Climate change and human responsibility

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Whynotnow

What do you honestly think happens if Canada becomes less of an attractive place for oil and gas companies to operate? They will spend less here. So then what happens? Well since the demand is still there because people need the product it gets produced elsewhere, with an almost virtual certainty that it’s being done in a jurisdiction with weaker protections - environmental and human rights. So the same amount is getting burnt by the end consumer, there is likely more harm to the environment and Canada harms itself in the process. That is Canada leaving billions on the table and probably hurting the environment.

I'd argue the good that would come from the billions raised from a windfall tax would outweight the bad that would come from some investment dollars potentially leaving the country.

Clearly you are frustrated with the corporations here but those same profits in a lot of companies are fueling investment in transition.

When compared to their massive profits, the amount these companies are putting into the transition is a drop in the bucket.

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

That's fair. I'll post here. My only concern was the good news getting lost with all the "yeah but..." stuff. We already know the "yeah, but". Let's celebrate the good stuff still!

Yes. Definitely. But let's not construe good news as a reason to let our guard down and think that enough is already being done to address the situation.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Yes. Definitely. But let's not construe good news as a reason to let our guard down and think that enough is already being done to address the situation.

Constant bad news and nihilism about inevitable societal collapse is a far, far great barrier to the energy transition than people on a Calgary Flames message board feeling content with progress

[flamesfever]

Personally I think "net zero by 2050" is a pipe dream. However, if it serves to speed up the transition away from the burning of fossil fuels, then I guess it will have served its purpose.

Things like the tripling of nuclear energy, the displacement of coal by natural gas, carbon capture, renewables, thermal energy, etc. all make sense to me. However, I believe they will have to be carefully transitioned in order to avoid price spikes in the fossil fuels, and to cause undue hardship, especially to the poorer people on the planet.

I also think better forestry management, and tree planting, should play an important part in removing CO2 from the air. Forests provide a "carbon sink" that absorbs a net 7.6 billion tonnes of CO2 per year, more carbon than the United States emits annually.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Personally I think "net zero by 2050" is a pipe dream. However, if it serves to speed up the transition away from the burning of fossil fuels, then I guess it will have served its purpose.



Things like the tripling of nuclear energy, the displacement of coal by natural gas, carbon capture, renewables, thermal energy, etc. all make sense to me. However, I believe they will have to be carefully transitioned in order to avoid price spikes in the fossil fuels, and to cause undue hardship, especially to the poorer people on the planet.



I also think better forestry management, and tree planting, should play an important part in removing CO2 from the air. Forests provide a "carbon sink" that absorbs a net 7.6 billion tonnes of CO2 per year, more carbon than the United States emits annually.

As Bill Gates once said, people often vastly overestimate what they can do in a year, and vastly underestimate what they can do in a decade. Net Zero by 2050 is definitely possible. Very difficult, but definitely possible. Limiting warming by 1.5° is all but a fait accompli, but 2° could still be met

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

As Bill Gates once said, people often vastly overestimate what they can do in a year, and vastly underestimate what they can do in a decade. Net Zero by 2050 is definitely possible. Very difficult, but definitely possible. Limiting warming by 1.5° is all but a fait accompli, but 2° could still be met

I find that Bill Gates quote quite interesting. I’ve never heard it before, but it makes a lot of sense. I like it!

[Azure]

Isn't the 'replacing coal for generating demand' kind of misleading if coal usage is still growing in countries like China?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Azure

Isn't the 'replacing coal for generating demand' kind of misleading if coal usage is still growing in countries like China?

I would not necessarily take an increase in coal plant construction in China as a guarantee of future increases in coal consumption. As it's not a capitalistic model, incentives are sometimes misaligned economically. Massive renewable generation coming on line next year, hydropower recovering from unprecedented drought, mixed with a flattening of the demand means that much of the coal fleet will be underutilized. China added over 230GW of solar in 2023! Their renewable additions in 2023 alone will generate as much electricity as all of France. It's insane how much has been added!

https://www.iea.org/news/global-coal...n-coming-years


In some other countries, like India, there's likely to be an increase in coal consumption, yes.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Constant bad news and nihilism about inevitable societal collapse is a far, far great barrier to the energy transition than people on a Calgary Flames message board feeling content with progress

Well ok, but you have to apply the "Calgary Flames message board" disclaimer to both sides of that equation.

Trying to alert people to the gravity and urgency of the situation is not the same thing as doomerism. Not once did I say catastrophe was inevitable. I said catastrophe is inevitable if we as a species make the wrong choices.

[Barnes]

On the good news front...

CALGARY, AB, Dec. 20, 2023 /CNW/ - Today, Canada Growth Fund Inc. ("CGF") and Advantage Energy Ltd. (TSX: AAV) ("Advantage") announced that CGF has entered into a strategic investment agreement with Entropy Inc. ("Entropy" or the "Company"), a Calgary-based developer of technologically-advanced carbon capture and sequestration ("CCS") projects with the potential to significantly reduce emissions in Canada and worldwide.

CGF has agreed to a $200 million investment in Entropy coupled with a fixed-price carbon credit purchase agreement ("Carbon Credit Offtake Commitment" or "CCO") of up to one million tonnes per annum ("tpa"). This strategic growth partnership represents an important new investment in Canadian carbon markets. The features of the CCO—notably its large scale and its long-term fixed-price—represent a global first in compliance markets. This financeable structure helps to de-risk and accelerate private CCS investment by establishing carbon price certainty for Canadian projects.

"With its abundance of natural resources, access to high-quality geological storage, and sophisticated engineering know-how, Canada is the best place in the world to build a CCS industry," said Patrick Charbonneau, President and CEO of Canada Growth Fund Investment Management Inc. ("CGF Investment Management"). "The CGF Investment Management team is pleased to deliver this inaugural transaction in Alberta's carbon market, and we look forward to putting additional capital to work across Canada in the months ahead."

https://www.newswire.ca/news-release...836264045.html

[TherapyforGlencross]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Well ok, but you have to apply the "Calgary Flames message board" disclaimer to both sides of that equation.

Trying to alert people to the gravity and urgency of the situation is not the same thing as doomerism. Not once did I say catastrophe was inevitable. I said catastrophe is inevitable if we as a species make the wrong choices.

Understanding the geologic timescale makes for a far easier realization and acceptance of the crisis. Hopefully, without the doomsday talk.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by TherapyforGlencross

Understanding the geologic timescale makes for a far easier realization and acceptance of the crisis. Hopefully, without the doomsday talk.

I've read this a few times now and don't know what this means

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I've read this a few times now and don't know what this means

Normally changes to global average temperature like we’ve witnessed in the last century take thousands of years to occur. Here’s a visual graph, but ignore that this is a webcomic because it illustrates the point quite nicely, even though it only goes back to the last ice age.

https://xkcd.com/1732/

[TherapyforGlencross]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

Normally changes to global average temperature like we’ve witnessed in the last century take thousands of years to occur. Here’s a visual graph, but I ignore that this is a webcomic because it illustrates the point quite nicely, even though it only goes back to the last ice age.

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Now mind you an event like the Younger Dryas (onset) took about 100 years so not too long. About a global 7 degree change. So dramatic change can and will occur again in the future.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by TherapyforGlencross

Now mind you an event like the Younger Dryas (onset) took about 100 years so not too long. About a global 7 degree change. So dramatic change can and will occur again in the future.

Of course, but that’s not the norm, and neither is our current situation. One positive I take away from it is we’ll likely never have to deal with an ice age because we could easily pump a lot of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to correct the temperature change.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by TherapyforGlencross

Now mind you an event like the Younger Dryas (onset) took about 100 years so not too long. About a global 7 degree change. So dramatic change can and will occur again in the future.

Are you suggesting that the current warming could be a normal, natural event?

[TherapyforGlencross]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Are you suggesting that the current warming could be a normal, natural event?

Absolutely not. Unless positive feedbacks occur, I’m suggesting rate of change will likely take millennia. Of course, we’re seeing effects occurring already, so I understand the gravity of the situation, but the doomsday talk doesn’t exactly help with understanding how changes occur. (I.e: ice sheet lag time, meltwater pulses, ect).

The Younger Dryas was preceded by warming, and the warming caused meltwater pulses to flow into the Atlantic, essentially changing the direction of the Gulf Stream (glacial Lake Agassiz redirected it meltwater flow from Gulf of Mexico to St.Lawerence, hence AMOC change) , and thus causing dramatic cooling (I’m not taking into account the ridiculous hypothesis of a meteor impact). This along with 8.2 Kya events are known as D-O cycles/Heinrich Events, which isn’t happening now as IIRC ocean currents and air currents regulate temperature. While I think it would take millennia for change to occur, I also wanted to point out anomalies in the recent geological timescale of fast occurring events. I believe that we don’t really know too much about negative feedback loops. Do all feedbacks amplify or reduce in radiative forcing?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by TherapyforGlencross

Absolutely not. Unless positive feedbacks occur, I’m suggesting rate of change will likely take millennia. Of course, we’re seeing effects occurring already, so I understand the gravity of the situation, but the doomsday talk doesn’t exactly help with understanding how changes occur. (I.e: ice sheet lag time, meltwater pulses, ect).

The Younger Dryas was preceded by warming, and the warming caused meltwater pulses to flow into the Atlantic, essentially changing the direction of the Gulf Stream (glacial Lake Agassiz redirected it meltwater flow from Gulf of Mexico to St.Lawerence, hence AMOC change) , and thus causing dramatic cooling (I’m not taking into account the ridiculous hypothesis of a meteor impact). This along with 8.2 Kya events are known as D-O cycles/Heinrich Events, which isn’t happening now as IIRC ocean currents and air currents regulate temperature. While I think it would take millennia for change to occur, I also wanted to point out anomalies in the recent geological timescale of fast occurring events. I believe that we don’t really know too much about negative feedback loops. Do all feedbacks amplify or reduce in radiative forcing?

So you think all current climate scientists are wrong about the current trends?

[TherapyforGlencross]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

So you think all current climate scientists are wrong about the current trends?

Current trends meaning? Trends as in “humans pumping out CO2 will have drastic consequences, and these consequences will have an impact on future generations” or trends as “in 100 years sea level will rise this much” or “due to climate change, civilization breaks down due to war, extended famines, flooding, ect”?

If for the first, then I expect it will be worse than we currently imagine. From what I know, effects such as methane seeps and retrogressive thaw slumping (see NWT, Carleton University is among the leaders in this research), along with other permafrost activity such as increase in permafrost active layer, has not been added into climate modelling. A reminder that we can only react to effects seen, so we are catching up.

At 300 CO2 ppm, pH of the seawater would be a theoretical 8.31. So, buffering is still occurring.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by TherapyforGlencross

Now mind you an event like the Younger Dryas (onset) took about 100 years so not too long. About a global 7 degree change. So dramatic change can and will occur again in the future.

Originally Posted by TherapyforGlencross

Absolutely not. Unless positive feedbacks occur, I’m suggesting rate of change will likely take millennia. Of course, we’re seeing effects occurring already, so I understand the gravity of the situation, but the doomsday talk doesn’t exactly help with understanding how changes occur. (I.e: ice sheet lag time, meltwater pulses, ect).

The Younger Dryas was preceded by warming, and the warming caused meltwater pulses to flow into the Atlantic, essentially changing the direction of the Gulf Stream (glacial Lake Agassiz redirected it meltwater flow from Gulf of Mexico to St.Lawerence, hence AMOC change) , and thus causing dramatic cooling (I’m not taking into account the ridiculous hypothesis of a meteor impact). This along with 8.2 Kya events are known as D-O cycles/Heinrich Events, which isn’t happening now as IIRC ocean currents and air currents regulate temperature. While I think it would take millennia for change to occur, I also wanted to point out anomalies in the recent geological timescale of fast occurring events. I believe that we don’t really know too much about negative feedback loops. Do all feedbacks amplify or reduce in radiative forcing?

It was a 7 degree change in Greenland's temperature, not a 7 degree change in global temperature. There was a change in global temperature but it was not 7 degrees. And the cause is more likely to be volcanic activity rather than freshwater melt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

... Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, which transports warm water from the Equator towards the North Pole, was interrupted by an influx of fresh, cold water from North America into the Atlantic.[5] However, several issues do exist with this hypothesis, one of which is the lack of a clear geomorphological route for the meltwater. In fact, the originator of the meltwater hypothesis, Wallace Broecker, stated in 2010 that "The long-held scenario that the Younger Dryas was a one-time outlier triggered by a flood of water stored in proglacial Lake Agassiz has fallen from favor due to lack of a clear geomorphic signature at the correct time and place on the landscape".[6] A volcanic trigger has been proposed more recently,[7] and the presence of anomalously high levels of volcanism immediately preceding the onset of the Younger Dryas has been confirmed in both ice cores[8] and cave deposits.[9]

My question for you is, why are you paying so little attention to the 99.9% of evidence which points to one conclusion, and are scouring history to find the 0.1% of things that might (to the untrained eye) appear to cast some doubt? Why is it so hard for you to accept that the increase in global average temperature since 1880 is the direct result in the dramatic increase in CO2 levels? Why pretend that you know better than the scientists?

Clinging to a prayer that some kind of unanticipated negative feedback will save us, basically equates to playing Russian Roulette with our future as a species. Sure, when you pull the trigger, a bullet might not be in the chamber, and you survive by dumb luck. But is it really the kind of risk you're interested in taking? Really?

And I also don't understand this "stop the doomsday talk" sentiment. If we fail to take appropriate action to adress the climate crisis, then yes the doomsday talk is completely justified. People need to understand the enormity and severity of the trouble our species has gotten itself into. The level of human suffering and death that will be caused in the worst-case climate scenarios, far surpasses the amount that took place under the worst dictatorships in human history - Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. And the anticipation of the upcoming suffering and death is not some random speculation either - it is rooted in an understanding of climate science, human nature, and world politics.

Here's the thing - humans act civilized insofar that they continue to have access to safe water and food... once this goes away, the civility goes away. Anticipating a collapse (either full or partial) of human civilization is not a stretch whatsoever. It's a reasonable thing to predict given that droughts, fires, and floods are already impacting food supplies, drying up fresh water sources, and ravaging portions of the planet. We're headed for WAY worse... the science backs it up.

So no, the "doomsday" talk is not the type of talk that should be shamed and shouted down. If anything, the endless peddling of doubt and complacency is what ought to be shamed. To appropriately address a situation, one must first fully understand it.

And in fact, my message here (as anyone who has been actually been paying attention knows) is the exact opposite of doomerism. Simply put we are screwed if (get it... if) we do not act appropriately and take serious action to sharply cut emissions now and transition to a zero-carbon economy by 2050. But if we DO act responsibly, we can avoid worst-case scenarios and likely avert catastrophe. Or at the very least, we'll stand a fighting chance of averting catastrophe.

Me: "We're on a very bad trajectory. Very bad things will happen to us and our home if we continue on our current course. But there's good news! We still have a chance to avoid the worst consequences if we wise up to the situation, make some sacrifices, and choose a better path forward."

CP: "SHADDAP YOU DOOMMERRRR!!!!!!!"

[TherapyforGlencross]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

It was a 7 degree change in Greenland's temperature, not a 7 degree change in global temperature. There was a change in global temperature but it was not 7 degrees. And the cause is more likely to be volcanic activity rather than freshwater melt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas



My question for you is, why are you paying so little attention to the 99.9% of evidence which points to one conclusion, and are scouring history to find the 0.1% of things that might (to the untrained eye) appear to cast some doubt? Why is it so hard for you to accept that the increase in global average temperature since 1880 is the direct result in the dramatic increase in CO2 levels? Why pretend that you know better than the scientists?

Clinging to a prayer that some kind of unanticipated negative feedback will save us, basically equates to playing Russian Roulette with our future as a species. Sure, when you pull the trigger, a bullet might not be in the chamber, and you survive by dumb luck. But is it really the kind of risk you're interested in taking? Really?

And I also don't understand this "stop the doomsday talk" sentiment. If we fail to take appropriate action to adress the climate crisis, then yes the doomsday talk is completely justified. People need to understand the enormity and severity of the trouble our species has gotten itself into. The level of human suffering and death that will be caused in the worst-case climate scenarios, far surpasses the amount that took place under the worst dictatorships in human history - Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. And the anticipation of the upcoming suffering and death is not some random speculation either - it is rooted in an understanding of climate science, human nature, and world politics.

Here's the thing - humans act civilized insofar that they continue to have access to safe water and food... once this goes away, the civility goes away. Anticipating a collapse (either full or partial) of human civilization is not a stretch whatsoever. It's a reasonable thing to predict given that droughts, fires, and floods are already impacting food supplies, drying up fresh water sources, and ravaging portions of the planet. We're headed for WAY worse... the science backs it up.

So no, the "doomsday" talk is not the type of talk that should be shamed and shouted down. If anything, the endless peddling of doubt and complacency is what ought to be shamed. To appropriately address a situation, one must first fully understand it.

And in fact, my message here (as anyone who has been actually been paying attention knows) is the exact opposite of doomerism. Simply put we are screwed if (get it... if) we do not act appropriately and take serious action to sharply cut emissions now and transition to a zero-carbon economy by 2050. But if we DO act responsibly, we can avoid worst-case scenarios and likely avert catastrophe. Or at the very least, we'll stand a fighting chance of averting catastrophe.

Me: "We're on a very bad trajectory. Very bad things will happen to us and our home if we continue on our current course. But there's good news! We still have a chance to avoid the worst consequences if we wise up to the situation, make some sacrifices, and choose a better path forward."

CP: "SHADDAP YOU DOOMMERRRR!!!!!!!"

Actually, the prevailing consensus of the Younger Dryas is freshwater meltpulses. I can link to you many many peer reviewed journals of the research if you so incline and can further explain why it would be meltwater pulses. To state volcanic activity as the main cause of the Younger Dryas is egregious and the theory is still in its infancy. I understand where the theory comes from, in layman’s terms: “when glaciers recede, isostatic rebound occurs” . How do you explain the 8.2kya event? And my apologies, indeed you are correct, it was regional and not global temperature change. I misstated that.

I never once stated that the increase of CO2 wasn’t the cause of global temperature increase. It’s common knowledge of the relationship between the two within geoscience circles. I fully agree that the increase of human-created CO2 since the 1880’s (and especially since the 1950’s if we’re going by the Anthropocene) has caused temperatures to increase. And I am not clinging to negative feedbacks. Edit: let me make it clear: the effects of what we see currently are unchangeable. We are creating a hostile environment. If we can change our ways as a species, we can limit the impacts of climate change. But what we have already emitted, will thankfully be reversed within a millennium so not that much time and quite quick. To me, that gives me hope. But that’s if we can change our ways today without hitting critical greenhouse runaways and/or unintended feedback mechanisms.