Jump to content

The Analysis of Sea Levels.


mikegarrison
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Silavite said:

It's true virtually everywhere that, for building a new power station, a renewable source will be cheaper than coal. It's true in a sizable minority of places that building new renewables is cheaper than running existing coal power stations

A truth that has been true for how long? 

https://energypost.eu/5-charts-show-the-rapid-fall-in-costs-of-renewable-energy/

The dramatic improvement is so recent that even if the developing world can afford it - there are 'legacy' projects that are still coming on line. This is part of what I meant by a massive altruistic effort by the West to wean a place like India off coal.  In many cases the money is already spent and the power was needed yesterday. 

6 hours ago, FleshJeb said:

I didn't see any that were complementary about his motivations

 

6 hours ago, FleshJeb said:

What happened when we did that to the tobacco industry? The rates of smoking fell precipitously

These two sentiments read oddly in the same post. 

:D

 

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, FleshJeb said:

However in an effort to be fair, Subsidy Phase-Out and Reform Catalyst (SPARC) bonds look like an interesting free-market solution

Oddly, this kind of thing works.  Back in the Aughts I got into an argument with a friend who quit his job and joined a firm that trades carbon credits.  I thought he was an idiot. 

He just bought a larger yacht. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

In the middel of the ocean???

Crunchies love any story about exploring primitivism.  Usually involves no toilet or shower and sustained pharmacological experimentation - but given that one is a minor... Perhaps that last part isn't required. 

As long as you can say that you have a non-military / government experience requiring a primitive lifestyle ... Mad Cred. 

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Maaaaan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/global-carbon-emissions-bounce-back-nearly-2019-levels-n1283167

"... At the height of the pandemic last year, emissions were down to 34.8 billion metric tons... 

... With 2020′s dramatically clean air in cities from India to Italy, some people may have hoped the world was on the right track in reducing carbon pollution, but scientists said that wasn’t the case...

... While most countries went back to pre-pandemic trends, China’s pollution increase was mostly responsible for worldwide figures bouncing back to 2019 levels... 

... The “green recovery” that many nations have talked about in their stimulus packages take longer to show up in emission reductions because rebounding economies first use the energy mix they already had... "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly, I've heard the completely opposite claims that the lockdowns had zero effects on air quality in cities.

5 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

And btw about vodka. Ask Brasil about the ethanol jets.

We must. I am staunch proponent of @MatterBeam's suggestions of capturing atmospheric carbon into ethanol.

E8P8ov5XsAIMsDh.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

My main "problem" isn't that society/"the species" has a hard time solving at all- it is that many people (including key people like energy execs and politicians) are actively, perhaps deliberately, ignoring the problem. Hence a limit of the intelligence of humans as a species. Some individuals can see a major problem for the ecosystem slowly approaching that would drastically affect the human species- yet the rest of the population can not be convinced (and thus presumably is physically incapable) of acting to prevent this crisis from occurring. This is where a potential limit of human intelligence- just as a few dinosaurs could have run away (acknowledged the impending danger) as the asteroid sped towards Earth in its final moments, yet the species itself could not actually save themselves- becomes visible.

You can go the opposite direction and declare all forms of fossil fuel use, and industries are instantly banned, at which point modern society would collapse from a number of issues. So this obviously isn't feasible, so you'd have to make a sensible transition from fossil fuel use to cleaner energies. The problem is how to do that when huge portions of your economy and society are directly or indirectly affected by fossil fuel use.

Sure there are those that ignore it, and we can try to just 100% blame them for all the troubles. However, even if you want to be as responsible as possible, from a position of power to the average citizen, its hard to make any kind of impact because society, and the economy run on fossil fuels. 

If your representing a state that gets most of its power through burning fossil fuels to meet energy demands, that support local companies/businesses through the gathering of coal/natural gas, powers everyone's home using that energy, and exporting it to increase everyone's wealth. Moving away from fossil fuels isn't exactly a choice, its difficult and complex political and economical work. The worst part of public office, is if people don't like what your doing, you just get replaced by someone who does something different, so your back to square one. 

Which goes back to "the people", from individual democratic voters, to powerful organizations and people in non-democratic systems (or just "lobbyist" in both) who are all there to push against such changes, and they have pre-existing investments and self-interests. These are the people that dictate the winds of change, and there is no direct incentive for them to change their ways, even if it means screwing up everything. Lobbyist don't get where they are at by doing the right thing, they do it by getting $ for someone. The average individual could also see the change as a direct threat to their pre-existing livelyhood from multiple sources, from news-sources, friends, families, co-workers, etc. 

The simplest thing is the price paid for inaction, or slow-action is cheaper than continuing the existing course. I'm sure this will eventually change in time for more and more people, but we aren't there year. Unfortunately that "age of change" where a majority of the right people do realize we are screwing stuff up, its beyond the period when we can make substantial change from occuring.

 

If it took a global pandemic to barely put a dent in rising emissions rates, then we really have our work cut out for us. 

 

 

23 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Los Angeles is a pretty good metaphor.  Multi-decadal efforts, both public and private have shown significant improvements

Its incredible that today's LA air is considered clean compared to what it was. Yet I still can't see the Hollywood sign from afar due to smog, nor are the freeways any less congested than before. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MKI said:

incredible that today's LA air is considered clean compared to what it was. Yet I still can't see the Hollywood sign from afar due to smog, nor are the freeways any less congested than before

LA's population went from 7 million in 1980 to almost 10 million today.  The pollution has been dramatically reduced - but LA is still a basin that traps air.  Wildfire smoke, agricultural dust and the remaining pollution is still a factor... But at least the aliens won't think it's a defensive shield. (like when I was a kid) 

1 hour ago, MKI said:

it took a global pandemic to barely put a dent in rising emissions rates, then we really have our work cut out for us

There actually was a dramatic reduction - accompanied by significant hardship... And people got the economy back on track asap - which brought back the emissions. 

The fast turnaround meant it was impossible for significant change to occur (basically we flicked the lights off, then on - but no one bothered to change the bulb.  Expecting anything else is unrealistic. 

Systemic changes take a lot longer and need to be deliberate 

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MKI said:

Sure there are those that ignore it, and we can try to just 100% blame them for all the troubles. However, even if you want to be as responsible as possible, from a position of power to the average citizen, its hard to make any kind of impact because society, and the economy run on fossil fuels. 

If your representing a state that gets most of its power through burning fossil fuels to meet energy demands, that support local companies/businesses through the gathering of coal/natural gas, powers everyone's home using that energy, and exporting it to increase everyone's wealth. Moving away from fossil fuels isn't exactly a choice, its difficult and complex political and economical work. The worst part of public office, is if people don't like what your doing, you just get replaced by someone who does something different, so your back to square one. 

Which goes back to "the people", from individual democratic voters, to powerful organizations and people in non-democratic systems (or just "lobbyist" in both) who are all there to push against such changes, and they have pre-existing investments and self-interests. These are the people that dictate the winds of change, and there is no direct incentive for them to change their ways, even if it means screwing up everything. Lobbyist don't get where they are at by doing the right thing, they do it by getting $ for someone. The average individual could also see the change as a direct threat to their pre-existing livelyhood from multiple sources, from news-sources, friends, families, co-workers, etc. 

If humans possess the intelligence necessary to ward off the "environmental crisis trifecta" (I am going to use this to refer to climate change, ocean acidification, and pollution from here onwards) these should not be issues.

"Society", "businesses", "companies", "economies", "public office", "self-interests (in reference to things like economic ties)", "wealth"- none of these things actually exist. They are just imaginary things humans came to use to control their instinctual "problem behaviors" (greed (which comes from the tendency for individuals of almost any species to primarily value themselves or their juvenile offspring over each other), distrust (again from that tendency), laziness (which is an unfortunate product of the human population and its technology building up to where a relatively small number of people provide for many and the prospect of "never ending rest" becomes real), and so on). Now these things proved useful to the different tribes in ensuring their survival, and in saving lives and improving the quality of life.

It's a no brainer that working together is required to solve problems. Supposedly human individuals are capable of truly caring for each other. A food distribution apparatus obviously exists. Instantly turning off fossil fuel energy supply stations is a fantasy- apart from weekend Twitter activists, no one has seriously suggested that. Looking at a more reasonable plan- energy companies voluntarily replacing their dirty energy resources with clean ones, with government and international support around the world to ensure that happens smoothly and without causing widespread harm- there should be no real (physical) obstacles to such an endeavor, and there are nine years to do it, so an unhealthy rush is unnecessary. An intelligent species that is supposed to be capable of truly caring for each other's well being, and has the necessary apparatus in place to provide food, water, and shelter, should be able shed or temporarily retire imaginary structures like political and economic systems, if that is what is required to solve the issue. And yet, I'm sure this is simply an absurd idea for a majority of humans if I was to tell it to them. The fact that these imaginary things prevent humans from defeating this "environmental crisis trifecta", which will likely plunge human society backwards and result in hundreds of millions of deaths, would be (is?) an indicator of a limit of the intelligence of the human species.

That is not to say that such "extreme" measures are actually needed to limit CO2 emissions. But if out of all of the things- ensuring the general population is fed, has clean water, functioning shelter, the logistics of trying to construct enough clean energy plants to replace the widespread use of fossil fuels, etc.- for "economics" (especially as "economics" usually pertains to the wellbeing of corporations and businesses, not actual people) and "politics" (people not working together "cause muh fears and insecurity inside muh head") to be the main problem pertaining to stopping the "environmental crisis trifecta" from coming to pass, despite all of its nightmarish potential effects, that is a major indicator of the limit of the intelligence of the human species. Emphasis on species, as this is not about the intelligence of individuals.

EDIT- All of this goes in reverse for climate activists incapable of proposing anything other than "StOp cO2 EmIssIoNs noW!11"

5 hours ago, MKI said:

The simplest thing is the price paid for inaction, or slow-action is cheaper than continuing the existing course. I'm sure this will eventually change in time for more and more people, but we aren't there year. Unfortunately that "age of change" where a majority of the right people do realize we are screwing stuff up, its beyond the period when we can make substantial change from occuring.

 

If it took a global pandemic to barely put a dent in rising emissions rates, then we really have our work cut out for us.

Humans are very good at starting doing stuff, but really suck at stopping. It took an idea and some campaigning to build the first US transcontinental railroad in 6 years, and some fear and a speech to land a man on the Moon in 8. But if it takes 70 million people dying and the creation of the strategy of nuclear deterrence to stop conflict between the larger of the human tribes, and even then war and aggressive kinetic actions continue to this day- with even conflict between large tribes "still on the table"- then what hope do humans have of ending their use of fossil fuels and stopping pollution?

Hence, the "environmental crisis trifecta" may prove to be the limit of the capability of the intelligence of the human species to ensure its survival on both the individual and wider level, just as despite some dinosaur individuals potentially possessing the ability to identify something dangerous approaching from the sky, there was nothing effective they could have done (they were physically incapable) to prevent it from being their demise.

Again, however, it is a "maybe", and I would be happy to be proven wrong.

Note- When I say "proven wrong", I mean by human behavior itself. I am not suggesting we keep discussing/arguing infinitely :D

Edited by SunlitZelkova
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

But wait, the car which you have bought three years ago (and was advertised as so much cleaner than the previous one, now decade-old), is dirty as a steam locomotive, as you can now learn from the caring people, defending the ecology from the morlocks like you, with their smoking three-year old cars.
You should quickly replace the car with the new one, even if the current one is enormously clean for the decade-earlier you. Of course, for additional money which you would otherwise not bring to the "cleaner" car manufacturer.

This is a ridiculously unrealistic strawman argument. One, very few people have the financial ability to engage in that behavior, even if they wanted top. Two, it's fairly well-known among environmentalists that the "embodied energy" required to make a car is more than you'd save by switching to a new one. The most environmentally-friendly decision an individual can take is to keep their car well-maintained and drive it until it dies. There ARE people who trade-in their cars every three years, but leasing a car is a financial/luxury decision.

17 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Or, in other terms, the additional costs get spent on third-party needs, and all above the 1990s ecological measures  is just selling a health&death fear rather than something actually healthy&wealthy.

I disagree, and I'll back it up with an anecdote:  A gentleman in his 80s stopped by a jobsite of mine the other day. We were by a creek and he mentioned that when he was young, he used to be able to pull trout out of it by the bucket load. Now there are so few left that you never see them. There's been so much pollution and silt washed into the waterways that 99% of the native fish died off, and they don't thrive even if re-introduced. I work in civil engineering; I know quite a bit about how we deal with stormwater; we're really just starting to manage it to the point where the ecosystems can come back. Is that worth the time and expense? Well, all that runoff also carries down to the ocean causing algal blooms and anoxia, impacting commercial fishing and the ability of humans to eat. If your community is drawing its drinking water out of the river or a nearby aquifer, pollutants are a big deal. They're expensive to treat, and dirty water isn't good for the economy. A phrase we focus on in civil engineering is "sustainable development". We want to facilitate continued economic growth over the long term.

The counter-argument: I actually took the classes to get licensed as a "qualified stormwater professional",  but the regulations are so unevenly-implemented, somewhat ineffective, and expensive to comply with that I couldn't ever see myself enforcing/reporting on them. For the vast majority of cases, I think "hand the contractor a case of beer and ask him to fix it" is the right solution.

17 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Judging by exhaust, the French ones do. Because SSJ is equipped with them. :p)

I actually DO know why turbojets and low-bypass turbofans smoke; I just enjoy the occasional stupid Cold War meme.  In the spirit of fairness, I refer you to the very sooty B-52 and F-4 Phantom II.

15 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

He just bought a larger yacht. 

Tell me he had the good taste to get one with a sail. :D I used to sail quite a bit, but all my friends were into short-distance racing (autocross with a boat), which is NOT a chill activity. I just want to stand on the gunwale, hang my butt in the trapeze, and zen out on the physics for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FleshJeb said:

This is a ridiculously unrealistic strawman argument. One, very few people have the financial ability to engage in that behavior, even if they wanted top.

Do you wear your granddad's old leather boots? A coat with patched sleevs?
It was normal in XIX century, to keep using old things while they stay intact.

Now your cars, plants, planes get too unecological much earlier than really need utilization.

1 hour ago, FleshJeb said:

The most environmentally-friendly decision an individual can take is to keep their car well-maintained and drive it until it dies.

Old cars are cursed due to their carbon-dioxide exhaust. CO2 concentration exhaust measurement is one of the standard procedures causing fines.

1 hour ago, FleshJeb said:

A gentleman in his 80s stopped by a jobsite

The one who can still do a job, between others who can't due to ill knees, or weak memory, or outdated knowledge.

1 hour ago, FleshJeb said:

I work in civil engineering; I know quite a bit about how we deal with stormwater; we're really just starting to manage it to the point where the ecosystems can come back. Is that worth the time and expense? Well, all that runoff also carries down to the ocean causing algal blooms and anoxia, impacting commercial fishing and the ability of humans to eat. If your community is drawing its drinking water out of the river or a nearby aquifer, pollutants are a big deal. They're expensive to treat, and dirty water isn't good for the economy. A phrase we focus on in civil engineering is "sustainable development". We want to facilitate continued economic growth over the long term.

The integral and objective measure of the efforts is the life expectancy.
As we can see on the charts, it hasn't grown very much since 1980s, and GDP per capita spent on it brings less and less additional expectancy more.
Also, as "a gentleman in his 80s stopped by a jobsite", this means that most employees are much younger than 80, and an employee of 80 is something not very usual.

Of course, politcorrectness requires saying "aged" instead of "old", but mostly people stop actibely working before their 80, so that means that the health and thus quality of life hasn't grown very much since 1980s, and the life expectany growth is mostly an longer weakness time rather than longer healthy life.
Not that living longer is bad, but this shows that the acceptable level of ecology protection had been achieved two decades ago, and further overclocking doesn't affect the health and life very much, so mostly is self-purposed.
Only new technologies can change this, radically changing the human biology.

1 hour ago, FleshJeb said:

Tell me he had the good taste to get one with a sail.

And a harpoon cannon, to mine the whale oil as biofuel.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

When I say "proven wrong", I mean by human behavior itself. I am not suggesting we keep discussing/arguing infinitely

I can easily fall into a loop of "infinite replies", but will try not to, unless we start talking about something else haha.

 

I do think this all hinges on what we consider intelligence. Is it intelligent to burn your planet down as a species by doing stuff that obviously is not good for it? Probably not. At the same time there are probably other considerations we are just plainly missing, and either don't realize it as a society, or haven't actually understood yet. 

Overall, its hard to put the goal posts for what is intelligent or not since we only have really 1 data point out there, which is us. Having 1 giant (smog) cloud hanging over what we as a species have done (among a bunch of smaller ones hehe) can be used against it as a marker against intelligence, but we really have no idea beyond our current predicaments that no "intelligent society would ever be challenged with".

Then there is always my favorite paradox, the Fermi Paradox. Maybe we can't find aliens because they burned too much coal and died before moving to renewables hahaha. Wont make that great of a sci-fi film, thats for sure XD

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MKI said:

here are probably other considerations we are just plainly missing

Of course - all the stuff that everyone simply takes for granted. 

Example - The 'glacier melt since 1850' anti-industrialist conveniently forgets that in 1850, life expectancy was less than 40 years.  (Not that no one lived long, full lives into old age - but rather childhood mortality was enormous and tooth decay and disease killed a whole lot of people; thus the average). 

Irony = The same advances that have prolonged and improved human life are contributing to the problem we perceive at present. 

Cheap coal is actually a life saver and baseline technology that we are now trying to grow out of.  Things like this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London

Inspired people to enact clean air legislation.  LA had a smog event so bad in the 40s they thought it was an Axis gas attack - but it was just pollution. 

So it wasn't stupid to use coal in the first place - but given all the downsides it does make sense to shift to far less polluting technology moving forward 

Places like the US and Europe that have robust, stable economies have the advantage of buying into the new clean technology for the health and well being of their people.  Places without those advantages often resent them for saying 'don't do what we did (cheap energy), use this more expensive tech that you have to buy from us instead'.  

 

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, MKI said:

I do think this all hinges on what we consider intelligence. Is it intelligent to burn your planet down as a species by doing stuff that obviously is not good for it? Probably not. At the same time there are probably other considerations we are just plainly missing, and either don't realize it as a society, or haven't actually understood yet. 

Overall, its hard to put the goal posts for what is intelligent or not since we only have really 1 data point out there, which is us. Having 1 giant (smog) cloud hanging over what we as a species have done (among a bunch of smaller ones hehe) can be used against it as a marker against intelligence, but we really have no idea beyond our current predicaments that no "intelligent society would ever be challenged with".

My "definition" of intelligence isn't so much some dictionary or scientific definition of intelligence per say as much as it is looking for illogicality. If those illogicalities remain unknown to a vast number of individuals despite clear kinetic issues "in their face" that should trigger a realization of what needs to be done, the entire species level of cognitive capability- which could be referred to as "intelligence"- is questionable, hence the limits of human "intelligence" possibly being the main issue in trying to solve the Changing Earth Triple Whammy of Destruction.

So when I say "intelligence" I don't mean the philosophical and opinionated interpretation of it, I mean physical cognitive capability (dictated by the brain).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

My "definition" of intelligence isn't so much some dictionary or scientific definition of intelligence per say as much as it is looking for illogicality. If those illogicalities remain unknown to a vast number of individuals despite clear kinetic issues "in their face" that should trigger a realization of what needs to be done, the entire species level of cognitive capability- which could be referred to as "intelligence"- is questionable, hence the limits of human "intelligence" possibly being the main issue in trying to solve the Changing Earth Triple Whammy of Destruction.

So when I say "intelligence" I don't mean the philosophical and opinionated interpretation of it, I mean physical cognitive capability (dictated by the brain).

The problem here is that the illogicity seems to scale with cognitive capacity. Animal behavior is pretty damned logical in its unsophistication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Toucan live in rain forests.  Russian future a tropical paradise? 

The "Onwards to Tropical Hyperborea" meme. A combination of above-global average temperature rise and the intrusion of the Kara Sea further into the Eurasian interior as glaciers melt would result in a really nice climate... following centuries of upheaval due to permafrost melt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Russian future a tropical paradise? 

Why not? Pines are the closest relatives of palms.

Also we have methane, it will melt and make a greenhouse paradise, so they will adapt, and there will be a whole taiga of palms.

And with crocodile caviar in Siberian rivers.

P.S.
Ninja'd, but still true.

P.P.S.
Canadians have some time to update the leaf on the flag to a palm leaf, but idk which one exactly.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...