Global warming strikes again...

[El_Machinae]

I'm sorry, I've been too hard on you. Please tell me which charities you've been actively supporting that provide birth control in sub-Saharan Africa and/or are providing the basic education for women.

I experimented with the school-building charities in Afghanistan, but only to the tune of a thousand dollars or so. The efforts to eradicate polio get a serious portion of my monthly efforts, and are also where I canvas when people are looking to gift me presents for Christmas or my birthday.

 

[Arwon]

I mean, I'd like this place to be a lot less on fire if that can be arranged

 

[Estebonrober]

Do you guys really believe that the world is about to end, or civilization collapse, or any such nonsense because of global warming?

I don't see us becoming carbon neutral anywhere before 2070 or so. The world will get a couple degrees warmer by 2100 compared to pré-industrial levels in all likelihood. But we will adapt and prosper... We keep getting richer year after year, food production breaks records year after year, life expectancy is rising, child mortality falling. And everyone in the rich world seems obsessed about these Doomsday prophecies that never materialize.

When did the Club of Rome say we should start collapsing? 2007, no? Well.

Yes. You lack imagination.

The end-Permian mass extinction, which took place 251.9 million years ago, killed off more than 96 percent of the planet's marine species and 70 percent of its terrestrial life—a global annihilation that marked the end of the Permian Period.

https://phys.org/news/2018-09-end-permian-extinction-earth-species-instantaneous.html

The fact is we ar eon pace to outpace the end Permian event temperature and CO2 wise. We are doing on the scale of hundred of years what was done in millions in prior eons.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/07/a-road-trip-to-the-end-of-the-world/532914/

Near the top of the supercontinent Pangaea in what is now Siberia, a gigantic plume of magma—enough to cover the lower 48 states a kilometer deep—was burbling through one of the most coal-rich regions in the world and covering millions of square miles of Pangaean countryside in basalt lava. As the molten rock ponded underground, seeping sideways into the crust, it incinerated not only untold seams of coal laid down by ancient forests in the hundred million years before, but huge deposits of oil and natural gas as well. The ignited oil and gas exploded at the surface, leaving behind half-mile craters. The volcanoes injected as much as 40,000 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere. This unthinkable volcanism, and the greenhouse gases it liberated, account for the extreme global warming and ocean acidification seen in the rocks spanning the dreaded Permian-Triassic boundary. It’s even been called The Great Dying. Carbon dioxide, it seems, nearly killed the planet.

 

[stfoskey12]

Yes. You lack imagination.

The end-Permian mass extinction, which took place 251.9 million years ago, killed off more than 96 percent of the planet's marine species and 70 percent of its terrestrial life—a global annihilation that marked the end of the Permian Period.

https://phys.org/news/2018-09-end-permian-extinction-earth-species-instantaneous.html

The fact is we ar eon pace to outpace the end Permian event temperature and CO2 wise. We are doing on the scale of hundred of years what was done in millions in prior eons.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/07/a-road-trip-to-the-end-of-the-world/532914/

Near the top of the supercontinent Pangaea in what is now Siberia, a gigantic plume of magma—enough to cover the lower 48 states a kilometer deep—was burbling through one of the most coal-rich regions in the world and covering millions of square miles of Pangaean countryside in basalt lava. As the molten rock ponded underground, seeping sideways into the crust, it incinerated not only untold seams of coal laid down by ancient forests in the hundred million years before, but huge deposits of oil and natural gas as well. The ignited oil and gas exploded at the surface, leaving behind half-mile craters. The volcanoes injected as much as 40,000 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere. This unthinkable volcanism, and the greenhouse gases it liberated, account for the extreme global warming and ocean acidification seen in the rocks spanning the dreaded Permian-Triassic boundary. It’s even been called The Great Dying. Carbon dioxide, it seems, nearly killed the planet.

But the second article says 40,000 gigatons of carbon were emitted during the Permian extinction, while we're only at around 600 gigatons. I doubt we'll emit more than 3 or 4x the amount of carbon we've already emitted.
Data source: https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/ftp/ndp030/CSV-FILES/
Factoring in land use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

 

[Estebonrober]

But the second article says 40,000 gigatons of carbon were emitted during the Permian extinction, while we're only at around 600 gigatons. I doubt we'll emit more than 3 or 4x the amount of carbon we've already emitted.
Data source: https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/ftp/ndp030/CSV-FILES/
Factoring in land use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

Pace.

After visiting ancient fossil reefs and lifeless rock exposures, this might have been my best view of what was happening at the end of the Permian. As far as we can tell, we’re shooting carbon dioxide up into the atmosphere ten times faster than the ancient volcanoes of Russia did during the end-Permian mass extinction, an episode that almost ended the project of complex life on Earth. Our planet is once again at a crossroads, and the tangled path to redemption is still very much open. But we now find ourselves falling towards the first steps down an older, much darker road.

From that same article it really is a good read.

We have time before we doomsday the planet sure, but how safe is modern civilization? How do we continue economic growth on fossils? Why would we? When we know enough to be concerned, we know how to fix it, and we are capable of fixing it 10 years ago now. As opposed to some I'm not suggesting energy austerity or regression. We have managed to squeeze a lot more productivity out of roughly the same energy usage time and time again. I would expect that to continue, but we need to get that energy cleanly.

 

[El_Machinae]

I want to talk about what a glory fossil carbons are.

They are amazing. We currently measure GDP as a ratio compared to a ton of carbon.

The problem is, there is a limited supply that we can safely put into the atmosphere. We don't know what that number is precisely, but we know there's a limit.

There are some people who want to take it higher than that, but without the permission of everybody else.

Also, there are some people that think that the wealthy members of the world should be allowed to seize the remaining buffer and not leave any left for the developing nations. This is despite the fact that there's no first principle that says that they should be just allowed to take what belongs to everyone, without permission.

It's strange, they have a model of externalities. They think that the poor Nations should just be grateful that the rich nations are over-consuming the remaining carbon buffer.

 

[stfoskey12]

Pace.

After visiting ancient fossil reefs and lifeless rock exposures, this might have been my best view of what was happening at the end of the Permian. As far as we can tell, we’re shooting carbon dioxide up into the atmosphere ten times faster than the ancient volcanoes of Russia did during the end-Permian mass extinction, an episode that almost ended the project of complex life on Earth. Our planet is once again at a crossroads, and the tangled path to redemption is still very much open. But we now find ourselves falling towards the first steps down an older, much darker road.

From that same article it really is a good read.

We have time before we doomsday the planet sure, but how safe is modern civilization? How do we continue economic growth on fossils? Why would we? When we know enough to be concerned, we know how to fix it, and we are capable of fixing it 10 years ago now. As opposed to some I'm not suggesting energy austerity or regression. We have managed to squeeze a lot more productivity out of roughly the same energy usage time and time again. I would expect that to continue, but we need to get that energy cleanly.

But presumably it went on for thousands of years in the Permian. We won't be able to burn fossil fuels for that long at current rates I don't think.
But I'm with you that we need to switch away from fossil fuels regardless, because not as bad as the Permian extinction is a pretty low bar to achieve.

 

[luiz]

I'm sorry, I've been too hard on you. Please tell me which charities you've been actively supporting that provide birth control in sub-Saharan Africa and/or are providing the basic education for women.

I experimented with the school-building charities in Afghanistan, but only to the tune of a thousand dollars or so. The efforts to eradicate polio get a serious portion of my monthly efforts, and are also where I canvas when people are looking to gift me presents for Christmas or my birthday.

I pay for the maintenance two orphanages in my dad's home city in Brazil. Certainly not the greatest ROI from a global POV, but I do it for sentimental reasons. And the greatest advantage of being wealthy is that I get to do what I want

Merry Christmas!

I want to talk about what a glory fossil carbons are.

They are amazing. We currently measure GDP as a ratio compared to a ton of carbon.

The problem is, there is a limited supply that we can safely put into the atmosphere. We don't know what that number is precisely, but we know there's a limit.

There are some people who want to take it higher than that, but without the permission of everybody else.

Also, there are some people that think that the wealthy members of the world should be allowed to seize the remaining buffer and not leave any left for the developing nations. This is despite the fact that there's no first principle that says that they should be just allowed to take what belongs to everyone, without permission.

It's strange, they have a model of externalities. They think that the poor Nations should just be grateful that the rich nations are over-consuming the remaining carbon buffer.

I agree with all that, but note that at least in the last few decades, it's the global poor that are benefiting the most from our fossil fuel bonanza. As it should be! It's entirely adequate that the rich world, which already burned its fair share of CO2, should transition to a carbon neutral economy before the rest of the globe.

Yes. You lack imagination.

The end-Permian mass extinction, which took place 251.9 million years ago, killed off more than 96 percent of the planet's marine species and 70 percent of its terrestrial life—a global annihilation that marked the end of the Permian Period.

https://phys.org/news/2018-09-end-permian-extinction-earth-species-instantaneous.html

The fact is we ar eon pace to outpace the end Permian event temperature and CO2 wise. We are doing on the scale of hundred of years what was done in millions in prior eons.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/07/a-road-trip-to-the-end-of-the-world/532914/

Near the top of the supercontinent Pangaea in what is now Siberia, a gigantic plume of magma—enough to cover the lower 48 states a kilometer deep—was burbling through one of the most coal-rich regions in the world and covering millions of square miles of Pangaean countryside in basalt lava. As the molten rock ponded underground, seeping sideways into the crust, it incinerated not only untold seams of coal laid down by ancient forests in the hundred million years before, but huge deposits of oil and natural gas as well. The ignited oil and gas exploded at the surface, leaving behind half-mile craters. The volcanoes injected as much as 40,000 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere. This unthinkable volcanism, and the greenhouse gases it liberated, account for the extreme global warming and ocean acidification seen in the rocks spanning the dreaded Permian-Triassic boundary. It’s even been called The Great Dying. Carbon dioxide, it seems, nearly killed the planet.

Yeah a 2 degrees rise in temperature is not gonna do any of that.

But it's amazing the credulity of people when it comes to Doomsday prophecies! This "climate emergency" thing is starting to sound like Jim Jones.

 

[Socrates99]

But presumably it went on for thousands of years in the Permian. We won't be able to burn fossil fuels for that long at current rates I don't think.
But I'm with you that we need to switch away from fossil fuels regardless, because not as bad as the Permian extinction is a pretty low bar to achieve.

That's what he means when he says "pace". It's not necessary to sustain it for thousands of years when you're doing it at a faster pace.

I linked a video earlier in this thread by Potholer54 (a writer for a geoscience magazine who debunks religious and political garbage antiscience propaganda on his YouTube channel) that kind of touched on this. He goes in depth about how the geological record show the passing of the various ages. It really hit home when he pointed out that when whatever future intelligent life, humans or otherwise, inhabits the earth millions of years in the future studies the geological record, our current age will be barely a blip compared to others. Also with no good explanation for the rapid rise in CO2. No meteor, no plate tectonics or volcanic activity, etc.

 

[luiz]

I also want to take a moment to talk about the hypocrisy and demagoguery of carbon politics, as this is something that has been bothering me for quite some time.

Ever since electing a far-right bozo as president, my native country of Brazil has become an environmental pariah. We keep being lectured by countries such as Germany, France and Norway, and even by the millennial demi-goddess herself, Greta Thunberg, on how we are destroying the earth.

But are Brazilians even big CO2 polluters? Do we need to take lessons from Greta and some rich European countries, or should they take some lessons from us?

Turns out, Brazilian CO2 emmissioms per capita are 2.4 tons in 2018. The 3 countries lecturing us the most (Germany, France and Norway) have per capita emissions of 9.1, 5.0 and 9.4 tons, respectively. The native land of the demi-goddess emits 4.5 tons per capita.

Turns out talking the talk is far more important than walking the walk when it comes to "climate emergency" politics. Let's look at another country usually considered a role model in climate policy, Canada, whose Prime Minister Justin Bieber (eh, I mean Trudeau) keeps receiving applause from climate hysterics by promising a carbon neutral Canada sometime in the future. Well, turns out the average Canadian emits 16.1 tons of CO2 per year, exactly as much as the maligned Trump-Yankees, and many times as much as we maligned Brazilians.

So among all these nations, the only one which is actually somewhat close to net zero emissions per capita is... Evil Brazil.

Source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

 

[Senethro]

I also want to take a moment to talk about the hypocrisy and demagoguery of carbon politics, as this is something that has been bothering me for quite some time.

Ever since electing a far-right bozo as president, my native country of Brazil has become an environmental pariah. We keep being lectured by countries such as Germany, France and Norway, and even by the millennial demi-goddess herself, Greta Thunberg, on how we are destroying the earth.

But are Brazilians even big CO2 polluters? Do we need to take lessons from Greta and some rich European countries, or should they take some lessons from us?

Turns out, Brazilian CO2 emmissioms per capita are 2.4 tons in 2018. The 3 countries lecturing us the most (Germany, France and Norway) have per capita emissions of 9.1, 5.0 and 9.4 tons, respectively. The native land of the demi-goddess emits 4.5 tons per capita.

Turns out talking the talk is far more important than walking the walk when it comes to "climate emergency" politics. Let's look at another country usually considered a role model in climate policy, Canada, whose Prime Minister Justin Bieber (eh, I mean Trudeau) keeps receiving applause from climate hysterics by promising a carbon neutral Canada sometime in the future. Well, turns out the average Canadian emits 16.1 tons of CO2 per year, exactly as much as the maligned Trump-Yankees, and many times as much as we maligned Brazilians.

So among all these nations, the only one which is actually somewhat close to net zero emissions per capita is... Evil Brazil.

Source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

Therefore... what?

 

[luiz]

Therefore... what?

Therefore all those "objective" people screaming at us on TV and waving their fists like millennial Mussolinis are full of it.

Therefore the real climate villains are the likes of Norway and Canada, not far-right Brazil. Let them fix their own issues before lecturing people that emit only a small fraction of the carbon they do!

 

[Socrates99]

Therefore all those "objective" people screaming at us on TV and waving their fists like millennial Mussolinis are full of it.

Therefore the real climate villains are the likes of Norway and Canada, not far-right Brazil. Let them fix their own issues before lecturing people that emit only a small fraction of the carbon they do!

Um...you do know Greta rails against all those countries you mention for exactly the hypocrisy you point out. So do most of us on here.

Also, she's not a millennial.

 

[luiz]

Um...you do know Greta rails against all those countries you mention for exactly the hypocrisy you point out. So do most of us on here.

Also, she's not a millennial.

Eh, no. The demi-goddess jumped in the bash Brazil bandwagon as enthusiastically as Macron or Merkel.

 

[Estebonrober]

I also want to take a moment to talk about the hypocrisy and demagoguery of carbon politics, as this is something that has been bothering me for quite some time.

Ever since electing a far-right bozo as president, my native country of Brazil has become an environmental pariah. We keep being lectured by countries such as Germany, France and Norway, and even by the millennial demi-goddess herself, Greta Thunberg, on how we are destroying the earth.

But are Brazilians even big CO2 polluters? Do we need to take lessons from Greta and some rich European countries, or should they take some lessons from us?

Turns out, Brazilian CO2 emmissioms per capita are 2.4 tons in 2018. The 3 countries lecturing us the most (Germany, France and Norway) have per capita emissions of 9.1, 5.0 and 9.4 tons, respectively. The native land of the demi-goddess emits 4.5 tons per capita.

Turns out talking the talk is far more important than walking the walk when it comes to "climate emergency" politics. Let's look at another country usually considered a role model in climate policy, Canada, whose Prime Minister Justin Bieber (eh, I mean Trudeau) keeps receiving applause from climate hysterics by promising a carbon neutral Canada sometime in the future. Well, turns out the average Canadian emits 16.1 tons of CO2 per year, exactly as much as the maligned Trump-Yankees, and many times as much as we maligned Brazilians.

So among all these nations, the only one which is actually somewhat close to net zero emissions per capita is... Evil Brazil.

Source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

I think the bone of contention with Brazil is the laying waste to the Amazon forest, which is largely being done for cattle ranching right? There are obvious climate implications since the amazon is itself its own climate zone. I must say you sound like every right winger on the planet these days. In denial or picking at the edges about specifics in an effort to deny the fundamental reality that we are causing the problem and we can and morally should fix the problem.

 

[luiz]

I think the bone of contention with Brazil is the laying waste to the Amazon forest, which is largely being done for cattle ranching right? There are obvious climate implications since the amazon is itself its own climate zone. I must say you sound like every right winger on the planet these days. In denial or picking at the edges about specifics in an effort to deny the fundamental reality that we are causing the problem and we can and morally should fix the problem.

Well fires in the Amazon have always existed. The natives set fire to the forest in order to prepare it for agriculture. 2019 was not at all an atypical year in the extension of Amazon fires - the only thing that changed is that we now have a president who is hated by the international left. Monsieur Macron actually tweeted a photo of a fire in the 1970's, which took place thousands of kilometers away from the Amazon, to criticize Bolsonaro for Amazon fires. Fake news at its finest, spread by the president of a supposedly environmentally friendly European state.

What really matters for climate change is the overall carbon footprint, that is, the sum of all emissions, regardless of the source. Brazil is basically carbon neutral compared to preachy Norway, Canada or Germany, and yet is painted as a villain, while these countries are painted as models. It's all a farce.

I don't deny that YOU are causing the problem. Go fix it before preaching and criticizing peoples that only emit a small fraction of the carbon that you do.

 

[MaryKB]

Ummmm ... what on Earth are you talking about? You do know we need the Amazon rainforest to absorb carbon, right? And your country is the one primarily responsible for tearing it down? Who's talking about fires? We're talking development and intentional deforestation.

It doesn't matter how much carbon you generate per capita, if you destroy the Amazon this planet is fubared

 

[luiz]

Ummmm ... what on Earth are you talking about? You do know we need the Amazon rainforest to absorb carbon, right? And your country is the one primarily responsible for tearing it down? Who's talking about fires? We're talking development and intentional deforestation.

It doesn't matter how much carbon you generate per capita, if you destroy the Amazon this planet is fubared

No, destruction of the Amazon is a joint South American effort. Conservation in Brazil is actually superior to that in Bolivia or Venezuela. We just have more of it, and we have an admittedly idiotic president who does not talk the talk, and thus we are painted as vilains. If he belonged to some left-wing party and talked the talk like his predecessors, we would be hailed as environmental champions, just like we were under Lula or Dilma, even though absolutely nothing changed concretely. Just the talk, so now the demi-goddess is upset and Macron and Merkel threaten us like some 19th century British colonial officers.

BTW, the Amazon does not absorb carbon in any significant amount. It's basically carbon neutral, emiting as much as it absorbs. It's a myth that the Amazon is important for absorbing carbon - look it up. It's important for biodiversity, but not for the "climate emergency".

 

[Hrothbern]

The rich countries have per capita the biggest share of debt: the biggest share of the CO2 in the air and oceans and the biggest share of temperature increase so far.
I made a while back this post on that with graphs of "our World in data" to see that easily:
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/global-warming-strikes-again.606075/page-130#post-15587880
part of the text:

Now... on top.... it is not only about reducing our current CO2 emission... but also about our accumulated CO2 on Earth, our CO2 debt.

Most of the CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans comes from the UK (who started the industrial coal-irion revolution), western Europe and the US.
And because they started producing CO2 earliest, they caused relatively more temperature increase over time than their share of accumulated CO2:
1 gigaton of CO2 added in 1920 has had at this moment 10 times the temperature increasing effect as 1 gigaton CO2 added in 2010.
If we would take 2050 as date that we stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere and 2100 as date that we wasghed out the excess CO2 from the atmosphere and oceans this factor 10 becomes smaller, but it does show that:
A. there is a current CO2 emission per country
B. there is a CO2 debt per country (that is higher for the western developed countries)
C. there is a temperature increase debt per country (that is for the western countries even higher than the CO2 debt).

=> From this perspective it is utterly unfair for the western countries to just focus on reducing CO2 emission (point A.) and be done with the climate action... and blame underdeveloped countries that they are not doing enough.
=> From this perspective it is also utterly unfair that the countries who started the most CO2 emissions AND started the most temperature increase ARE NOT ALSO the countries that are the first to zero their emissions AND wash out their CO2 of the past 2 centuries.

BECAUSE the rich countries had unlimited use of natural resources of any kind including fossils, the rich countries could grow that rich.
Just look at the graphs of that old post to see how much.

I am not of the opinion that this discharges the less developed countries to ignore climate, but the whole R&D, and upscaling manufacturing of renewables, storage, grid, etc, etc, leading to far lower cost because of matured economy of scale, should be taken by the rich countries.
You do not achieve that economy of scale by massive talking but by massive long term orders that enable companies to make long term investment programs.

But so far the rich countries did not make massive orders and commitments.
All are waiting for some country to start and some prefer the geopolitical advantages of continuing fossil.
That fossil companies defend their fossil is natural... that fossil companies want to survive the transition and only transform when profits are guaranteed is natural...
The burden of responsibility to take the lead lies at the desks of the governments of the rich countries.

 

[Socrates99]

Eh, no. The demi-goddess jumped in the bash Brazil bandwagon as enthusiastically as Macron or Merkel.

Come on, you know her biggest claim to fame is bashing the half measures of people who acknowledge the fact that the threat is real but do nothing about it. If she were only dogpiling on that fruitloop Bolsonaro nobody would know who she is.