Recent Comments

Prev  149  150  151  152  153  154  155  156  157  158  159  160  161  162  163  164  Next

Comments 7801 to 7850:

7801. Bob Loblaw at 05:49 AM on 18 March 2020
      UK’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:

      1. Legistlative
      2. Executive
      3. 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.

7802. nigelj at 05:34 AM on 18 March 2020
      What 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. 

7803. MA Rodger at 03:28 AM on 18 March 2020
      UK’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.

7804. JoeZ at 01:38 AM on 18 March 2020
      What 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.

7805. JoeZ at 01:27 AM on 18 March 2020
      2020 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.

7806. JoeZ at 01:13 AM on 18 March 2020
      UK’s CO2 emissions have fallen 29% over the past decade
      

      Can there ever truly be a "non partisan government body"?

7807. nigelj at 15:29 PM on 17 March 2020
      UK’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.

7808. Eclectic at 22:53 PM on 16 March 2020
      There 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.

7809. JohnSeers at 19:45 PM on 16 March 2020
      Sea 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/

7810. JohnSeers at 19:20 PM on 16 March 2020
      Increasing 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. 

7811. Philippe Chantreau at 12:59 PM on 16 March 2020
      Increasing 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.

7812. John Hartz at 12:31 PM on 16 March 2020
      Sea 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

7813. KR at 11:58 AM on 16 March 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. 

7814. pettman at 11:47 AM on 16 March 2020
      Increasing 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.

7815. John Hartz at 06:42 AM on 16 March 2020
      2020 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.  

7816. One Planet Only Forever at 05:23 AM on 16 March 2020
      What 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’.

7817. MA Rodger at 05:05 AM on 16 March 2020
      There 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.
7818. JoeZ at 03:15 AM on 16 March 2020
      How 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.

7819. MA Rodger at 00:30 AM on 16 March 2020
      Multi-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:-

      

7820. David Kirtley at 00:09 AM on 16 March 2020
      Multi-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:

      

      From: https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=67

7821. MA Rodger at 18:02 PM on 15 March 2020
      Sea 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.

      

7822. Eclectic at 17:58 PM on 15 March 2020
      Sea 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.

7823. duncan61 at 14:54 PM on 15 March 2020
      Sea 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.

7824. One Planet Only Forever at 08:38 AM on 15 March 2020
      Multi-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.

7825. nigelj at 06:14 AM on 15 March 2020
      What 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.

7826. william5331 at 04:51 AM on 15 March 2020
      Multi-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.

7827. John Hartz at 04:14 AM on 15 March 2020
      They 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

7828. bjchip at 03:38 AM on 15 March 2020
      New 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

7829. JoeZ at 01:56 AM on 15 March 2020
      What 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.

7830. duncan61 at 11:35 AM on 14 March 2020
      World’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??

7831. One Planet Only Forever at 07:38 AM on 14 March 2020
      What 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.

7832. JoeZ at 06:12 AM on 14 March 2020
      What 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?

7833. JoeZ at 03:58 AM on 14 March 2020
      World’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.

7834. JoeZ at 03:30 AM on 14 March 2020
      What does Net Zero emissions actually mean?
      

      Trees do grow slow- but in addition to sequestering carbon, they also produce oxygen, protect watersheds, provide wildlife habitat, provide recreational opportunities, etc. Oh, and forests that are well managed (most are not of course) can produce sustainalbe economic wealth for the owner and for "wood products industries". And, wood as a raw material has a lower carbon footprint that cement and steel.

      JZ- forester since Nixon was in the White House

7835. kampmannpeine at 01:32 AM on 14 March 2020
      What does Net Zero emissions actually mean?
      

      the problem with planting trees is:

      1. Plants grow slowly ... and it takes some time until 1 t of wood (consuming abt. 2 t of CO2) grows ...

      2. When temperatures are high there is bigger danger of lightning etc. which destroys the wood just grown.

      3. etc.

7836. duncan61 at 23:20 PM on 13 March 2020
      World’s intact tropical forests reached ‘peak carbon uptake’ in 1990s
      

      Is there more or less forests and woodlands now since the 1970s?

7837. duncan61 at 23:19 PM on 13 March 2020
      World’s intact tropical forests reached ‘peak carbon uptake’ in 1990s
      

      Skeptical Science asks that you review the comments policy. Thank you.

7838. Bob Loblaw at 07:44 AM on 12 March 2020
      World’s intact tropical forests reached ‘peak carbon uptake’ in 1990s
      

      William. I disagree with your concept of "mature" and your explanation that growing forests must be recovering from some past event.

      .I am sure you are aware of the "CO2 is plant food" argument for CO2? Forests that were in a neutral state for carbon uptake can respond to increased CO2 by taking in more CO2 - i.e., growing. That this increased growth will not continue at the same rate forever is not particularly suprising.

      Your "forest is recovering" argument sounds an awful lot like the myth that we are coming out of the Little Ice Age.

7839. Jim Eager at 05:08 AM on 12 March 2020
      2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #10
      

      MA Rodger, thanks for the confirmation, while pointing out that gas giants like Jupiter are a different case.

7840. william5331 at 04:38 AM on 12 March 2020
      World’s intact tropical forests reached ‘peak carbon uptake’ in 1990s
      

      If a tropical forest (or any forest) is a net carbon sink, then by definition it is not fully mature.  This suggests that in any patch showing net carbon uptake, sometime in the past, something knocked the forests back and it is now 'recovering'.  Fairly recent work in the Amazon showed that there were large populations in the forest before the introduction of diseases by the Spanish so perhaps the forest is still growing towards full maturity following the demise of the population.  Leaving agricultural land to re-forest, would likely result in very large uptakes of carbon.

7841. One Planet Only Forever at 02:40 AM on 12 March 2020
      How I try to break climate silence
      

      Regarding my comment @8,

      The following set of links are the specific ones I find are helpful, hard to dispute:

       

      • ... and particularly that increased CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels could become a significant influence: I initially refer to Wikipedia History of climate change science. If there are questions about Wikipedia’s validity, I refer to the SkS History of Climate Science. That is a well-presented alternative to Wikipedia that has matching content and adds reference to “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer R. Weart, and the Timeline webpage on the American Institute of Physics website.
      • Evidence of recent increase in levels of atmospheric CO2: NOAA Greenhouse Gas Website (also shows trends for CH4, N2O and SF6)
      • Evidence of recent increase of global average surface temperature: NASA/GISTemp data set, (I refer to the SkS Trend Calculator if the person wonders about other temperature data sets, and I discussion the difference between surface temperature data and satellite data)
      • Evidence of recent reduction of Arctic, Antarctic and Greenland ice extents and mass: NSIDC, particularly the Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis page.
      • Rising sea levels due to warming of oceans as well as loss of ice, not just Antarctica and Greenland: NASA Sea Level Change.
      • Sustainable Development Goals
      • UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs DESA
      • SDG Knowledge Platform
      • 1972 Stockholm Conference page of the history of Sustainable Development (part of the SDG Knowledge Platform)
7842. eschwarzbach at 21:28 PM on 11 March 2020
      World’s intact tropical forests reached ‘peak carbon uptake’ in 1990s
      

      Isn´t there an error in the text below the figure ("Light blue and pink show projections from statistical models")? Should not the light colors show measurements?

7843. One Planet Only Forever at 02:29 AM on 11 March 2020
      Debunking climate myths with Leonardo DiCaprio's Before The Flood
      

      jakerider @11,

      JohnSeers is correct about the merit of comparing nations on a per-person basis.

      I would add that you would also be on the right track to note that comparing per-person emissions within a nation also has merit.

      Fundamentally, the impacts of everybody's individual actions combine to become the future 'current days'. Regarding climate change impacts it is important to keep track of the negative impacts on a per-person basis. And it is important to understand that the negative climate change impacts need to be stopped. Negative climate change impacts are not sustainably reduced by a person who benefits from harmful fossil fuel use doing something helpful to try to counter-balance the negative impacts. There is a limit to the ability to off-set the negatives, especially as everyone aspires to develop to live like the highest status people if the highest status people continue to act in ways that create negative impacts, even if those higher status people all buy carbon-credits or pay a carbon-fee.

      Actions that counter-act the negative climate change impacts are helpful. But allowing continued fossil fuel use because of these accounted for off-sets is not sustainable. What is required is the rapid ending of the negative climate change impacts, along with implementing helpful corrective actions that are not potentially harmful, an example being reduced meat consumption with the meat that is consumed coming from helpful ways of growing and harvesting the meat.

      And it is important to understand that lower status people should be expected to aspire to develop to live like the higher status people do. The global comparison of regions or nations on a per-person basis can help identify where the most negatively impacting people are located. But what is really required is a comparison of inequity within the population, not between nations.

      The true focus of corrective effort needs to be on getting all the highest status people, the wealthiest and most powerful, to prove they deserve their status by proving they are the least harmful per-person people and the most helpful per-person people on the planet. It is absurd to believe that everyone freer to believe what they want and do as they please will produce this result, yet many wealthy and powerful people want that to be believed. Some people will responsibly self-govern their actions, but many people will be tempted to try to gain competitive advantages by behaving worse than others.

      Identifying nations with higher average per-person impacts can help identify who the least deserving wealthy and powerful people are. Nations with higher per-person negative impacts are bigger concerns for correction, especially if they also have higher wealth and power. Those higher per-person impacting nations can be the focus of efforts to reduce the total accumulated global climate change harm being done. And within those nations, the inequity of per-person status and negative impacts needs to be focused on. But it is fairly obvious that there can also be undeserving wealthy and powerful people in nations with lower per-capita average impacts.

      It is also important to understand that, fundamentally, it is very unlikely that fossil fuel use has created any sustainable helpful impacts. Fossil fuels are non-renewable. Therefore, a sustainable helpful impact would need to be something that does not require the continued use of fossil fuels.

      The resulting understanding is that sustainable societies and economies require the highest status (wealth and power) people to lead by example and be zero-negative impacting people who are also the highest helpful impacting people. And that requires proof that the way they became the higher status people did not produce significant negative results for anyone else, including future generations of global humanity. That leadership would set Good examples for everyone else to aspire to achieve.

      The richest and most powerful should also be expected to prove that they help the least fortunate develop sustainable decent basic lives. And fossil fuel use can be a way for the wealthiest to help the least fortunate, but only by a brief effective development transition through the use of fossil fuels that only the least fortunate benefit from. But it would be better if they helped the least fortunate by-pass the fossil fuel stage of development by giving the least fortunate development assistance that is truly sustainable. The most deserving of the higher status people would be helping the least fortunate to directly develop up to decent basic lives with low levels of energy consumption and all of that energy being renewable. And that then makes it clear that the highest status people need to be the lowest energy consuming per-person people with all of their energy being sustainable renewable energy.

7844. JohnSeers at 00:04 AM on 11 March 2020
      Debunking climate myths with Leonardo DiCaprio's Before The Flood
      

      @jakerider @11

      The emissions are expressed per person. So, no, there is no flaw there.

      Are you trying to say the populations of India and China are way bigger so they emit large amounts? That is obvious. 

      Expressing emissions per person is a good way to show and compare relative consumption. 

7845. jakerider at 18:57 PM on 10 March 2020
      Debunking climate myths with Leonardo DiCaprio's Before The Flood
      

      Sunita Narain talks about a graph that she made of how Americans use 10 times more emissions than china (per person) and 34 times more emission than India (per person). This data to me seems flaw due to the population of both countries, with america have way less than both. China and India have about 1 billion more people than America so the number per person in India would of course be smaller.
      They also talked about how 300 million of people in India are without power. With this it is obvious that India is not as rich as the USA. So the graph she showed is correct but it is also blind siding the main truth of the subject at hand.

7846. One Planet Only Forever at 12:03 PM on 10 March 2020
      How I try to break climate silence
      

      A long comment with details added for anyone interested.

      My starting point, or foundation, is “Try to Help Others and Do No Harm”, with the awareness that Everybody’s actions combine to become the future. And being aware that compromising on understanding and its helpful application, or compromising on the required corrections, is understandably harmful.

      I think it is essential for people to learn to be as helpful as possible and as harmless as possible. That means personally expanding awareness and improving understanding and applying what is learned to help develop sustainable improvements, and helping others do that. And voting helpfully, and helping others vote more helpfully, is a key part of that individual action.

      Rather than provide examples of what I do I will share the basics of the approach I try to use to help others expand their awareness and improve their understanding and apply that learning to be less harmful and become more helpful. It is a work in progress, but this is its current form. (A recent example would be my comments on the “Silk Road article”).

      A bit of personal Background:

      I try to stick to the fundamentals of constantly improving awareness and understanding regarding any issue and applying what I learn to try to help others and avoid harm being done or reduce the risk of harm. I learned that was the foundation of being a Good Engineer. And it was reinforced by my MBA education which I pursued out of interest in expanded awareness and understanding to be helpful, not in order to get richer quicker.

      My MBA education in the 1980s, and my engineering career, taught me that misleading marketing can be temporarily effective but eventually fails, so Good Managers should not use it. My MBA education also taught me that there were very few case studies of Businesses that were Helpful Good Ethical participants in society. Seems that the pursuit of popularity and profit can compromise good understanding and helpful intentions.

      I live in Alberta, Canada. I often encounter people who don’t get climate science and the required corrections of developed human activity. Many appear to resist getting it because getting it would require them to give up beliefs and actions that they have developed a liking for.

      What I try to do when given an opportunity to discuss climate change:

      The following is an Idealized outline of my approach to a comment that initiates the opportunity to discuss human climate change impacts. I try to follow it to avoid getting sucked into a foundation-less argument. I also try to not ‘match the attitude’ of the person I interact with if they start to get angry. That can be difficult because mimicking is a good thing in an interaction when we are collaborating, but the Fight side of Fight or Flight seems to wire us to mimic the increased aggressive behaviour of the person we are engaged with.

      I Start by establishing that:

      • Everyone’s actions add up to become the future. This is key to inoculate against beliefs that Others should act first, especially that totally incorrect but very common demand that the Chinese and Indian populations are the climate change impact problem, rather than understanding that per-person impacts are the point. It also blocks someone from claiming the freedom to believe and do as they please because one person’s actions are no big deal.
      • Improved awareness and understanding applied to help develop sustainable improvements and reduce harm done is a Governing Objective. This ties to my primary interest in raising awareness of the Sustainable Development Goals (all of the SDGs), and the key importance of limiting human climate change impacts.
      • I see little point in further discussion without this fundamental awareness and understanding being established.

      I then try to establish the following points of understanding, based on the source information I refer to (I am careful about referring to the IPCC or SkS. Many people seem to have developed an impulsive dislike of the IPCC and SkS, especially in Alberta):

      • In the 1800s there was the initial development of awareness and understanding that GHGs in the atmosphere increase the temperature at the surface of the planet, and particularly that increased CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels could become a significant influence: I initially refer to Wikipedia History of climate change science. If there are questions about Wikipedia’s validity, I refer to the SkS History of Climate Science. That is a well-presented alternative to Wikipedia that has matching content and adds reference to “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer R. Weart, and the Timeline webpage on the American Institute of Physics website.
      • Evidence of recent increase in levels of atmospheric CO2: NOAA Greenhouse Gas Website (also shows trends for CH4, N2O and SF6)
      • Evidence of recent increase of global average surface temperature: NASA/GISTemp data set (I refer to the SkS Trend Calculator if the person wonders about other temperature data sets, and I discussion the difference between surface temperature data and satellite data)
      • Evidence of recent reduction of Arctic, Antarctic and Greenland ice extents and mass: NSIDC, particularly the Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis page.
      • Rising sea levels due to warming of oceans as well as loss of ice, not just Antarctica and Greenland: NASA Sea Level Change.

      If I get agreement on those fundamentals, I bring up the Sustainable Development Goals and the understood need to achieve all of them through individual action, particularly getting individuals to vote for parties that will try to achieve the SDGs, all of them. And I point out that stopping climate change impacts of human activity is a major helpful action, because more significant human caused climate change makes it harder to achieve almost all of the SDGs.

      I then return to discussing the fundamental objective of learning to help develop sustainable improvements and learning to stop harmful actions, tied to knowing that Everybody’s actions add up to the future (negatives if they are harmful). And I try to make the point that there is no neutral position. There is no harmless bystander. Harm is harm. It is not balanced by doing good. A rare exception is trying to help an individual in a way that may harm them – the medical intervention dilemma. Aside from that type of rare Ethical dilemma all other considerations are pretty simple Do No Harm, and Try to Help Others.

      How I bring up climate change when given an opportunity to discuss any of the Sustainable Development Goals (there is so much covered by the SDGs that there are many opportunities for this type of discussion):

      I use an approach that is similar to the climate change one above:

      •  Start by pointing out that Everyone’s actions add up to become the future. And Improved awareness and understanding ….
      • Raise fundamental awareness and all of the SDGs, and the history of development of awareness and understanding that resulted in the SDGs: WWI – League of Nations (failure) WWII – UN, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (still a battle to have embraced and honoured by all Leadership) – everything since including Millennium Development Goals and SDGs.
      • Once agreement of importance of achieving all of the SDGs is established introduce the importance of stopping human climate change impacts because climate change makes achieving the SDGs so much harder.

      Regarding how people vote:

      I find it challenging to get people I encounter to consider changing their vote. Even if I can get a person to understand and agree that the threat of climate change impacts requires significant corrections of what has developed popularity and profitability, it can be very difficult to get them to change what party they vote for. Many people in Alberta are motivated by the wealth that they have developed a liking for obtaining from the export of fossil fuels combined with the comfort, convenience and enjoyment they can get from using fossil fuels.

      The majority of people in Alberta seem to have develop a liking for a certain type of political group based on uncritical identification, particularly just needing to see the Name Conservative or the political position being commented on as Right-wing (that type of party was Alberta’s leadership from 1931 through to 2015, and it returned to power in 2019). The recent time when a non-Conservative party won the leadership happened because there were two well-known Conservative Right-wing parties almost evenly splitting the Conservative/Right-wing votes (though the winning NDP did get a significant number of votes).
      And many of those Conservative supporters seem uninterested in investigating the helpfulness/harmfulness of the current set of actions and intentions of the political group they developed a liking for. Their natural inclination is to resist change. And that can be powerful enough to make them resist learning, resist fully correcting or expanding their awareness and understanding. Even getting them to be very concerned about climate change may not be enough to get them to change who they vote for. Some of them seem so ‘identity locked-in’ that they may dislike many of the current actions and plans of the party they developed a liking for, but they will still support it, accepting and making-up poor excuses for the harmful cheating actions and incorrect misleading claims made by Their Party because, well, it is Their Party and they want it to Win, they resist changing their mind (much like sports fans can excuse harmful cheating behaviours by Their Favourite Teams).

      I have tried to help them understand that the party they are supporting may have harmfully changed from what they developed a liking for. It may have moved to embrace the support of harmfully self-interested people and that change will damage the Brand they like to identify with. To be fair, many of them probably like their Party because of a harmful self-interest, but they are unlikely to openly admit it.

      Based on reading international political news I am quite sure that this also occurs with Right-wing parties and supporters in other nations. You may get them to understand climate science and the identified required corrections, but you are unlikely to get them to vote for a party that is not Conservative/Right-wing. And good luck getting them to succeed in pushing Their Correction Resistant Party to disappoint a significant portion of the Party’s dedicated motivated relied-on voter pool – all those who have a self-interest in personally benefiting as much as possible from the actions of the Party they support, especially the really rich supporters.

7847. scaddenp at 11:45 AM on 10 March 2020
      2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #10
      

      John, I note existance of Huffpost (and probably others) that look like they create alternative reality for liberals, though maybe/maybe not on same scale as Fox. I have little faith in any US news source.

7848. John Hartz at 08:51 AM on 10 March 2020
      2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #10
      

      @scaddenp 19: Political tribalism thrives in the USA in a large part because the far right wing-nuts have two powerful propaganda machines — Faux News and Sinclair Broadcasting.  

7849. scaddenp at 06:51 AM on 10 March 2020
      2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #10
      

      slcochran - parsimonious guess would tribal US republican, (ie identity politics) with iron-clad resistance to learning anything contrary to what they would like to believe. I hope my country never descends into this kind of polarised tribes. It seems state of US media lets you choose which reality you live in which is a very dangerous state of affairs.

      I dont think it is helpful to be blaming the russians for everything - while russian trolls dont help, I think majority of problems like this are firmly rooted in increasing tribalism.

7850. MA Rodger at 03:47 AM on 10 March 2020
      2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #10
      

      Jim Eager @17,

      While Venus doesn't have any on-going compression to provide a heat source, that is not true of all the planets. Jupiter is said to be still undergoing gravitational compression.

Prev  149  150  151  152  153  154  155  156  157  158  159  160  161  162  163  164  Next