The Green New Deal

[RecoveringYuppy]

BTW 2 a day on something that has an expected 40-year life span means you get to~30000 before all you are doing is replacing old ones.

Unless I'm not clear on what you are responding to, 30,000 250MW reactors would be 7.5 TW of installed capacity. Pretty much exactly what we need (ETA: I think this source alone would provide more than 1/3 of current total energy needs from all sources. Nothing to sneeze at at all)

 

[Red Baron Farms]

But I'm not asking you to explain it in general terms. I'm asking you to explain to me, simply, how it applies specifically to the topic under discussion; i.e. what you think exactly would be the consequences of the "solution" I proposed.



That's needlessly condescending. I'm sure you can have an intelligent conversation about computers without going through the schooling that I had to go through to become a computer programmer, plus the 20 years experience I have, just in order to be on my level. Do you have a 4 year education on this topic? Presumably no, and presumably you can still discuss it. I'm sorry but that was a very poor and disingenuous paragraph by you.

It was a paragraph out of frustration because you refused to at least base yourself in context. As long as you refuse this, then I can't use that example in my discussion with you. Assuming you did at least read the transcript, then you know in the particular example of Yellowstone, reintroducing a keystone species reversed the ecological cascade, and regenerated habitat for a multitude of animal and plant species.

But it took human intervention to do this. Those wolves had to be trapped and transported thousands of miles. It didn't just happen. And the park left to itself would have first overpopulated more than it already was, then crashed destroying habitat. No habitat no herbivores. No herbivore, no influx of wolves naturally. Once the ecological cascades get to a certain point, natural recovery can take millennia or longer. But humans can rehabilitate large degraded areas if we apply our clever brains and sophisticated tools.

Bottom line is that if by magic all humans were to leave the planet tomorrow, vast areas would continue to crash anyway, some even faster than now. Mostly because what balances these systems in nature is the top predators, and most top predators are critically endangered or extinct already, and we are the keystone species now.

 

[Belz...]

Bottom line is that if by magic all humans were to leave the planet tomorrow, vast areas would continue to crash anyway, some even faster than now. Mostly because what balances these systems in nature is the top predators, and most top predators are critically endangered or extinct already, and we are the keystone species now.

Speaking of frustration, why didn't you just say this to begin with? "No, eliminating most of humanity will not solve the problem because we need to reverse other damages we've done first, such as reintroducing fauna and flora to places we've damaged." I mean, I'm not sure I agree, but at least it's clear. Instead you asked me to read about the general concept without explaining what the hell it had to do with the discussion at hand.

But now what you're saying is not "global warming wouldn't be solved" but "there would be other problems left unsolved" by the solution I proposed. The fact remains, however, that CO2 emissions would drop precipitiously, wouldn't they?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Speaking of frustration, why didn't you just say this to begin with?

I did. You just missed it.

"No, eliminating most of humanity will not solve the problem because we need to reverse other damages we've done first, such as reintroducing fauna and flora to places we've damaged." I mean, I'm not sure I agree, but at least it's clear. Instead you asked me to read about the general concept without explaining what the hell it had to do with the discussion at hand.

No I did say roughly that but in different words, you didn't understand, so I tried to guide you to an example where humans were needed to restore the balance to an ecosystem, and actually did do it too.

But now what you're saying is not "global warming wouldn't be solved" but "there would be other problems left unsolved" by the solution I proposed. The fact remains, however, that CO2 emissions would drop precipitiously, wouldn't they?

Probably not right away no. We passed that tipping point a while back according to this:
Evolution of global temperature over the past two million years

Now that supposes we have no more influence either positive or negative and we just let nature take its course from now on. However, we can indeed make a huge difference by restoring the ecosystem function of the vast grasslands we destroyed. They did cool the planet once before, and they can do it again if we restore this ecosystem function and even optimize it with agriculture.

However, much like the national park, it won't just happen by itself. Those ecological cascades are too far gone to recover any time soon on their own. Meanwhile all the time the planet will continue overheating till it gets 5 degrees C warmer +/-

As bad as that is though, its better than the 9 degrees of warming we are on course to reach now.

 

[Belz...]

I did. You just missed it.

No I did say roughly that but in different words, you didn't understand, so I tried to guide you

More condescension. I don't know why you have such a high opinion of yourself, but I tell you it doesn't help the discussion. I read your posts, and you were nowhere near as clear about your point as you are now. Hopefully now we can move on.

Probably not right away no. We passed that tipping point a while back according to this:

I talked about CO2 emissions. I'm pretty sure they would drop if we weren't there to emit them.

Now that supposes we have no more influence either positive or negative and we just let nature take its course from now on. However, we can indeed make a huge difference by restoring the ecosystem function of the vast grasslands we destroyed.

Good, now we're talking. However now you have to establish that the damage we're currently doing is compensated by the good we could do now and in the future. In other words, that we can do more to reverse the damage if we remain at our current population levels, than the removed future damage would be if we were to be significantly reduced in numbers.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I talked about CO2 emissions. I'm pretty sure they would drop if we weren't there to emit them.

Nope. They still increase, but at a much lower rate. This is called a reinforcing feedback. As polar regions continue to warm and melt, vast stores of frozen carbon get released. Also the oceans as they warm will release CO2. This is the true meaning of the "tipping point" that was discussed earlier by others.

Much like starting a boulder rolling downhill, It takes huge energy to start it rolling, but once it gets past a certain point gravity and momentum take over and it will continue on its own until all the potential energy in the system is released.

Good, now we're talking. However now you have to establish that the damage we're currently doing is compensated by the good we could do now and in the future. In other words, that we can do more to reverse the damage if we remain at our current population levels, than the removed future damage would be if we were to be significantly reduced in numbers.

That's a very tough one to prove or even disprove actually, in either direction. Because the potential to do any and all the amazing things we have done require specialization and time people can devote to tasks not directly related to survival. Much like agriculture caused certain people to need to work even harder, it also allowed others the luxury to develop things like science and technology! Time they never would have had if they were forced to go out hunting every day. It takes high population number to do a lot of what we humans have accomplished. There is a reason that small nations with low population were not drivers of technology and engineering.

But as evidence I can say that we currently manage almost half the land surface of the planet, and the vast majority of the productive areas.

Farming Claims Almost Half Earth's Land, New Maps Show

These are lands managed by us directly right now today. On average about 15%-20% of emissions is directly related to the fact we manage these lands poorly. But there is no need for this. We could manage them to offset emissions rather than to be an emissions source. It can't happen on its own because of the cascade effect, but it could be done if we put the energy into it from the many millions of land managers. If anything we have huge labor shortages to do this properly.

 

[Belz...]

Nope. They still increase, but at a much lower rate. This is called a reinforcing feedback. As polar regions continue to warm and melt, vast stores of frozen carbon get released. Also the oceans as they warm will release CO2. This is the true meaning of the "tipping point" that was discussed earlier by others.

You are entirely correct and somehow I had forgotten that. How long would that continue until it levels out?

That's a very tough one to prove or even disprove actually, in either direction. Because the potential to do any and all the amazing things we have done require specialization and time people can devote to tasks not directly related to survival. Much like agriculture caused certain people to need to work even harder, it also allowed others the luxury to develop things like science and technology! Time they never would have had if they were forced to go out hunting every day. It takes high population number to do a lot of what we humans have accomplished. There is a reason that small nations with low population were not drivers of technology and engineering.

I appreciate that, but you must realise that it's a very vague explanation, essentially hanging that future on a hope.

These are lands managed by us directly right now today. On average about 15%-20% of emissions is directly related to the fact we manage these lands poorly.

What would happen if we didn't manage/exploit them at all?

 

[lomiller]

The IPCC is not the source of all truth.



So is the IPCC target.



Same with the IPCC target.

The IPCC assessment reports are the largest most comprehensive scientific literature reviews ever conducted on any subject. You may as well be saying “so it’s just science”.

 

[quadraginta]

That quote is always taken out of context. Two people are discussing a plot to destabilize society. One of them suggests killing the lawyers as step one.

I'm aware of the context.

Since that was meant to be humorous I don't think the context was relevant.

 

[lomiller]

Unless I'm not clear on what you are responding to, 30,000 250MW reactors would be 7.5 TW of installed capacity. Pretty much exactly what we need (ETA: I think this source alone would provide more than 1/3 of current total energy needs from all sources. Nothing to sneeze at at all)

It’s about half of what we’d need. The 737 is a commercial product with more than 50 years of production and refinement behind it and still doesn’t get produced at the rates required. In spite of the engineering and long production history because it’s deployed in those numbers there are still multiple accidents every year. Finally, even if you could build 4 a day, you are nowhere close to finishing enough of them to cut CO2 emissions fast enough to keep CO2 levels within critical thresholds.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I appreciate that, but you must realise that it's a very vague explanation, essentially hanging that future on a hope.

We have a hopeful future. All we need to do though is make it happen. We have given very specific plans how. They do not include killing 90% of the population of the Earth and sitting back and hoping nature fixes it by itself in a few thousand years.

What would happen if we didn't manage/exploit them at all?

A large number would go to desert and take many thousands of years to recover. Maybe longer in some case. Certain biomes probably will need millions of years to recover due to certain key species going extinct and it taking a very long time for a new species to evolve to fill the niche. How long will it take for the indian elephant to first recover, repopulate, expand its territory, evolve to become the next mastodon/wooly mammoth type creature, cross the land bridge during a glaciation period, populate the North American continent, evolve back into a tropical species and finally fill the niche of the Colombian Mammoth and Gomphothere that we humans hunted to extinction? I don't know how many millions of years that might take, but maybe not ever! And remember there are hundreds and thousands of key species like this we either made extinct or largely extirpated from the landscape.

Oh and management does not always mean exploit.

 

[Belz...]

We have a hopeful future. All we need to do though is make it happen.

Given that I don't think we will, I'll have to disagree and instead say that we seem to have a pretty bleak one.

Oh and management does not always mean exploit.

Hence the "/".

 

[Ziggurat]

The IPCC assessment reports are the largest most comprehensive scientific literature reviews ever conducted on any subject.

They are also subject to considerable political pressures. Size is hardly a guarantee of anything.

 

[Ziggurat]

It’s about half of what we’d need. The 737 is a commercial product with more than 50 years of production and refinement behind it and still doesn’t get produced at the rates required.

737 production rates are not limited by the ability of Boeing to supply more, but by the demand for them. Boeing isn't going to produce more than airlines are willing to buy. If the demand was there for more, they would be building more. If you want to get some idea of what's possible, look at the Liberty Ships of WW2: we were cranking out three per day, way back in 1943. They were far more massive than a 737. And even that isn't the limit on what's possible.

 

[Belz...]

They are also subject to considerable political pressures. Size is hardly a guarantee of anything.

Are you accusing the IPCC of lying? Based on what?

 

[Ziggurat]

Are you accusing the IPCC of lying? Based on what?

You don't have to lie in order for bias to creep in. And there's plenty of information out there about problems with the IPCC process.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

It’s about half of what we’d need.

That would appear to mean that you expect nuclear to be the world's only source of energy for all purposes? That's going to be hard to justify as being necessary.

The 737 is a commercial product with more than 50 years of production and refinement behind it and still doesn’t get produced at the rates required.

Required for what? As far as I can tell the world airplane suppliers are meeting demand for airliners. In the absence of tremendous profit margins for airplane manufacturers I would submit that has to be approximately true.

Current energy demands are already being met somehow. The discussion is about ways to shift the production not to increase it. We're talking about increasing capacity in some sectors at the expense of others.

In spite of the engineering and long production history because it’s deployed in those numbers there are still multiple accidents every year.

Yeah. True. Name one energy technology that doesn't have any potential for accident. That's going to be difficult I suspect since most seem to have actual accidents at some rate.

Finally, even if you could build 4 a day, you are nowhere close to finishing enough of them to cut CO2 emissions fast enough to keep CO2 levels within critical thresholds.

So, if true, we are then talking about a component of the long term solution, maybe not the near term.

 

[lomiller]

They are also subject to considerable political pressures.

Not particularly. There is far more political motivation on the part of the right wing anti-science nutbars who would rather deal with imaginary facts than real ones.

What political pressure there is on the IPCC tends to work the other way. It causes them to produce extremely conservative, and often overly conservative, estimates and projections.

 

[Belz...]

You don't have to lie in order for bias to creep in.

No, but you can say that about anyone, anywhere, whose conclusions you disagree with. Do you have any evidence that their conclusions are incorrect?

 

[lomiller]

That would appear to mean that you expect nuclear to be the world's only source of energy for all purposes? That's going to be hard to justify as being necessary.

I’m addressing suggestions it can replace energy from fossil fuels which are currently in the 100,000,000 TWh per year range. It’s pretty clear at this point that current and next gen reactors can’t come anywhere close to this. An all fast reactor fuel cycle has some promise for achieving these numbers, though not indefinitely because there are still limits to fuel availability.

Even if MSR turns out to be viable, developing a commercial design and deploying it in sufficient numbers isn’t going to happen to address climate change.

So, if true, we are then talking about a component of the long term solution, maybe not the near term.

We’ve already delayed to long. We no longer have time for anything we can’t deploy right now.