Climate Change

[qwaszx]

OK, I really didn’t know which board to post this on.
I tried a search (TLF, not Google) for “climate change”.
There were 131 pages of results.
After looking theough the first ten pages, I concluded there is no thread entitled “climate change”. i.e. there is no thread dedicated to the topic as there is say with “musk endeavours” or “pic of the day” & the like, albeit there are threads about eclectic eco-energy topics (hydrogen, wind, batteries &c). I feel that a dedicated board would be more suitable, given the breadth of the topic (politics, technology, meteorology, world events), but failing that, here we go.

A friend sent me this link. I think it’s important work.

https://www.cmu.edu/energy/key-initiati ... /blog.html

[XFool]

...Except that it's not actually about climate change, or climate science, as such. It's about energy provision.

[Urbandreamer]

I think that the problem is that the subject of "Climate Change" is absolutely immense, and people mean different things by the phrase.

For example, before we started adding a lot of things to the atmosphere, other things did. They cause geological climate change, but other then a very small subset of people, nobody seems interested. Possibly because we are more interested in things that we are causing and things that we can do about them.

Then there is the geopolitical issue of who does what. Without getting into debates there are huge things that could be debated. All sides are right on that part of climate change, but they are in opposition! Not everyone can get what they want.

Xfool claims that it's all about energy, which I assume to mean your link. Energy is just one area. Landfill and agriculture do and can play a huge part. However there is no denying that they are not either thought about or the responsibility of the same people as those who think about energy.

Agriculture, for the most part is for food. Hence changing a societies diet could have climate change effects.

When you consider it in the whole, is it any surprise that it might be too big? That because of that it's split into smaller things to discuss and consider.

[odysseus2000]

The great issue with climate science is that it has been weaponised by folk who want it to support political views.

What do I mean?

Trump, Farage to name two leading climate change is an hoax politicians, have no scientific knowledge & yet say how they know climate change is not happening.

Other folk like King Charles, David Attenborough, Greta are convinced that climate change is real & happening now & have made predictions that it is already too late & that very bad things should have already happened.

Many people split into either of these camps & are deaf to science arguments arguing that either view & numerous variants are undeniably true & that we must act now, such as the Stop Oil folk.

Science is the only objective way to find out what is going on, but it can not give definitive answers that are unambiguous & many scientists avoid this area because of the huge political dimensions.

Dyson Freeman a remarkable scientist, spoke several times on climate change, this is one example:

https://youtu.be/fmy0tXcNTPs?si=jPNK2kcCe3HlhxQ_

In my personal view, it makes no sense to continually emit large amounts of Co2 when we can operate the economy of the world with far less emissions & much more comfortable lives for all 8 billion of us & create a lot of well paid jobs in the process. This is one of the reasons I am a big supporter of Elon Musk, Tesla & other green industries with my belief that it should be possible to recycle most things & reduce the need for mining at the same time as reducing co2. Indeed I would argue that even if man made climate change is not real, it would still make sense to go on this route & abandon technologies that are mostly over 100 years old.

Regards,

[XFool]

The great issue with climate science is that it has been weaponised by folk who want it to support political views.

Well, yes!

It is, unfortunately, part of the 'culture wars' (why?). Trouble is, this seems to be a generally growing issue. IMO, the same thing started happening - and is being kept going, even retrospectively - with the pandemic. Interpretations of the world being led by political opinions rather than by known facts.

Dyson Freeman a remarkable scientist, spoke several times on climate change, this is one example:

https://youtu.be/fmy0tXcNTPs?si=jPNK2kcCe3HlhxQ_

Certainly a remarkable scientists. However...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson#Climate_change

"In 2009, Dyson criticised James Hansen's climate-change activism. "The person who is really responsible for this overestimate of global warming is Jim Hansen. He consistently exaggerates all the dangers... Hansen has turned his science into ideology." Hansen responded that Dyson "doesn't know what he's talking about... If he's going to wander into something with major consequences for humanity and other life on the planet, then he should first do his homework- which he obviously has not done on global warming". Dyson replied that "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it's rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have." Dyson stated in an interview that the argument with Hansen was exaggerated by The New York Times, stating that he and Hansen are "friends, but we don't agree on everything."

"Dyson was a member of the academic advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation"

Um... A well known political lobbying organisation, that has been characterised by denial of climate science (think Lord Lawson).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation

[qwaszx]

...Except that it's not actually about climate change, or climate science, as such. It's about energy provision.

And what (seems to be) pushing climate change but the insatiable requirement (desire) for cheap energy?
The CMU work is very directly addressing the underlying issues.

And anyway “given the breadth of the topic (politics, technology, meteorology, world events)” it qualifies!

[Urbandreamer]

...Except that it's not actually about climate change, or climate science, as such. It's about energy provision.

And what (seems to be) pushing climate change but the insatiable requirement (desire) for cheap energy?

Actually things are a LOT more complicated than that. There was a time that most of Europe was covered in trees sequestrating carbon. They were used for things like building materials.

Over time the trees were removed to make way for sheep, which fart emitting methane. A far more powerful green house gas than CO2. Building materials moved to fired clay, lime mortar, cement and concrete. All of which require CO2 emissions, cement is 8% of CO2 emissions. Iron and steel became materials of choice. Smelting and creating the alloy known as steel HAVE to emit CO2. Apparently iron and steel currently accounts for 5% of global CO2 emissions. Let's ignore transport and talk fertilizers. Night soil was used for a long time. Indeed into the Victorian age. Today methane is extracted to be reformed by the fisher trombe process to produce artificial fertilizers. The reformation process splits the CO2 off and pumps it into the atmosphere, 1.5% of global emissions. We use glass for widows, guess what carbon is split from the silicates in the production process.

Sure a LOT of the above also use a lot of energy, but they would push climate change even if the energy could be found from wind or nuclear.

There are GOOD, I mean really good reasons why the government paid Tata to change their steel production process, but it will STILL emit CO2. You can't buy peat compost, why, because extracting it is bad for climate change. Landfill is capped and the methane used to generate electricity. Not for the energy, but to cut methane emissions. Cement and glass manufacturers are changing processes. Indeed almost everyone is working on the problem.

It's only all about cheap energy, if that is all that you want to consider.

[odysseus2000]

And what (seems to be) pushing climate change but the insatiable requirement (desire) for cheap energy?

Actually things are a LOT more complicated than that. There was a time that most of Europe was covered in trees sequestrating carbon. They were used for things like building materials.

Over time the trees were removed to make way for sheep, which fart emitting methane. A far more powerful green house gas than CO2. Building materials moved to fired clay, lime mortar, cement and concrete. All of which require CO2 emissions, cement is 8% of CO2 emissions. Iron and steel became materials of choice. Smelting and creating the alloy known as steel HAVE to emit CO2. Apparently iron and steel currently accounts for 5% of global CO2 emissions. Let's ignore transport and talk fertilizers. Night soil was used for a long time. Indeed into the Victorian age. Today methane is extracted to be reformed by the fisher trombe process to produce artificial fertilizers. The reformation process splits the CO2 off and pumps it into the atmosphere, 1.5% of global emissions. We use glass for widows, guess what carbon is split from the silicates in the production process.

Sure a LOT of the above also use a lot of energy, but they would push climate change even if the energy could be found from wind or nuclear.

There are GOOD, I mean really good reasons why the government paid Tata to change their steel production process, but it will STILL emit CO2. You can't buy peat compost, why, because extracting it is bad for climate change. Landfill is capped and the methane used to generate electricity. Not for the energy, but to cut methane emissions. Cement and glass manufacturers are changing processes. Indeed almost everyone is working on the problem.

It's only all about cheap energy, if that is all that you want to consider.

There are many sources of human created co2, but they can be divided into

1) Those which produce co2 but could be replaced with other process (e.g. oil for road fuel could be replaced by electric generated from renewable sources).

2) Those that are difficult or impossible to replace with alternatives.

The scientific question is then what % of co2 process could be replaced in a manner that is not prohibitive in cost or otherwise seriously disruptive and if this was done would it make a difference? This begs the question of how do you decide what is or is not effective. There is, as far as I know, no known ideal co2 level & indeed not many decades ago there were serious concerns about another ice age & a lack of co2 to support plant growth.

The political questions are far more complex & revolve around who makes the decision which is a matter of, in democracy, whose policies garner the most votes which is it self a function of “educating the electorate” as to how they should think & then vote. Human brains are wired to put more weight on fear than hope, so politicians are apt to craft a message based on fear or scapegoats. In the process of creating these messages the politicians like to cite scientists & have scientists support them & thus over many issues there are scientists recruited for each political parties policies, all saying the science supports their views.

The net effect is that science becomes of less importance than the personalities of politicians as it’s almost impossible for a none scientist to have any idea of who is & who is not credible.

E,g. Freeman Dyson questions whether the climate disaster interpretation of the science is right & he is then immediately classed as a global warming denier.

It seems reasonably clear to me that springs are happening earlier & autumns happening later. Whether this is good or bad is a far more difficult question to answer.

Regards,

[MuddyBoots]

The political questions are far more complex & revolve around who makes the decision which is a matter of, in democracy, whose policies garner the most votes which is it self a function of “educating the electorate” as to how they should think & then vote. Human brains are wired to put more weight on fear than hope, so politicians are apt to craft a message based on fear or scapegoats. In the process of creating these messages the politicians like to cite scientists & have scientists support them & thus over many issues there are scientists recruited for each political parties policies, all saying the science supports their views.

We're in the run up to an election campaign at the moment and it would be nice to see some daylight between the party policies to give us a sense of choices. When the elections start up properly I always download the manifestos even though I take these wish lists with a large pinch of salt.
In practice though the main political decisions are taken at an international level in smoke filled rooms in big conferences like the COP series and the influence of ordinary people seems insignificant, even when they get organised in groups like Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil.

[XFool]

We're in the run up to an election campaign at the moment and it would be nice to see some daylight between the party policies to give us a sense of choices.
In practice though the main political decisions are taken at an international level in smoke filled rooms in big conferences like the COP series and the influence of ordinary people seems insignificant, even when they get organised in groups like Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil.

Could that be precisely because it is a global problem? (Which is, of course, one of the issues with global climate change...)

Then again, off hand I cannot recollect which party after the 1952 Great London Smog was the "Let's keep burning coal in homes, causing smog and killing people party". Can you?

[9873210]

Then again, off hand I cannot recollect which party after the 1952 Great London Smog was the "Let's keep burning coal in homes, causing smog and killing people party". Can you?

The Clean air act of 1956 was only passed after a back-bench revolt. In 1954 the official Tory line was "Let's keep burning coal in homes, causing smog and killing people".

To be fair a system (and party) that allows for back-bench revolts deserves credit. But we can't ignore the amount of kicking and screaming that accompanied pretty much every piece of environmental regulation.

[Lootman]

Then again, off hand I cannot recollect which party after the 1952 Great London Smog was the "Let's keep burning coal in homes, causing smog and killing people party". Can you?

The Clean air act of 1956 was only passed after a back-bench revolt. In 1954 the official Tory line was "Let's keep burning coal in homes, causing smog and killing people".

I suspect that the opposition to that act was grounded in a belief that the average voter would not want to pay more for heating their home. There was no north sea gas back then so the only viable alternatives would have been coal gas or electricity.

There are always two sides to any issue and in the end it comes down to values.

[XFool]

I suspect that the opposition to that act was grounded in a belief that the average voter would not want to pay more for heating their home. There was no north sea gas back then so the only viable alternatives would have been coal gas or electricity.

There are always two sides to any issue and in the end it comes down to values.

Does it? I'm afraid I think facts trump "values" every time. I believe the universe is on my side on this...

[CliffEdge]

“I love the mystery of the universe. I love all the questions that have come to us over thousands of years of exploration and hypotheses … but when I looked in the opposite direction, into space, there was no mystery, no majestic awe to behold … all I saw was death,” Shatner wrote.

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/202 ... e-to-space

The truth is out there.

[Lootman]

I suspect that the opposition to that act was grounded in a belief that the average voter would not want to pay more for heating their home. There was no north sea gas back then so the only viable alternatives would have been coal gas or electricity.

There are always two sides to any issue and in the end it comes down to values.

Does it? I'm afraid I think facts trump "values" every time. I believe the universe is on my side on this...

The universe is fine by me. Science is a valid input to the debate. It is not the deciding factor when it comes to decision making however.

[dealtn]

I suspect that the opposition to that act was grounded in a belief that the average voter would not want to pay more for heating their home. There was no north sea gas back then so the only viable alternatives would have been coal gas or electricity.

There are always two sides to any issue and in the end it comes down to values.

Does it? I'm afraid I think facts trump "values" every time. I believe the universe is on my side on this...

You don't think it a fact that many people don't want to pay more for their heating?

[scrumpyjack]

Does it? I'm afraid I think facts trump "values" every time. I believe the universe is on my side on this...

The universe is fine by me. Science is a valid input to the debate. It is not the deciding factor when it comes to decision making however.

Quite so, and we have to be mindful of the fact that anything we do or don't do in this country will not make any significant difference to the climate change outcome because we are such a trivially small portion of world CO2 output. The protesters should be aiming at China, Russia etc etc if they really want to influence the outcome.

Obviously we should keep up with the international levels of action reducing CO2 'to play our part', but we should not ruin ourselves by going to extremes that are hugely damaging to us.

[odysseus2000]

The universe is fine by me. Science is a valid input to the debate. It is not the deciding factor when it comes to decision making however.

Quite so, and we have to be mindful of the fact that anything we do or don't do in this country will not make any significant difference to the climate change outcome because we are such a trivially small portion of world CO2 output. The protesters should be aiming at China, Russia etc etc if they really want to influence the outcome.

Obviously we should keep up with the international levels of action reducing CO2 'to play our part', but we should not ruin ourselves by going to extremes that are hugely damaging to us.

dealtn

You don't think it a fact that many people don't want to pay more for their heating?

These are some of my favourite arguments.

For the first argument, it ignores all of histories lessons that the nations who innovate & improve their technology prosper & allow such nations to set the narrative by noting that as we have done these things we will disproportionately levy taxes on the products of nations that are using old technology that they want to sell here. This gives a multiplier effect on the actions here influencing other nations of much larger populations & more pollution.

For the second, all the evidence from the Paleolithic onwards is that the folk who give up on old tools such as stone tools & move to better ones such as metal ones become so powerful that nations that want to save money by sticking with old tools are forced to take up new ones or lose wars.

For the third argument folk tend to value their health over money & anyone who was an advocate for no clean air because it would cost money would now object like crazy if the folk next door wanted to burn highly polluting fuels like coal sending them back to the days of smogs.

Every advancement in technology has been expensive & resisted with passionate intensity by a good fraction of the population on cost grounds & yet once things advance & the improvements are manifest the folk who didn’t want it look so silly that they shut up & find something else to opine upon.

I know of no one who knew the days of smogs and who wants to return to them.

The direction of travel of humans is always to the better ways, we as a species do not travel from better to worse & for investors betting on future progress has always been rewarding whilst betting upon obsolete technologies has been a way to the poor house.

All of this progress has been driven by science, it is the methodology that allows all the advancements that we now enjoy & it is the wealth created when science is used by engineers to create new things that our species as a whole & as individuals we become more prosperous.

Regards

[mc2fool]

The Clean air act of 1956 was only passed after a back-bench revolt. In 1954 the official Tory line was "Let's keep burning coal in homes, causing smog and killing people".

I suspect that the opposition to that act was grounded in a belief that the average voter would not want to pay more for heating their home. There was no north sea gas back then so the only viable alternatives would have been coal gas or electricity.

Coke -- the fuel, not the drink or the drug! Pretty much everyone that was burning coal at home just changed to burning coke when domestic coal was withdrawn. We used it well into the '60s.

[Lootman]

I suspect that the opposition to that act was grounded in a belief that the average voter would not want to pay more for heating their home. There was no north sea gas back then so the only viable alternatives would have been coal gas or electricity.

Coke -- the fuel, not the drink or the drug! Pretty much everyone that was burning coal at home just changed to burning coke when domestic coal was withdrawn. We used it well into the '60s.

I remember that. But wasn't coke more expensive than coal, since it was more processed?