Latest IPCC Climate Change Report 14

[dik]

Available here:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final.pdf

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[dik]

Carbon tax, a few innovations cooked up by eco-entrepreneurs, winding down fossil fuels, a little more recycling, and hey, soon it'll all be good again.

Sorry to give you the news, but all of this is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. There's really a lot of mileage in that metaphor: a coal fire in the hold; open bulkheads; blindly racing ahead in the dark; peasants packed into steerage while robber barons enjoy first class and first shot at lifeboats. And the band plays on.
The only difference is that today we can see the iceberg coming, but we prefer to ignore it or minimize the impact (because we're having a drunken ball, and anyway our steel is invincible against nature).

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[dik]

I like the analogy... and, I'm pretty sure you're correct. As I noted, "There has to be a huge disincentive to people burning carbon." A carbon tax if implimented correctly can achieve that.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[GregLocock]

" all of this is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. "

Oh, so your advice is to hit the bar, and have a dance? Even as a sceptic of the alarmist scare mongering I find that a teeny bit silly. If you want to reduce CO2 emissions (I don't particularly but that bus left earlier) a carbon tax, properly administered is likely to be a better way of spreading the misery out, and preventing local bad optima, than legislation targeting specifics.

#1 why are we building windmill towers out of aluminium? Steel is 1/6 the CO2 emissions per ton and the same design stress or modulus per unit mass (roughly). Concrete is about half the CO2/ton of steel and bugger all times as goodly.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[dik]

I think that 'long term' is already here... The first inkling I had about climate change was a comment by Dr.Ken Mclachlan of the University of Southampton... On a series of lectures he did on cybernetics, he made a reference to 'we may already be on that slippery slope'... the lectures were pre '65.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

There is nothing alarmist about standing on a racing Titanic and pointing out the iceberg dead ahead.

If nobody had seen the iceberg and had the ship not tried to change course it would have likely hit it head on, not holed so many compartments, and stayed afloat.

What does that say about your analogy?

 

[dik]

maybe, maybe not... the Titanic sinking apparently was due to a couple of possible causes... including a coal fire.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

See the Costa Concordia for a more modern example. Glancing blows can be quite a bit more devastating.

Don't forget that the Titanic was able to lift its stern clear of the water before it broke so the hull was still quite strong. The coal fire did not likely contribute. But this brings up a good analogy for alarmists. They love to jump on every anecdote regardless of the obvious errors.

 

[dik]

What does that say about your analogy?

It says we today have absolutely no excuses.

The ship was sailing fast, in December, through waters known to have icebergs - did they need more information? (Who mentioned anything about an analogy? And what does the Costa Concordia have to do with anything, other than total failure of leadership? Hold on...)

So am I being alarmist or are you being denialist? Your whataboutery and diversionary skills are impressive, but you seem unable or unwilling to smell the coffee.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[dik]

GregLocock,

Of course a carbon tax is a useful and necessary near-term mitigation and I wasn't arguing against it, but it won't get us there.

Ultimately politicians need to find the cØjØnes to impose harsh restrictions on vanity behaviours in our consumer society, but that will collide head on with the values we hold dearest*. But relying on uneducated leaders with reptilian brains operating on a 4-year rinse-and-repeat election cycle, and selected for their sociopathy does not inspire much faith that we can overcome the challenge of unsh!tting the bed.

* For just one example, a diesel monster pickup truck used only for commuting in the US has more human rights than many of the humans.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[LionelHutz]

I find it ironic that there is talk about buying a new car with more bells and whistles in thread talking about how more efficient cars could help. Getting rid of as many bells and whistles as possible would reduce both the weight of the vehicle and the internal power demand of the vehicle which helps the efficiency.

There is lament about why nothing is done. Well, according to any new data the production of CO2 pretty much has to stop ASAP to have a hope in hell of reversing things. For North America, if you tell people they have to give up their houses to live in new high efficiency apartment building, give up all their gas powered toys and give up their larger sized SUV's and trucks for small, most likely shared use, electric cars then you'd simply get voted out of office.

For North America, a carbon tax that is high enough to be useful would push many homeowners out of the place they live in because they wouldn't be able to afford the heating bills. It would make it impossible for most everyone to use fuel to commute or travel more than short distances, so again that means moving a lot of population around close to where they work. But then, there is no way a carbon neutral planet can support anything close to the industrial level that currently exists, so a bunch of that has to go away somehow. Overall, major upheaval which again gets you voted out of office for trying to implement such things.

On the plus side, it will push people back towards simpler times, doing things like hanging out and having a community dinner with neighbors in the evening outside, instead of eating alone in your house with the AC on while staring at your cell phone screen.

 

[rb1957]

just wondering Lionel, where do you live ? NA ? Europe ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[dik]

Not at all tug... too often on failures that I've encountered, there are multiple issues. I would not 'rest my hat' on striking the iceberg straight on.... The iceberg was the main problem... the fire may only have contributed... don't know if it did, but it may have.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[dik]

Lionel... I think you are on the mark...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[dik]

The iceberg Cunard Line owners attempting to set a speed record was the main problem.

There were multiple factors, but icebergs was the risk they either did not manage or ignored.


"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[LionelHutz]

rb1957 - N/A, hence why I speak of there. I'm not sure what could or could not be forced to pass in other parts of the world, but I do doubt that such big changes would go over well in many other places either.

The world has been build based on the expectation of a mostly unlimited energy supply to feed the economy you want to build since I would think somewhere around the late 1800's or early 1900's. It's a pretty big change to now force an extremely limited energy on the world and try to build an economy based on that. Actually, to me that seems impossible to do it based on the new world looking anything like it does today. Lets face it, there is no possible way green energy can replace anything close to the amount of energy the world uses. certainly not within the next 10-20 years.

Did someone famous postulate that all energy turns into heat or did that just "appear" from an unknown source? At any rate, that has to be somewhat true at least for energy sources on the planet. Say we come up with a new magical mostly unlimited energy source that is green. Won't that just feed into the continued energy usage pattern that will contribute to warming the planet?

Overall, we can and should reduce CO2 emissions as much as possible since any reduction does help, and addressing the easy low hanging fruit should have already been done by now. For example, I expect a decent portion of that US energy number is used for vehicles, so a forced move towards small energy efficient vehicles is a good step. But, I really don't see any way to actually get the planet to net-zero CO2 emissions. Net-zero CO2 emissions is a fancy term companies use after buying carbon credits which is just kicking the can somewhere else, which obviously doesn't work for getting the planet to actual zero CO2 emissions.

 

[dik]

I think that's the crux of the problem... governments are hoping to find a 'silver bullet' that will allow them to continue with their excesses. With our current situation, we may be past the point where a silver bullet will help. I suspect current world events are just a 'peek' at what is to follow.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[dik]

Politicians, being a little narcissistic by nature, love big projects and splashing our money at photo ops, but don't want to do the unsexy work of incentivizing a thousand little projects, each of which help incrementally but which in total have a big impact, at far higher tax-efficiency, and which often save the consumer money in the long run. Items like LED bulbs, high-efficiency PC power supplies, mandating efficient long-life vehicle tires, home insulation, better windows, etc. etc.



"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[JoshPlumSE]

A carbon tax hits the lower income too harshly. Part of the real problem is the 'jetsetters' travelling around the world and having their own personal jets.

And, that's not even mentioning the ones that are becoming "space tourists" and how much energy that wastes for a 15 flight to say that you're one of the few who's actually been to space.

I know most of these rockets are not using fossil fuels directly. But, it's not like liquid hydrogen is naturally occurring.

 

[dik]

the problem is endemic...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

Space X is using fossil fuels directly with RP-1. Blue Origin is using LH2.