Climate Change Scientific Studies

[hollodero]

(09-12-2023, 05:25 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 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.

If you see it that way, that's certainly your prerogative.

[MrRager]

(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?

What is your source for the quote you used in this comment? I would like to read it because it seems to come from a different viewpoint than the articles about Y2K I've read. 

I was too young to fully grasp what Y2K was about, and my limited and probably wrong understanding was, "It had to do with computers and their dates only containing two digits." Currently, from various articles I've read, Y2K was a big deal. The reason people look at it like a hoax is because they weren't aware of the time and money being spent to update code behind the scenes. This quote kind of sums up what I commonly hear now:

“The Y2K crisis didn’t happen precisely because people started preparing for it over a decade in advance. And the general public who was busy stocking up on supplies and stuff just didn’t have a sense that the programmers were on the job,” says Paul Saffo, a futurist and adjunct professor at Stanford University.

[LSUfaninTN]

(09-12-2023, 04:39 PM)hollodero Wrote: 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.

Yeah, well that's where I would disagree. As far as China, that's a nice thought, but China, India, and Russia will never, ever, ever comply. China has a lot of the world by the balls, we put sanctions on them they'll do it to us right back (see Trump era). The only thing to stop the east from using oil is if they switch to nuclear or if they run out, and I don't see either of those happening in my lifetime. Not to mention, as discussed in this thread, our argument that going green will save the planet isn't exactly airtight. I don't think climate change is a "hoax" per se because I don't have proof, but I certainly don't rule it out and I'm not a conspiracy theorist. It's utopian and idealistic to think we could "set a good example" and the east would follow. Ain't gonna happen.

Also, I would be GLAD if the US was America first. I'd rather take care of the homeless and the drug addicts, instead of drive Russia further into China's arms by spending hundreds of billions helping out one of the most corrupt countries in the world in Ukraine. This is one thing China does right, they worry about themselves first. Sure you have your allies, but take care of yourself. That's partially why they're kicking our asses, and the only thing that may hold them up is their aging population. TBD at this point.

This is all really a moot point anyway because unless we switch to nuclear, the US will be extremely dependent on oil for the rest of all of our lives. It's not up for debate, we just don't have another option.

I can't stress to you enough, regarding your last sentence... if the entire west went green tomorrow, which is impossible, China and Russia would be like "cool, more oil for us then." I'm not even being cynical; they do not, and will not ever care. They don't see the world the same way the west does, in a lot of ways (i.e., intellectual property laws) they might as well be another planet.

[hollodero]

(09-12-2023, 06:58 PM)LSUfaninTN Wrote: Yeah, well that's where I would disagree. As far as China, that's a nice thought, but China, India, and Russia will never, ever, ever comply. China has a lot of the world by the balls, we put sanctions on them they'll do it to us right back (see Trump era). The only thing to stop the east from using oil is if they switch to nuclear or if they run out, and I don't see either of those happening in my lifetime. Not to mention, as discussed in this thread, our argument that going green will save the planet isn't exactly airtight. I don't think climate change is a "hoax" per se because I don't have proof, but I certainly don't rule it out and I'm not a conspiracy theorist. It's utopian and idealistic to think we could "set a good example" and the east would follow. Ain't gonna happen.

Also, I would be GLAD if the US was America first. I'd rather take care of the homeless and the drug addicts, instead of drive Russia further into China's arms by spending hundreds of billions helping out one of the most corrupt countries in the world in Ukraine. This is one thing China does right, they worry about themselves first. Sure you have your allies, but take care of yourself. That's partially why they're kicking our asses, and the only thing that may hold them up is their aging population. TBD at this point.

This is all really a moot point anyway because unless we switch to nuclear, the US will be extremely dependent on oil for the rest of all of our lives. It's not up for debate, we just don't have another option.

I can't stress to you enough, regarding your last sentence... if the entire west went green tomorrow, which is impossible, China and Russia would be like "cool, more oil for us then." I'm not even being cynical; they do not, and will not ever care. They don't see the world the same way the west does, in a lot of ways (i.e., intellectual property laws) they might as well be another planet.

As I said, you might be right (to a point, but that's the fine print). I can, however, see reasonable heads prevail everywhere. Scientists around the world have the same message to their leaders too - climate change is real, its consequences are drastic and China etc. are as much affected as anyone. Something China does not deny.

Which, of course, is the stance I'm coming from, that science has the basics about it right and it's a danger demanding urgent action. I don't quite like the counterarguments to that. 
Be it claiming the technology isn't there, which imho is too broad a statement. Solar energy, hydroelectric plants, windparks and the like are usable and just more expensive in the short term; or can become cheaper when research is funded appropriately. If they can not serve the whole demand, it still can satisfy some demand. It als ignores possibilities of reducing consumption, be it through better technologies in cars, or smaller cars, or carbon taxes, or better public transport or lots of things that sure are achievable, at least some of them. And anything is better than nothing.

Or be it having to keep the competitive edge over China at all costs, an argument that could just as well be used to allow child labor in the US, for China does it too. I'm not directly equating emissions to child labor or minorities in mines etc., what I'm saying is that the US is not just fierce competitor, but also has values that trump competitiveness at some point. Which is why you don't have forced labor etc. even though China certainly benefits from that. And when it's about something as urgent as climate change is according to science, then emission reduction very well deserves to be among these examples.

Or lastly, be it that the world will never ever follow suit. Europe said the same thing about the US once, we might be wrong about that (or not, jury's still out). And other parts of the world can be persuaded too, be it through tariffs, incentives, technology transfer, environmental education programs, sanctions, public shaming or some sort of aid/bribery or whatever combination of means. When it's about the well-being of future humankind, it's worth trying. We did it once with CFC's, after all.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-12-2023, 05:36 PM)MrRager Wrote: What is your source for the quote you used in this comment? I would like to read it because it seems to come from a different viewpoint than the articles about Y2K I've read. 

I was too young to fully grasp what Y2K was about, and my limited and probably wrong understanding was, "It had to do with computers and their dates only containing two digits." Currently, from various articles I've read, Y2K was a big deal. The reason people look at it like a hoax is because they weren't aware of the time and money being spent to update code behind the scenes. This quote kind of sums up what I commonly hear now:

“The Y2K crisis didn’t happen precisely because people started preparing for it over a decade in advance. And the general public who was busy stocking up on supplies and stuff just didn’t have a sense that the programmers were on the job,” says Paul Saffo, a futurist and adjunct professor at Stanford University.

Didn't say the code didn't need to be fixed, was saying that people were claiming computer controlled things would cease to function on the date change. That was not a very accurate statement at all. Most things would still have functioned fine, only thing is that many dates might say 1900 instead of 2000 (or 00 in 2 digit year date formats). Which would have still needed to be addressed but not the End of the World as we know it crap they were preaching. It was just straight fear and had tons of people unnecessarily stockpiling goods to prepare for "DOOMSDAY". Just a perfect example of the media over-hyping an issue and inducing a panic state in people's minds. It was very unnecessary, so now when I see the media hyping something like climate control, i'm not really buying their full story anymore. 



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/06/05/climate-change-apocalypse-could-start-2050-if-we-do-noting/1356865001/
End of civilization: climate change apocalypse could start by 2050 if we don't act, report warns


https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/14/what-2050-could-look-like-if-we-dont-do-anything-about-climate-change.html



What 2050 could look like if we don’t do anything about climate change: Hot, a constant cough, regular mask-wearing




More of this crap. I'm not saying ignore the emissions side, but ignore the doomsday part, work on lowering CO2 emissions and keep on going. Keep doing every little thing you can to make it better. Go about it smartly not blindly.

[guyofthetiger]

Weather people can't even get the daily forecast right. It is so unpredictable. I think God likes to keep us guessing. That includes the future.