Global warming in 2100

[Torsten]

The combustion products have different radiative forcing effects. CO2 has a positive value (enhances warming), but sulfate aerosols and volatile organic carbon emissions that form secondary organic aerosols have a negative value.

The postwar global cooling, if I remember correctly, has been largely attributed to a larger magnitude of these negative values than the effect of the CO2. But they are relatively short lived in the atmosphere compared to CO2, so as sulfate emissions declined due to clean air measures, while CO2 continued to rise, the net effect became a positive forcing value.

ETA: I note that profloater had already concluded this in post #175 (for the local condition).

[LaurieAG]

That's probably an effect of wood burning across the empire. Enough to produce a dimming effect from the smoke, but not enough to substantially affect the atmosphere on a macro scale via changes in CO2 concentration.

Bathhouses were recognized as one of the civilizing aspects of ancient Roman society throughout the empire so their use was substantial. The following paper (111 page pdf) by Michael Mietz "The Fuel Economy of Public Bathhouses in the Roman Empire" covers some of these details through analyzing ancient documents and archeological information.

https://lib.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/0...16_0001_AC.pdf

In the first section, we’ve tried cross-checking ancient sources and archaeological calculations to see whether the public baths posed the heavy strain on resources Wilson suggested they would have had. It was found that fuel consumption for public baths was probably not disastrous, and could have been sustainably provided from the hinterland. We noted though that fuel consumption could be great in more opulent baths (such as the imperial ones). It is quite likely these would have required specifically designated forests of a respectable size in order to function adequately.

[7cscb]

I've been called a denier by friends and family to my great frustration.

I get it. Climate Change is real. But the narrative of parsimony and ethics of many believers is (IMO) nonsense and detracts from necessary and intelligent public discourse.

I would guess a good percentage of those labeled as deniers might object too.

ymmv

[Noclevername]

I get it. Climate Change is real. But the narrative of parsimony and ethics of many believers is (IMO) nonsense and detracts from necessary and intelligent public discourse.

What exactly does a "narrative of parsimony and ethics" mean?

[Roger E. Moore]

This New Ocean... the Arctic Ocean. And the U.S. Navy is moving in along with everyone else, because global warming is real and happening.

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/12/73025...vy-looks-north

[Swift]

I've been called a denier by friends and family to my great frustration.

I get it. Climate Change is real. But the narrative of parsimony and ethics of many believers is (IMO) nonsense and detracts from necessary and intelligent public discourse.

I would guess a good percentage of those labeled as deniers might object too.

ymmv

I believe you have raised this concern about morals and ethics before.

And I gave my thoughts on the matter. They boil down to my opinion that if one is going to discuss how what one is going to do (or not do) about climate change that one can't completely avoid the issues of morals and ethics (because one has to assign costs and values to non-monetary/material factors). If one wishes to limit the discussion only to the existence or not of climate change, the mechanics and chemistry and thermodynamics of the process, measurements of the CO2 and temperature, etc., I think one can probably keep morals and ethics out of the discussion

I don't recall any comments from you on my previous post.

[7cscb]

I believe you have raised this concern about morals and ethics before.

And I gave my thoughts on the matter. They boil down to my opinion that if one is going to discuss how what one is going to do (or not do) about climate change that one can't completely avoid the issues of morals and ethics (because one has to assign costs and values to non-monetary/material factors). If one wishes to limit the discussion only to the existence or not of climate change, the mechanics and chemistry and thermodynamics of the process, measurements of the CO2 and temperature, etc., I think one can probably keep morals and ethics out of the discussion

I don't recall any comments from you on my previous post.

Hello Swift and noclevername,

I was only trying to present that I suspect that many of those labeled as deniers may only disagree with other parts of the narrative.

Re.: Parsimony and ethics.
Often I am told or read that reducing our consumption is the ethical choice. I disagree. Indeed, I believe the only way to deal with our environmental issues is to actually clean the oceans and atmosphere, mind bogglingly immense projects which will further increase our total energy budgets. With that stance, the ethics of belt tightening escape me.

I am aware many hate my attitude and I do not want to argue over it. Again, my point is that I think there are fewer deniers than presented.

YMMV

[Noclevername]

Hello Swift and noclevername,

I was only trying to present that I suspect that many of those labeled as deniers may only disagree with other parts of the narrative.

Re.: Parsimony and ethics.
Often I am told or read that reducing our consumption is the ethical choice. I disagree. Indeed, I believe the only way to deal with our environmental issues is to actually clean the oceans and atmosphere, mind bogglingly immense projects which will further increase our total energy budgets. With that stance, the ethics of belt tightening escape me.

I am aware many hate my attitude and I do not want to argue over it. Again, my point is that I think there are fewer deniers than presented.

YMMV

I'm fine with it... as an attitude. As a pragmatic course of action, it does not seem tenable.

The ethics of "belt tightening" is to mitigate the ongoing damage, to give us more time to actually enact more effective solutions, of which there are already many to choose from.

[Noclevername]

Indeed, I believe the only way to deal with our environmental issues is to actually clean the oceans and atmosphere, mind bogglingly immense projects which will further increase our total energy budgets.

Not the ONLY way, no. Complex problems with many factors may require multiple coordinated solutions. We have a variety of potential methods of "cleaning", such as carbon sequestration, available. And even that one action can be implemented in multiple ways; we've covered only a few of them in this thread.

[7cscb]

Not the ONLY way, no. Complex problems with many factors may require multiple coordinated solutions. We have a variety of potential methods of "cleaning", such as carbon sequestration, available. And even that one action can be implemented in multiple ways; we've covered only a few of them in this thread.

Hi again Noclevername,

Yes. Carbon sequestration and related technologies should be pursued. The engineering efforts required will be immense. Trillions of dollars. We will jump from Megaprojects to Terraprojects . And this will continue increasing our energy consumption.

I agree that belt tightening efforts may slow down environmental changes. One nit is that it seems to provide a false sense of accomplishment. Regardless, I just don't believe it will happen. 20 years ago, I used to wonder why taking the bus to work mattered while airline fleets worldwide were growing and runways were being added to overloaded airports. It is the same today. And many other sectors will require more energy.

So, it's ok with me if some believe in reducing resource usage. I just don't get why they think it is more ethical than others' points of view.

I am not a denier.

cheers,

[7cscb]

I believe you have raised this concern about morals and ethics before.

And I gave my thoughts on the matter. They boil down to my opinion that if one is going to discuss how what one is going to do (or not do) about climate change that one can't completely avoid the issues of morals and ethics (because one has to assign costs and values to non-monetary/material factors). If one wishes to limit the discussion only to the existence or not of climate change, the mechanics and chemistry and thermodynamics of the process, measurements of the CO2 and temperature, etc., I think one can probably keep morals and ethics out of the discussion

I don't recall any comments from you on my previous post.

Hi again Swift,

I looked at your linked post.

To your questions, my main concern is humanity's survival. I recognize survival of other species is in humanity's interest. And, personally, I've loved dogs and other animals all my life. You may feel that it is equally important to save other species. I have no problem with this. I do not believe this stance is more ethical than mine.

As per that post, I too do not want to get into trouble by troubling those with a different point of view.

cheers,

[Noclevername]

Yes. Carbon sequestration and related technologies should be pursued. The engineering efforts required will be immense. Trillions of dollars. We will jump from Megaprojects to Terraprojects . And this will continue increasing our energy consumption.

Carbon farming will require... farming. We do that now. Some forms would require an investment of new infrastructure. But not trillions.

agree that belt tightening efforts may slow down environmental changes. One nit is that it seems to provide a false sense of accomplishment. Regardless, I just don't believe it will happen. 20 years ago, I used to wonder why taking the bus to work mattered while airline fleets worldwide were growing and runways were being added to overloaded airports. It is the same today. And many other sectors will require more energy.

Small increments matter, no one factor will be definitive.

Your beliefs are your own, but the statistics count more than beliefs. We are doing a poor job of slowing down the changes, that's precisely why we need to increase our efforts in every field. Including the small, cumulative areas of everyday life. Perhaps especially those. Lots more people take the bus daily, than fly.

[Noclevername]

We will jump from Megaprojects to Terraprojects . And this will continue increasing our energy consumption.

The Artificial Leaf tech is non-centralized, can be implemented on various scales, and solar powered. The manufacturing of such devices can use various materials and energy sources including renewable. But its effect will be far greater in carbon remediation than that of real plant life. At present, it absorbs 10X the CO2 as comparable trees (under lab conditions, of course). The technology has the potential to improve even more. So if it hasn't already broken even with the carbons used to make it, it probably will soon.

"Megaprojects" are a misguided idea IMO. Widespread adoptions of local solutions and mid-scale adoption of new methods in industry and power will be more effective and easier to implement, as well as cheaper than massive scale techno-wizardry.

[Swift]

To your questions, my main concern is humanity's survival. I recognize survival of other species is in humanity's interest. And, personally, I've loved dogs and other animals all my life. You may feel that it is equally important to save other species. I have no problem with this. I do not believe this stance is more ethical than mine.

Thanks for addressing my post. I never said one position is more ethical or moral than another. I just said that one cannot avoid such questions if one is going to select goals.

[profloater]

There is an irony: if global warming, over fishing, loss of forests and pollution hit humanity, it will presumably hit the population numbers but any policy to reduce the human population gets no traction although it would start to reduce all those problems. As an intelligent species we still follow the population dynamics of slime moulds.

[7cscb]

Hi again Swift and Noclevername,

Thanks much for the type of discussion we need. Of course, we have the advantage of agreeing on the basic idea that humanity is having a huge impact on the environment and solutions must be found and implemented.

My original point was that, of those labeled as deniers, I suspect many are not. I add, if I wanted to sell that group my ideas on environmentalism, I would stop calling them the now pejorative 'denier' and I would try to show them that it is in their enlightened self-interest to change their minds. I would stop ad hominem attacks: blaming greed, the system or leaders and condemning soccer moms in their SUVs is counter-productive. I would recognize that the deniers, just like every other group, are as ethical as believers.

The Artificial Leaf looks great. Hopefully, cheap and easily implementable solutions will be found. But my gut feeling is that it will cost $Trillions. And I like the play on words of Terraproject vs Teraproject.

cheers,

[Noclevername]

There is an irony: if global warming, over fishing, loss of forests and pollution hit humanity, it will presumably hit the population numbers but any policy to reduce the human population gets no traction although it would start to reduce all those problems. As an intelligent species we still follow the population dynamics of slime moulds.

Yes. In the long run, we either have to accept limits to population growth, or we have to accept the massive, species-threatening resource wars* that result from overpopulation. And so far, it looks like people are in favor of the latter, even if they don't acknowledge the results as causally connected.

*Including living space, food, and water as resources.

[Noclevername]

My original point was that, of those labeled as deniers, I suspect many are not. I add, if I wanted to sell that group my ideas on environmentalism, I would stop calling them the now pejorative 'denier' and I would try to show them that it is in their enlightened self-interest to change their minds. I would stop ad hominem attacks: blaming greed, the system or leaders and condemning soccer moms in their SUVs is counter-productive. I would recognize that the deniers, just like every other group, are as ethical as believers.

I know plenty of real life folks who do outright deny that there is global warming, or if they accept it, deny that humans are in any way responsible. Many seem to reject any reasonable explanation out of hand, or indeed any appeal to emotions either. A mindset of absolutism is at the core of their rigid beliefs. Not saying every person who views AGW as a non-factor believes this, but I know and have conversed with many who do. Some are willing to listen, but have been deceived by a longstanding and ongoing propaganda campaign by vested interests.

Greed by many leaders and corporate powers is indeed largely to blame, and I'm puzzled as to why you would deny that or call it ethical behavior. They are the ones, after all, running the campaign of deception and misinformation that result in so many True Deniers. It's hardly an Ad Hom to call out their bad behavior, it's constructive criticism.

[7cscb]

I know plenty of real life folks who do outright deny that there is global warming, or if they accept it, deny that humans are in any way responsible. Many seem to reject any reasonable explanation out of hand, or indeed any appeal to emotions either. A mindset of absolutism is at the core of their rigid beliefs. Not saying every person who views AGW as a non-factor believes this, but I know and have conversed with many who do. Some are willing to listen, but have been deceived by a longstanding and ongoing propaganda campaign by vested interests.

Greed by many leaders and corporate powers is indeed largely to blame, and I'm puzzled as to why you would deny that or call it ethical behavior. They are the ones, after all, running the campaign of deception and misinformation that result in so many True Deniers. It's hardly an Ad Hom to call out their bad behavior, it's constructive criticism.

In debating the validity of climate change and proposed solutions, why would you call upon emotion? Should it not be sufficient to find common ground based on the science and enlightened self-interest?

There has always been greed and corrupt leadership. On all sides of issues. I doubt humanity will solve that one while dealing with the Climate. I also believe the forces leading to our thirst for ever more energy and resources are well beyond the control of individuals or cabals.

By the time we start to actually deal with this crisis, the same bunch will still be claiming the moral high ground with newly morphed arguments.

[Noclevername]

In debating the validity of climate change and proposed solutions, why would you call upon emotion? Should it not be sufficient to find common ground based on the science and enlightened self-interest?

There has always been greed and corrupt leadership. On all sides of issues. I doubt humanity will solve that one while dealing with the Climate. I also believe the forces leading to our thirst for ever more energy and resources are well beyond the control of individuals or cabals.

By the time we start to actually deal with this crisis, the same bunch will still be claiming the moral high ground with newly morphed arguments.

The situation at present is too dire to be picky about motives. Appeal to whatever the heck works to get people off their butts and doing something active.

As for the rest, believe what you like. I think you are totally incorrect about how to seek solutions --to climate or corruption. But you are obviously convinced so I won't try to dissuade you.

[Jens]

Greed by many leaders and corporate powers is indeed largely to blame, and I'm puzzled as to why you would deny that or call it ethical behavior.

I don’t think they were denying it or calling it ethical. I thought they were merely saying that it’s more constructive not to just put them down but to try to appeal to self-interest as a means to engage. I saw the post as about strategy rather than making judgments. Do you disagree with the idea of trying to engage them?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jens]

As for the rest, believe what you like. I think you are totally incorrect about how to seek solutions --to climate or corruption. But you are obviously convinced so I won't try to dissuade you.

The thing is, they may be convinced and you may be convinced, but there are others among us who aren’t sure, so I think it would still be helpful for the rest of us to know what your strategy is, since you seem to be against appealing to self-interest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Noclevername]

I don’t think they were denying it or calling it ethical. I thought they were merely saying that it’s more constructive not to just put them down but to try to appeal to self-interest as a means to engage. I saw the post as about strategy rather than making judgments. Do you disagree with the idea of trying to engage them?

Yes.

Those who have spent their lives getting at all costs, will not give up their obsessions. If they have not accepted facts until now, a few more won't help.

Having said that, I think calling them out with facts will send important messages to the majority who keep them in power. There are no leaders without followers, and no business without customers. Changing the culture, the values, of society's masses will change the way things are done from the bottom up. That's what I think is needed now. And from what I know of the young people growing up with the consequences of consumer culture, I think a sea change is on its way, but it needs to be nurtured and supported. There's generational change but that may not be fast enough, so the appeals to reason, self-interest, and emotion* all need to be mostly addressed to the "swing voters", the uncommitted most of everyone who have not yet realized how much their daily choices and actions are doing continuing major damage to our life support system.

* Whatever works. Use 'em all, advertisers do it all the time.

[Jens]

Yes.

Those who have spent their lives getting at all costs, will not give up their obsessions. If they have not accepted facts until now, a few more won't help.

Then I guess I'll leave it to you to deal with convincing people about global warming, since you are clearly confident in your way to change their minds. I'm not...

[Noclevername]

Then I guess I'll leave it to you to deal with convincing people about global warming, since you are clearly confident in your way to change their minds. I'm not...

Read it again, I was not saying ALL people.

[Noclevername]

Then I guess I'll leave it to you to deal with convincing people about global warming, since you are clearly confident in your way to change their minds. I'm not...

Then try your methods too. Try everything. As I said, we can't afford to play favorites when it comes to changing minds!

[Jens]

Read it again, I was not saying ALL people.

I guess if that's what you mean, then I understand. I was really reacting to your post after that, where you said:

As for the rest, believe what you like. I think you are totally incorrect about how to seek solutions --to climate or corruption.

If you had said, "well, your solution might be OK with some people, but I think for others..." then I wouldn't have written anything. But the way you came out swinging so hard, with "totally incorrect," led me to think you were totally denying it. If all you are saying is that different techniques work for different people, then I'm in total agreement.

[Noclevername]

I guess if that's what you mean, then I understand. I was really reacting to your post after that, where you said:



If you had said, "well, your solution might be OK with some people, but I think for others..." then I wouldn't have written anything. But the way you came out swinging so hard, with "totally incorrect," led me to think you were totally denying it. If all you are saying is that different techniques work for different people, then I'm in total agreement.

7cscb came out swinging hard by saying that the ONLY way to fix our troubles is through "mind bogglingly immense projects" and "increasing our energy budget", and that we should ignore emotions and ethics. That's what I responded to.

If human factors got us into this mess, human factors will be necessary to get us out.

[Jens]

7cscb came out swinging hard by saying that the ONLY way to fix our troubles is through "mind bogglingly immense projects" and "increasing our energy budget", and that we should ignore emotions and ethics. That's what I responded to.

If human factors got us into this mess, human factors will be necessary to get us out.

I don't know, maybe we are all agreeing after all and it is just the way we communicate. After all, 7cscb did say,

My original point was that, of those labeled as deniers, I suspect many are not. I add, if I wanted to sell that group my ideas on environmentalism, I would stop calling them the now pejorative 'denier' and I would try to show them that it is in their enlightened self-interest to change their minds.

So they seem to be talking about a specific group as well. So maybe we are just considering how to deal with different groups.

[Noclevername]

I don't know, maybe we are all agreeing after all and it is just the way we communicate. After all, 7cscb did say,
So they seem to be talking about a specific group as well. So maybe we are just considering how to deal with different groups.

7cscb said there's only one right way to do it, I disagreed. And we both talked about how to appeal to the current leadership. My interpretation was, 7cscb was saying that we should appeal to their reason. My counter view is, get the populace to toss them out on their ears if they don't adopt more effective climate policies.