Paris climate Agreement and the 1.5 degree thing.

originally posted by: Kali74
We start getting into positive feedback loops. More melting, more heat, increasing severe weather, climate zone changes. Some of these things are already happening we don't know if they can be held in check or reversed. We do know that it won't get better or stay the same if the CO2 ppm keeps going up.

So, in a word, no more roof shoveling for me?

a reply to: network dude

Science never says definitely or 100% but it's fairly well drawn conclusion as to what will happen if we do nothing... it may unfold differently, weather is chaotic and confuses people (like why a melting arctic means colder/snowier winters for some areas) but it still is going to unfold.

There are things we can do about it. Revenue neutral taxes (look it up before knee jerking) and demanding alternatives in absolutely everything we possibly can (solar, wind, water). People like to use the argument that we cant switch over because we can't do major construction, fly, move cargo etc... without diesel, this is true, we can't, that doesn't mean we shouldn't switch everywhere else.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Could mean more for a while and also flooding if you're coastal North East.

The idea we will get off of fossil fuels any time soon is foolish. We can not replace the energy production with inefficient green energy. The tech is not there yet. Nuclear is the only non emission source of energy that is reliable and that comes with other problems.
People also never factor in the use of plastics that are a byproduct of gasoline production. When gasoline is no longer needed, plastic prices will skyrocket.
This will be a slow change even if we try to do it fast. Rushing will only make the transition more expensive.

originally posted by: Kali74
Could mean more for a while and also flooding if you're coastal North East.

I'm on a hill overlooking Manhattan. Floods mean beach front property.

I'm all for not polluting but I am also all for warmer weather.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Kali74
We start getting into positive feedback loops. More melting, more heat, increasing severe weather, climate zone changes. Some of these things are already happening we don't know if they can be held in check or reversed. We do know that it won't get better or stay the same if the CO2 ppm keeps going up.

So, in a word, no more roof shoveling for me?

Sorry boss, the snow line is just about DC, so you still need to keep that shovel. Besides, you need some exercise in the winter. You have to maintain that figure and all. Call Al Gore and ask him to move the line.

a reply to: Bluntone22

We are 30 years behind when we should have started and no one will fire the starter pistol. I said this in my previous post but... just because we can't do everything with green energy doesn't mean we shouldn't do absolutely everything else. Why can't we start working toward 100% renewable domestic use? It's silly not to.

Plastics have some amazing, life saving applications but we don't need it for everything, we don't need to be such a disposable society.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: network dude

Science never says definitely or 100% but it's fairly well drawn conclusion as to what will happen if we do nothing... it may unfold differently, weather is chaotic and confuses people (like why a melting arctic means colder/snowier winters for some areas) but it still is going to unfold.

There are things we can do about it. Revenue neutral taxes (look it up before knee jerking) and demanding alternatives in absolutely everything we possibly can (solar, wind, water). People like to use the argument that we cant switch over because we can't do major construction, fly, move cargo etc... without diesel, this is true, we can't, that doesn't mean we shouldn't switch everywhere else.

I've heard that a lot, but seem to be missing the leaders who say those things leading by example. Which would be the real start to any changes made.

a reply to: network dude

Starting with one city will not be appropriate. Nations, at the government level, need to stop doing business the way they have been. The infrastructure which provides energy to entire countries, needs to change at once. Governments need to say to themselves "Right. See all these power plants running on oil and gas? They are being replaced by x year, with other, better means of production, and not nuclear means, but solely renewable means. Whole national infrastructures need to be replaced, whole. There is no point asking the population to make changes to their ways until the infrastructure which underpins their way of life has already been perfected in this sense. Asking those who have the least power to make a difference, to take the first step, is basically a fools game, and on this much we agree entirely. The biggest and most effective changes can be made only by government mandate and investment.

Also, there is no point asking less developed nations to start this process before those who have been burning fuel the longest do. First, they have not the luxury of the resources to make these things work as effectively as they would have to, nor do they have the luxury of being able to afford the risk of making mistakes and errors, because so many more people in those locations are so much closer to starvation, sickness or death, meaning their populations are, while often larger than other places, far more fragile.

The longest established industrial nations, need to be the first to make the change. Europe, America, Japan, Russia... these places need to be the first to move toward full renewable grid power. There are not arguments against this position which hold weight, given that these locations are traditionally the first to adopt new and beneficial technologies, the first to create many of them. These nations lead the world in technological advancement, and have produced the most carbon in total over the course of their industrialisation. Therefore, they need to be the first to take the steps necessary to correct the problem.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Selfishly, I never complain about warm winter days.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Painterz

would we not be wiser to spend our money adapting to climate change rather than throwing into the dark hole of trying to control climate change?

Besides CO2 has greened the planet by 14 % and increased crop yields?

That's a good question. I think perhaps a combination of both would be wise. Investment in reducing emissions, and investment in adapation technologies.

Because you're right, it is too far gone to massively alter course now, so we are going to need tos tart investing big time in dealing with the consequences.

Which, in fact, we already are. Vast sums of money in the UK for example are being spent on building flood defences.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I was worried that nobody on the AGW side understood why those of us who still had questions felt so alienated. At least you get the "why" part. that post was exceptional. Thanks.

a reply to: Kali74

I'm not saying do nothing.
I'm saying we need to do this the right way.
Crippling the energy grid of the country will not help.

We will see how France plays out in the next few years. They are rushing the switch over there by trying to shut down nuke plants.
Here's a link to a story on France.

euanmearns.com...

Things might get ugly there or they will push their timetables back.

a reply to: network dude

I disagree. The reason things never get done is that people wait for 'leaders' to start. That's also why we have shtty leaders that don't lead... we just walk away, change the channel, shrug, sigh and vote them right back in cuz it's not the other guy. Do what you can on your own and try to hold leaders accountable.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: network dude

I disagree. The reason things never get done is that people wait for 'leaders' to start. That's also why we have shtty leaders that don't lead... we just walk away, change the channel, shrug, sigh and vote them right back in cuz it's not the other guy. Do what you can on your own and try to hold leaders accountable.

I believe the word I'm looking for now is Altruistic.
It's a beautiful idea, but not at all rooted in reality. I have stated many times, I'm old and give out, I'd gladly sacrifice myself for the greater good at this point, but I would only do so for a leader I believed in. So far, that guy hasn't been seen. IF you find a leader worth following, let me know. (just make sure he isn't a damn lefty)

originally posted by: Kali74
Selfishly, I never complain about warm winter days.

Hah. Look where we live.

I think people's minds can be changed, they just need to come to that conclusion on their own. 10 years ago I was as lazy as could be with recycling. Now I get pissed when I see someone toss all their trash into the same receptacle. Not government-needs-to-mess-in-their-lives pissed but more like calling-them-out-on-their-laziness pissed.

a reply to: network dude

All I meant was reduce your contribution as much as possible lol.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I'm the "why did you throw that on the ground" friend.

/shrug

originally posted by: Kali74
I'm the "why did you throw that on the ground" friend.

/shrug

Throwing s*** on the ground/out the window bugs me more than most things. Stop being a lazy freakin slob.

a reply to: Kali74

We start getting into positive feedback loops

No, no we don't.

If the climate went into a positive feedback loop, all life on the planet would be gone in a matter of months at best, days at worst. If a positive feedback loop were possible, we'd not even be here... the biosphere would not have had time to develop life. The overall feedback is, always has been since before life developed, and will be until the sun undergoes major transformation, a negative feedback overall.

Positive feedback does not mean the temperature will slowly rise... it is exponential, characterized by e^xt where x is positive. If x = 1 in that equation, then after 1 second the result is e (about 2.78) times what it was before... after 2 seconds, it is e^2 times what it was before. After 3 seconds it is e^3 what it was before, and so on. x can be smaller than 1, of course, but still after some point the exponential factor goes completely out of control.

Negative feedback occurs when x is less than zero (negative). As time continues, the equation becomes closer and closer to 1, meaning it stabilizes to what it is supposed to be. Anything times 1 is itself.

In a complex system such as the biosphere, x becomes complicated... x1+x2+x3+x4+...+xn. Whether or not the feedback is positive or negative depends on the sum of all those x components, not on any individual component. There are also disturbances that do not follow the e^xt formula... things like solar output increases/decreases, volcanic activity, etc. These are distinguished from feedback by the fact they are temporary in nature rather than time-dependent. If the sun were to suddenly put out more radiation for the next three days, that disturbance could cause a slow increase in temperature if it overloaded the ability of the feedback to compensate, but at some point it would restabilize. That is the reason we have weather: the surface is not heated uniformly, so the system tries to stabilize unevenly to an ever-shifting target temperature.

We have little control over disturbances. We do, however, have evidence that the biosphere has stabilized from some pretty dang severe disturbances in the past. Thus the feedback is negative.

If we are doing anything to the planetary temperature by increasing carbon dioxide levels, it is creating a small disturbance that could cause the target temperature to shift slightly or making a minor shift in the magnitude of the time constant x. We are not anywhere close to changing the sign of x, because if we were the weather would be crazier by orders of magnitude than it is now, as in heat waves of over 200 degrees or hurricanes that cover entire continents. Should that happen, yes, we are probably getting into dangerous territory. But a degree or two? Nah, just not a biggie, and definitely not approaching an underdamped system.

TheRedneck