capability to replace all the carbon we are a putting in the atmosphere for decades,  let alone have any left to start taking it out. Thermo tell us that at *minimum* we will need  the energy in 1.2-1.4 lbs of coal to pull a 1lb of carbon back out of the atmosphere. Based on current tech the only way would be a massive investment in nuclear plants to run your CO2 separation plants. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Euphdude said:

I don't follow people who say the world is going to end in 10-12 years if we don't address climate change.  That kind of hyperbole is sensationalistic and anti-science, and it's nearly as bad as denying climate science.

The science and evidence we have today already shows some the effects from human-induced climate change (extreme weather, extreme temperatures, melting glaciers, rising sea levels, etc).  The most adverse impacts from a humanity standpoint won't be felt for decades -- but they will be felt unless technology that does not exist today is invented that can scrub carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere in a relatively quick manner.

I'm resigned to the most likely possibility that humanity in the future is going to be paying the price for our carbon output.  Famine, displacement, disease, and significant loss of life are all on the table.  Humanity will survive and evolve, but it won't be the same as it is today.

You are wiser than most, and actually investigate things. From my experience, most youth I've encountered  (18-30 year olds) form their political and social beliefs based on social media, and the latest headlines they read there. There are exceptions in this group, not all of them are shallow, but I can't tell you how many times I've heard crazy things spouted by the AOC crowd. On the flip side, there is a significant amount of young people that have gravitated toward Trump. I also hear some crazy things out of this crowd. 

Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but I don't think the people that have the most consistent groups of voters care much about climate change. It's just become a political football, in my opinion, that has many people just cheering on their teams view of the subject. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

almost impossible. The problem is not invention - it's the thermodynamics - you cannot invent around it. The best we can do is stop putting it in and plant trees (seriously). Mother nature has had 4 billion years to perfect atmospheric carbon sequestration and is much better at it than we will be anytime soon. The problem is the energy input required. We won't have enough renewables capability to replace all the carbon we are a putting in the atmosphere for decades,  let alone have any left to start taking it out. Thermo tell us that at *minimum* we will need  the energy in 1.2-1.4 lbs of coal to pull a 1lb of carbon back out of the atmosphere. Based on current tech the only way would be a massive investment in nuclear plants to run your CO2 separation plants. 

To paraphrase a former boss, 'you can't design around physics'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, belcherboy said:

From my experience, most youth I've encountered  (18-30 year olds) form their political and social beliefs based on social media, and the latest headlines they read there.

Social media is probably the worst platform to get news and political opinion from.  It is the reason why we live in a post-fact society - and it's putting our democracy at risk at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, belcherboy said:

I was referring to how the GOP will have to change their climate change stance to court younger voters in the future (next 10  years). These millennial voters may not view climate change the same 10 years from now, if most their information comes from people that are claiming the "sky is falling". I suspect most voters in their 20's and maybe even 30's have little to no clue what level the water is rising or other climate change science. They just have heard that the world will end in 12 years if they don't do something now about climate change. The bottom line is, that climate change policies aren't likely to significantly appear in the next 10 years or so. 

I don't know the true motivation of some of these politicians and other celebrities (I assume they mean the best), but when you claim the end of the world is coming in 10-12 years, you better be darn sure that without significant change things are going to be drastically different. Otherwise there will be a lot of people that tune you out and could become skeptics that truly hurt your cause in the long run. 

I'm legit curious to know who has made the claim that the world is coming to an end in 10-12 years. I just haven't heard that claim.

On the other hand, if memory serves correct, what I have heard is that the effects of climate change could be irreversible if certain benchmarks are not met within a certain timeframe. But that's not claiming the end of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mtutiger said:

I'm legit curious to know who has made the claim that the world is coming to an end in 10-12 years. I just haven't heard that claim.

On the other hand, if memory serves correct, what I have heard is that the effects of climate change could be irreversible if certain benchmarks are not met within a certain timeframe. But that's not claiming the end of the world.

https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1087550417653940224

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mtutiger said:

Thanks. 

I'm not sure that AOC making this statement extrapolates out to most people in their 20s and 30s thinking the world will end in 10-12 years.

Regardless of whether it AOC, or Beto (he is saying similar things and gave the 12 year warning), and obviously Gore made the 10 years statement in the mid 2000's. 

For some reason a few of these politicians seem to want to put a number on when it will be "too late". What happens if those 12 years pass (like Gore's did), and the end of the world is not upon us? Maybe there is a good scientific reason to give the "12 years before it is too late" warning, but I don't think it is good for them to be pushing this narrative.  Make your claim about the dangers, but don't put a date on it. If that date passes, and it's not "too late", or even significantly worse, it could easily turn people off to future warnings. Just my two cents.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, belcherboy said:

Regardless of whether it AOC, or Beto (he is saying similar things and gave the 12 year warning), and obviously Gore made the 10 years statement in the mid 2000's. 

For some reason a few of these politicians seem to want to put a number on when it will be "too late". What happens if those 12 years pass (like Gore's did), and the end of the world is not upon us? Maybe there is a good scientific reason to give the "12 years before it is too late" warning, but I don't think it is good for them to be pushing this narrative.  Make your claim about the dangers, but don't put a date on it. If that date passes, and it's not "too late", or even significantly worse, it could easily turn people off to future warnings. Just my two cents.

 

No argument here. Like most things, it's probably best to ignore the political hyperbole and stick with the science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

No argument here. Like most things, it's probably best to ignore the political hyperbole and stick with the science.

It makes sense for you and I to ignore political hyperbole, but the original post I was responding to was talking about the youth vote, and how it will affect the GOP 10 years from now. Today's youth don't often ignore political hyperbole, from what I've seen.  The problem is that these statements seem to get a great deal of press.They are all over social media (some making fun of them, others touting the courage they have to give the REAL dangers of man made global warming). It seems that these statements seem to be repeated by new politicians, or the politicians that want to get more press. I just wondered aloud what may happen if these dated warnings continue, could it have a "chicken little" type affect on these voters that will not be so young 10 years from now. Will it cause them to be apathetic if these warnings do not come to reality?  It seems Gore's credibility has certainly taken a hit since his 10 year prediction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, belcherboy said:

Regardless of whether it AOC, or Beto (he is saying similar things and gave the 12 year warning), and obviously Gore made the 10 years statement in the mid 2000's. 

For some reason a few of these politicians seem to want to put a number on when it will be "too late". What happens if those 12 years pass (like Gore's did), and the end of the world is not upon us? Maybe there is a good scientific reason to give the "12 years before it is too late" warning, but I don't think it is good for them to be pushing this narrative.  Make your claim about the dangers, but don't put a date on it. If that date passes, and it's not "too late", or even significantly worse, it could easily turn people off to future warnings. Just my two cents.

 

I believe the 10-12 yrs may have been a reference to when serious action had to start to avoid hitting a 2C increase. And in fact the odds are now high that we are going to see more than a 2C increase. So, as in a lot of these cases, there is originally a certain context around a datum that eventually began to be used very losely until it was drained of any attachment to its original context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, belcherboy said:

Today's youth don't often ignore political hyperbole, from what I've seen.  The problem is that these statements seem to get a great deal of press.They are all over social media (some making fun of them, others touting the courage they have to give the REAL dangers of man made global warming). 

I'm from the group you are referring to, fwiw, and I think you are overstating the impact that AOC has on the conversation with this cohort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gehringer_2 said:

I believe the 10-12 yrs may have been a reference to when serious action had to start to avoid hitting a 2C increase. And in fact the odds are now high that we are going to see more than a 2C increase. So, as in a lot of these cases, there is originally a certain context around a datum that eventually began to be used very losely until it was drained of any attachment to its original context.

Yeah, they certainly butchered that up with claims that it will be over if dramatic changes aren't made now.  Although, who knows, maybe they will end up being correct after all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mtutiger said:

I'm from the group you are referring to, fwiw, and I think you are overstating the impact that AOC has on the conversation with this cohort.

Yeah, maybe I am, but from what I've read, seen, and people I've talked to, they seem to love them some Beto and AOC. I've spoken and read tweets from many college kids the last few months that are enamored by those two. Maybe it is just my circle of influence though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Euphdude said:

Social media is probably the worst platform to get news and political opinion from.  It is the reason why we live in a post-fact society - and it's putting our democracy at risk at the moment.

Funny you say that; if you took the twitter stuff from this forum, many pages would be almost empty.

Just sayin'...

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think she's insignificant figure, but I don't think most 20s and 30s folks are taking all their cues from her either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, belcherboy said:

Yeah, maybe I am, but from what I've read, seen, and people I've talked to, they seem to love them some Beto and AOC. I've spoken and read tweets from many college kids the last few months that are enamored by those two. Maybe it is just my circle of influence though.

 

well from an old once-conservative, I love AOC. I love the energy, the willingness to buck the establishment, the refusal to accept the established hypocrisies of the institution, a willingness try to break out of the confines that keep anything from getting done. Do I think she is strong on policy - no. But junior members of Congress don't all need to be practical policy pros to be more part of the solution than the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, this would seem to be more useful than a climate debate would be.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...