Things are getting better, or at least not changing, part 1 10

[hokie66]

The graph shows almost 900 million tonnes in storage. Probably mostly wheat. Is that enough? I don't know.

 

[GregLocock]

If it wasn't enough it would be going down over time.

Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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

 

[GregLocock]

Not all of the Antarctic is melting - some of it is getting deeper

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48886-x

Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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

 

[GregLocock]

More on the greening of the Earth

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818124000420

Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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

 

[RadiateurFou]

Isn't it a bad thing that there is such a perturbartion of a natural phenomenon? There is complex equilibium in nature, small variation of one variable can lead to disaster.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Isn't it a bad thing that there is such a perturbartion of a natural phenomenon?

Maybe. But, maybe not. Forest fires are a natural phenomenon. Is it a bad thing that we manage forests in an attempt to prevent large forest fires? Is it a bad thing that the Army Core of Engineers manages our water ways to reduce the possibility of floods? Is it a bad thing when we convert an open prairie into farmland?

It's only a bad thing if something bad comes from it? I would argue that our excessive CO2 emissions have the potential to be quite bad. But, I would also argue that the use of fossil fuels have been AMAZINGLY good as far as increasing the standard of living for humanity.

There is complex equilibrium in nature, small variation of one variable can lead to disaster.

Is this really true though? I'd argue that there is tremendous "inertia" in nature. That nature always seems to find a way to read a new equilibrium. It has to. There are droughts, floods, fires, earthquakes. There have always been these things. And, nature finds a way back to recover from these things.

Now, there are times (easter Island) where the human population has done something that has devastated nature in a way that becomes incredibly detrimental to the human population. There are plenty of other times (strip mining, burning rain forests and such) where that is probably intentional, or where the profit motives make companies commit atrocities against the local ecosystem.

However, I don't believe that there is enough evidence to genuinely suggest that a "small variation" in CO2 levels will lead to disaster for humanity. We should be more cautious than we currently are. We should create incentives to reduce CO2 emissions. But, we shouldn't commit economic suicide to do it. The amount of human suffering would be much, much worse with most of the proposed "solutions" to our fossil fuel addiction.

 

[GregLocock]

I suspect the answer is negative feedback and adaptation. Within the duration of time where mammals have been around the world has been hotter, colder, higher sea levels, lower sea levels, had more CO2 and had less CO2 than now. Since we are the most adaptable of mammals it seems likely that we can cope with, if not enjoy, quite radical shifts in climate.

Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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

 

[RadiateurFou]

Is it a bad thing that the Army Core of Engineers manages our water ways to reduce the possibility of floods

I think the difference here is in the Army Core of Engineers. There is no Army of Core of Engineers who studied the mass released of Co2 in the air. We're just discovering that it causes an important variation on the equilibrium of plants, and kinda praying that it doesn't have any big effect?

Economic suicide obviously nobody wants that, but massive investements that doesn't bring economic profit yes

 

[RadiateurFou]

Since we are the most adaptable of mammals it seems likely that we can cope with, if not enjoy, quite radical shifts in climate.

If by coping and enjoying this change you mean waiting for mass casualties in undevelopped countries and maybe the developped ones until equilibrium is reached, then this is certainly true

 

[GregLocock]

While catastrophism certainly has an ill-educated audience it is curiously short of any predictive power or useful advice.

Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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

 

[RadiateurFou]

Wasn't trying to make a point really, i was just refering to your argument. History told us that adaptation to radical shifts in animals means mass casualties and even extinction of many numbers of species who couldn't adapt.

curiously short of any predictive power

. Ecologists have written countless reports trying to predict what will be the consequences of our actions. Here is an example :

 

[TugboatEng]

The most recent mass extinction was caused by an astroid impact, not a 2°C temperature change.

 

[RadiateurFou]

Not talking about mass extinction, just mass calsualties

 

[TugboatEng]

Like when all of the annual plants die during the winter?

 

[JoshPlumSE]

If by coping and enjoying this change you mean waiting for mass casualties in undevelopped countries and maybe the developped ones until equilibrium is reached, then this is certainly true

You really like the term "equilibrium" don't you. Here's a better term "dynamic equilibrium". Where both sides of the equation are constantly varying. Look at predator vs prey populations. Sometimes these get out of whack on one side, but then swing back. Human attempts to mess with this often cause greater harm than the benefits they were supposed to produce.

This GW concept is economics, chemistry, nature, evolution, sociology, and religion all mixed together. I am MUCH more fearful of the government "solutions" to this problem than I am about the actual problem itself.

Also, there has been a lot of discussion on this forum in the last year or so about how the "casualties" from climate events have exponentially decreased over the last 150 yeas or so. This, one can effectively argue, is BECAUSE of the abundant energy brought about by the use of fossil fuels. So, we'd have to go a long way from where we are now to have per capita casualties anywhere NEAR approaching what we saw before fossil fuels.

Lastly, if you look at climate related fatalities over the last decade or so, you'll see that deaths from COLD are an ORDER of MAGNITUDE higher than deaths from heat.

In conclusion, you climate alarmists don't have statistics (or even good science) on your side. Certainly, you've demonstrated that excess CO2 emissions are something that will likely cause some warming. But, you have not come anywhere close to demonstrating that the effects will be catastrophic.... Certainly not compared to the economic catastrophes that you're advocating for to prevent a perceived danger.

 

[RadiateurFou]

Like when all of the annual plants die during the winter?

Like when they starts dying during summer

Human attempts to mess with this often cause greater harm than the benefits they were supposed to produce

My point exactly. And mass release of CO2 by humans is probably the biggest attemp we've ever done.

you'll see that deaths from COLD are an ORDER of MAGNITUDE higher than deaths from heat

Indeed because the consequence is not just global warming, but climate change in general.

you climate alarmists don't have statistics (or even good science)

Experts cannot predict the future so it is indeed not an hard science. They can only make predictions based on current situation and hypothesis on future developpements. The rest is up to the politicians to make a decision.

demonstrated that excess CO2 emissions are something that will likely cause some warming

I didn't demonstrate anything.

 

[TugboatEng]

Like when they starts dying during summer

That is true, most annuals die during the summer when the dry season hits. I was mistakenly thinking of frost regions where plants that are actually perennials live as annuals. Chili pepper plants are an example.

I have been fortunate that the last two winters in my region have been more wet than cold so my chilli peppers are getting to live the perennial life.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Indeed because the consequence is not just global warming, but climate change in general.

You do realize that the fact that an order of magnitude more people die of cold than of heat is NOT a climate change thing at all, don't you? It's related to where we have population centers and how well adapted our bodies are for heat vs cold. It has nothing to do with changes in temperatures.... Unless, you have some evidence that winters have gotten a lot colder in recent decades, then your comment about it being "climate change" rather than "global warming" is a silly, non-sequitur response.

My point exactly. And mass release of CO2 by humans is probably the biggest attempt we've ever done.

Please tell me you understand that we have never INTENTIONALLY released CO2 to solve any environmental or economic problem, right?

I was talking about the many, many instances of the well meaning people who perceive something to be a problem and try to "fix" it... then end up making things a whole lot worse.

The point of this is that taking ZERO action is often better than trying to enact major changes to fix a problem. Put, in economic terms, no small group of decision makers (politburo?) is going to be as efficient at the distribution of goods and services as the free market.

 

[TugboatEng]

An example of good intentions gone awry, California's plastic bag ban increased plastic bag waste by nearly 50% in only 6 years. Requiring bags to be reusable greatly increased the amount of plastic required to make the bag.

Now apply this same skepticism to banning CO2 emissions.

 

[RadiateurFou]

That is true, most annuals die during the summer when the dry season hits

I know nothing about plants, i'll assume your right.

more people die of cold than of heat is NOT a climate change thing

So climate change casualties will be mitigated by this fact? If so it is a good thing to know

we have never INTENTIONALLY released CO2 to solve any environmental or economic problem

This is even worse, as this "attempt" isn't even intentionnal . So the consequences are completly unknowned.

ZERO action is often better than trying to enact major changes to fix a problem

It is indeed better for current generations as they won't be to much impacted by the problem. But it will be a problem for future generations, and they won't have the luxury of not doing anything being a choice. For a problem caused not by them but by the old generations in addition.

California's plastic bag ban increased plastic bag waste by nearly 50% in only 6 years

I agree that measure not done right can have the opposite results. In Europe plastic bags and plastic straws have been replaced by paper, the reduction of plastic have been significant.