The climate insanity of the Trump administration.

[Ana the Ist]

Yes let’s maximise the damage for the next generation, they got it coming!

Ok...I guess you don't understand the problem.

Let's imagine for a moment that we got the worst offenders to stop using gasoline powered cars, stop burning coal, and dramatically reduce industrial pollutants...

What would happen to those energy sources? Oil would decrease in price drastically...as would coal...

So now the poorer nations would quickly become the worst offenders, as the resources that were too expensive for them in the past become much cheaper.

I mean, international flight and shipping are somewhere between 5-8 on the list of worst polluters....are we going to just shut down all international travel and trade?

If you really understand the problem, then you'd realize that mankind will likely use up these resources until they're gone (or close to it). That's the only realistic possibility at this point. Unless you're advocating that we take over the world and cut everyone off....then if we aren't using fossil fuels, someone will.

These things stay in the atmosphere for something like 1000 years....there's no real difference in who pollutes.

Besides, while climate change will undoubtedly be difficult for many....the resulting failure of struggling nations and economies will have a much much worse effect.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

The Trump administration knows the planet is going to boil. It doesn't care | Bill McKibben
Trump administration admits that the temperatures will increase by an average 4c by end of century leading to a literal hell on earth. And what are they going to do to address it? Nothing Indeed knowing the consequences they are instead deliberately Removing environmental regulations, encouraging the burning of fossil fuels and fiddling whilst the world burns.

They asked what is Trump doing about it?

The real question is what is the rest of the world doing about it.

United States is not a chief polluter.

M-Bob

 

[Desk trauma]

They asked what is Trump doing about it?

The real question is what is the rest of the world doing about it.

United States is not a chief polluter.

The US is the second largest emitter of C02.

 

[Gene2memE]

They asked what is Trump doing about it?

The real question is what is the rest of the world doing about it.

United States is not a chief polluter.

M-Bob

That's a really odd statement. It has Trumpian levels of factual accuracy.

When you look at CO2 emissions, the US ranks second in total emissions and sixth or seventh on a per capita basis. If you look at Methan emissions, the US is fourth in total emissions and third on a per capita basis.

The US accounts for about 4.5% of the globe's population, but about 15% of total greenhouse gas emissions.

The good news is that the US has cut its total emissions by ~13.5% since 2007.

The two big movers are electricity generation (down about 25% mostly due to retiring older coal fired plants) and industry emissions (down nearly 8%, mostly due to better emissions standards). Vehicle emissions trended down nearly 10% out to 2015, but have ticked up in the last few years.

 

[Newtheran]

temperatures will increase by an average 4c by end of century

Except they won't.

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records

NOAA Scientists Falsify Data to Dupe World Leaders on Climate Change

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's a really odd statement. It has Trumpian levels of factual accuracy.

When you look at CO2 emissions, the US ranks second in total emissions and sixth or seventh on a per capita basis. If you look at Methan emissions, the US is fourth in total emissions and third on a per capita basis.

The US accounts for about 4.5% of the globe's population, but about 15% of total greenhouse gas emissions.

The good news is that the US has cut its total emissions by ~13.5% since 2007.

The two big movers are electricity generation (down about 25% mostly due to retiring older coal fired plants) and industry emissions (down nearly 8%, mostly due to better emissions standards). Vehicle emissions trended down nearly 10% out to 2015, but have ticked up in the last few years.

How is that "good news"? It doesn't change anything about climate change. Those reductions could be twice as big and it wouldn't make any difference.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Except they won't.

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records

NOAA Scientists Falsify Data to Dupe World Leaders on Climate Change

The "climate change hiatus" idea has been debunked...several times now.

Can we finally stop talking about the so-called global warming hiatus?

There is no "hiatus".

 

[loveofourlord]

Why? If you truly understand the problem, then you understand there's nothing to do about it.

yeah...except we can make it worse by doing nothng, the time to fix, and extent of the problem can be lessened by lowering what were doing.

 

[Ana the Ist]

yeah...except we can make it worse by doing nothng, the time to fix,

Time to fix? What fix? As far as I know...there's no "fix" for what we've done.

and extent of the problem can be lessened by lowering what were doing.

Given the pollution that we've already put in the air...there's an expected 3 degree increase in average global temperatures by the end of the century.

What exactly do you think the difference between a 3 degree increase and a 4 degree increase is?

The 3 degree increase should cause crop failures, drought, and mass starvation. Those will, in turn, cause devastating wars all across the globe....hundreds of millions will die...violence and bloodshed will reach historic levels. I don't think a 4 degree increase is going to do "a lot more damage" on top of that.

 

[loveofourlord]

Time to fix? What fix? As far as I know...there's no "fix" for what we've done.



Given the pollution that we've already put in the air...there's an expected 3 degree increase in average global temperatures by the end of the century.

What exactly do you think the difference between a 3 degree increase and a 4 degree increase is?

The 3 degree increase should cause crop failures, drought, and mass starvation. Those will, in turn, cause devastating wars all across the globe....hundreds of millions will die...violence and bloodshed will reach historic levels. I don't think a 4 degree increase is going to do "a lot more damage" on top of that.

The difference is the size of the damage, and as for how to fix? I don't know, we have the super dangerous stuff in 30 years instead of 10-20 and have time to FIND fixes.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The difference is the size of the damage, and as for how to fix? I don't know, we have the super dangerous stuff in 30 years instead of 10-20 and have time to FIND fixes.

Wow....ok...

I'd like to point out the difference between when science says "we can probably find a solution for this" and when science says "you're in deep trouble because we can't fix this"....

We're talking about the latter here. Scientists have known for years there's nothing they can really do. The technology for fixing this simply doesn't exist...

Stop hoping we can fix climate change by pulling carbon out of the air, scientists warn

"While they encourage continued research and development of the technology, the authors also urge the necessity of “avoiding cavalier assumptions of future technological breakthroughs.”

The effects of what we've done will be felt for centuries if not millennia. The idea that we are somehow, as a planet, going to reduce emissions while enduring violence and suffering on an unknown scale is silly.

Now is the time to prepare for the worst.

 

[loveofourlord]

Wow....ok...

I'd like to point out the difference between when science says "we can probably find a solution for this" and when science says "you're in deep trouble because we can't fix this"....

We're talking about the latter here. Scientists have known for years there's nothing they can really do. The technology for fixing this simply doesn't exist...

Stop hoping we can fix climate change by pulling carbon out of the air, scientists warn

"While they encourage continued research and development of the technology, the authors also urge the necessity of “avoiding cavalier assumptions of future technological breakthroughs.”

The effects of what we've done will be felt for centuries if not millennia. The idea that we are somehow, as a planet, going to reduce emissions while enduring violence and suffering on an unknown scale is silly.

Now is the time to prepare for the worst.

There are solutions already being through t up of, the question is will thgere be much by the time some of them could be ready, plus we may not be over the limit, isn't it better to delay the worst for 50-70 years rather then acelerate them like we area? The longer the time it takes for the worst the more time we can prepare and find solutions. Either way still better to DO SOMETHING THEN NOTHING.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There are solutions already being through t up of, the question is will thgere be much by the time some of them could be ready, plus we may not be over the limit, isn't it better to delay the worst for 50-70 years rather then acelerate them like we area? The longer the time it takes for the worst the more time we can prepare and find solutions. Either way still better to DO SOMETHING THEN NOTHING.

Look...you're going off the assumption that you can delay anything at all. Did you read my earlier post about oil and gas prices if we were to stop using them altogether? Do you think poorer nations wouldn't suddenly become the biggest consumers of fossil fuels?

I'm not saying that we shouldn't develop other energy resources....obviously we'll need something when there's not enough oil to go around anymore. The idea that mankind will stop using fossil fuels before they run out though is naive....it will happen.

 

[USincognito]

Except they won't.

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records

A partisan press release? Oh brother!

NOAA Scientists Falsify Data to Dupe World Leaders on Climate Change

An editorial by a Conservative hack that cites Heartland mouthpiece James Taylor and a Daily Mail article?
Oh brother!

 

[JackRT]

If new technologies to pull carbon out of the atmosphere are going to be effective then perhaps we could start by reducing the carbon we put into the atmosphere?

 

[dgiharris]

Why? If you truly understand the problem, then you understand there's nothing to do about it.

I take a more mathematical and game theory type approach.

Lets say there is a 95% chance you are right, that there is nothing we can do to curb the Earth's environmental effects. Basically, what will happen will happen regardless of what humans do.

Now lets think in terms of results:
A) No global warming, everything more or less remains the same for the next 200 years
B) Some global warming and environmental change, slight changes impacting mankind
C) Moderate global warming and environmental change, major changes impacting mankind
D) Major global warming and environmental change, annihilation of mankind

I'll cut to the chase... From a game theory standpoint, it is in our best interest to do the best that we can in hopes that we are part of the 5% chance that mankind does have a significant impact on the future of this world's environment and/or that we can effect 5% worth of change and that small change can tip the scales in our favor and maybe move us from result C to result B or result B to result A...

Or put another way, lets say your daughter has cancer and the doctor says, "There is a 95% chance she is going to die but if we try this harmless procedure, there is a 5% chance she can live". You aren't going to throw your hands up and say, "Meh, she's gonna die anyway no point in trying..." No, you would try.

Well, I submit, similar logic applies in terms of the environment and mankind's role in Global Warming. And to be clear, it is my belief mankind's role in global warming is not significant as compared to other sources (i.e. the sun). However, I believe it is never wrong to do the right thing and the right thing is for us as a species to be much more environmentally friendly as if our lives depend on it, because it does.

 

[Goonie]

And with the right preparing to take over in Brazil opening up the Amazon to commercial logging, which will only accelerate the end of human civilisation. One wonders what does the right have against human life? They are hypocritically anti-abortion but as soon as people are born seem to be committed to ensuring that the environment is not compatible with human life. From poisoning the water, and air with lead, mercury and other byproducts of unregulated industry to blind support of fossil fuels the pro-death/extinction right makes a mockery of any claims of being pro-life.

 

[grasping the after wind]

On average. It will make the Middle East uninhabitable, and as for Mexico, southern USA?

Forgive me if I doubt the validity of the predictions of climate alarmist zealots. Perhaps if past performance on predicting the future had not been so completely inaccurate, I might take new ones more seriously. Soothsaying is a not something I put a lot of stock in. GIGO climate modeling is about as, or perhaps even less, reliable than your standard soothsayer.

 

[JackRT]

Actually when you look at the actual predictions of the various climate modeling systems over the past few decades, they have been generally accurate and are getting better. What comes in the media is, as often as not, not reflective of what scientists have actually said.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Actually when you look at the actual predictions of the various climate modeling systems over the past few decades, they have been generally accurate and are getting better. What comes in the media is, as often as not, not reflective of what scientists have actually said.

Could you show some proof of your claim about the accuracy of climate modeling. Its not that I doubt your claim but since I have only been exposed to the spin on such predictions that the media , along with Al gore, have trumpeted and they surely have been almost completely wrong. Perhpas you could provide us with examples of where the climate models, those untainted by the media spin machine's misinformation, have been correct?