Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 Next
Comments 8851 to 8900:
-
Evan at 13:53 PM on 31 December 2019The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Nigelj@23
I don't want to nitpick too much, but I'm sure you're aware that during the last deglaciation that an increase of 1 ppm/100 years was enough to drive sea level up 5m/century for about 3-4 centuries (i.e., meltwater pulse 1A). We are now driving up CO2 at 1 ppm/5 months. It seems to me that 5m/century is very much in line with the paleo record given how hard we're pushing the climate.
-
nigelj at 12:26 PM on 31 December 2019The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
michael sweet @21
"You appear to be arguing that your opinion is more valuable on any topic than experts in the topic that you deem "dead wrong". On this board you need to post links to support your wild claims."
I did supply a reference to the wikipedia article on Hadley Cells, which in turn quoted:
Xiao-Wei Quan; Henry F. Diaz; Martin P. Hoerling (2004). "Changes in the Tropical Hadley Cell since 1950".
Dian J. Seidel; Qian Fu; William J. Randel; Thomas J. Reichler (2007). "Widening of the tropical belt in a changing climate". Nature Geoscience.
I try to provide as many references as I can in the time I have, and I think I do quite well on the whole, and I wont be doing more.
"For example sea level rise. So far you have provided no support for your claims that 2 meters of sea level rise this century is "worst case" or will take "decades to centuries". Evan has provided a link that shows actual scientists think 15 feet is possible (although not the most probable event). "
I admit I didn't provide a reference for two metres. Yes you are right there are a few scientists predicting far more than two metres sea level rise per century. I forgot that. However its somewhat beside the point I was making, and the thinking of the wider communiry seems to be converging on 2-3 metres per century as a plausible worst case scenario, and that was in my mind, for example here:
phys.org/news/2019-05-metre-sea-plausible.html
Its absurd to suggest we could ramp up from current rates of sea level rise to 2 metres in the space of a couple of years, even Hansen didn't claim that. It misses the point anyway. My point was that there will at least be some time to adapt regarding finding more farm land. It will be harder to adapt in terms of physical infrastructure
Yes the IPCC worst case of 1 metre sea level rise looks far too conservative, a "keep everyone happy" sort of estimate and very frustrating. I've thought for ages that 2 metres / century is a very distinct possibility and needs to be in fornt of the public. I think I'm entitled to my opinion. There is good evidence in the paleo climate record for 2 metres per century at around 2 degrees of warming so nobody has to model anything, its a matter of historic record. But when people with a science degree start waving thier arms and saying 5 metres is possible by the end of this century, and that half the world could become a desert I wonder if thats plausible and helpful.
"Fast forward to 2016 and 18 coauthors backed a 5 meter top projection "
You are just doing the same thing again. Emphasising the extreme estimate from a small group of scientists, while criticising denialists who do the same. Nothing has happened in the real world to date to suggest 5 metres this century is possible. The very recent trends in the Antarctic and Greenland suggest 2 metres is possible from what I have read."This is a perfect example of what William Reese was arguing against. I do not think 6 billion people will die by 2100, but there are legitimate scientists who do support that claim. They are left out of the discussion. How can we come to proper conclusions of what path we should choose if we leave out the worst projections because we do not like them?"
They have not been left out of the discussion, because we are discussing them right now! Not that my opinion counts for much.
"You say "[William Reese's] views do not stand the test" but you provide only your opinion to test his against. You must provide data to support your wild claims."
I've provided some data that Reeses claims on vast areas of deserts are nonsensical, as mentioned above. That was my main point and appeared to be his main point. I concede I provided no reference when I mentioned sea level rise (:
"If 600 million people are displaced by sea level alone, along with destruction of prime, irreplaceable farmland, it is not much of a strech to see billions threatened by all of AGW's effects."
Arm waving and speculation. I agree billions would be threatened, but being threatened is not the same as being killed. Some precision is importrant, is it not?
I'm applying the mission statement of this website. "Scepticalscience". Are you?
I was born in 1958 as well.
-
michael sweet at 11:23 AM on 31 December 2019The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Nick Palmer:
You quote William Reese's article's references to Ken Calderia and Amber Reese to argue against him. He is arguing that extreme views need to be considered. The example of sea level discussed above is a perfect example where 15 years ago scientists argued that Hansen's 5 meter projection should not be considered because it was too extreme. Today 5 meters is accepted as a possibility (hopefully a slim possibility). It will not make the IPCC report because the rules for the IPCC mean all estimates are low balled.
I note that Caulderia qualifies his comment as "quality" peer reviewed. Presumably he does not consider 5 meters of sea level rise a possibility because he deems the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics as not "quality" enough. Daniel Bailey's report of his discussion with Alley is very bad news. Hansen has long argued that a fresh water lens could focus heat on the ice sheet.
The example of sea level alone suffices to demonstrate that billions are at risk. We must all work as hard as we can to prevent these disasters from occuring. Leaving out the high end projections while keeping in denier low balls means nothing ends up getting done.
From where I sit, I hear that projections of how much it would heat up have been accurate. Projections of the effect of that heat have often overestimated the amount of heat needed to cause destructive changes. Who predicted widespread wildfires, massive coral bleaching, killer heatwaves and dramatically increased storms at only 1.2C warming?
I have a strong recollection from around 2005 I wondered it I would live long enough to see dramatic effects from AGW before I died of old age (I was born in 1958 so I was about 50 years old, I expect to live to 85 years old). I am now 61 and see dramatic effects all around me. These effects were not described in the IPCC reports in 2005.
10 years ago deniers taunted scientists with descriptions of CAGW (catastrophic AGW). Scientists bent over backwards to say they were not making catastrophic projections. Today catastrophy is in everyones mouth: fires, storms, sea level rise, coral bleaching, forrest death, farm failures. Deniers never mention CAGW anymore. Changes have exceeded expectations.
-
michael sweet at 10:55 AM on 31 December 2019The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Nigelj,
You appear to be arguing that your opinion is more valuable on any topic than experts in the topic that you deem "dead wrong". On this board you need to post links to support your wild claims.
For example sea level rise. So far you have provided no support for your claims that 2 meters of sea level rise this century is "worst case" or will take "decades to centuries". Evan has provided a link that shows actual scientists think 15 feet is possible (although not the most probable event).
If you had followed sea level rise over the past 15 years you would be aware that long ago James Hansen projected 5 meters of sea level rise to protest the IPCC projection that around 0.4 meters was the highest likely. He was roundly criticized for that projection by people like you. Fast forward to 2016 and 18 coauthors backed a 5 meter top projection . The Richard Alley link above shows their argument convinced some other scientists. Read the background before you make wild claims.
In the USA currently 8 feet (2.4 meters) of rise by 2100 is recommended for engineering purposes. Two meters is so 2014!!
Your claim that 2 meters sea level rise is a worst case analysis is false and your repeating it without any support is sloganeering which is against the posting policy here at SkS. Your unsupported, uninformed opinion is not a valid scientific argument.
This is a perfect example of what William Reese was arguing against. I do not think 6 billion people will die by 2100, but there are legitimate scientists who do support that claim. They are left out of the discussion. How can we come to proper conclusions of what path we should choose if we leave out the worst projections because we do not like them?
You say "[William Reese's] views do not stand the test" but you provide only your opinion to test his against. You must provide data to support your wild claims.
I switched to sea level rise because I think it supports Reese's argument better. I have provided data to support my claim of 2 meters sea level rise (actually a possible 5 meter rise which would be much worse). If 600 million people are displaced by sea level alone, along with destruction of prime, irreplaceable farmland, it is not much of a strech to see billions threatened by all of AGW's effects.
-
Daniel Bailey at 10:42 AM on 31 December 2019The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
I spoke with Alley at the AGU this year. He indicated as much because of coming research showing that the ongoing melting of the ice sheets and thinning of the glacial tongues in Antarctica is causing the surrounding ocean to have a freshwater lens on the top.
Why this matters is becuase the upwelling warm water at depth can no longer reach the surface and instead is being redirected like a "blowtorch" at the base of the adjacent ice sheets.
Because the models treat the ice sheet like a "white painted rock" (the models do not feature coupled, dynamic interconnections between the ice, atmosphere and the sea) they therefore miss a great deal of the interplay driving the acceleration of ice mass losses there.
-
Evan at 09:51 AM on 31 December 2019The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
While we're on the topic of sea level rise, Richard Alley is on record as saying sea level rise could be more than 15ft this century. Not saying it will be, but saying it could be.
I think the readers of SkS will acknowledge that Richard Alley is one of the most respected voices on this topic, and he is also not given to exaggerations. I feel it is pointless to predict how many people would be affected with that level of sea level rise, but needless to say it would throw the world into chaos. Here is the link.
-
nigelj at 06:15 AM on 31 December 2019The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Regarding 2 metres per century sea level rise. Although this is possible to me, its not going to happen within a couple of years. It will still be a decades to centuries process, so if it causes food shortgages inland forests will be felled to supply extra land. Duh! But it will obviously wreck good farmland and lead to massive deforestation and infrastructure damage. The costs will be horrendous.
-
nigelj at 06:01 AM on 31 December 2019The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
michael sweet @12, you can't argue every issue by pointing to what an expert or two said and leaving it at that. Sometimes experts are dead wrong. You are using the "argument from authority fallacy," and also doing exactly what the denialists do when the point at a couple of denialist experts.
Reese argument is that 6 billion would die this century. The worst case is 2 metres sea level rise this century, but obviously that would only develop much later this century. Its simply not logical to conclude this would so devastate farmland to cause 6 billion deaths this century. I do not need to do calculations to see what is self evident.
6 billion might die 'eventually'. That would have been a more defensible argument.
You have not addressed the point I made about deserts. Instead you have shifted the goal posts to sea level rise. But nobody is telling me Im wrong about the deserts issue. I do not need to publish a paper on something that straightforward. I did support my comments with a reference to what the research says about changes in the Hadley cells.
Nobody advocates the precautionary principle more than me, but coming up with more and more extreme scenarios simply because we can't definitively rule them out is a process that has no end point, so next week it will be complete human extinction by 2100, then by 2050 etc, and this may just alienate the public and feed the denialists as others point out above. We already have enough sensibly based extreme case scary scenarios with wide support in the scientific community to use as communication tools, without having to go further into things that are wildly speculative.
Or put it this way, speculation is valuable for obvious reasons, and I do respect Reeses views and courage, but his views do not stand the test so shouldn't become the received wisdom and be put in front of the public too much.
-
nigelj at 05:29 AM on 31 December 2019Statistic of the decade: The massive deforestation of the Amazon
This is the article to read on the Amazon: Can Fire Destroy the Amazon?
-
Evan at 04:12 AM on 31 December 2019The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Nick@15. Thanks for your balanced comments. Personally I don't care about the dramatic "6 billion people will die by ..." arguments, because there are so many factors beyond science that will affect the course of human civilization, and which we cannot guess nor control.
The point I am trying to express is that I think there is too much optimism being generated by focusing on emissions scenarios. I am all for being optimistic, but not if it causes us to let down our guard. I am trying to hone my arguments for non-technical people, who will not be following the technical discussions at any level, and the message I like to provide to them is to watch the Keeling Curve, because in one curve we have all natural and human effects reflected in one plot. The message is to make your response and preparations on the basis of what the Keeling Curve is doing. To me that is realistic and rational preparation. Getting optimistic about targets set in Paris or elsewhere is not responsible planning. It is more wishful thinking.
So whether RCP8.5 or RCP6 is more indicative of business-as-usual is somewhat of a moot point. Either one spells big problems. I appreciate ATTP's article and clarifying current thinking and research, because it is good to keep up to date with the latest research and where we're headed.
-
Nick Palmer at 03:38 AM on 31 December 2019The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
"How many times have you heard reputable climate scientists say "Things are proceeding more rapidly now than we thought 5 years ago?"
Quite a few. Those remarks get publicised whereas the majority saying 'things are proceeding at about the rate we thought' or even ' some aspects' are proceeding slower than we thought' get less publicity. That's the point. Within the peer reviewed literature one will find all of those - don't cherry pick what you think supports your stance. Also, bear in mind that apart from the literature, climate sceintist are in constant communication with each other on Twitter etc keeping each other up to date with the latest findings. When such as Ken Caldeira says the 6 billion scaremongering is crap you should listen. -
Eclectic at 03:30 AM on 31 December 2019Flaws of Lüdecke & Weiss
Pbezuk @10 ,
you raise an interesting question, for us back-of-envelope calculators.
2 watts per meter squared, over 510 million square kilometers of planet, divided into 5.5 quadrillion tons of atmosphere . . . works out to just under 0,2 watts per ton of air.
Multiply by 31 million seconds in a year . . . rounds off to 5 watt-seconds per gram of air. Allowing for specific heat ~ you would expect that the atmosphere would rise in temperature by around 7 (seven) degrees per year. Horrifying, eh.
Fortunately, the lion's share of that heat is not going into the air, but is going into the ocean, the ice-melt, and the soil.
So it is hardly surprising that a fraction of 0,04% can have a vast planetary heating effect over a few decades. Not so?
Pbezuk, if you are meaning that you don't really understand the so-called "greenhouse effect", then you can find plenty about it here on this website.
-
Evan at 03:16 AM on 31 December 2019The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Nick@13. I don't want to get into the discussion of whether 6 billion people will or won't die by 2100. Even 1/10th of that would be disasterous.
Peer-reviewed research is typically 5 years out of date, due to the time delay between research, analysis, submission, review, and publication.
How many times have you heard reputable climate scientists say "Things are proceeding more rapidly now than we thought 5 years ago."?
Models still fail to explain why the arctic is warming as fast as it is. I've watched enough videos of reputable scientists to know that they routinely say they don't know how things will unfold and how fast.
Peer reviewed means the research is well documented and well reviewed by peers. Reputable scientists are having a very difficult time keeping up with the pace of climate change and making projections. This should make all of us skeptical of any arguments we read, whether apocolyptic or arguments meant to put our minds at ease.
Can we agree on the message that until CO2 concentrations stabilize we are in trouble?
-
Nick Palmer at 01:51 AM on 31 December 2019The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
michael sweet@12
You're playing into the hands of those mirror images of denialists, the doomists.
Reese's spin depends on Earth getting to at least 4°C+ and the article in which he makes the 6 billion speculation is full of the 'usual suspects' - Roger Hallam, Kevin Anderson and the various Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research people.
These people are the inheritors of the mantle of Paul R Ehrlich, who severely damaged the credibility of 'sustainability' science in the 1970s with his predictions (made in 1968) that in "the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now"
When assessing the likelihood of things happening ONLY the peer reviewed science should be looked at. Nothing else. If the various risks to society are being assessed, then and only then, should all the rest of the speculative projections be taken into account for likelihood. The two separate things should not be blurred in the minds of the public as they are being done today by various public facing individuals
Here is what highly credible and well known climate scientists said:
"UC Davis research scientist Amber Kerr dismisses Hallam outright. The idea that six billion people are doomed to die by 2100 “is simply not correct. No mainstream prediction indicates anywhere near this level of climate-change-induced human mortality, for any reason.”
Similarly, Ken Caldeira, senior scientist, Carnegie Institution, points out:
"There is no analysis of likely climate damage that has been published in the quality peer-reviewed literature that would indicate that there is any substantial likelihood that climate change could cause the starvation of six billion people by the end of this century"
-
michael sweet at 22:41 PM on 30 December 2019The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Nigelj,
William Reese is an acknowledged expert commenting on the carrying capacity of the Earth. He quotes at least 6 other experts to support the claim of 6 billion deaths. Your unsupported word is not a strong argument against multiple experts opinions.
The point of Reese's essay is that public discussion is completely centered on the best case. Bad cases are dismissed without evidence. A worst case of 6 billion deaths is as likely as 10 billion healthy people in 2100. He is addressing your attitude exactly.
A large fraction of the best farmland worldwide will be covered with only 2 meters of sea level. 600 million people displaced with no new farmland available. That is only damage from sea level rise. Possible downsides are very large. The precautionary principle indicates we must seriously consider these scenarios.
-
pbezuk at 22:40 PM on 30 December 2019Flaws of Lüdecke & Weiss
I read in comment of Douglas "The radiative forcing from the changes we have made in atmospheric CO2 alone are almost +2 watts per meter squared". How is this measured or calculated. Also I would like to understand with some calculations how a fraction of 0,04% CO2 could heat up 5.5 quadrillion tons of atmosphere with several degrees. Maybe you could refer me to some books where this is all explained.
-
Ignorant Guy at 15:11 PM on 30 December 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52
Regarding the 'Editor's Pick': The post says that "level of ice to melt in Antarctica in one day [...] on Christmas Eve" was "the highest melt extent in Antarctica in the modern era, since 1979." But beware of the phrase "since 1979". It doesn't mean that the melt was higher in 1979. It means that the data set covers the time since 1979. If you say "highest since 1979" you run a considerable risk that some denialist ( - I didn't say "denier" - ) will pop up and say "Aha! So you admit that it was higher in 1979!" No, I don't admit that.
-
HBrandt at 10:28 AM on 30 December 2019The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
NOAA recently posted this animated data. It’s a good graphic to share because it grabs people’s attention. Even those who are familiar with the data, find it is dramatic and convincing. “History of atmospheric carbon dioxide from 800,000 years ago until January, 2019.” www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html
-
nigelj at 08:45 AM on 30 December 2019The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
"Yes, the Climate Crisis May Wipe out Six Billion People"
There is without doubt compelling evidence the the IPCC are conservative in their conclusions, and climate change could kill huge numbers of people, but this number of 6 billion is off the scale, and looks like it needs a little bit of healthy scepticim. It's just that we can't call ourselves educated people with some healthy proper scepticism, if we just accept any old claims at face value. I'm not an expert and happy to be told if I'm wrong somewhere below.
This claim of 6 billion people being wiped out appears based mainly on a 4 degree world where huge areas of the world become deserts (from their map). But deserts aren't caused primarily by heat but by low rainfall. My understanding is the subtropical deserts either side of the equator are caused by the equatorial hadley cell, and thus high pressure air forcing down high altitude low pressure air with its low levels of moisture, and this low pressure air also a tendency to heat up the ground more than normal, so the combination that creates deserts. Deserts have other causes like air flow over mountains but again this is a thing not hugely affected by climate change.
It's hard to see why climate change would push these circulation patterns so far north and south to so hugely expanding the deserts. According to Hadley cells on wikipedia climate scientists think the hadly cell would expand this century by 2 degrees of latitude, so not very much. And overall climate change increases the atmospheres absolute humidity and rainfall.
That said, there will clearly be more deserts not less, and the tropics are going to get really hot, and heatwaves will become a deadly serious problem for survival and agricultural production will be affected, and temperate zones will have their own problems. Mortality will increase, a lot.
-
Evan at 06:57 AM on 30 December 2019The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
John@8. Nice summary of the problem. Thanks.
I would prefer that we message to people that we must, absolutely must stabilize the Keeling Curve. If people follow the Keeling Curve, rather than emissions curves, they will have a much better idea of what to expect.
I'm not for scaring people needlessly, but I assume that anybody reading SkepticalScience.com is already in the elite class of people trying to make a difference and would prefer to know the truth. Stabilizing emissions will not stabilize the Keeling Curve. Not even close.
-
John Hartz at 04:15 AM on 30 December 2019The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
The big picture context of ATTP’s OP and this discussion thread is encapsulated in the following…
But keep in mind that scientists are reluctant, for professional reasons, to go far beyond the immediate data in formal publication. Moreover, organizations like the United Nations, including even its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are so dominated by economists’ concerns and bent by political considerations that extraneous noise obscures the scientific signal.
Prominent climate scientist Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director emeritus of Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, argues that, in these circumstances “a trend towards ‘erring on the side of least drama’ has emerged” and “when the issue is the survival of civilization is at stake, conventional means of analysis may become useless.”
Exploring this argument, policy analysts David Spratt and Ian Dunlop conclude, “Climate policymaking for years has been cognitively dissonant, ‘a flagrant violation of reality.’ So it is unsurprising that there is a lack of understanding amongst the public and elites of the full measure of the climate challenge.”
Yes, the Climate Crisis May Wipe out Six Billion People by William E Reese*, The Tyee, Sep 18, 2019
*William E. Rees is professor emeritus of human ecology and ecological economics at the University of British Columbia.
-
Evan at 21:54 PM on 29 December 2019The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Human emissions are only one part of the problem: natural emissions and natural sinks are the other important parts. The Keeling curve (plot of monthly CO2 concentrations) is the best indicator of how we're doing, and it's still accelerating upwards (Ralph Keeling himself uses the words "accelerating upwards").
I will gain hope not when our emissions stabilize, but when the Keeling Curve stabilizes.
-
apiece at 19:54 PM on 29 December 2019The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
It is strange, history has repeated itself. It was reputed to be a little boy who was the only person to say "The King is as naked as the day he was born".
Now its a little girl, this time most of the world hav'nt noticed that we are in a desperate situation, only the ones who cannot say anything because they do not have the means and are taking the brunt of it.
Is it too late? have we gone beyond the threshold that everybody is talking about, beyond the tipping point? This is an equally dangerous situation because people are saying," Well there is nothing I can do about it so lets go on as normal".
All I can say is from what I see the increase in world temperature graphs are generally a hypabola, if it goes on and if the world population goes on doubleing every twenty years, far from having a problem at the end of the century, its going to be in less than 5 years.
Take a simple thing like boiling a kettle, I first empty a kettle, then as I put water back in with the tap running at fast, count to four for 1 person, eight for two ect. That way I am only boiling as much water as required.
Simple but if everybody did it we could do away with a number of nuke reactors. Getting people to do it is a different matter, everybody has their reason not to do it.
Then there is shear greed and people not wanting to lower what they concider their standards.
Then there is the industrys telling people to buy 4X4 cars or electric cars, they all want to sell more and more but what they are selling does nothing to save the world.
I feel there is no hope because nobody is going to listen anyway.
I think if there is going to be a change it will have to be a massive revolution of some kind to have any effect.
Tell me if you think I am wrong.
-
BillyJoe at 13:39 PM on 29 December 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52
From the above list:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QCBDnJU2sQ&feature=youtu.be&
Just in case you are considering giving in to the temptation to discard the term "climate denier" (as demanded by...climate deniers!), here is Potholer's excellent take down of Tony Heller's faery tale about the Petermann glacier in far north Greenland, demonstating, once again, that the term "climate denier" is not yet ready for retirement. Not by a long shot.
-
william5331 at 05:12 AM on 29 December 2019The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Perhaps it would be worthwhile to challenge the "Monktons" of the world with this thought. https://mtkass.blogspot.com/2010/10/forget-climate-change.html They don't have to believe that the climate is changing or that we are causing it or that it would be bad. They would have to support the very measures that would address the problem or reveal their real motivation and real backers.
-
SirCharles at 03:02 AM on 29 December 2019The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Time is running out and you dare talking that our climate future wouldn’t "look as bad as it once looked". Meanwhile, a decade of ice, ocean and atmospheric studies found systems nearing dangerous tipping points!
=> Climate Science Discoveries of the Decade: New Risks Scientists Warned About in the 2010s
-
Doug Bostrom at 16:59 PM on 28 December 2019The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Skeptical Science offers a helpful guide to RCP basics and more, in this pdf:
The Beginner's Guide to Representative Concentration Pathways
-
One Planet Only Forever at 16:33 PM on 28 December 2019The high and low points for climate change in 2019
nigelj @16,
I was taking some liberty when using the term Science. There is indeed concern about the application of the science. But there is also the potential to believe that continued Science will be able to solve a problem like the climate change challenges that are being imposed on the future generations.
That potential faith in science to develop 'the solution' is the problem I was also thinking of. Especially when it is used to claim there is no need to reduce energy or material use - because continued science will discover the ways to Fix Things so that high energy and material consumption can continue.
-
nigelj at 07:42 AM on 28 December 2019The high and low points for climate change in 2019
OPOF @14, nicely balanced summary, thought porovoking, except I wonder about the statement "Harmful faith in Science includes: “Science enables people to do as they wish with dominance and control over nature .." This is probably better applied to the term technology, or applied science, and the misplaced belief it can solve every problem. It's hard to have harmful faith in a scientific theory as such and the scientific way of looking at things.
-
nigelj at 07:11 AM on 28 December 2019The high and low points for climate change in 2019
takamura_senpai @13
You make some good comments. I agree with some and not others, which probably wont surprse you. Some random thoughts....
"Use a bicycle, have a good body and health, give positive example .... and laugh from fat car users......This work better, than boring appeal."
Yes I agree bicycles have many advantages. However our cities are designed around cars, so transitioning to the wide use of bicycles might be a slow process. Where I live we are building cycle lanes but its not easy as you can imagine, given the physical constraints.
Basically we are going to be stuck with quite a lot of cars for some time, even if people mainly use them for shopping etc, so electrifying cars or using hydrogen fuel cells is the most obvious way forwards.
"Much easier say: Africa, Asia are full of corruption. And do NOTHING."Africa = corruption, so they have to die" So many talks about population ... and here too. It look like racism."
Yes some people scapegoat Africa for various problems including climate change by pointing at its population growth and corruption. Its all unjustified, and tinged with racism, because corruption is not unique to Africa (and Asia), and their CO2 emissions are quite low and will probably remain that way even with a growing population, for some time anyway. But eventually Africa too will beome big consumers and emitters, if we continue with business as usual, and dont have a decent plan going forwards. So regardless of people unfairly scapegoating their population growth for problems, they do actually need to reduce their population growth.
However you reverse scapegoated Europe, by accusing them of being equally corrupt. Which is also factually wrong.
"Next.Politicians know about useless of agreements and meetings. But....How much noise about them we hear! and here."
Yes sadly. A lot of hot air and slow progress. However our civilisation is now so complex that making changes can take time.
"But solar panels, wind turbines, battery the same as 50 yers ago. People use batteries from old cars as a storage. What part of science? On research in solar energy and storage was spent less 0.01% than on entertainment. We try solve problem using a 50 year old technologies. => zero result."
This is 100% wrong in most places anyway. Battery technology is proceding at a spectacular pace with lithium ion batteries and many others under development here.
"I live in european country. There is geographical center of Europe lay in my country. And here green rates - corruption.....Ordinary people can't build solar plant without appropriate bribe. So robbers own all big solar plants. I think the same in most of World. And people become true haters of all this climat change, polar bears, nature and other rubbish, as they say."
You don't name the country or provide any links. You cannot assume all countries are like this. I live in New Zealand, and we dont have bribes and corruption like this. People are free to put solar panels on their roofs and connect into the grid and are paid for surpluses they generate, although not fairly, there are some problems like that. But yes sadly some countries have bribes almost as a way of life.
"Europe (and USA) politicians spent hundreds of billion dollars on the support of production NON elecric cars. It 100 more than spending on research on solar energy and storage. I see economic or corruption in their behavior/doings. Green rate in Germany 8.44 eurocents. People pay 20-30 or more. Just compare. Economic, not climat. You need dollars for buy oil, coal, natural gas."
I'm not aware of any governmnet subsidies in America for car manufacture, but they do subsidise fossil fuels, unfortunately. Not sure what you mean by green rates, please clarify if you have time.
"Asia is full of corruption" all World full of corraption :( As i said: "Because humans are egoists." I think approximately the same. Forms and ways different."
It depends on how you define corruption. The link I gave you defines it in certain conventional ways and its a fact that overall Europe has lower corruption than Asia or Africa. Of course all countries do have corruption to some extent.
Europe is not perfect, and they exploit other peoples to some extent, and drive very hard business bargains that are sometimes unethical. This is not corruption as such, but its arguably unethical. I guess the forms of corruption are a bit different from place to place, but we have to avoid false equivalence because some countries are definitely less corrupt than others, in an overall sense even by the widest possible definition of corruption. But its a bit academic, because regardless of the corruption level in another country, and how we define it, it never justifies corruption in our own country.
"Europe is leading in provision of wind energy and storage" China is leader in wind, solar energy and electromobiles. Produce 10? 20? 30? times more solar panels and electric cars."
Yes, although its mainly to reduce the pollution in cities and the chronic respiratory problems, more than to combat climate change. I guess the end result is still good and China deserve respect in regard to their efforts with renewable energy. Shame about some of the human rights issues.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:45 AM on 28 December 2019The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
nigelj,
I agree that it is incorrect to be impressed by appearances that things are getting better.
Only a portion of the problem-population (the higher consuming and higher impacting people), has cared to limit how harmful they are. And only a portion of that portion try to be helpful about reducing climate impacts.
As long as there is a significant portion of the population wanting to be high impacting people able to 'believe what they want with the power to get away with doing as they please' the problem is not on a pathway to a solution.
Humanity will only be able to be declared to have started on the pathway to a sustainable future that can be sustainably improved when the number of powerful people caring to be helpful, and rejecting any thoughts that there is a way to justify being harmful to Others, is large enough to govern and limit the behaviour of their uncaring harmful peers. Even then, vigilance will be required to ensure that the harmful uncaring people do not get a resurgence of popularity and profitability.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:57 AM on 28 December 2019The high and low points for climate change in 2019
Responding to swampfoxh's string of comments regarding religion and the poor.
There is a diversity of ways to be religious. Many of them are very helpful. And some of them are harmful. That awareness leads me to try to correct harmfully incorrect generalizations about religion related to climate science. And, as a thoughtful human, I feel obliged to respond to callous dismissive comments made related to the undeniably Good Human objective of helping the poorest (an essential aspect of almost every spiritual religion).
Undeniably, people use a diversity of ways to fight against the expanded awareness and improved understanding of the required corrections of what humans have developed, particularly, but not exclusively, the corrections that climate science has exposed are required for humanity to have a long and improving future. Only some of those people claim to be acting as members of a spiritual religious group. And not all religious people act that way or are impressed by those people.
Everyone can expand their awareness and improve their understanding that helping achieve and improve on things like the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is what life needs to be all about. Human activity should be governed and limited by objectives of correcting harmful actions and promoting helpful actions.
Almost every religion has established beliefs that support the achievement of the SDGs. But many religious groups have been infected by a twisted capitalist, colonialist, status pursuing attitude and related non-spiritual religiously held beliefs. And a scientific approach is not necessarily better.
That understanding needs to be increased. There is much Good in religious people and their beliefs. People ideologically holding harmful faith beliefs are a serious problem.
Harmful faith in Science includes: “Science enables people to do as they wish with dominance and control over nature - living artificially apart from the robust diversity of life rather than as a sustainable part of the robust diversity of life - only caring about other life that can be directly useful to a human's developed way of living.” That ideology can be the basis for absurd claims like: “Technological breakthroughs will be the answer to the climate challenge (that was created by desired technological breakthroughs); Have faith that the future generations will brilliantly artificially overcome any challenges and create a sustainable better future that has little need for non-artificial living, or other living things; Glory be to Technology from Science.”
There is also the potentially far more harmful faith in Economics: “Worshipping the belief that people being freer to believe whatever they want in pursuit of their personal interests will naturally develop Good Results” with the related damaging “Idolizing of the impressions developed by winners of competitions for popularity and profit” and the related false belief that “Everybody is fully deserving of whatever circumstances they are born into and end up with”.
Some religious people will agree that science will allow humans to thrive in domination and control of everything - As God Intended (at least the portion of humans who end up winning the power to dominate and control everything).
Religions in pursuit of dominance and control harmfully push their members to 'convert, overpower or eliminate' Others. And example of their harmful tribal actions include fighting against equality for women and a related dislike for the SDGs. And some fight against acknowledging that there are a diversity of ways of recognizing the Northern Hemisphere Winter Solstice because they believe that their celebration of Christmas must be the dominant one, the only legitimate celebration of the NH Winter Solstice.
Simplistically declaring 'religion' to be a problem regarding climate science is harmfully incorrect. The problems are all of the things people do without being governed or limited by expanded awareness and improved understanding applied to help achieve the SDGs and other Objectives required for humanity to have a better future. The pursuit and application of science without that governing objective can be very harmful. And the pursuit of popularity and profit without that governing objective is undeniably very harmful.
It would be helpful for people to expand their awareness and improve their understanding of religion, (and science, economics and politics) and apply that knowledge to achieve the SDGs. And it is very unhelpful to express a callous misunderstood generalization about religious people, who generally correctly want to help the less fortunate, in the same string of commenting that includes a repugnant expression of disinterest in helping the least fortunate sustainably improve to better living 'because they missed out - too bad - so sad for them - fake tears flowing if required to look as if caring was involved' (my paraphrased playback of the comment “My point is: since the unfortunates outnumber the fortunate about 5 to 1, how can the climate stand to tolerate the "outlaw species" assault on nature while the rest of us sit around our solar powered homes, etc, and expect to turn around global warming's dangers? I'm sorry the unfortunate missed the boat, but they will just have to do without”).
Helping the less fortunate sustainably live better will probably have to include allowing them to benefit the most from fossil fuels during the correction of what has developed, during the rapid ending of global fossil fuel use. But the objective still needs to be global total impact limited to the required total limit (1.5C), meaning the more fortunate ones currently enjoying fossil fuels need to be the ones to suffer the loss as “They lead the required rapid correction”. And Religious People are very likely to support that understanding, more than those with a faith in Science to magically solve the future problem of failing to limit the impacts, and undeniably more that those who have faith that the developed economic systems will solve the problem they created and have made worse through the past 30 years of full awareness, but denial, of the problem being created.
-
Dave Evans at 21:35 PM on 27 December 2019Ice age predicted in the 70s
Hi MA
Thanks for the links and the post. Very interesting. The thing I find fascinating is that I started tackling the Wattsup post but came from a very different angle- though equally unimpressed by it. I think your approach and mine are complementary. Will try to post later.
My interest was just how using some basic knowledge of science and careful reading of the Wattsup article meant I could identify numerous logical fallacies and inaccuracies. It would be interesting to see what you make of my thoughts.
-
nigelj at 18:08 PM on 27 December 2019The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial
rayates55 @17, putting it another way, Stern is an economist and he cannot take a climate change trend, and a deteriorating climate trend, and compounding CO2 trends and turn that into a mitigation cost, obviously. You can only say if things are deteriorating more than anticipated, it may be prudent to aim to get to net zero emissions more quickly. The time frame is a matter for climate science.
My understanding is he took the recommendation to keep warming under 2 degrees so about 40 years to get to net zero emissions, so arrived at costs of 1 % gdp year. We havent done much the past ten years, so now only have 30 years so its about 1.5% gdp year. If we aim for 1.5 degrees as per the recent IPCC recommendation, that leaves about 15 years, so about 2 - 3% gdp year. This does not suggest case of why it would be more than 5% a year.
-
nigelj at 17:31 PM on 27 December 2019The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
"In other words, current policy suggests that business-as-usual is closer to RCP6, than to RCP8.5 (which has often been regarded as a business-as-usual pathway)."
Gut reaction. I can't see how you can take policies which have not even been properly implemented yet, and no significant change in global emissions, and start talking about a new business as usual. The terms don't belong in the same sentence, not yet by a long way.
-
takamura_senpai at 16:45 PM on 27 December 2019The high and low points for climate change in 2019
To Nigel:
You agree with others my statements..... This is excellent and enough
CO2 emission rised on 2.5% every year. Positive results of all this meetings and agreements = ZERO.
Because humans are egoists. Emissions rised, rise and will rise.
If we look at graph of the CO2 emission ... NOT straight line...Why? ... We see in 2009...because of Kioto protocol or other ? Climate or economic reason?
Global warming - incredible hard problem. But we want to solve it.
Do we really want solve problem? Do we? Realy? And how many % authors here use a car?
Cars need oil, roads, expensive bridges, other infrastracture. Our towns and cities designed for cars, not bicycles or other. On THIS was spent many trillions of dollars. Too much oil, gas, coal.
Use a bicycle, have a good body and health, give positive example .... and laugh from fat car users......This work better, than boring appeal.
We have to speak about man's potencia and influence of low active life ... cars .. traffic fumes...fastfood and so on.
I specialy use such words.... too harsh.
We must build cities with NO cars, with healthy habitants.
And laugh from habitants of Los Angelis New York Mexico Tokio Seul Beijing Moscow
Overhead roads for bicycles and roller skates - transport of the Future
8 directional overhead roads, not our dull 4 diractional(South-North West-East). And no traffic lights.
We can and must use metan in cars and others, not petrol. Cheaper and reduce CO2 emission .
If we burn a economic war between USA and China - it reduce CO2 several billion a year.
USA produce more CO2 than all Africa, and 80% poor people in Asia and Latin America. Only 1 country! Start from myself/youself.
Much easier say: Africa, Asia are full of corruption.
And do NOTHING.
"Africa = corruption, so they have to die" So many talks about population ... and here too. It look like racism.Next.Politicians know about useless of agreements and meetings. But....How much noise about them we hear! and here.
NOW, i see the only possibility/chance to avoid catastrophic global warming in solar and wind energy, and storage.
But solar panels, wind turbines, battery the same as 50 yers ago. People use batteries from old cars as a storage. What part of science?
On research in solar energy and storage was spent less 0.01% than on entertainment. We try solve problem using a 50 year old technologies. => zero result.
If EU and US would spend 1% of GDP from 2000 to 2020 on research in solar energy and storage, NOW our view on global warming would be optimistic... in general. possible.I live in european country. There is geographical center of Europe lay in my country. And here green rates - corruption, only corruption and nothing else. 60 cents -> scandal -> 50 cents -> scandal -> 40 and so on. And 0 in research. People hate all talks about global warming, nature and polar bears. This is the result! People hate and +2.5% rise CO2 emission a year.
Now green rate for solar 15 eurocents, corruption part aprox 7 eurocents, and pay one time in the beginning - too good for politicians.
Ordinary people can't build solar plant without appropriate bribe. So robbers own all big solar plants. I think the same in most of World. And people become true haters of all this climat change, polar bears, nature and other rubbish, as they say.Europe (and USA) politicians spent hundreds of billion dollars on the support of production NON elecric cars. It 100 more than spending on research on solar energy and storage. I see economic or corruption in their behavior/doings. Green rate in Germany 8.44 eurocents. People pay 20-30 or more. Just compare. Economic, not climat. You need dollars for buy oil, coal, natural gas.
German chancellor Shredder now in warm place in Moscow Gazprom.
"Asia is full of corruption" all World full of corraption :( As i said: "Because humans are egoists." I think approximately the same. Forms and ways different.
For example use central banks.
Europe buy politicians in East Europe, Africa, Asia, Oceania. Moscow buy europe politicians.....
We have to stop use coal and buy more gas from Moscow.....
I can give hundreds of examples. But politic is banned here in cite.
oh. climate change - is a politic problem
"Europe is leading in provision of wind energy and storage" China is leader in wind, solar energy and electromobiles. Produce 10? 20? 30? times more solar panels and electric cars."Asia is full of corruption" - South Korea?
"Asia is full of corruption, not every country but many." Exactly the same we can say about Europe, and every other part of the WorldMy name is Mihail (in english style). takamura_senpai - just post box to be unique
-
nigelj at 05:51 AM on 27 December 2019The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial
rayates55 @17
"You did not address many of the facts that I presented and that you had asked for."
I addressed most of them, and I'm not obliged to respond to all of your comments. Some were good, some were irrelevant.
"You are correct that I presented no solution to these problems, that is because I know of none. Neither do you."
There are plenty of obvious solutions. Start changing your lifestyle, there will be things you can do that won't hurt and will probably even leave you financially better off. I'm not going to write lists, these things are easily googled.
Lobby your local politicians, I've done this on various matters not just the climate issue and if you are skillful it can make a difference. Vote for politicians and political parties that prioritise the environment. Educate your kids. It all adds up. Things eventually reach a critical mass. Policies change and history shows this. Nothing naieve about this.
-
rayates55 at 01:28 AM on 27 December 2019The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial
nigelj @16 wrote: "Not once have you said anything optimistic, or how we could overcome these problems. It just leads me to think you are basically deliberately spreading negativity to discourage progress, so a form of concern trolling."
Ah yes, the retreat to insults in the face of facts. You did not address many of the facts that I presented and that you had asked for. You are correct that I said nothing optimistic. That is because I see no reason for naive optimism such as yours. You are correct that I presented no solution to these problems, that is because I know of none. Neither do you.
Moderator Response:[DB] Sloganeering snipped.
-
MA Rodger at 23:56 PM on 26 December 2019Ice age predicted in the 70s
Dave Evans @84,
The Wattsupian nonsense from Nov 2018 you ask about doesn't appear to have been de-bunked but the major slight-of-hand employed by the denialist-&-nonsense-author Angus MacFarlane has been de-bunked by SkS.
The Nov 2018 nonsense purports to itself de-bunk Peterson et al (2008) which is the main evidence base for the OP above. [The co-authors seem to have been overlooked by the OP above who call it Peterson 2008.] In directly challenging Peterson et al, the Wattsupian denier reclasifies 20% of the surveyed papers cited by Peterson et al (14 of the 66 re-assessed with 5 Peterson et al citations not assessed) and thus attempts to convert the result from 7 'cooling', 20 'neutral' and 44 'warming' into 16 'cooling', 19 'neutral' and 36 'warming'. This is not greating different and certainly does not support the contention that there was a scientific global cooling concensus during the 1970s.
To provide more fire-power, the Wattsupian denilaist adds extra citations to the survey - two which he found for himself (again not a level of evidence that would change the Peterson et al result) and an additional 117 papers gleaned from an earlier denialist attempt to debunk Peterson et al. It is only with this extra denialist fire-power from 2016 that anything like the number of citations can be obtained to overcome the Peterson et al result. This 2016 nonsense has been debunked in a two-park SkS post here & here.
The general nonsense in this 2016 denialist blather is possible best summed up by the denialistical use of the 1974 CIA document which considers the global food supply and within this considers climate as potentially a major factor. Global cooling is presented as a potential increase in risk to an adequate global food supply. There is no 'consensus' being waved that global cooling is expected. Instead they cite HH Lamb but ignore Lamb's view at that time in the mid-1970s that "On balance, the effects of increased carbon dioxide on climate is almost certainly in the direction of warming but is probably much smaller than the estimates which have commonly been accepted." As this may sound itself a little 'denialist' to modern ears, I should all that the 1977 book containing this quote had added into its 1984 preface:-
"It is to be noted here that there is no necessary contradiction between forecast expectations of (a) some renewed (or continuation of) slight cooling of world climate for some years to come, e.g. from volcanic or solar activity variations; (b) an abrupt warming due to the effect of increasing carbon dioxide, lasting some centuries until fossil fuels are exhausted and a while thereafter; and this followed in turn by (c) a glaciation lasting (like the previous ones) for many thousands of years.” [my bold]
The evidence-base for the CIA document is set out in its Annex II is based on the work of one scientist, Reid Bryson who did continue to find it beyond his abilities to accept the idea of AGW as a problem that needed tackling. So even though the 1974 CIA document runs with global cooling, a worst-case scenario, there is no scientific consensus backing it up.
The other study cited by the 2016 nonsense is Stewart & Glantz (1985) which talks of an emerging AGW-warming consensus but itself analyses the conclusions of a 1978 study on climate projection to the year 2000. This 1978 study would presumably have been advised by any 'cooling' concensus had such a thing existed in the mid-1970s. So their conclusions will be of interest:-
"The derived climate scenarios manifest a broad range of perceptions about possible temperature trends to the end of this century, but suggest as most likely a climate resembling the average for the past 30 years.- Collectively, the respondents tended to anticipate a slight global warming rather than a cooling. More specifically, their assessments pointed toward only one chance in five that, changes in average global temperatures will fall outside the range of -0.3°C to +0.6°C, although any temperature change was generally perceived as-being amplified in the higher latitudes of both hemiipheres."
So here the 1970s view was more towards 'warming' than 'cooling' although I note the 'warming' opinion prevailed as warming 1975-2000 was +0.5°C.
And today we see nothing but blather in that Nov 2018 Wattsupian whittering. It is ever thus there on the remote planetoid Wattsupia.
-
Dave Evans at 19:25 PM on 26 December 2019Ice age predicted in the 70s
By the way... has anyone written a post debunking the Wattsupwiththat article (Nov 2018) on why there was a consensus on global cooling / imminent ice age etc? It is of course riddled with misunderstandings / errors / assumptions. I was going to have a go myself (I am not a scientist) but just in the area of logic and comprehension there are all sorts of problems.
-
nigelj at 15:58 PM on 26 December 2019The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial
rayates55 @15
"I think your projection of 1.5% each year in much too optimistic. It is not simply a linear progression, it is more like compounded debt and, in addition, the starting point is now much worse............If we are "ballparking" here I would guess it would take at least 5% GDP per year starting now. For the U.S. that's about a trillion a year. And guess what? We are not going to do that next year, or the year after, or the year after that. By 2022 we will have 28 years left, not 31 and the starting point will be still worse."
I don't understand why you refer to that 1.5 % of gdp number. I went on to say in my previous comment that "I agree things are worse now than Stern anticipated, so double the 1.5% number if you want. " I mean with respect I have a lot of trouble understanding how you didn't read that. So I did consider that things are worse now, however you are overdoing it a bit. For example I'm sure Stern was fully aware we could be emitting at higher rates now and that population would definitely increase, etcetera, and he would have taken that much into account.
Now my numbers of 3% of gdp were based on the Paris goal of 2 degrees by 2050, and I think I'm being very realistic. There is talk of targetting 1.5 degrees, then the time frame narrows much more, and 5% of gdp might be realistic. However its still doable if theres a will. America spent far more on the war effort in WW2.
Not once have you said anything optimistic, or how we could overcome these problems. It just leads me to think you are basically deliberately spreading negativity to discourage progress, so a form of concern trolling. Until your attitude and commentary changes a lot, that will be my conclusion.
-
rayates55 at 11:37 AM on 26 December 2019The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial
nigelj @10 says "The Stern Report is about the costs and speed to replace fossil fuel electricity grids with renewable energy grids and so on. From memory it was based on getting to net zero by 2050, and so costs 1% per year to do that based on a period of about 44 years, and this is now shortened to 31 years, so your 1% number becomes something like 1.5% each year."
I think your projection of 1.5% each year in much too optimistic. It is not simply a linear progression, it is more like compounded debt and, in addition, the starting point is now much worse. Here are some other numbers to factor in: Since the Stern Report, we have added about 500 billion tons of CO2. We are now emitting CO2 at a rate 23% higher than in 2006, so we have to drop it by that much just to get to square one of the Stern Report, and if that took 10 years (a miracle) we would be starting 25 years too late.
The atmospheric CO2 level was 380 in 2006 and is now 408. The rate of increase is rising. The earth has 15% more people on it. The goal in Stern was 450-550ppm. But that middle value, 500ppm, that is now recognized as a catastrophic level. Feedback loops are better understood now and are expected to accelerate the rates well before 500ppm.
If we are "ballparking" here I would guess it would take at least 5% GDP per year starting now. For the U.S. that's about a trillion a year. And guess what? We are not going to do that next year, or the year after, or the year after that. By 2022 we will have 28 years left, not 31 and the starting point will be still worse.
-
nigelj at 10:19 AM on 26 December 2019The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial
Meant to say its like comparing apples and oranges.
-
nigelj at 10:16 AM on 26 December 2019The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial
BeeKing @12, "So lets compare expenditure on green lobbying and support over say a 12 year figure where there are figures - Oil lobby @ $200 mill/year, government funding of $79 billion over 30 years = $2.6 billion/year and green lobbying money $80 billion over 12 years = $6.67 billion/year."
Blatantly misleading maths. There are other words for it as well. Your oil lobby figure of $200 mill per yr is genuine lobbying money, and by no means all of it, while your $6.7 billion per year green money includes a whole lot of other stuff according to the information you provide, so education, tax breaks, research etcetera. This is not lobbying money. This is not comparing apples and oranges.
Under President Obama, government agencies have poured tens of millions into non-profit groups for anti-hydrocarbon campaigns.
No link provided to substantiate this. -
plincoln24 at 09:51 AM on 26 December 2019The high and low points for climate change in 2019
I see that I wrote here instead of hear and radiacally instead of radically. This is just to correct the errors in my previous post. I don't see that I can edit it now.
-
plincoln24 at 09:48 AM on 26 December 2019The high and low points for climate change in 2019
I am at a loss to understand Katherine Hayhoe's concern about fear being a problem with respect to solving the climate crisis. I know that there are people out there who fear more than they should (Guy McPherson is a classic example of this and Extinction Rebellion peddles claims which generate unwarranted fear). However, the people who are not flying and not eating meat are having a major positive impact in the following way. They are getting other people to talk about it. I live in Denmark and out here there is a radio program called monopol where people call in to talk about their social problems and try to get help. I frequently here calls about conflicts with planned weddings, family vacations etc where someone is refusing to fly and it is putting a wrench in people's plans. Often the hosts are recommending respecting the wishes of the person who is refusing to fly, because they point out that research is saying that we need to change our society radiacally if we hope to solve the climate crisis. Their positioning is doubtless having a positive impact in ways I could never have predicting and I have a hard time believing that there will be a net positive gain with respect to the climate if we try to calm this fear and "religion". I respect Katherine Hayhoe greatly, but I just don't see how I can agree with her on this point. I am opening to another perspective if there is someone out there he thinks I am wrong about this. Do I have something to learn here?
-
BeeKing at 08:39 AM on 26 December 2019The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/03/25/oil-and-gas-giants-spend-millions-lobbying-to-block-climate-change-policies-infographic/#3fb08487c4fb. This article provides no breakdown or facts to support the claim "US$200 million a year on lobbying to control, delay or block binding climate policy" and so its not possible to tell if the money was spent on what it claimed, but lets take that at face value and presume that all that money is spent lobbying to stop climate change policies.
Lets look at the other side for comparison to see how much is spent on anti hydrocarbon or towards "Green" policies. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/clean-energy-firms-lobby-congess-as-much-as-dirty-firms-do/. So there is as much money spent on lobbying for green businesses as against them, but lets ignore that.
The US government spend of $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf.
Michael Bloomberg alone is spending $500 million directly on green lobbying https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/06/climate/bloomberg-climate-pledge-coal.html.
The liberal foundations that give targeted grants to Big Green operations have well over $100 billion at their disposal. That figure is confirmed in the Foundation Center database of the Top 100 Foundations. But how much actually gets to environmental groups? The Giving USA Institute’s annual reports show $80,427,810,000 (more than $80 billion) in giving to environmental recipients from 2000 to 2012.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and found $147.3 million in assets while environmental donor Gordon E. and Betty I. Moore Foundation posted $5.2 billion.
Under President Obama, government agencies have poured tens of millions into non-profit groups for anti-hydrocarbon campaigns.
So lets compare expenditure on green lobbying and support over say a 12 year figure where there are figures - Oil lobby @ $200 mill/year, government funding of $79 billion over 30 years = $2.6 billion/year and green lobbying money $80 billion over 12 years = $6.67 billion/year. So the green lobbying groups are expending $9.3 billion/year on average vs oil and gas $0.2 billion/year, or over 40 times more. That does not count the non-monetary assistance of mass media in propagating climate crisis claims, and education campaigns to indoctrinate children into green think whose value would be many billions more in influence, but even on a basic expenditure analysis who has more influence? The green policies with government backing have conservatively 40 times more influence. -
nigelj at 06:43 AM on 26 December 2019The high and low points for climate change in 2019
swampfoxh @6, not sure what you are saying. Could you clarify that a bit?
Agree about religion @7.
-
nigelj at 06:29 AM on 26 December 2019The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial
The article really does cover the denialist talking points very thoroughly. They are the same points used to try to rubbish other environmental science and mitigation ideas whether related to clean water, vehicle exhaust emissions, industrial waste etc. I see them all daily in our newspapers.
They reflect an attitide that short term profit must come first. This is a weakness of the capitalist system, and can only be properly mitigated with government regulation and penlties, or other devices like carbon taxes.
-
nigelj at 06:21 AM on 26 December 2019The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial
rayates55 @8 says "Yes, it (The Stern Report) said that "cutting carbon emissions so that carbon dioxide peaked in the range of 450-550 parts per million would cost 1 percent of the GDP annually". BUT, this report was produced 13 YEARS ago! Things are much, much worse now. Also, 550ppm CO2 is itself a catastrophic level."
The Stern Report is about the costs and speed to replace fossil fuel electricity grids with renewable energy grids and so on. From memory it was based on getting to net zero by 2050, and so costs 1% per year to do that based on a period of about 44 years, and this is now shortened to 31 years, so your 1% number becomes something like 1.5% each year.
1.5% per year is still an achievable number. This is only 1.5% of global economic output each year. Its about what a typical family spends on treat foods and luxuries each year, its about what countries spend on their military, its much less than what is spent on education or healthcare. And it would be easy to find 1.5% of gdp without loss of living standards just by making some efficiencies - if we wanted.
I agree things are worse now than Stern anticipated, so double the 1.5% number if you want. This is realistic and is still doable.
Check my maths and assumptions etc, maybe its wrong, but no arm waving please. Provide details.
Prev 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 Next
