Climate Change Flipped on it's Side

[Paratus]

XKCD took a crack at a novel way to look at climate change this week. A vertical timeline of human activity vs a horizontal change in temperature. (I'd post it but it's like 15K pixels tall.)

Take a look:
http://xkcd.com/1732/

If you want a little more info on how orbital (Milankovitch) cycles naturally changed the climate over the last tens of thousands of years vs the last 100 check out this video by PBS - Is an Ice Age Coming
https://youtu.be/ztninkgZ0ws

 

[sandorski]

great graph

 

[Paratus]

great graph

Randall has some awesome data presentation skills.

 

[KillerBee]

So, we just need to shut down the internet and everything will be ok.

 

[Paratus]

So, we just need to shut down the internet and everything will be ok.

Going for a head in the sand "solution"?

 

[ImpulsE69]

I do my part by not having kids and working from home. What have you the rest of you given up lately in the name of saving the planet?

My problem with these 'studies' and graphs is that they only ever approach it from one angle. To blame peoples way of life and use of fossil fuels, as if that is going to spark some change. It won't. Ever. Until we run out of fossil fuels. So beating it with a dead horse fixes nothing. You can argue, well the more people know, maybe the next time they buy <insert earth destroying item here> they'll get the more earth friendly version, then their family and friends will also. Sure..and trickle down economics has worked awesomely hasn't it.

The only real solution is to kill off half of the CO2 exhaling creatures (mostly humans). It couldn't possibly be over population, or a plethora of other reasons that also contribute to it. Maybe a nuclear war, or a massive plague is exactly what we need.

 

[master_shake_]

well....

we could start by.....i have no idea.

every time we conserve something in ontario the price goes up.

hydro, water, fuels. the necessities of life really.

so conservation leads to high costs which leads to poorer people which i guess would stop people from using co2 emitting appliances or whatever because they won't be able to afford to use them.

make everyone poor!

 

[ImpulsE69]

well....


make everyone poor!

So trickle down economics IS working! Who knew it would double as a planet saver!

 

[Paratus]

I do my part by not having kids and working from home. What have you the rest of you given up lately in the name of saving the planet?

My problem with these 'studies' and graphs is that they only ever approach it from one angle. To blame peoples way of life and use of fossil fuels, as if that is going to spark some change. It won't. Ever. Until we run out of fossil fuels. So beating it with a dead horse fixes nothing. You can argue, well the more people know, maybe the next time they buy <insert earth destroying item here> they'll get the more earth friendly version, then their family and friends will also. Sure..and trickle down economics has worked awesomely hasn't it.

The only real solution is to kill off half of the CO2 exhaling creatures (mostly humans). It couldn't possibly be over population, or a plethora of other reasons that also contribute to it. Maybe a nuclear war, or a massive plague is exactly what we need.

The solution isn't to make people poor. Why would you even think it was? Neither of the links I provided do anything but show what is happening or has happened to the climate. Not sure why you think they show we should live poor.

If you are worried about overpopulation then fixing global poverty would reduce future population.

If you notice Europe, North America, and Asia, (1st world countries), are already trending towards neutral or negative population growth.

This chart pretty much shows what happens to population growth as a country industrializes:

The faster they go from preindustrial to post the less population growth, not to mention less poverty.

Moving from third world to first world takes energy. The trick is to not repeat 1850 London, 1940 Pittsburgh or 2010 Beijing. That means less coal, more natural gas (in the short term), and more renewables and nuclear.

We are already starting to see those switches happening:

I bet there's a lot of business to do and money to made bringing another 6-7 billion people out of poverty.

Finally people who live 1st world lifestyles can actually worry about the environment they live in and leave to the next generation. For those in poverty when the choice is slash and burn rainforests to get enough land to grow enough food for you and family or starve, you're going to slash and burn.

For me I would support government policies and organizations that address these concerns instead of those that ignore it or want to make us all poor.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I think you took the joke about being poor serious(it was just a joke about what master shake said, after what I said). My initial comment on trickle down economics was to parallel the idea that things will happen given time, but when money is involved, it isn't true, because greed and self need tends to win out in the end.

The point of my post was that the population explosion that happened with the start of the industrial revolution plays a huge role in everything and that just not using fossil fuels isn't going to stop anything, but you don't see anyone yelling "climate change" suggesting to kill off half of humanity to save the rest.

 

[master_shake_]

is there a graph that shows world population relative to global temperatures?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Quite impressive. It's amazing how -4c can result in a mile of ice over Boston, but some policy makers think +4c will have no consequences, or at least no consequences worth changing policy over.

 

[Paratus]

I think you took the joke about being poor serious(it was just a joke about what master shake said, after what I said). My initial comment on trickle down economics was to parallel the idea that things will happen given time, but when money is involved, it isn't true, because greed and self need tends to win out in the end.

The point of my post was that the population explosion that happened with the start of the industrial revolution plays a huge role in everything and that just not using fossil fuels isn't going to stop anything, but you don't see anyone yelling "climate change" suggesting to kill off half of humanity to save the rest.

Obviously. Population equals demand for power. But quite frankly replacing fossil fuels does stop most of the problem. It's not like we don't know how much carbon goes into the air from the fuels we burn or have a good idea how much warming it contributes.

How we replace fossil fuels is the trick.

 

[TheGardener]

Waiting for the Atlantic to rise 300 feet. Then I will own oceanfront property.

 

[Slew Foot]

plant a bunch of trees

 

[ImpulsE69]

Obviously. Population equals demand for power. But quite frankly replacing fossil fuels does stop most of the problem. It's not like we don't know how much carbon goes into the air from the fuels we burn or have a good idea how much warming it contributes.

How we replace fossil fuels is the trick.

And therein lies the problem. It's not a problem that can be fixed. Too much money at stake. There are only 2 scenarios where it happens. 1. If we run out, or 2. The energy companies find the next big thing first. Otherwise, we'll just continue on our merry way and no amount of yelling will change anything. It needs to be looked at from a different angle, not that any of them are good.

 

[Paratus]

And therein lies the problem. It's not a problem that can be fixed. Too much money at stake. There are only 2 scenarios where it happens. 1. If we run out, or 2. The energy companies find the next big thing first. Otherwise, we'll just continue on our merry way and no amount of yelling will change anything. It needs to be looked at from a different angle, not that any of them are good.

Sorry but that's kind of bullshit. As I already posted coal usage is dropping on average worldwide.

Many first world nations have managed to start decoupling GDP from carbon:

Even China has peaked its coal usage and is trying to decrease CO2 in the next 10 years or so.

Wind and Solar are now pretty competitive with traditional energy in many areas.

Heck I'm paying between 6-7 cents per kWh for a 100% wind plan.

Market forces are pushing towards lower carbon fuels right now. (Low price of natural gas and rapidly dropping price of wind and solar).

 

[master_shake_]

again the biggest problem with green energy is politicians backdoor deals cronyism and kickbacks.

welcome to Ontario.

make people poor so they can't make co2.

works as intended in Ontario.

 

[Paratus]

again the biggest problem with green energy is politicians backdoor deals cronyism and kickbacks.

welcome to Ontario.

make people poor so they can't make co2.

works as intended in Ontario.

Ouch!

This isn't my plan but these are similar to the one I have.

This is in Texas btw.

 

[master_shake_]

paratus we've had this convo before.

 

[Paratus]

paratus we've had this convo before.

You know I was like, " lucky I already have this image from the last time this came up".

At any rate it sounds like you guys could use some more providers and possibly better independent oversight of your utilities.

 

[Ruptga]

You know I was like, " lucky I already have this image from the last time this came up".

At any rate it sounds like you guys could use some more providers and possibly better independent oversight of your utilities.

Yeah, fortunately (for the rest of the world) Canada's weird energy costs seem to just be a Canada thing that the rest of us don't really get since we haven't lived it.

 

[turtile]

You're forgetting the most important part of climate change - the way humans have changed the surface of the earth. For example, where I live, the natural vegetation is forest. It's now acres of corn fields/cover crops with irrigation. This allows extra water vapor low to the ground and in the winter when it snows, it makes the ground reflect more radiation than a forest would - making the record lows lower. (in addition to making it hotter in the summer)

Then take into account urban areas...

Solar holds energy from the sun which will still make the earth warmer, wind farms will change how energy is distributing.... So while not as bad, huge energy demand is going to change the climate.

 

[MongGrel]

Waiting for the Atlantic to rise 300 feet. Then I will own oceanfront property.

I only need about 20 feet, but I'll be living on an island then and most of Florida will be underwater.

 

[SSSnail]

I do my part by not having kids and working from home. What have you the rest of you given up lately in the name of saving the planet?

My problem with these 'studies' and graphs is that they only ever approach it from one angle. To blame peoples way of life and use of fossil fuels, as if that is going to spark some change. It won't. Ever. Until we run out of fossil fuels. So beating it with a dead horse fixes nothing. You can argue, well the more people know, maybe the next time they buy <insert earth destroying item here> they'll get the more earth friendly version, then their family and friends will also. Sure..and trickle down economics has worked awesomely hasn't it.

The only real solution is to kill off half of the CO2 exhaling creatures (mostly humans). It couldn't possibly be over population, or a plethora of other reasons that also contribute to it. Maybe a nuclear war, or a massive plague is exactly what we need.

About that breathing thing, start here, on the Basic tab first https://www.skepticalscience.com/breathing-co2-carbon-dioxide.htm... Actually, just stay on the Basic tab. Don't bother going further.