The Reef Ain't Dead

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

??? Science studies nature and tells us about it, and when tasked, helps us solve problems. Very few of our present problems were caused by science; the vast majority are excesses committed by us in spite of scientific warnings of the problems this will cause.Seriously? The bottom line of the warnings about AGW is that our current patterns of fossil fuel use are overwhelming nature's regulating mechanisms. In addition to squandering a finite resource, and killing people and ruining parts of the environment by its extraction and consumption.

Can you be specific about what new technologies concern you? Its my understanding that they are mostly less polluting and more sustainable than the current technologies they are intended to replace.

The lockdowns have demonstrated how even a small reduction in destructive activity has caused a 'nature' bounceback. Better air quality in cities (reduction in deaths from air pollution), more walking and cycling, increase in some animal populations.... I share your belief that we should let nature do its thing as much as possible, and I also think that we can live happy healthy lives and have robust economies WITHOUT using fossil fuels as much, and without making the sort of mess we continue to make.

Monsanto was driven by science as was chemical fertilizers from the Middle of the 20th century... surprise, surprise they are now finding that the cultivation earth is dying due to lack of proper sustinance and risks becoming a repeat of the American Dustbowl only on greater magnitude.
As to fossil fuels overwhelming nature's regulation, what do you expect when we keep cutting nature of at its knees in search of profits.. cattle management does not need vast areas of land to be productive nor do they need Veal style factory farming.
The land could be quartered for cattle, crops and rest periods resulting in greater variety and more self sustainability reducing/eliminating the need for clearing rainforests..
Palm oil is another, hailed as the new bio fuel huge swathes have been deforested impacting both the indigenous peoples, wildlife and flora.
Name one innovation that's not polluting in either its manufacture or disposal when past its date.. Wind turbines are hailed as a savior of fossil fuel use, yet that's what is used in their manufacture and how does one dispose of the blades.. the usual out of sight out of mind underground.??? They can't be recycled so are filling up landfills, to slowly leech into the soil and ground water like all our wonder products of the 20th century like cling film and plastic packaging, or our cheap clothing made from recyclable plastics.
Or the great Diesel Con.. cheaper to buy, cheaper to run.. Yet today they are more expensive than petrol cars, nearly equal per gallon to fuel, more polluting and cheaper to produce at all levels from fuel to car.
But rising Asthma and other lung conditions are down to smokers.. Right..
Science has created all the problems of today and manufacturers have jumped on their innovations by pushing us to constantly buy the latest model of everything for at least the last 7 decades..
Lets face it.. Science has all the creations but very limited solutions and the only truly viable ones are just unprofitable.
Here's another scientific contribution to CO2 levels and pollution..
It is the pollution caused by war activity, during development and testing of hardware, weapon systems and procedures, also during war operations and subsequent reconstruction, which need serious consideration to avoid gradual deterioration of the environment and in particular the quality and temperature of the air. Apart from the chemicals involved in war activity, the uncontrolled discharge of large quantities of heat should be considered seriously since it appears to accumulate, influencing the streamlines of the air flow and its distribution and therefore the climate of the planet.
How much has the Middle East situation advanced pollution and environmental damage since 1990.
Gorra luv science..

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by StuM

That's two separate questions. Don't conflate them.

If you answer Yes to the first and No to the second, are you a denier?

If you answer to the second part is Yes, what is your evidence for the need to reduce CO2 emissions apart from dubious computer models.

Hey Stu

Glad you asked. Re your fist question, yes. It is fair to say that they are two separate questions, but also fair for me to pose them as a logical conjunction. Fundamentally, all I care about is fixing the problem, which I accept as real. So whether one is negative on only your second question vs. negative on both, isn't much of a practical distinction for me. Folks who hold that position are part of the problem that we have to solve.

I must confess that I am puzzled by the 1) yes 2) no position (which apparently you hold?), so I am glad you articulated it. To my mind the question 1 is much harder - it takes a lot of data to demonstrate that sufficiently to consider it a scientific consensus. But it is quite clear we are there.

Re the question 2, it is much, much more than 'dubious computer models'. A fundamental attribute of all biologic systems is homeostasis and buffering. All organisms and more complex biologic systems have a built in tendency to adjust to environmental changes. The degree to which an organism/system can adapt to* or buffer varies a lot for different stressors, but as far as I am aware, it is an intrinsic attribute of biology. The trouble arises when the stressor is outside the range that is compensable by the biologic/ecologic system. The organism dies or the ecosystem collapses. That this is a universal attribute of biology and biologic systems means that the burden of proof shifts - one doesn't need much data to support it but you would need a lot to refute it.

Re question 2 I am much more of an optimist. I hold the view that if engineered ourselves into this problem we can engineer us out. I think that science and engineering can crack this nut and we the crucial icing on that cake is leadership to allow it to work. We have had some great environmental successes. Banning DDT and CFCs are good examples. I went to college in Southern California (Riverside) in the 70's - the air pollution was horrific. We used to look down on the LA basin from the highlands and watch the 'brown wall' roll out every weekday. It was literally sickening and it was solved.

There are many reasons to think we can crack this nut and plenty of data to suggest that lowering (not eliminating) CO2 emissions can allow the system to homeostatically adjust and give our species a shot at longer term survival.

Fatalism is kind of a bummer anyway.


*here I am referring to physiologic adaptation, not Darwinian evolutionary adaptation. They have some similarities, but some important differences.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Monsanto was driven by science as was chemical fertilizers from the Middle of the 20th century... surprise, surprise they are now finding that the cultivation earth is dying due to lack of proper sustinance and risks becoming a repeat of the American Dustbowl only on greater magnitude.
As to fossil fuels overwhelming nature's regulation, what do you expect when we keep cutting nature of at its knees in search of profits.. cattle management does not need vast areas of land to be productive nor do they need Veal style factory farming.
The land could be quartered for cattle, crops and rest periods resulting in greater variety and more self sustainability reducing/eliminating the need for clearing rainforests..
Palm oil is another, hailed as the new bio fuel huge swathes have been deforested impacting both the indigenous peoples, wildlife and flora.
Name one innovation that's not polluting in either its manufacture or disposal when past its date.. Wind turbines are hailed as a savior of fossil fuel use, yet that's what is used in their manufacture and how does one dispose of the blades.. the usual out of sight out of mind underground.??? They can't be recycled so are filling up landfills, to slowly leech into the soil and ground water like all our wonder products of the 20th century like cling film and plastic packaging, or our cheap clothing made from recyclable plastics.
Or the great Diesel Con.. cheaper to buy, cheaper to run.. Yet today they are more expensive than petrol cars, nearly equal per gallon to fuel, more polluting and cheaper to produce at all levels from fuel to car.
But rising Asthma and other lung conditions are down to smokers.. Right..
Science has created all the problems of today and manufacturers have jumped on their innovations by pushing us to constantly buy the latest model of everything for at least the last 7 decades..
Lets face it.. Science has all the creations but very limited solutions and the only truly viable ones are just unprofitable.
Here's another scientific contribution to CO2 levels and pollution..
It is the pollution caused by war activity, during development and testing of hardware, weapon systems and procedures, also during war operations and subsequent reconstruction, which need serious consideration to avoid gradual deterioration of the environment and in particular the quality and temperature of the air. Apart from the chemicals involved in war activity, the uncontrolled discharge of large quantities of heat should be considered seriously since it appears to accumulate, influencing the streamlines of the air flow and its distribution and therefore the climate of the planet.
How much has the Middle East situation advanced pollution and environmental damage since 1990.
Gorra luv science..

G'day boatman,
Unfortunately, there are too many logical errors and incorrect facts to rebut all, but a few are worth pointing out.
You seem to be ignoring the point made by Lake-effect (with a different take on the same concept by me above) about adaptation. We don't need anthropogenic CO2 to go to zero. We will continue to need fossil fuels in some applications for a long time. We need to get them down to the level that the planetary ecosystem can absorb without serious harm. Yes, every energy source pollutes, we just need to dial down the degree of that pollution to tolerable levels.
You also refer to costs and profit. It is critical to remember that costs and profits are heavily affected by market distortions. The most serious is that there is no cost to dump CO2 in the atmosphere. It has huge costs - there is no doubt of that. But current policy is that it is free. You are correct that solar and wind are expensive, as are hydro and nuclear. The problem is that most all of the costs of solar and wind are accounted for, but fossil fuels get a huge pass on free atmospheric dumping (not to mention below market extraction giveaways by the government). I don't know, but would predict that if you could correct for these market distortions, you would see a huge decline in fossil fuel use.
Take a look at solar - costs are actually falling to the point where it is competitive with coal, even if you keep CO2 dumping cost free. And yes, I know, the sun doesn't shine at night, there are several tractable solutions to that.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by lestersails

G'day boatman,
Unfortunately, there are too many logical errors and incorrect facts to rebut all, but a few are worth pointing out.
You seem to be ignoring the point made by Lake-effect (with a different take on the same concept by me above) about adaptation. We don't need anthropogenic CO2 to go to zero. We will continue to need fossil fuels in some applications for a long time. We need to get them down to the level that the planetary ecosystem can absorb without serious harm. Yes, every energy source pollutes, we just need to dial down the degree of that pollution to tolerable levels.
You also refer to costs and profit. It is critical to remember that costs and profits are heavily affected by market distortions. The most serious is that there is no cost to dump CO2 in the atmosphere. It has huge costs - there is no doubt of that. But current policy is that it is free. You are correct that solar and wind are expensive, as are hydro and nuclear. The problem is that most all of the costs of solar and wind are accounted for, but fossil fuels get a huge pass on free atmospheric dumping (not to mention below market extraction giveaways by the government). I don't know, but would predict that if you could correct for these market distortions, you would see a huge decline in fossil fuel use.
Take a look at solar - costs are actually falling to the point where it is competitive with coal, even if you keep CO2 dumping cost free. And yes, I know, the sun doesn't shine at night, there are several tractable solutions to that.

Sad to hear you consider my logic flawed and incorrect.. despite most of it being drawn from personal observation in various parts of the globe, 'scientific facts' and the acknowledged results of pollution but continue in your blind faith in the ability for humans to adapt with the aid of technology and ignoring the environmental damage while conveniently forgeting the fact we are part of the whole..
Unlike the fleas and lice in War and Peace crawling across the snow we have no other host to jump onto when the one we are on dies..

https://www.msn.com/en-my/news/natio...70/ar-BB18SxIQ

https://freshwaterblog.net/2020/09/2...of-this-trend/

https://www.sciencealert.com/the-wor...-last-40-years

[Tillikum]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Oh.. You mean that was an actual serious question and you honestly believe the political whores of the world give a damn about the millions they alledgedly govern.???
Your naivety is awesome indeed..
Obviously a graduate of the Semper Fi program.

Don't you think it's a serious question?

The question remains, though you will be in good company if you prefer to avoid it.

The explanation must be something quite extraordinary when one considers the global misery and conflict that results and how simple the remedy would be.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

... it appears you haven't read much into a growing group of environmentalists such as Michael Shellenberger who agree with the basic premise of AGW and other obvious ills derived from consuming fossil fuels, but reject much of the alarmism and disagree that solar & wind are realistic answers...

Michael Shellenberger is neither, a scientist, nor an environmentalist.

“On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare” by Michael Shellenberger
“On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem ..."
➥ https://environmentalprogress.org/bi...-climate-scare

“Article by Michael Shellenberger mixes accurate and inaccurate claims in support of a misleading and overly simplistic argumentation about climate change”
Six scientists analysed the article and estimate its overall scientific credibility to be 'low'.
A majority of reviewers tagged the article as: Cherry-picking, Misleading.
“... In the article, Shellenberger, who is promoting a new book, outlines a series of claims about climate change. As the reviewers describe below, several of these claims are accurate or partially accurate. However, others are inaccurate and mislead readers by lacking context and cherry-picking data while overlooking other relevant scientific studies ...”
Here ➥ https://climatefeedback.org/evaluati...limate-change/

“The Stories Michael Shellenberger Tells” ~ by Sam Bliss
A review of Shellenberger’s book, “Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All”
➥ https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/...nberger-tells/

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Science has created all the problems of today and manufacturers have jumped on their innovations by pushing us to constantly buy the latest model of everything for at least the last 7 decades.

You're blaming 'science' for problems created by the narrow focus of unregulated capitalism... and simple greed.

Lets face it.. Science has all the creations but very limited solutions and the only truly viable ones are just unprofitable.

The only solution to a problem of incomplete knowledge and understanding is... more knowledge. Unless you're proposing just rejecting scientific knowledge and sinking back into agrarian feudalism. (and maybe this is what's happening now: covid denial, anti-vaxxers, US election fraud, QAnon, Seven Mountains, ... ignorance and superstition seem to be staging a comeback )

Originally Posted by GordMay

Michael Shellenberger is neither, a scientist, nor an environmentalist.

Yes, but he's one of the very few quotable 'names' who happen to sort of agree with Exile. So he must be right.

[Tillikum]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Michael Shellenberger is neither, a scientist, nor an environmentalist.

Well that's something in his favour then!

Oh, hang on. It looks like Michael might also have found a sponsor or two:

Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels
Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “industrial” agriculture

Considering the link between nutrition, health and immunity, how factory farming and its GMO products grown on exhausted soils with synthetic fertilizers is going to help prevent future pandemics is the kind of conflicting reality only money and careerism can usually resolve.

As for wood fuel, burned in efficient devices it is hardly polluting and all its byproducts are not only part of the natural environment, but to some extent used by and even beneficial to it.

The usual techniques: mix the agenda in with some truth, stir well and feed through a funnel!

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You're blaming 'science' for problems created by the narrow focus of unregulated capitalism... and simple greed.

The only solution to a problem of incomplete knowledge and understanding is... more knowledge. Unless you're proposing just rejecting scientific knowledge and sinking back into agrarian feudalism. (and maybe this is what's happening now: covid denial, anti-vaxxers, US election fraud, QAnon, Seven Mountains, ... ignorance and superstition seem to be staging a comeback )



Yes, but he's one of the very few quotable 'names' who happen to sort of agree with Exile. So he must be right.

Oh give it a rest with the Cancel Culture labeling already..

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Tillikum

Don't you think it's a serious question?

The question remains, though you will be in good company if you prefer to avoid it.

The explanation must be something quite extraordinary when one considers the global misery and conflict that results and how simple the remedy would be.

We'll they tried that at the Capitol.. did not work..

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Oh give it a rest with the Cancel Culture labeling already..

I named actual things happening in the world - movements, trends, myths - and nothing about cancelling anything, but if this is uncomfortable to you, let's skip them.

So, what about

You're blaming 'science' for problems created by the narrow focus of unregulated capitalism... and simple greed.

The only solution to a problem of incomplete knowledge and understanding is... more knowledge.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by boatman61

... Name one innovation that's not polluting in either its manufacture or disposal when past its date.. Wind turbines are hailed as a savior of fossil fuel use, yet that's what is used in their manufacture and how does one dispose of the blades.. the usual out of sight out of mind underground.??? They can't be recycled so are filling up landfills, to slowly leech into the soil and ground water like all our wonder products of the 20th century like ...

All forms of energy generation require the conversion of natural resource inputs, which are attendant with environmental impacts and costs, that must be quantified to make appropriate energy system development decisions.

That’s a point that’s sometimes missed by casual advocates, and often overstated by strident critics (Phil).

A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) takes into account sourcing of key raw materials (steel, copper, fiberglass, plastics, concrete, and other materials), transport (at every stage), manufacturing, installation of the turbine, ongoing maintenance through its anticipated two decades of useful life and, finally, the impacts of recycling and disposal at end-of-life.
Relevant transport activities and energy consumption are included in each life cycle stage.

Electricity produced by wind turbines contributes significantly less to global warming than electricity produced by fossil fuels.
During its lifetime, the wind power plant emits less than 1% of the CO2 emitted, per kWh, by an average power plant using fossil fuels.

“Comparative life cycle assessment of 2.0 MW wind turbines” ~ by Karl R. Haapala and Preedanood Prempreeda
The payback, for the associated energy use, is within about 6 months, this team found. It is likely that, even in a worst case scenario, lifetime energy requirements for each turbine will be subsumed by the first year of active use. Thus, for the 19 subsequent years, each turbine will, in effect, power over 500 households, without consuming electricity generated using conventional energy sources.
➥ Inderscience Publishers - linking academia, business and industry through research

“Carbon and Energy payback of a wind turbine” ~ by James Glennie
A typical wind turbine, of the type shown, will have an energy payback of less than 6 months and a carbon dioxide payback of around 6 months.
➥ https://www.saskwind.ca/blogbackend/...a-wind-turbine

The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Harmonization project systematically reviewed estimates of life cycle GHG emissions from electricity generation technologies published between 1970 and 2010. LCAs consider emissions from all stages in the life cycle of an electricity generation technology, from component manufacturing, to operation of the generation facility to its decommissioning, and including acquisition, processing and transport of any required fuels.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) ➥ https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/life-c...ssessment.html
➥ https://openei.org/apps/LCA/

“Wind Power Cuts CO2 Emissions On Close To 1:1 Basis” ~ by Michael Barnard
“... The best available meta-analyses (NREL above) of all forms of generations’ lifecycle costs of energy show that wind energy has a full-lifecycle, CO2e emission lower than any other form of generation, lower than nuclear, 1/50th of natural gas and 1/100th of coal ...”
➥ https://cleantechnica.com/2014/05/07/wind-power/

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I named actual things happening in the world - movements, trends, myths - and nothing about cancelling anything, but if this is uncomfortable to you, let's skip them.

So, what about
You're blaming 'science' for problems created by the narrow focus of unregulated capitalism... and simple greed.

The only solution to a problem of incomplete knowledge and understanding is... more knowledge.

The knowledge already exists, just no one is prepared to use it.. its just more convenient to keep kicking it down field..
Doubt any Davos, G8/20, or the event scheduled in Edinburgh later this year is going to move anything in the right direction.
Cannot see it being resolved in the lifetime of any current CF members.. just farts in the wind..

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by GordMay

All forms of energy generation require the conversion of natural resource inputs, which are attendant with environmental impacts and costs, that must be quantified to make appropriate energy system development decisions.

That’s a point that’s sometimes missed by casual advocates, and often overstated by strident critics (Phil).

A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) takes into account sourcing of key raw materials (steel, copper, fiberglass, plastics, concrete, and other materials), transport (at every stage), manufacturing, installation of the turbine, ongoing maintenance through its anticipated two decades of useful life and, finally, the impacts of recycling and disposal at end-of-life.
Relevant transport activities and energy consumption are included in each life cycle stage.

Electricity produced by wind turbines contributes significantly less to global warming than electricity produced by fossil fuels.
During its lifetime, the wind power plant emits less than 1% of the CO2 emitted, per kWh, by an average power plant using fossil fuels.

“Comparative life cycle assessment of 2.0 MW wind turbines” ~ by Karl R. Haapala and Preedanood Prempreeda
The payback, for the associated energy use, is within about 6 months, this team found. It is likely that, even in a worst case scenario, lifetime energy requirements for each turbine will be subsumed by the first year of active use. Thus, for the 19 subsequent years, each turbine will, in effect, power over 500 households, without consuming electricity generated using conventional energy sources.
➥ Inderscience Publishers - linking academia, business and industry through research

“Carbon and Energy payback of a wind turbine” ~ by James Glennie
A typical wind turbine, of the type shown, will have an energy payback of less than 6 months and a carbon dioxide payback of around 6 months.
➥ https://www.saskwind.ca/blogbackend/...a-wind-turbine

The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Harmonization project systematically reviewed estimates of life cycle GHG emissions from electricity generation technologies published between 1970 and 2010. LCAs consider emissions from all stages in the life cycle of an electricity generation technology, from component manufacturing, to operation of the generation facility to its decommissioning, and including acquisition, processing and transport of any required fuels.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) ➥ https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/life-c...ssessment.html
➥ https://openei.org/apps/LCA/

“Wind Power Cuts CO2 Emissions On Close To 1:1 Basis” ~ by Michael Barnard
“... The best available meta-analyses (NREL above) of all forms of generations’ lifecycle costs of energy show that wind energy has a full-lifecycle, CO2e emission lower than any other form of generation, lower than nuclear, 1/50th of natural gas and 1/100th of coal ...”
➥ https://cleantechnica.com/2014/05/07/wind-power/

I object to being called strident Gord.. but hell why not, just add it to denier, racist, dinosaur, fat guy sitting at a computer making thousands of posts on CF instead of being out there getting actual experience..

[Tillikum]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You're blaming 'science' for problems created by the narrow focus of unregulated capitalism... and simple greed.

You underrate your fellow creatures must unfairly; humans are driven by more than simple greed. Power, lust, vanity, egotism, hatred, pride - we are complex creatures! Yes, there are a few naturally decent people too, but the Law of Survival of the Fittest is against them, unless there is something else in the equation perhaps?

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The only solution to a problem of incomplete knowledge and understanding is... more knowledge.

Your model presupposes that incompleteness of knowledge is the problem, and that new, contradictory or even merely conflicting information is welcomed; history proves it is not. Not only that, but orthodoxy actively discourages the search for new information. The problem is also paucity of imagination, and what Einstein called "the most valuable thing": intuition.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Unless you're proposing just rejecting scientific knowledge and sinking back into agrarian feudalism. (and maybe this is what's happening now: covid denial, anti-vaxxers, US election fraud, QAnon, Seven Mountains, ... ignorance and superstition seem to be staging a comeback )

It's striking how black and white paradigms seem to appeal to the followers of Scientism; a new expression of the human tendency to ideological and religious absolutism. Some of the examples you mention are complex subjects with much information that requires careful evaluation to arrive at a correct conclusion. Take "anti-vaxxers" for example; why other than for emotional or financial reasons, would an ostensibly intelligent person attempt to conflate opposition to vaccination entirely with opposition to some of the ingredients or administration methods of vaccines? Apparently that complexity is intolerable for people like you: the "TRUTH" must be nice and simple! "Science" good! Questions bad!

Not overly surprising of course as the same psychological profiles and tendencies, and their distribution, is more or less a constant throughout human history. That's what's "making a comeback"