Gulf Stream

[I_M4_AU 7,837]

25 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Bottom line. Theres no point in debating climate to many because unless if you can 110% prove that their backyard  with be under water by Christmas - it’s interesting but irrelevant. 

 

Interesting you bring up China.  They do think in 100’s of years and not just in 4 years spirts.  Have you wondered why China is taking advantage of the EV battery market and soon to be EV car market while still producing more CO2 emissions that anyone else?  And still building coal plants.

Have they not seen the light or is their 100 year outlook focused on something else?

To the quoted bottom line;  this is true and we will muddle along until it become obvious we need to do something, it is human nature.  The Vikings disappeared from Greenland around 1500 due to (pick one) cold temps, sea level rising, drought and could not sustain their lives in such conditions.  Some stayed until the end.

If or when it becomes undeniable things will happen as the private section will come through.  The government doesn’t have the capability to think in creative ways.

[auburnatl1 4,920]

17 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Interesting you bring up China.  They do think in 100’s of years and not just in 4 years spirts.  Have you wondered why China is taking advantage of the EV battery market and soon to be EV car market while still producing more CO2 emissions that anyone else?  And still building coal plants.

Have they not seen the light or is their 100 year outlook focused on something else?

To the quoted bottom line;  this is true and we will muddle along until it become obvious we need to do something, it is human nature.  The Vikings disappeared from Greenland around 1500 due to (pick one) cold temps, sea level rising, drought and could not sustain their lives in such conditions.  Some stayed until the end.

If or when it becomes undeniable things will happen as the private section will come through.  The government doesn’t have the capability to think in creative ways.

Autocracies also have a major competitive disadvantage - they rarely can innovate and have to steal ideas to keep up. Throw in systemic corruption and you usually get a paper tiger.

Regardless. Again - I’m not proposing anything regarding what to do. Not my field. Just stating that regardless of activists, denialists, China’s politics, fox, msnbc, or the newest fad or diet - imo the science is compelling that we’re changing the planet and wont like the consequences.

Using the boiling the frog metaphor -  lots of frogs thinking water’s fine right now. 

[I_M4_AU 7,837]

47 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Using the boiling the frog metaphor -  lots of frogs thinking water’s fine right now. 

I have seen all of the disaster movies and I will probably see another that preaches us this metaphor.  I hope it is done better as time goes on, they aren’t changing anything.  Our world is having a lot more issues that are more pressing.  Two wars and Schumer is trying to meddle with Israeli elections.

Edited March 15 by I_M4_AU

[Leftfield 2,601]

4 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

 In most cases I agree with you - let the technology evolve and let the market decide naturally. However there’s an occasional bug that comes up in capitalism. Long term thinking. Most consumers think short term and with rose colored glasses.  Not big picture. Theres a reason car minimum insurance has to be legally required.  And big picture can’t inconvenience people too much - everybody wants a cell phone until they put a tower next door.

This is actually one of the big reasons I started drifting left. A good example is back when mileage standards for car companies were starting to be imposed. At the time I was against it. Later it was pointed out to me one of the flaws in a heavy Capitalistic system...even if companies wanted to make a change they saw as being a benefit to mankind, in many cases they couldn't, because without significant  public support it would put them at a competitive disadvantage and shareholders would revolt.

With government stepping in to be the bad guy and mandating it, at least everyone is on the same playing field. The downside, of course, is increased costs and more difficulty for new companies to break in, but doing it to address a major threat to society it at least makes sense.

Growing up in the south, we tend to be immersed in this romanticized view of the absent government that leaves society to the people, and the free market will make everything all right without interference. Certainly by-and-large we'd like interference to be minimal (admittedly a subjective concept), but humans constantly prove themselves too flawed to turn loose without a few guard rails.

 

[auburnatl1 4,920]

14 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

This is actually one of the big reasons I started drifting left. A good example is back when mileage standards for car companies were starting to be imposed. At the time I was against it. Later it was pointed out to me one of the flaws in a heavy Capitalistic system...even if companies wanted to make a change they saw as being a benefit to mankind, in many cases they couldn't, because without significant  public support it would put them at a competitive disadvantage and shareholders would revolt.

With government stepping in to be the bad guy and mandating it, at least everyone is on the same playing field. The downside, of course, is increased costs and more difficulty for new companies to break in, but doing it to address a major threat to society it at least makes sense.

Growing up in the south, we tend to be immersed in this romanticized view of the absent government that leaves society to the people, and the free market will make everything all right without interference. Certainly by-and-large we'd like interference to be minimal (admittedly a subjective concept), but humans constantly prove themselves too flawed to turn loose without a few guard rails.

 

Good points. My only caution is in my experience a free market is much more complex and interconnected (ie supply chains) than politicians or an electorate may realize.  One well meaning regulation can cause 5 times more issues in jobs, salaries, inflation,  innovation, exports/imports, ect. Net net I may be more cautious and open market than you. However, somewhat related,  i do believe technology needs closely monitored (ie genetics and ai) and potentially regulated. Soon.

[Aufan59 62]

17 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Of course the 50% raise in CO2 does seem horrendous, it has increased from .028% to .04% during that time.  Climate sciencist are worried it *might* increase to .1% by 2100.

Careful with dismissing small numbers just because they are small.

 

For something we can all relate to, when my BAC is at 0.028%, it is probably unnoticeable to most, I can comfortably drive home.  
 

But at 0.1% I’m breaking the law and risking lives on that same drive home.  

Complex systems can change quite significantly to seemingly small changes, so small changes can’t immediately be dismissed because they are small.

 

[I_M4_AU 7,837]

2 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

Careful with dismissing small numbers just because they are small.

 

For something we can all relate to, when my BAC is at 0.028%, it is probably unnoticeable to most, I can comfortably drive home.  
 

But at 0.1% I’m breaking the law and risking lives on that same drive home.  

Complex systems can change quite significantly to seemingly small changes, so small changes can’t immediately be dismissed because they are small.

 

I don’t think I was.  I was pointing out by saying 50% with no context seems horrendous, but realize that was over a 100 year period.  Scientist are worried that number would increase over 250% in the next 70 years in comparison is a bit of fear mongering which the climate crisis is.

Again; the climate is changing, how much man is contributing or how much it can affect that change is up for debate.  How much people are willing to sacrifice as a whole is yet to be seen by anyone.

[Leftfield 2,601]

8 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I don’t think I was.  I was pointing out by saying 50% with no context seems horrendous, but realize that was over a 100 year period. 

Surely you understand that 100 years is absolutely nothing compared to the regular climate change cycles we're discussing? If you're thinking in such short terms, it's no wonder you're dismissing what's going on.

 

12 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

 Scientist are worried that number would increase over 250% in the next 70 years in comparison is a bit of fear mongering which the climate crisis is.

Golly, I wonder why they'd think that?

[I_M4_AU 7,837]

14 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Golly, I wonder why they'd think that?

Scary chart.  Let’s keep an eye on it and see how the mitigations play out.  Maybe we can convince the countries that are contributing most to CO2 emissions to curtail their activities.  What ya think?

[Leftfield 2,601]

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Scary chart.  Let’s keep an eye on it and see how the mitigations play out.  Maybe we can convince the countries that are contributing most to CO2 emissions to curtail their activities.  What ya think?

I think it will be very difficult, as people like you illustrate. I'd be encouraged that you find it scary, if you weren't so flippant about it. Do you accept it as fact, or do you dispute it? Will you admit that scientists are correct in estimating how much the CO2 level is likely to rise in the next 70 years without major changes?

Please don't use your tired response about China and India and how they aren't going to do anything about it. We all know they're unlikely to change anytime soon, because people are shortsighted there, as well, but if someone leads on this then they'll be more likely to see the way. We like to boast that we're the greatest country that's ever existed, so should we not live up to that?

[I_M4_AU 7,837]

3 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Do you accept it as fact,

Yes,

3 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Will you admit that scientists are correct in estimating how much the CO2 level is likely to rise in the next 70 years without major changes?

No, it is a guess.  That’s why we need to keep an eye on it.

6 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Please don't use your tired response about China and India and how they aren't going to do anything about it. We all know they're unlikely to change anytime soon, because people are shortsighted there, as well, but if someone leads on this then they'll be more likely to see the way.

China and India are part of the world and should be brought into the conversation.  It isn’t the people that are short sighted, its their governments that has made their policies based on what they believe is best for their country.  We appease Iran in hopes that they will see the light and stop terrorists activities.  It hasn’t happened yet, maybe if they eliminate Israel they will finally stop their terrorist activities.  Yeah, that’s the ticket.

China is working both ends by cornering the battery market (we are having trouble getting into it because of EPA) and making EVs to hit the market while increasing coal production.

12 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

We like to boast that we're the greatest country that's ever existed, so should we not live up to that?

Of course we should, but we need to act like it.  If this is a real problem, go after the biggest offenders, show some back bone and put you money where your mouth is.  Meanwhile:

 

That is pitiful.  Let me know when we take meaningful steps to combat the promblem like leaders should instead of blaming the population as governments like to do.  

[johnnyAU 3,630]

Perhaps China and India are the only ones correct about it, and move forward knowing CO2 isn't the "climate control knob" it's claimed to be.  Certainly leading your country down the primrose path of getting rid of coal and natural gas before viable alternatives are readily available (or at least agreed upon) is a recipe for energy poverty and disaster. (See Germany, Australia, etc...) No, wind and solar are not now, and never will be viable alternatives to coal and natural gas. Nuclear is the only clear answer for the foreseeable future.  

[I_M4_AU 7,837]

1 hour ago, johnnyAU said:

Perhaps China and India are the only ones correct about it, and move forward knowing CO2 isn't the "climate control knob" it's claimed to be.  Certainly leading your country down the primrose path of getting rid of coal and natural gas before viable alternatives are readily available (or at least agreed upon) is a recipe for energy poverty and disaster. (See Germany, Australia, etc...) No, wind and solar are not now, and never will be viable alternatives to coal and natural gas. Nuclear is the only clear answer for the foreseeable future.  

That would never cross their minds.

[Leftfield 2,601]

49 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

No, it is a guess.  That’s why we need to keep an eye on it.

We do need to keep an eye on it, but it's not a "guess." It's an extrapolation based on current data. Data that you accept.

 

50 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

China and India are part of the world and should be brought into the conversation.  It isn’t the people that are short sighted, its their governments that has made their policies based on what they believe is best for their country. 

They are part of the conversation. The very fact that they are increasing their CO2 output is why change is so urgently needed now. 

Do you believe their governments are doing what is best for their country, or what is best for the population's contentment in order to keep themselves in power? A fair majority of the Republican Party dismisses climate change as a threat (though fortunately that's slowly changing). Why is it hard to believe that the leadership of other countries would?

 

59 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Of course we should, but we need to act like it.  If this is a real problem, go after the biggest offenders, show some back bone and put you money where your mouth is. 

Why China would listen to us right now? What leverage do we have to compel them to change anything?

With India, we might, but it's also not as simple as that. We're in a precarious position with them because we need them as a geopolitical ally. Right now that's going fairly well, but if we try to pressure them on something that could stifle their growth, we could alienate their government and not only not have a geopolitical ally, but an environmental one. You're trying to paint a simple solution, but there's much more involved.

 

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

That is pitiful.  Let me know when we take meaningful steps to combat the promblem like leaders should instead of blaming the population as governments like to do.  

So you're for the government's installation of charging stations now?

[I_M4_AU 7,837]

1 minute ago, Leftfield said:

Data that you accept.

I accept that it is an educated guess.

 

3 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

They are part of the conversation.

You told me not to use them as the same old tired response.

4 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Do you believe their governments are doing what is best for their country, or what is best for the population's contentment in order to keep themselves in power?

China is a communist county, Xi is a dictator.  He wants economic domination.  The world without fossel fuels is playing into his hand.  India; I’m not sure of, but is designated as a developing nation and that is just fine with them.

10 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Why China would listen to us right now? What leverage do we have to compel them to change anything?

They won’t and we don’t.  We have a president that tells our people that climate change is an existential threat, but is soft on China.  The two don’t add up, do they?  We should sacrifice and we send John Kerry to China to plead our case.  Kerry is a nut case and has done nothing other than make excuses for China.  Biden is compromised.

15 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

A fair majority of the Republican Party dismisses climate change as a threat

Climate change is a cause du jour for the libs. When things are good this pops up as an existential threat.  Biden has screwed us up so bad it is hardly talked about.  Republican want Joe out of office, so they will bring it up a frivolous.

24 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

o you're for the government's installation of charging stations now?

I din’t know how you came up with that.  We are pouring $5 billion into charging stations and have only built 8 in 2 years.  That is what is pitiful.  If Joe really wanted to get the infrastructure ready to kill the fossel fuel industry, 8 in two years isn’t going to cut it.  Watch what they do, not what they say.

[Leftfield 2,601]

1 hour ago, johnnyAU said:

Perhaps China and India are the only ones correct about it, and move forward knowing CO2 isn't the "climate control knob" it's claimed to be. 

I'm sure that's it. They've always been ahead of us with scientific advancement and transparent research, after all.

 

1 hour ago, johnnyAU said:

Certainly leading your country down the primrose path of getting rid of coal and natural gas before viable alternatives are readily available (or at least agreed upon) is a recipe for energy poverty and disaster. (See Germany, Australia, etc...) No, wind and solar are not now, and never will be viable alternatives to coal and natural gas. Nuclear is the only clear answer for the foreseeable future.  

Are we energy independent right now or not? You're fear mongering by implying that oil and coal will be shut down within 5 years. It will certainly be reduced, no doubt with some increased costs involved, and the appropriate amount can certainly be debated, but you and I_M can't even admit there's a problem to begin with. 

No one has suggested that wind and solar alone will be able to completely replace fossil fuels, but guess what? They've at least helped us begin reducing our CO2 output. The US peaked back in early to mid 2000's and output has been declining since. You don't have to do a wholesale change to significantly reduce emissions. The majority of new capacity being built is wind and solar (particularly solar). Even here in Wisconsin they're building a large amount of solar capacity. 

Technology is still going to have to improve to get us where we need to be, but that doesn't mean you do nothing while you wait for it.

[johnnyAU 3,630]

14 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

I'm sure that's it. They've always been ahead of us with scientific advancement and transparent research, after all.

Yeah, things always stay the same historically right? They are just choosing to provide affordable, reliable and available energy sources to their population, rather than bend the knee to WEF and UN under the guise of CAGW. 

 

17 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

You're fear mongering

If anyone is fear mongering, it's you and the woke masses constantly peddling unfounded doom and gloom hyperbole. Fortunately, there have been decades of these types of garbage forecasts made, and none of them have come to fruition. Reality has a way of biting bad actor prognosticators in the rear end. The goal posts keep getting moved further and further, but folks have become tired of the rhetoric now. 

 

19 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Technology is still going to have to improve to get us where we need to be, but that doesn't mean you do nothing while you wait for it.

Building nuclear plants isn't doing nothing. It's doing the right thing. This idiotic push towards Net Zero will accomplish nothing with the climate, and neither will carbon taxes, 15 minute cites, ULEZ's, ESG or CBDC. 

[homersapien 11,373]

18 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

 In most cases I agree with you - let the technology evolve and let the market decide naturally. However there’s an occasional bug that comes up in capitalism. Long term thinking. Most consumers think short term and with rose colored glasses.  Not big picture. Theres a reason car minimum insurance has to be legally required.  And big picture can’t inconvenience people too much - everybody wants a cell phone until they put a tower next door.

One of the few advantages autocracies have is that they can afford to think long term  - Chinas Grand Aquaduct took almost 50 years from design to completion.  Democracies suck at that. It’s a formidable advantage. 

Bottom line. Theres no point in debating climate to many because unless if you can 110% prove that their backyard  with be under water by Christmas - it’s interesting but irrelevant. 

 

Short term focus is the inherent flaw in capitalism.

That's one of the reasons privately held companies/corporations frequently due better over the long haul.

Edited March 15 by homersapien

[auburnatl1 4,920]

[homersapien 11,373]

3 hours ago, Leftfield said:

I think it will be very difficult, as people like you illustrate. I'd be encouraged that you find it scary, if you weren't so flippant about it. Do you accept it as fact, or do you dispute it? Will you admit that scientists are correct in estimating how much the CO2 level is likely to rise in the next 70 years without major changes?

Please don't use your tired response about China and India and how they aren't going to do anything about it. We all know they're unlikely to change anytime soon, because people are shortsighted there, as well, but if someone leads on this then they'll be more likely to see the way. We like to boast that we're the greatest country that's ever existed, so should we not live up to that?

I think we all need to keep in mind per-capta emissions when making off-hand comments about China and India.

It's the only objective way to compare the efforts being made by country.

 

[Leftfield 2,601]

1 hour ago, johnnyAU said:

Fortunately, there have been decades of these types of garbage forecasts made, and none of them have come to fruition

Examples? From actual scientists?

Rest of your post is just a bunch of crazy nonsense. You have yet to refute any of what I've posted to contradict your incorrect assertions on CO2's inpact. Have you bothered reading any of the links that were posted? If you did, do you have any comment on why they're incorrect?

 

[Aufan59 62]

10 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I don’t think I was.  I was pointing out by saying 50% with no context seems horrendous, but realize that was over a 100 year period.  Scientist are worried that number would increase over 250% in the next 70 years in comparison is a bit of fear mongering which the climate crisis is.

Again; the climate is changing, how much man is contributing or how much it can affect that change is up for debate.  How much people are willing to sacrifice as a whole is yet to be seen by anyone.

I think this is a fair point.  I for one have zero interest in the state of our planet after I die, so I don’t care to expend too much effort to fix problems I did not cause nor cannot solve.  Just need to make sure I die before catastrophe.
 

That being said, I’m a firm believer that technology will solve problems.  I have zero problem with some of my tax money going toward potential solutions.    Advancing technology will be how we solve this problem, and get other counties on board with the solution.

 

I used to argue against renewable subsidies, but I was wrong.  As of now, they seem to be able to hold their own economically against fossil fuels, but that might not have been possible without assistance.  And even ignoring global warming, CO2 is a pollutant of our oceans (acidification) and fossil fuels have other polluting downsides besides CO2.

[homersapien 11,373]

On 3/15/2024 at 7:11 PM, Aufan59 said:

I think this is a fair point.  I for one have zero interest in the state of our planet after I die, so I don’t care to expend too much effort to fix problems I did not cause nor cannot solve.

 

That's something only a narcissist would think. (Presumably you don't have offspring.)

Accept it or not, you helped cause the problems by being born.

 

[Aufan59 62]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

That's something only a narcissist would think. (Presumably you don't have offspring.)

Accept it or not, you helped cause the problems by being born.

 

Ah yes, that decision we all made, choosing to be born.  I guess it is my fault then!

[I_M4_AU 7,837]

This is a good argument with the biggest climate grifter of all: