The Climate Change Thread

[Admiral Beez]

If you can limit temperature increases,

But I don't see how we can. Maybe, just maybe if Trump loses the USA, the biggest GHG emitter will make some reversals, but I see no hope for China or the nations of the Indian Subcontinent making any changes. Any positive moves on Canada's part may show a moral compass, but would be materially irrelevant.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

But I don't see how we can. Maybe, just maybe if Trump loses the USA, the biggest GHG emitter will make some reversals, but I see no hope for China or the nations of the Indian Subcontinent making any changes. Any positive moves on Canada's part may show a moral compass, but would be materially irrelevant.

And therefore, we should do nothing to reduce our contribution. Yes, yes, we have been through this thesis of yours, haven't we? Imagine we have said that during the Second World War (no one else is doing their part, so screw it)

AoD

 

[Admiral Beez]

And therefore, we should do nothing to reduce our contribution.

That may be your position, but it's not mine. Let's be the moral compass, set the example for other countries to follow. We've done that with some success on human rights, refugee law, acid rain and free trade. For a country of under 38 million people we certainly punch above our weight on many important global matters, and we can do the same on GHG. My position is that if we do our part and reduce our GHG emissions, we won't have an impact unless the big four emitters USA, China, India and Brazil follow our example. I support a global WTO carbon tariff as a big stick, if persuasion through example doesn't work.

 

[SunriseChampion]

A small number of posters aside, this is a well-moderated forum, with lots of intelligent and knowledgeable posters.

Stop hating on my mate the codger from Halton. ?

And therefore, we should do nothing to reduce our contribution. Yes, yes, we have been through this thesis of yours, haven't we? Imagine we have said that during the Second World War (no one else is doing their part, so screw it)

AoD

Ha, this reminds me of the defence of Chamberlain that @Admiral Beez put forth once upon a time in some other thread. I don't think he'll agree with you....let the Continentals sort it out. Ooops, that got out of hand!


+++++++

Super anecdotally, you guys notice that this is the warmest winter in Toronto since at least 1991 (the earliest year I can remember experiencing winter)?
I'm very sensitive to these things as I work outside and spend a lot of my time outside of work outdoors as well.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Super anecdotally, you guys notice that this is the warmest winter in Toronto since at least 1991 (the earliest year I can remember experiencing winter)?
I'm very sensitive to these things as I work outside and spend a lot of my time outside of work outdoors as well.

Really can't draw conclusions from one winter - but it is part of the pattern. Which is why things like melting permafrosts/glaciers, vegetation changes and the like are good indicators.

AoD

 

[AlbertC]

Outrage at whites-only image as Uganda climate activist cropped from photo

Associated Press says Vanessa Nakate was excised from image, which also featured Greta Thunberg, ‘purely on composition grounds’

Kenya Evelyn
Fri 24 Jan 2020 21.56 GMT

Ugandan climate activist Vanessa Nakate has called out racism in media after she was cropped out of a photo featuring prominent climate activists including Greta Thunberg, Loukina Tille, Luisa Neubauer and Isabelle Axelsson.

Nakate made the comment in a video which has since gone viral, adding that she now understood “the definition of the word racism” for the first time in her life.

The group had given a news conference in Davos on Friday when Nakate was then cropped out of a published version by the Associated Press, a US news agency. She questioned the removal on Twitter.

Outrage at whites-only image as Ugandan climate activist cropped from photo

Vanessa Nakate was excised from image, which also featured Greta Thunberg, ‘purely on composition grounds’ says Associated Press

www.theguardian.com

 

[Johnny Au]

It is time that Time Magazine makes Vanessa Nakate the 2020 person of the year.

 

[TrickyRicky]

U of T’s Path to a Low-Carbon Future Begins Deep Below King’s College Circle - University of Toronto Magazine

magazine.utoronto.ca

Of local Toronto interest U of T efforts to meet emission targets.

I think there are some philosophical arguments yet to be hashed out about climate change and what we as a species want for this planet. The greatest issue I think is not that we are changing the climate but that we are changing the climate unintentionally. Even if we go carbon neutral we aren’t going to stop terraforming the planet or over exploiting any number of resources. Climate change is a symptom not the disease.

Furthermore, what artificial state exactly should we keep the earth in to feel happy about it? Climate is ever changing and we are not alone in the terraforming game played by all kinds of species most seemingly with less guilt than we burden ourselves with. In one theory humans exist as a biological weapon in the ancient war between grasslands and forests.

The human mind essential exists for and because of climate change adaptation so I highly doubt climate change is particularly threatening from a survival perspective; however, it will upset the world order of today

 

[Northern Light]

I think there are some philosophical arguments yet to be hashed out about climate change and what we as a species want for this planet.

We are entirely incapable of executing climate change in a purposeful, controlled way, with a precision outcome. The risk of not merely missing some theoretical target, but of unintended and possibly catastrophic consequences make such a notion entirely too risky at this time.

The greatest issue I think is not that we are changing the climate but that we are changing the climate unintentionally.

And without any precision. +/- 2 degrees C in this case is enormous, and modelling would suggest that 2 would be around the mid-US, while the further you get from the equator the higher the high number.

Furthermore, what artificial state exactly should we keep the earth in to feel happy about it?

The issue is not one of seeking to halt all natural range in climate (though we may wish, in theory, were we capable to mitigate against the greatest extremes).

The issue is that we are artificially accelerating a natural warming and carbonizing trend in a very substantial way with potentially adverse to human results.

The human mind essential exists for and because of climate change adaptation so I highly doubt climate change is particularly threatening from a survival perspective; however, it will upset the world order of today

More than a little.

Will the species survive? More than likely.

However, suppose Ocean levels rise at the high end of the predicted range?

No sea wall would adequately protect NYC, or Miami, or low-lying parts of L.A. or Vancouver, etc. Similar issues abound globally.

We're talking, admittedly over decades, but compelling migration and abandonment and then replacement of infrastructure on a planetary scale, relocating perhaps, 1 Billion people.

Environmental Migrants: Up to 1 Billion by 2050 - Foresight

There are currently 64 million forced migrants in the world fleeing wars, hunger, persecution and a growing force: climate change. UN forecasts estimate that there could be anywhere between 25 million and 1 billion environmental migrants by 2050. Understanding the climate change-migration nexus...

www.climateforesight.eu

Many ranges for that early are lower, but consistently come in between 25M - 150M in that time frame and sometimes, as above, higher.

But we are looking at 1B by 2100, and maybe more.

That's staggering.

You need to consider there will be fewer places to put said dislocated people.

Rising sea levels will also displace agricultural lands as well.

Not to mention major un-knowables such as impacts on ocean currents (Gulf Stream) and air currents (Jet Stream).

While these may not be impacted at all, we simply lack good info, the risk is enormous.

Yes adaptation is possible. But why would we want to endure enormous pain and cost by accelerating or exacerbating the scale of the problem?

 

[SunriseChampion]

Really can't draw conclusions from one winter - but it is part of the pattern. Which is why things like melting permafrosts/glaciers, vegetation changes and the like are good indicators.

AoD

No, of course it doesn't prove anything and could just be anomalous....30 years isn't exactly a long time, but it is interesting to note.

 

[SunriseChampion]

It is time that Time Magazine makes Vanessa Nakate the 2020 person of the year.

What? The year just started! Besides, the persons of the year will be whoever wins gold at the climbing competitions in Tokyo. At least for me, you guys can keep your lofty ideals, I'm going climbing.

 

[BurlOak]

No, of course it doesn't prove anything and could just be anomalous....30 years isn't exactly a long time, but it is interesting to note.

Was it last year, or the year before that the Great Lakes had the highest ice cover in a generation?

 

[SunriseChampion]

Was it last year, or the year before that the Great Lakes had the highest ice cover in a generation?

I don't remember.....I think it may have been 2013-2015 when we had two winters in a row that were especially cold.

 

[TrickyRicky]

Northern light, I’m a believer in reducing Carbon emissions but as I’ve posted previously there is essentially no way humans are going to meet the set goals. That’s not a reason to throw up our hands. I enjoy challenges and that’s why I’m interested in the subject. Climate change with respect to carbon emissions is a game of part adaptation part meeting stretch goals. Frankly also, carbon emissions are only one of many things we are doing to terraform climate.

By the way you mentioned about moving a billion people. Actually comparatively moving a billion people is a fairly easy task relative to carbon emissions neutrality. Like India will probably urbanize 500 million people to urban areas alone in the next generation. Africa will move more than 1 billion people. Comparatively carbon neutrality is a much more complex and costly endeavour.

 

[jje1000]

Wind Turbine Blades Can’t Be Recycled, So They’re Piling Up in Landfills
Companies are searching for ways to deal with the tens of thousands of blades that have reached the end of their lives.
By Chris Martin
February 5, 2020, 5:00 AM EST

Tens of thousands of aging blades are coming down from steel towers around the world and most have nowhere to go but landfills. In the U.S. alone, about 8,000 will be removed in each of the next four years. Europe, which has been dealing with the problem longer, has about 3,800 coming down annually through at least 2022, according to BloombergNEF. It’s going to get worse: Most were built more than a decade ago, when installations were less than a fifth of what they are now.

Built to withstand hurricane-force winds, the blades can’t easily be crushed, recycled or repurposed. That’s created an urgent search for alternatives in places that lack wide-open prairies. In the U.S., they go to the handful of landfills that accept them, in Lake Mills, Iowa; Sioux Falls, South Dakota; and Casper, where they will be interred in stacks that reach 30 feet under.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?