Climate Change Thread

Forums › Off topic › Climate Change Thread

1 | ... | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | ... | 30

388 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#3126604 12-Sep-2023 17:05

tdgeek:

Years ago when I regularly ventured into climate change doco's, One said if we stopped today, it would take about 50 years for Eareth to stabilise the atmosphere

Absolutely, but it will stabilize one day quicker and at a slightly lower point than if we stopped tomorrow. That was my point.

SaltyNZ

8164 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3126612 12-Sep-2023 17:53

Tinkerisk:

Even if we were to reduce emissions to 0%, there would only be a visible climate change effect in 200 years (which does not mean giving up and not trying).

It may take centuries to reverse what we've already done, but the immediate effect is that we stop actively making it worse.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

frankv

5678 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3126845 13-Sep-2023 09:04

Tinkerisk:

There are other calculation models than NASA's and it doesn't matter to me which one is the right one to justify my avoidance strategy.

In short: every avoidance is good, whether it has an impact in 10, 100 or 1000 years. However, if you continue as before until you get a proven, scientific value and only then act, it won't work.

It's important to use the (most) correct model. If not, the outcome will differ from what is expected. If you use an incorrect model, you will waste resources on applying incorrect mitigations.

If, as you claim, any change won't be visible for 200 years instead of 40 years, mitigating the effects of climate change increases in importance relative to changing the process itself. Instead of spending money on carbon sinks and reducing emissions, we need to spend that money on e.g. moving infrastructure and cities away from sea level, because that spending will be rewarded for at least the next 200 years.

Tinkerisk

4203 posts

Uber Geek

#3127154 13-Sep-2023 15:29

frankv:

Tinkerisk:

There are other calculation models than NASA's and it doesn't matter to me which one is the right one to justify my avoidance strategy.

In short: every avoidance is good, whether it has an impact in 10, 100 or 1000 years. However, if you continue as before until you get a proven, scientific value and only then act, it won't work.

It's important to use the (most) correct model. If not, the outcome will differ from what is expected. If you use an incorrect model, you will waste resources on applying incorrect mitigations.

If, as you claim, any change won't be visible for 200 years instead of 40 years, mitigating the effects of climate change increases in importance relative to changing the process itself. Instead of spending money on carbon sinks and reducing emissions, we need to spend that money on e.g. moving infrastructure and cities away from sea level, because that spending will be rewarded for at least the next 200 years.

Yes I agree, but you can‘t wait to act until you know, what model is the most correct and that‘s the problem I point to. If you google ‚climate‘, ‚research‘ and ‚Germany,‘ you will find that we have a lot of money, supercomputers and myriads of scientists working on the topic since 200 years, including climate historians and other smart people who are strongly networked internationally.

And yet, for all sorts of vested interests, their findings were relativised, they were accused of alarmism, etc. The simple-minded Joe only believes what he feels in his own body or is told by his politicians ("the climate crisis is an invention of the Chinese") and the result is what we are currently experiencing. But this has been known for a long time. Just like the tectonic plate shift, resulting earthquake events, volcanic risk areas, etc. One can relativise and ignore the risk - but one must and will also bear the consequences.

What people are interested in is when the city will sink into the sea and whether they will personally live to see it. Until then, the dikes will simply be raised until it is no longer possible. No one will start "moving" the city to another, safer place. Similarly with the climate crisis, no one will want to spend money if it is not visible what it is for ... and so today I am doing what I can to help, knowing that it is only a tiny drop. Whether my neighbour does it too, I couldn't care less - I'm not a missionary. But it would be nice.

- NET: FTTH, OPNsense, 10G backbone, GWN APs, ipPBX
- SRV: 12 RU HA server cluster, 0.1 PB storage on premise
- IoT: thread, zigbee, tasmota, BidCoS, LoRa, WX suite, IR
- 3D: two 3D printers, 3D scanner, CNC router, laser cutter

Tinkerisk

4203 posts

Uber Geek

#3127920 14-Sep-2023 19:49

Who is next?

Handle9

11262 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3127930 14-Sep-2023 20:08

frankv:

Tinkerisk:

There are other calculation models than NASA's and it doesn't matter to me which one is the right one to justify my avoidance strategy.

In short: every avoidance is good, whether it has an impact in 10, 100 or 1000 years. However, if you continue as before until you get a proven, scientific value and only then act, it won't work.

It's important to use the (most) correct model. If not, the outcome will differ from what is expected. If you use an incorrect model, you will waste resources on applying incorrect mitigations.

If, as you claim, any change won't be visible for 200 years instead of 40 years, mitigating the effects of climate change increases in importance relative to changing the process itself. Instead of spending money on carbon sinks and reducing emissions, we need to spend that money on e.g. moving infrastructure and cities away from sea level, because that spending will be rewarded for at least the next 200 years

Not really. If every model says much the same thing but to different degrees then the exact model doesn't matter and can be refined with empirical evidence.

The most important thing is taking action, not arguing over what action is 10% more effective. If an action proves to be less effective resources can be reassigned, it's far easier to reallocate resources than find them in the first place.

gzt

16995 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3127956 14-Sep-2023 22:09

Reposting with YouTube BBCode tag. Try it ; )

Mighty Ape

Shop now on Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

kingdragonfly

11085 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#3127997 15-Sep-2023 07:06

Obviously you can't have a flood without water.

However the Chinese flood was due to flawed design, construction and execution of the Three Gorges Dam.

This interview fails to mentions that often officials will do massive water releases at midnight, with notices either come out shortly before, or even after the event. Conjecture is the officials want to limit videos.

Canuckabroad

176 posts

Master Geek

#3128407 16-Sep-2023 08:19

In most of the discussions I've seen related to climate change there have predominately been a few viewpoints expressing reluctance or outright opposing aggressive action being taken today.

I/We can't afford it
NZ contributes so little to climate change, and it's certainly not fair for us to experience economic impact or inconvenience if other countries aren't
It's too late, the world is doomed, no point in even trying.

Realistically they are all some manner of dragging one's heels because as others have stated, meaningfully responding to climate change is going to mean upheaval and economic cost and social impact. I'm from overseas and one thing I'm doing to limit my contributions is to limit my flights back home. It's been 5 years since the last time I saw friends and family - I don't hear from many people (who have good reasons and economic means to travel) who are consciously not doing so. We are used to our lifestyles, we use words like 'need' and 'must' to refer to things that 100 years ago would have been thought of as a huge luxury. Without some massive breakthroughs in technology which would seem almost like magic, we are not going to be able to respond in time without significant impact. Unfortunately some politicians seem to go with that magical thinking - 'we'll be carbon neutral by 2050 but there's no need/ability to start today, we'll get to it sometime between now and then'.

I'm not sure exactly how we move past this point. Europe seems to be driving things faster than many places, Fonterra is going to be pushed for environmental concessions that our own government won't demand - but all the countries seem to be taking slightly different approaches to how much impact they are willing to suffer in order to decrease their contributions to the increase in climate change. We collectively are still a long ways from actually becoming climate neutral. Individuals need to have attitudes change in order for politicians to take the mandate and start to apply regulations to business - but everyone is going to struggle with that concept of 'how much are we willing to accept'?

tdgeek

29641 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3128665 16-Sep-2023 17:28

Canuckabroad:

In most of the discussions I've seen related to climate change there have predominately been a few viewpoints expressing reluctance or outright opposing aggressive action being taken today.

I/We can't afford it
NZ contributes so little to climate change, and it's certainly not fair for us to experience economic impact or inconvenience if other countries aren't
It's too late, the world is doomed, no point in even trying.

Realistically they are all some manner of dragging one's heels because as others have stated, meaningfully responding to climate change is going to mean upheaval and economic cost and social impact. I'm from overseas and one thing I'm doing to limit my contributions is to limit my flights back home. It's been 5 years since the last time I saw friends and family - I don't hear from many people (who have good reasons and economic means to travel) who are consciously not doing so. We are used to our lifestyles, we use words like 'need' and 'must' to refer to things that 100 years ago would have been thought of as a huge luxury. Without some massive breakthroughs in technology which would seem almost like magic, we are not going to be able to respond in time without significant impact. Unfortunately some politicians seem to go with that magical thinking - 'we'll be carbon neutral by 2050 but there's no need/ability to start today, we'll get to it sometime between now and then'.

I'm not sure exactly how we move past this point. Europe seems to be driving things faster than many places, Fonterra is going to be pushed for environmental concessions that our own government won't demand - but all the countries seem to be taking slightly different approaches to how much impact they are willing to suffer in order to decrease their contributions to the increase in climate change. We collectively are still a long ways from actually becoming climate neutral. Individuals need to have attitudes change in order for politicians to take the mandate and start to apply regulations to business - but everyone is going to struggle with that concept of 'how much are we willing to accept'?

100%

A common argument is that NZis too small who cares. One Kiwi = one Canadian = one Chinese Climate doesnt differentiate amongst ethnicity or origin. 8 billion is 8 billion

Why is there an argument? $$$$$$$

ezbee

2370 posts

Uber Geek

#3128691 16-Sep-2023 19:19

Being small, so by ourselves having negligeable effect does mean.

No matter what we do we will have to deal with the consequences of the changes.
However even for the big guys who can make a big difference, change is baked in for decades.
We do know that change with the big guys is slow.
So yes, no matter what, there will be costs and consequences we have to account for.

Part of our problem is that the world is not fair.
So we produce the greenest aluminum in the world, of high quality and we get little for it.
Iceland can probably claim the same, geothermal, but the bulk of the rest has coal fired power and such.
Indeed it's so undervalued by the world that production is threatened with closure.
Elon's not up for paying a premium for green aluminum for his mega-presses :-)

So you do the right thing and what do you get, a dividend to help the rest of the economy change, nope.
There are probably other areas that are similar.

Farmers seem to shout loud about not adapting, but forget the world is not fair too.
Just about every market we export to has protective farm lobby groups that made trade agreements difficult.
These have already started to look at climate miles and our practices to create more blocks to trade.
There was even one on looking at animal welfare of our outdoor grass-fed system vs their indoor factory farming.

Its seems with Farmers they are not really up with the fight all Governments have to keep export doors open.

tdgeek

29641 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3128706 16-Sep-2023 20:26

ezbee:

Being small, so by ourselves having negligeable effect does mean.

No matter what we do we will have to deal with the consequences of the changes.
However even for the big guys who can make a big difference, change is baked in for decades.
We do know that change with the big guys is slow.
So yes, no matter what, there will be costs and consequences we have to account for.

Part of our problem is that the world is not fair.
So we produce the greenest aluminum in the world, of high quality and we get little for it.
Iceland can probably claim the same, geothermal, but the bulk of the rest has coal fired power and such.
Indeed it's so undervalued by the world that production is threatened with closure.
Elon's not up for paying a premium for green aluminum for his mega-presses :-)

So you do the right thing and what do you get, a dividend to help the rest of the economy change, nope.
There are probably other areas that are similar.

Farmers seem to shout loud about not adapting, but forget the world is not fair too.
Just about every market we export to has protective farm lobby groups that made trade agreements difficult.
These have already started to look at climate miles and our practices to create more blocks to trade.
There was even one on looking at animal welfare of our outdoor grass-fed system vs their indoor factory farming.

Its seems with Farmers they are not really up with the fight all Governments have to keep export doors open.

By big guys do you mean big countries? A post here not too long ago, posted the per capita effect. China's emissions are HIGH, but most of that is exports that WE and others buy, so they are OUR emissions. Per capita, IIRC China is similar to ours and most others for that reason.

tdgeek

29641 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3128708 16-Sep-2023 20:29

ezbee:

There was even one on looking at animal welfare of our outdoor grass-fed system vs their indoor factory farming.

Kiwi doco recently Food Crisis. You can buy Kiwi free range bacon for $9-49. Or pay $5-99 for imported could be from one of many countries listed on the tin, not free range. FTA's and WTO agreements don't account for that, I assume a "restriction or term" is not free trade

frankv

5678 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3129263 19-Sep-2023 09:09

tdgeek:

One Kiwi = one Canadian = one Chinese Climate doesnt differentiate amongst ethnicity or origin. 8 billion is 8 billion

Not quite true, in that it does vary depending on where a person lives, which in turn affects how they live, and how the energy they consume is generated.

A person in Qatar or Iceland uses about 160,000kWh/capita/yr, whereas poor countries like Yemen and Somalia use about 200kWh/capita/yr. Qatar generates none of its energy from renewables, whereas Iceland generates about 80%. So a Qatari = 5 Icelanders = 80 Somalis.

In round numbers, 1 Canadian = 3 Kiwis = 3 Chinese

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-renewables?tab=table

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-use?tab=table

tdgeek

29641 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3129273 19-Sep-2023 09:31

frankv:

tdgeek:

One Kiwi = one Canadian = one Chinese Climate doesnt differentiate amongst ethnicity or origin. 8 billion is 8 billion

Not quite true, in that it does vary depending on where a person lives, which in turn affects how they live, and how the energy they consume is generated.

A person in Qatar or Iceland uses about 160,000kWh/capita/yr, whereas poor countries like Yemen and Somalia use about 200kWh/capita/yr. Qatar generates none of its energy from renewables, whereas Iceland generates about 80%. So a Qatari = 5 Icelanders = 80 Somalis.

In round numbers, 1 Canadian = 3 Kiwis = 3 Chinese

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-renewables?tab=table

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-use?tab=table

Does that account for what is consumed? Take China as one example. The net usage per capita IIRC from earlier in this thread was similar to NZ. They USE more per capita, but a lot of that is imported to NZ. So, when I buy a Chinese made product, I am a Kiwi that has "used" the emissions. Same if it was manufactured in NZ, but it just happened that China made it for me, over there, so they are MY emissions

1 | ... | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | ... | 30