WHAT’S IN A NUMBER?

[Eric Blumensaadt]

What’s in a number? Well the number 410 PPM of CO2 should be VERY important to you because that’s the amount of CO2 we currently have in the atmosphere.

The two HIGHEST CO2  levels in ice cores from Antactcia and Greenland over the past  800,000 years were 300 PPM!  So gentle readers, now you can understand just why we are in such a bad situation regarding “Global Warming”/ “Climate Change”.

We need to have not only ZERO manmade Co2 emissions and ZERO manmade methane emissions in 30 years but begin removing atmospheric CO2 with vast re-planting of trees and making many CO2 removing plants (powered by clean energy. Then of course figure out how to get clean jet engines and force militaries to use clean energy (yes, like nuclear power ships, electric tanks, etc.).

So the old saying “There is no such thing as a free lunch” has come back to haunt us. Industrial nations have been “free” lunching since the Industrial Revolution began. Time to pay the “cashier”.

 

[Bonzo]

So gentle readers, now you can understand just why we are in such a bad situation regarding “Global Warming”/ “Climate Change”.

Actually, no, I can’t…but that’s just based on how the numbers are presented in your post.  Thinking critically on the issue, my first question as a skeptic would be “is 410 ppm of CO2 harmful to the majority of current species?” Without that bit of data and without defining the word “bad” in the context of the discussion, it’s literally not possible to determine whether or not we’re in a “bad” situation.  I’m not saying this to antagonize you, but rather to point out that no matter how solid and rational one may think their argument to be, unless the points of said argument are spelled out clearly and in context, the argument usually falls flat…or at the least, falls prey to easy criticisms.  Without contextual citations, debatable points become sensationalist.  Consider the following questions:

• Is 410 ppm considered to be a high level of CO2, geologically?
• How does the cited 300 ppm level measure up to the average, over time?
• What level of CO2 saturation in our atmosphere is harmful to humans?
• How do high levels of CO2 impact other species?  Is it harmful?  Helpful?
• What is the current scientific consensus on the current CO2 levels?  Is it being interpreted as problematic?
• What will be the positive and negative impacts of net-zero carbon emissions?  What will be the price?  As you said: there’s no free lunch.

Again: I’m not trying to piss you off, but rather to call attention to the reason why do many posts and opinions on both sides of the argument get discarded and ignored by the other side, whichever that may be.  Without citing data in context, it’s very easy to be doing nothing more than standing on a soapbox, instead of presenting the opportunity for someone to change their mind.

[bjc]

No comments from me but a good read on the evidence from NASA which includes links to other NASA data on the subject. I think it’s tough to do an in depth discussion on a forum site such as this. Everyone have a good day, I’m off to spend the day hiking!

[Claiborne B]

So how do you change the minds and living habits of 7.8 Billion people?

Do we use industry to manufacturer “greener” but unsustainable products? Everything we buy has a life cycle, some of which can’t be reused or recycled.  Electric cars still carry a toxic battery and the best ones have a ten year life cycle, solar panels can’t be used in all climates, need a battery for home electrical use, and are still only 30% efficient at optimal conditions, wind farms scare landscapes and pose an avian threat, fracking destroys ecosystems, and nuclear have their issues as well. All maybe better options than depending on fossil fuels, but is that a real change? Or perhaps just buzz-worthy stopgap.

Can we live with less freedom? Can we all live without conditioned air? The hidden environmental threat. Noone talks about this, why?

Can we stop city and neighborhood horizontal expansion?  Create walk and bike friendly cities. Can we buy vertical farm fruits and vegetables over current farming? Can we effectively reduce our water and electrical needs? Can we limit household transportation to one vehicle. Can we limit household child births? Or perhaps we just need fewer people, maybe we shouldn’t wear masks after all.

Don’t get me wrong. I want a habitable earth with fresh air, low noise, and a balance between man and nature. Thats the reason I hike, to escape the city and because I love nature.  But the answer to this main question, about the world populous, isn’t as simple as vote “green”, buy electric, and do your part to minimize carbon footprint. It takes a collective (not just one people or nation), an initiative, and goal.

To further think what we can do as backpackers. Do we really need all the trash for the sake of ultralight?? Use plastic disposable water bottles, ziplock freezer bags, trash compactor bags, polycro, canister fuel, that new thingamabob you just had to have? All have an environmental impact.. How long does it take Dynemma to break down in a landfill anyway?

[Kattt]

“The two HIGHEST CO2  levels in ice cores from Antactcia and Greenland over the past  800,000 years were 300 PPM!”

Lol. Seriously.

[Kattt]

Sell your car then.

[Bonzo]

So how do you change the minds and living habits of 7.8 Billion people?

The same way most other changes are made: one person at a time.  Cataclysmic, sweeping, “fix it right now OR ELSE” changes rarely happen, and usually don’t last when they do occur.  If you want real change, you commit yourself to being what you wish to see the world being, and you lead by example.  It’s really just that simple.  Takes awhile, yes, but that doesn’t mean it’s a complicated answer.

Or, as Katt rather nicely said it: sell your car.

[bjc]

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Apparently I managed not to post the link. Multiple links within the page to all issues  and effects with full references. A great deal of data there to digest!

[Eric Blumensaadt]

Thanks  for that link to the NASA graph“bjc”. I’m surprised the Trump administration permits it to be published because as we all know, Trump thinks global warming is a hoax. (Mm hm!)

So BONZO, is bjc‘s NASA graph “contextual”enough for you to believe my post?

 

 

[Bonzo]

So BONZO, is bjc‘s NASA graph “contextual”enough for you to believe my post?

Honestly, they don’t really do a very good job with what they present in that link, either.  They’re basically posting short, quotable snippets that give very little data; instead, they’re catering to the extremely short attention span of the average reader (that’s an opinion; take it as you like).  If you click on the “More” links and then start chasing the citations contained therein, you eventually reach some very solid data and some scholarly publications on the subject at hand…but you really have to work to find them.  In my opinion, it’s a rather disappointing effort on the part of NASA.

As to your immediate question, specifically: the answer is a rather obvious “no” for the aforementioned reasons…but at no time was my belief in your viewpoint germaine to this discussion.  What I personally believe is completely irrelevant, because the question you asked in your original post was based around whether or not others could understand your conclusions based on the statement that you made.  Understanding and belief are often two different things.

[Bruce Tolley]

Eric:

Here are some numbers for you

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=39092

Energy consumption increases in the US every year. The switch to EVs will drive more consumption of electricity, the majority of which is generated by carbon based fuels for the foreseeable future.

No one is talking about investing in nuclear which could fill in the gap if you want to ban all carbon based fuels.

During Covid, how many households have purchased new freezers….?

Cheers

[Paul Wagner]

What I find hard to understand:

Everyone (at least, most people in this country) understand that the fraudulent studies on the health effects of tobacco were paid for by large tobacco companies that made enormous profits by continuing to mislead Americans for generations about  the health effects of using tobacco…that’s what large corporations do, at least until they get caught.

But a large portion of our population continues to believe the climate “research” paid for by massive oil companies to discredit what the scientific community has established for years–which is that our dependence upon fossil fuels poses an existential threat to our planet as we know it.

The truly sad part of this is that we don’t have generations to spare.  And the only “experts” who disagree are bought and paid for by Exxon.  Remember when Rex Tillerson testified in congress during his hearings for his cabinet position?  He admitted it—and explained that since he no longer worked for Exxon, he no longer had to pretend to believe that tripe.

[John “Jay” Menna]

>>So how do you change the minds and living habits of 7.8 Billion people?

MotherNature will do this.  And she will be very heavy handed.

[Eric Blumensaadt]

One way or the other we are in for wrenching change. WHICH way is up to us.

[Bonzo]

Bruce – Great link!  That’s the kind of well-presented information that I wish was more available.  I think you’re entirely correct about overall energy consumption being a major concern: whether it’s a new Prius, a Prius getting new batteries, or a Prius getting its charge topped off, the energy for each of them has to come from somewhere…and its usual sources make the emissions of a fleet of internal-combustion engines look sparkling clean, by comparison.

Paul – I think the main issue with public trust is that we really don’t know who to turn to, anymore.  I agree with you: it seems that at every turn, someone or something has been bought and paid-for in order to generate a desired conclusion… sometimes at the highest levels.  It happens corporately, it happens governmentally, and it even happens in the scientific community.  I will say, however, that “bought and paid-for” does not necessarily imply that use of money; it simply means that other forces are at work, skewing conclusions into a preferred outcome.  Consider a geologist that’s also a young-earth creationist; he or she has the correct data and the knowledge to present it accurately, but due to a system of beliefs and priorities, chooses not to.  What’s to be done, there?  How does one separate the wheat from the chaff?

Jay – She might not be heavy-handed, but she most surely will do a lot of things without considering our overall well-being.  I think this year has been ample proof of that.

Eric – It’s up to us, to an extent.  Some changes can certainly be on our terms, but others simply aren’t up to us.  The entire system of this planet is incredibly complex and we’re only starting to understand it.  Thinking that we are the only arbiters of its future is just as dangerous as thinking that we have no impact upon it.  That said: there’s precious little reason to not be proactive in reducing our impact.

[W I S N E R !]

“…and ultimately they became too clever, too skeptical, too intoxicated with the thrill of debate to enact any sort of meaningful change…”

-A Future Historian

[Paul Wagner]

Bonzo:  “Consider a geologist that’s also a young-earth creationist; he or she has the correct data and the knowledge to present it accurately, but due to a system of beliefs and priorities, chooses not to.  What’s to be done, there?  How does one separate the wheat from the chaff?”

Hmmm.  I can’t help but wonder how such a person passed an introductory geology class.  How does that person become a geologist?

 

 

[bjc]

As a historian by trade, that cracked me up! I remember a professor who once told me that the danger in historical writing and debates that it might engender is that it could turn the whole thing into an exercise in penmanship rather than a recipe for action. Well done!

[Bonzo]

I can’t help but wonder how such a person passed an introductory geology class. How does that person become a geologist?

Ask someone like Kurt Wise: he has a PhD in paleontology from Harvard, and he is a young-earth creationist.  As for how they pass the classes, that’s simple: learn the material and do the required work.  A doctorate has nothing to do with what you believe…not even when it’s a doctorate in theology: it is only a measure of your scholarly accomplishment.

And yeah, it’s easy to get lost in penmanship rather than make positive changes: again, this past year has taught us a great deal.

[Brad Rogers]

No one is talking about investing in nuclear which could fill in the gap if you want to ban all carbon based fuels.

 

While that is 99% true there is still some work going on in nuclear.  TVA is spearheading an effort for Small Modular Reactors (SMR’s) and has an early permit to construct a site at Clinch River (Knoxville).  They also started Watts Bar U2 in 2016 after construction was halted in the early 90’s.  Southern Company is building two new units at Votgle (Westinghouse AP1000’s) and are on track for startup in 2021 and 2022 respectively.

China is investing heavily in nuclear – primarily the AP1000 design and derivatives, and will absolutely be the world leader in nuclear power in a decade.   As a nuclear professional, the safety built into next generation designs like the AP1000 are simply amazing, and I hate that the nuclear renaissance didn’t take off in the US.  It’s certainly not perfect, but nuclear power is 100% carbon free – really the only large scale base load power plant type that is carbon free today.

[Bruce Tolley]

In the other thread about grazing and wilderness lands managed by federal agencies ,I referred to the many subsidies and tax breaks that support oil and gas exploration and the sale and distribution of petroleum products.

If you have ever travelled in the UK or Europe by automobile, you have probably experienced that petrol costs at least 2x there if not 4x.

My college econ professor estimated if all federal support for carbon fuels was abolished, the prices would double and people would consume less fuel and produce less green house gases.

 

 

[MW]

‘They just need the evidence. Once they get the numbers, they will understand and change their mind. ‘

It doesn’t work.  It actually makes the people more certain that they are right.

Presenting more facts hasn’t worked for the anti-vax movement and doesn’t work for climate change.

An older article, but I’m pressed for time right now:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

 

[Eric Blumensaadt]

Brad,

I liked Obama’s answer when he was the prez. and was asked what clean energy he would want to use. He said, “All of the above.” Which included nuclear energy. I agree.

With the advent of quantum computing I think it may be able to help us get to fusion reactors  a slot faster. (But… “Be careful want you wish for.”)

[Bruce Tolley]

@ Brad

Thanks for the broader context and new information.

When I look at the growth charts for energy consumption, I do not see a path for renewables closing the gap anytime soon, hence IMO the need to be serious about nuclear power.

The automobile industry is slowly turning towards a greener future.

The oil companies claim in their PR and advertizing campaigns to be “energy companies” and investing in renewables.  Perhaps the incoming adminstration could use the carrots and sticks to prod them to make good on the PR claims.

[Bonzo]

When I look at the growth charts for energy consumption, I do not see a path for renewables closing the gap anytime soon, hence IMO the need to be serious about nuclear power.

Wouldn’t it be so pleasantly elegant to simply not require so much energy, instead of looking for ways to meet an ever-growing demand and doing nothing to check the growth?  In my own opinion, nuclear power is absolutely the way to fix our current consumption problems – pun intended – but it’s also the permission slip to make a bad problem even worse.

[Author]

Posts