Climate Change

A forum to seperate the more serious discussions from the lighter topics in Off-topic.

Re: Climate Change

Postby Strategus » 07 Aug 2019, 13:23

At the end if the day, it is realky irrelevant whether we caused it. It won't stop, whatever we do. Humanity seems to have an obsession with being in control. We seem to have the arrogance to believe we can affect the planet more than its own regulation, and then we are even more arrogant in believing we can change and fix it. We try to mess with nature and we always mess it up, because we don't understand what we are messing with. Why do you think this is any different.
The Devil makes work for idle forces

Better to have fought and lost, than never to have fought at all
Actual Platinum Classicist
I did WDC 2017

Just say "NO!" To carebears and kittens
User avatar
Strategus
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: 30 May 2015, 14:30
Location: England
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1573
All-game rating: 1674
Timezone: GMT

Re: Climate Change

Postby NoPunIn10Did » 07 Aug 2019, 15:38

Strategus wrote:At the end if the day, it is realky irrelevant whether we caused it. It won't stop, whatever we do.

If we did cause the recent increases in overall global temperature (we did), then it is relevant. Because if we reduce our overall greenhouse gas output, we can reduce the rate of temperature increase.

So it isn't hopeless from that point of view.

I am, however, pessimistic that we can get every country on board with CO2 reduction at the scale necessary to make a difference, particularly when so many people are willing to stick their heads in the earth ostrich-style when it comes to this issue.
Lead Volunteer Developer & Forum Admin

Variant GM & Designer
User avatar
NoPunIn10Did
 
Posts: 2577
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 00:17
Location: North Carolina
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1000
All-game rating: 1466
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Climate Change

Postby Strategus » 07 Aug 2019, 16:09

NoPunIn10Did wrote:
Strategus wrote:At the end if the day, it is realky irrelevant whether we caused it. It won't stop, whatever we do.

If we did cause the recent increases in overall global temperature (we did), then it is relevant. Because if we reduce our overall greenhouse gas output, we can reduce the rate of temperature increase.

So it isn't hopeless from that point of view.

I am, however, pessimistic that we can get every country on board with CO2 reduction at the scale necessary to make a difference, particularly when so many people are willing to stick their heads in the earth ostrich-style when it comes to this issue.

The trigger has already happened. Cascade effect. Methane is being released from tundra etc. Too late to stop it. Get used to it, and start thinking what we need to do when the temperatures go up further. Even if we stopped emitting co2, which we can't because we breathe it out, and it is not going to happen anyway, because China and the USA refuse to change their ways, it still wouldn't refreeze the arctic circle.
The Devil makes work for idle forces

Better to have fought and lost, than never to have fought at all
Actual Platinum Classicist
I did WDC 2017

Just say "NO!" To carebears and kittens
User avatar
Strategus
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: 30 May 2015, 14:30
Location: England
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1573
All-game rating: 1674
Timezone: GMT

Re: Climate Change

Postby Strategus » 07 Aug 2019, 16:34

joe92 wrote:The one thing about climate change I don't get is people like schocker who think it's far more believable that the 99+% of climate scientists who agree on climate change are the ones that have been corrupted, and not the -1% who disagree and often have money tying them to shady corporations.

Strategus wrote:From my perspective, I believe the global temperature is set to rise to average 22 degrees, where it is stable. We are currently emerging from an ice age, and the planet has its own self regulatory system. We can't stop it. We didn't start it. It's gonna hapoen. So the plans should be to prepare for it. Trying to stop it is wasted effort. Saying we all do our bit will help is like saying, when faced with a tidal wave heading your way "if we all get a cup of water it will help".

Jeesh. More than 99% of climate scientists agree that human activity since the mid 20th century is the driving cause of climate change in today's world. Every time I read on it it goes something like this. "The earth has a natural greenhouse cycle that has changed many times through history. Presently human activity is accelerating that change a lot faster than it would have occurred naturally. Humans are causing the climate to change outside of it's natural cycle."

There are also other gases which contribute to the greenhouse effect. Water vapour is the biggest one, CO2 is a biggie, there's methane, and others. You can't take one of the gases, CO2, pull up some random graph which has the millions of years on it's x-axis (human's have existed around 200,000 years so we're less than a pixel on that line), and say this somehow proves all those scientists wrong and you are right about human's not causing the current climate change. We increased the CO2 way beyond it's natural cycle. We've increased methane. And the rest. The higher temperatures that we are having is seeing more water evaporation and thus water vapour in the atmosphere. That's also heating the planet and at the same time causing more damaging storms. We're almost sprinting towards the cascade effect where we won't be able to undo the damage we've done. However, we are still in a position to stop the earth reaching that cascade effect. It needs real investment and collaboration between countries. Whether that can happen with the lunatics in charge at the moment is another point for discussion.

Also, the claim that >99% of climate scientists agree as claimed above is false.
The Devil makes work for idle forces

Better to have fought and lost, than never to have fought at all
Actual Platinum Classicist
I did WDC 2017

Just say "NO!" To carebears and kittens
User avatar
Strategus
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: 30 May 2015, 14:30
Location: England
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1573
All-game rating: 1674
Timezone: GMT

Re: Climate Change

Postby joe92 » 07 Aug 2019, 17:19

NoPunIn10Did wrote:
Strategus wrote:At the end if the day, it is realky irrelevant whether we caused it. It won't stop, whatever we do.

If we did cause the recent increases in overall global temperature (we did), then it is relevant. Because if we reduce our overall greenhouse gas output, we can reduce the rate of temperature increase.

So it isn't hopeless from that point of view.

I am, however, pessimistic that we can get every country on board with CO2 reduction at the scale necessary to make a difference, particularly when so many people are willing to stick their heads in the earth ostrich-style when it comes to this issue.

I share the same view. There is definitely a way to stop climate change if we act quick enough, but my hope that all the countries of today can collaborate quick enough to do it is not very high.

Strategus wrote:The trigger has already happened. Cascade effect. Methane is being released from tundra etc. Too late to stop it. Get used to it, and start thinking what we need to do when the temperatures go up further. Even if we stopped emitting co2, which we can't because we breathe it out, and it is not going to happen anyway, because China and the USA refuse to change their ways, it still wouldn't refreeze the arctic circle.

We haven't actually reached the cascade effect yet, according to science.

Strategus wrote:
joe92 wrote:The one thing about climate change I don't get is people like schocker who think it's far more believable that the 99+% of climate scientists who agree on climate change are the ones that have been corrupted, and not the -1% who disagree and often have money tying them to shady corporations.

Strategus wrote:From my perspective, I believe the global temperature is set to rise to average 22 degrees, where it is stable. We are currently emerging from an ice age, and the planet has its own self regulatory system. We can't stop it. We didn't start it. It's gonna hapoen. So the plans should be to prepare for it. Trying to stop it is wasted effort. Saying we all do our bit will help is like saying, when faced with a tidal wave heading your way "if we all get a cup of water it will help".

Jeesh. More than 99% of climate scientists agree that human activity since the mid 20th century is the driving cause of climate change in today's world. Every time I read on it it goes something like this. "The earth has a natural greenhouse cycle that has changed many times through history. Presently human activity is accelerating that change a lot faster than it would have occurred naturally. Humans are causing the climate to change outside of it's natural cycle."

There are also other gases which contribute to the greenhouse effect. Water vapour is the biggest one, CO2 is a biggie, there's methane, and others. You can't take one of the gases, CO2, pull up some random graph which has the millions of years on it's x-axis (human's have existed around 200,000 years so we're less than a pixel on that line), and say this somehow proves all those scientists wrong and you are right about human's not causing the current climate change. We increased the CO2 way beyond it's natural cycle. We've increased methane. And the rest. The higher temperatures that we are having is seeing more water evaporation and thus water vapour in the atmosphere. That's also heating the planet and at the same time causing more damaging storms. We're almost sprinting towards the cascade effect where we won't be able to undo the damage we've done. However, we are still in a position to stop the earth reaching that cascade effect. It needs real investment and collaboration between countries. Whether that can happen with the lunatics in charge at the moment is another point for discussion.

Also, the claim that >99% of climate scientists agree as claimed above is false.

Just a couple of weeks ago it was reported that it had surpassed 99%: https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... -passes-99
Designer: Emergence, Modern Extended
GM'ing: Nothing

Platinum Classicist

Taking a break
User avatar
joe92
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: 02 Feb 2013, 00:26
Location: Leeds, GB
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1106)
All-game rating: (1721)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Climate Change

Postby NoPunIn10Did » 07 Aug 2019, 17:29

Strategus wrote:Even if we stopped emitting co2, which we can't because we breathe it out,

This is a flagrant misrepresentation of what people talk about in regard to CO2 emissions. Natural processes like breathing have never been the issue, except perhaps the additional carbon converted to methane in certain types of agriculture. The lion's share of the problem has always been that the rate at which we extract carbon from underground and convert it to CO2 in the air far surpasses the rate at which carbon returns to the ground. Our extraction and burning of fossil fuels is what has led to the increase in atmospheric CO2. Without that, natural cycles would have kept greenhouse gas levels approximately even.
Lead Volunteer Developer & Forum Admin

Variant GM & Designer
User avatar
NoPunIn10Did
 
Posts: 2577
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 00:17
Location: North Carolina
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1000
All-game rating: 1466
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Climate Change

Postby V » 07 Aug 2019, 17:40

beowulf7 wrote:Dear Dr Malthus.

Your dismissal of the China change as " due to being handicapped against other nations" is wrong (and sounds like "Fox speak"). They changed this policy because they understood it led to an aging population starving to death. You cannot simply dismiss this - any policy needs to be implementable. Even if you were right, your plan requires China and everyone else to enter into a global agreement for equitable population reduction. Really? We have spectacularly failed to reach that level of trust and co-operation on any other policy...

"We need less humans on the planet" I agree with. In fact, it is such a non-statement that I don't think you will find many that disagree. But you offer no route to get there. I could just easily say "we all need to consume less" however I suspect getting Americans (the largest per person consumers of resources on the planet) to dial-back their lifestyle is no easier than persuading the whole world to adopt a managed die-off. It's not your goal I disagree with. Far from sidestepping the issue I'm pointing out that you are stating the blindingly obvious and then offering impractical routes to get there.

"Machines would help" is a plot for a Sci-fi film - it's not a practical policy. (And where are you getting the power to run and manage all the wonder machines caring for the dying? How you going to get them to Bhutan, Bangladesh? Can you create all this super-tech without ripping up the rest of the earth for rare-earth minerals?) "Cannot be insurmountable" may be true - but you don't say how you will overcome them - "recalibrate the throbotron". "Considering it would work brilliantly" sounds like teen-thinking - "here's my idea and I have judged it flawless". I've seen countless things that were going to "work brilliantly" and did until they came in contact with the real world.

It would be worth you watching "Brimstone & Treacle" - it highlights an issue where a lofty and well-intentioned goal can lead to implementation actions that are less palatable. In that case it is armed units shooting down non-whites as part of a "send our coloured cousins home again" policy. But equally we can look how USA the "Champion of the free" has managed to make water-boarding, endless detention without trial and dropping nuclear bombs on cities into things deemed "morally acceptable". I fail to see how enforced population reduction works without a strong penal element, enforced sterilisation, baby-rationing (and therefore trading) and the like. You already suggested financial penalties - how are you going to stop poor people from breeding? I'm really not sure that option looks so much better than CO2 reduction policies...

You also ignored my point - well off families have less children so spreading the wealth would lead to less babies. But I don't see any well-off country agreeing to transfer cash/lifestyle to the poorer areas any time soon. Indeed your previous post already hints that you are unwilling to move towards a less consuming lifestyle. So given that the developing world will be unlikely adopt this first - can you really see the major powers agreeing to let their population grow old and die whilst the (and I quote) "shit-holes of the world" continue to expand? Real-politik. You would actually be making a rogue state MORE likely to encourage population growth (as a form of power grab). The increasingly rare young people would be increasingly valuable - do you want to pause and consider just what that might lead to? Kidnapping? Secret baby factories?? A "baby quota" trading market??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility

Sorry, but investing in your "great die off" solution is not actually going to deliver any changes (Other than through the wars it will generate). By all means lets agree to do something about population (education and wealth spreading) but let's not let over confidence in that "something" stop us doing the things we can actually do in the meantime.


Agreed, but I still think it’s a shame. Reduced world population is the only chance of preventing environmental catastrophe & it’s true we can’t implement it for many reasons, some of which you provide above.
Nature might implement it for us given any luck. There’s a chance climate change could be the mechanism by which the planet protects itself from humans :D
Platinum Classicist
Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished.
V
 
Posts: 652
Joined: 04 May 2014, 21:28
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1718
All-game rating: 1754
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: Climate Change

Postby Strategus » 07 Aug 2019, 18:04

The scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming is likely to have passed 99%, according to the lead author of the most authoritative study on the subject, and could rise further after separate research that clears up some of the remaining doubts.


@joe92 - this is one person's view. Typical scientist's opinion being taken as fact. Note that he says "likely to have...". And he clearly has a vested interest in his work being ratified. Who are the 99%? I got a list of about 250 climate change scientists on wiki. There are over 10% that don't agree with it. Also, he says that "humans are causing global warming". That's obvious. We emit co2, and co2 is a greenhouse gas, so qed. We contribute. How much did he get paid to come up with that little gem?
The Devil makes work for idle forces

Better to have fought and lost, than never to have fought at all
Actual Platinum Classicist
I did WDC 2017

Just say "NO!" To carebears and kittens
User avatar
Strategus
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: 30 May 2015, 14:30
Location: England
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1573
All-game rating: 1674
Timezone: GMT

Re: Climate Change

Postby joe92 » 07 Aug 2019, 19:08

Strategus wrote:
The scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming is likely to have passed 99%, according to the lead author of the most authoritative study on the subject, and could rise further after separate research that clears up some of the remaining doubts.


@joe92 - this is one person's view. Typical scientist's opinion being taken as fact. Note that he says "likely to have...". And he clearly has a vested interest in his work being ratified. Who are the 99%? I got a list of about 250 climate change scientists on wiki. There are over 10% that don't agree with it. Also, he says that "humans are causing global warming". That's obvious. We emit co2, and co2 is a greenhouse gas, so qed. We contribute. How much did he get paid to come up with that little gem?

I'll admit to having not read the article. I'm tired of reading proof after proof of human influences of climate change. I just took it to be the new figure since last it was at 97%.

However, I just find it so ludicrous that you say "How much did he get paid to come up with that little gem?" You say that phrase in all sincerity while the deniers of climate change range from the largest figure I've ever heard being 10% (which you just said, I've not heard it anywhere else) to below 1%. What on earth is happening that you can look at the 90-99% and declare they are the corrupted ones, and not the super minority of 1-10%? (that 1-10% having a lot of ties to the petroleum industry too).
Designer: Emergence, Modern Extended
GM'ing: Nothing

Platinum Classicist

Taking a break
User avatar
joe92
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: 02 Feb 2013, 00:26
Location: Leeds, GB
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1106)
All-game rating: (1721)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Climate Change

Postby Strategus » 07 Aug 2019, 19:36

(that 1-10% having a lot of ties to the petroleum industry too).

Really???
The Devil makes work for idle forces

Better to have fought and lost, than never to have fought at all
Actual Platinum Classicist
I did WDC 2017

Just say "NO!" To carebears and kittens
User avatar
Strategus
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: 30 May 2015, 14:30
Location: England
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1573
All-game rating: 1674
Timezone: GMT

PreviousNext

Return to Debates

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest