IPCC Report

Should you squeeze the toothpaste tube in the middle or from the end?
User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 4156
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: IPCC Report

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Fri Nov 30, 2018 5:09 pm

@Jean:

Thanks for the link. Their numbers are if a trillion new trees are planted and cared for, 600 billion would likely survive, and the 600 billion would sequester carbon equal to approximately 25% of emissions. They also suggest goal of planting 150 new trees/human, 1000 trees/human if you are affluent.

One of the reasons why I like this notion or challenge is it gives humans a top line and a bottom line to play with. Doesn't come down to the best possible thing you can do as an individual is jump off a cliff. Also, if attempted in hands on manner, the engagement with local environment will almost certainly lead to awareness and concern for other behaviors and situations.

This group also estimates 600 billion trees as the most that could be planted without infringing upon land needed for agriculture. So, given some improvement to agricultural practices, and some inclusion of food crop trees, and likelihood that planting 150-1000 trees would increase any human's environmental awareness, I think it is within the realm of possibility that this could actually be a workable solution.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3709
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: IPCC Report

Post by BRUTE » Wed Dec 05, 2018 2:46 am

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch. ... te-agenda/
in this post I have just shown that using the latest IPCC AR5 report, I can make a very convincing case that a popular climate goal—limiting global warming to 2°C—isn’t even close to being justified by the year 2050, and even by the year 2100 cannot be justified using the scant evidence in the IPCC report. This is because—using the IPCC’s own projections—the economic costs suffered by businesses and households to comply with emissions reductions exceed the estimated environmental damages from warming.

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 4156
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: IPCC Report

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Wed Dec 05, 2018 5:29 am

@BRUTE:

Once again, I believe that Murphy is being a bit misleading in his handling of these numbers. However, IMO,the important thing to notice is that there is now no avoiding the notion of limits. For example, I would suggest that any rational promotion of continued economic growth towards increase in well-being of average individual over reduction of CO2 (or other known harmful externalities) must be assuming near-term human population stabilization or reduction.

tonyedgecombe
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:11 pm
Location: Oxford, UK
Contact:

Re: IPCC Report

Post by tonyedgecombe » Wed Dec 05, 2018 6:16 am

The Institute for Energy Research is another free market lobbying group funded by the oil industry. @brute do you really think you are getting unbiased information from them?

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3709
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: IPCC Report

Post by BRUTE » Thu Dec 06, 2018 2:33 am

@7: "misleading"?

@tonyedgecombe: character attacks are fine and dandy, but the numbers speak for themselves. any arguments to the contrary?

tonyedgecombe
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:11 pm
Location: Oxford, UK
Contact:

Re: IPCC Report

Post by tonyedgecombe » Thu Dec 06, 2018 3:19 am

@brute We have been through this before on that other climate change thread, it would be a waste of my time to go through every bit of climate change denial you post.

User avatar
Jin+Guice
Posts: 203
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:15 am

Re: IPCC Report

Post by Jin+Guice » Thu Dec 06, 2018 3:45 pm

@Jacob:

Great looks like I'm absolved of almost all guilt except for flying and occasionally driving (a car I share with my gf, bought used, that she would have with or without me). Like you, I buy my flights by making "have a smaller family", have no family. Thanks for justifying my lifestyle as a bourgeoise first world hobo who avoids responsibility by depriving myself of a genetic future.



Yesterday my gf was on a conference call with Vox Media and I'm pretty sure that I overheard them using a "dedication to sustainability" to justify laying off a bunch of their editorial staff. I guess the good guys never stop winning.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 10538
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: IPCC Report

Post by jacob » Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:32 pm

@J+G - FWIW, that's not how it works (see above a few pages back) or at least that's not the intention(*); but I completely understand the emotions/frustration behind it.

(*) That these "indulgences" can be quantified relatively doesn't technically solve the problem and doesn't morally absolve the responsibility. Neither does not knowing of course because eventually someone will ask/tell. We need to find something better than an impact table because that just allows finger pointing---again not that it doesn't allow for more accurate pointing of fingers, but it's still finger pointing.

At best I would use this knowledge as a defense if some parent were giving me shit about CC for driving a gasser instead of a Volt/Tesla. Ditto a frequent traveler about eating meat pizza. However, I wouldn't use it as an excuse to jet off to see the last glacier or coral reef for shits and giggles because someone decided to have yet another child.

User avatar
Jin+Guice
Posts: 203
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:15 am

Re: IPCC Report

Post by Jin+Guice » Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:57 pm

I was kidding, I feel massively guilty because I know I won't stop doing anything unless it's relatively easy.

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 4156
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: IPCC Report

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:20 pm

@BRUTE:

In the article you linked, Murphy is dredging up the no longer relevant past to discredit the present (and the future) in much the same manner that men sometimes complain about when their crazy girlfriends do it. It's like he is saying something analogous to "You say you love me more than you loved your ex, but when I met you, you told me that you hated your ex, so I will have to assume you only don't hate me as much as you hate her."

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3709
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: IPCC Report

Post by BRUTE » Thu Dec 06, 2018 10:57 pm

o_O

he literally quotes the latest IPCC report

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3709
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: IPCC Report

Post by BRUTE » Thu Dec 06, 2018 11:04 pm

tonyedgecombe wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 3:19 am
@brute We have been through this before on that other climate change thread, it would be a waste of my time to go through every bit of climate change denial you post.
what denial? this is a lie.

ZAFCorrection
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:49 pm

Re: IPCC Report

Post by ZAFCorrection » Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:56 am

I'll skip the sarcasm and go straight to the point. Brute, your position may not technically be that of a denialist, but in practical terms it is indistinguishable. I think you laid out your position somewhere at the beginning of this thread sounding somewhat skeptical that climate change is even actually a thing and nowhere else do I recall seeing you indicate it is an issue to be considered or dealt with in any way. It's actually an opinion equivalent to a lot of the savvier republicans who got tired of being taken to task for cherry picking their skepticism of an institution that is responsible for modern technology.

Jean
Posts: 623
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:49 am

Re: IPCC Report

Post by Jean » Fri Dec 07, 2018 2:53 am

Public opinion will go from it's not sure to it's to late.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3709
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: IPCC Report

Post by BRUTE » Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:10 pm

ZAFCorrection wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:56 am
nowhere else do I recall seeing you indicate it is an issue to be considered or dealt with in any way.
exactly. because sometimes, doing nothing is the best answer.

Murphy's article about the IPCC's own numbers shows this - the medicine hurts more than the disease. this is not denialist, it's simply the right thing to do nothing drastic.


the reason brute is so disappointed with humans here on this topic is that, usually humans on this forum are pretty open-minded, reasonable, at least entertain the ideas of other sides, and lay low with the character assassination.

just in this post, ZAFCorrection is comparing brute to "one of those Republicans", an attack that lost its effectiveness a long time ago. in a previous post, somebody is openly saying brute is a denialist, even when brute has not denied anything.

on this topic, humans on this forum seem more concerned with fawning over who "cares" the most, virtue signaling. maybe it is because DLj really cares about this topic.

even DLj is pretty disappointing on this, his first reaction being that he can't read brute's links, and the second a character assassination of the author. brute gets that DLj is tired of explaining climate physics to Republicans, but that's not what brute's criticism is at all. if "98% of scientists agree" and "science denier!" is supposed to have any meaning, then the numbers have to be at least entertained when they point to the other side's argument.

there has not been a single argument against the case presented by Murphy. attacking Murphy's character does not work either, brute has known Murphy longer than he has known about ERE, and the man is honest in his mistakes, takes caution to be careful with his statements, and is just simply not an "evildoer", as humans are trying to paint him.

if humans want to take the high road on this, they have to refrain from character attacks, and actually argue the issues.

DLj has once said to brute that brute is doing the right things on climate change, but for the wrong reasons. brute does not own a car, does not use AC or heating, leads a pretty minimalist life, and probably has a relatively low carbon footprint in comparison with many humans, even here. yet brute does not share the same fawning attitude of "the government should do something!".

brute really respects Riggerjack on this, even though Riggerjack has almost the opposite position - he seems to be an old-school conservative who actually wants to conserve the environment. but Riggerjack refrains from attacking brute's character, the character of authors brute cites, and seems less concerned with his own perception than most humans here.

as some would say, most humans in this thread are all hat and no cattle on climate change.

brute doesn't care if this rock goes up in flames. he contributes less to it than most humans he knows, if for completely non-ideological reasons. but this topic seems to be the one that cannot be honestly discussed on this forum.

pretty sad.

suomalainen
Posts: 498
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: IPCC Report

Post by suomalainen » Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:42 pm

@brute I only flit in and out of this thread since it seems to have been a political topic, but is what you're saying that you don't "deny" the science that humans are causing climate change via co2/methane/etc? Where your issue is is more on the forward projections on the ecological side (who can truly "know" what the future effects will be of c02 concentrations/temperature rise) and/or the economic side of said projected ecological effects? Regarding the latter, your argument seems to be that even climate-change-is-bad-economists are saying that preventing drastic climate change will cost A while adapting to drastic climate change will cost B and A > B, so therefore it's more rational to do nothing now and just adapt as it comes? (Assuming A and B include all costs, economic, political, social upheaval, etc.).

And I sort of assume that folks on the other side object on the assumption/basis that the cost of A is more money costs while the cost of B is more human life cost and morally we should value direct human suffering more than indirect suffering via less spending money?

User avatar
daylen
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: IPCC Report

Post by daylen » Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:47 pm

BRUTE wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:10 pm
but this topic seems to be the one that cannot be honestly discussed on this forum.
About as honest as can be expected. Any topic this complex and this far reaching will most certainly fire up a few amygdalas.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3709
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: IPCC Report

Post by BRUTE » Fri Dec 07, 2018 11:46 pm

suomalainen wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:42 pm
is what you're saying that you don't "deny" the science that humans are causing climate change via co2/methane/etc? Where your issue is is more on the forward projections on the ecological side (who can truly "know" what the future effects will be of c02 concentrations/temperature rise) and/or the economic side of said projected ecological effects? Regarding the latter, your argument seems to be that even climate-change-is-bad-economists are saying that preventing drastic climate change will cost A while adapting to drastic climate change will cost B and A > B, so therefore it's more rational to do nothing now and just adapt as it comes? (Assuming A and B include all costs, economic, political, social upheaval, etc.).

And I sort of assume that folks on the other side object on the assumption/basis that the cost of A is more money costs while the cost of B is more human life cost and morally we should value direct human suffering more than indirect suffering via less spending money?
brute does not know what "the other side" assumes. here's a quote from brute's original post in this thread, describing his position:
brute wrote: here is a description of the whole argument as brute sees it:

it's getting warm
-> that's bad
-> it can be prevented
-> preventing it is better than adapting to it
-> the humans who run the post office should be in charge of it

and here's where brute stands on these issues:

it's getting warm : probably somewhat
-> that's bad : who knows
-> it can be prevented : not according to this paper or DLj (see: 1990s)
-> preventing it is better than adapting to it : probably not
-> the humans who run the post office should be in charge of it : definitely not

and unfortunately, the pieces of the chain can't always be viewed separately. that last item alone makes the whole debate a moot point for brute. if humans think the financial crisis was a disaster, how do they think the same system will deal with climate change?
it could be amended with a 2nd step of "-> humans did it", on which brute's position is: "certainly partly, certainly not all of it, difficult to determine the exact percentage". brute would wager that it's probably 10-30%. which might be enough to be impactful, due to feedback effects.

ZAFCorrection
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:49 pm

Re: IPCC Report

Post by ZAFCorrection » Sat Dec 08, 2018 11:44 am

@Brute

There is a huge multidimensional solution space between doing absolutely nothing and enacting a solution(s) that completely eliminate the problem of climate change. ERE is a good example of something unconventional and I believe Riggerjack, who is equally skeptical of government, is also on his way towards proposing something besides massive government mobilization. Maybe I'm just being a lazy-ass but my guess is Murphy's point is Cost_(climate change) > Cost_(eliminating climate change) so checkmate, atheists.

The attitude that nothing should or can reasonably be done runs pretty far past even your Libertarian sympathies/justification, and combined with your grudging admission that maybe scientists could possibly, maybe, sorta be right that it is getting warmer (but who can really know?), means I make some comparison to Republicans.

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 4156
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: IPCC Report

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Sat Dec 08, 2018 2:42 pm

@BRUTE:

I apologize if I didn't state my case very clearly. Let me try again.

The problem with Murphy's argument is that he is attempting to derive or apply marginal costs to an irredeemably discontinuous function. The reason there are virtually no studies of economic damage past 2.5 degrees or so, is that the results would be "Fuck if I know how incredibly fucking bad the cost might be." And, he absolutely neglects the already baked into the system likely horrendous temperature increases past 2100 if BAU continues.

I think maybe you might better grok what I am trying to convey if you consider that CO2 in the atmosphere is kind of like hormones in the body. Would you eat estrogen-concentrated-soy burgers rather than beef burgers for the next 12 years in order to save money which you can invest, because the marginal cost to your health was calculated to be less than the marginal gain from investment? Once again, this is a kind of crap analogy, but I am trying to describe a process that you might see as both cumulatively and irredeemably bad and also likely to suddenly become much worse.

Post Reply