Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Kennyc, Jun 21, 2011.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Can you point to any scientific evidence that our Global Ecosystems are in serious danger if we don't reduce our CO2 emissions to ZERO in 20 years?
Because if that were true, we could all just kiss our asses goodbye right now since no Government in the world is working on that scenario or trying to make that happen.
Typical currrent reduction goals are in the order of ~20 -30% reduction below present by that timeframe, which is FAR more than zero emissions.
The UK, which has some of the more optimistic goals says 80% by 2050, but the kicker is they don't count the CO2 needed for their imports in their estimates and they import a lot of CO2 because they no longer manufacture that much.
So even if they got to 80%, their per capita use would still be about half current.
How about: you point to any evidence that there is no danger if we don't reduce CO2 emissions (to zero)?
Maybe it is true.
You've got me there - that came from an old benthic ecology lecture from way way back when I was an undergrad - I'll see what I can find on that subject for you if you're interested.
Don't need to waste my time trying to prove a negative.
In the absence of any evidence showing it IS true, and the fact that the IPCC and the UN members have been working on Global plans to limit our CO2 emissions, but to much higher levels than zero by 2030, and because their plans are based on the existing scientific understanding of the impact of CO2 on the climate and global ecosystems, as published in the IPCC reports, then I'd say that the requirement to show that the IPCC's plans are worthless is up to the one making that claim.
That would be you.
Indeed, you don't even have to prove zero by 2030, you'd have shown you weren't completely wrong if you could just come up with a reputable scientific report showing there would be serious damage to the ecosystem if we don't do 50% of current CO2 by 2030, since that's a far larger reduction than the UN/IPCC is working on.
So what dog you got in this race. Why wouldn't you want to see CO2 emissions limited.
I couldn't find support for that assertion here though:
https://www.umt.edu/geosciences/faculty/stanley/stanley_files/Earth-Sci Rev Art 03-1.pdf
(But I skim read it)
There is plenty of evidence that ecosystems are suffering NOW. Even the military takes into account global warming in their long term plans. I know optimistic goals are far short of zero emissions because we just can't change our way of life that quickly.
Well just limiting CO2 emissions isn't the issue is it?
He said: We have to reduce emissions to ZERO in 20 years.
That's FAR MORE than just "limiting CO2 emissions".
That means essentially in 20 years no more burning gasoline or jet fuel or diesel in our transportaion systems, or using natural gas for heating and cooking or use of Coal to generate electricity unless we scrap all existing coal generation and quickly figure out how to do Clean Coal with Carbon Sequestration and then build replacements for all existing plants in 20 years.
Which is impossible and so what that really means is that the world will have to get by on a tiny fraction of today's energy use, but since we expect that there will be well over another Billion people on the planet by then, so the per capita reductions in energy use in the industrial world would have to be huge.
Which means that:
Feeding the world, because growing and cooking food and providing clean water takes lots of energy, would be hugely problematic.
Housing the world (Making Concrete, Steel and Aluminum takes LOTS of energy) would be hugely problematic.
Providing basic services like schools, fire, police, medical, and government services takes lots of energy and so providing these with zero emissions would be hugely problematic.
Which would leave nothing over for "the pursuit of happiness".
We'd essentially have to ban all non-essential and recreational uses of fossil fuel. No more lawn mowers, weed wackers, gas barbeques, recreational motorcycle riding, no more RVs, Boats, Private Aircraft, Dirt Bikes or hell, just taking a trip to go on vacation, since that would be using fuel for a non-essential purpose.
And since the same people are beating the drum about Global Warming being a problem are saying No to Nuclear power, I don't see that as a viable option for most of the world.
And finally the diversion of resources into trying to provide just minimal energy needs via renewables by 2030 would be such a massive undertaking and have serious negative impacts on nations that aren't well situated for use of renewables and/or couldn't afford the huge front loaded costs that most renewables require.
All of which would have serious implications to people's health and well being and quality of life.
Personally, I'll probably do fine, even if energy prices spike to many times current rates.
I know of NO reputable scientific analysis that claims we need to go to ZERO CO2 emissions.
In 2007, the International Energy Agency did a study and concluded that Global CO2 emissions can be reduced by 27 percent by 2050, when they used their most optimistic scenario.
But in the 4 years since the study no reductions have been made in our energy use and there are no global plans that will have that effect currently in place.
Indeed, in 1990 we produced 20 Gigatons of CO2 per year from Fossil Fuels (more from other sources like making Cement, but I'm ignoring them for now)
By 2007 we were up to 29 Gigatons, a 30% increase in CO2 emissions, and the rate of growth is not going down.
Now if we could get CO2 back to 1990 levels, of 20 Gigatons of CO2 by 2030 by an ALL OUT effort to switch to renewables and drastically increase efficiency in all areas of energy use, when the population will have grown from 6.6 Billion to ~8 Billion that would be a 30% reduction in CO2 emissions at the same time we had a 20% increase in population.
Which would be friggin amazing if we could do it.
And as I said, is far higher then the most optimistic projections (which by the way included a lot more nukes than is now likely).
It would be unrealistic to suggest zero emissions, but even that would not reverse global warming in the near term. Current recommendations are only to mitigate the warming not end it. I think the problem will end itself through widespread economic collapse brought about by peak oil. But no one wants that to happen. Basically, we are damned both ways. We cannot retain affluence while ending global warming.
You say "unrealistic", I say "Silly".
I think either word works, but more importantly, zero isn't necessary.
I'm pretty sure the globe could easily handle ~10 Gigatons of carbon per year (about our levels in 1960), compared to say the 20 GTs in 1990, or the 30 GTs today.
At 10 GTs carbon per year, it would be a very different world then today though.
Yes, we started to change the climate when agriculture began.
New Niche business designed for self preservation
Spidey's got a brain . Na! Na! Na!Na! Na! . Ah yeah it changed everything Aye Spidey . I seen only one scientist blame Agriculture for the ultimate degradation of the environment. I like global warming my self. Montana is one of the winners from climate change . I know that is not politically correct ! Sorry , it is not like I go out and burn piles of plastic like some of the enviro freaks do when they do there eco tourism around here . Fuck it is more beautiful and productive in the way of wildlife here than I have ever seen it and I been looking at this environment for 45 years with my own fucking eyes . This is the 3rd. year now of excessive life giving abundance of rain . If we get the late rains again in August it will stay beautiful too with out any forest fires . The animals will eat good in the northwest
This thread is my daughters life work . Wild Life and fish Biology . She is published by her work in Puerto Rico and there fresh water shrimp . University system in Athens Georgia payed for the studies probably by government grant . It put here through Graduate school . She is an expert on stone flies . There has been much talk about the endangerment of glacial stone fly's in the media as of late . I don't know , sounds like some disinformation going on in the Media compared to actual science if you ask Me . Embellished information might be more accurate. You know me embellish the embellishment.
Anyway Salmon in the Oregon drainage systems and there there life out to sea has been the studies they pay her to do now a days . She got payed ex amount of dollars for the study , but the study is in complete and lacking more funding . She has completed it already above requirements but feels the need to make it more complete by her social justice way of life . She is torn because of the political aspect and the lack of funding to do better science . It takes money in the monetary systems of the world . Money that is not there
You said it's silly to suggest that CO2 emissions should be reduced to zero in 20 years.
But you seem to be happy to suggest a 50% reduction. So from that I can conclude that you think 50% is not quite as silly. So your logic says that not reducing emissions at all (i.e. by 0%) would be the least silly thing to do, which implies it would be a clever thing to do.
Then you construct a strawman--the IPCC plans are worthless because they don't include 100% reductions--and appear to manage to keep your "silly" argument on track.
Put it this way: if scientists say we need to reduce CO2 emissions, they're probably correct. Reducing emissions by 100% is a scientific dream, probably. But it's probably correct. Getting to 50%, or even 80% is looking dubious, for all the reasons that have already been mentioned.
And that's just CO2. It's only one of the problems we've created.
What to do? Probably we won't do very much, because we like to be optimistic. So, like you, people will tell themselves it isn't really so bad.
They will keep telling themselves that until it does get so bad that telling yourself it isn't so bad equals insanity.
To be specific, I said it was silly to suggest that we NEED to reduce CO2 emissions to zero in 20 years.
Indeed I said I've seen NO Scientific report that says there is a need to EVER reduce CO2 emissions to ZERO.
Nor have you or anyone else yet produced a scientific report showing this need to do so within 20 years.
I suggested no such thing, indeed, I said it would be friggin amazing if we could do so, not that I think we can, which is why I pointed out that the IEA believes that under the most optimistic assumptions that Global CO2 emissions can be reduced by 27 percent by 2050.
But then your logical extrapolation is bogus because never once have I said that we shouldn't reduce CO2 emissions (and you know that).
Absolutely not a strawman.
The most optimistic of the UN plans based on the latest IPCC reports call for a 50% reduction of CO2 from 1990 levels by 2050 (To approx 10 GigaTons of CO2 emissions per year). Indeed, in their most optimistic plan there is first a halt to growth, followed by a leveling off period and then slow reductions in annual CO2 output, but the net is the 2030 emission levels are roughly equal our 1990 levels (20 Gigatons).
You can see a graph of WEO 450s (based on UN IPCC data) in Figure 4.
You will note that 2030 has about ~20 GigaTons of CO2 emissions in 2030.
So YES, if we actually need to get to ZERO by 2030 to save the planet, then plans to just get back to 1990 levels by 2030 are indeed WORTHLESS.
This is pretty fucking typical. Greenhouse lobby destroys all other environmental concerns/ talk.
The pollution in nearly ALL waters, not just the oceans is a fucking disgrace.
Yes CO2 should be reduced. Now shut the hell up about it. This is ANOTHER problem than needs to be fixed and is probably MORE urgent. No clean water, no clean life.
And has ANYONE in this thread said it shouldn't be reduced?
Do you think CO2 emissions needs to be reduced to ZERO in 20 years is the question.
You know, in just 2 decades essentially get rid of all existing plants and machinery that use fossil fuels today?
Separate names with a comma.