Climate Change Scientific Studies

[hollodero]

(09-12-2023, 02:02 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Well, I've been here for 48 years and my kids have been here for 12 and 15 years.  Weather is still the same.  I'm confident my kids and grand kids and great grand kids will be just fine.  There is no unprecedented quickness of change.  Some years are worse then others.  It's how the weather works.

It is not, and your anecdotal evidence is not exactly proof of climate not changing. Data points around the world showing a significant warming is.

[SunsetBengal]

(09-12-2023, 02:05 PM)hollodero Wrote: First off, the US is not alone. Europe has a strong economy too, and even though change could be quicker and more decisive this wealthy continent does more and more to get greener too.

Also, what is the "big lie" now you were referencing. That CO2 levels are a problem, or that the US should lead the way in reducing the levels?

Ok, the US is 4% of the world's population and Europe is 9.32%, making them combined 13.2% of the world's population, yet they continue to a very inequitable percentage of the cost toward change.  ASIA represents 60% of the world's population, (4.55X as many consumers) as the US and Europe combined, if they contribute their fair share toward solving the problems, it is much cheaper for all.

The "big lie" has to do with the narrative that the only acceptable explanation for things changing in the global atmosphere and oceans is human influenced climate change.  There is no doubt that CO2 levels should be reduced, however the Ozone hole opens and closes as needed to release gasses.  The Earth has been evolving for a very long time and will continue to do so regardless of what humans attempt to do to keep it at a constant condition.  Let's not forget the ice age had a huge portion of the earth covered in glaciers.  How does anyone know that the Earth is still not evolving toward a state that existed prior to the ice age?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-12-2023, 01:35 PM)hollodero Wrote: That was unnecessary.

Sorry if it offends you, but it was the perfect example of "scaring the people over nothing to make money"

it's now considered a big Hoax and money making scheme when at the time people were saying all kinds of bad things were going to happen, traffic lights not working, stock market crash anything that had to do with Electronics was going to crash.

I went around testing all kinds of Electronic equipment, not a single one failed when we forced a roll over to 1/1/2000. The worst that happened was the year set back to 19 vs 20. BFD, easy adjustment, and it didn't cause anything in the life saving field (I was in the IT Medical side then) to fail to perform because of that.

"Mostly temporary inconveniences. The few glitches attributed to Y2K during the date rollover and afterward were just that -- glitches: printer failures, dates with five digits, decimal problems. Most caused little more than temporary inconvenience."

Even 9/9/99 (9's typically used in programming as a end/stop command) and 12/12/12 from the Mayans got people worked up, bad Mayans, the should have added space to calculate another 2k years out, didn't they think of their off-spring? 

Now with that all said, and Yes i'm just trying to add a little (smart azz) humor here

I'm not for or against climate control but i do think we should try to move to a more environment friendly life. 

Start with cleaning the Oceans of those trash islands and plant more trees anywhere and everywhere. Keep working on the technology and let it get there. Once it's there it will be much easier for everyone to start converting to it.
Can we all at least agree to that?

[Luvnit2]

https://www.foxbusiness.com/energy/energy-exec-jennifer-granholm-ev-road-trip-gone-bad-americans-need
Energy exec on Jennifer Granholm's EV road trip gone bad: Americans don't 'need' it
Family called cops on Biden’s energy secretary for blocking charging station spots

This is an example of the Biden administration energy secretary attempting to hide the issues with the infrastructure of charging EV batteries on a road trip.
Why try and promote a lie as she did on this trip? Simple, Biden's policies of eliminating fossil fuels needs a great alternative now even though it is not ready.

"And it might make sense, but for most Americans who have to travel long distances to get to work and to school, an EV at this point just doesn't quite have the technology that Americans want or need," he continued.

Biden Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm had a rocky electric vehicle tour that included a confrontation with a family who called the police on her staff over a charging station standoff.

Granholm’s staff got into a tiff with an unhappy family earlier this summer after her team tried to hold an electric vehicle charging spot by parking a gas car there, according to NPR. With a baby in the vehicle on a hot summer’s day, the family reportedly decided to call the authorities.

[Mickeypoo]

(09-12-2023, 02:18 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Sorry if it offends you, but it was the perfect example of "scaring the people over nothing to make money"

it's now considered a big Hoax and money making scheme when at the time people were saying all kinds of bad things were going to happen, traffic lights not working, stock market crash anything that had to do with Electronics was going to crash.

I went around testing all kinds of Electronic equipment, not a single one failed when we forced a roll over to 1/1/2000. The worst that happened was the year set back to 19 vs 20. BFD, easy adjustment, and it didn't cause anything in the life saving field (I was in the IT Medical side then) to fail to perform because of that.

"Mostly temporary inconveniences. The few glitches attributed to Y2K during the date rollover and afterward were just that -- glitches: printer failures, dates with five digits, decimal problems. Most caused little more than temporary inconvenience."

Even 9/9/99 (9's typically used in programming as a end/stop command) and 12/12/12 from the Mayans got people worked up, bad Mayans, the should have added space to calculate another 2k years out, didn't they think of their off-spring? 

Now with that all said, and Yes i'm just trying to add a little (smart azz) humor here

I'm not for or against climate control but i do think we should try to move to a more environment friendly life. 

Start with cleaning the Oceans of those trash islands and plant more trees anywhere and everywhere. Keep working on the technology and let it get there. Once it's there it will be much easier for everyone to start converting to it.
Can we all at least agree to that?

I am all for a clean earth.  I am not for set dates, bans, fear mongering, shutting alternative points of views down (scientists), etc.  Tech will indeed evolve and people will indeed adapt if it works for them.  No force, bans, set dates necessary.

[Mickeypoo]

(09-12-2023, 02:31 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: https://www.foxbusiness.com/energy/energy-exec-jennifer-granholm-ev-road-trip-gone-bad-americans-need
Energy exec on Jennifer Granholm's EV road trip gone bad: Americans don't 'need' it
Family called cops on Biden’s energy secretary for blocking charging station spots

This is an example of the Biden administration energy secretary attempting to hide the issues with the infrastructure of charging EV batteries on a road trip.
Why try and promote a lie as she did on this trip? Simple, Biden's policies of eliminating fossil fuels needs a great alternative now even though it is not ready.

"And it might make sense, but for most Americans who have to travel long distances to get to work and to school, an EV at this point just doesn't quite have the technology that Americans want or need," he continued.

Biden Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm had a rocky electric vehicle tour that included a confrontation with a family who called the police on her staff over a charging station standoff.

Granholm’s staff got into a tiff with an unhappy family earlier this summer after her team tried to hold an electric vehicle charging spot by parking a gas car there, according to NPR. With a baby in the vehicle on a hot summer’s day, the family reportedly decided to call the authorities.

I was going to look for this to post.  I saw this a few days ago.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-12-2023, 02:37 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: I was going to look for this to post.  I saw this a few days ago.

it was quite amusing and fits the narrative that we just aren't ready yet

Tesla has their own technology and others don't match them. it's still a mess

[hollodero]

(09-12-2023, 02:17 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Ok, the US is 4% of the world's population and Europe is 9.32%, making them combined 13.2% of the world's population, yet they continue to a very inequitable percentage of the cost toward change.  ASIA represents 60% of the world's population, (4.55X as many consumers) as the US and Europe combined, if they contribute their fair share toward solving the problems, it is much cheaper for all.

Fairness is a tricky concept. Given your population comparison, it seems fair that Asia pollutes the globe 4.55 times as much as US and Europe do. I'd rather not have them make this fairness claim.

In the end, of course I am in favor of Asian countries also drastically reducing their CO2 output. But when the western world still has a per capita output as high as it is now, how would an Asian person think it's fair that they can not reap the same benefits from polluting the planet then we did throughout history? The answer, imho, is that this kind of fairness concept is not the answer to begin with. I'd rather reduce on a pollutant (I take over that term) than keep polluting because I think it's more fair. Climate change doesn't care about that.

As I said. First we need to lead the way, then we can credibly point at others not following suit. Right now, I can only point at Asia possibly being as bad as we are now and were throughout history.

(09-12-2023, 02:17 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The "big lie" has to do with the narrative that the only acceptable explanation for things changing in the global atmosphere and oceans is human influenced climate change.

Well, no one that is to be taken seriously is claiming that. If you find a person that says only humans can influence the climate, I will happily call this person ignorant.
But right now, all appearances point to anthropogenic reasons for global warming. All alternative explanations for the current changes (like solar flares or natural cycles, that certainly were a factor in earth's history) fall flat.

(09-12-2023, 02:17 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: There is no doubt that CO2 levels should be reduced, however the Ozone hole opens and closes as needed to release gasses.

What? No it doesn't. Unless I severely misunderstand the point made here.
The ozone layer is important to reduce high-energy radiation from the sun and that's that. It does not open up to release gas. But feel free to show me what you mean.

(09-12-2023, 02:17 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The Earth has been evolving for a very long time and will continue to do so regardless of what humans attempt to do to keep it at a constant condition.  Let's not forget the ice age had a huge portion of the earth covered in glaciers.  How does anyone know that the Earth is still not evolving toward a state that existed prior to the ice age?

Well, to an extent we can look back in time quite far, seeing several ice ages followed by warmer periods. Given one thinks ice core drillings and the like (studying sediments, rocks, crystals etc. as climate proxies) are credible, we can follow the natural climate cycles throughout some of earth's history. From that we can gather quite some information about the natural cycles and one can infer that the current changes are unprecedented in its quickness and hence "unnatural", eg anthropogenic. The elevated CO2 levels (that are anthropogenic for sure, something easily shown through C14-measurements) are of course another indicator of human influence.

[hollodero]

(09-12-2023, 02:18 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Sorry if it offends you, but it was the perfect example of "scaring the people over nothing to make money"

It doesn't offend me, it just was unnecessary. Your whole point boils down to "climate change is a hoax because hoaxes exist, here's one of them". It's not very convincing really.

(09-12-2023, 02:18 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I'm not for or against climate control but i do think we should try to move to a more environment friendly life. 

Start with cleaning the Oceans of those trash islands and plant more trees anywhere and everywhere. Keep working on the technology and let it get there. Once it's there it will be much easier for everyone to start converting to it.
Can we all at least agree to that?

Sure. What I would add is that working on technology usually is sped up when there are incentives and sufficient means. Imho we should try to accelerate it.

[SunsetBengal]

(09-12-2023, 02:54 PM)hollodero Wrote: As I said. First we need to lead the way, then we can credibly point at others not following suit. Right now, I can only point at Asia possibly being as bad as we are now and were throughout history.

The US has been "leading the way" by taking steps toward reduction of air and water pollutants since the EPA was created in 1970. (53 years)

[hollodero]

(09-12-2023, 03:07 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The US has been "leading the way" by taking steps toward reduction of air and water pollutants since the EPA was created in 1970. (53 years)

Well, when it comes to CO2 there's not much leading the way to be seen. The US emits roughly 15 (metric) tons of CO2 per capita. China's at 8. India does not reach 2. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-12-2023, 03:17 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, when it comes to CO2 there's not much leading the way to be seen. The US emits roughly 15 (metric) tons of CO2 per capita. China's at 8. India does not reach 2. 

No real surprise considering the number of cars per 1k peeps.

[hollodero]

(09-12-2023, 03:50 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: No real surprise considering the number of cars per 1k peeps.

Certainly, that is a big factor. It just makes it tough to claim the US leads the way in reducing carbon emission and China is the bad actor. It also makes the whole fairness argument kind of moot. Every Asian person can say with merit it would be unfair if they now would not be allowed to emit the same amount US-Americans emit. They still should not do it anyway, but pointing fingers at them and justifying one's own non-action with it looks kind of hard to argue under these circumstances.

[SunsetBengal]

(09-12-2023, 03:17 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, when it comes to CO2 there's not much leading the way to be seen. The US emits roughly 15 (metric) tons of CO2 per capita. China's at 8. India does not reach 2. 

Per capita means very little compared to total emissions per nation, a quick bit of arithmetic will prove that those nations still produce a lot of emissions.  China 114,057 total metric tons of CO2, United States 50,901 total metric tons of CO2, India 28,573 total metric tons of CO2. (Population numbers from Wiki, per capita emissions numbers from Hollodero)

[hollodero]

(09-12-2023, 04:14 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Per capita means very little compared to total emissions per nation, a quick bit of arithmetic will prove that those nations still produce a lot of emissions.  China 114,057 total metric tons of CO2, United States 50,901 total metric tons of CO2, India 28,573 total metric tons of CO2. (Population numbers from Wiki, per capita emissions numbers from Hollodero)

I don't think per capita means very little, I'd argue it's the more significant number than emissions per nation. For the simple reason that there's jus smaller and bigger nations; and Austria being smaller does not mean it would be fair if every Austrian emitted 35 times as much CO2 as every American.
I of course do not dispute the overall point of China and other nations emitting quite a lot of CO2, and also too much.

It's just, Americans still wear the crown. And the US pointing fingers at China kind of has the appearances of Chris Christie calling out Trump over his weight.

[LSUfaninTN]

(09-12-2023, 02:54 PM)hollodero Wrote: In the end, of course I am in favor of Asian countries also drastically reducing their CO2 output. But when the western world still has a per capita output as high as it is now, how would an Asian person think it's fair that they can not reap the same benefits from polluting the planet then we did throughout history? The answer, imho, is that this kind of fairness concept is not the answer to begin with. I'd rather reduce on a pollutant (I take over that term) than keep polluting because I think it's more fair. Climate change doesn't care about that.

A lot of great points were made in this thread and you touched on one that's interesting and I agree that humans aren't the only factor causing global warming, I highly doubt we're the main factor, we may not even be a significant factor. 

Your point of Asian countries not wanting to do it if we don't do it too, that's true. But here's the kicker. Whether we do it or not means nothing to them. China is in this thing for China--they do not care about anything but the short term and long term success of China. Russia is in it for Russia. India is in it for India. That's 50% of carbon emissions right there. They don't care. The way India sees it, we've been at the adult's table for quite some time, and they've only recently arrived in the grand scheme of things. They ain't giving that seat up for anyone or anything. 

[hollodero]

(09-12-2023, 04:26 PM)LSUfaninTN Wrote: Your point of Asian countries not wanting to do it if we don't do it too, that's true. But here's the kicker. Whether we do it or not means nothing to them. China is in this thing for China--they do not care about anything but the short term and long term success of China. Russia is in it for Russia. India is in it for India. That's 50% of carbon emissions right there. They don't care. The way India sees it, we've been at the adult's table for quite some time, and they've only recently arrived in the grand scheme of things. They ain't giving that seat up for anyone or anything. 

That is all true, to an extent. China cares about China etc, and famously so does the US when going for America first. That's just the nature of things. But if that were just the end of it, then every nation just is selfish, humanity emits way too much CO2 and all our children perish, US and Chinese children alike. 

Hence, there has to be a better way. And this better way, imho, is to first lead the world by example. That gives your arguments more credibility when demanding others do the same for everyone's sake. And then, you'd also have a basis for pressure, like tariffs for big polluters. Or incentives for following suit and enforcing green energy (that happens in China to some extent already, they see benefits in producing solar panels for example). You can even export green technology and benefit economically.

But in the end, it's of course about making it clear to China and everyone else that a planet livable for future generations is in their own best interest too. You can not make this argument in good faith when not being better than (or at least on par with) other nations.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(09-12-2023, 02:05 PM)hollodero Wrote: Also, at some point Asians can make the same claim. Why should we change if the US, still the biggest overall contributor to the rising CO2 levels, does not change?

China approved 2 new coal power plants every single week in 2022. That's 104 new coal power plants in one year. China is adding more GW of coal energy each year than the rest of the world combined.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/859266/number-of-coal-power-plants-by-country/

That's July 2022, where China has 1,118 coal power plants, India is in 2nd with 285, and the US is in 3rd with 225. China has continued adding ~2 per week since then, the US has built 0 and has retired some including 8 that are or will be either partially or completely retired this year.

Again... China approves about as many new coal power plants in just a 2 year span than the US has in TOTAL.

[hollodero]

(09-12-2023, 04:43 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: China approved 2 new coal power plants every single week in 2022. That's 104 new coal power plants in one year. China is adding more GW of coal energy each year than the rest of the world combined.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/859266/number-of-coal-power-plants-by-country/

That's July 2022, where China has 1,118 coal power plants, India is in 2nd with 285, and the US is in 3rd with 225. China has continued adding ~2 per week since then, the US has built 0 and has retired some including 8 that are or will be either partially or completely retired this year.

Certainly. I did not mean to deny or defend that. China's emsissions rise quickly, they want fast growth and mainly use carbon-based energy to get there. Of course they could claim that the west basically did the same thing in the past and now it's only fair that it's their turn.

It just doesn't mean that America has to follow suit or stop caring about their emissions. Being competitive alone can not trump doing the considerate thing regarding emissions. Eg. China also suppresses minorities, has an authoritarian system, sends Uyghurs into mines to perish. That does not mean the US should feel free to do the same to keep the competitive edge.

I sure understand that it might be too late or there's just no conceivable way to get China to go green energy ever. It might lead to devastating effects for our children. But this likelihood is certainly even bigger if the US does not change its ways as well. You can at least change what's within your power. And so should we and my country, for sure. Even if we do not have a single coal power plant and could very well just lean back and scorn the US for having 225.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(09-12-2023, 04:57 PM)hollodero Wrote: Certainly. I did not mean to deny or defend that. China's emsissions rise quickly, they want fast growth and mainly use carbon-based energy to get there. Of course they could claim that the west basically did the same thing in the past and now it's only fair that it's their turn.

It just doesn't mean that America has to follow suit or stop caring about their emissions. Being competitive alone can not trump doing the considerate thing regarding emissions. Eg. China also suppresses minorities, has an authoritarian system, sends Uyghurs into mines to perish. That does not mean the US should feel free to do the same to keep the competitive edge.

I sure understand that it might be too late or there's just no conceivable way to get China to go green energy ever. It might lead to devastating effects for our children. But this likelihood is certainly even bigger if the US does not change its ways as well. You can at least change what's within your power. And so should we and my country, for sure. Even if we do not have a single coal power plant and could very well just lean back and scorn the US for having 225.

I'm sorry Hollo, but when you talk about being considerate being more important than keeping an edge over an authoritarian country in the midst of genocide, slavery, funding/supplying warfare against civilians, and widespread colonialism that doesn't believe in human rights... it just absolutely REEKS of the privilege of someone who knows they aren't responsible for their own defense because someone else will come and protect them for them.

Our grandchildren's lives will be a lot worse if China is the head superpower of the world than the potential possible side effects of emissions, and I say this as someone who is a big believer in the need to remove pollution from our waters, invest in expanding recycling, and ensuring we don't deforest our land by continuing to replant, those are all physical tangible things we can do and change that don't involve hamstringing us by removing technology that works and trying to jam technology that either doesn't work or isn't ready to fill the void in it's place.