Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 Next
Comments 7451 to 7500:
-
Prometheus 1962 at 21:59 PM on 2 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
"the film presents one biased perspective via carefully chosen voices, virtually all of whom are comfortable white men."
I agree with almost all of the article's points, but why the need for this ad hominem? Many advocates of green energy are "comfortable white men" too. Does that mean they're not trustworthy either? Of course not! All this comment does is cast doubt on the rest of the article, making me want to re-read it in case the writer threw in some other fallacy that I might have missed.
Just avoid sophistry, stick to the facts, and we're all better-off.
-
Eclectic at 21:55 PM on 2 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
Gwsb @3 :-
<" ... by power plants using natural gas the amount of CO2 released for generating electricity is reduced by more than 50%. Isn't that great? ">
Okay . . . and then what?
Gwsb, I'm not sure how much irony you're using.
Let's have a look at an analogy :-
~ Instead of a daily beating, you now only beat your wife three days a week. Isn't that great?
Irony, or ironical sarcasm?
-
GwsB at 21:18 PM on 2 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
Both Michael Moore and the environmentalists seem to believe that one should use pictures and cherries to convince as many people as possible. Michael Moore is quite good at that. So he forces environmentalists to defend their position and to use arguments. That is fair isn't it. So where are the real convincing arguments?
Let me give an example: In 2018 natural gas accounted for more kWh of electricity in the US than did coal, but it released less than half the amount of CO2. See https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11 By replacing all coal fired power plants by power plants using natural gas the amount of CO2 released for generating electricity is reduced by more than 50%. Isn't that great?
-
nigelj at 09:06 AM on 2 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
"The film suggests that because no source of energy is perfect, all are bad, thus implying that the very existence of human civilization is the problem while offering little in the way of alternative solutions."
Exactly. I suspect this is all because the films producers clearly hate industrial society, and capitalism and allegedly horrible billionaires that 'profit' from renewables. But it makes no sense to start criticising renewables, because capitalists will keep on building more fossil fuels and profiting from that. Moore and Gibs have shot themselves in their own feet in spectacular fashion.
Sure we need to improve capitalism, or find an alternative, but that is no easy task and will take time, so can't be a precondition to solving the climate problem.
-
abostrom at 08:41 AM on 2 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
How disappointing that Moore could be so careless. Nuff said by me.
-
nigelj at 08:00 AM on 2 May 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Pete @22
I like to think I'm a realist. Mitigating climate change obviously wont be easy.
I agree to the extent we should use the earths resources as sparingly as possible, and minimise waste and we should accept gdp growth cannot continue forever. But I wont be adopting a very basic hair shirt lifestyle either. It doesn't make sense to me because this sort of low tech self flaggelation approach causes problems, and only delays the point where future generations run short of some things, so I support building renewable energy.
-
Pete19387 at 02:43 AM on 2 May 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Thanks nigelj and Eclectic for the good points.
nigelj, you appear to be an optimist. Perhaps I’m a pessimist, but I think I’m a realist.
It may theoretically be possible to totally transform our energy systems in the next 30 years but, for the most part, society doesn’t even see the need, let alone the urgency to do so. My point, and I think the major point of the film, is that there is this magical thinking that by simply switching to renewable energy sources we can continue to grow, consume, and carry on as we always have. It’s a soothing message—and one many of the major green groups have bought into—that all we need is a little relatively-painless tinkering with the technology. (I have been a supporter of, and volunteer with, numerous environmental and conservation groups over the years, and I continue to be involved. These days I mostly donate to groups that don’t have charitable status and thus are free to critique and criticize society's sacred cows.)
As critical as the climate change issue is, I would argue that we have even more immediate and pressing issues including the loss of biodiversity, the degradation of soils and farm lands, and the contamination and loss of fresh water. I am concerned about the unintended consequences of another mad dash for resources like lithium and rare-earth metals to feed our latest technological lurch. (Are there even enough of these relatively rare resources to feed our insatiable appetite?)
Having said that, I’ll 100% agree that renewable sources are better than fossil fuels, and that more renewable sources are better than fewer. My main concern is that society is not even having the conversation about the tradeoffs involved. Rather, the assumption is that we can just engineer our way out the trouble we’re in and carry on as if nothing has changed. But what if the engineering and tinkering are wholly inadequate? Should we continue down this unsustainable path? Who gains and who loses by the choices we are making? Society should be having a conscious conversation about where we’re going. Right now, we’re on autopilot.
To answer your question nigelj, I quite like technology and industry. I have a STEM background, and I’m fascinated and impressed by our cleverness and technology. I like driving my car, using the latest gadgets, flying all over the world on vacation, having fresh food all winter long, and getting wine shipped in from literally the other side of the world. But I’m also cognizant of the dangers, costs, and unsustainably of this way of life, and I’m trying to reduce my impact. I’m also a passionate lover of wildlife, and remote and wild places, and I feel heartsick to see the wild disappearing before my eyes. (As Steve McQueen is reported to have said, “I’d rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on earth.”)
I’ve always said that our two biggest “environmental” problems are organized religion (humans are “special” and superior to the rest of “creation”), and capitalism (infinite growth in a finite world).
-
Prometheus 1962 at 23:34 PM on 1 May 2020A leading scientist's transition from climate science to solutions
The idea that renting a compact car rather than a midsize or SUV is a "solution" is complete nonsense, as is making an individual commitment to green energy.
We need to be dismantling fossil fuel industries, not using them slightly less.
If this is an example of the scientific community's "solutions" we are in far worse trouble than I thought.
-
Bob Loblaw at 22:47 PM on 1 May 2020DMI show cooling Arctic
An, no Frank, melting ice does not cool the environment. No, melting ice does not cool water - unless you are adding ice to warmer water. In such a case (warm water + ice), the water will cool to zero in proportion to the amount of ice that melts (energy equivalence), and then the ice/water mix will remain at 0C. The ice.water proportions will then change depending on whether you are adding or removing energy from the mix.
In the natural environment, during the melt period, the ice/water mix is already at 0C, and adding energy causes the ice to turn to water - all at 0C. Once the ice melts, continued additions of energy will then warm the water.
...and during that period, knowing temperature is useful. In fact, it can tell you a lot about whether there is ice/snow or water or a mix.
You should seriously sit back and ponder the possibilty that people who have been studying these things for centuries actually might know a few things that you do not know.
-
Bob Loblaw at 22:37 PM on 1 May 2020Models are unreliable
Frank:
Short answer is "yes". It takes energy to melt ice. It takes energy to evaporate water. Freezing and condensation involve the opposite energy conversion. Subllimation (solid-->gas or gas-->solid) is also considered.
All of this is part of the conservation of energy, which is incorporated into the models.
Your statement "...because it's below zero and thus not part of the fusion water/ice at 0 C" makes no sense, Perhaps you can clarify.
-
MA Rodger at 21:47 PM on 1 May 2020Antarctica is gaining ice
Smith et al (2020) 'Pervasive ice sheet mass loss reflects competing ocean and atmosphere processes' compares ICESat data from 2003-2009 with ICESat-2 data from 2018-19 and provides more detail than GRACE 2002-16 but effectively the same conclusion - average Antarctic ice loss - GRACE - 125Gt/year. ICESat-2/ICESat - 118Gt/year.
-
michael sweet at 21:05 PM on 1 May 2020Skeptical Science New Research for Week #17, 2020
The BBC interviews Antonio Guteres, the head of the UN about Covid 19. At the end he says we need to learn from the virus experience and use what we learn to respond to the challenge of climate change.
I thought it was important that climate change action was so strongly supported.
-
Eclectic at 16:40 PM on 1 May 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Pete @19 , yes self-evidently it is a fantasy if we expect to continue our "default" policy of ever-increasing economic growth without limits. And based on profligate use of resources. At some point we must transition to aiming for "quality growth" rather than dollar growth.
But in the near future i.e. this century , we must solve the global warming problem first ~ and as explained earlier, we cannot (politically) solve overpopulation as a pre-condition, because there just isn't time to do that. Nor is it politically possible to go ultra low-tech lifestyle.
Renewables - solar and wind - are our only practical method. Nuclear fission is too expensive & too slow to build (for more than a tiny fraction of the power generation needed). Likewise with the still-over-the-horizon fusion powerplants.
30 years is a long time, but present-day-tech renewables can do the job by 2050 or thereabouts. But what is needed, is a Manhattan-type Project to develop synthetic hydrocarbon fuels (organic base ~ not alcohol, but long-chain hydrocarbons) for ships / planes / heavy vehicles). 30 years should be adequate for all this.
You are right, that there is not yet sufficient urgency in tackling our major problems. History points to the probability that we will continue to dawdle . . . and then desperately ramp-up our efforts later in the day.
-
nigelj at 16:18 PM on 1 May 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Pete @19
"There is NO way that renewables (or nuclear) can scale up to the required level in the time frame we have to eliminate the use of fossil fuels. "
You haven't explained why. You have just made emotive assertions. I will explain in simple terms why we can!
Firstly the Stern Report estimates converting to renewables will cost about 3% of global economic output per year between now and 2050, and other reports estimate roughly the same. This is comparable to what countries typically spend on the military or old age pension per year, therefore its obvious we can find that sort of money with a little bit of repriortising of spending.
Now look at how quickly countries changed and reprioritised industrial production during WW2, in just 5 years, away from things like building construction to armaments and scaled up armaments. So its obvious renewables could scale if we wanted (and some nuclear power, if that is wanted). We wont do it by 2050, but we could get close enough to make a big difference to climate outcomes.
I think the thing standing in the way is ignorance, politics, and lack of motivation, and a focus on other spending, but there is at least a chance those thing can change and some signs they are in some places.
"(Not to mention that renewables generally add to, rather than replace, existing energy sources.)
That is simply not the case. For example the UK has replaced an awful lot of coal production with wind power. And you are confusing a lack of sufficient progress in some places with what is possible if we want.
"In a way, the promotion of renewables is a scam which lets society continue to ignore the problems of overpopulation, economic "growth", and excessive resource use for a little while longer. "
I disagree. You really need to read the comments made by other people before you post your own. Population growth has not been ignored. Its been slowing since the 1970s, and many countries have policies encouraging lower rates of population growth. But there are limits on what such policies can achieve and how quickly rates will fall. They are not a panacea.
Yes high rates of economic growth are unsustainable long term, but rates of economic growth are falling anyway. Do - the-research.
You also seem oblivious of the enormous difficulties in persuading people to make huge reductions in their use of energy and technology. I would suggest its going to be even more difficult doing that than persuading people to build renewable energy, and I'm not persuaded that huge reductions to use of energy and technology etcetera even make sense. They certainly have unpleasant consequences that must be weighed against the climate problem.
Our only hope appears to be a combination of both renewable energy and more realistically achieveable reductions in energy use.
The movie is politically motivated and I'm willing to bet you are as well. You probably dont like the capitalist system, rich people, and 'industrial' society. Is that a correct guess? Hell, neither do I in some ways, but the alternatives are even worse.
-
Pete19387 at 14:20 PM on 1 May 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
I watched this film and was prepared to dismiss it, but it had much of importance to say. (I was a little disappointed by the skewering of Bill McKibben, but that's another story.)
I don't actually think the film was a criticism of renewable energy in general, and it certainly wasn't an endorsement of fossil fuels.
Rather, it was a realistic appraisal of the problem we face. There is NO way that renewables (or nuclear) can scale up to the required level in the time frame we have to eliminate the use of fossil fuels. (Not to mention that renewables generally add to, rather than replace, existing energy sources.) It is a fantasy to expect that we can continue our way of life by replacing fossil fuels with renewables. The simple truth is that we are between a rock and a hard place. In a way, the promotion of renewables is a scam which lets society continue to ignore the problems of overpopulation, economic "growth", and excessive resource use for a little while longer. One way or the other, we are either going to have to make unpleasant and dramatic changes to our way of life, or nature will make those choices for us. I'm not optimistic about our ability to make those changes.
-
John Hartz at 12:57 PM on 1 May 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Two more excellent critiques of the film...
Michael Moore produced a film about climate change that’s a gift to Big Oil by Leah C Stokes, Energy & Environment, Vox, Apr 28, 2020
Inside Clean Energy: 6 Things Michael Moore’s ‘Planet of the Humans’ Gets Wrong by Dan Gerino, InsideClimate News, Apr 30, 2020
-
Frank19385 at 06:04 AM on 1 May 2020DMI show cooling Arctic
Please, stop measuring temperatures during the melt season! It's hidden, because it's latent heat . And the more ice melts the cooler the environment will be. Every kilo of melted ice cools 80 liter water with 1 degree C.
-
Frank19385 at 05:46 AM on 1 May 2020Models are unreliable
I want to know if the climate models take the latent heat of melting ice into account ? Now the temperature in 80 N area is moderated at 0 C in the summer. (see 80 N graph of DMI) If all ice has gone the temperature will increase very fast. Because it looks like the models are interpolating the observed temperatures , they do not see the latent heat of 334 KJ/kg of melting ice. This amount of energy will be replaced by sensibile heat of water 4,18 KJ/kg.K. Also the specific heat of water is almost twice the specific heat of ice 2.108 kJ/kg.K This also explains why the Arctic Amplification only happens from October tot April, because it's below zero and thus not part of the fusion water/ice at 0 C. I read in many papers that AA is not well understood. But I'm sure this is the main cause; It's the specific heat of ice in the Arctic compared with specific heat of water in the rest of the world.
-
michael sweet at 04:56 AM on 1 May 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Jef@10:
There are hundreds of papers describing All Power renewable systems. You are sim[ply uninformed. Here are two: Jacobson 2018 and Smart Energy Europe 2016. Use GOOGLE Scholar to obtain the papers that cite these two papers and you will find much more than you want to read on All Power renewable systems.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:12 PM on 30 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
It is disappointing to see something so obviously contrary to "expanded awareness and improved understanding applied to help achieve a sustainable and improvable future for humanity" be so popular in supposedly more advanced nations.
But I am used to seeing opposition to achieving and improving the Sustainable Development Goals be "Very Popular", especially among the populations of the supposedly more advanced nations.
Any nation that has a significant portion of its population easily impressed by something like this movie is obviously not very advanced, in spite of its developed impressions of advancement and superiority.
Any nation where harmful misleading story-telling can be popular enough to be influential, and is not clearly reducing the ability for harmful misleading story-telling to be influential, is failing to protect itself from being taken over by people who want to rule by Tyranny (Not an extremist claim or hyperbolic. This is a serious problem).
-
nigelj at 07:55 AM on 30 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
jef @10
"All criticism of POTH fails to give hard current facts "
Not by my observation. The link I posted included several facts. Jef has to show in detail why you think its wrong, only then will people listen.
"Advocates for a renewable do not talk about after switching over electrical generation, a monumental task that insures we use up most of the afordable FFs, then we will also electricify all the work that FFs do for us more than doubling the amount of "renewable energy" needed, putting it into dream land. "
Not correct. While converting to renewables is indeed a big task, its technically and economically feasible according to numerous studies that you have not even attempted to refute.
Renewables are inevitable because sooner or later we will run out of fossil fuels. Peak oil and peak coal on wikipedia review the academic estimates and suggest we will run out in 100 - 150 years globally. Its expected that the coal rich USA will run out of economically recoverable coal in just 50 years. So renewables are inevitable, and possibly nuclear power to some extent in some places. That's another argument. The point is we need a new and clean energy grid.
"Every open area will need to be covered in solar, wind, biomass production, and every drop of FFs will be used to accomplish it, and used very rapidly due to the urgency."
No, if a country like the USA was entirely powered by solar farms it would cover less than 0.5% of the land area. Here are some credible calculations and graphics.
"With the global shutdown it is clear that we can cut all energy use in half instantly and cut further as we get smarter about it."
No it is not clear. There has been no significant change in electricity generation. There is less traffic on the roads and less air travel, but only because people are in lockdown and factories have closed. You cannot keep that up for long without severe shortages emerging. Refer to the second link I posted.
The lockdown does not prove we can reduce energy use in a dramatic and long lasting way. It does suggest that we can reduce some energy use, eg more working from home. This might remain after lockdowns are lifted, time will tell.
I do agree with Jef to the extent we must aim to reduce our energy use, but we have to be realistic about expectations. People are unlikely to be prepared to go cold in winter etc, or face supply shortages of consumer goods we take for granted these days. But people clearly are buying more energy efficient appliances, insulating homes, and some are flying a bit less and buying smaller cars. There are some realistic things we can do to be encouraged, but others look like wishful thinking to me.
"If people around the world were told the truth and understand that AGW is not a belief system that you get to believe in or not, then they would make the choice themselves to not have babies or fewer babies which would stop population growth instantly."
Yes, but it still would only have very limited benefit in terms of meeting the Paris Accord goals, because it takes time for the demographics to change as eclectic points out.
More realistic median estimates are population reaching about 10 billion by around the end of this century then slowly falling. Realistic policies might improve this a bit to maybe 9 billion people and falling more sharply. This would obviously help stop warming getting up around 5 degrees but it wont stop us getting to 2 degrees at least. And less people might consume more of the available energy and materials, in one big extravagant party, so we are reliant on some way of discouraging that.
-
william5331 at 06:43 AM on 30 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
With respect to population reduction, it is happening whether we like it or not. There is just a wee overshoot because of the youth demographic of some countries but in many many countries the birth rate is below the replacement rate of 2.1. Read The Empty Planet by Bricker. No need to do anything. Just educate women and even this is not necessary. Just give them affordable (read free in some cases) contraception and they will do the rest. https://mtkass.blogspot.com/2009/02/malthus-pyramid-schemes-starvation-and.html
-
SirCharles at 03:46 AM on 30 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Solar and Wind Cheapest Sources of Power in Most of the World
Solar and onshore wind power are now the cheapest new sources of electricity in at least two-thirds of the world’s population, further threatening the two fossil-fuel stalwarts — coal and natural gas.
The levelized cost of electricity for onshore wind projects has fallen 9% to $44 a megawatt-hour since the second half of last year. Solar declined 4% to $50 a megawatt-hour, according to a report Tuesday by BloombergNEF.
The prices are even lower in countries including the U.S., China and Brazil. Equipment costs have come down, technologies have improved and governments across the world have boosted clean-power targets as they seek to combat climate change. That could squeeze out coal and natural gas when utilities develop new power plants. ...
-
dana1981 at 02:17 AM on 30 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
jef @ 10 - sorry, nothing you said there makes any sense or bears any resemblance to reality.
Note that I'll also have a piece debunking this film in the next week or two.
-
Justino Rodrigues at 01:26 AM on 30 April 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
It seems that this discussion have derrailed a bit. I was able to read almost everything. I decided to join the discussion because very recently I done a compreensive research about this subject. In the end, I have made a article, where I conclude that the position for nuclear energy is not the best, comparatively to renewable technologies.
- Renewable technologies already have the technical potential to supply all primary energy demand, while nuclear energy is still dependent on important technological advancements. Fusion power is also a promising technology, but its technical feasibility was not demonstrated yet.- Nuclear energy is relatively clean and has less land requirements, but its waste management continues to be an expensive and potentially dangerous problem waiting for a definitive solution.
-Nuclear energy is becoming less competitive relatively to renewable technologies (specially wind and solar power) in terms of levelized costs of energy. Moreover, the costs associated to the management of the nuclear waste tend to increase over time, and the decommission costs of a nuclear power plant remain difficult to evaluate.
-Nuclear energy is a relatively safe technology, presenting one of the lowest fatality rates, even considering the nuclear accidents in Chernobyl and Fukushima. However, its potential for catastrophic events is considerable and have a high psychological effect on people’s mind.
-A set of technological developments are taking place which would enable renewable technologies to provide satisfactory stability levels to the electric power system in the future, allowing thus the dismissal of nuclear power plants from that role.
I will not post here all the references I have consulted since it would be messy. Instead, you can read my article. If there any particular subject anyone wants to discuss, I will be glad to do so.
Here is the link.
Thanks to allModerator Response:[PS] Good to see an article with a comprehensive list of sources at the bottom.
-
SirCharles at 00:45 AM on 30 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Can the world run on renewables? Yes, Stanford researchers say.
Additional reporting here => Renewable Energy Could Power the World by 2050
=> 3 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
-
jef12506 at 23:53 PM on 29 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
All criticism of POTH fails to give hard current facts to refute the claims in the documentary they mostly denegrate the makers.
"Renewables" are not! After electriity generation FFs perform 80% of all work around the world. An enormous amount of work.
Advocates for a renewable do not talk about after switching over electrical generation, a monumental task that insures we use up most of the afordable FFs, then we will also electricify all the work that FFs do for us more than doubling the amount of "renewable energy" needed, putting it into dream land. Every open area will need to be covered in solar, wind, biomass production, and every drop of FFs will be used to accomplish it, and used very rapidly due to the urgency.
With the global shutdown it is clear that we can cut all energy use in half instantly and cut further as we get smarter about it.
If people around the world were told the truth and understand that AGW is not a belief system that you get to believe in or not, then they would make the choice themselves to not have babies or fewer babies which would stop population growth instantly.
The promis of a "renewable" future is lie causing way more harm than good.
Moderator Response:[DB] As was the case with your previous comment, nebulous assertions and dismissive, hand-waving claims lacking specific examples are sloganeering and are generally unhelpful to this discussion. For example, read here and here to see specifics that run counter to your claims.
-
GwsB at 23:17 PM on 29 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
The guest author, Ketan Joshi, has a beautiful site, https://ketanjoshi.co/2020/04/24/planet-of-the-humans-a-reheated-mess-of-lazy-old-myths/ It is a pleasure to visit that site and to read the comments.
Moderator Response:[DB] Hyperlinked URL.
-
Eclectic at 22:43 PM on 29 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Wol, as you are doubtless aware, the global desirable goal is zero nett carbon emission by about 2050. Technically, it is likely achievable in a practical sense ~ but political inertia will probably make us overshoot that date (judging by how things are running at present ! )
In comparison, have a look at the projected world population curve if by 2030 the human fertility rate drops to about 1.4 (present day examples : Italy, Japan). Or achieves that 1.4 fertility rate by 2050 . . . or 2070. Unfortunately , those scenarios are extremely unlikely to happen within the next half-century.
Africa & other poverty-stricken regions will not reach a low reproduction rate until they have a large increase in education levels for women, combined with increased wealth (and social security for old age). This seems to be the lesson of history.
Even with a 1.4 rate, miraculously, in the near future ~ the world population would stay high throughout this century [2020-2100]. So without the techological "fix" for carbon emissions, there cannot be a cure for the global warming problem.
If you notice today's amount of heel-dragging & push-back on CO2 emissions, then you might like to imagine the future outrage coming from the political and/or religious firebrands protesting about any suggestion of population limitation as direct governmental policy.
In short, we might achieve timely carbon emission control ~ but (wars and plagues aside) there is zero chance we can do that by population control. Fixing excess resources consumption, ecological pollution, overpopulation etc . . . are all problems which will mostly have to wait until we fix the basic climate/AGW problem.
-
SirCharles at 21:57 PM on 29 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
@6 Wol
"It's only a few years since the UN estimate was a peak of 9Bn. Then in the last year or two, 10Bn."
Source?
-
MA Rodger at 21:24 PM on 29 April 2020Milankovitch Cycles
mkrichew @60,
Briefly as we are off-topic, regarding CO2 at altitude, it is effecively well mixed up to 50,000km, the scatter measured at low altitude being simply local influence and more generally the annual CO2 cycle.
What I would add is that the ability of CO2 to "capture the suns rays," something you suggest is significant @56, is very small. Of the absorption bands of CO2, only the 2.9 micron band operates within the wavelength of solar radiation and that at the very tag end of the insolation's frequency distribution.
-
Wol at 20:38 PM on 29 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Sir Charles @ 5:
>>The UN estimate a peak by the end of this century with a global population of about 11 billion people.<<
It's only a few years since the UN estimate was a peak of 9Bn. Then in the last year or two, 10Bn. So now 11Bn?
There may be many problems with this film, but its comments on population are correct. Just because there's the same taboo on even mentioning overpopulation as there is on criticising religion doesn't mean it's not THE centre of the problem.
Every living part of the ecosystem competes in a Darwinian fight to increase its share, until it overblows itself and suffers a partial or complete die-off. Humanity is different, because we have been clever enough (Ha!) to mostly eliminate the usual causes of such die-offs.
We probably need at least two earths for sustainable existence: it's well pat time to accept that unless and until the human load on the planet comes down to something that can be sustained the future isn't sunny. Eating fewer livestock, wearing vegan sandals and switching off the odd light is pointless when there are another three of us every second to feed, grow up, house etc.
-
SirCharles at 19:33 PM on 29 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Population growth nowadays is mainly driven by the fact that humans are getting healthier and much older than in the past. Fertility rate is declining since the 1960s and has now halved. The UN estimate a peak by the end of this century with a global population of about 11 billion people.
-
SirCharles at 19:30 PM on 29 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Adding up to the articles posted above:
https://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/films-for-actions-statement-on-planet-of-the-humans/
Last not least, Zeke Hausfather:
-
Jan Mazuch at 16:50 PM on 29 April 2020CO2 was higher in the past
Dear all,
Life was built here during bilions of years. To preserve life for Human we need specific enviroment /forest+fields + rivers + clean water and air for health/. Increasing temperature and changed water distributions is threat for this human positive enviroment. find Reason for negative trend is not highest need , Highest need is to keep human friendly enviroment.
Like:
Plant a trees
Built artificial lakes and water dam.
Avoid water and air pollutions.
Do not concentrate populations to cities only.
Do we need fear as only motivations to do this ?
-
mkrichew at 15:57 PM on 29 April 2020Milankovitch Cycles
To the moderator:
Thank you once again for providing the graphs of CO2 concentration verses altitude.
1. In answer to your implied query in 1/ above concerning the existance of the Milankovitch cycles. I believe they exist, although I have not read his paper. I am taking your word and explanation as well as the one in Wikipedia.
What I was questioning and am continuing to look into was the forcing at the onset of deglaciation. John Cook's article in this URL "Why does CO2 lag Temperature?" has given me food for thought in the area of the speed of onset and fast temperature rise.
2. I have not looked into the math done to get the curves shown concerning your comment 2/.
3. Your comment 3/. I have read 5 W/m2 and 50 W/m2 as the intensity changes. I will see if I get interested enough to do the math.
4. Your comment 4/. I had read somewhere that the cycles timing did not match physical evidence of timing of ice ages. However, this may have been in reference to the obliquity cycle and not the eccentricity cycle. I can't remember, I think it was ten years ago when I read this.
Thanks once again.
-
ubrew12 at 11:13 AM on 29 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Population control (to not have children) is a kind of 'ultimate' individual action. But will it necessarily bring down CO2 emissions? In the coronavirus pandemic, we are witnessing a test of whether 'individual action' can really make a difference in CO2 emissions. People are taking extreme actions to avoid general contagion. As a result, the air over most cities hasn't been this clean in decades. Yet all this sacrifice is estimated to only decrease carbon emissions by about 5%. Peter Sinclair has an article on this issue, and its worth thinking about.
This begs the question: If we halve the population, would the remaining people just burn twice as much coal (not directly, but in pursuit of more and better lives)?
I should also note, most of us don't 'hate' fossil fuel. We don't like the industry paying to foist a lie upon the public and decisionmakers, preventing its true cost from being calculated. If wind power has problems it admits to, that is not a scandal. The scandal only occurs if it doesn't admit to them. I haven't seen 'planet of humans', but I suspect it is pointing to issues renewable power already admits to, and is actively working to improve, so where is the scandal?
-
shoyemore at 06:43 AM on 29 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
The "Great Global Swindle" of 2020, if anyone remembers that piece of cr*p.
-
Lawrence Tenkman at 04:02 AM on 29 April 2020IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
Zeph,
I love your analogy (from a decade ago). The double standard you mention seems quite irrational. Why must changing our course require such an asymmetric burden of proof (free of any miniscule imperfection), while those who argue not to alter course have no such burden? Well, those asking us to “change course” move to take away our status quo and make us do "something extra"... very inconvenient, right? All burden is on them.
Your analogy shows us: neither decision is “something extra”… both “changing course” (reacting to data) and “continuing course” (not reacting to data) are decisions. A worse inconvenience (loss of time / money / life) could be present in either action. Passengers don’t want to experience delay (or sinking!) unnecessarily. Ideally, the next step isn’t based on matching the prior step, but instead is guided by the best data, which becomes stronger over time.
To this end, the captain sends 100 wood specialists down to evaluate. Ninety-seven return saying the rotten wood is starting to leak, present innumerable impressive data sets demonstrating risk of accelerated leaking & sinking, and recommend repair. Ship owners, not wanting idle vessels, argue it isn’t absolutely proven that the ship would sink, and point to 3 of the 100 specialists who found some imperfections in the models. Owners influence the captain to push the boat further out to sea, and taut to passengers how much inconvenience they are preventing.
Of course, the specialists wanting to repair the ship aren’t causing the major inconvenience… the data (rotten wood) is doing this. It makes no sense to put the burden of proof asymmetrically on those wanting to repair the ship. After all, it seems some owners won’t be convinced until the ship is partially submerged, which of course then is too late.
-
Jim Hunt at 01:45 AM on 29 April 2020Coronavirus conspiracy theories are dangerous – here’s how to stop them spreading
My own interest at present concerns the rather more subtle activities of the various flavours of mainstream media here in the once Great Britain.
Here's a pot pourri of the messages the Independent, Times and Telegraph are endeavouring to impart in the wake of Boris Johnson's return to Downing Street yesterday:
http://CoV-eHealth.org/2020/04/27/boris-johnson-returns-to-work/
Which version of this Covid-19 “story” do you prefer to believe?
How might one go about inoculating the readers of the once Great British broadsheets against the prejudices of their own particular "echo chamber"? -
nigelj at 17:59 PM on 28 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
The following is another fact check on the so called documentary. Fact check: New Michael Moore-backed documentary full of errors, fundamentally misunderstands electric system.
The criticisms of renewables are clearly dated and wrong and an awful lot of cherrypicking is going on, one of the logical fallacies usually used by climate denialists. For example picking the worst and oldest wind farm they could find.
That said, renewables do need plenty of storage and it would be foolish to claim they are perfect. But nothing is perfect. Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good (a quote from Voltaire)
But the article doesn't drill down adequately into the origins of this absurd attack on renewables. There are apparently some comments in the movie and by M Moore that strongly associate renewables with billionarie capitalists who are seen as a problem, so the attack on renewables looks politically motivated. Nothing wrong with scepticism about billionaire capitalists, but this is an example of scepticism going off the rails into the twilight zone because its not clear why some product or service is inherently bad or should be rejected, just because its a product of capitalism.
The alternative suggested is to keep burning fossil fuels and instead aim to reduce population growth and use hugely less energy. Now there is no doubt getting population growth down should be a part of climate mitigation because it reduces energy demand, and environmental pressure, but even if the fertility rate dropped to zero tomorrow (it won't) it would take decades for population size to fall in absolute terms so population reduction can only be a part answer to the climate problem. And expecting people to make massive 50% plus reductions in energy use doesn't look terribly realistic. So we need a new energy grid even if it is constructed by billionaire capitalists, (at least until someone comes up with a better way of financing such grids that actually works).
This is not an argument against sensible reforms to the capitalist system, or an excuse for billionaires who back climate denialism, or who rip off the system and set a bad example generally. There is a strong argument that capitalism needs to evolve, but conflating this with the value of renewables doesn't make a lot of sense.
This is related: I Am a Mad Scientist
-
nigelj at 10:24 AM on 28 April 2020Coronavirus conspiracy theories are dangerous – here’s how to stop them spreading
The following is an interesting take on the possible evolutionary origins of conspiracy thinking: Suspicion makes us human. Conspiracy theories have always been with us, powered by an evolutionary drive to survive. How’s that working for us now?
This is interesting. Why Do Some People Believe in Conspiracy Theories? —Thea Buckley, India
-
nigelj at 06:32 AM on 28 April 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #17
Jef @1
"I have been patient but now it is clear that all those who are not pointing out how what is happening right now is the best possible thing for AGW and in fact say it is the worst are simply those who believe that capitlism and the free market, i.e. the profit motive, is all that i needed to solve the problem. "
Who is saying this exactly? At least front up and be specific. I have never said this. Moderator, he is sloganeering.
"The carbon reduction happening right now is 10 times greater than anything anyone has ever been able to accomplish and it can be increased upon easily with no pain. "
This is sloganeering and it is nonsensical. Right now with covid 19 there has been a small drop in CO2 emissions, but the world is in considerable economic pain. People are losing there jobs in the millions, poverty is returning, goods are in short supply, we are probably heading for a great depression. How can more of the same have no pain?
(That said I think these lockdown measures are needed as a temporary thing to flatten the curve)
"The one and only problem is poor people and even middle income people have been cut off from basic needs which can easily be provided and for a fraction of the trillions that have been given to the wealthy over the last few years"
This is not the one and only problem. And Jef appears to be suggesing some form of wealth redistribution. Hard to say because hes not specific. Imo wealth and income redistribution can obviously help to an extent in developed countries and is wise policy. But poor countries will need some economic growth to improve their living standards. There are not enough wealthy people for meaningful redistribution policies.
But you also cant strip people of all the wealth they have earned and expect people to work in positions of responsibility and be paid peanuts. They wont do it or they get lazy. Communism failed. Like Einstein said "dont keep repeating the same experiment and expect different results."
-
Daniel Bailey at 06:24 AM on 28 April 2020Ice isn't melting
Per Velicogna et al 2020 - Continuity of ice sheet mass loss in Greenland and Antarctica from the GRACE and GRACE Follow‐On missions:
Both the Greenland and the Antarctic Ice Sheets continue to lose ice mass from April 2002 through September 2019.
Greenland Ice Sheet average mass loss:
Antarctic Ice Sheet average mass loss:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2020GL087291
-
michael sweet at 05:54 AM on 28 April 2020Ice isn't melting
MA Rodger,
I really liked your link on 650 GT/yr ice loss. It was informative and easy to read.
-
jef12506 at 04:25 AM on 28 April 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #17
I have been patient but now it is clear that all those who are not pointing out how what is happening right now is the best possible thing for AGW and in fact say it is the worst are simply those who believe that capitlism and the free market, i.e. the profit motive, is all that i needed to solve the problem.
I would ask SS to please stop featuring this view point. The carbon reduction happening right now is 10 times greater than anything anyone has ever been able to accomplish and it can be increased upon easily with no pain. The one and only problem is poor people and even middle income people have been cut off from basic needs which can easily be provided and for a fraction of the trillions that have been given to the wealthy over the last few years.
Moderator Response:[DB] Your objections are noted, but lacking in specifics or citations they amount to sloganeering, and are unfortunately unhelpful.
-
SirCharles at 21:43 PM on 27 April 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #17
Sign the petition calling on Marsh to help insure our future, not Adani’s climate-wrecking coal project!
-
MA Rodger at 20:09 PM on 27 April 2020Ice isn't melting
Lawrence Tenkman @11,
The Ocean Heat Content measured down to 2000m is increasing at a rate in excess of 10Zj/year due to AGW. The global loss of ice mass is subject to a lot of variation year-to-year but to put some numbers down:-
Sea Ice Arctic Sea Ice loss (from PIOMAS) averages 350Gt/y since 2007. Antarctic Sea Ice Volume is poorly assess but probably insignificant. (The small Antarctic areal increase to 2004 graphed in the OP was very minor. It became more pronounced for a while 2014-16 before plunging negative where it remains. The graph here is from NSIDC.)
Land Ice The dramatic acceleration of polar land ice in the OP graphs has not been maintained. With GRACE-FO beginning to give results (graph of Greenland mass balance), the recent combined rate of loss of global land ice has been assessed as something like 650Gt/year.
So the global ice loss is roughly 1,000Gt/year.
In terms of the energy to warm the resulting melt water up to average ocean temperatures, something like +4ºC, would require 0.015Zj/year, significantly less than the 10Zj/year annual increase in OHC. Energy to warm melt-water is also significanlty less than the energy required to convert that amount of ice into the melt-water (0.30Zj/year) but ocean-wise that would only affect icebergs melting out while bobbing on the briny sea.
Where all this melt water will play more of a role in global climate is it being fresh water and not briny. Note that the Greenland rate of gross ice loss is probably five-times greater than the rate of net ice loss and there is a lot of other fresh water entering the oceans from rivers and also the annual sea ice melts, but fresh water is more buoyant than ocean water and increases in the discharge of fresh water into the oceans can disrupt deep ocean currents, the AMOC (which brings warmth to the high Atlantic) being of particular concern.
-
sailrick at 11:23 AM on 27 April 2020There are genuine climate alarmists, but they're not in the same league as deniers
MA Rodger and Postkey
Thanks for the reply. I had forgotten to check back after posting my comments. Then today, someone I was talking with brought up McPherson, and how stopping SO2 emissions will cause more warming.
And that led me back here, seven months later. -
One Planet Only Forever at 11:19 AM on 27 April 2020Our extraordinary 50th Earth Day
In recognition of the 50th Anniversary of the first Earth Day, the NYT "Climate" desk has presented a series of articles on Climate Change matters. It is a good comprehensive presentation of the history and state of the matter today. The link below goes to the 7th and final segment. Just scroll up to see the previous items.
A crash course on climate change, 50 years after the first Earth Day
Prev 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 Next
