"But Global Warming is a HOAX!!!"

[dann]

I wish they would use the term 'believe' in a context like this. To state that "MTG thinks" makes no sense.

ETA: I notice that using her fingers, she is apparently able to count to two.

Somebody should point out to her that people die in the heat (CNN), too, but I guess that would spoil her narrative.

 

[dann]

I mentioned Bjørn Lomborg in post 167.
Article about austerity fanatics in the climate debate:

There are countless examples in which efforts to materially improve the economic conditions of the American people have foundered on the shoals of deficit hackery and austerity fanatics who serve the interests of capital—as well as a media that takes the prospect of doing nothing at all as a legitimate side in the debate. Cracks in the consensus about how money can and should be spent have waylaid the advancement of single-payer health care plans, and keep https://pnhp.org/news/the-deficit-hawks-attack-on-our-entitlements-2/ like Medicaid and Social Security under constant threat.
(...)
The strongest weapon against the existential menace of climate change is solidarity. I suspect that Lomborg’s new GOP acolytes, from The Wall Street Journal to Breitbart, know that the innovative new skein of skepticism he’s weaving could cleave apart the alliances here at home that have made a cooperative, global response even somewhat possible. When it comes to ameliorating the impact of climate change, the stakes could not be higher. Whenever anyone asks, “How much should it cost to save the planet?” remember—the answer is: If we do nothing, it will cost us everything.
Don’t Let the Austerity Hacks Get Their Hooks in the Climate Debate (NewRepublic, Oct 16, 2021)

 

[Puppycow]

Burning Man shutting down due to...get this...flooding.

 

[dann]

That is appropriate, I think.
Some years, we can't burn any witches for midsummer because the kindling wood is too wet.
(The witches and bonfires are renewables, but judging by the smoke, the rainwear and the umbrellas in the photo, I bet it took an awful lot of fossil fuel to get that particular fire started.)

 

[Myriad]

I am grateful to Myriad for making his post short and to the point, i.e. his point, the austerity gospel, instead of to the point of global warming, which he has taken no interest in since the thread began.

Some people worry about the CO₂ emissions because they cause global warming. Other people have other concerns: Their main concern is to turn people into followers of the austerity gospel and sacrifice their allegedly too luxurious lifestyles, those selfish bastards: "those enjoying conveniences, creature comforts, and lifestyles that make the god-kings and emperors of the ancient world look like homebound paupers don't want to give any of them up." And the "god-kings" of Myriad's gospel are not the CEOs or televangelists with private jets. It's Jane and Joe Average with their ordinary lives and everyday concerns.

I have never said only Jane and Joe Average have luxurious lifestyles compared to historical norms. CEOs and televangelists with private jets do too, obviously. But your average historical god-king slept on a bag of hay, wool, or (in a few places) feathers; crapped in a bowl (brought and removed by servants) or a hole in the floor; was fanned by servants to keep cool (ooh, sounds so luxurious, except a $20 electric fan from the drugstore can do better); spent his life within a few miles of where he was born (except when he went to war); ate a few kinds of food that if he was lucky might have been seasoned with exotic luxurious spices like pepper, cinnamon, sugar, or ginger; was constantly and unavoidably bitten by insects; had no effective medical care; valued gems, flowers, and feathers in large part because they were among the few objects that were colorful; heard only what music could be performed in his presence by whatever performers were available; viewed only what art could be produced by local artists or brought back as plunder by his armies; never heard of clear glass, ice cream, toilet paper, arch supports, or Christmas trees; and knew most of the world only by distant rumor. Do those sound like conditions The Averages would put up with?

Nor did I ever say or imply that only Jane and Joe Average contribute to climate change. CEOs and Televangelists with private jets do too, obviously. But there are also a lot fewer of them. Everyone contributes.

In spite of having been asked again and again about numbers to prove that the austerity gospel actually works, Myriad makes the unfounded claim that it is effective, that sacrifices are the only way to make the necessary transition go fast enough: "Can we radically lower carbon emissions without sacrifices? Maybe. But if so, it will take a long time."

My claim is a prediction, that because lifestyle sacrifices will not be made voluntarily, the transition will be slower than what dann appears to want. The numbers that will back up or refute that prediction will come from what actually happens.

Confronted with numbers that prove that a shift to renewables can go and is actually going fast in some places where an effort is being made and despite having nothing to prove that his austerity gospel serves to limit CO₂ emissions, Myriad celebrates the end of a habitable due to an allegedly selfish populace unwilling to obey his austerity regime: "reducing annual greenhouse gas emissions, or even ending the ongoing annual increases in annual greenhouse gas emissions, are not going to happen soon and are going to happen slowly."
Unless, of course, the austerity regime are forced upon people "due to involuntary sacrifices."

The emotive language here e.g. "confronted," "gospel," "celebrates," "selfish," and "regime" underscores my point that these objections to my prediction arise from fear.

That hot showers can be had and are being had without CO₂ emissions is both an idea and a reality...

It's a lie, actually, as I've explained before. The solar and wind installations that provide those allegedly CO2-free hot showers are made of parts and materials whose manufacture emits CO2, are transported by vehicles that emit CO2, are constructed and maintained with equipment that emits CO2; and they have a limited service life, so they need periodic replacement. On the whole, that system emits considerably less CO2 per liter-degree of hot water than for instance a gas home water heater, but it still contributes to climate change.

that threatens Myriad's ideology of austerity, which is why he remains in denial of the actual (and only) fast solution to the problem of CO₂ emissions and global warming.
Imagine the unspeakable horror of putting an end to global warming without sacrifices!

The actual reduction of CO₂ emissions in some countries is not enough to counter the increase in other countries, but the actual effect is there:

And this is from an organization that used to downplay the role of wind and solar:

But what about the sacrifices? Won't somebody please mention the sacrifices?

More fear and anger directed at the messenger, just like from the "Global Warming is a HOAX!" contingent. Different rationales, same emotions. Still very curious.

 

[dann]

I have never said only Jane and Joe Average have luxurious lifestyles compared to historical norms. CEOs and televangelists with private jets do too, obviously. But your average historical god-king slept on a bag of hay, wool, or (in a few places) feathers; crapped in a bowl (brought and removed by servants) or a hole in the floor; was fanned by servants to keep cool (ooh, sounds so luxurious, except a $20 electric fan from the drugstore can do better); spent his life within a few miles of where he was born (except when he went to war); ate a few kinds of food that if he was lucky might have been seasoned with exotic luxurious spices like pepper, cinnamon, sugar, or ginger; was constantly and unavoidably bitten by insects; had no effective medical care; valued gems, flowers, and feathers in large part because they were among the few objects that were colorful; heard only what music could be performed in his presence by whatever performers were available; viewed only what art could be produced by local artists or brought back as plunder by his armies; never heard of clear glass, ice cream, toilet paper, arch supports, or Christmas trees; and knew most of the world only by distant rumor. Do those sound like conditions The Averages would put up with?

Nor did I ever say or imply that only Jane and Joe Average contribute to climate change. CEOs and Televangelists with private jets do too, obviously. But there are also a lot fewer of them. Everyone contributes.

I'm almost surprised that Myriad doesn't also include the Monty Python sketch about the Four Yorkshiremen:

But the reason why he doesn't is obvious: It pokes fun at the austerity gospel!
Myriad never said or implied "that only Jane and Joe Average contribute to climate change," and yet he focussed on Jane and Joe for obvious reasons: They are the ones that he wants to teach the austerity gospel to: They should stop "enjoying conveniences, creature comforts, and lifestyles that make the god-kings and emperors of the ancient world look like homebound paupers don't want to give any of them up."
Which, of course, is the reason why we have to hear the detailed story about how hard life was for his "god-kings."

My claim is a prediction, that because lifestyle sacrifices will not be made voluntarily, the transition will be slower than what dann appears to want. The numbers that will back up or refute that prediction will come from what actually happens.

That is obviously not the reason why "the transition will be slower than what" I want. The actual reason is that the fossil-fuel industry has had a 50-year-long campaign going against actual climate science. Big Oil is the reason why the shift to renewables didn't take place decades ago, and Big Oil is the reason why it is still going slower than I want. Of course, it doesn't help that guys like Myriad are telling people that they should stop taking hot showers and follow his austerity regime as if that would make a difference, but those stories would be laughable if it weren't for the big players telling ordinary people that this is what climactivists want for them.

The emotive language here e.g. "confronted," "gospel," "celebrates," "selfish," and "regime" underscores my point that these objections to my prediction arise from fear.

Myriad's austerity gospel and its emotive language:

A society based on solar and wind absolutely requires no sacrifices? Are you joking? Maybe that's so in some imagined future, but we live in the present and getting to that future absolutely requires sacrifices

Hans is making a sacrifice and practicing austerity, by using an additional tool and paying additional attention so that his usage aligns with the availability of excess renewable energy, reducing his carbon output.

My advice is far more challenging: individuals should reduce their dependency on the products of government and corporate industry, especially for frivolous high-energy luxuries, by reducing their consumption thereof. We have a population of addicts and instead of daydreaming about all the dealers having a change of heart and making better cleaner smack free for everyone, how about we get off the **** first.

here described as the "power (!) to adapt," i.e. voluntary self-inflicted sacrifice versus enforced sacrifice.

That's how I describe it, yes.

But [dann] condemns any call for him or myself or anyone in our general socioeconomic class to make any sacrifices or practice any energy austerity.
(...)
Don't expect 22°C as the norm. There's a reason some rooms in large houses in past eras were considered "seasonal." There's a reason people wore many layers of clothing including night caps. Sacrifices and austerity, aka how everyone lived up until a century or so ago.
(...)
The best plan is B followed up by 3, but that's the one that actually requires the most short-to-medium-term reductions. Sacrifices. Which we expect the rich people to make, while hiding from the fact that we are the rich people. No wonder anyone actually doing anything makes others uncomfortable.

Myriad's austerity gospel also includes the portrayal of ordinary people as frenzied shoppers who can't be trusted with money, which is why that money should rather stay in their employers' pockets where it belongs:

I already discussed the problems and sacrifices needed for a rapid all-out build-up of additional supplies of renewable power.
(...)
There are plenty of alternatives. For instance, ecological devastation and/or complete collapse of industrial civilization are perfectly plausible, even likely, alternative outcomes. (Of course, sacrifice and austerity eventually follow from those too, but indirectly, so it's all good. No one has to suffer the indignity of voluntarily consuming less than they possibly can. Everyone can keep their AC running full blast until the lights go out completely.)
(...)
Generations of recreational shopping have turned us all into expert shoppers; surely we can shop our way out of this environmental dilemma! If only employers would raise salaries so we could all shop faster!

Nuff said!

It's a lie, actually, as I've explained before. The solar and wind installations that provide those allegedly CO2-free hot showers are made of parts and materials whose manufacture emits CO2, are transported by vehicles that emit CO2, are constructed and maintained with equipment that emits CO2; and they have a limited service life, so they need periodic replacement. On the whole, that system emits considerably less CO2 per liter-degree of hot water than for instance a gas home water heater, but it still contributes to climate change.

As I've explained before, several times, when the parts and materials of solar panels and wind turbines are manufactured using solar and wind power: Problem solved! But if a showerhead nozzle isn't manufactured by means of renewable energy, that manufacturing process requires the burning of fossil fuels no matter how cold one keeps one's shower temperature. The same thing goes for the transport of that showerhead nozzle and for the water as well. But for some reason, this doesn't occur to Myriad at all, and the only reason at this point is that he is deliberately ignoring the fact much the same way that he deliberately ignored that Hans can now take hot showers without leaving any 'carbon footprint' - at least if he only showers on windy days!

More fear and anger directed at the messenger, just like from the "Global Warming is a HOAX!" contingent. Different rationales, same emotions. Still very curious.

Myriad's post is obviously so full of fear and anger directed at the messenger telling him that his austerity gospel is a hoax that he doesn't even register that wind-turbine and solar-panel energy can be and is being used to manufacture wind turbines and solar panels and that vans running on wind and solar energy can be and are being used to transport the "parts and materials" used in the process of manufacturing them if the van runs on batteries charged with solar and wind power.

Wherever that's not yet the case, it needs to become the case as soon as possible. I think everybody else has understood it at this point because it's not very difficult to understand unless one is obsessed 24/7 with the idea that ordinary people should be forced to make sacrifices.

 

[Myriad]

Myriad never said or implied "that only Jane and Joe Average contribute to climate change," and yet he focussed on Jane and Joe for obvious reasons:

Absolutely. That obvious reason being, I very much doubt any televangelists or CEOs with private jets read this forum.

But just in case: Hey all you private jet owners, stop using private jets. (But don't sell or give away your private jet, because then someone else would just use it. Maybe repurpose it into a planter instead.)

That is obviously not the reason why "the transition will be slower than what" I want. The actual reason is that the fossil-fuel industry has had a 50-year-long campaign going against actual climate science. Big Oil is the reason why the shift to renewables didn't take place decades ago, and Big Oil is the reason why it is still going slower than I want.

Big Oil's campaign against actual climate science didn't fool anyone who didn't want to be fooled, to keep the good times rolling. Keeping the good times rolling was their bait, and it's yours too, even though a lot of people already know the the good times haven't been rolling for quite a while.

Of course, it doesn't help that guys like Myriad are telling people that they should stop taking hot showers and follow his austerity regime as if that would make a difference,...

You cannot show where I've told anyone that, because I haven't, so I'm going to go ahead and call this out as another lie you continue telling.

Myriad's austerity gospel and its emotive language:

Myriad's austerity gospel also includes the portrayal of ordinary people as frenzied shoppers who can't be trusted with money, which is why that money should rather stay in their employers' pockets where it belongs:

Nuff said!

That you highlight "voluntarily consuming less" to be an example of emotive language makes my point pretty well. You've made it clear the very concept of anyone (other than a televangelist or CEO with a private jet) voluntarily consuming less is highly emotionally charged for you, for some reason. I won't personalize the argument by speculating as to why.

As I've explained before, several times, when the parts and materials of solar panels and wind turbines are manufactured using solar and wind power: Problem solved!

When the parts and materials of solar panels and wind turbines are manufactured and maintained using solar and wind power, then you can claim using that power contributes no atmospheric carbon. It's not true yet, but you've been claiming it anyhow. How dishonest. "Might someday be true" is not the same as true.

But if a showerhead nozzle isn't manufactured by means of renewable energy, that manufacturing process requires the burning of fossil fuels no matter how cold one keeps one's shower temperature. The same thing goes for the transport of that showerhead nozzle and for the water as well. But for some reason, this doesn't occur to Myriad at all, and the only reason at this point is that he is deliberately ignoring the fact much the same way that he deliberately ignored that Hans can now take hot showers without leaving any 'carbon footprint' - at least if he only showers on windy days!

That would be quite the gotcha, if I had ever claimed that my cold showers don't contribute to climate change. You're correct; pumping the water, maintaining the infrastructure, manufacturing the shower head, all use electricity from the grid that's only partially renewable at present, and/or other fuels. I believe I already said something to the effect of, "everyone contributes."

Myriad's post is obviously so full of fear and anger directed at the messenger telling him that his austerity gospel is a hoax that he doesn't even register that wind-turbine and solar-panel energy can be and is being used to manufacture wind turbines and solar panels and that vans running on wind and solar energy can be and are being used to transport the "parts and materials" used in the process of manufacturing them if the van runs on batteries charged with solar and wind power.

Fifty-meter-long 10-ton wind turbine blades, concrete for the base foundations, 25-meter segments of steel tubing for the towers, 50-ton generators and 40-ton gearboxes for the nacelles, are being transported by electric vans? (What model, please?) Massive structural steel is being smelted electrically? Massive amounts of concrete for wind turbine foundations are being made from cement produced in electric kilns? (Where, by whom?) I suppose those same electric super-vans, rather than smelly old diesel cement mixers, are transporting the 30+ truckloads per wind turbine of concrete to the sites? Most solar panels are made in China; why is China building new power plants that run on coal, if their grid can supply the intensive energy needs of solar panel manufacturers using only wind and solar electricity? Has Big Coal been fooling the Chinese government for 50 years?

Wherever that's not yet the case, it needs to become the case as soon as possible.

It's not the case anywhere.

Of course it needs to become the case as soon as possible. As soon as electric cement mixers and countless other electric heavy vehicles are invented and manufactured in enormous numbers. As soon as the iron mining and steel smelting and cement making and solar panel manufacturing and uncounted other heavy industries completely retool to make all their engines and furnaces electric. As soon as the electric power grid doubles in capacity worldwide to power all that new electric industrial equipment without any consumers having to reduce usage, while at the same time also phasing out all the gas, oil, and coal plants. As soon as hundreds of terawatt-hours of electricity storage are added for the sake of all that new electric industrial equipment that can't operate intermittently. How soon do you expect "as soon as possible" to actually be?

I think everybody else has understood it at this point because it's not very difficult to understand unless one is obsessed 24/7 with the idea that ordinary people should be forced to make sacrifices.

I would think someone obsessed 24/7 with the idea that ordinary people should be forced to make sacrifices would have mentioned that idea by now. Who in this thread has done so?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

It's a lie, actually, as I've explained before. The solar and wind installations that provide those allegedly CO2-free hot showers are made of parts and materials whose manufacture emits CO2, are transported by vehicles that emit CO2, are constructed and maintained with equipment that emits CO2; and they have a limited service life, so they need periodic replacement. On the whole, that system emits considerably less CO2 per liter-degree of hot water than for instance a gas home water heater, but it still contributes to climate change.

Without numbers that statement is meaningless. Which makes it a lie.

You see, if humans didn't produce any global warming the planet would be cooling and we would be facing another ice age. So a bit of warming effect is actually good. Let's say we needed 10% of what we making now to stay at an even temperature. And let's say manufacturing, transporting and operating an electrically-heated shower produced 10% of the emissions of a gas-heated shower over its lifespan. It would then be effectively 'carbon neutral'.

The only reason we need true net-zero is because we are producing too much warming. Far too much actually, which will require net-negative to get back to where we want to be. Or more likely we will simply put up with a 'new normal' of extreme weather and people dying etc., just like we did in the past when we didn't care for the environment.

 

[Myriad]

Without numbers that statement is meaningless. Which makes it a lie.

You see, if humans didn't produce any global warming the planet would be cooling and we would be facing another ice age. So a bit of warming effect is actually good. Let's say we needed 10% of what we making now to stay at an even temperature. And let's say manufacturing, transporting and operating an electrically-heated shower produced 10% of the emissions of a gas-heated shower over its lifespan. It would then be effectively 'carbon neutral'.

The only reason we need true net-zero is because we are producing too much warming. Far too much actually, which will require net-negative to get back to where we want to be. Or more likely we will simply put up with a 'new normal' of extreme weather and people dying etc., just like we did in the past when we didn't care for the environment.

That would be a useful nuance, if it weren't for the fact that the most significant greenhouse gases persist in the atmosphere and as you point out, the concentration is way past the point where cooling has been arrested. It was probably already past that point before most of us were born. All recent and present emissions still contribute(d) to the present problem of excessively high CO2 and its consequences. I don't see any lie there.

In some hypothetical future, if and when a lot of the greenhouse gases have been scrubbed from the atmosphere (or removed via natural processes over the longer term), people might decide to set and maintain some determined atmospheric composition, by some combination of limiting the scrubbing and deliberately continuing some level of emissions. But even in cases like that, one would hope that the necessary emissions would be selected for the most essential, high-value, and/or unavoidable uses, like medical and emergency services, launching satellites, certain agriculture, research, and private jet travel for televangelists. (Just kidding about that last one.)

 

[wobs]

Of course it needs to become the case as soon as possible. As soon as electric cement mixers and countless other electric heavy vehicles are invented and manufactured in enormous numbers. As soon as the iron mining and steel smelting and cement making and solar panel manufacturing and uncounted other heavy industries completely retool to make all their engines and furnaces electric. As soon as the electric power grid doubles in capacity worldwide to power all that new electric industrial equipment without any consumers having to reduce usage, while at the same time also phasing out all the gas, oil, and coal plants. As soon as hundreds of terawatt-hours of electricity storage are added for the sake of all that new electric industrial equipment that can't operate intermittently. How soon do you expect "as soon as possible" to actually be?

To be fair to dann, there are quarry vehicles being developed that will run on electric by 2030. Currently these are hybrid:

Big copper mine is Sweden, with hydroelectric electricity supply. Granted its not wind or solar, but we can't have everything.

Edit;

Also note that Sweden's energy mixed includes: 43% hydro, 31% nuclear, 17% wind, 9% thermal, and rest solar etc. So low carbon indeed.

Other mines won't be so fortunate of course.

 

[newyorkguy]

...You see, if humans didn't produce any global warming the planet would be cooling and we would be facing another ice age...

That reads like something emptyg would say. Is there any scientific basis to that statement? That without CO2 emissions heating the upper atmosphere we'd be heading towards another ice age?

 

[Pixel42]

That reads like something emptyg would say. Is there any scientific basis to that statement? That without CO2 emissions heating the upper atmosphere we'd be heading towards another ice age?

The current Milankovich cycle (interglacial) peaked about 6000 years ago, but it would probably have been quite a while before the next significant glaciation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation#Next_glacial_period

Based on orbital models, the cooling trend initiated about 6,000 years ago will continue for another 23,000 years.[40] Slight changes in the Earth's orbital parameters may, however, indicate that, even without any human contribution, there will not be another glacial period for the next 50,000 years.[41] It is possible that the current cooling trend might be interrupted by an interstadial phase (a warmer period) in about 60,000 years, with the next glacial maximum reached only in about 100,000 years.[42]

Based on past estimates for interglacial durations of about 10,000 years, in the 1970s there was some concern that the next glacial period would be imminent. However, slight changes in the eccentricity of Earth's orbit around the Sun suggest a lengthy interglacial period lasting about another 50,000 years.[43] Additionally, human impact is now seen as possibly extending what would already be an unusually long warm period. Projection of the timeline for the next glacial maximum depend crucially on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Models assuming increased CO2 levels at 750 parts per million (ppm; current levels are at 417 ppm[44]) have estimated the persistence of the current interglacial period for another 50,000 years.[45] However, more recent studies concluded that the amount of heat trapping gases emitted into Earth's oceans and atmosphere will prevent the next glacial (ice age), which otherwise would begin in around 50,000 years, and likely more glacial cycles.[46][47]

 

[dann]

It appears to be very speculative.
Anyway, we should probably leave a note for our descendants about how to counteract ice ages by emitting CO₂.

 

[dann]

The solar and wind installations that provide those allegedly CO2-free hot showers are made of parts and materials whose manufacture emits CO2, are transported by vehicles that emit CO2, are constructed and maintained with equipment that emits CO2; and they have a limited service life, so they need periodic replacement.

The funny thing about it is the focus on the pretty minimal CO₂ emission that goes into making, transporting and maintaining parts for wind turbines and solar panels even if they aren't 100% manufactured, transported and maintained by means of renewable energy. Their contribution to decreasing CO₂ for the rest of their "service life" becomes unimportant, and there is no comparison to fossil-fuel plants as if they don't require construction, transportation (including the transportation of the fossil fuels) and maintenance and as if they don't have a limited service life. (The Tvind wind turbine, finished in 1978, is still standing, still producing, but there have been occasional renovations and parts have been replaced.
It's a great story:
Da Tvind byggede verdens største vindmølle med hjælp fra atomkrafttilhængere, en fremskridtsmand og en eksnazist (Information.dk, Feb 26, 2022)
When Tvind built the world's largest wind turbine assisted by advocates of nuclear power, a right-wing sympathizer and a former Nazi (Danes familiar with Tvind would know that the members of Tvind were some kind of Maoists)

On the whole, that system emits considerably less CO2 per liter-degree of hot water than for instance a gas home water heater, but it still contributes to climate change.

Once manufactured, transported and erected, its contribution to climate change is insignificant, and to the extent that it replaces fossil fuel plants, it helps decrease CO₂ emission.

This post, just like Myriad's, causes CO₂ emissions even if my Mac feeds off of 100% wind and solar (it's cloudy and not very windy today), depending on the energy supply to the web hotel hosting it. Since his "god-kings" never engaged in this kind of frivolous use of energy, I'm surprised that it doesn't appear to be an activity that he thinks should be sacrificed on the altar of austerity.

 

[Pixel42]

It appears to be very speculative.
Anyway, we should probably leave a note for our descendants about how to counteract ice ages by emitting CO₂.

There was a fascinating paper a few years ago by a team of climatologists at Copenhagen university who calculated how long we could postpone another glaciation if we left the fossil fuel in the ground until one was imminent, and then burnt just enough to prevent it. It came out at about half a million years. That's the next 8 or 10 glaciations.

Instead we started burning it when we were only just passed the peak of the current interglacial, and we've already used up nearly half of it. Which is why we're buggered.

Note an ice age is defined as a time when there are permanent ice sheets, which there currently are. Within an ice age there are periods when those ice sheets increase in size (glaciations), and periods when they decrease (interglacials). I don't think it's possible for us to end the current ice age altogether even if we burn it all in the the next couple of centuries, but I don't have time to look that up at the moment.

 

[dann]

That you highlight "voluntarily consuming less" to be an example of emotive language makes my point pretty well. You've made it clear the very concept of anyone (other than a televangelist or CEO with a private jet) voluntarily consuming less is highly emotionally charged for you, for some reason. I won't personalize the argument by speculating as to why.

What it makes clear is Myriad's manipulative cherry picking and distortion.
I wrote:

Myriad's austerity gospel and (!) its emotive language:

As documentation of Myriad's austerity gospel and his emotive language, I presented five quotations from his posts. Myriad picks one sentence with a very clear example of his austerity gospel and pretends that I meant that one to be about his use of emotive language.

Instead of presenting the five quotations again (you can use the link to my post to see them), here are some samples: "frivolous high-energy luxuries," "a population of addicts and instead of daydreaming about all the dealers having a change of heart and making better cleaner smack free for everyone"

Myriad makes it very clear who is "highly emotionally charged," and his dishonest cut-and-paste cherry picking and lying about the context only serves to make it more obvious.

 

[dann]

There was a fascinating paper a few years ago by a team of climatologists at Copenhagen university who calculated how long we could postpone another glaciation if we left the fossil fuel in the ground until one was imminent, and then burnt just enough to prevent it. It came out at about half a million years. That's the next 8 or 10 glaciations.

Instead we started burning it when we were only just passed the peak of the current interglacial, and we've already used up nearly half of it. Which is why we're buggered.

Note an ice age is defined as a time when there are permanent ice sheets, which there currently are. Within an ice age there are periods when those ice sheets increase in size (glaciations), and periods when they decrease (interglacials). I don't think it's possible for us to end the current ice age altogether even if we burn it all in the the next couple of centuries, but I don't have time to look that up at the moment.

It would be fun to be able to walk to the British Isles - which would no longer be isles. There might be some interesting relics from Doggerland settlements and probably a lot of amber.
But I really don't like the cold.

 

[newyorkguy]

Howard Lee, a geologist with a focus on Earth's climate through deep time, puts the approach of the next Ice Age as 1,500 years. Lee wrote in Quanta Magazine:

Earth’s orbit wobbles as the sun, the moon and other planets change their relative positions. These cyclical wobbles, called Milankovitch cycles, cause the amount of sunlight to vary at middle latitudes by up to 25% and cause the climate to oscillate. These cycles have operated throughout time, yielding the alternating layers of sediment you see in cliffs and road cuts...Today [July 2020] Earth is approaching another minimum of northern sunlight, so without human carbon dioxide emissions we would be heading into another ice age within the next 1,500 years or so. Quanta Magazine link

Quanta Magazine is an online publication covering developments in physics, mathematics, biology and computer science. It is sponsored by the Simons Foundation, a non-profit group endowed to advance the frontiers of research in mathematics and the basic sciences.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Interesting to see what role insurance companies are going to play when it comes to climate change. The public and politicians may fool themselves into thinking everything is fine, but insurance companies know no God but the Truth of the Sacred Spreadsheet.

here is Politico talking about the tough spot California dems are in. They have regulated insurance companies to help control pricing, but wildfire risk is getting so severe that insurance companies are leaving the state. Politicians must either allow insurance companies to pass on climate change risks directly to the customer or risk leaving large swaths of California uninsurable.

“We turned a corner,” said state Sen. Susan Rubio (D-Baldwin Park), chair of the Senate Insurance Committee. “We’re, all of us, in a strange way, on the same page.”

Lawmakers are talking about introducing a bill in time to speed it through the end of California’s legislative session in mid-September. Potential ingredients include allowing insurers to charge all policyholders a fee to cover the riskiest properties and letting them use forward-looking rate models that incorporate expected increases in natural disasters.

The moves would likely raise insurance premiums, opening elected officials up to attacks from consumer advocates who have wielded enough political influence to keep the state’s rates among the lowest in the nation.

But there’s a growing acknowledgement that it may be time to try exposing homeowners to the actual costs of living in a fire-prone area.

“Everything’s on the table, and I don’t rule out something being done,” Rubio said.

The shrinking of the state’s insurance market has been gradual but with some dramatic moments. State Farm, Allstate and Farmers announced pullbacks this spring, citing the risk of wildfire as well as rising costs related to inflation and global disasters. Industry sources now estimate there’s 20 percent less availability for insurance options than there was a year ago.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/21/wildfires-california-politicians-00112016

Car-centric, low density suburban sprawl may be reaching a natural limit in California, as building further and further into wildfire country may become unaffordable and/or uninsurable.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

That would be a useful nuance, if it weren't for the fact that the most significant greenhouse gases persist in the atmosphere and as you point out, the concentration is way past the point where cooling has been arrested. It was probably already past that point before most of us were born.

I was born in 1957.

Between 1880 and 1910 the global temperature dipped by an average of ~0.25°C, returning to 'normal' by 1940. That was followed by a period of stability, until 1975 when it began ramping up exponentially.

In 1975 I was 18 years old. So my childhood memory is of a planet that was not warming, and the temperature was just where I liked it. If we could return to that I would be very happy.

Between 1980 and today global population has nearly doubled. To compensate for that we should have been reducing per capita GHG emissions by an equivalent amount, but we didn't. Fossil fuel consumption, deforestation and intensive land use all increased as the population did.

Greenhouse gas emissions are currently increasing while carbon sinks are decreasing, creating an imbalance that is increasing net CO₂ in the atmosphere. We need to stop that trend by reducing emissions and increasing sinks, then a new equilibrium point will be reached. However doing it is difficult because people don't want to change - despite the fact that unwanted change is being forced on them anyway by their own intransigence.

I am sick of the excuses people are giving for not doing their bit. Eventually they will have to face the music, by which time things will be much worse than they are now. But that's the way it has to be - human nature being what it is.

The reason people call global warming a hoax isn't that 'Big Oil' or conservative politicans have brainwashed them, but simply that it's 'inconvenient'. They don't want to address it so they deny it, latching on to anything they can to bolster their narrative - just like we see all the time in this forum.