Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 Next
Comments 7501 to 7550:
-
nigelj at 07:32 AM on 21 March 2020Is becoming vegan the best thing people can do to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions?
The average sedentary male only needs 56 grams of protein a day, the average sedentary woman is 46 grams discussed here! Several credible websites I looked at had these or very similar numbers. This is much less protein than people typically consume in western countries.
That said, I agree with the article that veganism doesn't appear a justified response to the climate issue. For example low density open grasslands cattle farming appears to be carbon neutral or even sequesters carbon, and has never to my knowledge caused a global warming problem in the historical past. The problem appears to be the rapid growth of high density cattle farming in the last 50 years or so generating a lot of methane. IIt all suggests lower meat consumption is wise, but not zero meat consumption.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:14 AM on 21 March 2020Is becoming vegan the best thing people can do to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions?
A summary statement, with the full story presented above to help justify it, would be:
People need to expand their awareness and improve their understanidng and apply what they learn to correct what has developed and help develop sustainable improvements for the future of humanity, especially learning what type of leadership to vote for.
A great starting point would be the understanding that is the basis for the full set of Sustainable Development Goals. In addition to the above information are the understanding that:
- the human body only extracts protein from 100 grams of meat in a meal (the rest of that 8 oz steak is waste, except for the taste)
- humans do not need to eat 100 grams of meat in every meal
That makes it undeniable that the most fortunate on the planet have a lot of opportunity to reduce how harmful and wasteful their diet, and their example, is. Correcting how they eat would make them Helpful Examples for everyone else to aspire to enjoy, and make them deserving of being higher status people.
And that simple correction of how the richest eat can make a massive difference to many important issues, not just on the climate change front.
A side issue is the need to stop the animal growing activity that is causing the frequent harmful contamination of produce like romaine lettuce.
-
JoeZ at 00:25 AM on 21 March 2020Is becoming vegan the best thing people can do to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions?
So, this article is posted on April 19, 2020? Back from the future?
Moderator Response:[DB] Fixed.
-
MA Rodger at 08:24 AM on 20 March 2020What does Net Zero emissions actually mean?
meb58 @15,
In terms of their contribution to the biosphere, I think the C3/C4 thing is a bit more complex than just CO2 levels. The Wikithing page does a pretty good job describing much of it, and complete with references.
C4 plants have a competitive advantage over plants possessing the more common C3 carbon fixation pathway under conditions of drought, high temperatures, and nitrogen or CO2 limitation. When grown in the same environment, at 30 °C, C3 grasses lose approximately 833 molecules of water per CO2 molecule that is fixed, whereas C4 grasses lose only 277. This increased water use efficiency of C4 grasses means that soil moisture is conserved, allowing them to grow for longer in arid environments.
C4 plants arose around 35 million years ago during the Oligocene (precisely when is difficult to determine) and did not become ecologically significant until around 6 to 7 million years ago, in the Miocene. C4 metabolism in grasses originated when their habitat migrated from the shady forest undercanopy to more open environments, where the high sunlight gave it an advantage over the C3 pathway. Drought was not necessary for its innovation; rather, the increased resistance to water stress was a byproduct of the pathway and allowed C4 plants to more readily colonize arid environments
Today, C4 plants represent about 5% of Earth's plant biomass and 3% of its known plant species. Despite this scarcity, they account for about 23% of terrestrial carbon fixation. Increasing the proportion of C4 plants on earth could assist biosequestration of CO2 and represent an important climate change avoidance strategy.
Of course with C4 plants becoming "ecologically significant " sometime between 35My bp and 6-7My bp, this was also a time of falling CO2 levels with (probably roughly 13My bp) CO2 levels seen dropping below 400ppm(v), until modern times.
-
meb58 at 07:02 AM on 20 March 2020What does Net Zero emissions actually mean?
This is a link to an article that I refer to on occasion.
https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-c3-and-vs-c4-plants/
-
meb58 at 06:51 AM on 20 March 2020What does Net Zero emissions actually mean?
Thank you for the graph. So...for the time beeing, assuming CO2 remained a static condition, C4 plants theoretically still have an advantage?
I understand the advantage from an observational perspective only...that many grasses die out entirely during winter months, with the previous season's mass decomposing and adding to the soil - storing CO2 - while new grass structures re-grow each warm season to repeat this cycle. Scrubby plants - assuming we are referring to deciduous plants - become woody and at best add saome mass back to the soil via leaf drop in the winter, but with far less leaf drop where the Cheetah run? All a question in the form of a statement...my soil sciense classes were long ago too.
Sad to read about the affect this is having on Cheetah!
-
John Hartz at 04:36 AM on 20 March 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #11
Recommended supplemental reading;
The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming by Bruce Lieberman, Article, Yale Climate Connections, Mar 19, 2019
Note: Lieberman's article includes a list of articles about this topic that were posted in February of this year.
-
RedBaron at 03:18 AM on 20 March 2020What does Net Zero emissions actually mean?
@meb58,
It's a good question, but the answer is no. This graph will explain it better than words.
Instead what has happened, we are reaching the maximum rate for photosynthesis efficiency on C4 plants, and now as CO2 rises, C3 plants slowly catch up and even pass. C4's are gradually losing their competitive advantage. This is one of the factors which has allowed scrub to take advantage and become invasive where previously grasses dominated. (for exaple much cheetah habitat now is so full of thorny scrub, it is making the cats go blind from all the thorns in the eyes)
This is also worrisome because scrub is much more susceptable to out of control fires and it does not sequester carbon in the soil like grasses do. So that CO2 goes right back into the atmosphere.
Moderator Response:[DB] Please limit image widths to under 500.
-
MA Rodger at 02:28 AM on 20 March 2020There is no consensus
Eclectic @883,
The purveyors of fakery at Heartland do seem to be re-branding themselves. As well as the recent appearance of their "Climate at a glance" website, a similar-looking site has reared its head with the title "ClimateREALISM" and proclaiming its mission saying:-
"The climate alarmism industry and its media allies present a daily barrage of false, misleading, and one-sided information designed to convince people that a climate crisis is at hand. Climate Realism provides daily rebuttals to the alarmists’ Climate Delusion, giving the media and interested persons access to the facts, data, and perspectives that the put the daily media scares in proper perspective. Articles and information presented on this website can be accessed by date or by climate-related topic."
This site too is provided with a "Consensus" page but the content doesn't even attempt to start to address the subject. I'd assume the rest of the site is likewise fake-heavy anf fact-light.
-
meb58 at 00:05 AM on 20 March 2020What does Net Zero emissions actually mean?
RedBaron,
Although my background is in Landscape Architecture, and botany was a minor subject from long ago, I have been intrigued by C4 plants; I have always wondered about the conditions that allowed C4 plants to colonize...that ratio of CO2 and O2 was very different than it is today? When possible, I try to incorporate these types of grasses/plants into my design schemes, but wonder if the concentration of CO2 in the air today is at a 'toxic' threshold for C4 plants?
This is an entirely unscientific question, apologies!
-
JoeZ at 22:44 PM on 19 March 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #11
I think it would have been a better article if they explained what species were planted and why those species. If it was different species to enhance diversity- that may be fine if they'll survive the planting. Planting trees under other trees usually results in failure unless the new trees are shade tolerant and the soil is ideal for that species. As for American chestnut- I planted 3 several years ago. One has survived. The American Chestnut Foundation has been breeding trees that are 15/16 American chestnut and 1/16 Chinese chestnut. I got the trees from that organization.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:10 AM on 19 March 2020UK’s CO2 emissions have fallen 29% over the past decade
The following BBC News Business Section story discusses a recent report related to this topic: Climate change: The rich are to blame, international study finds
Though the UK is reducing its emissions it does not appear that the Richest in the UK are leading the charge by most rapidly becoming people whose ways of living and ways of earning wealth do not create any new GHG emissions. And in addition to failing to be Leaders towards eliminating the harmful aspects of their ways, the richest are also failing to help others develop sustainable improvements of their lives.
It appears that the UK and the rest of the nations on the planet would be doing much better today, and into the future, if all of the richest actually were leaders who were deserving of their higher status and greater ability to influence what is going on.
And the partisan nature of Leadership Decision Making, biased in favour of the richest (not laying blame where it actually belongs and not imposing effective corrective actions), is perhaps the most damaging uncorrected result of humanity's development to date.
-
RedBaron at 05:57 AM on 19 March 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #11
@2 JoeZ,
100% agreed unless we are talking about introducing diversity of species that were lost, like the new plans to reintroduce the American Chestnut to the Eastern North American forests, or other species to monoculture forestry plantations.
-
JoeZ at 04:20 AM on 19 March 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #11
Also, I have trouble understanding why they're planting trees in the understory of an existing forest. It would make more sense to plant trees where there are no trees but once were. Standing trees produce seeds which should be able to "stock" the understory.
-
RedBaron at 16:23 PM on 18 March 2020What does Net Zero emissions actually mean?
@11 JoeZ,
My appologies for not being detailed enough in my answer.
Initially the carbon leaves the plant without forming any plant biomass at all, instead it follows this biological pathway:
Biology in the grasslands soils then form it into this:
I gave a link to the geological long cycle, but it is behind a paywall. I found a better link so you can understand it better without the paywall.
Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling
The paper is rather technical, but the short answer is this carbon has a long chain of events and pathways to follow and ultimately becomes sedimentary rock of various types, locking up the carbon for geological time frames even after it leaves the actual living soil.
Biomass carbon generally with a few exceptions returns to the atmosphere, while as much as 78% of the liquid carbon pathway carbon when it degrades ends up locked in sedimentary rock of some sort. It may take hundreds or thousands of years to reach this stage, but the important part for climate scientists is that it doesn't return to the atmosphere. (although human disturbance with the bulldozer, plow, agrochemicals, and other agricultural practices can change this dynamic radically)
-
JoeZ at 07:59 AM on 18 March 2020What does Net Zero emissions actually mean?
Red Baron @10. You say, "In a grassland about 40% of those products of photosynthesis never get locked in plant primary productivity biomass at all, instead bypassing all that on a pathway entering the geological long carbon cycle." I can appreciate that some carbon will be stored in soils but why do you say it will enter geologic long carbon cycle? I'm not saying your wrong- I'm just surprised at what you say.
-
RedBaron at 06:15 AM on 18 March 2020What does Net Zero emissions actually mean?
Planting a forest where there once was a large area we deforested for timber is likely going to have a temporary beneficial effect on the carbon cycle and global warming, and multiple localised beneficial effects on the surrounding ecology including temperature moderation, hydrological and nutrient cycles, wildlife, reduced erosion and many more.
However, most forests are near net zero once mature, with a few notable exceptions.
Furthermore, C3 photosynthesis trees are much slower growing and far less efficient at photosynthesis than rapidly growing C4 grasses, or mixed C4/C3 grasslands. In a grassland about 40% of those products of photosynthesis never get locked in plant primary productivity biomass at all, instead bypassing all that on a pathway entering the geological long carbon cycle. For this reason instead of having a moderating effect, grasslands are actually one of the few biological climate forcings for cooling. Their long term effect is strong enough to cause our current ice age and combined with a few other factors are what gave us our cyclical glaciation cycles.
Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling
It would be far more beneficial to climate acre per acre to restore a lost grassland, tallgrass prairie, and/or savanna. But even here the benefit is not in the biomass, and biomass should not be what is sold on any carbon markets.
Instead the soil needs sampled to verify what has been sent on that other pathway.
Why? Because the added carbon in the atmosphere was supplied from geologically old sources, so the only carbon offsets that should be sold are inputs to geologically old sinks.
Most forests don't qualify. A few are long term sinks like Mangrove forests yes, but otherwise no.
PS This also means the soil tests used need to be the A-horizon and lower, and not the top O-horizon, and can't be part of any tillage system.
-
Bob Loblaw at 05:49 AM on 18 March 2020UK’s CO2 emissions have fallen 29% over the past decade
JoeZ:
Well, where I live (and many governments fall into this classification) there are three branches of government:
- Legistlative
- Executive
- Judicial
The Legislative branch is where the politicians mainly hang out in democratic systems.
The Executive branch is often tied to politicians at the top (president, Prime MInister, cabinet, etc.), but most people working in it (people like me) try not to grind polical axes as they do their jobs. Regardless of what some politicians think, not every worker is part of a "Deep State" that views public service as a political opportunity. When politicians get resistance from this level of government, it is more often than not because they are trying to maintain the the independence (from partisan politics) that good government demands.
The Legistlative branch is supposed to be fairly independent of politicians amd partisan activity. I know the U.S. is probably not a very good example of judicial independence, but the U.S. is not the world. (Granted, there are places that are even worse than the U.S.)
So, yes. there are lots of "non-partisan government bodies" out there. You just need to know where to look.
-
nigelj at 05:34 AM on 18 March 2020What does Net Zero emissions actually mean?
Joez @8, I largely agree. Its indeed important to consider the combined multi facetted benefits of tree planting and remember they are a sustainable regenerating resource if properly managed. And trees do sequester carbon and have a role to play there. I'm just not sure that cap and trade schemes are the best way to go about it.
-
MA Rodger at 03:28 AM on 18 March 2020UK’s CO2 emissions have fallen 29% over the past decade
JoeZ @2,
The UK's Committee on Climate Change is "non partisan" in that it does not conform to any party line. It is a "government body" in that its job is to advise government. The Wikithing page linked @1 describes the CCC as an "independent non-departmental public body" but, although it is classed as being 'independent', its job is 'advisory' so it is an "advisory non-departmental public body" . The CCC does have defined statutory duties which sets limits to its work. Thus the 2008 Climate Change Act set the target of 80% reduction in the UK's GHGs by 2050 (relative to 1990), this Act amended in June 2019 setting the target at 100%. The CCC was originally tasked with giving advice on "the level of the 2050 target" but only prior to this target being set in 2008. Its more central role is to advise on meeting the targets set by government.
-
JoeZ at 01:38 AM on 18 March 2020What does Net Zero emissions actually mean?
I'm also skeptical of planting forests for carbon credits - but forests are wonderful so the more we have the better as they produce multiple benefits. There will always be a large demand for wood products so we do need a lot of well managed forests. Wood is a fine raw material and it has a lower carbon footprint than cement or steel. If we have less forest rather than more- the price of wood will be higher- and that doesn't help anyone. In the northeast USA we don't plant forests- they plant themselves if the forests are continuously managed- and if farmland is abandoned, the forests will return with no help from humans. So again, I don't see any need to connect forestry with saving the planet with carbon credits- instead, just be aware of the multiple benefits from good forestry - including some carbon sequestration. Currently, many forests worldwide are in poor condition. One way to improve them is through excellent silviculture which requires some tree harvesting. Over the long term, one of our objectives should be to both increase the amount of carbon stored in forests (trees and soils) while producting valuable wood products contributing to the economy.
-
JoeZ at 01:27 AM on 18 March 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #11
Regarding the story, "Climate change: Will planting millions of trees really save the planet? " I doubt anyone has said planting trees will save the planet. But growing and managing forests is a great idea. Well managed forests produce multiple benefits- sequestering carbon, producing wealth for the owner when valuable trees are harvested, wildlife habitat, soil protection, stream and wetland protection, watershed protection, produces oxygen, recreation values, spiritual values, etc. I have been a forester in Massachusetts for 47 years.
-
JoeZ at 01:13 AM on 18 March 2020UK’s CO2 emissions have fallen 29% over the past decade
Can there ever truly be a "non partisan government body"?
-
nigelj at 15:29 PM on 17 March 2020UK’s CO2 emissions have fallen 29% over the past decade
The UK have created a non partisan government body to advise parliament on climate mitigation, and the UK government have passed legislation setting emissions goals. Probably a key reason for the emissions drop.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Climate_Change
This is rather different from the partisan tribalism in the USA and a so called 'independent' environmental protection agency that has been run by former coal industry lobbyists and the like.
-
Eclectic at 22:53 PM on 16 March 2020There is no consensus
Thanks, MA Rodger @882 ,
the Heartland "Climate at a glance" summaries have also recently been touted on WUWT website: I gather Mr Anthony Watts has had some co-writing input for the Summaries. Unsurprisingly, they are a waste of time for anyone who wishes to learn anything truthful about climate matters.
I have read a number of the Summaries (they are quite short). Their pattern soon becomes evident :- cherry-picking & strawman arguments, and the general tenor is that of advocate-lawyers rather than scientists.
As you say, the "Consensus" summary did nothing but pick out and misrepresent one single study of members of the American Meteorological Organisation, and did not mention the World Meteorological Organisation . . . or any other organisations of greater relevance. No nuance; no general context; no honesty of presentation.
The "Summaries" are a complete waste of time for any inquiring mind ~ their only virtue is that they are brief. Yet brief as they are, they have a surprising number of typos and spelling errors ~ this is surprising for such brief presentations from a supposedly-slick propaganda "Institute" like Heartland, where one would at least expect some proof-reading of stuff going onto permanent display. Perhaps there is some truth in the rumors that Heartland has been forced to retrench staff.
-
JohnSeers at 19:45 PM on 16 March 2020Sea level is not rising
@duncan61 @30
Scientists use satellites to measure the sea level. The entire earth is scanned every 10 days yielding millions of data points. Tide gauges provide thousands of measurements everyday. Land surveys provide a few million more datapoints.
You have one datapoint which is by eye on TIDAL water with which you claim you can detect a few centimetres change? (Well, 0 cm to be more pedantic).
Who to believe?
Reference for you:
https://climatekids.nasa.gov/sea-level/
-
JohnSeers at 19:20 PM on 16 March 2020Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
@pettman @395
Some interesting ideas there. You have obviously done considerable research to come up with those thoughts. Could you please give some of the key references that you have used to come to your conclusions. They would make very interesting reading.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 12:59 PM on 16 March 2020Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Pettman says "Correlation does not confirm a theory, it leads to a mechanism." You got this exactly wrong. The mechanism is identified by physics and does not depend at all on the correlation. Correlation is in fact more important when there is not a known physical process, hence the vacuity of the null hypothesis problem advanced by some so-called skpetics. Furthermore, the correlation does not lead to a mechanism, it only shows the possible existence of causation, which then must be identified separately. Then the mechanism of why something causes something else should be investigated. That is, of course, in cases where only statistical data is available initially to investigate a phenomenon. Fortunately, in the case of climate change, the correlation was predicted beforehand by physics, and its later appearance in the data was an expectation.
-
John Hartz at 12:31 PM on 16 March 2020Sea level is not rising
Recommended supplememtal reading:
Sea levels rose faster in the past century than in previous time periods, Edited by Nikki Forrester, Climate Feedback, Mar 12, 2020
-
Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
pettman - Waste heat is _not_ the problem; the forcing changes from waste heat in our climate system are 100x smaller than the CO2 forcing. See Greenhouse warming 100 times greater than waste heat, where you can check the numbers.
The data does not support your assertion.
-
pettman at 11:47 AM on 16 March 2020Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Correlation does not confirm a theory, it leads to a mechanism . There is not enough CO2 in the atmos to account for global sea temperature rise. Temperature rise is caused by the tremendous Heat emanating from Coastal cities. This Heat goes into water ( sewers, streams, sheet water) into rivers into the Sea. Civilization cause water sources to become Turbid, there is not enough water treatment to prevent Turbidity levels. Heat and Turbidity cause anoxic regions to proliferate. Warm coastal water causes storms and polar melting of ice. Civilization itself causes Global warming not levels of Carbon dioxide.
-
John Hartz at 06:42 AM on 16 March 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #10
nigelj & promethjeus: Not everyone views what's happening in the world through the same prism — especially those living in developing countries. From time-to-time, I will chose articles for this feature that may be out of our usual comfort zone.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:23 AM on 16 March 2020What does Net Zero emissions actually mean?
JoeZ @5,
I am not sure what to make of your comment. You quoted the end of my comment that is clearly about Individuals (as is the middle part of my comment) and then said "I don't have a problem with that- but rather than just look at what a nation is doing- we need to look at individuals."
nigelj's comment is more on target.
I would add that the discussion needs to be about every individual on the planet becoming a Zero-Excess New GHG-Producer (ZENGHGP), not the same as Net-Zero or Carbon-Neutral, soon enough to keep the total impact below 2C along with actions to draw down the harmfully created excess GHGs from the tragic peak level that is reached. That requires every already wealthier person to prove they deserve their higher status by becoming a ZENGHGP well before 2050 and helping others behave better quicker, the wealthier they are the quicker they are expected to be ZENGHGP and more helpful to others.
Anyone acting better, not just being ZENGHGP, but also taking actions to remove some of the excess GHGs, should be recognised and rewarded for being a Good Helpful Leader. But no one should expect the games of popularity and profit that developed this problem, and developed massive resistance to correction of the problem, to produce the required result. It is clear that the games of popularity and profit will not encourage and reward that correction of what the games of popularity and profit harmfully developed. Good Governance that significantly meddles in the marketplace will be required.
Also, the last people to be living in ways that produce new excess GHG impacts would be people who are still being helped to develop to a sustainable decent basic living. They can be excused for not being ZENGHGP if they are not living at least a basic decent living. And the people helping them would already have to be ZENGHGP themselves (no game playing by claiming that non-poor people need to benefit from CO2-Emission activity in order to help the poor, because that is not sustainable helping).
That is why most carbon-offsets or carbon-credits are disingenuous and rather worthless, as nigelj says “…we are planting a lot of forests of dubious merit and delaying emissions reductions at source.” I would say, and did say “The ability to buy legitimate credits is limited. Everybody has to actually personally become No-Harm people. And the wealthiest need to lead that effort, and help others.” Rich people buying the ability to continue being a part of the problem is not a solution, it is a closed loop to nowhere.
That exposes how absurd it is for a fossil fuel extraction and sales business to claim they plan to become Net-Zero by 2050. As Climate Adam points out, words are easy and can hide massive loopholes. One loophole is that no longer emitting CO2 does not mean that there are no global warming impacts. Operations that are Zero-CO2-Emissions can still be causing harm by CH4 emissions and other negative impacts of their operations, especially the fact that any fossil fuels sold cause CO2-Emissions by the buyer. The Seller being Net-Zero is meaningless. That Seller needs to have no buyers.
And the need to minimize future negative impacts also means that any development opportunity and corrections that reduce CO2-Emissions or sustainably remove CO2 should be aggressively pursued regardless of popularity or profitability. One example would be Regulations rapidly ending all recreational activity that is fossil fueled, regardless of the ‘negative economic impact and loss of personal enjoyment’.
-
MA Rodger at 05:05 AM on 16 March 2020There is no consensus
I see the Heartland Institute has a new format for its misinformation campaign - At-A-Glance Summaries which back up a few bullet points with a page or two of paragraph-long summaries. High on the list of these lie-cards is one entitled "Consensus".
This "Consensus" lie-card mainly cites (or more correctly misrepresents) a 2016 survey of American Meteorological Society members.
The first bold-as-brass assertion runs:-
"A majority of scientists (including skeptics) believe the Earth is warming and humans are playing a role, but a strong majority of scientists are not very worried about it."
There is no indication of the evidence they have to support this "strong majority." Heartland's initial mention of this survey does rattle on about how many responding AMS members said they were "worried" by AGW and to what extent. Yet the survey never mentions the word "worried" once (or anything like it). Perhaps the proper take-away from the AMS survey is the finding from the responses that only "about one in twenty (3 to 5%) don’t think there will be any harm from climate change in the next 50 years." (Note that when the AMS members were also asked in the survey if they considered themselves "expert in climate science" only 37% were able to answer 'yes'.)
Heartland also say of this same survey:-
"Fully 40% of AMS members believe climate change impacts have been primarily beneficial or equally mixed between beneficial and harmful. Only 50% expect the impacts to be entirely or primarily harmful over the next 50 years. That is nowhere near a consensus." [My bold]
The sole basis for this statement made by Heartland actually concerns not 'global' AGW but 'local' AGW - "the impact(s) of local climate change in your area." It is also a mash-up of two seperate questions, one concerning "the past 50 years" and one "the next 50 years." And each question is only asked of those who responded 'yes' to two preceding questions of the form "To the best of your knowledge, has/will the local climate in your area change over the past/next 50 years?" with 'yes' response of 74% for the past and 78% for the future. These 74%/78% then answered as follows:-
The impacts will be exclusively beneficial - past 0%, next 0%
The impacts will be primarily beneficial - past 4%, next 2%
The impacts will be approximately equally mixed between beneficial and harmful - past 36%, next 29%
The impacts will be primarily harmful - past 36%, next 47%
The impacts will be exclusively harmful - past 2%, next 3%
Don't know - past 21%, next 19%
So the lie-card's "fully 40%" concerns the past 50 year's local climate change and is only the view of ([4%+36%] x 74% =) 29.6%. The word "fully" is a straight lie.
A final assertion runs as follows:-"Scientists with NASA, NOAA, MIT, Harvard, Columbia, Princeton, and Penn, along with scientists who have served as official state climatologist for their states, are climate realists making the case against an impending climate crisis. These include many of the science giants of the past half-century, including Freeman Dyson, S. Fred Singer, and Will Happer."So with the exception of a trio of very ancient scientists (one of whom died the month before these At-A-Glance cards were launched), these AGW consensus-busting scientists who are "making the case against an impending climate crisis" appear to be all nameless phantoms of Heartland's imagination. -
JoeZ at 03:15 AM on 16 March 2020How much would planting 1 trillion trees slow global warming?
Philip, you're right that amongst the array of forest types/ages, an old forest will have the most biodiversity in terms of numbers of species. But, there are some species of wildlife that prefer younger forests. Younger forests whether managed or not- will have different niches than an old growth forest. Here in New England, it's been noted by wildlife professionals and even Massachusetts Audubon- that some bird species prefer young forests and dense, brushy areas- and that they won't be found in older forests. Here, deer, rabits and other mammals prefer young forests- often heavily cut forests because there is more accessible browse. Though this is true, this ecological fact is often an excuse to cut heavily- when, in my opinion, those loggers/foresters aren't really interested in wildlife, they're interested in higher profits to be made from heavy logging. I've always prefered fairly light harvest in my 47 years as a forester.
-
MA Rodger at 00:30 AM on 16 March 2020Multi-agency report highlights increasing signs and impacts of climate change in atmosphere, land and oceans
As a way of disentangling ENSO etc from the temperature record, Foster & Rahmstorf (2011) used Multiple Linear Regreession to factor out ENSO as well as volcanic forcings and solar variation for the period 1979-2010. Foster (aka Tamino) repeated the exercise last October for the period 1950-2018 and the graph of the adjusted annual temperature series for the various surface records is presented below:-
-
David Kirtley at 00:09 AM on 16 March 2020Multi-agency report highlights increasing signs and impacts of climate change in atmosphere, land and oceans
william @1, perhaps you are thinking of something like this:
-
MA Rodger at 18:02 PM on 15 March 2020Sea level is not rising
duncan61 @30,
The tidal gauges at Freemantle (and I assume we aren't suddenly talking of Freemantle, Southampton as there is no associated Port Authority of that name) show a 1.67mm/yr rise in average sea level with a small acceleration. So a 44 year period would have seen that average increase in height by something like 75mm. Do note that the tidal range at Freemantle is 200mm to 1400mm, so between three and twenty times greater. Also note the tidal gauge data graphed below also has a lot of noise. This monthly data also shows about 400mm of variation. So I would suggest that it takes more than a 5-times-a-fortnight stop-off to judge the average sea level rise over 44 years.
-
Eclectic at 17:58 PM on 15 March 2020Sea level is not rising
Sorry Duncan, but the human memory is often shoddy over the course of 44 years [your 58 minus 14] . . . and especially so, when handicapped by psychological bias.
( Can even be shoddy over 4 years or less ! )
Which is exactly why all scientists rely on records & data from tide gauges, satellite sensors, and so on.
But Duncan, there's no pressing need for you to be worrying that you are losing your marbles . . . for as I explained in #28 , there is a 150+ mm fluctuation over the cycle of a decade or so, owing to variations in the local oceanic currents. But in the overall long term, the measured average sea level rise at Fremantle is about 200 mm ~ which is very similar to sea level rise measured in most parts of the world. Unsurprisingly.
-
duncan61 at 14:54 PM on 15 March 2020Sea level is not rising
Hi again I drive to Fremantle to do plumbing work at least 5 times a fortnight and have been stopping at the traffic bridge where I used to go fishing with my older brother and his mates.You can walk under the bridge and it is about 800m from the open ocean so it is tidal.I have not measured any change in water levels and you can all show me bits of paper with lines on it but can I suggest you come on down and have a look like I have.I am now 58 and used to go there when I was 14 so its a bit of time span.Is it 200mm higher all the time or only when I am not there
Moderator Response:[PS] You have already been pointed to this report on sealevel in western Australia, which includes discussion of issues of fremantle tidal guage. You appear to be uninterested in examining anything that might challenge your predjuces in which case this is not the site for you. You may find likes of WUWT more to your taste. Provide data or scientific support for your comment or they will be deleted. This is a science site.
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 or off-topic posts. 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.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:38 AM on 15 March 2020Multi-agency report highlights increasing signs and impacts of climate change in atmosphere, land and oceans
william,
The fuller story is what is relevant. And that fuller story is what is being presented.
Although it is corrrect that random variable events such as the ENSO affect the global average surface temperature, it would be incorrrect to try to claim all el Nino events are equal and only compare 'those years'.
It is far better to identify significant random variable events affecting years being compared, as was done in the article by stating "...2016, when a very strong El Niño event contributed...".
2019 could be considered to be a year in the ENSO neutral band that was nearer to el Nino than la Nina. What should it be compared to, only ENSO neutral years? And what would be the point of such a declaration and restriction of comparison? People could claim that 2019 was close enough to el Nino to need to only be compared to el Nino years.
-
nigelj at 06:14 AM on 15 March 2020What does Net Zero emissions actually mean?
Some of the rich folks who complain about climate change and who have large carbon footprints buy forestry credits or similar to compensate. Prince Harry does this to compensate for his flying all around the place. They are not evil, they have been told planting forests compensates and at least they are doing something. Although why anyone needs to live in a massively huge mansion and fly constantly is beyond me, with or without the climate problem.
The problem is more that 1) this heavy reliance on planting forests delays real emissions reductions and 2) new forests probably barely keep pace with deforestation and 3) the ability of forests to act as an effective long term carbon store is hard to be precise about and 4) there are limits to land available for new forests. Yet emissions trading schemes make forests a dominant mechanism because its just easier to plant a few forests or buy the credits than actually reduce emissions at source. The later option might be better for a corporate economically if carefully analysed it but human nature being what it is people will go for the simplest option, forestry credits. This is the danger of emissions trading schemes.
It looks to me like we are planting a lot of forests of dubious merit and delaying emissions reductions at source.
-
william5331 at 04:51 AM on 15 March 2020Multi-agency report highlights increasing signs and impacts of climate change in atmosphere, land and oceans
When reporting temperature rise, If we are in a El Nino year, we should compare the temperature with the most recen El Nino year and similarly for La Nina years and neutral years. This gives a better indicator of the true state of temperature increase. Even better, we could take the past 6 or so eqivalent ENSOR years and report the present one in comparison with them.
-
John Hartz at 04:14 AM on 15 March 2020They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'
Recommended supplemental reading:
There is no evidence that ‘global warming’ was rebranded as ‘climate change’ by Giulio Corsi, The Conversation UK, Mar 12, 2020
-
bjchip at 03:38 AM on 15 March 2020New measurements confirm extra heating from our carbon dioxide
Nature has changed its link. The Feldman article is no longer at the listed
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14240.html
It is now at
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240
-
JoeZ at 01:56 AM on 15 March 2020What does Net Zero emissions actually mean?
One Planet Only Forever said, "Letting richer higher-status people who are acting harmfully buy the appearance of being less harmful does not make them more helpful leaders." I don't have a problem with that- but rather than just look at what a nation is doing- we need to look at individuals. I too often notice people complaining about climate change who happen to have a huge carbon footprint. If it's imperative to do their work- that's one thing, but often it's not- it's just that they have a lot of money so they like living a rich life style, while complaining about climate change. I happen to have a low carbon footprint- but not specifically because of climate change- but because I've always believed in not wasting resources of the Earth. My favorite author is Henry David Thoreau and I've always appreciated his living in a tiny cabin- not just to prove he can do it but to find out what is essential in life- and I've come to the conclusion that materialism is not the way to satisfaction beyond a certain level. I do happen to be a climate skeptic- but at least I'm not a pig about bragging about a huge pickup truck and eating beef every day and living in a huge house. I've always said if I got rich, I'd still have a small house but it would be artfully designed. I have clients in my work who live in mansions- and they don't impress me at all.
-
duncan61 at 11:35 AM on 14 March 2020World’s intact tropical forests reached ‘peak carbon uptake’ in 1990s
I live in Western Australia and am familiar with ALCOA practise of replanting forests where they have mined in the hills.I worked at the minesite in 1980 when it was in construction and was aware of a dedicated team that planned the way the native bush would be recreated.I have been back recently and where it was scrappy bush full of prickles it is now shaded forest with a mix of flowers and trees.This must be benificial to the system.Do we ever consider the good stuff that happens??
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:38 AM on 14 March 2020What does Net Zero emissions actually mean?
JoeZ,
I agree with Climate Adam's point that a nation that buys credit from someone else who is behaving better rather than personally behaving better "Is Not Being Helpful".
The ability to buy legitimate credits is limited. Everybody has to actually personally become No-Harm people. And the wealthiest need to lead that effort, and help others. The cult of the theory of the Free Market mistakenly believes that helpful leadership to a sustainable decent future for everybody will naturally be the result if people are freer to believe what they want and do as they please.
Letting richer higher-status people who are acting harmfully buy the appearance of being less harmful does not make them more helpful leaders.
-
JoeZ at 06:12 AM on 14 March 2020What does Net Zero emissions actually mean?
So Climate Adam doesn't like the UK giving the burden of other nations to help it get to net zero- but, it's NOT the British Empire forcing its colonies to do this work- other nations will expect to get paid.
I'm amazed at how some people are never satisfied. Aiming for net zero, however it's going to happen, is a big deal. Why whine about it?
-
JoeZ at 03:58 AM on 14 March 2020World’s intact tropical forests reached ‘peak carbon uptake’ in 1990s
Duncan61, at least in North America, the total "wood volume" in forests is greater than the 1970s- even in regions with active forestry.
Prev 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 Next
