Net Zero–The UK’s contribution to stopping global warmin

[kenneal - lagger]

CO2 in itself is not a problem in my view, there are bigger things to worry about.

If you had said that it was an equal worry to CO2 pollution I would have agreed with you. They are both as dangerous in their own ways and both could result in the dieoff of mankind and sizeable portions of the current fauna and flora of the earth.

[kenneal - lagger]

And when given an increasing atmospheric CO2 that Citizen A doesn't notice at all in Country B today, then why worry about that? Not because they aren't concerned about the environment, but it changing certainly isn't worth giving up their cellphone, the internet and certainly doesn't seem to require them rushing to become Amish.

They might not notice increasing CO2 but people are certainly noticing more extreme weather. Ask people in south east Africa what they think of their weather at the moment.

The Limits to Growth is a model, and Box and Draper were quite correct when they stated that all models are wrong, but some are useful. Remember bell shaped curves? I certainly do. I haven't been able to determine the usefulness of the LTG because they don't provide volumetric outputs of specific commodities, instead dumping everything into this "resources" category of theirs. I also don't blame corporations for being enablers for consumers, the real problem here, in their billions.

LTG was revisited in 2000 and it was found that we are on track for its BAU scenario. Corporations have taken over government for their own benefit and instead of having rules within which they work for the benefit of the community we now have anarchy in which they work to the disbenefit of the community. The real problem is uncontrolled corporations manufacturing rubbish that gets thrown away after six months, wasting vast amounts of energy in the process.

The Azolla love CO2, we are terraforming the atmosphere for them currently. And I also am familiar with the work of Ruddiman and how agriculture is the mechanism by which we began on our merry way.

From what I read Azolla also require fresh water which was available as a lens on top of the vast enclosed Arctic Ocean of the time. That amount of fresh water isn't available now.

Can you even imagine trying to stuff humanity back into a hunter/gatherer configuration? Which then leads to the next obvious observation, why NOT enjoy cell phones and fast motorcycles and whatnot while we can, because no one I know of wants to go back to being a farmer scratching in the dirt, let alone using a pointy stick to find tubers in between hunting squirrels and the like.

I didn't say that we should go back to a hunter gatherer configuration nor even that we would if we do something soon. If we don't do anything though it is quite probable that we would go back to a H/G configuration and quite probably beyond the Garden of Eden to obliteration.

Nothing wrong with that. But you can't have it because consumers don't care about it enough to be wiling to change their behavior. Change the behavior of people, and you can change the world.

US consumers might be oblivious to the problems they are causing but in the UK at least there is a rising realisation that consumerism is a great part of the problem.

I have read that peak oil was going to cause high prices and starvation for lack of running tractors and a dieoff. Turns out, if we wait out doomsday predictions, sometimes they don't happen.

People said that LTG was a load of rubbish in the 1970s when the report first came out. They just didn't wait long enough. LTG was talking about the mid 21st century. Not much longer to wait now to see if the report was correct.

[woodburner]

CO2 in itself is not a problem in my view, there are bigger things to worry about.

If you had said that it was an equal worry to CO2 pollution I would have agreed with you. They are both as dangerous in their own ways and both could result in the dieoff of mankind and sizeable portions of the current fauna and flora of the earth.

CO2 is not pollution. If it were nor for CO2 there would be no plants as we know them. They take in CO2, sequester the C so they can make sugars, and dump the excess O2. Fortunate for animals as they need the O2 and then add C before dumping it as CO2.



I thought you had stopped your preaching and were prepared to enter rational discussion, but I see you managed to accuse me yet again of not understanding what is going on. I understand only too well what is going on, it is an attempt to use the fear of “climate change� as an excuse to levy taxes to fund pointless remedial actions, which will in the end acheive nothing, as has been explained to you for the reasons given by RGR.

LTG was revisited in 2000 and it was found that we are on track for its BAU scenario. Corporations have taken over government for their own benefit and instead of having rules within which they work for the benefit of the community we now have anarchy in which they work to the disbenefit of the community. The real problem is uncontrolled corporations manufacturing rubbish that gets thrown away after six months, wasting vast amounts of energy in the process.

I agree with this bit, but as I pointed out one of the biggest culprits is the pharmaceutical industry. What would happen if you suggested to most people we would have to cut down on medical drugs? There would probably be uproar as they believe the propaganda. Most people would be better served if they got good food and clean conditions, but the food industry is ensuring the first doesn’t happen, and the second seems to be ignored.

US consumers might be oblivious to the problems they are causing but in the UK at least there is a rising realisation that consumerism is a great part of the problem.

Don’t confuse “realisation� with “brainwashed�. Extinction Rebellion os propogated by Gail Bradbrook who has a finger deep in the 5G promotion pie. That will fry the brains of those who believed her, and everyone else as well.[/quote]

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

CO2 in itself is not a problem in my view, there are bigger things to worry about.

If you had said that it was an equal worry to CO2 pollution I would have agreed with you. They are both as dangerous in their own ways and both could result in the dieoff of mankind and sizeable portions of the current fauna and flora of the earth.

So...<sounds depressing>....then.....<brightening up rapidly>......some other species will get its crack at apex predator? Well, then as we humans have decided we don't have much of an interest in being around long term (or at least the breeders and consumers have decided this for us) then some other species will get its' chance!

I haven't ever quite figured out the human hubris thing...we are somehow special and therefore can't die off like dinosaurs and whatnot? How silly is that? Maybe climate change folks never learned some basic historical geology? We need geologic education for folks to appreciate the species that came before....bring back the conodonts!

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

CO2 is not pollution. If it were nor for CO2 there would be no plants as we know them.

I've got a better one! The solution to pollution is dilution!!! So if CO2 was a pollutant, like back when there was far more in the atmosphere, it was diluted by natural processes so even though a pollutant, it wasn't much of one!

From the scientific perspective though, I tend to agree with you. CO2 is a waste byproduct of human activity going back to the invention of agriculture, but it isn't really a pollutant in the traditional sense.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

And when given an increasing atmospheric CO2 that Citizen A doesn't notice at all in Country B today, then why worry about that? Not because they aren't concerned about the environment, but it changing certainly isn't worth giving up their cellphone, the internet and certainly doesn't seem to require them rushing to become Amish.

They might not notice increasing CO2 but people are certainly noticing more extreme weather. Ask people in south east Africa what they think of their weather at the moment.

Extreme weather is noticed regardless of cause.

Remember when the worst extreme hurricane in the America's hit? More than 22,000+ people died in 1780!!! It was horrifying!! And when Puerto Rico gets hit with something far less extreme, they whine like babies nowadays!

Americans should be thanking their lucky stars that houses and whatnot get knocked over but at least they aren't getting killed with these less extreme hurricanes they have been suffering since then!

And don't even get me rolling on the The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927!!! It does get more clicks and sell more advertising when we can discuss the horrors of current events though...even if in so doing we need to hype them into the BIGGEST and WORST and MOST EXTREME!

The Limits to Growth is a model, and Box and Draper were quite correct when they stated that all models are wrong, but some are useful. Remember bell shaped curves? I certainly do. I haven't been able to determine the usefulness of the LTG because they don't provide volumetric outputs of specific commodities, instead dumping everything into this "resources" category of theirs. I also don't blame corporations for being enablers for consumers, the real problem here, in their billions.

LTG was revisited in 2000 and it was found that we are on track for its BAU scenario.

Excellent! Well then lets apply the Box and Draper idea and see what happens, shall we? Table 4, starting on page 56. Limits to Growth. Meadows et al. Potomac Associates. 1707 L. Street NW, Washington DC 20036 is where my copy came from. We'll stick with easy and important non-renewables to examine. Aluminum in table 4, page 56 perhaps? Of if you'd prefer, how about natural gas and petroleum on page 58?

Take those numbers, subtract off how much of it we've produced globally and presto!!! We will know when that answer matches the 30 year update that a spotcheck of how useful this model is has been a success!

Oh...by the way...I DARE you to do this most basic, easy, and childish check to determine the validity of what these folks knew back then, and what they didn't. Run the numbers, and then let us know if you said what you said because someone told you so, or because you took the time to find out for yourself even at this most basic level.

Corporations have taken over government for their own benefit and instead of having rules within which they work for the benefit of the community we now have anarchy in which they work to the disbenefit of the community. The real problem is uncontrolled corporations manufacturing rubbish that gets thrown away after six months, wasting vast amounts of energy in the process.

the real problem is consumers consuming, and then breeding more consumers. Corporations are just their enablers to give them the junk they consume.

I didn't say that we should go back to a hunter gatherer configuration nor even that we would if we do something soon. If we don't do anything though it is quite probable that we would go back to a H/G configuration and quite probably beyond the Garden of Eden to obliteration.

Fine by me, if that is the group decision. I monitor the atmospheric levels measured at Mauna Loa as the current vote on this issue.

Nothing wrong with that. But you can't have it because consumers don't care about it enough to be wiling to change their behavior. Change the behavior of people, and you can change the world.

US consumers might be oblivious to the problems they are causing but in the UK at least there is a rising realisation that consumerism is a great part of the problem.

Realization is nice. Let me know when that Mauna Loa graph shows an inflection point, indicating that not only the rest of the world has come to that realization, but then taken the next step.

People said that LTG was a load of rubbish in the 1970s when the report first came out.

They did. Now go check out how well they knew even the most basic information they fed into their model back then. Do you know what GIGO is an abbreviation for?



They just didn't wait long enough. LTG was talking about the mid 21st century. Not much longer to wait now to see if the report was correct.[/quote]

[woodburner]

This is an example of the hypothesis which cannot be tested, yet is pedalled as indisputible fact.

An example of flawed logic.

Forests absorb huge amounts of carbon dioxide – a greenhouse gas – from the air, and release oxygen back into it

The forests consume CO2 only if they continuously increase in size. If they stay at a given size, they are not a net contributor or consumer of anything. As it happens, the oceans probably consume more CO2, but then it is released as the water temperature increases, which takes several centuries anyway.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

This is an example of the hypothesis which cannot be tested, yet is pedalled as indisputible fact.

An example of flawed logic.

Forests absorb huge amounts of carbon dioxide – a greenhouse gas – from the air, and release oxygen back into it

The forests consume CO2 only if they continuously increase in size. If they stay at a given size, they are not a net contributor or consumer of anything. As it happens, the oceans probably consume more CO2, but then it is released as the water temperature increases, which takes several centuries anyway.

Logic that doesn't fit a required narrative must be stopped!!!

You know, I have only given middling attention to the instantaneous climate change narrative over the years (instantaneous because I will happily discuss the historical one as any good geologist might), but I missed this point entirely.

Once a growth rate of a particular trace gas (methane for example) has been compensated for on the far side, then it is already in the mix as it were. So just getting under a past target will naturally lead to a drop in the near future because of the short frequency of that pulse, at least in the case of methane. CO2 has a different frequency of how it changes atmospheric concentration, so presents a different problem.

If I didn't already have a full time career solving puzzles in a different specialty, the number games that you can play in the climate science world would be really neat.

[kenneal - lagger]

............An example of flawed logic.

Forests absorb huge amounts of carbon dioxide – a greenhouse gas – from the air, and release oxygen back into it

The forests consume CO2 only if they continuously increase in size. If they stay at a given size, they are not a net contributor or consumer of anything. As it happens, the oceans probably consume more CO2, but then it is released as the water temperature increases, which takes several centuries anyway.

Rain forests trees are growing all the time and consuming CO2 on a daily basis. That CO2 consumed is locked up in the wood which, when the tree dies, falls to the forest floor and forms a long lasting peat and compost layer and releasing some of the CO2 back into the atmosphere. Where rain forests are cut down, to form palm oil plantations for instance, that peat layer is exposed to the air, is oxidised and forms carbon dioxide again.

As it happens, the oceans are absorbing most of the CO2 which we are releasing and that is acidifying those oceans to the detriment of sea life which are based on calcium carbonate skeletons and exoskeletons. Those skeletons and exoskeletons cannot form properly if the ocean is too acidic so we are killing off yet another form of life by burning fossil fuels and one which produces most of the oxygen that we breath.

[kenneal - lagger]

And as for RGR, we can see from his posts here that he doesn't give a toss about the future of our children and grandchildren, that's if he has any. He is quite content to carry on in his career producing more and more oil until it either runs out or becomes too expensive to support the world economy or warms the planet to such an extent that most of life dies out or all three. He's alright jack and F--k anyone else. Nice bloke!

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

And as for RGR, we can see from his posts here that he doesn't give a toss about the future of our children and grandchildren, that's if he has any.

I have 2 children. And I am concerned about them quite a bit. I also know that if other claimants of doom had been anywhere near right, they would never have been born during the years of starvation and pollution envisioned for the world back around 1970 or so.

But that isn't the main point. The main point is this...we all die. Period. Some people want to put their fears of it into external events, is it worse or more horrifying if it happens via peak oil or climate change or lack of internet? No. It just is. The sooner we come to grips with this reality, the less the likelihood we waste precious time hand wringing over it.

There is undoubtedly some psychology text written on why folks go down the apocalypse rabbit hole, the same mechanism that religious folks suffer from perhaps? It is consoling, making up big voices in the sky telling us what to do or the promised land after our hearts stop beating, or assigning all that fear to events other than heart attacks and cancer and diabetes and strokes and whatnot.

Caring about my children and their future involves accepting that they will suffer the same fate as you, and I, and everyone else, regardless of the why.

So is there a problem with doing the best with what we've got? Spending less time on hysterical meanderings in doomerville and more enjoying the microsecond of geologic time we've been given to appreciate the thing we have that matters (life) rather than worrying about the only certainty in it (death). The why, how and when just doesn't seem to matter as much once you come around to this type of pragmatic way of thinking about us humans, individually or collectively.

He is quite content to carry on in his career producing more and more oil until it either runs out or becomes too expensive to support the world economy or warms the planet to such an extent that most of life dies out or all three. He's alright jack and F--k anyone else. Nice bloke!

I haven't produced oil in decades now. Research in the geosciences and most recently some wildly interesting practical applications of that science in resource economic topics. And oil isn't expensive, look up a chart of real oil prices.

And just like you, and our/my children and/or grandchild, we'll all die one way or another. I recommend a different hobby if you are so far down the doomhole that you don't even recognize the basics of our existence in this regard.

Any reason why you are worried about climate change nowadays, other than peak oil turned into such a dud and now you need something else to worry about? Is sea level rising so quickly that the island is going under soon? Looks to me that Brexit is likely to be more of a mess than anything the climate can do to you in the time you or your children and grandchildren have left.

[woodburner]

And as for RGR, we can see from his posts here that he doesn't give a toss about the future of our children and grandchildren, that's if he has any. He is quite content to carry on in his career producing more and more oil until it either runs out or becomes too expensive to support the world economy or warms the planet to such an extent that most of life dies out or all three. He's alright jack and F--k anyone else. Nice bloke!

There is no justification for a statement like this. It is merely an opinion which can not be proved as a fact. So why make such an unhelpful comment?

[kenneal - lagger]

..........There is no justification for a statement like this. It is merely an opinion which can not be proved as a fact. So why make such an unhelpful comment?

The man is so logical and reasonable that he believes any conspiracy theory going rather than any logical science!! The modern day flat earther.

[kenneal - lagger]

And RGR, I enjoy my life and rather than sticking my head in the sand and muddling along as usual I take a little time to try and ensure that my children and their children can enjoy some of that life as well and the wildlife that helps make our lives tolerable.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

And RGR, I enjoy my life and rather than sticking my head in the sand and muddling along as usual I take a little time to try and ensure that my children and their children can enjoy some of that life as well and the wildlife that helps make our lives tolerable.

Hey! Sounds just like me! Although I can't say that only wildlife makes my life, or my families life tolerable. Looking forward to the next travel adventure is also a keep folks happy exercise. What is the saying, The world is a book, and if you don't travel you only get to read one page?

In either case, we have our time on this planet, enjoying it as best we can seems to be a far better goal and plan than lamenting our disagreement with our species' collective decision to foul our nest in various ways. It would be nice if we could convince folks to stop emitting CO2, but hey, a human has to breath right?