timschochet
Footballguy
Excellent post.dkp993 said:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Climate Change thread: UN Report: we need to take action (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
timschochet
Footballguy
This is another very good post, though I don’t think you should conflate Biden and AOC. But otherwise your points about solar are well taken.
MAC_32
Footballguy
This is how we vote, so this is what we should expect. I don't necessarily agree with Mike's take from a scientific perspective, but from a pragmatic viewpoint adaptation is the optimal path. The best we're going to get in the interim are half measures and gov't induced inefficiencies, so I'm aligned with the outcome he expects even if we took different paths to get there.Rich Conway said:
Stoneworker
Footballguy
The criticism about solar panel recycling is just another BS talking point conjured up by the right to attack renewables.
According to Forbes and the U.N., the overall electronics recycling rate in the U.S. is only about 25%. So solar already being at 10%+ (and increasing) is probably ahead of the curve relative to all the other e-trash that has been put in landfills for decades.
In the US, the rate of [electronics] recycling is closer to 25%. What most don’t realize is that many “recyclers” actually just ship most of the e-waste abroad where, instead of being recycled, usable parts are repurposed and minerals are extracted. That doesn’t sound terrible, except that it comes at an enormous cost to local populations. Methods used are almost always improper — in some places, for example, gold is recovered by bathing circuit boards in nitric and hydrochloric acid, poisoning waterways, and after, whatever is not used is dumped in the ground improperly anyway. The current rate of responsible e-waste recycling is at an abysmal 15.5% worldwide.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/vianneyvaute/2018/10/29/recycling-is-not-the-answer-to-the-e-waste-crisis/?sh=3d8dd2bb7381
According to Forbes and the U.N., the overall electronics recycling rate in the U.S. is only about 25%. So solar already being at 10%+ (and increasing) is probably ahead of the curve relative to all the other e-trash that has been put in landfills for decades.
In the US, the rate of [electronics] recycling is closer to 25%. What most don’t realize is that many “recyclers” actually just ship most of the e-waste abroad where, instead of being recycled, usable parts are repurposed and minerals are extracted. That doesn’t sound terrible, except that it comes at an enormous cost to local populations. Methods used are almost always improper — in some places, for example, gold is recovered by bathing circuit boards in nitric and hydrochloric acid, poisoning waterways, and after, whatever is not used is dumped in the ground improperly anyway. The current rate of responsible e-waste recycling is at an abysmal 15.5% worldwide.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/vianneyvaute/2018/10/29/recycling-is-not-the-answer-to-the-e-waste-crisis/?sh=3d8dd2bb7381
Last edited by a moderator:
Stealthycat
Footballguy
question for people who are "we need to take action now"
What things need to happen for ya'll to say " we fixed it, yay, no more climate change !! "
???
I mean is there a temperature you're looking to get to, a range we need to stay in, rainfall amounts or weather patterns ??
I guess I'm asking, how do you know we're making any difference at all in global climate ?
What things need to happen for ya'll to say " we fixed it, yay, no more climate change !! "
???
I mean is there a temperature you're looking to get to, a range we need to stay in, rainfall amounts or weather patterns ??
I guess I'm asking, how do you know we're making any difference at all in global climate ?
Stoneworker
Footballguy
It is well-documented that the "fix" to climate change is to keep global temperatures from rising greater than 1.5-2.0 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. That would prevent irreversible events from occurring which would drastically affect weather patterns worldwide, such as glacier melting, acidification and warming of the oceans.
We are currently at about 1.1 degrees.
We would have to reach "peak" emissions at around 2025-2030, then steadily and aggressively reduce emissions over the following 20-25 years to achieve those goals.
These are the consensus conclusions of thousands of scientists worldwide who, unlike politicians, can actually agree on something.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
ok but we know that global temperatures have fluctuated greatly over time - right ? why choose "pre-industrial levels" as the target for where we need to be ?
what if all the work leads to getting colder then what ?
Last edited by a moderator:
Stoneworker
Footballguy
The fluctuations over the course of history have been taken into account in the calculations. "Pre-industrial levels" is not a specific point in time, but set as a targeted range to account for the man-made emissions, which are causing the current problems.
Curbing emissions won't cool the earth, just keep it from further man-made warming, to protect all that we've built during the industrial era.
We will always be subject to uncontrollable natural earth events, but carbon emissions is something specific that we can control.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-pre-industrial-climate-and-why-does-it-matter-78601
I read up a bit in the last 30 minutes ... do you agree with the above ?
Stealthycat
Footballguy
Stoneworker
Footballguy
It's a long article. You'll have to be more specific about what you want me to agree/disagree with.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
what do I think? I imagine every 100 years there is a single day or two that a system brings in a lot of rain
and ... that's about all there is too it
Stealthycat
Footballguy
Stoneworker
Footballguy
I don't think you're understanding the goal of the measurements.
The goal is not to reset temperatures to some arbitrary level in the past. The goal is to find a reliable baseline from before humans began causing a big impact. That way the man-made contributions can be isolated, controlled, and ultimately reduced.
Then leave the earth to do what it will do heating/cooling wise what it has done for centuries.
Stoneworker
Footballguy
And the point of the article is actually to underscore the importance of defining this term in an upcoming IPCC report. That IPCC report has since come out. Here is the definition. Pay attention to what I've bolded.
The choice of pre-industrial reference period, along with the method used to calculate global average temperature, can alter scientists’ estimates of historical warming by a couple of tenths of a degree Celsius. Such differences become important in the context of a global temperature limit just half a degree above where we are now. But provided consistent definitions are used, they do not affect our understanding of how human activity is influencing the climate.
In principle, ‘pre-industrial levels’ could refer to any period of time before the start of the industrial revolution. But the number of direct temperature measurements decreases as we go back in time. Defining a ‘pre-industrial’ reference period is, therefore, a compromise between the reliability of the temperature information and how representative it is of truly pre-industrial conditions. Some pre-industrial periods are cooler than others for purely natural reasons. This could be because of spontaneous climate variability or the response of the climate to natural perturbations, such as volcanic eruptions and variations in the sun’s activity. This IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C uses the reference period 1850–1900 to represent pre-industrial temperature. This is the earliest period with near-global observations and is the reference period used as an approximation of pre-industrial temperatures in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report.
Once scientists have defined ‘pre-industrial’, the next step is to calculate the amount of warming at any given time relative to that reference period. In this report, warming is defined as the increase in the 30-year global average of combined air temperature over land and water temperature at the ocean surface. The 30-year timespan accounts for the effect of natural variability, which can cause global temperatures to fluctuate from one year to the next. For example, 2015 and 2016 were both affected by a strong El Niño event, which amplified the underlying human-caused warming.
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/faq/faq-chapter-1/
Last edited by a moderator:
Stealthycat
Footballguy
but the climate has forever fluctuated wildly from ice ages to exceptionally warm periods ..... how can a baseline be established?
I'm all for stopping pollution .. my point has always been that climate has always changed, and every daily/weekly/monthly event can't be blamed on man-made anything, not when the climate has always been unpredictable.
Stoneworker
Footballguy
I'm sure if you took a climate course from your local college each of these questions could be answered within the first week by a reputable professor.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
gotcha - tough questions are hard to answer, some are unanswerable
I do apologize for the tough questions - I don't believe what I'm told to believe without questioning things. I see so many people say "we need to take action" but when asked what the goal is, they struggle to answer. At you least you give me that,
"the "fix" to climate change is to keep global temperatures from rising greater than 1.5-2.0 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels"
to me yes, pre-industrial seems very arbitrary, why not pick 1400-1450 and say that's where we need to be? or 1100-1250 or 1777-1787 ? and what if temperatures fall bigly in the next 10 years and get below what the levels are/were? Did humans do that too? Do we need to reverse and get things warmer ?
Its not that I don't understand or believe how we're polluting the planet, but for millions of years, climate has changed dramatically over and over and over and never have human's impacted it. Now, for once, we're allegedly responsible and every weather event that occurs is blamed on it. Too much rain, not enough, too many hurricanes, not enough of them, too hot or, too cold? both blamed on man-made climate changed, and all these events? they've always happened
yes, I question it all
The Commish
Footballguy
How about we go this route. The earth naturally goes through cycles and that's been established over millions of years. Our goal is to keep those cycles as natural as possible and we do that by removing as much human manufactured impact as possible.
This isn't difficult at all.
supermike80
Footballguy
Well come on now..>It it wasn't difficult it would be done already.
How about we go this route. The earth naturally goes through cycles and that's been established over millions of years. Our goal is to keep those cycles as natural as possible and we do that by removing as much human manufactured impact as possible.
This isn't difficult at all.
Stoneworker
Footballguy
No worries, SC. It is great to question everything and I wasn't trying to be snarky.
I think the key is the link between carbon emissions caused by human activities and their impact on climate, which then influences the frequency and severity of weather-related events. Not specific individual occurrences.
In my earlier post and link, it shows the IPCC chose 1850-1900 as "pre-industrial" for very solid reasons. That period was recent enough to provide reliable data, long enough at 50 years to average out anomalies, but far back enough to isolate out human behavior.
It's been my experience that the more you get comfortable with the science, the more comfortable one becomes with the consensus conclusions and recommendations.
This IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C uses the reference period 1850–1900 to represent pre-industrial temperature. This is the earliest period with near-global observations and is the reference period used as an approximation of pre-industrial temperatures in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report.
Last edited by a moderator:
Stealthycat
Footballguy
I'm all for action - like banning cigarettes, disposable face masks, single plastics ... I'd ban fracking if you let me, I'm all for moving eventually to electric cars and all that
but this fanatical "we have to save the planet" "we have to act now" and all the hysteria that's fed ...... its all designed to get emotional responses to fuel a political agenda
isn't it ?
The Commish
Footballguy
Stealthycat
Footballguy
How about we go this route. The earth naturally goes through cycles and that's been established over millions of years. Our goal is to keep those cycles as natural as possible and we do that by removing as much human manufactured impact as possible.
This isn't difficult at all.
and I don't disagree with that .... except the cycles of nature will be exactly what they are, we're not going to impact that one way or the other
Stoneworker
Footballguy
And again on this...those periods could very well have been chosen if the data from those periods were reliable. But it simply doesn't exist. Plus we know that there haven't been any major "natural" events influencing climate in the past 150-200 years, therefore further reinforcing that man-made stuff is behind most of the increase.
Stoneworker
Footballguy
No. Action needs to be taken now a) because we've waited so long and made the problem worse and b) it takes a long time for the changes to be made and then take effect.
It's like the difference between turning the Titanic vs. a speedboat heading toward a glacier. You need to begin turning the Titanic much, much further in advance.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
except that can't be said unless we have data for a long long period of time - not just a little snippet of 100 years or so
I question that the 1850-1900 period was chosen because there wasn't natural climate swings that skewered what they were looking for. Like, it would omit the 1930-36 years of amazing heat/drought right? Those wasn't "man made" were they? in your opinion ? and if they were, why did it cool down again afterwards?
I'm a simple minded guy who see's things a bit differently in the world .......... again, I'm all for cleaning up the planet, I am not fearful at all that we're impacting climate or ending the world as we know it, not when we can look back and see the wild mood swings this planet has
if we clean up things, and it has a positive impact great ... but this whole global warming thing (which BTW was coined for years until being edited to climate change) and the fanatical need for Govt's and politicians to make radical moves ..... I question it all, when some of the most basic moves could be done and they aren't
Stealthycat
Footballguy
good global measurements haven't been around very long .. taking a 50 or 100 year period from a climate that's 4.5 billion years old is a really really small sample size isn't it ?
major events .... like volcanoes, solar flares, earthquakes that disrupt the axis etc? sure, those have happened
some of the hottest years, and coldest, and dry/wet years were 50-100 years ago or more - right? strongest hurricanes and earthquakes and all that, scattered across the last 150 years of record keeping right ?
I'm 53 ... when i was in school, I was taught there was a hole in the ozone layer and we were all going to fry from the rays, either that or acid rain was going to eat up everything
Remember those ?
The Commish
Footballguy
Good...then we can move on from your "difficult" questions...they're irrelevant if you understand what I just put out there as the goal. It's never been to change the natural ebbs/flows of what the earth was going to do if we weren't on it.
supermike80
Footballguy
Well sure. SAYING anything is super easy. If we stopped using fossil fuels---tomorrow...wed flip global warming on it's ear! Thats not difficult at all
FairWarning
Footballguy
Your buddy Tim said it’s a top -down approach. I’ll let your leaders handle it.
78 and sunny on the Lake Michigan shores today.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
if temperatures rise in the next few years, we'll be told what's being done is not working, we need to do more (more $$)
if temperatures stay the same in the next few years, we'll be told what's being done is not working, we need to do more (more $$)
if temperatures fall in the next few years, we'll be told what's being done is working but we still need to do more (more $$)
the only consistency is (more $$)
No! No!!! You forgot cow farts!!!! We need to stop the cow farts too or it will all be for naught!!!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/samlemonick/2017/09/29/scientists-underestimated-how-bad-cow-farts-are/?sh=15e15ecf78a9
The Commish
Footballguy
Van Dyman
Footballguy
supermike80
Footballguy
Stealthycat
Footballguy
Van Dyman
Footballguy
@supermike80Someone upthread brought up two interesting examples where humans had caused serious problems, then governments agreed and took action to stop/reduce our role in it, and the problems are now improving or mostly mitigated. His examples were the ozone hole and acid rain. Do these examples not give you some hope that we can get our act together and make meaningful progress on climate change like we did with those issues?
Last edited by a moderator:
supermike80
Footballguy
Well that all depends. As I have said before, there are many climate "experts" who have said publicly that it's too late. That's the basis for my argument. If there was consensus that it isn't too late, that would change my somewhat pessimistic stance.
Plus, again, this isn't just about making the changes. It's about whether we can realistically make them. I say no. Humans are selfish...we want to take care of our immediate selves and families. And everyone wants the dream. Plus, you have entire countries that aren't going to play the game. So as I have said, our minor little changes etc might not have a major impact unless that changes. Now you're talking about completely changing humanity. Not Americans, not Chinese, not Russians..everyone. And that to me is a task that cant be funded. It's not who we are.
FairWarning
Footballguy
Stoneworker
Footballguy
New bill proposed and agreed to by Manchin/Schumer to spend $369 billion on climate change. Finally.
Schumer and Manchin in their joint statement said the agreement will reduce emissions by roughly 40 percent by 2030.
Mr. Manchin said the proposed legislation would invest in technologies needed for cleaner production and use of fuel types including hydrogen, nuclear, renewables and fossil fuels.
“It is truly all of the above, which means this bill does not arbitrarily shut off our abundant fossil fuels,” he said.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/27/manchin-announces-deal-with-schumer-on-reconciliation-bill-with-tax-climate-energy-provisions.html
Schumer and Manchin in their joint statement said the agreement will reduce emissions by roughly 40 percent by 2030.
Mr. Manchin said the proposed legislation would invest in technologies needed for cleaner production and use of fuel types including hydrogen, nuclear, renewables and fossil fuels.
“It is truly all of the above, which means this bill does not arbitrarily shut off our abundant fossil fuels,” he said.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/27/manchin-announces-deal-with-schumer-on-reconciliation-bill-with-tax-climate-energy-provisions.html
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Hey this sounds very promising. Let’s get it done. Hopefully some Republicans will get on board.
FairWarning
Footballguy
I didn’t think the D’s could work with manchin?
joffer
Footballguy
Similar threads
