The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

How Soon Will the Carbon Bubble Pop? Options
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, December 20, 2018 9:04:40 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,792
Neurons: 50,369
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
How Soon Will the Carbon Bubble Pop? This 2016 article explains why it is in Donald and Putin's interest to keep it going as long as possible for the fossil fuel industries and what is happening right now in both countries politically as well as financially. Bubbles always pop.

https://thenearlynow.com/trump-putin-and-the-pipelines-to-nowhere-742d745ce8fd

We have the means to stop the dependency on fossil fuels, but two heads of state are doing everything they can to protect a declining industry as long as possible. Makes sense why they are working together and why Trump has removed the aluminum tariff for Russia but not for other countries. Canada is still considered to be a "national security risk". lol

On a side note:
Trumponomics have caused the US, Canadian, and other stock markets to lose all gains from the past year. In the US 401k owners are complaining about losses to their retirement funds, inflation is up, jobs and companies are pulling out of US, there was no trickle down from tax reform, middle income tax relief is a no go, wages have stagnated, farmers are getting socialism, healthcare/medicare etc. are being cut or made too exorbitant, and a recession is looking as if it might materialize. Edited: After failing to gut food stamps in the Farm Bill, Trump has announced he plans to sidestep Congress and unilaterally slash the program by fiat—just days before Christmas.


Unfortunately, the US is taking the rest of the world down with it financially, and climate change denial is costing the world billions in dollars and human health/death losses already.

Mark Carney gave an address. In other words, one of the most knowledgeable financial authorities on the planet has come to think that the difference between what the high-carbon part of the economy is priced at and what it’s worth is so enormous that letting it grow and then suddenly pop could crash financial markets worldwide.

"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
Oscar D. Grouch
Posted: Thursday, December 20, 2018 12:23:20 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/26/2014
Posts: 683
Neurons: 1,086,544
Antarctica is melting. It is currently losing 65 million metric tons of ice per year from West Antarctica alone. The problem is that much of the landmass currently sits below sea level. Once the ice starts melting, the process will likely become irreversible. The National Geographic Society has predicted that this scenario will come to pass if fossil fuel consumption continues at current levels.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shoreline-maps/

Sea level is predicted to rise 216 feet (65 meters). This will drown coastal areas around the globe. The National Geographic Society has published maps of each continent's new coastline. For example, the Mississippi River delta will become an estuary that will dwarf the Chesapeake. Florida, along with most of the Eastern Seaboard, will disappear. In a world without ice, the mean global temperature is predicted to rise to about 80 °F (26.6 °C) from its current mean of 58 °F (14.4 °C). Numerous plants and animals will go extinct and it will likely rival the Permian Extinction. People will die, perhaps a billion or more. This is the future that awaits our planet and future generations if we do nothing. It will make the current debates about global warming look like a playground argument among grade school children.
Islami
Posted: Monday, January 21, 2019 11:06:29 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/21/2017
Posts: 150
Neurons: 799
Never. New inventions will come into being.

Just because the writer of an article is British doesn't mean that they use English correctly-DragOnspeaker.
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 4:51:39 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 881
Neurons: 4,354
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
We currently live in the Ice Age. Antarctica used to be a green continent altogether, and that status quo existed for many millions of years. So its melting is nothing but a very gradual and slow return to normality.

And yet even a very slow warming makes extemely nervous people who fear political consequences of this.
Hope123
Posted: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 12:01:11 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,792
Neurons: 50,369
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
We currently live in the Ice Age. Antarctica used to be a green continent altogether, and that status quo existed for many millions of years. So its melting is nothing but a very gradual and slow return to normality.

And yet even a very slow warming makes extemely nervous people who fear political consequences of this.


It is not political consequences that are feared by scientists.

BTW - If you believe scientists about previous ice ages, why don't you believe them now about anthropogenic climate change?

Also, I assume you have correlated the presence of humankind with all these natural fluctuations in the past and have noted any adjustments they needed to survive the changes just as we need to make changes.

The timing of the glacials and interglacials was driven by periodic changes in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of sunshine reaching various parts of the planet.

The difference now is that the effects of these small orbital changes was amplified by positive feedbacks, such as changes in greenhouse gas levels.

And there is proof that the types of gases raising greenhouse levels are caused by human activity.



"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
Lotje1000
Posted: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 2:27:33 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,035
Neurons: 566,016
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
We currently live in the Ice Age. Antarctica used to be a green continent altogether, and that status quo existed for many millions of years. So its melting is nothing but a very gradual and slow return to normality.

And yet even a very slow warming makes extemely nervous people who fear political consequences of this.


We are not currently living in an Ice Age. We are in the interglacial period between ice ages. Also, concepts of "return to normality" are pretty pointless when talking about humanity as we know it now vs the 'normal' state of the earth. Ice Ages are also 'normal' for the earth so you could argue the start of one is also a return to normality.

The point is that the climate is rapidly (so 'not normally') changing in a way that is not beneficial to continued human life without serious repercussions (like natural disasters, mass immigration, increased deaths, increased costs to cope with the changes in the climate...).
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 6:42:50 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 881
Neurons: 4,354
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
Lotje1000 wrote:

We are not currently living in an Ice Age.


We do live in the Ice Age that began 35 million years ago. It features long glacial periods (approx. 100 thousand years each) interspersing with relatively short (approx. 15-20 thousand years) "inter-glacial" periods of relatively higher temperatures. So we are currently in the middle of such an "inter-glacial" relative warming.

The history of the human civilization as we know it is the history of the current inter-glacial period, which began approximately 10 thousand years ago. In glacial periods a planet-wide civilization cannot start, for obvious reasons: vast territories are covered with glaciers (large territories like, for example, Siberia and Alaska are still covered by it, even now), which makes them unsuitable for food production and living, communications of all sorts are hindered, production of natural resources is costly and technically difficult, especially when we are talking about a newborn civilization with very limited knowledge and next-to-zero level of technological development.

Therefore, so far climate warming has been the blessing for the humankind. It is the general climate warming of the last (approximately) 10 thousand years that has enabled our civilization to begin its devbelopment in the first place. So our problem is not the continuing warming, but quite the opposite. The real problem is how we develop and prepare ourselves for the cooling that may begin in a few thousand years from now, the cooling that will have devastating effect on our lives and societies unless by that time we learn how to avert it altogether or somehow negate its effects. Otherwise all those "armageddons" may become self-fulfilling prophecies. We may well see poverty, wars, deseases - all those damn knights, - only they will result not from any alleged flaws in the world's design as far as God(s) is/are concerned, but from deeply flawed earthly management, pure and simple.

And yet our attention is being diverted to wrong problems, this time in the Business & Finance section. Angel Bloomberg had it, too, a week ago or so, the headline was DEFENDING THE GRID AGAIST CLIMATE CHANGE.
Lotje1000
Posted: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 8:34:31 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,035
Neurons: 566,016
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
Therefore, so far climate warming has been the blessing for the humankind. It is the general climate warming of the last (approximately) 10 thousand years that has enabled our civilization to begin its devbelopment in the first place. So our problem is not the continuing warming, but quite the opposite. The real problem is how we develop and prepare ourselves for the cooling that may begin in a few thousand years from now, the cooling that will have devastating effect on our lives and societies unless by that time we learn how to avert it altogether or somehow negate its effects.


So your argument is that we shouldn't be looking at the disastrous effects of the current climate change that threatens people (and the ensuing impact on business, finance and politics) but that instead we should look at 10 000 years into the future when it'll all cool down again into an Ice Age?

Not sure how you expect us to solve problems 10 000 years into the future if we're not even globally working together properly to solve the anthropogenic climate change that threatens us right now.
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 8:42:19 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 881
Neurons: 4,354
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
If something does threaten us right now, climate warming is about the last thing to mention in this context.
Lotje1000
Posted: Thursday, January 24, 2019 1:53:39 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,035
Neurons: 566,016
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
If something does threaten us right now, climate warming is about the last thing to mention in this context.


Then why bother to bring up what's 10 000 years into the future?
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Friday, January 25, 2019 5:13:49 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 881
Neurons: 4,354
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
Lotje1000 wrote:
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
If something does threaten us right now, climate warming is about the last thing to mention in this context.


Then why bother to bring up what's 10 000 years into the future?


It may be less then 10 000 years, it may well be 5 000 years. We do not know exactly how much time is there left. All we know is that, unlike the hyperinflated and politically motivated campaign against climate warming, the prospect of the upcoming periodical climate cooling is very real, it is based on scientific data on how the temperature on our planet has been evoling over the last 35 million years.

And 5 000 years is not a long time, given how far we are from the goal - i.e. being able to either avert the glacial period or make sure we as a civilization can live through it.


Lotje1000
Posted: Friday, January 25, 2019 5:33:49 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,035
Neurons: 566,016
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
I'm going to have to echo Hope's question why you believe scientists about the upcoming climate cooling some millennia in the future, but not when they talk about climate change and its impact right now.
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Friday, January 25, 2019 6:10:39 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 881
Neurons: 4,354
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
Lotje1000 wrote:
I'm going to have to echo Hope's question why you believe scientists about the upcoming climate cooling some millennia in the future, but not when they talk about climate change and its impact right now.


Because the history of temperature on Earth is factual data. This data has been obtained by different groups of scientists, and, although I assume there may be minor differences, I haven't found any traces of major disagreements in the scientific community about the general picture. So this history is a fact.

Whereas all talk about potentially harmful effects of eventual warming is all based on mathematical modeling, assumptions, guesses, etc. It shouldn't come as a surprise, therefore, that different models render very different results. Let alone differences about negative or positive effects that a certain temperature increase may have on the human civilization if and when it does happen.
Jyrkkä Jätkä
Posted: Friday, January 25, 2019 8:02:19 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 43,029
Neurons: 506,178
Location: Helsinki, Southern Finland Province, Finland
Yesterday it was -14C° here in Helsinki. Today it's -3C°. Should I be worried?
On coming Sunday it's forecasted to be -20C°. That's almost ice-age.

The fact is, anyway, and according my own experience living in this city last 61 years, that there are no decent winters anymore. One winter out of five we have a real winter with lots of snow, temperatures between 0C° and -15C°, lasting from November to April. One winter isn't a winter at all. If there happens to be a couple of centimetre snowfall one day, the next day all snow is melted. The rest three winters are somewhere in the middle: some snow from January to March, the lowest temperatures about -10C°. You can go out with your autumn cloths.

Fifty years ago there was a lot of snow every winter, temperatures varied from -5C° to -30C°.

We try to use less and less carbon, but the impact of Finns in global climate is piece of nuts.



In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
Hope123
Posted: Friday, January 25, 2019 4:09:18 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,792
Neurons: 50,369
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
I'm going to have to echo Hope's question why you believe scientists about the upcoming climate cooling some millennia in the future, but not when they talk about climate change and its impact right now.


Because the history of temperature on Earth is factual data. This data has been obtained by different groups of scientists, and, although I assume there may be minor differences, I haven't found any traces of major disagreements in the scientific community about the general picture. So this history is a fact.

Whereas all talk about potentially harmful effects of eventual warming is all based on mathematical modeling, assumptions, guesses, etc. It shouldn't come as a surprise, therefore, that different models render very different results. Let alone differences about negative or positive effects that a certain temperature increase may have on the human civilization if and when it does happen.


Kiril, You are welcome to your opinion but proof with facts are necessary when the above statements have been debunked many times.

Scientists have so much factual data from observations and models that have had time to be proven were indeed correct, that scientists today have a consensus that yes, we should be heading into an ice age - but we are not..

That is why the topic is not about whether or not, but about financial consequences when the carbon bubble finally bursts when the wealthy driving forces of anti climate change finally realize that their ship has sailed.

Recent reports show that coal is now too expensive financially in comparison to other sources of energy.

"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, January 27, 2019 11:10:39 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,792
Neurons: 50,369
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Just saw this apt cartoon:







"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Monday, January 28, 2019 4:07:11 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 881
Neurons: 4,354
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
Hope123 wrote:
we should be heading into an ice age - but we are not..



What a great relief if this is true. Let's stay on this course then. Why would one want another 100 thousand years of global winter? That is the dead end. On the warming path there's no end in sight - only a prospect for future and development without limits. Even Helsinki is getting warmer, based on what JJ wrote above.

Replacing fossil fuels with other sources of energy is a quite different topic, though. With this I agree. I may have been detracted by posts in this thread that seemed to focus on the issue of the climate change rather than on the future of the fossil fuels industry, maybe this is not what your intention was when you started this thread. I am sorry if I have added to taking it off-track then. Let's bring it back. Angel
Y111
Posted: Monday, January 28, 2019 6:10:11 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/25/2017
Posts: 328
Neurons: 1,624
Location: Kurgan, Kurgan, Russia
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
Why would one want another 100 thousand years of global winter?

Not global. There will be no ice in Africa, I believe. Otherwise life would not have survived in the previous ice ages. No bear can sleep for 100 thousand years.
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Monday, January 28, 2019 6:22:45 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 881
Neurons: 4,354
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
Y111 wrote:
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
Why would one want another 100 thousand years of global winter?

Not global. There will be no ice in Africa, I believe. Otherwise life would not have survived in the previous ice ages. No bear can sleep for 100 thousand years.


That's right, but then in 100 000 years we'll have to start it all over again from that same old crap. Can these global freeze advocates perhaps give us a chance to avoid this prospect?
Lotje1000
Posted: Monday, January 28, 2019 6:26:27 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,035
Neurons: 566,016
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
Y111 wrote:
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
Why would one want another 100 thousand years of global winter?

Not global. There will be no ice in Africa, I believe. Otherwise life would not have survived in the previous ice ages. No bear can sleep for 100 thousand years.


That's right, but then in 100 000 years we'll have to start it all over again from that same old crap. Can these global freeze advocates perhaps give us a chance to avoid this prospect?


Who are global freeze advocates? That's a new one for me.
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Monday, January 28, 2019 6:40:21 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 881
Neurons: 4,354
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
Lotje1000 wrote:

Who are global freeze advocates? That's a new one for me.


The ones who organise heavily financed international campaigns "against climate warming" when actually among the two possibilities climate warming is a by far better option for the humanity than what cooling would be. And it always goes one way or the other. I mean, before at some point we perhaps reach a level of development where we can finely manage the planet's climate. But in order to reach that level of development we need normal conditions to live and work in. Thanks God(s) things seem to be going the right way anyway.

Y111
Posted: Monday, January 28, 2019 9:11:06 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/25/2017
Posts: 328
Neurons: 1,624
Location: Kurgan, Kurgan, Russia
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
But in order to reach that level of development we need normal conditions to live and work in.

Why couldn't we live and work in Africa? It won't be as hot as now there at those cool times. The world population will likely decrease in the coming centuries, so by that time it may well be small enough to fit comfortably in the warm territories.
progpen
Posted: Sunday, February 17, 2019 5:57:48 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 2,046
Neurons: 369,910
Location: March, England, United Kingdom
Hope123 wrote:
How Soon Will the Carbon Bubble Pop? This 2016 article explains why it is in Donald and Putin's interest to keep it going as long as possible for the fossil fuel industries and what is happening right now in both countries politically as well as financially. Bubbles always pop.

https://thenearlynow.com/trump-putin-and-the-pipelines-to-nowhere-742d745ce8fd

We have the means to stop the dependency on fossil fuels, but two heads of state are doing everything they can to protect a declining industry as long as possible. Makes sense why they are working together and why Trump has removed the aluminum tariff for Russia but not for other countries. Canada is still considered to be a "national security risk". lol

On a side note:
Trumponomics have caused the US, Canadian, and other stock markets to lose all gains from the past year. In the US 401k owners are complaining about losses to their retirement funds, inflation is up, jobs and companies are pulling out of US, there was no trickle down from tax reform, middle income tax relief is a no go, wages have stagnated, farmers are getting socialism, healthcare/medicare etc. are being cut or made too exorbitant, and a recession is looking as if it might materialize. Edited: After failing to gut food stamps in the Farm Bill, Trump has announced he plans to sidestep Congress and unilaterally slash the program by fiat—just days before Christmas.


Unfortunately, the US is taking the rest of the world down with it financially, and climate change denial is costing the world billions in dollars and human health/death losses already.

Mark Carney gave an address. In other words, one of the most knowledgeable financial authorities on the planet has come to think that the difference between what the high-carbon part of the economy is priced at and what it’s worth is so enormous that letting it grow and then suddenly pop could crash financial markets worldwide.


This is just a guess, but I'd put money on Putin taking a positive stance on Global Climate Change before the current occupant of the White House even begins to think about it. If Putin starts to make noise about it, then the current occupant will follow.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.