Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 Next
Comments 6851 to 6900:
-
MA Rodger at 06:32 AM on 24 August 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34
slcochran @1,
While there have been many statements made about the timing of the first ice-free summer up in the Arctic Ocean, the prediction of 2040 +/-10 years remains (although the IPO has been cited as a reason for it being earlier rather than later within that range).
Dramatic stuff is happening to the sea ice which is in terminal decline but it is worth considering the full set of data before getting carried away and proclaiming it "is going to disappear sooner than even the earliest predicted date." Open water & melt ponds at the North Pole have been observed for some years now (eg here from 10 years ago).
Consider this year's melt season which followed on from a freeze-up which was a little stronger than the previous few years - the 2020 melt season has been pretty dramatic with the Sea Ice Extent showing record breaking values through July yet the low SIE was not matched by such dramatic Sea Ice Area data which has only fleetingly managed record-breaking status. And the PIOMAS models of Sea Ice Volume show nothing record-breaking so far. Latest comparative PIOMAS values (for mid-Auguat) run:-
2012 ... 4.75M cu km
2019 ... 4.88M cu km
2020 ... 5.14M cu km
2017 ... 5.31M cu km
Of course, this is all dramatic stuff (the average 1979-2001 was three-times greater at 15M cu km) but the progress towards an ice-free summer Arctic Ocean is slow and still years away from being delivered. And even if it is now inevitable (as the Barants Observer says it is), that is no reason to slacken our efforts pushing for some rapid & long-overdue AGW mitigation measures. We certainly need something dramatic mitigation-wise to match the dramatic AGW we are already responsible for.
-
slcochran at 05:14 AM on 24 August 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34
Worst possible report: open water and melt ponds at the North Pole- the polar ice cap is going to disappear sooner than even the earliest predicted date. We're not going to cook the planet (and our survivability), we are already doing it. We are way past the time for preventative measures, we can only hope to ameliorate the destuctive consequences of global warming.
-
Nogapspermitted at 13:41 PM on 23 August 2020Pandemic lands 'worst body blow' in modern history on fossil fuel companies
Yes, that link does show how this company has developed a way to recycle the glassfibre into reusable beads for many further uses. I’m sure their initiative will be amply rewarded financially, as it should be, for beginning to solve a problem that was for a long time just ignored.
-
nigelj at 08:35 AM on 23 August 2020Pandemic lands 'worst body blow' in modern history on fossil fuel companies
Larry Smallwood @1
"Today's widely used wind turbine construction materials are NOT recyclable nor conducive to a healthy environmentally sensitive present and future"
I appreciate your concerns but this is wrong, and just an assertion. Most wind towers have fibreglass blades but at least one company is recycling these by grinding them up for use in composite wall boards and similar products as below. So they can be recycled. Its not easy but they are making it work. I suggest it could be expanded rapidly with some sort of government incentive like a small tax break or a similar device.
resource-recycling.com/plastics/2019/03/27/company-expands-wind-turbine-recycling-operation/
Its also possible to make the blades from aluminium, which can be recycled. And the wind towers and generators are made of things like steel and aluminium and copper and we know those can be recycled from past experience.
Its even possible to make the blades out of timber, from what Ive read, which is probably the most sustainable material of all, but obviously this would be labour intensive with all those curves.
And yeah, don't make the perfect the enemy of the good as others say.
I agree with your comments and concerns about business investment.
-
Bob Loblaw at 01:15 AM on 23 August 2020Skeptical Science New Research for Week #33, 2020
Keep in mind that even if current electricity production is based on fossil fuels, it is probably easier in the next 30 years to replace electricity generation capacity with non-fossil-fuel-based systems than it is to convert tens or hundreds of thousands of gas furnances in individual houses to electrical heating.
We used to live in Saskatchewan, and looked seriously at ground source heat pumps to replace our old, inefficient gas furnace, Retrofitting, as opposed to build new, represents a huge extra cost. And because of Saskatchewan's heavy use of fossil fuels for eletricity generation, federal goverment incentives to install heat pumps and such were not offered in Saskatchewan. We went back to gas, but at least forked out for 96% efficiency. Our gas consumption was cut roughly in half (as we did other efficiency improvements as well as the furnace).
Ground source heat pumps make a huge difference in electricity consumption, but at high initial capital cost. It is another heating method th at is much easier to install when a house is built than it is to retrofit.
Many home owners do not want the extra cost of energy efficiency features on a new house, if they don't plan to stay for 10-20 years. This is where building codes are really needed (insulation levels, heating efficeincy, etc.)
We now live in Ontario, which has large nuclear and hydro capacity. I believe the former Liberal government had plans to not allow fossil fuel heating sources in new construction at some point in the future. The current Conservative government tends to not share the same ideals, though.
Here is the diagram for Ontario, from the same source as the previous charts.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:05 AM on 23 August 2020Pandemic lands 'worst body blow' in modern history on fossil fuel companies
Larry Smallwood,
I fully support awareness of the need for everything that humans do to be Governed by the pursuit of Sustainable Development. That includes correcting unsustainable and harmful activities that were incorrectly allowed to develop popularity and profitability, and especially forcing the rapid ending of actions that powerful wealthy people harmfully incorrectly prolonged through misleading claim-making that delayed the development of the required corrections.
So I question the imposition of High Standards of Sustainability on actions to replace harmful unsustainable activities that have incorrectly remained popular and profitable.
Keeping sustainability in mind the alternative to not building wind turbines unless they are completely sustainable (not harmful, not unsustainably consuming materials) is to stop all activity that uses generated energy that is more harmful and less sustainable. All the other ways of getting artificial energy have impacts.
So it is clearly absurd to demand the high standard for the replacement of unsustainable ways of living. What needs to be understood is that the unsustainable harmful ways of living that have developed need to be ended. Hopefully that will be by being replaced by more sustainable, but potentially more expensive, ways of doing things. But the most important understanding is that if the more expensive more sustainable ways of doing the activity are not liked then the activity needs to be ended no matter how popular or profitable it has become.
People cannot be allowed the freedom to enjoy a Better Personal Present in ways that negatively affect the attempts by Others to Develop the Gift of a Sustainable Improving future for humanity. Many people enamored by westernized consumption-based capitalism struggle to understand that essential Governing principle. That understanding of the need to responsibly self-govern and be less harmful and more helpful really bothers people who were indoctrinated in the fatally flawed belief that it is best for people to be freer to believe whatever they want and do whatever they please.
Freedom Governed by the pursuit of expanded awareness and improved understanding applied to achieve and improve on the Sustainable Development Goals is what is required. And it is harder work that the alternatives.
-
Larry Smallwood at 22:18 PM on 22 August 2020Pandemic lands 'worst body blow' in modern history on fossil fuel companies
So long as wind turbines are the built in mind of the most advanced and long lasting environmentally recyclable building materials known to mankind. Today's widely used wind turbine construction materials are NOT recyclable nor conducive to a healthy environmentally sensitive present and future; compounded by typical two-year economic investment/return business cycles that at the epicentre, driving deafening climate change disaster.
-
michael sweet at 20:02 PM on 22 August 2020Skeptical Science New Research for Week #33, 2020
OPOF:
Bob Loblaw's point is well taken. Heating new construction using fossil electricity does not help much compared to using fossil natural gas.
Taking the long view, if electricity is used now than in 10 years when more renewable electricity is produced buildings using electricity will automatically release less carbon. Those buildings on natural gas will require expensive retrofitting to reduce carbon emissions.
I think the argument that natural gas makes a good bridge fuel is mostly made by natural gas producers. People who want to reduce carbon support buiding more renewable energy systems.
I agree that building out renewables as rapidly as possible makes the most sense.
Making electromethane using fossil fueled electricity does not make sense. You have to first convert the electricity system to renewable energy before you start large scale electroconversions. In general, it takes much less energy to do work using electricity than to do the same work using electrofuels. Electrofuels only make sense for things like airplanes and marine transport that are very difficult to electrify. Heating a home with electromethane would require 10 times more primary energy than heating the same home using electricity.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:47 AM on 22 August 2020Skeptical Science New Research for Week #33, 2020
micheal sweet,
I understand that the article just focused on the aspect of natural gas use related to home heating and appliances like stoves.
The more generalized understanding is what I was bringing up. It relates to the incorrect belief taht natural gas use for heat and cooking is OK because that is the sales pich claiming an answer to climate change is natural gas use. And as Bob Loblaw has correctly pointed out the electric alternative to natural gas is questionable because it depends on how the electricity is generated. Probably better to keep the gas burning in homes until the renewables are on-line than to make electricity by burning gas then using it in homes to do the same things.
However, converting coal burning power plants to gas burning power plants is only complicated because of the changes of who makes money and what type of work is done to fuel it. Mind you now it is probaly better to just ramp up the pace of renewables in most locations.
-
nigelj at 07:07 AM on 22 August 2020Skeptical Science New Research for Week #33, 2020
The Guardian article mentioned that attempts to get rid of gas connections were resisted by multiple parties, so gas suppliers, plumbers and trade unions and home owners. Its possibly an example of well intended but an unrealistic strategy.
It might be better to push for electromethane, which is carbon neutral, and can use the existing piped network and gas heaters, and would get less resistance from plumbing lobbies and trade unions and consumers. However its presumably more expensive than natural gas so would still get resistance from gas suppliers, but maybe easier than trying to ban gas connections. It would probably come down to the size of the price difference between electromethane and natural gas. If its small, people might accept it for the sake of environmental values.
-
Bob Loblaw at 05:41 AM on 22 August 2020Skeptical Science New Research for Week #33, 2020
Moving to electricity for heat depends hugely on how that electricity is generated. In Canada, Alberta and Sasatchewan both make heavy use of coal and other fossil fuels:
- Alberta: 91% fossil fuels, of which 43% is coal.
https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/nrg/ntgrtd/mrkt/nrgsstmprfls/ab-eng.html
- Saskatchewan: 83% from fossil fuels, 40% from coal
https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/nrg/ntgrtd/mrkt/nrgsstmprfls/sk-eng.html
Nationally, Canada has a very different picture:
No prizes awarded for guessing which provinces have the largest number of people that are against things like carbon taxes or other actions to deal with GHG emissions.
-
michael sweet at 03:15 AM on 22 August 2020Skeptical Science New Research for Week #33, 2020
OPOF:
THe article in The Guardian did not discuss power plants. As I understand it, the argument about power plants is complicated.
The Guardian talked about cities making it illegal to connect new buildings to existing gas lines (or building new gas lines for new buildings). In the USA gas is currently very cheap. It is used in many locations for heating, cooking and heating water. If it is illegal to connect new buildings to the gas lines than those buildings will have to use electricity instead. That will be easy to convert to renewable electricity. It is expensive to convert buildings on gas lines to electricity.
Gas has been cheap in the USA due to a large supply from fracking. A lot of fracking companies will go bankrupt from Covid and the fact that they never make money. It will be interesting to see if gas prices in the USA go up to global prices. Renewable energy is already cheaper than gas in most of the USA.
-
John Hartz at 02:23 AM on 22 August 2020We've been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy
Recommended supplemental reading:
Nuclear Plants Face More Heat Risk Than They’re Prepared to Handle by Leslie Kaufman, Finance, Bloomberg News, Aug 19, 2020
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:10 AM on 22 August 2020Skeptical Science New Research for Week #33, 2020
micheal sweet,
I agree that the use of Natural Gas has been, is being, incorrectly promoted.
The simple argument against Natural Gas is that it is half as bad a coal. It is non-renewable and harmful to the future of humanity. Being half as bad is not Good, it is still Bad.
That said, every coal burner in the USA should have long ago been converted to burn natural gas until the renewables were rapidly built out to replace the fossil fuel burners. It can still be done starting now, but with the realization that there is even less time for the converted power generator to run before it is shut due to the required rapid building of renewable capacity.
The hardest reality for people to come to grips with is that a recently built fossil fuel plant, or recently converted one, may need to be shuttered before its cost of construction has been recovered through operating profits and definitely before the investors get the full return on investment they thought they deserved. Converting Coal burners to Natural Gas is the right thing to do even if the costs will not be recovered by profit.
In "Capital and Ideology" Thomas Piketty presents many examples of wealthy people being compensated when their way of being wealthier than Others is determined to be harmfully unsustainable. That flawed belief could incorrectly result in investors in fossil fuel enterprises being rewarded if their gambles get shut down. And it is that hamful flawed hope that may be pushing the continued investment of attempts to profit from fossil fuels (government loss of money to convert coal burners to natural gas would be required but should not profit the coal burner investors)
Expanded awareness and improved understanding applied to achieve and improve on all of the Sustainable Development Goals is ultimately what is required. Correcting the understanding regarding Natural Gas is part of the required actions.
-
anmin at 23:05 PM on 21 August 2020Renewables can't provide baseload power
Energy storage as one of the essential components in renewable power smart grid, many approaches were proposed and experimented as described in OP.
Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) being one of them, suffered from temperature dropped and energy loss according to thermodynamic theory if air volume rapid expanding (used in energy storage and vehicle), what if replacing the "compressed air" with "high pressure water"? Would "hydraulic" be better than "thermodynamic"? How about an energy storage system made of a hydraulic accumulator and a power generator turbine driven by high pressure water jet? Just reading a motorcycle news about water power motorcycle the other day [water powered motorcycle concept drawings] [news about water powered concept motorcycle], I am not very interested in the said motorcycle (would it be better than current BEV?), but the water powered engine catches my eyes. If they can be used in vehicles and work (and if power almost lossless as claimed), why not scaled up and used in energy storage systems?
-
shafiqulmridha at 08:55 AM on 21 August 20202019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #3
Hello John,
I read your Climate Myths weekly article about Climate Change & Global Warming and I think you have analyzed the whole thing wonderfully and published it in a meaningful way.However, I would like to express my opinion, I think many people don't know the relationship between the economy and climate change, or the two that flow in one stream. It's very important to inform everyone about the impact of COVID-19 on the world economy and the impact of globalization on the economy or the world economy.
In addition, I have published a wide-ranging article on the impact of the fishing industry on the world economy and our role in the world economy. I hope you and your users will benefit from reading my article and get the necessary facts. Give it a look: https://commercialmetropole.com/world-economy-2020-overview/
Moderator Response:[BL] Off-topic, irrelevant web link deleted.
Thank you for taking the time to share with us. Skeptical Science is a user forum wherein the science of climate change can be discussed from the standpoint of the science itself. Ideology and politics get checked at the keyboard.
Please take the time to review the Comments Policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
Adrian19671 at 23:06 PM on 20 August 2020Great Barrier Reef is in good shape
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHF6MJZTCY8
Moderator Response:[BL] It is inappropriate to add comments consisting only of a link. Please read the Comments policy.
No link or picture only. Any link or picture should be accompanied by text summarizing both the content of the link or picture, and showing how it is relevant to the topic of discussion. Failure to do both of these things will result in the comment being considered off topic.
-
Adrian19671 at 23:04 PM on 20 August 2020Great Barrier Reef is in good shape
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m63KMzL1jzs
Moderator Response:[BL] It is inappropriate to add comments consisting only of a link. Please read the Comments policy.
No link or picture only. Any link or picture should be accompanied by text summarizing both the content of the link or picture, and showing how it is relevant to the topic of discussion. Failure to do both of these things will result in the comment being considered off topic.
-
michael sweet at 20:10 PM on 20 August 2020Skeptical Science New Research for Week #33, 2020
The Guardian had an interesting article on how the natural gas industry is fighting regulation of gas use. People like 350.org are trying to switch to electrical use from gas. Then renewable energy can be used for heating and other uses that gas is used for now. The gas lobby has been very successful in stopping laws that reduce gas use. They are currently getting states to pass laws preventing cities from restricting gas use.
If we want to get to zero emissions we need to stop all fossil fuel use. That includes gas use. Somehow the gas lobby has to be countered.
Vote climate!
-
nigelj at 09:53 AM on 18 August 2020Why children must emit eight times less CO2 than their grandparents
M S Sweet, @16
"You are putting words in Brd Barons and my mouths."
No I'm not. I said you 'appear' to be dismissing my comments. There is a huge difference between this and saying "M S Sweet dismisses my comments.
And notice how when I respond to people I copy and paste what they say. This is how professionals do it. You just paraphrase and its not even slightly accurate.
And I asked you a clear question. You still havent answered it. Enginner Poet is right about you.
-
Doug Bostrom at 05:52 AM on 18 August 2020Scientists remember 'Koni' Steffen, glaciologist who died after fall into crevasse in Greenland
Steffan's most recent publication Greenland surface air temperature changes from 1981 to 2019 and implications for ice‐sheet melt and mass‐balance change (coauthor) is here:
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/joc.6771
Open access.
Moderator Response:[JH] Link activated.
-
Bob Loblaw at 22:39 PM on 17 August 2020Scientists remember 'Koni' Steffen, glaciologist who died after fall into crevasse in Greenland
I just read about this in today's Globe and Mail (story attributed to the New York Times news service).
-
michael sweet at 18:40 PM on 17 August 2020Why children must emit eight times less CO2 than their grandparents
Nigelj,
You are putting words in Brd Barons and my mouths.
Moderator Response:[BL] The two of you seem to be going around and around in circles on this. Can all involved please try to restrict comments to new points and reasonable discussion?
-
nigelj at 13:05 PM on 17 August 2020Why children must emit eight times less CO2 than their grandparents
michael sweet @14
I have no doubt renewable energy is technically possible by 2050, and it wont be excessively stressful financially, and we have the economic capacity if theres a will to do it. That was never the point at issue.
You havent really answered my question. I will try rephrasing it. It seems unlikely we will meet the targets of solving all problems by 2050 with sustainable systems (including renewable energy), for various politicial reasons (using this widely) , so we should look at a plausible scenario, and make up the shortfall by making some level of reduction to our consumption of electricity, meat, flying, and so on (and various authorities promote the same, more or less). This in turn suggests we need to get a little bit more specific about quantities.
So do you agree or disagree ? Surely scientists can manage a simple clear cut yes or no? You can of course qualify things with as many or few '"buts" as you want.
Its just that by agreeing fully with RB you were by simple logic appear to be disagreeing pretty fully with what Ive just said.
I have already put some energy into trying to convince politicians and others to adopt renewable energy programmes. I dont specifically promote nuclear power very often at all, but I just dont see it as an option worth opposing.
-
michael sweet at 10:37 AM on 17 August 2020Why children must emit eight times less CO2 than their grandparents
Nigelj,
Jacobsosn et al 2018 and Connelly et al 2016 both show that it is entirely possible to build out a renewable energy system for ALL POWER by 2050 (not just electricity, All Power: electricity, heat, transportation, farming and industry). They include non fossil fuel for airplanes. The only thing required is political will power.
If everyone works hard to convince political leaders to get going we might have a chance.
Renewable energy has only been the cheapest option for about 5 years. It is now the cheapest option in about 2/3 of the world. In a few years it will be the cheapest option everywhere. Since fossil power plants take 10 years to plan and build they are still finishing plants started 10 years ago (like the Barakah nuclear plant in the UAE). If the USA takes a leadership position the change will be faster.
The Red Baron is more optimistic and informed about regenerative agriculture than I am. I think they will get something out of agriculture.
The unsupported opinion of a non expert who does not like to read the primary literature is not very valuable.
-
nigelj at 09:19 AM on 17 August 2020Why children must emit eight times less CO2 than their grandparents
Correction to typo: "Most places dont have much zero carbon electricity and are unlikely to hit 100% by 2050"
-
nigelj at 07:24 AM on 17 August 2020Why children must emit eight times less CO2 than their grandparents
OPOF @10. thanks for understanding the issue is about levels of consumption, as well as building sustainable systems and making substitutions.
-
nigelj at 07:17 AM on 17 August 2020Why children must emit eight times less CO2 than their grandparents
M S Sweet @9 I never said otherwise. What I said simply summarised my view @2. Here it is again: "there are a couple of problems with your ideas. Most places dont have much zero carbon electricity and are unlikely to hit 100% before 2050 Paris Accord time frames. We don't have zero carbon fuels for aircraft, apart from very limited ethanol blends, and may never have at 100% level, and we dont have regenerative agriculture at scale and scaling it will not be quick or easy, and we dont have zero carbon cements, etcetera. So we have to look at how much we reduce our relevant personal consumption, at a point in time. It will vary over time obviously."
Do you disagree? If so why?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:19 AM on 17 August 2020Why children must emit eight times less CO2 than their grandparents
There are many news items about regenerative farming.
This CBC item is the latest I have come across "With better soil, farmers can fight climate change, make agriculture more sustainable".
The written article summarizes the longer radio conversation.
An important point made is that changing to regenerative farming is helpful, but the reduction of CO2 benefit eventually ends. So rapidly reducing the burning of fossil fuels is still required. Stopping rain forest destruction and stopping industrial farming are important helpful steps, but they are not lasting solutions.
The solution is for the highest consuming and impacting people to be low consuming and impacting people, and the richer they are the lower theiir consuption and impacts should be vbecxause richer people can afford to behave better.
That requires the combination of reduction of consuption that nigelj suggests along with corrrections of the consumption that occurs to only be sustainable activities like regenrative farming and renewable energy (not nuclear) done in a way that does not unsustainably consume materials, like the rare earth materials used in machines being fully recycled (no losses). It also requires external goiverning of the selfish among the population who will not responsibly self-govern to behave better than those who are less fortunate than they are.
-
MA Rodger at 22:29 PM on 16 August 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Preston Urka @192,
You raise the Barakah nuclear power plants and cite the "Pudding Argument" which I set out up-thread as a way to assess the usefulness of nuclear as a technology to address AGW. (Thus for nuclear, 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating'. If nuclear were a useful means, where are these nuclear power plants that will be preventing AGW? This given it takes considerable time to build them and we are fast running out of the carbon budget which would limit AGW.) Note the "Pudding Argument" is more than a question of how quickly a nuclear power plant can be built and be operational. And also note that (as reported by the BBC 2/8/20) Barakah1 has solely "achieved its first criticality ... an important milestone towards commercial operations and generating clean energy." It is not yet "on-line".Perhaps the "Pudding Argument" (and nuclear's failure to meet it) requires a little clarity.
According to Wikithing, global electricity consumption was 19,500TWh in 2013, up from 12,100TWh in 2000 or an annual increase of 3.7% which would equal 721TWh/y based on the 2013 figure. (The Wikithing page also gives global final energy consumption figures which 2012-17 increased 1.6%/y or 1,800TWh/y based on 2017.)
According to IAEA-PRIS globally there are 54 reactors under construction (including the 4 Barakah reactors) with a combined capacity of 57,441MW. That would provide an additional 450TWh of nuclear (assuming a generous 90% Load Factor and ignoring old nuclear plants being shut down). With a build-time of 10 years for these new nuclear plant, this would suggest an extra 45TWh/y nuclear capacity or 6% of the growth in global electricty consumption (or 2.5% of the growth in final energy consumption). This suggests this new-build nuclear capacity would be insufficient to maintain nuclear's percentage contribution to global energy use (4% Primary so perhaps 6% Final) let alone actually contribute to reducing carbon emissions from FF use.The conclusion is that the present-build nuclear plant are not going to make a ha'p'orth of difference to reducing carbon emissions and given any future nuclear plants yet-to-start-construction will be at least a decade in the building and that there is no sign of any significant increase in the number of such nuclear plants being considered, I cannot but conclude that the nuclear contribution to tackling AGW has failed the "Pudding Test".
-
michael sweet at 20:34 PM on 16 August 2020Why children must emit eight times less CO2 than their grandparents
Nigelj:
Please cite reputable sources to support your wild claims.
I have provided you many references that show it is possible to generate enough renewable energy to power the entire economy. Red Baron has provided references that show it is possible to reduce cfarbon emissions from agriculture.
Moderator Response:[BL] Please try to avoid inflammatory language, so we don't end up in another flame war.
-
nigelj at 12:45 PM on 16 August 2020Why children must emit eight times less CO2 than their grandparents
I think we need to build sustainable systems, and I never said otherwise. But I think sustainable systems are highly unlikely to be sufficient to meet Paris 2050 time frames and so while we build them we also need to look harder at our per capita consumption of various things, and that means having some precise quantitative goals or its just meaningless.
Most climate organisations where I live promote reducing consumption of various things. Im not suggesting the sort of crazy stuff, and self flaggelating stuff M Morre came out with in his planet of the humans movie, but we can do some things. Looks like RB and MS are in fantasy land, or are looking for a free lunch :)
Moderator Response:[BL] Please try to avoid inflammatory language, so we don't end up in another flame war.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 11:45 AM on 16 August 2020Why children must emit eight times less CO2 than their grandparents
Regarding my earlier comments. They are meant to establish an understanding that, of course, is difficult to practically achieve by each person responsibly managing their individual budget (or each person being audited). As nigelj and Red Baron have been presenting Government over-sight and leadership action is required.
The people wealthier than the zero-carbon level of wealth can be monitored and audited individually with the oversight of national audits being performed by an international organization.
The lower levels of wealth would be harder to manage individually. What would make more sense is for nations and each of their regions to be assigned total carbon budgets based on the wealth levels and distribution within each regional population. The total impacts from the region would be monitored. And evaluators would investigate the evidence of measurable efforts to meet the intent of getting better behaviour from the wealthier people. Possible measures include comparing carbon impacts from registered vehicle use and home energy use with level of wealth with significant deterrent penalties for wealthier people if their impacts are higher than less wealthy people (competition to be lower impacting).
Regarding the ways for people to better understand how they can be less harmful and more helpful (in addition to the nigelj and Red Baron discussion on the issue), one simple action is for people to stop any recreational activity that involves fossil fuel use. Another is of course for people to be made aware of the better food options with measures implemented to make the better options less expensive than the currently developed popular and profitable food choices.
A last point is regarding the inter-generational reality of impacts. The lack of responsible corrective actions through the past 30 years has created the much more daunting challenge that the current day global community faces. And it has caused the harmful inequity of what the younger generation will be able to do (and, of course, there is regional inequity due to regions getting wealthy from harmful activity that affects regions that do not benefit).
It may be helpful to have retroactive penalties for wealthier and more influential people who misled and misinformed populations through the past 30 years. As a minimum, richer nations with leadership members who misled about the matter should face retro-active penalties as a deterrent to continuation of that harmful activity.
And penalties could even be considered for people who Optimistically promoted the idea that no corrections of behaviour were required because growing economic wealth with enlightenment would naturally produce the required solution through new technological developments that would be popular and profitable.
Necessity can powerfully drive innovation. And imposing restrictions and corrections that are unpopular, especially ones that are unpopular with the wealthiest, could be a very powerful motivation for helpful sustainable innovation.
-
michael sweet at 10:26 AM on 16 August 2020Why children must emit eight times less CO2 than their grandparents
Red Baron @2,
I was very pleased to see a post from you that I completely agree with!!
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:21 AM on 16 August 2020Why children must emit eight times less CO2 than their grandparents
Clarifying and expanding my comment @4:
Though the shape of the distribution from poorest to richest is open to debate, there must be a constant decline in carbon budget as wealth increases.
Also, the point of zero-carbon budget is debatable, but it probably should not be a higher value than wealth of 100 million Euros. And an additional requirement could be a minimum level of 'truly negative carbon impact' for everyone with wealth higher than the zero point, with the required minimum negative increasing as wealth increases.
Thomas Piketty's recent book "Capital and Ideology" sets out a detailed basis for understanding the harmful propensity for inequity to grow. He also provides brackets for wealth to help clarify the problem of inequity.
Brackets could be 10% groupings of the bottom portion of the population personal wealth (all quite poor so not much difference between the brackets) and then 5% for each wealthier grouping up to 90%, then 1% brackets up to 99% and 0.1% brackets for the remaining wealthiest. That would allow a more limited number of 'Carbon budget' numbers to be applied rather than a painfully rigorous individual evaluation. That would be:
- 5 at 10% each for the poorest (lowest wealth 50%)
- 8 at 5% for the combined lower-mid-upper middle class (40% total)
- 9 at 1% (9% total)
- 10 at 0.1%
The important understanding is that all of the wealthier people need to behave better and be more helpful than the poorer people. Self-governing by individuals to limit selfish temptations would be the best solution. But some individuals will require external governing because of a lack of interest in being helpful (something that a wealthier person cannot logically be excused for compared to a poorer person).
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:09 AM on 16 August 2020Why children must emit eight times less CO2 than their grandparents
A more appropriate way of dividing the carbon budget would be to make it inversely proportional to wealth - allow zero carbon budget for the wealthiest people and give the highest carbon budget to the poorest people.
Of course the shape of the distribution could be debated. But the richest should not get any of the carbon budget. In fact, it could be argued that in addition to having to prove they are worthy of being the richest by setting the examples of how to live truly carbon-neutral, the very richest may also be required to assist the least fortunate develop to sustainable better living, helping to advance them faster so that they do not use up their carbon budget, especially if those richest grew up priviledged because of the carbon causing acquisitions of wealth and pleasue by their families.
That would be difficult, but doing the right thing should be expected to be harder rather than cheaper, easier or quicker.
Also note that this methodology should not be averaged into Nations with National Averages. Such averaging could hide the harmful inequities that could easily exist and be defended by the richest within any nation.
That would require an effective Global monitoring and enforcement system, something that the richest fight viciously against with appeals to Nationalism and the appealing demands for Freedom of Nations and people to do as they please (as long as it pleases the richest).
-
nigelj at 15:47 PM on 15 August 2020Why children must emit eight times less CO2 than their grandparents
Red Baron @2, there are a couple of problems with your ideas. Most places dont have much zero carbon electricity and are unlikely to hit 100% before 2050 Paris Accord time frames. We don't have zero carbon fuels for aircraft, apart from very limited ethanol blends, and may never have at 100% level, and we dont have regenerative agriculture at scale and scaling it will not be quick or easy, and we dont have zero carbon cements, etcetera. So we have to look at how much we reduce our relevant personal consumption, at a point in time. It will vary over time obviously.
Not saying its easy to calculate, and it will vary depending on place and generation systems etcetera, and it cant be punishing, but its possible to calculate. It will have to be an intelligent guesstimate based on what technology can reasonably be expected to solve. Its called reducing your personal carbon footprint. Refer to the IPCC reports for some details and ideas.
And the problems can't all be solved simply by making pain free substitutions. Sometimes its about consuming less. Its not me saying this. Its what we are being told to do by the expert groups. So I dont see how you have rebutted what I said. People need some idea of how much to do, as well as what to do, surely?
And I didnt "propose" any guidelines. I referred to ideas typically promoted by the IPCC and various expert bodies, to illustrate a point. "If" we are to fly less, surely we need guidance on just how much less with some specificity? If you dont like the "guidelines" take it up with those scientific bodies, not me.
-
RedBaron at 13:21 PM on 15 August 2020Why children must emit eight times less CO2 than their grandparents
Nigelj,
What you are saying sounds great, but it is useless. It's not the amout of electricity you use, but rather how that electricity is produced that matters. Use all you need if it is produced by wind or solar.
Same goes for meat and veggies. It's not what you eat, but rather how that food was produced and transported/stored that matters. Local regenerative production of both meat and veggies can be done in a carbon negative manner. If it is, then eat all you want.
Guidelines like you propose assumes we can't actually fix the unsustainable systems that support our societies to sustainable systems. We can, and we must. This is why the changes you have called for are nearly impossible to implement and definately wont reverse AGW.
Carbon budgets are not for individuals. They are a way for policy makers to gage timelines for rebuilding there infrastructure to support sustainable systems.
-
nigelj at 09:02 AM on 15 August 2020Why children must emit eight times less CO2 than their grandparents
So you calculate your carbon budget. Its going to be a very difficult exercise for the average person to take this number and work out the implications for making lifestyle changes. I would wager that virtually nobody is going to do this, let alone get it right. So what is the point of this carbon brief article?
It would be more useful for the experts to give people a lifestyle prescription budget. You actually have to spell out what cars they can drive, what household appliances to own, where they should set thermostats, how many kms they can fly each year, how many grams of meat per day is acceptabale, etcetera. Obviously it would be for some mythical average person but it creates a starting point, and individuals can adjust things.
Just saying fly less, eat less meat and eat more greens doesn't mean a lot. You have to get precise and quantitative. Otherwise most of the population will have no idea what's really expected of them.
-
Eclectic at 18:25 PM on 14 August 2020Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air
Daveburton @17 , the Moderators at SkS are typically rather sparing in "striking out or striking through" plain nonsense (such as your CO2 comment in #10 ).
Alas, the Moderators at WUWT are even more sparing : have a look at the comments columns at WUWT ~ where 80 or 90% of comments would get the chop, if moderation were applied by the criterion of common sense.
Dave, you have misunderstood the Moderator's response at #10 . He was not asking for a Gish Gallop. Implicit was the request (in accordance with the Modus Operandi here at SkS ) that you select the individual topics where you think the mainstream science is faulty or tied to poorly-pragmatic conclusions. (And contrary to your "models" comment, the pragmatic conclusions are based on ordinary physics & common sense ~ reinforced by the paleo evidence. None of this "61 floors and okay so far" business. The "models" projections/estimations may or may not give further insights into the climate processes & possibilities . . . but the models are definitely not the foundation of climate science. )
So, please select one individual topic which you believe is "wronged" ~ and discuss that one in the most appropriate thread here at SkS. And when that topic has been suitably discussed/resolved . . . then select your No. 2 choice, and find the right thread for that. And so on.
Good luck. (But it seems you are unaware of the sensitivity of maize yield, to heat waves.) And you may be in danger of becoming a skeptic (and thus with little chance of "life" on the WUWT blogsite.)
-
daveburton at 16:20 PM on 14 August 2020Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air
Eclectic, I agree that it's drifting from the core topic, into a discussion of the key assumption behind the core topic, but the Mod asked me for it, so I obliged.
What do you imagine resembles "cherry-picking" in my response to him? I tried to avoid anything which could be considered cherry-picking.
I showed him the highest and lowest temperature indexes. I showed him the effects of eCO2 on the most important C3 and C4 crops. I showed him the best sea-level measurement record in the biggest ocean, which has a very typical trend. I showed him both hurricanes and tornadoes. Etc, etc. What do you think I omitted?
He asked a very broad question. He asked me to provide "creditable evidence, preferably peer-reviewed publication" in support of my contention that rising CO2 levels aren't a problem.
To thoroughly answer that would require a full cost-benefit analysis!
That's obviously not doable here. But even to quantitatively address the question of whether or not rising CO2 levels are a problem requires an examination of both costs and benefits. So I touched on all the major supposed costs, and also on the major benefits. I tried to answer his question, as best I could, without writing a whole book, and while providing credible references for every claim, as he requested.
I relied on measured evidence, rather than speculative studies based on models, because, in science, measurements are much, much stronger evidence than modeling. Computer model outputs are just calculations: at their best representing the consequences of robust hypothesis, at their worst representing bugs — and usually, actually, somewhere in-between.Moderator Response:[DB] Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts, Gish Gallops or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.
Off-topic snipped; the Gish Gallop comment was removed. -
Eclectic at 15:39 PM on 14 August 2020Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air
Very entertaining, Daveburton @14. It's exactly why I enjoy viewing the Motivated Reasoning gymnastics by the regulars at WUWT.
Especially your bit where: "we've raised atmospheric CO2 levels for 61 consecutive years". Reminds me of the old joke about the optimist who fell off the top of the Empire State Building . . . "61 floors and okay so far". (I am sure you've heard something like it.)
Such cherry-picking. (I note cherries are always in season at WUWT.) Though you haven't yet played your ultimate argument ~ the Conspiracy of all the world's scientists, and their faked data. And all that faked paleo data, too.
But you will probably get around to your penultimate argument :- "Forest . . . what forest?"
Still, Dave, this is all a tad off-topic for this particular thread. Find one of the old threads for this old stuff. (And why are you coming out with such old stuff . . . right now? Is it a sign that a seed of genuine skeptical doubt is starting to germinate in your brain? Beware !! )
-
daveburton at 15:34 PM on 14 August 2020Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air
Correction:
I wrote:
"So, the 0.4 to 0.9 °C of warming (associated with six decades of CO2 level increase) caused, on average, only about a 20 to 68 km growing zone shift (12 - 42 miles)."
That's wrong. It should have been:
"So, the 0.4 to 0.9 °C of warming (associated with six decades of CO2 level increase) caused, on average, only about a 40 to 135 km growing zone shift (24 - 84 miles)."
Sorry! -
daveburton at 14:27 PM on 14 August 2020Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air
I said that rising CO2 levels aren't a problem, and Mod struck it out and wrote, "If you want to make assertions, then you back them with creditable evidence, preferably peer-reviewed publication."
I'm surprised that you want me to do that, Mod, but I'm happy to oblige.
Since you requested it, I hope you won't just delete it.
Moderator Response:[BL]
(Off-topic Gish Gallop deleted)
You are not new to Skeptical Science, although you have not posted here for a while.
Challenging you to provide references for a claim is not an invitation to ignore the Comments policy, which states that comments need to be on-topic. Should you wish to post your comments on appropriate threads, please use the Search tool to find one (or more).
-
Eclectic at 11:24 AM on 14 August 2020Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air
Bob Loblaw @12 ,
your criticism is a bit harsh . . . but fair ! Daveburton's "No problem with CO2" was the sort of statement that belongs in the pseudo-science commentary found at WattsUpWithThat blogsite.
Don't get me wrong : as a semi-regular reader at WUWT , I do see occasional bits of real science in the comments columns there (most notably by the excellently-scientific Nick Stokes) ~ but most of the comments are crazy-extremist political stuff mixed with fruitcake anti-science. Still, it's kind of entertaining : especially the utter nonsense there coming from Mr Monckton or the half-nonsense coming from Mr May et alia.
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:17 AM on 14 August 2020Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air
"...and even if rising CO2 levels were a problem (they aren't)..."
What a broad, sweeping, unjustified and incorrect statement.
-
Eclectic at 10:16 AM on 14 August 2020Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air
Quite right, Daveburton. Producing/distributing rock dust sounds a very inefficient method of reducing the CO2 problem, at least with present technology.
Perhaps by 2100 the technology of renewable energy will be advanced enough to do it properly ~ but I'm figuring by then it would just be a part of a larger purpose of agricultural soil development. Even so, it would be only one component of the overall effort to get CO2 down to a sensible 350ppm.
-
daveburton at 08:25 AM on 14 August 2020Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air
"Treating about half of farmland could capture 2bn tonnes of CO2 each year" — that's only about 5% of current anthropogenic emissions.
Plus, strip-mining basalt, grinding it to dust, trucking it to the hinterlands, and spreading it on fields, all would require the use of fossil fuels, which would release CO2.
Even if those additional CO2 releases would be less than the CO2 removed from the atmosphere (which is unclear), and even if rising CO2 levels were a problem (they aren't), this proposal would not be a solution.Moderator Response:[PS] Blatant sloganeering. A reminder (again) of the comment policy operating on this site. If you want to make assertions, then you back them with creditable evidence, preferably peer-reviewed publication.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:16 AM on 14 August 2020Book review: Bad science and bad arguments abound in 'Apocalypse Never' by Michael Shellenberger
postkey @10,
Indeed that is an example. The other references I listed provide more details to help better understand why and how that harmful unsustainable result develops, not just in the USA.
-
Postkey at 18:38 PM on 13 August 2020Book review: Bad science and bad arguments abound in 'Apocalypse Never' by Michael Shellenberger
"The best that can be done is to develop and present what appears to be the best explanations of what can be observed to be going on . . . "
Like this?
“Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism. “
www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S1537592714001595
Prev 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 Next
