Climate is Changing, but Should we do Anything?

[Akka]

A simple MCQ:

Let's assume, that ~140mil people would migrate this year to China (~10% of the current population)

The very idea is completely ridiculous for starter. I'm sure if we completely ignore reality we can, in fact, get results that aren't reflected in reality. Who would have guessed ?

Would the pollution by capita:

a) rise by > 0,5%?
b) stay ~ the same?
c) drop by > 0,5% and < 10%?
d) drop by >= 10%?

The academic result would obviously be the answer c), and it's very obvious you set up a purposedly ridiculous "example" just so you could attempt to lead me validating your point while ignoring that the whole point is retarded because it's nonsensical.
The REAL result would be that
a) There is no way 140 millions people would migrate in one year to China, so the entire bait is retarded.
b) After a few years, energy consumption of migrants would be rather close to the natives, so the per capita consumption would be about the same rather quickly.

That's such a display of bad faith and purposeful stupidity, it kind of reflect exactly the mentality of climate change deniers : a mix of ignorance and a very deliberate attempt to ignore what they don't like despite overwhelming evidences.

But please this time,apart from your colorful articulation. Try to think before you post.

Don't throw rocks in glass house and so on. You really aren't on grounds allowing to ask others to think before posting, and ESPECIALLY not after attempting such a completely stupid argument. Heed your own advice (though I'm pretty sure when it comes to you, it is actually more about raw dishonesty and hypocrisy).

[Deleted]

The academic result would obviously be the answer c), and it's very obvious you set up a purposedly ridiculous "example" just so you could attempt to lead me validating your point while ignoring that the whole point is retarded because it's nonsensical.
The REAL result would be that
a) There is no way 140 millions people would migrate in one year to China, so the entire bait is retarded.
b) After a few years, energy consumption of migrants would be rather close to the natives, so the per capita consumption would be about the same rather quickly.

That's such a display of bad faith and purposeful stupidity, it kind of reflect exactly the mentality of climate change deniers : a mix of ignorance and a very deliberate attempt to ignore what they don't like despite overwhelming evidences.

It is only a mind-game to make you understand a simple concept. (which you again miss splendidly)
So you don't have to look at how many people would in fact be able to migrate to China (or any other country in this matter). But at the difference in pollution per capita, this migration movement would cause.
Now you purposefully dodge brilliantly the point, that energy distribution in a population is a far more complex topic, than this annual t of pullution / capita
would suggest.
Because energy consumption is not evenly distributed.

Now what I try to say with this example is simple:
You can reach even a slightly better result regarding pollution per capita by actually doing nothing. (Your assumption, that these numbers would very quickly level out, is also more of a personal opinion of yours, rather than a fact)
The core problem stays the same, while numbers like pollution per capita would show a better result. Which in essence means, that these numbers are not very meaningful, when it comes to the correct measurement of the true pollution of a country and its progress in tackling this problem.

It's in essence the same problem with Endus'es LCOE numbers, in which he puts so much trust (regarding the economic viability of VRE's). But the little pedant in me says. That you should better have much more creditable information, to have a complete picture.

That's where I tried to lead you with my little mind-game. And I sincerely hope, that's what Elim Garak tried to say.

Don't throw rocks in glass house and so on. You really aren't on grounds allowing to ask others to think before posting, and ESPECIALLY not after attempting such a completely stupid argument. Heed your own advice (though I'm pretty sure when it comes to you, it is actually more about raw dishonesty and hypocrisy).

If we apply this metaphor to you - it only shows, that you are already sitting on a pile of broken glass since you first entered this thread, my friend.

[Deleted]

What happened to you, humanity? You used to have hopes and dreams, when did you just give up and curl up?

[WhiteEagle888]

If you watch Futurama you'll see that civilization collapsed twice between our age and the time Futurama takes place.

Yeah aliens are kind of a threat.

[Noradin]

A simple MCQ:

Let's assume, that ~140mil people would migrate this year to China (~10% of the current population)

Would the pollution by capita:

a) rise by > 0,5%?
b) stay ~ the same?
c) drop by > 0,5% and < 10%?
d) drop by >= 10%?

But please this time,apart from your colorful articulation. Try to think before you post.

Probably rise if they had to suddenly put up infrastructure for an additional 10% of their population in one year with no forewarning.
Thus: most likely a) given your proposed scenario because of a loss of efficiency due to the emergency.

[Akka]

It is only a mind-game to make you understand a simple concept. (which you again miss splendidly)

You think quite a bit too high of yourself.

(Your assumption, that these numbers would very quickly level out, is also more of a personal opinion of yours, rather than a fact)

While your, of course, is fact and not a convenient opinion, obviously

Your whole "mind-game" is pointless, because while, yes, pollution is complex and not evenly distributed, it's just a pretext to happily ignore the significance of per capita pollution (which is a whole of regulations, laws, culture, habits and so on). Especially comical as looking at total pollution STILL uses the country as a whole. The only "mind game" is about doing a mental gymnastic allowing to consider the country as a global entity in one way, but not in the other. Which is so transparent it will only work on idiots who are already wanting to be convinced.

Not to be surprised, thought, the entire climate denier position is about finding pretexts to pretend there is not a problem. It's kinda the whole point. So he, usual MO.

If we apply this metaphor to you - it only shows, that you are already sitting on a pile of broken glass since you first entered this thread, my friend.

Highschool boy posturing in display. I'm certainly cowed by such well-founded confidence

[Vargulf the Happy Husky]

all we need to do is adapt.

[Deleted]

While your, of course, is fact and not a convenient opinion, obviously

Your whole "mind-game" is pointless, because while, yes, pollution is complex and not evenly distributed, it's just a pretext to happily ignore the significance of per capita pollution (which is a whole of regulations, laws, culture, habits and so on). Especially comical as looking at total pollution STILL uses the country as a whole. The only "mind game" is about doing a mental gymnastic allowing to consider the country as a global entity in one way, but not in the other. Which is so transparent it will only work on idiots who are already wanting to be convinced.

Not to be surprised, thought, the entire climate denier position is about finding pretexts to pretend there is not a problem. It's kinda the whole point. So he, usual MO.

Now first off, I would like to know, where exactly I deny the climate change. Because you happen to like to repeatedly use this straw-man.
Maybe you could point me to the part, where I explicitly deny it. My memory may be spotty.

I argue here simply because the current methods (VRE variable renewable energies), to tackle this problem are extremely poor chosen. And in this thread here alone in the discussion with Endus I presented enough data to prove my point.

Endus'es problem is the same as yours. You trust quickly in incomplete data, if it supports your point.
But to have a complete picture, you need complete data. And your interpretation of the t pollution per capita in this context is faulty at best.
Again, this number is actually not meaningful if it comes to the evaluation of how far a country progressed or how far a country lags behind in tackling this issue.

And one the the biggest reasons being: That even a net immigration of people into a country can positively influence the t pollution per capita number. While in truth the core problem (aka pollution) stays the same.

Highschool boy posturing in display. I'm certainly cowed by such well-founded confidence

And in light of talking about wasteful consumption of energy.....

[Mittens]

That their growth is slowing is true, though it's still relatively rapid.

That their reduction in CO2 emissions is in any respect due to that is not a fact. It's a piece of fabricated nonsense you literally imagined up in your own head, and which every source you have cited has directly contradicted.

Is this one of those no u arguments. If not, feel free to point where I was wrong or stop replying.

- - - Updated - - -

Even a slow growth can't be the only relevant factor for a reduction in emissions. It is still a growth, and emissions were reduced, not only slowed. They are going in opposite directions.

And even with a reduction of growth, China is still growing much faster than most developed countries.

Chinese emissions are still growing, they haven't yet peaked.The only year were this was kinda differeng is 2015.

And thats still primarily driven by a slowdown:

A big reason for this decline: China's industrial sector is no longer growing at the same breakneck rate it used to. After a certain point, there's only so much infrastructure you can build. So construction has slowed lately, as has steel and cement production. Houser and Marsters estimate that this accounts for about three-quarters of the drop in China's overall coal use:

https://www.vox.com/2016/3/6/11168914/china-peak-coal

[matt4pack]

Front page of BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40669449

I wonder how the china defense brigade will make excuses for this.

"A report in 2015 suggested one error in China's statistics amounted to 10% of global emissions in 2013."

"Another rare warming gas, carbon tetrachloride, once popular as a refrigerant and a solvent but very damaging to the ozone layer, has been banned in Europe since 2002. But Dr Reimann told Counting Carbon: "We still see 10,000-20,000 tonnes coming out of China every year."

[Endus]

Is this one of those no u arguments. If not, feel free to point where I was wrong or stop replying.

You claimed their reduction in GHG emissions was due to their slower (but still relatively rapid) economic growth.

This is nonsensical; their economy is still growing, and emissions are dropping. If they were tied together, you'd expect them to move in concert.

Your primary source in defending this was an article about how emissions have decoupled from economic growth, using China as one of their primary examples, which completely disproves your claim.

You made up complete bullshit, and provided sources that proved how much bullshit it was, and have provided nothing to back up the nonsensical assertion.

- - - Updated - - -

Chinese emissions are still growing, they haven't yet peaked.The only year were this was kinda differeng is 2015.

You literally just admitted, in the next sentence, that your first sentence was untrue.

And thats still primarily driven by a slowdown:

A big reason for this decline: China's industrial sector is no longer growing at the same breakneck rate it used to. After a certain point, there's only so much infrastructure you can build. So construction has slowed lately, as has steel and cement production. Houser and Marsters estimate that this accounts for about three-quarters of the drop in China's overall coal use:

https://www.vox.com/2016/3/6/11168914/china-peak-coal

Hey, look, you're misquoting again. The sentence you're referring to is talking about the decline in coal use, not the decline in GHG emissions. And it's only pointing to one sector's reduction, here, while China's economy is still growing rapidly in other sectors. Your own article, again, explicitly contradicts your point by stating that this cannot explain the reduction in coal use overall.

[Mittens]

You claimed their reduction in GHG emissions was due to their slower (but still relatively rapid) economic growth.

This is nonsensical; their economy is still growing, and emissions are dropping. If they were tied together, you'd expect them to move in concert.

Your primary source in defending this was an article about how emissions have decoupled from economic growth, using China as one of their primary examples, which completely disproves your claim.

You made up complete bullshit, and provided sources that proved how much bullshit it was, and have provided nothing to back up the nonsensical assertion.

My source says that there was a sign of decoupling in 2015. It also says that the drop in coal use is due to lower electric consumption growth which is driven by manufacturing slowing down, which is the result of slower economic growth. If you feel this is misrepresented go and quote the relevant parts in the article that deny slower economic growth is the main driver in China's reduced coal use.

- - - Updated - - -

You claimed their reduction in GHG emissions was due to their slower (but still relatively rapid) economic growth.

This is nonsensical; their economy is still growing, and emissions are dropping. If they were tied together, you'd expect them to move in concert.

Your primary source in defending this was an article about how emissions have decoupled from economic growth, using China as one of their primary examples, which completely disproves your claim.

You made up complete bullshit, and provided sources that proved how much bullshit it was, and have provided nothing to back up the nonsensical assertion.

- - - Updated - - -



You literally just admitted, in the next sentence, that your first sentence was untrue.



Hey, look, you're misquoting again. The sentence you're referring to is talking about the decline in coal use, not the decline in GHG emissions. And it's only pointing to one sector's reduction, here, while China's economy is still growing rapidly in other sectors. Your own article, again, explicitly contradicts your point by stating that this cannot explain the reduction in coal use overall.

Peaked means that it will continue going down from there onwards. Predicting the future is hard, so saying X is certain because a change in one year is hard. Also don't be an idiot and realize that coal is one of the reasons China is emmiting so much GHG emissions. A reduction in coal use = reduction in GHG emissions because other fossil fuels don't emit as much.

[Endus]

My source says that there was a sign of decoupling in 2015. It also says that the drop in coal use is due to lower electric consumption growth which is driven by manufacturing slowing down, which is the result of slower economic growth. If you feel this is misrepresented go and quote the relevant parts in the article that deny slower economic growth is the main driver in China's reduced coal use.

From this article you linked; http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_d...ort-103425.pdf

The decrease in the annual trend of2015 is unprecedented and is a sign of decoupling from
economic growth. Annual GDP growth was also slowing
down, but remained still positive (from 10% per year
before 2012 to about 7% per year in 2013–2015). A key
factor for this change in CO2 emissions was the decline in
coal consumption (in energy units) in 2015 of 1.5%, as
estimated by BP (2016) based on data from NBS China.

You understand what "decoupling" means, right? When two factors are coupled together, like train cars, then as one shifts, so the other shifts as well. In this case, emissions and economic growth used to be coupled together; if economic growth occurred, you would expect emissions to rise as well, since they are coupled together and act in the same manner.

The entire central point of your own source is that these two factors have decoupled in China; emissions are declining while growth continues.

You are either not bothering to read your own sources, or you are deliberately misrepresenting what they are saying.

- - - Updated - - -

Peaked means that it will continue going down from there onwards. Predicting the future is hard, so saying X is certain because a change in one year is hard. Also don't be an idiot and realize that coal is one of the reasons China is emmiting so much GHG emissions. A reduction in coal use = reduction in GHG emissions because other fossil fuels don't emit as much.

Which is an attempt to shift the goalposts and miss the point.

Yes, they're reducing coal use and have a strong push to implement renewable energy systems. This finally resulted, in 2015, in an overall reduction in GHG emissions. Your sources are about the reduction in coal use, not that their economy is declining. Their economy is still growing rapidly even though emissions are declining. Which completely contradicts the point you keep trying to make.

[Mittens]

From this article you linked; http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_d...ort-103425.pdf

The decrease in the annual trend of2015 is unprecedented and is a sign of decoupling from
economic growth. Annual GDP growth was also slowing
down, but remained still positive (from 10% per year
before 2012 to about 7% per year in 2013–2015). A key
factor for this change in CO2 emissions was the decline in
coal consumption (in energy units) in 2015 of 1.5%, as
estimated by BP (2016) based on data from NBS China.

You understand what "decoupling" means, right? When two factors are coupled together, like train cars, then as one shifts, so the other shifts as well. In this case, emissions and economic growth used to be coupled together; if economic growth occurred, you would expect emissions to rise as well, since they are coupled together and act in the same manner.

The entire central point of your own source is that these two factors have decoupled in China; emissions are declining while growth continues.

You are either not bothering to read your own sources, or you are deliberately misrepresenting what they are saying.

- - - Updated - - -



Which is an attempt to shift the goalposts and miss the point.

Yes, they're reducing coal use and have a strong push to implement renewable energy systems. This finally resulted, in 2015, in an overall reduction in GHG emissions. Your sources are about the reduction in coal use, not that their economy is declining. Their economy is still growing rapidly even though emissions are declining. Which completely contradicts the point you keep trying to make.

Yes and the reduction in coal use is mainly driven by slower economic growth. That China's effort played a role is undeniable. Its literally explained in the source:

The decrease in the power generated by coal-fired power
plants, which produce about three-quarters of total
electricity (NBS, 2015b) and which contribute to about half
of the country’s CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel
combustion (Table 2.4), was due to the still relatively
‘slow’ growth rate of total electricity consumption of 0.3%
in 2015, compared to the previous decade which showed
double-digit growth figures (the lowest since 2000).

Because:

Unlike in developed countries, China’s manufacturing
industry is the sector with the largest consumption of
electricity and fuel. Therefore, the demand for energy,
in general, is largely driven by trends in basic materials
production (Table 2.2 and Figure 2.7). As Table 2.2
indicates, there has been a substantial slowdown in the
growth rate of the demand for materials, halving the
physical growth in this sector since 2012. First reports on
2016 show a further slowdown or even decrease in most
indicators.

You are literally going in circles and this is boring have fun.

[Endus]

Yes and the reduction in coal use is mainly driven by slower economic growth. That China's effort played a role is undeniable. Its literally explained in the source:

The decrease in the power generated by coal-fired power
plants, which produce about three-quarters of total
electricity (NBS, 2015b) and which contribute to about half
of the country’s CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel
combustion (Table 2.4), was due to the still relatively
‘slow’ growth rate of total electricity consumption of 0.3%
in 2015, compared to the previous decade which showed
double-digit growth figures (the lowest since 2000).

Because:

Unlike in developed countries, China’s manufacturing
industry is the sector with the largest consumption of
electricity and fuel. Therefore, the demand for energy,
in general, is largely driven by trends in basic materials
production (Table 2.2 and Figure 2.7). As Table 2.2
indicates, there has been a substantial slowdown in the
growth rate of the demand for materials, halving the
physical growth in this sector since 2012. First reports on
2016 show a further slowdown or even decrease in most
indicators.

Still literally nothing that actually speaks to GHG emissions; you're focusing exclusively on the shifting of power demands and ignoring that China has also been heavily implementing renewable energy production, and that regardless of the "slow" growth (which, as your own source notes even in your own quotes right there, is only "slow" by comparison to the previous decade, not overall economic history nor slow compared to other developed nations), that growth is still growth, and GHG emissions are declining anyway. Because the two have decoupled. That's the entire point. The two are no longer connected, and yet to "prove" something regarding GHG emissions, you talk incessantly about economic growth.

Which just means you do not comprehend what "decoupled" means.

You are literally going in circles and this is boring have fun.

We're going in circles because you made claims that your own sources contradict and you, apparently, can't even see that.

[RaoBurning]

all we need to do is adapt.

I always try to stop the bleeding before figuring out how to live without my finger, personally. Adaptation is great, but mitigating the problem simultaneously is even better. It's not like there's some huge mystery as to why temperatures are rising. Just some niche but powerful denial that there's even an issue to solve in the first place.

[PC2]

I always try to stop the bleeding before figuring out how to live without my finger, personally. Adaptation is great, but mitigating the problem simultaneously is even better. It's not like there's some huge mystery as to why temperatures are rising. Just some niche but powerful denial that there's even an issue to solve in the first place.

Civilization isn't majorly bleeding, the data shows it's thriving more than ever before even with increasing GHG levels. In this analogy it would be a scratch. There's no evidence that it's anything close to hemorrhaging where you're losing more blood than creating.

[RaoBurning]

Civilization isn't majorly bleeding, the data shows it's thriving more than ever before even with increasing GHG levels. In this analogy it would be a scratch. There's no evidence that it's anything close to hemorrhaging where you're losing more blood than creating.

Funny bit of personal foreshadowing, actually, as I cut my finger at work today by being a dumbass. Not a bad cut, really. But I still stopped the bleeding and cleaned the cut before wrapping it up.

Little things add up.

[PC2]

Funny bit of personal foreshadowing, actually, as I cut my finger at work today by being a dumbass. Not a bad cut, really. But I still stopped the bleeding and cleaned the cut before wrapping it up.

Little things add up.

In this analogy the civilization emitted GHGs is the perceived cut that needs to be healed. This is only true if you believe that the optimal atmosphere has to be what it was previous to human industry. In reality there's no evidence that civilization will be optimal with the initial climate.

[Endus]

In this analogy the civilization emitted GHGs is the perceived cut that needs to be healed. This is only true if you believe that the optimal atmosphere has to be what it was previous to human industry. In reality there's no evidence that civilization will be optimal with the initial climate.

Given that this global civilization has emerged in a period of relative climate stability, reliant on the conditions as they have been for the past 10,000 years, give or take, and given that global warming will significantly and irrevocably change that climate paradigm in ways that are, in many cases, unpredictable, your claim here doesn't make any sense.

It's like arguing that "hey, maybe that ocean reef isn't in an optimal climate. Maybe if I put it in a freshwater tank in my office it'll be even better off."

In reality, that gets you a dead reef.