Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 Next
Comments 8301 to 8350:
-
BarbNoon1 at 14:34 PM on 22 January 2020Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming
Yes, I really want to get out of this conversation, and we are off-topic, but I can't believe you don't know that cholesterol is bad for you!
When study results, funded by the dairy industry came out in 2010, Dr. Jeremiah Stamler immediately criticized them, followed by other prominant doctors such as Dr. John McDougall. Of course, Time Magazine writers did not know that, and they put "Butter is Back" on the cover. However, the science has not changed. Marketing is just more skillful. The huge industries repeated the same studies in 2014 in order to look like they had more "evidence," but the truth is, cholesterol still can cause heart disease.https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2014nl/apr/saturatedfat.htm
We have to be "very scientific" about following a vegan diet? Really? I have many friends who have been vegan for over 40 years (I guess I have to show my sources, Hope Bohanic, Kim Stallwood, Fiona Oakes and Butterflies Katz are a few.) Fiona Oakes runs and holds about 7 world records in ultra marathons and eats once a day, at the end of the day after training and then taking care of an entire animal sanctuary - she is 50 and has been vegan since about age 4. Source? Running for Good documentary.
39% of Americans are deficient in B12. You'd better be careful about that deficiency! We can get B12 from plants - there is new evidence that duckweed has tons of B12 and there are four plants found so far that have B12. The few vegan parents who had children who died starved them! Just being vegan was not the problem.
https://www.parabel.com/plant-based-nutrients-parabels-water-lentils-found-to-be-rich-source-of-vitamin-b12/
If you want the article for Dr. Jeremiah Stamler it is called, "Diet-Heart. A problematic revisit." However, I can no long access it - scientific document.
https://www.ars.usda.gov/news-events/news/research-news/2000/b12-deficiency-may-be-more-widespread-than-thought/
Back to topic:
Population, what we eat, and how we live are all intertwined in the climate change problem. If you want a march specifically for fossil fuels, do so. But most people don't even know the solutions to bring fossil fuels under control, and most people cannot do anything about it themselves, except hold signs in marches or write their representatives.
Your opinion differs from mine on what is important. Eclectic, you made your points and I made mine. I will not return. Please try to refrain from "Mansplaining," telling women to be low key, subtle, and repeatedly saying things like, "You really SHOULD know this!" Obviously, there are things you do not know about as well. -
nigelj at 13:02 PM on 22 January 2020Australia's heat and bushfires are signs of fundamental shifts in its climate
john @9, the 1974 - 1975 bushfire season did burn 117 million hectares, but almost all of it was grasslands in the outback towards central Australia that had zero economic impact and value. It was waste lands essentially. Nobody even noticed until some satellite data appeared. Refer Bushfires in Australia on wikipedia and read the tables and source material.
So comparing that season with now is an apples with oranges comparison. The current bushfires are in forests and around urban areas.
-
Andrew Strang at 12:36 PM on 22 January 202097% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
Is this criticism of the 97% consensus significant?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#75c776d21157 -
john. at 12:08 PM on 22 January 2020Australia's heat and bushfires are signs of fundamental shifts in its climate
As this is your first post, Skeptical Science respectfully reminds you to please follow our comments policy. Thank You! Apparently the bush fires in 1973 '74 buned 117 million hectares. So far this year it's been 10 million.
How can you say that's unprecedented?
Moderator Response:[PS] Please show us the source of figures so readers can ensure that you are comparing like with like. My understanding is that the "unprecedented" claims (this is the link Yale give their article) concern location and fire intensity but clarity from source would be appreciated.
-
Markoh at 08:04 AM on 22 January 2020Australia's heat and bushfires are signs of fundamental shifts in its climate
PS @5 A week in itself is not significant but what happens in that week can have enormous statistical significance. Could anyone argue the bushfires in the New Years week was not enormously statistically significant?
Simiarly with the large rainfalls in Eastern Australia the past week. Had these rainfalls occurred 3 weeks earlier and fallen in 2019, these rainfalls would have turned large areas of Easter Australia into having normal rainfall in 2019.
The rain events of that week would then have had enormous statistical significance and continued the BOM trend of Australia trending getting wetter over the last 110 years.
BOM chart showing a Australia getting wetter with more red prior to 1950 and more blue after 1950:-
www.bom.gov.au/climate/history/rainfall/
Moderator Response:[PS] Can you provide analysis to show that the rainfall event "would have had enornous statistical significance"? Without it, you are sloganeering again. You might like to look at analysis here but also note that temperature as well as rainfall is very important in bushfire. More relevant for climate and bushfire is probably PdsI which looks at temperature and precipitation.
-
Estoma at 07:32 AM on 22 January 2020How did climate change get so controversial?
I first became aware of the climate controversy in the early 90's. In perticular, Rush Limbaugh teaming up with former Washington State govenor, Dixie Lee Ray who had a PhD in biology. Ray had been sent by Limbaugh and his allies to RIO. I still remember her telling Rush why AGW was bogus. "I'm a scientist. I know!" I remember Rush proclaiming how silly AGW was. As an example he wrongly insinuated that volcano's dwarfed anything man could do.
https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1992/eirv19n25-19920619/eirv19n25-19920619_036-dixy_lee_ray_battles_rio_green_a.pdf
-
nigelj at 06:29 AM on 22 January 2020How did climate change get so controversial?
takamura_senpai, ego is a factor in all this, but imho there's more to it. You can't expect people to make big changes to their lifestyles when they don't see the entire group doing this, or most of the group. It not a rational response for them to sacrifice themselves for little gain. There's a technical term for this problem but I just cant recall it.
The only way to counter this is probably a strong carbon tax that forces people to all make some sort of change more or less in unison. Unfortunately this comes up against the people with ideological opposition to taxes and they are very influential. Because of this I'm inclined to think we are not going to fix the climate problem, not properly anyway.
Don't have a "peer reviewed study" to back this up and I'm not going to spend all my morning trying to find stuff I've read on it. So if my comment doesn't meet the websites standards I guess just do whatever you want.
-
nigelj at 06:28 AM on 22 January 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Sorry posted 143 on the wrong thread.
-
nigelj at 06:27 AM on 22 January 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
takamura_senpai, ego is a factor but there's more to it. You can't expect people to make big changes to their lifestyles when they don't see the entire group doing this, or most of the group. It not a rational response for them to sacrifice themselves for little gain. There's a technical term for this problem but I just cant recall it.
The only way to counter this is probably a strong carbon tax that forces people to all make some sort of change more or less in unison. Unfortunately this comes up against the people with ideological opposition to taxes and they are very influential. Because of this I'm inclined to think we are not going to fix the climate problem, not properly anyway.
Don't have a "peer reviewed study" to back this up and I'm not going to spend all my morning trying to find stuff I've read on it. So if my comment doesn't meet the websites standards I guess just do whatever you want.
-
william5331 at 05:13 AM on 22 January 2020Australia's heat and bushfires are signs of fundamental shifts in its climate
Some time ago I read a study based on the analysis of Stalactites and Stalacmintes that suggested that there is a 200 year cycle of wet and dry periods in Australia. Moreover, the wet period is coming to an end and a dry period starting. Add climate change to this and Aus looks to be in a spot of trouble. If the past couple of centuries were the wet period what must the dry period look like augmented by climate change.
-
takamura_senpai at 21:27 PM on 21 January 2020Australia's heat and bushfires are signs of fundamental shifts in its climate
I try. More warm ocean => more water vapours =>more blocking infrared radiation above Australia and NOT produce more clouds
Main: more water vapours NOT produce more clouds
-
MA Rodger at 21:09 PM on 21 January 2020Ocean acidification isn't serious
This has all got a bit shouty in a couple of days. Perhaps to return to the initial question @84. Markoh asks:-
"The bit I don't get is that all the limestone deposits in the world which is calcium carbonate were produced when the atmospheric CO2 was many times higher than today. So how did all the shellfish create so much shells that it formed huge limestone deposits with the very high atmospheric CO2 back then??"
I should point out that there is an SkS OP that directly addresses this question (Why were the ancient oceans favorable to marine life when atmospheric carbon dioxide was higher than today?) but perhaps a more succinct answer would be useful here.
Although limestones apparently predate shellfish, shellfish (or molluscs with mineral shells) date back to the Cambrian period when ocean pH was lower than today (perhaps 7.9pH or as low as the 7.3pH modelled by Ridgwell 2005). It is only in the last 30My that ocean pH was high as today (& atmospheric CO2 as low as today). With rising atmospheric CO2, the ocean pH is now falling (today it has fallen from 8.2pH to 8.1pH) and making the chemistry of shellfish more difficult. Those organisms using high--magnesium chemistry (as opposed to argon- or low magnesium-chemistry) will be especially vulnerable as will organisms who do not calsify their shells 'internally', but all will suffer. The last example of CO2 driving ocean acidification (the PETM 55My ago) saw limestones entirely absent from geological formations.
However, it is not the ocean pH that is directly the problem. It is the low concentration of calcium ions that makes shell-formation difficult and such concentrations being pushed low by dropping in pH, not by low pH. Thus over most of the last 500 million years, ocean pH was much lower than today and during these times shellfish thrived.
-
takamura_senpai at 21:07 PM on 21 January 2020How did climate change get so controversial?
"How did climate change get so controversial?" - because human egoism. Not only cars and electricity, ALL goods have a CO2 price.
Individual egoism against little problems for all in very far future. What was/is/will win?
Car users say many things, but still use a cars. Same with all others.
-
Markoh at 21:05 PM on 21 January 2020Australia's heat and bushfires are signs of fundamental shifts in its climate
Jim @3 "Moreover, it’s not just this one year, Australia has been unusually hot and dry for the past several years" I think that changed in this last week with much of Eastern Australia getting 1-2 months rain in a day. Wet and Wild theme park was closed due to Errrr too much water.
Moderator Response:[PS] Borderline sloganeering. Climate is not changed in a month or a year. Trends are what matter. Are you seriously suggesting problem is over?
-
Markoh at 20:57 PM on 21 January 2020Australia's heat and bushfires are signs of fundamental shifts in its climate
There is also the issue of fuel loads. Aboriginal Australians have been very critical of current day forest management and are advocating to bring back mosaic burning like they did for all those thousands of years. It makes sense to have a series of small fires rather than one big one.
-
Eclectic at 17:02 PM on 21 January 2020What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
Markoh @79 , thank you for re-opening this thread after nearly 8 years.
Your abc.net reference also describes how some of the Tuvalu islands are shrinking, and others are growing (a matter of coral sand being washed up onto them). A similar mixed picture, with other Pacific coral islands, and elsewhere in the world too.
Since the worldwide sea level is rising (according to tide-gauge measurements, and satellite measurements) at a slow but accelerating rate (due to the ongoing global warming plus an accelerating ice-melt . . . it comes as no surprise that many low-lying islands (coral and non-coral) are beginning to suffer problems. Not only the absolute sea level rise : but the rise plus stronger storm-urges are causing pollution of the fresh-water "lens" which, via bores, usually provides the necessities for the local population on such low islands.
It is vastly expensive for them to "transport in" such fresh water supplies. And the local trees suffer from brackish water at their roots. Result :- those islands become practically uninhabitable, long before the sea gets to ankle-level.
Also no surprise: the locals are not happy about the situation.
Markoh (as I asked and re-asked on your other thread today) ~ do you have a valid point that you wish to make?
-
Markoh at 16:06 PM on 21 January 2020What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
Hang on, the ABC Fact Check determined that Tuvalu has grown by 2.9% in the four decades to 2014?
www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-19/fact-check-is-the-island-nation-tuvalu-growing/10627318
-
nigelj at 15:49 PM on 21 January 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
michael sweet @141
nigelj: "Its clear an 80% solar and wind grid needs much less storage than a 100% grid. Orders of magnitude less. Nuclear power is one way of filling in the 20%. I have never said its the only way. Hydro would work in some places" my emphasis.
MS: "Your claim of "orders of magnitude less [storage]" is not supported by your reference. It appears you made this up. The inference that nuclear can reduce storage by "orders of magnitude" is simply nuclear industry propaganda."
nigelj :The magazine reference I quoted stated "Geophysical constraints on the reliability of solar and wind power in the United States posits that the U.S. electrical grid could be 80% powered by a solar-heavy+wind power combination using just 12 hours of energy storage to smooth out the variability. .....To reach a 100% wind+solar U.S. electricity grid would require 3 weeks of energy storage. " Clearly 12 hours of storage is "orders of magnitude" less than 3 weeks of storage exactly as I stated.
Perhaps the reference is wrong, but that is not my fault.
I never intened to mean that an 80% solar and wind power grid had to have nuclear power or only hydro power filling the gap, just that it was a possibility. Plus New Zealand has a lot of hydro power so I'm probably subconsciously influenced by that. Other possibilities are geothermal power, or biofuels steam turbine power, etcetera. I don't care. Whatever works.
Electricity grids need reactive power as you probably know. Solar and wind power are poor at providing reactive power although it may improve. The Drax biofuels turbine system supplies reactive power to the UK grid to help out the renewables component, which has a lot of wind power. Nuclear power , geothermal power and hydro power also provide plenty of reactive power.
I also never said a 80% solar and wind power grid didn't need battery (or similar) storage, just that it needed a lot less storage than a 100% grid.
You either don't comprehend what people say, even when its simply put or skimmed it a bit fast. I assume the later.MS: "When you say "Sometimes the consensus view is just wrong and the research on this issue [Linear Response No Threshold] is rather old and inadequate" and you dismiss a 2006 National Academy of Sciences expert consensus report you are repeating nuclear industry propaganda."
No I'm expressing my own opinion.
MS "You exchange a lot of posts on the unmoderated RealClimate forum. Much of the material posted there would not be allowed at SkS because it contradicts the peer reviewed literature and is untrue. Be careful what you repeat here that you read there."
Obviously you haven't read much of it, because I've spent half my time attacking claims made by the pro nuclear lobby, and also promoting renewable electricity. However I think they make some good points on some aspects of things that persuades me theres some place for nuclear power in the mix. I'm not alone.
"If you continue to repeat unsupported nuclear industry propaganda here I will continue to call you out. Renewable energy can provide ALL POWER to the world at a cost similar or lower than BAU."
I think renewables will win the day and you will be proven right. But its all speculation right now because we dont have a 100% renewables grid to know. The papers modelling costs are theoretical. Modelling costs is hard and has a bad track record.
France has nuclear power and some of the cleanest electricity in the world. They have already arrived at a clean grid.
I can't see a problem with a grid that has some nuclear power in it if people want. Its not actually a big deal to me. I don't accept your argument this undermines trust in renewables. People are not stupid. The world has long had grids with multiple sources of power.
This is probably going to be my final set of comments on this particular issue. I'm getting fed up with the bickering and accusations made against me about what I say or who influences me. I think for myself. I've had to waste time over this. I made my comments in good faith quoting an article froma main stream source, not some denialist / nuclear power website.
-
Eclectic at 13:38 PM on 21 January 2020Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming
BarbNoon1 @37 & following:
While I agree with much of what you say, nevertheless there are many disputable points.
All American children on standard diet have "striations of fat on their hearts" by around age 10 ? Did you mean so-called "fatty streaks" on the interior of their coronary arteries (which would apply to those with a genetic proclivity) . . . or mean merely fatty deposits on the exterior of the heart [as on the bowel ~ a matter largely caused by obesity] . . . obesity being known as a promoter of heart disease.
"Milk has hormones, and casein [... etcetera]" . . . but this is starting to sound like a Gish Gallop. And you are drawing a very long bow indeed. I did watch your "Dairy Causes Cancer" video. Sorry Barb, but it's very poor science, and also ignores the Big Picture. The cited papers on medical studies ~ show the typical weaknesses of studies of humans, as (a) being poorly-controlled, and (b) making little allowance for the vast number of confounding factors present in complex biological systems. All a ripe field for cherry-picking, too !
"Eggs high in cholesterol" . . . yes, that was thought important in the 1960's . . . but scientific understanding has improved since then. Which you ought to know. Please note that my main concern with rejection of ovo-lactarian diet, was in the area of child nutrition. A vegan diet can be fully nutritious, but you have to be very scientific in following it. Doubtless you've seen those occasional reports of developmentally-impaired children, whose ignorant parents simply gave the children what they themselves ate, without any allowance for vitB12 & sufficient essential amino acids etcetera. And then we should mention children in "Third World" nations.
"Sprayed ammonia" really should be unnecessary in modern scientific organically-based farming. Nor is it justified to eliminate all cattle livestock ~ since they can graze on semi-forest and marginal land too poor for most crops. And you will find on SkS here, some commenters ( IIRC: "RedBaron" ) who indicate that free-range grass-fed cattle can be beneficial by increasing carbon storage in the soil. Carbon negative! Sure, overall the cattle (and other livestock) should have their numbers greatly reduced, but not necessarily to zero !
Bozzza says all sorts of things, and often in a spray of one-liners. Sometimes he's right, sometimes he's "not so much" ~ it's as though he doesn't always care to make sense. But sure, overpopulation is a major problem, which is going to take centuries to correct anyway. AGW is too urgent a problem for "population reduction" to even be on the same page (and "population reduction" is even more a taboo subject, for most people). At the end of the day, it's the fossil fuels.
Barb, let's not get deep into subjects which are Off-topic for this thread.
The essential point I raised initially, is that the climate scientists should not be pushing veganism. Not this century, anyway !
-
michael sweet at 13:01 PM on 21 January 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Nigelj:
At post 130 you said:
"Its clear an 80% solar and wind grid needs much less storage than a 100% grid. Orders of magnitude less. Nuclear power is one way of filling in the 20%. I have never said its the only way. Hydro would work in some places" my emphasis.
You referenced a popular magazine. The actual paper is here (Shaner et al 2018). They do not model nuclear anywhere in the paper. The word "nuclear" appears once where they suggest many resources to provide back up power. They do not model an 80% wind and solar system with added nuclear (they never model a renewable energy system since they leave out existing hydropower). As Budischak describes below, 20% nuclear does not add to 80% solar and wind to reach a complete system. Nuclear is not flexible enough. Additional storage would still be needed.
Your claim of "orders of magnitude less [storage]" is not supported by your reference. It appears you made this up. The inference that nuclear can reduce storage by "orders of magnitude" is simply nuclear industry propaganda.
Budischak et al published a similar paper in 2013, except they modeled cost also. They also did not use existing hydro to fill in storage because "Hydropower makes the problem of high penetration renewables too easily solved, and little is available in many regions". They say "We do not simulate nuclear for backup because it cannot be ramped up and down quickly and its high capital costs make it economically inefficient for occasional use" Budischek found the cheapest solution was building out excess renewables. Shaner does not model costs, they only speculate on cost. Shaner was over 5 years out of date when it was written. More recent research shows that the larger the system the lower the storage requirements. (ie All Power requires relatively less storage than electricity only).
Existing hydro would fill much (all?) of the storage requirements for Shaner et al. Why did Shaner et al leave out the most flexible, already built, renewable energy system in their analysis (existing hydro is never mentioned in their paper)? Pumped hydro (the most expensive storage option, environmentally unsustainable) is mentioned 6 times. Existing capacity of hydropower greatly exceeds any conceivable pumped storage. Perhaps they knew that if existing hydro was included nuclear would be excluded from the discussion. I think Shaner et al are nuclear shills.
When you say "Sometimes the consensus view is just wrong and the research on this issue [Linear Response No Threshold] is rather old and inadequate" and you dismiss a 2006 National Academy of Sciences expert consensus report you are repeating nuclear industry propaganda.
You exchange a lot of posts on the unmoderated RealClimate forum. Much of the material posted there would not be allowed at SkS because it contradicts the peer reviewed literature and is untrue. Be careful what you repeat here that you read there.
If you continue to repeat unsupported nuclear industry propaganda here I will continue to call you out. Renewable energy can provide ALL POWER to the world at a cost similar or lower than BAU.
-
Markoh at 12:40 PM on 21 January 2020Ocean acidification isn't serious
Eclectic @96 when you questioned "Is English your first language?", that is casual racism.
Moderator Response:[PS] Nope. Many people of same race speak different languages. Drop it. Any further offtopic distractions by either of you will be deleted.
-
Eclectic at 12:19 PM on 21 January 2020Ocean acidification isn't serious
Markoh @95 . . . personal abuse and racism ?!
WTH are you on about?
Please stop the ridiculous deflections ~ and make your point, if you can. Whatever that mysterious point is !
Moderator Response:[PS} Please cool it and stick to science.
-
John Hartz at 11:59 AM on 21 January 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Recommended suppleental reading:
Nuclear power ‘cannot rival renewable energy’ by Paul Brown, Climate News Network, Jan 14, 2020
-
Markoh at 11:49 AM on 21 January 2020Ocean acidification isn't serious
Eclectic @92 why are you resorting to personal abuse and racism?
My question was very clear. If you don't want to answer it, the good news is that you don't have to.
Moderator Response:[PS] Eclectic was out of line but accusations of racism will not further useful discussion. Given confusion by other commentators, your question was apparently not clear to them and so best to clarify rather than perpetuate a misunderstanding.
-
Markoh at 11:45 AM on 21 January 2020Ocean acidification isn't serious
JH @87 a reference for which assertion do you mean? That limestone is primarily calcium carbonate or a reference that the worlds limestone was laid down during the time atmospheric CO2 was many times higher than today? as far as I can tell, they are the only assertions that I made.
-
BarbNoon1 at 11:27 AM on 21 January 2020Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming
One more. As far as "grass fed" and "sustainable," this article does the math and determines that grass fed and grazing are not sustainable.
https://sentientmedia.org/is-grass-fed-cattle-a-sustainable-farming-practice/ -
BarbNoon1 at 11:15 AM on 21 January 2020Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming
Okay. You may have to copy and paste these into your browser
1. "Too much choline . . . ."
http://www.clevelandheartlab.com/blog/choline-tmao-heart-health/
2. "Heart disease in children by age 10. If you don't want to watch the video, there is a transcript at lower left.
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/heart-disease-starts-in-childhood/
3. Dairy causes cancer. This video is heavily sourced with peer reviewed articles all the way through.https://youtu.be/HXWaCfWi1_U
I am satisfied with the discussion we've had.
-
scaddenp at 10:45 AM on 21 January 2020Ocean acidification isn't serious
It is not in dispute that limestone has been laid down when CO2 concentrations are much higher than today (though buffering means that pH was still around 7.5 or higher). See references I supplied further up. It means that organisms have to expend more energy to extrude shell which over long time frames they can adapt to.
However, the issue today is very rapid change in CO2 which results in acidification proceeding faster than organism can adapt and far, far faster than buffering by weathering can ameliorate pH. The paleo record shows this has been a problem for organisms in the past during such rapid excursions, and worse still, CO2 levels may be climbing far faster than in any known previous acidification events. Look for papers on PETM.
-
BarbNoon1 at 10:22 AM on 21 January 2020Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming
You mention children and eggs and milk, and I will not teach you about health in detail here, except to say that all American children who follow the Standard American Diet by age 10 have striations of fat on their hearts - yes, the start of heart disease. Milk has hormones, and Casein and IGF-1 growth hormones can CAUSE cancer, and even spread it. Eggs are high in cholesterol and have too much choline which can lead to heart disease. I spend hours researching and teaching health.
Now, why in the world would I just talk about ethics, when veganism causes such damage to the environment. Sprayed ammonia from farms can travel up to 300 miles and land in water where they cause algal blooms and fish kills. It's pretty hard to get away from the pollution when a 200 milking cows produces the same amount of urine and feces as 8,400 people.You tell me to leave the global warming subject alone, yet, in climate change marches, subjects like light bulbs, turning off water and recycling are seen. I thought you just wanted to see fossil fuel marchers! I understand what you are trying to say, and I will think more on it, but when it takes 2,500 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of beef, it should be talked about as an important amount of climate change!
Yes, I agree with Bozzza that so many of our problems come with over-population. Are you going to tell Bozzza to keep a low profile and not let population control enter the climate change conversation? All of it should be in the conversation. We definitely need worldwide readily available birth control for women and equal rights!
All these subjects are interconnected. Don't worry, I won't be holding a "Go Vegan" sign at climate change protests. I work in a different way.I do need to learn more about what we can do about fossil fuels, but it always seems like it is up to a very stubborn government that ends up doing nothing. I do talk about CO2 when writing representatives and when explaining the "driver" of climate change to other people.
I don't even see a problem. I just think you are one of the delayers when it comes to cleaning up this environment by eating a truly sustainable diet.Moderator Response:[PS] Excess white space removed. Please remember to support assertions (many of them in first paragraph) with references. Otherwise comments may be deleted for sloganeering.
-
Eclectic at 09:50 AM on 21 January 2020Ocean acidification isn't serious
Markoh , forgive my bluntness ~ but you seem to be having difficulty in asking a straight question. Is English your first language?
Please put some careful thought into how you frame your question, so that your meaning is clear. Don't rush, but take your time so that you express your underlying concerns about whatever it is that's puzzling you.
@87 , it appears that your assertion is that the high CO2 concentrations in the distant past would have been incompatible with the life cycle of organisms which (ultimately) produced limestone/chalk ~ such as the White Cliffs of Dover. Best, if you cite a source which supports that assertion. But if that was not exactly what you meant, then please re-phrase your comment in a better form. Clarity please !
-
nigelj at 09:18 AM on 21 January 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
MS @136
"In addition, nuclear supporters like you and Nigelj make repeated, false claims about renewable energy. These false claims make people think that the only solution we have might not work. Deniers like the two of you need to be told you are making false claims. "
What a load of false, arrogant, bullying, totally unsubstantiated rubbish. The most I have done is post links from credible, mainstream authorities. Either retract and apologise or I'm going to lodge a formal complaint with this website. You got three days.Moderator Response:[PS] This is going right over the line. Both of you are respected commentators and name calling is not promoting any kind of constructive discussion. I would call on both of you to stick the argument and discussions of references supplied, and to read each others contribution carefully before rushing in.
-
Markoh at 09:13 AM on 21 January 2020Ocean acidification isn't serious
JH @87 a reference for which assertion Do you mean? That limestone is primarily calcium carbonate or a reference that the worlds limestone was laid down during the time atmospheric CO2 was many times higher than today? as far as I can tell, they are the only assertions I made.
Moderator Response:[JH] A reference for the assertion that the world's limestone was laid down during the time atmospheric CO2 was many times higher than today.
-
Eclectic at 07:58 AM on 21 January 2020Ocean acidification isn't serious
Markoh , the answer is in the reply I gave you. Please read it again, particularly the second paragraph.
It is the combination of ocean chemistry status and the biological evolution of organisms to suit the status quo.
Buffering effects within the ocean, plus the ability of organisms to evolve protein structures that fit their environment. The calcite and aragonite forms of calcium are stabilized/supported by protein matrices, analogous to the way that protein matrices maintain the calcium crystals in your own teeth and bones.
Given enough time, organisms can produce remarkable evolutionary adaptations. Look at the chemistry of single-celled organisms that thrive on the deep surfaces of arctic/antarctic ice, at sub-zero temperatures (at which you yourself would be dead within the hour). At the other end of the scale, are thermophile organisms that thrive in hot springs ~ at temperatures where your own body proteins would be cooked (literally cooked . . . into a frizzle of damaged proteins).
Markoh, evolution takes time to get there. It's the rapid changes which are damaging to individual species and the total ecology of lifeforms.
-
cyster at 06:48 AM on 21 January 2020New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change'
What great rebuttals to this article. It is strange that it was even published with so many errors. Thought I would add these links as well.
1) Texas A&M study finds 1.2 tons of carbon per acre per year (1.2 tC/ac/yr) drawdown via properly-managed grazing, and that the drawdown potential of North American pasturelands is 800 million tons (megatonnes) of carbon per year (800 MtC/yr).
Teague, W. R., Apfelbaum, S., Lal, R., Kreuter, U. P., Rowntree, J., Davies, C. A., R. Conser, M. Rasmussen, J. Hatfield, T. Wang, F. Wang, Byck, P. (2016). The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture's carbon footprint in North America. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 71(2), 156-164. doi:10.2489/jswc.71.2.156 http://www.jswconline.org/content/71/2/156.full.pdf+html
2) University of Georgia study finds 3 tons of carbon per acre per year (3 tC/ac/yr) drawdown following a conversion from row cropping to regenerative grazing.
Machmuller, M. B., Kramer, M. G., Cyle, T. K., Hill, N., Hancock, D., & Thompson, A. (2015). Emerging land use practices rapidly increase soil organic matter. Nature Communications, 6, 6995. doi:10.1038/ncomms7995 https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms7995
3) Michigan State University study finds 1.5 tons of carbon per acre per year (1.5 tC/ac/yr) drawdown via proper grazing methods, and shows in a lifecycle analysis that this more than compensates for a cow’s enteric emission of methane.
Stanley, P. L., Rowntree, J. E., Beede, D. K., DeLonge, M. S., & Hamm, M. W. (2018). Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems. Agricultural Systems, 162, 249-258. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.02.003
4) University of Oregon paper shows that the co-evolution of ungulates and grassland soils (mollisols) was essential for geologic cooling of the last 20 million years - which lead to the conditions suitable for human evolution - and can be an instrumental part of the necessary cooling in the future to mitigate and reverse global warming.
Retallack, G. (2013). Global Cooling by Grassland Soils of the Geological Past and Near Future (Vol. 41, pp. 69–86): Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-earth-050212-124001
Also
Study: White Oak Pastures Beef Reduces Atmospheric Carbon
Third party sustainability science firm validates Southwest Georgia farm is storing more carbon in its soil than pasture-raised cows emit during their lifetimes.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/study-white-oak-pastures-beef-reduces-atmospheric-carbon-300841416.html
Upside (Drawdown) - The Potential of Restorative Grazing to Mitigate Global Warming by Increasing Carbon Capture on Grasslands
The paper suggests that the global potential carbon drawdown may be quite larger than previously estimated, where restorative grazing had not been factored. It is suggested that 25 to 60 ton of carbon per hectare (t C/ha) may be sequestered on semi-arid grasslands and savannas, representing a transition from highly degraded to fully restored landscapes. The global potential is estimated to be in the range of 88 to 210 gigatons (Gt), with a CO2 equivalence of approximately 41 to 99 ppm, enough to significantly mitigate global warming. The introduction and first-part conclusions are provided herein. The full paper including citations is available at the bottom of this page and at the link below.
https://www.planet-tech.com/upsidedrawdown
-
scaddenp at 06:32 AM on 21 January 2020Ocean acidification isn't serious
Markoh, first thing about biological systems and climate is that overall, lifeforms can adapt/evolve to a wide range of conditions. There is no "perfect" climate. What is problematic is rapid change - change that occurs faster than adaption can manage.
This applies especially to ocean acidification. Over long timescales (>10,000 years), ocean chemistry is roughly buffered by weathering. Some of the ocean chemistry detail in the "OA is not OK" series. For more about the ocean pH through time, see perhaps this paper.
What the geological record does tell us though is that past rapid ocean acidification events have indeed been a problem. See this recent review especially, chpt 4, "What the past can tell us".
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:09 AM on 21 January 2020Ocean acidification isn't serious
Markoh @87,
When I read eclectic's comment @85 I see a clear response to your question and some related additional information.
Maybe you could provide a detailed explanation of why you did not see it that way.
-
Markoh at 04:30 AM on 21 January 2020Ocean acidification isn't serious
Eclectic @85 But you response skirts around the 1 and only qustion I asked. That is, why CO2 concentrations many times higher than today was not a problem to shellfish when all that limestone was being created!
Moderator Response:[JH] Please cite a source or sources for your assertion. Thank you.
-
Jim Eager at 02:38 AM on 21 January 2020Australia's heat and bushfires are signs of fundamental shifts in its climate
"...you've got that back-to-front."
Indeed he does. The prediction that a warming climate would produce the kind of changes that we are seeing in Australia preceded this year’s events by several decades. Moreover, it’s not just this one year, Australia has been unusually hot and dry for the past several years.
But you can’t expect climate change deniers to even read…or listen...for comprehension, much less think it through logically.
-
Eclectic at 00:22 AM on 21 January 2020Australia's heat and bushfires are signs of fundamental shifts in its climate
Erm . . . Bozzza, you've got that back-to-front. Think about it.
They're not trying to predict climate change from one year's events.
-
bozzza at 23:59 PM on 20 January 2020Australia's heat and bushfires are signs of fundamental shifts in its climate
You can't predict climate change from one years events: isn't that what we used to say to be fair?!?
-
bozzza at 23:56 PM on 20 January 2020Ocean acidification isn't serious
Nice question Mark...
-
Eclectic at 21:55 PM on 20 January 2020Ocean acidification isn't serious
Markoh @84 , read this thread's OP (both the basic and intermediate form) for some detailed information. You will also find much of interest in the subsequent comments.
The short answer is the combination of acidity & carbonate & bicarbonate balances, with the gradually-evolved capabilities of organisms to produce calcite and/or aragonite structures (bound in organic matrices that are properly suited to the conditions). The rapidity of change in modern ocean chemistry ~ is the big problem. The rapidity of change is outstripping the ability of organisms to evolve to meet the new circumstances. Some organisms do okay, some are adversely affected . . . and the whole ocean ecology worsens (in the "short term" of a few thousand years). It's not just the shell-forming creatures, but the huge pyramid of fish species etcetera resting on the calcium-users.
If you are thinking of purely relevance to humans, then the problem is that we have a huge population ~ and where many have a high proportion of marine diet for protein.
If I may quote from a NOAA fact sheet :-
"Ocean acidification is an often overlooked consequence of humankind's release of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning. Excess carbon dioxide enters the ocean and reacts with water to form carbonic acid, which decreases ocean pH ... and lowers carbonate ion concentrations. Organisms such as corals, clams, oysters, and some plankton use carbonate ions to create their shells and skeletons. Decreases in carbonate ion concentrations will make it difficult to form hard structures, particularly for juveniles. Ocean acidification may cause some organisms to die, reproduce less successfully, or leave an area. Other organisms such as seagrass and some plankton may do better in oceans affected by ocean acidification because they use carbon dioxide to photosynthesize, but do not require carbonate ions to survive. Ocean ecosystem diversity and ecosystem services may therefore change dramatically from ocean acidification."
[my bold]
The second problem : is that we don't yet have a firm idea of how bad it would all get, for humans as well as the ocean ecology. And as the saying goes ~ it would foolish to gamble big-time with Planet-A.
Markoh, I don't know whether you've see it, but there's an old movie "Soylent Green" [a mixture of very good and very "corny"] . . . classic Sci-Fi . . . set in the "near future" ~ grossly over-populated world, food shortages, major civil unrest, deteriorating farmlands (with armed guards). Suicide is almost a patriotic duty. In one of the final scenes, the hero learns a State Secret : the oceans are dying.
That concept was an over-dramatic fantasy, for a 1973 movie. But more worrying, today.
-
GwsB at 21:51 PM on 20 January 2020Skeptical Science New Research for Week #2, 2020
nigelj, your answer was very helpful. 4600 joule heats one liter of water by one degree C. Hence 228 zetajoule heats the ocean with a volume of 1.35 zetaliter by 228/1.35/4600=0.04 degrees Celcius. Add 10% for the deep ocean (below 2000 meter), see p 139 in the Cheng et al (2020) paper, to obtain an average increase in the temperature of 0.044 degrees Celcius for the whole ocean. The CNN estimate of 0.075 degrees grossly over estimates of the effect of climate change.
Perhaps you can help me with another issue.
https://disc.gsfc.nasa.gov/datasets/IRISN4RAD_001/summary
shows the spectrum of the outgoing radiation on May 5, 1970 over the Sahara. The absorption due to CO2 is clearly documented. A more recent spectrum, say from 2019, might show in how far the situation has deteriorated over the last fifty years, and help convince skeptics that there is no saturation. Where can one obtain a plot with more recent data?
-
Markoh at 19:13 PM on 20 January 2020Ocean acidification isn't serious
The prediction is that higher atmospheric CO2 will lead to increased ocean acidification from the CO2 forming carbonic acid. And that the higher acidification will interfere with molluscs and crustaceans being able to form hard shells. The shells are fundamentally calcium carbonate CaCO3.
The bit I don't get is that all the limestone deposits in the world which is calcium carbonate were produced when the atmospheric CO2 was many times higher than today. So how did all the shellfish create so much shells that it formed huge limestone deposits with the very high atmospheric CO2 back then??
-
Claire Cohen-Norris at 12:45 PM on 20 January 2020I had an intense conversation at work today.
BobInNH. Yes.
Electrify everything and decarbonize the grid. And maximize efficiency. And revolutionize land use. And replace flight with high speed rail.
BobInNH...I am curious...how does my answer on this inform your takeaway from my blog post?
We have over 7B people on the planet. Somehow, we must move almost every one. Surely, we do not all have to see 100% eye to eye on planned pathways to start the journey?
We are running out of time. We need to find common ground and get going. Now.
-
michael sweet at 11:10 AM on 20 January 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Ritchieb1234,
I found this report from the Union of Concerned Scientists that estimates 27,000 deaths worldwide from radiation release at Chernobyl. About half are from UN reports and half are UOCS estimates using LRNT worldwide. It has technical parts that look OK to me but appear to be your specialty. What do you think of the UOCS estimates?
-
ubrew12 at 11:07 AM on 20 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #3
I wasn't able to follow the link to "Analysis confirms that climate change is making wildfires worse" by Donna Lu, Environment, New Scientists, Jan 14, 2020. I located it here.
Moderator Response:[JH] The glitch has been corrected, Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
-
michael sweet at 11:01 AM on 20 January 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Nigelj,
If you refuse to accept consensus science on LRNT it reflects on your judgement not mine.
It is clear that you do not know the basic vocabulary of power systems. To simplify, electrofuels are methane (natural gas), gasoline and diesel fuel. The fossil fuel industry has built out storage for terrawatts of storage of all these materials. I have referred you to Connelly et al Smart Energy Europe many times but you have chosen not to read it. It costs out a system for All Power (not just electricity as nuclear supporters talk about) using electromethane (natural gas) for storage. It is a little (10%) more costly than BAU for power but has many benefits. Unfortunately, it is now paywalled. Ask your local librarian to get you a copy. You could read some of the papers that cited Smart Energy Europe and get all the information. The first paper, Energy Storage and Smart Energy Systems discusses cost of storage and is free.
I think that the primary reason countries are still building out fossil fuels is two fold.
- Fossil fuel companies have a great deal of political power and use it to keep themselves in business.
- Major power facilities like nuclear and coal power plants take 10-25 years to plan and build. Renewable energy has only been economic for the past 2-4 years. It takes years for old plans to be cancelled and new plans made.
There has never been a nuclear power plant world wide built without large government subsidies. Wind and solar are installed all the time now without subsidies. Renewable energy is at least 4 times cheaper than nuclear. If we go with the market there is only one choice. Nuclear is uneconomic.
-
michael sweet at 10:27 AM on 20 January 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
DougC,
This is the third time you have challenged Linear Response no Threshold (LRNT) in discussions with me here at SkS. The answer is the same as the past two times.
LRNT is accepted, consensus science. The data in support of LRNT is overwhelming. The National Academy of Science Beir VII expert consensus report was written in 2006 and only considered data after 1990. Nuclear industry claims that 1940's and 50's considerations were adopted are deliberate falsehoods. You and others who claim your self-education on the internet makes you smarter than the professionals at the National Academy of Science are just denying the science. I doubt many readers here at SkS will believe a self educated person over consensus science from the NAS.
I have extensive industrial experience working for years with large amounts of radiation. You are a self educated person on the Internet with no experience or training in radiation. Suggesting that I am "afraid of" radiation is ignorant and insulting. I oppose nuclear power because it cannot possibly significantly affect the response to AGW. Any money spent on nuclear power is wasted. In addition, nuclear supporters like you and Nigelj make repeated, false claims about renewable energy. These false claims make people think that the only solution we have might not work. Deniers like the two of you need to be told you are making false claims.
As usual, your numbers on deaths from Chernobyl are about two orders of magnitude off. The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that approximately 27,000 people will be killed by Chernobyl. (95% 12,000-57,000 deaths). About half of these deaths are from UN reports and half are estimates from worldwide radiation exposure. This does not count the deaths caused by the evacuations (which the Russian government deliberately did not count). You parroting the nuclear industry excuses for killing so many people prove that you do not care about how many people nuclear kills. In general, I do not discuss radiation safety or how many people the nuclear industry kills because you do not care how many people you kill so it is a waste of time.
I do not know any opponents of nuclear who argue too many people are killed or that radiation safety is a big issue (Abbott only mentions the waste disposal issue). You brought up these issues.
I personally always argue that nuclear is uneconomic and that the materials to build a significant amount of nuclear do not exist.
Reading a little further in your chosen nuclear plant I see that they require 5 tons of bomb grade uranium for startup. Since we require solutions that are implemented worldwide how do you plan to secure the 5 tons of bomb grade uranium per reactor in Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe and Syria? With plans like this what could possibly go wrong??? (/sarc)
It is impossible to have a conversation with nuclear supporters like because you argue that black is white and up is down. Suggesting we should put our hopes on a reactor that has not yet been designed, uses "unobtainium" for many critical parts and uses 5 tons of bomb grade uranium for startup is insane.
Are you a sock puppet for Doug Cotton who was banned many years ago from SkS?
Moderator Response:[DB] While not an obvious sock puppet of Doug Cotton, the user was indeed using multiple accounts here and has since lost commenting privileges.
-
scaddenp at 08:47 AM on 20 January 2020How climate change influenced Australia's unprecedented fires
There is quite a bit of disinformation floating around about Green Party and it's supposed influence on fuel-management policy. Factchecking for claim that green party suddenly changed policy to support backburning here after the fires (they didnt - they have statement supporting fuel reduction). It is also hard to see how Greens could actually influence policy when not in power anywhere. This newspaper article quotes NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environments which states that there has been no reduction in burn-offs (target had been exceeded), but I cant find hard-data on area of controlled burns.
Also worth noting the misreporting about arson debunked here.
Prev 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 Next
