Recent Comments

Prev  221  222  223  224  225  226  227  228  229  230  231  232  233  234  235  236  Next

Comments 11401 to 11450:

11401. AEBanner at 21:03 PM on 4 March 2019
       It's waste heat
       

       Energy causes Global Warming

       michael sweet @218 Big Picture

       Volcanoes; yes, very interesting.
       But first I wish to make a distinction between sensible heat and radiant heat. Sure they are both forms of heat energy, but they need to be considered differently in the Earth’s system.

       Sensible heat is the energy of the molecules in a gas due to their motion; that is their kinetic energy.
       Radiant heat is the energy of an emitted electromagnetic photon. In general, this energy is greater than the kinetic energy of a moving molecule.

       Radiant energy is due to the vibrations of the atoms and molecules in a solid and a liquid. The so-called “black body” radiation.
       The nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the atmosphere do not vibrate, and so they cannot emit radiation. The GHGs, of course, can absorb and thence re-emit photons of infrared energy.

       The energy given out by a volcano consists partly of the sensible heat of the gases, and partly radiant energy from the hot lava and adjacent land surfaces, and the hot material particles also ejected. So, the radiant energy can, indeed, be emitted to space.

       The sensible heat energy goes mainly into the oceans, as we can see from the Figure 5.4 taken from the IPCC AR4 report and conveniently reproduced for us by MA Rodger in his post @215 Big Picture. Once in the oceans, the energy can then be radiated away to space.

       I hope this answers your question satisfactorily.

11402. MA Rodger at 20:16 PM on 4 March 2019
       It's waste heat
       

       AEBanner @165.

       Running through the difficulties your grand theory has to dodge.

       QUOTE 1

       If we were to divide up the global warming and allocate it to a source (as you do) - 11% to FF/Nuclear, 31% geothermal, 58% "presumably" the Sun - we are left with a highly unsatisfactory outcome. Firstly, this 11% value is a shift from your initial position which (@207 of a different thread) was suggesting that the FF/Nuclear input was "enough to explain the measured warming of the Earth's atmosphere." This is not saying four-times the measured atmospheric warming which is what you set out now. Secondly, where does this 11% value come from? Are you assuming the 159Zj of total global warming 1961-2003 set out in IPCC AR4 Fig 5.4 comes to something like 0.27Wm^-2 and the FF/Nuclear flux is calculated as some 0.03Wm^-2?  [NOTE - you may set this out on your web-page but if it is not set out here I am ignoring it. Your web-page is being 'corrected' so is not a 'published' source.] Thirdly, the geothermal energy flux is constant over time. Were this responsible for 31% of AGW which is running at 0.2ºC per decade, we would expect to have seen a 0.6ºC increase in global temperature over the past century and the century before that; indeed a 6ºC rise over the last millenium. Such a rise has not happened. Fourthly, IPCC AR4 Fig 5.4 provides values for the period 1993-2003 (0.55WM^-2) which are twice the rate of warming of the earlier period implying the earlier period averaged 0.14Wm^-2, a four-fold difference between the two periods. How can this be if the largest but 'presumed' energy flux in this grand theory was solar energy which has been declining over the period. Fifthly, if these energy fluxes from FF/Nuclear, Geo, Solar arrive within the global system and have no effect on the energy fluxes exiting the global system thus warming the global system, the energy accumulated then lost through the 11-years solar cycles would be an interesting and measureable test of your system as it is rather large. Where is this energy fluctuation?

       QUOTE 2

       You don't seem to realise that the kinetic energy of a molecule within an gas is not fixed. There is a large distribution of velocities (& differing masses) as the whole bishes and bashes iteself within the volume. And there are lots and lots of molecules and lots and lots of collosions, that relative to the number of photons emitted. You do seem to arrive at some of this learning yourself as you begin by misinterpreting the word "average" and end by asking for help in Statistical Mechanics.

       QUOTE 3

       Firstly, you misinterpret the mechanism by which an IR photon escapes the planet, this a matter of "standard physics." You are assuming that a CO2 molecule that captures such an IR photon will then wiggle for a while before shooting the IR photon away in some unspecified direction, this allowing an upward migration of IR photons up and out of the atmosphere. If this were true, the origin of the IR photons should be considered, so see the second point below. While essentially the process results in an outcome not greatly dissimilar to it being true, the "standard physics" says it isn't true. While a CO2 molecule will take on average tenths of a second to emit a photon from its excited state, such a molecule is in collisions in milliseconds. As the excited state is a mechanical wobble, a collision will interfere with the wobble and the energy is almost always (given the large number of collisions) absorbed by the air. The photon is emited by subsequent collision-induced excited states which are many more than photn-induced excited states. Secondly, you misinterpret yourself!! If the 15 micron IR photons do not originate from air but are simply transmitted through the air abet with CO2-redirections: if this were true, where do these photons originate from and where do they end up? If the atmosphere is a neutral transmitter, the origin must be the planet surface. And the destination must either be back to the planet surface or outer space. If the former were to increase, less photons escaping into space, this will of course result in an increase in temperature and thus an increase in photons launched up into the atmosphere. Golly, have we just stumbled upon a wrming planet and way of cooling down the warming? How does that impact your grand theory which has no such mechanism?

11403. crobbins58 at 18:28 PM on 4 March 2019
       Welcome to Skeptical Science
       

       Thermodynamics appears to be the basic truth. The inherent increase in entropy in any closed system (cycle?) predicts the eventual end point of everything,  as well as each step, along the way to the end of everything.

       Let us be content to work together and solve a simple problem as opposed to trying to solve something we cannot solve as evidenced by the many posts herewith. 

11404. AEBanner at 18:14 PM on 4 March 2019
       It's waste heat
       

       Energy can cause Global Warming

       As we have relocated to a new thread, I think it might be helpful for possible new readers if I were to mention again my wordpress post at
       https://wordpress.com/read/blogs/154908990/posts/50

       MA Rodger @217 Big Picture

       Thank you again for your recent post, but I am afraid I’m rather puzzled about some of your questions.
       Quote 1. “If the 97% of the warming that didn’t end up in the atmosphere didn’t result from the AGW, what was the cause of it?” End quote.
       I cannot quite see what you are getting at here. But my best assessment is that, for the period 1961 to 2003, 31% of the increase in global heat content came from geothermal sources, 11% from anthropogenic energy and the remaining 58% presumably from the Sun. But this is puzzling, because for Earth’s energy balance, the energy received from the Sun is equalled by the energy radiated back to space.
       Quote 2. “And happily your numbers are not inaccurate within your grand theory that CO2 at 288K cannot emit photons at 15 microns because the energy of such a photon is roughly twice the average kinetic energy of a molecule in such a gas. But do remind me - what is the minimum number of gas molecules you require to create a collision? There is further consideration of the statistical profile of molecule velocity and the other means such molecules have of holding energy.” End quote.
       Firstly, I should like to clarify this point about the kinetic energy of a molecule at 288 K. It is not the average kinetic energy, whatever that means here, but the total kinetic energy of the molecule. In other words, even if the colliding molecule could somehow give up all its energy to the GHG, it would still be less than half that required to enable a subsequent photon.
       I think the answer to your question is probably 2, but the probability of an instantaneous collision involving more than 2 is very small, in view of the extremely short times taken. Subsequent collisions would have the same problem.
       However, a proper study with statistical mechanics is really needed on this matter. Please, is there a reader out there who would be prepared to consider doing this?
       Quote 3. “Simply put, to refute the existence of 15 micron IR being radiated by CO2 in the atmosphere is to popishly refute a whole pile of very straightforward physics. The IR can be measured.” End quote.
       I’m afraid you have totally misunderstood my position on this. I have never denied the ability of carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, to emit infrared photons. As you say, this is straightforward physics. A more careful reading of my posts should make this very clear.
       What I am questioning is the probability of CO2 to be raised to the required excited state by simple collision with other molecules in the atmosphere. The GHG theory does not require this; it relies on absorption of photons of the matching energy. Yes, standard physics.
       Please do not misrepresent my ideas and statements.

        

11405. crobbins58 at 18:03 PM on 4 March 2019
       Welcome to Skeptical Science
       

       Using the abbreviation"FF" is confusing. It could be forest fires or fossil fuel. 

       Fossil fuel is also confusing since hydrocarbons are now considered to be naturally produced by chemical reactions under high pressures and temperatures inside the earth and not by decay of plants and animals. Hydrocarbons would then be renewable.

       Except for transmutation and arrivals from space, we are a closed system. Many processes interact, emerge, and disappear over time. We are intellectually incompetent to imagine what might happen or actually did happen. We would be advised to not do anything lest we make everything worse which is the only history we actually know.

11406. scaddenp at 13:30 PM on 4 March 2019
       It's waste heat
       

       MA Rodgers - fair enough, but main point was the AEBanner seems to be neglecting outflow to space. There is what seems to me a pretty wierd idea that heat from burning FF cannot result in radiation to space.

11407. MA Rodger at 09:25 AM on 4 March 2019
       It's waste heat
       

       scaddenp @162,

       The theory that all things hot radiate is a bit simplistic in this context. Absorbivity and emissivity are strongly connected. A shiny solid does not absorb so well and also does not emit so well. This is because the mechanisms that absorb are the same as those which emit.

       Thus N2 absorbs & emits only at very short wavelengths below 0.2 microns. O2 is a bit more reactive at lower energy radiation with absorption/emitting bands either side of visible light. There are also weak bands in the near IR at about 1 micron.

       But at lower energies deep in the IR, diatomic molecules like O2 & N2 simply do not have the flippy-floopy wobbles that are required to capture/emit longer wavelengths. So they cannot of themselves be warmed by such radiation or cool by emitting such radiation.

11408. nigelj at 06:53 AM on 4 March 2019
       2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #9
       

       “Trump is a branding guy,” said David B. Srere.... “He knows his audience and understands how to tell a clear, simple story."

       Trump is more of a manipulator of emotion, but he is mostly just convincing his already convinced hard core supporters, just look at his polling numbers. Middle America clearly respond better to a calm reasoned delivery (as long as it doesn't bore them to death). Political history shows attack campaigns are sometimes risky and you need positive alternatives. 

       Yes there is something to be said for keeping things simple, depending on context and time limits. I find most scientists and climate writers have good delivery but one or two scientists get lost in details.

       It needs to be said there is no magic simple phrase that will convince people of the climate problem. If there was it would have been discovered by now.

       But I feel one thing is missing . I do not hear enough mainstream scientists and climate jounalists in the general media articles pointing out how the denialists are using missleading logical fallacies (this website excepted). I think many in the mainstream are too frightened to criticise denialists too directly (again this website and similar ones excepted).

       “It might be that climate has become so wrapped up in one’s identity and worldview that it’s not the sort of thing that’s susceptible to better messaging,”

       Quite probably, but it appears nobody is certain exactly what is going on in this regard, and so surely we should at least have the facts out there on how the weather is changing and some specific events have been linked to climate change? Just don't exaggerate them.

       "Democrats tend to see it as part of a broader pattern of climate change, Republicans as more of an aberration. "

       That is what Republicans say when questioned. They might think something differently, but not want to admit it to the "tribe". So again keep the facts flowing on extreme weather.

       "With so many voices in the GND debate, one that is conspicuously silent is the voice of the scientific community. We urge scientists to engage in the discussion, both with their scientific expertise and as citizens."

       There are fairly obvious reasons why scientists would be reluctant to enter the world of politics. Their job is to communicate the science and they do pretty well. My one criticism is scientists are not perhaps highlighting the extreme but possible scenarios well enough (J Hansen excepted). The job is being left to people like Wallace Wells and he is a good writer (The Economist has given his book positive feedback) but he is a journalist, so will not have the same credibility as a scientist.

11409. scaddenp at 06:18 AM on 4 March 2019
       It's waste heat
       

       Responding to comment here.

       " it would be correct to state that such an atmosphere does not radiate IR."

       Anything with a temperature above absolute zero must radiate, including gases nitrogen and oxygen. What nitrogen and oxygen do not do is absorb IR (and then reradiate it).

       You seem to missing the fundimental point that exergy fluxes must balance. At any level in the atmosphere, the outgoing energy must balance incoming radiation. (and think about what "heat" is. Why discount ground heated by sun). If radiation reaching the surface (say) increases (as it does because of IR being reradiated when GHG increases), then temperature of surface must increase till outgoing radiation matches the incoming. Grab a physics textbook and revise blackbody radiation and Stefan-Boltzmann law.

       Heat is absolutely radiated to space all the time - and is measured by satellites. The amount of outgoing IR and its spectrum are completely consistent match GHG theory with extraordinary precision.

       If your notions were correct, what would you predict IR sensors on satellites would detect?

11410. scaddenp at 06:15 AM on 4 March 2019
       The Big Picture (2010 version)
       

       I have responded to AEBanner here on the waste heat thread where I believe this discussion belongs.

       As a moderator here, can I ask that all further discussion on AEBanner's notion be done there. It is offtopic on this thread and thus in violation of comments policy.

11411. michael sweet at 03:52 AM on 4 March 2019
       The Big Picture (2010 version)
       

       AEBanner,

       You claim that since waste energy from fossil fuel combustion is heat it cannot be reradiated into space. 

       Leaving aside the fact that all incoming energy is converted into heat before being reconverted into radiation, can you explain why volcanic energy does not accumulate in the atmosphere like human heat energ ydoes.  Since volcanic energy is also all heat, by your claim that heat canot be reradiated it should also accumulate.  Since up thread MARodger showed tht volcanic energy is 3-10 times more energy than human heat the volcanic energy should dominate your effect.

       Since volcanic heat has been emitted for all eternity, the Earth should be as hot as the sun by now, according to your hypothesis.  Obviously the Earth is not as hot as the Sun so the heat energy must also radiate out into space and not accumulate as you claim. 

       You need to learn about black body radiation which would also explain how CO2 emits radiation at a higher energy than the average molecule (hint: if there is an average than some molecules have more than average energy).

11412. MA Rodger at 03:12 AM on 4 March 2019
       The Big Picture (2010 version)
       

       AEBanner @216,

       The IPCC AR4 Fig5.4 shown @215 does indeed show the warming of the atmosphere at 3% of the global total. You say of the global total, the 100%, that you "erroneously attributed them to anthropogenic energy." We agree that there is a lot of energy in this 100% of the global warming 1961-2003. So being so great a quantity of energy should make my question on the subject easy to answer. If the 97% of the warming that didn't end up in the atmosphere didn't result from AGW, what was the cause of it?

       And happily your numbers are not inaccurate within your grand theory that CO2 at 288K cannot emit photons at 15 microns because the energy of such a photon is roughly twice the average kinetic energy of a molecule in such a gas. But do remind me - what is the minimum number of gas molecules you require to create a collision? There is further consideration of the statistical profile of molecule velocity and the other means such molecules have of holding energy.

       Simply put, to refute the existence of 15 micron IR being radiated by CO2 in the atmosphere is to popishly refute a whole pile of very straightforward physics. The IR can be measured.

11413. AEBanner at 23:57 PM on 3 March 2019
       The Big Picture (2010 version)
       

       Energy can cause Global Warming

       MA Rodger @215

       Thank you yet again for an interesting post, and particularly for including Fig 5.4 from the IPCC report. Your comments about the values in this diagram are absolutely correct. I erroneously attributed them to anthropogenic energy, and I apologise for this mistake. I have corrected the mistake in my blog.
       However, from this figure it was possible to obtain a value for the proportion of the total energy in the Earth’s system which was in the atmosphere as it was in 2003. This was 3.14%, and this was the value I used subsequently.
       Nevertheless, this mistake does not in any way affect the calculations in my blog, because my data is from the BP dataset.

       Now, about the question of radiation from the atmosphere. You agree that nitrogen and oxygen do not radiate, so for any loss of energy stored in the atmosphere, it would have to come via the greenhouse gases. This could only happen by emission of infrared photons from the excited states of these gases.

       But, the excited states are quantised; they have well-defined energy levels, and so the emission of photons is also quantised, as the molecule decays from one excited state to the lower one. You cannot have emission of only a fraction of a photon.

       The energy of a photon, and therefore of the energy level difference in the excited states in the molecule, is dependent on the frequency of the electromagnetic radiation. Consider the 15 micron emission from carbon dioxide. The photon energy is given by the equation Energy = h*f where h is Planck’s Constant = 6.63*10^-34 Joule seconds, and f is the frequency. It follows from the velocity of light that f=2*10^13 Hz. Hence, the energy of a 15 micron photon is 1.326*10^-20 Joules.

       Let us now compare this with the kinetic energy of a molecule in the atmosphere with an Absolute temperature T. By the kinetic theory, the energy of the molecule is given by: Energy = (3/2)* k *T Joules, where k is the Boltzmann Constant 1.38*10^-23 J/K. This gives the equation for the kinetic energy E = 2.07*(10-23)*T Joules. So at atmospheric temperature of 288 K, the energy = 5.96*10-21 Joules.

       This is significantly less than the photon energy given above, and so a collision, even involving all the kinetic energy, cannot excite a carbon dioxide molecule enough to enable subsequent radiation. Similarly for other GHG’s.
       So unless there is some other factor to consider, it would seem that the “Energy” ideas in my blog are still valid.

11414. MA Rodger at 21:18 PM on 3 March 2019
       New research, February 4-10, 2019
       

       nowherethis @35,

       You may glibly defend your continued requests for an answer to your "initial question." But if folk look back up the threads you have been commenting on, they see you repeatedly evading requests that you set out what it is you are asking.

       Your "initial question" set out thus:-

       "There's a lot of talk about "solutions". Is there any PROVEN solutions? Can anyone point me to the validation? I don't count 'appears-could-can-seems-may-projected-opinion-etc." as validation. I'm looking for something that is absolute and confirmed."

       There is of course a blindingly obvious but trivial answer to this question. If mankind reduces/stops* emitting GHGs into the atmosphere, the damage being caused by AGW will be lessened/restricted-in-level*. [*delete as appropriate] Such a "solution" is called 'mitigation' and is the only sensible route known to prevent mankind's GHGs trashing the global climate, something which threatens to make parts of the globe uninhabitable (outside air conditioning) and to crash the world economy.

       As this is so blindingly obvious and trivial, I have always assumed it is not what you want and have asked you on more than one occasion to set out you enquiry properly.

       So, assuming the above response is not what you seek, will you do that now? What do you mean by "solution"?

11415. Eclectic at 16:03 PM on 3 March 2019
       New research, February 4-10, 2019
       

       Philippe Chantreau @37  [and prior]

       you are of course correct, when you say that our mutual friend (Nowhearthis) cannot be taken seriously.

       He is atypical, in that he combines concern-trolling and the usual extremist venting (that political ideological extreme where callous selfishness views itself as virtuous).   As usual, there is a large dollop of wilful blindness to scientific fact & logic, and a large dollop of smoke-and-mirrors sophistry (or rhetorical posturing . . . call it what you will) which is the product of Motivated Reasoning.

       Probably at a deeper level, there is an intellect silently pleading to be freed from the emotional binds of denialism . . . and hoping that "Prince Philippe" or "Baron Red" (or anyone at SkS) can find the magic phrases which will convince the "other" part of the brain of its wrongheadedness?   Well, that might (or might not) explain the continual repetition of mangled & absurd arguments from our friend.

       There is some amusement value in engaging with the repetitious posts . . . counterbalanced by the tiresomeness of it all.   Yet hope springs eternal....

11416. RedBaron at 14:53 PM on 3 March 2019
       New research, February 4-10, 2019
       

       @35 nowhearthis,

       Several answered the question, you just did not like the answer. But the question is a rhetorical trick, if any reputable scientist answered directly, it would discredit themselves and thus their answer.

       People here on this website are very well aware of these sorts of tricks and the logic fallacies that are used to create them. You won't be capable of tricking any of the regular members here. The only ones you'll be able to trick are denialists.

       Now you wanted originally absolute confirmation. You got an extra two Earth's to experiment with? One as a control and one to test mitigation strategies on? Oops. No you don't.

       But you also made unsupported claims about how horrible and costly the results of new research in mitigation would be to enact. Some may have proposed certain things that could potentially be costly, but you are ignoring the metaphorical "low fruit". That is mitigation strategies 100% benefial to everyone. The so called win/win strategy.

       'In the early 1970s, it dawned on me that no one had ever applied design to agriculture. When I realised it, the hairs went up on the back of my neck. It was so strange. We’d had agriculture for 7,000 years, and we’d been losing for 7,000 years — everything was turning into desert. So I wondered, can we build systems that obey ecological principles? We know what they are, we just never apply them. Ecologists never apply good ecology to their gardens. Architects never understand the transmission of heat in buildings. And physicists live in houses with demented energy systems. It’s curious that we never apply what we know to how we actually live.'-Bill Mollison

       That means we do have certain kinds of confirmation. Not the 100% absolute confirmation you requested, as that's just rhetorical nonsense. But there is quite a lot confirmed in trials and in the field already.  For example, I posted to you results from case study trial that shows an average 10 year sequestration rate of soil carbon via the LCP of 5-10 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr. I also showed 6 other studies from around the world where there are people confirmed to have reached sequestration rates in that range. (as well as studies showing when why and how other farmers failed to reach that rate)

       So since we have absolute confirmation at least some farmers from around the world can reach this high rate of sequestration, and we have at least some knowledge of when farmers have failed to reach such a high rate of sequestration, we can project what when and how changes in agriculture could be made to significantly mitigate AGW. It's a projection though. You couldn't be absolutely 100% sure until you actually did it.

       “Yes, agriculture done improperly can definitely be a problem, but agriculture done in a proper way is an important solution to environmental issues including climate change, water issues, and biodiversity.”-Rattan Lal

       The advantage with this conservative approach though is there would be minimal risk. There are no known nor projected negative side effects to any of these proposed changes. Quite the contrary, they are universally beneficial to economies (both local and macro), environment, public health, etc... There is no down side. So we should enact this part of the mitigation strategy immediately. (And sure enough we are, but slowly. Maybe too slowly.)

       "If all farmland was a net sink rather than a net source for CO2, atmospheric CO2 levels would fall at the same time as farm productivity and watershed function improved. This would solve the vast majority of our food production, environmental and human health ‘problems’." Dr. Christine Jones

       That leaves the other side of the carbon cycle. There are also certain parts of the emissions side with "low hanging fruit" that absolutely is beneficial to everyone. Higher efficiencies and less waste benefit everyone. Passive solar and passive geothermal in designs combined with better insulation and remodels of older buildings all helps significantly with no known down sides at all. These also are being done already and building codes around the world reflect this. Some countries are further behind than others of course, but this is absolutely beneficial to everyone and is already happening now!

       That leaves the problems though, excessive use of fossil fuels for inefficient and wasteful uses. This is what really needs focused on in my opinion. We need to speed up the natural replacement of fossil fuels with renewables right now. There should not ever be a new coal plant being built any more, and they should slowly be weaned out as the old plants get decomissioned. 

       That of course might hurt jobs in the antiquated and obsolete coal business, but in the new and modern solar wind and hydroelectric businesses that replace it can be found far more benefits to offset the losses. So while not absolute in benefits, the total net is a certain benefit.

       It's only when you try to take all fossil fuels to zero and too fast that you run into projected high cost negative side effects, shortages, and economic collapse. So don't do that! There are plenty of these 100% beneficial things we can do as "low fruit" that we know work without any new technologies needed. 

       And even better, most likely if we take on all of the "low fruit" there is a pretty good chance we won't need to make any "draconian" cuts. (to use your weighted term) That's not 100% absolute. WE need to try it and see. But it's pretty likely and MUCH better than the status quo. And since we must try to salvage as much of the environment as we can to avoid it causing our own collapse, this is something we must try, unequivocally.

       "Ecosystem function is vastly more valuable than the production and consumption of goods and services." -John D. Liu

11417. Philippe Chantreau at 13:20 PM on 3 March 2019
       New research, February 4-10, 2019
       

       Your "initial question" is nothing but a rethorical trick. It is asking for something both impossible and unnecessary and runs counter to any kind of logical thought process. I'm sure some can be fooled by such courtroom methods. If I have studies showing how smoking damages airways, their lining, the cells' DNA, how it promotes inflammation and platelet activation, how it is associated with a variety of conditions, I do not need a study also showing health outcomes of smokers who quit vs. those who continue in order to know that it will be beneficial to quit, would it be only to stop the ongoing damage. That is basic logic. Such studies will simply quantify exactly how far that benefit extends, how quickly it manifests and other such details, which may be useful but unnecessary to know that quitting will be beneficial. If there were several planets to experiment with, your rethorical question could be answered with great precision, but that's obviously not the situation. As it stands, it is sophistry.

11418. Philippe Chantreau at 11:48 AM on 3 March 2019
       New research, February 4-10, 2019
       

       The science is in MODTRAN and HITRAN that show with exquisite precision how infrared behaves in the atmosphere. They have been validated ad-nauseam. The science is in the TOA measurements, in the atmospheric energy budgets. The science of what CO2 does to infrared is established beyond the shadow of a doubt. The science is in the isotopic signature of fossil carbon, there is a large litterature showing that the recent and enormous increase is due to FF burning. It takes inferred reasoning to conme to the conclusion that limiting atmospheric CO2 is necessary to prevent the system from going in a territory entirely new for humans. If you're trying to argue that inferred reasoning should not be used when planning for the future you have given up all chance of being taken seriously. The science shows that warming is happening and already taking a considerable toll; it shows that anthropogenic CO2 is a major driver. How much of an effort does it take to reach the conclusion that said CO2 emissions should be reduced? This is nonsense. You are asking for proof that an action will have some effect without offering anything suggesting that it won't.

       Furthermore, I note that you are still not providing the level of proof that you are asking from others about your economic doom and gloom scenario. So you are basing you argument on a premise far more proof deficient than the logical idea that limiting the physical quantity of the cause of a problem will limit the extent of the problem.  I have pointed out that the World economy could absorb a 15 trillion loss from incompetence and greed without such extreme disatrous end as what you alluded. How about we spend half of that in energy transition for starters? That's just about the amount of money thesaurized in hidden accounts and tax heavens at any given time, money that ironically does not do anything, even for those who control it, because it has to be hidden.

11419. nowhearthis at 10:47 AM on 3 March 2019
       New research, February 4-10, 2019
       

       In defense of "repetition" - two reasons: 1) No one has provided any actual answer to my initial question.  They dance around the issue - but no answer.  This has prompted me to ask again since I feel the point keeps getting lost.  2) Many (most) responses are hostile confrontations (avoiding, or justifying the avoidance of the central question) trying to convince me climate change is real and man made.  I don't need convincing, I'm there and was all along.

       I keep trying to convey that I'm not the only person who will ask this question.  As regulation, taxation and sacrifice is demanded this will become a common topic.  There better be an answer to justify the policy.

       Philippe in the post directly above argues it is unimportant to validate or at least have reasonable testing that indicates effectiveness of a drug, product or method.  He states "there is no such thing as in-advance proof, ever", that may be, however there can be reasonable demonstration of effectiveness that provides a sound basis to proceed - particularly where it is on a massive scale and cost.  Isn't "science" in the title of this website?  What is the 'scientific method'?  Perhaps that is what I'm seeking and I have been phrasing in incorrectly.  Red Barron regurgitates a 'solar electric worker' talking point supposedly to destroy my concern with uneployment.  The problem is, his talking point is laughable in the macro context. 

       The issue is complex and requires a concerted effort.  Just getting everyone globally on the same page may be impossible - a likely prospect no one has countered.  Further, no one ever asked me what I think may make progress to a solution.  You're all too busy being argumentative, self rightous and critical of others who don't fall in line. 

       I posed a simple question and have been drawn into a bunch of pheriperal arguments and demonized.  It's clear no answer exists and that most here believe concensus based on theory is proof and we should proceed on faith.  It's clear no answer is to be found here.  I hoped for better.  I'm done arguing, I can do that with my wife and she's much better looking.

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Excessive repetition/sloganeering snipped.

11420. Philippe Chantreau at 10:14 AM on 3 March 2019
       2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #9
       

       I'm writing this request here because it's the latest thread: is it possible to update the escalator so that it shows all the data up to 2018?

11421. nigelj at 06:26 AM on 3 March 2019
       What's in the Green New Deal? Four key issues to understand
       

       OPOF @ 27

       "Linking Climate Action to social corrections may be an effective way to help encourage moderate socially progressive conservatives to do the hard work of taking-over, breaking-apart, or breaking-up with their New United Right Tribe."

       It could work, but The Democrats have to have sound socio-economic ideas inserted into any GND. I would go with things like some form of universal healthcare and a decent social safety net, but also emphasise modern free trade, help for both workers 'and' business, deficits are bad, no walls but regulated immigration... so you are resonating with both liberals and moderate conservatives.

       Sorry if this is a political statement, but the GND has been made political. I don't want to see the environmental goals destroyed by a bad, one sided  list of other goals. Its too important to ignore.

11422. nigelj at 05:45 AM on 3 March 2019
       What's in the Green New Deal? Four key issues to understand
       

       swampfoxh @28, you have an interesting background. And I agree with most of your comments.

       "The deforestation of the Amazon and Indonesia, alone, is enough to raise the worry lines on my forehead, yet many "peer reviewed" studies try to tell us that animal ag is "only 14%-18% of emissions. This area needs a lot more work. "

       You cant really put deforestation under animal contributions because deforestation has a range of causes (grazing land, crops, urban projects).  It needs a separate category.  It does however obscure the contribution of animals, but nothing to be done about that.

       Maybe animlas contribute more than the numbers show, but people are already getting pretty aware of the methane problem and dietary issues with high meat consumption problems of battery cage farming. I think things are going in your favour generally!

11423. Philippe Chantreau at 04:05 AM on 3 March 2019
       New research, February 4-10, 2019
       

       The main point is not being missed at all. The main point is that you're long on rethoric, short on everything else, and demonstrably arguing in bad faith. Having an experimental vaccine succeed within the framework of a study is not proof that a large scale campaign will eradicate the disease, far from it. We never know what level of protection it is going to grant to a population until the population is vaccinated. You argue beside my point on CFCs by going to the economic aspect, which is ironic, considering that hubristic pundits back then promised economic collapse from phasing out the stuff (Sallie Baliunas said it would cost trillions). You're not showing that there was advance proof that the protocol would work, because there is no such thing. You talk about replacements and costs. The effectiveness of the intervention has no direct relation to its cost but both cost and effectiveness have a role in the cost/benefit analysis. You are saying that the effectiveness has to be known exactly before the cost/benefit analysis can proceed; that is total nonsense because the true effectiveness can never be known in advance, and it wasn't in the case of the Montreal Protocol.

       The reality about any kind of large scale action is that its effectiveness can not be measured until it has been implemented and given time to produce its expected results. There is no such thing as in-advance proof, ever. Because a vaccine works in a study sample, we attempt its large scale implementation but the true effectiveness can not be known in advance. Because the radiative effects of CO2 are well known and the current increase can be attributed to FF burning, we must decrease FF use. It really is that simple.

       As for your representation of the current effects of CC, it is laughable. Houston experienced three 500-years type of rain events, 3 years in a row, with about 125 billions of losses just for Harvey. California is experiencing extreme rain and floods right on the tail of devastating fires brought by drought conditions. Europe has been struggling with chronic droughts interrupted by violent rains and flooding. Last summer, Northern Europe saw extreme temperatures all the way to the Arctic circle and experienced massive forest fires. The heat was experienced all around the Northern hemisphere. Property values on the US coasts have already started to reflect sea level rise. As for hurricanes, any careful examination of the litterature shows that no consistent prediction of frequency in the future conditions exists. What does exist is the expectation that tropical storms and hurricanes will undergo rapid intensification and cause higher rain fall, which was clearly demonstrated on several occasions, the latest just last October. Pretty much all the predicted effects of CC are materializing right before our eyes, with their associated costs. The depth of the denial that it takes to not see it is truly a wonder.

       And what absolute proof do you have that the economic devastation you're predicting will actually occur? One could easily turn the table on you and demand proof that the consumption society model can be extended to 8 billion people without causing catastrophic losses of ecosystem services that are vital to all people. You don't have that proof, therefore, according to your reasoning, the generalization of that model should be stopped.

       I wish you could have asked to all the pretentious clowns in the finance world putting together CDOs in the 2000s if they had absolute proof that their clever schemes were safe for the World financial markets. Their hubris cost about 15 trillions. And yet, the damage was a far cry from what happened post 1929. Incidentally, this proves (you seem to like the word) that we could spend up to 15 trillions on an energy transition over a few years; it wouldn't be entirely painless but nowhere near the complete worldwide disaster you're trying to portray. We know that for sure because this cost was born by the World economy following the 2008 fiasco, no in-advance proof required.

11424. swampfoxh at 03:50 AM on 3 March 2019
       What's in the Green New Deal? Four key issues to understand
       

       TO: nigelj

       Nope, not an animal rights person. I am an organic farmer (plants only and using no animal fertilizer).  I teach a 3 hour course called "Climate Change" Impact of an Outlaw Species" and am always perplexed at how animal agriculture can fly below the radar with respect to its ousized contribution to GGEs.  The deforestation of the Amazon and Indonesia, alone, is enough to raise the worry lines on my forehead, yet many "peer reviewed" studies try to tell us that animal ag is "only 14%-18% of emissions.  This area needs a lot more work.  I suggest we not look at animal ag, the global industry, ...we should proceed from the following:

       "What if there was no animal agriculture (animals owned as property) on planet earth?  What emissions (and other climate problems) would we not have?"  We would not have substantial emissions from deforestation, desertification, eutrophication, acidification of our oceans, outsized fresh water usage along with the environmental costs to move water around, we'd have more suitable and sustainable wild animal and native plant habitat...hugely reduced medical costs from healthier populations, no more raising, feeding, slaughtering, packaging, transporting, refrigerating, waste management (or even kitchen garbage disposers) vastly less pesticides, herbicides, endocrine disruptive artificial homones, antibiotic resistances...and the list of benefits could go on...and on.   

11425. One Planet Only Forever at 02:14 AM on 3 March 2019
       What's in the Green New Deal? Four key issues to understand
       

       An important point should be added to the following well-made point:

       "... rebuilding the home will create investments and jobs, which would dampen a disaster’s impact on the national economy. But as a society, we would consider these traumatizing losses quite harmful and well worth preventing for ethical reasons."

       The rebuilding "Economic Plus" after a disaster is actually an "Economic-Social Negative". An potential exception would be if the original item was unsustainable and harmful and the rebuilding was done in a way that was more sustainable than the original developed item.

       The need to rebuild is most likely a distraction from, impediment to, improvements for the future, a complete negative effect that needs to be recovered from, a step back from improvement. Even a complete rebuilding only partially recovers the loss of improvement that had occurred (exception being sustainable correction).

       Also, the point does not include the environmental damage that negatively affect human improvements into the future.

       And an extension of that understanding is the awareness that no economic math can justify imposing negative consequences on Others. And the future generations of humanity are the largest group of Others. And that understanding points out the added flaw of any economic evaluation that pretends that current day perceptions of wealth based on unsustainable and harmful human activity will have "future value". And it leads to understanding that it is even more flawed to believe that such perceptions of wealth would inevitably increase in value (a related understanding is that it is incorrect to 'discount' the future costs of failure to reduce climate change impacts).

       Stock Market corrections and the 2008 global fiscal correction prove the fallacy of that kind of thinking.

       That understanding can also lead to the understanding that the current directions of development by Unite the Right political groups may be a bigger threat to the future of humanity than Climate Change.

       Rebuilding the USA with sustainable helpful corrections is unlikely to happen through compromises with the current developed United Right collective of sub-tribes that resist sustainable improvements or corrections of what has developed. The recent history of actions by that group indicate a significant amount of correction is required to have it not be harmful, to have it be helpful participants in the development of sustainable improvements/corrections for the future of humanity.

       The recent GOP in control of the House, Senate and Presidency easily reversed climate change improvements and corrective actions made by the Obama Administration. They failed to reverse the Heath Care improvements and corrective actions. And a major part of Trump's winning was successfully unjustifiably appealing to the easily impressed and easily angered less fortunate workers in 'key regions' of America (promising things like coal jobs that will never be delivered, and suggesting that blocking immigration and demonizing immigrants is helpful). Linking Climate Action to social corrections may be an effective way to help encourage moderate socially progressive conservatives to do the hard work of taking-over, breaking-apart, or breaking-up with their New United Right Tribe.

11426. MA Rodger at 23:45 PM on 2 March 2019
       The Big Picture (2010 version)
       

       AEBanner @214,

       If the atmosphere were solely composed of N2 & O2, it would be correct to state that such an atmosphere does not radiate IR. Note that it would happily radiate at shorter wavelengths.

       And if the atmosphere (complete with H2O, CO2 etc) were heated to contain more energy, the N2 & O2 will be bashing into H2O, CO2 etc more vigorously. That will result in the H2O, CO2 etc radiating more IR and so at the top of the atmosphere that increase in IR will be an increased energy loss to space. So unless you have a mechanism to stop that increased energy loss or an energy flux to keep the atmospheric energy levels topped up, the temperature increase will die away back to a temperature that can be maintained.

       You are, however ignoring that fundamental problem with your grand theory and reference IPCC AR4 Fig 5.4 which shows the increased energy content for different parts of the world system for the periods 1961-2003 (blue) and 1993-2003 (burgundy).

       

       IPCC AR4 Fig 5.4

       To provide the 159Zj total change over the period 1961-2003=42 years, that would require an input of 3.8Zj/year or a global warming of 0.24Wm^-2. (This would be 0.55Wm^-2 to provide the 89Zj over the shorter period 1993-2003.)

       Yet we have established that the energy from anthropogenic FF-use & nuclear power generation in 2017 is only 0.03Wm^-2. It would be significantly less in earlier years.

       So even without the increased energy flux lost to space by the warmed atmosphere, your grand theor cannot account for the accumulated energy within the global system.

       Simply put, it don't add up.

11427. AEBanner at 22:50 PM on 2 March 2019
       The Big Picture (2010 version)
       

       Energy can cause Global Warming

       RedBaron @ 213

       Thank you for your comments.

       You claim that most of the anthropogenic energy is radiated back into space.  

       But how do you think that happens?  The anthropogenic energy is caused by burning fuels, and so liberates sensible heat, that is increased kinetic energy of the molecules in the atmosphere.  This is not radiant energy, and so cannot be radiated away.  In any case, nitrogen and oxygen molecules do not radiate. 

       You also claim that energy cannot be accumulated in the Earth's system.  I refer you back to the IPCC report I gave in my post on wordpress

       https://wordpress.com/read/blogs/154908990/posts/50

       which shows that the total change in Energy Heat Content from 1961 to 2003, from all sources, was 15.9*10^22 Joules.  This is indeed a store of energy.

       I should be grateful if you would please let me know the other fundamental flaws you claim I have made.

11428. MA Rodger at 22:02 PM on 2 March 2019
       New research, February 4-10, 2019
       

       nowhearthis @26,

       You reply to my questioning @22 thus:-

       "To answer your question, I wrote: "CO2 is a small part of the atmosphere and most generation is outside human control". The EPA, AMS, NASA and others, all distribute content making that claim. Are they wrong? I made no conclusion or inference on the topic beyond the statement."

       So if the EOA, AMS, NASA and others "all distribute content making that claim," you should have little difficulty providing a link to some of this 'distributed content'. Such a link would be helpful as your meaning remains entirely opaque and frankly nobody knows what you are talking about.

11429. Eclectic at 19:57 PM on 2 March 2019
       New research, February 4-10, 2019
       

       Nowhearthis @30  [and prior] :-

       <" still haven't gotten a response to my original question ">  (unquote)

       Nowhearthis: there is no possible answer to your question because (as you were already aware) the simple truth is that there is no AGW problem.

       You were quite right all along.   I consulted the gurus and pundits at the WattsUpWithThat website [the world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change] and I was assured that there is no AGW and thus no AGW problem at all for you to worry about.   The WUWT article authors and the many posters in the comments columns, were almost unanimous that CO2 has no effect on world temperature.

       ~ Because there is no empirical evidence of CO2 greenhouse action : no confirmed reproducible experimental or observational evidence whatsoever.

       ** Some of the pundits proved that there has been absolutely no statistically-significant warming in the past 50 years (suggestion to the contrary by 99.9% of climate scientists, is due to the scientists' corruption incompetence and conspiratorial hoaxing and shameless data adjustment).

       ** Other pundits, less sanguine, proved that the borderline slight warming was nothing more than a cyclical Natural Variation deriving from a 60-year oceanic cycle; or a 1000-year oceanic cycle (separately or combined with sundry other oceanic cycles +/-  a stadium wave).

       ** Still other pundits posited that the very slight warming was occurring primarily because the Earth's disk had become slightly less oblique to the sun's rays (this obliquity following a multi-decadal sine wave variation ~ and very fortunately cyclic, because otherwise at a super-maximum obliquity . . . everything would fall off the lower edge of the disk).

       So . . . no problemo    ;-)

11430. RedBaron at 18:27 PM on 2 March 2019
       New research, February 4-10, 2019
       

       @30 nowhearthis,

        This is the New Mitigation Research thread, not the GND thread.

       So yet again a logic fallacy. This time it's the false dichotomy. Maybe your critique could potentially be valid in the specific case of the GND. I know already several parts were already retracted as unrealistic. But they do not necessarily apply to new research in mitigation strategies in general. And they certainly do not apply to my conservative strategy I detailed for you above.

       And just because your question shows ignorance of risk analysis, doesn't mean you question wasn't answered.

11431. nigelj at 18:18 PM on 2 March 2019
       What's in the Green New Deal? Four key issues to understand
       

       nowhearthis @25

       "I don't expect a "perfect solution", just proof any of the solutions actually work (to stop or even slow change); others will demand this proof."

       Well ok its reasonable to want that, but you are repeating yourself. For the second time you will not get the sort of proof you want because we cannot do an experiment with the planet in a laboratory. All we have is good evidence that we can fix the problem in the same way we have good evidence penicillin will cure a problem. You are not saying why that is not enough for you. The IPCC has good evidence, and you are clearly not accepting this, but that does not make it untrue. You have failed to counter it with better evidence.

       "You write: "Scientists and the general public know this [the specifics of planetary CO2) from school" "I dispute that. "

       I did not say that. I said school children know CO2 doesn't make up a huge part of the atmosphere, and they know this much. Its common knowledge. Now the more pertinent point I made is science tells us small changes in quantities of CO2 have serious effects on the climate. Where is your counter evidence? You still haven't provided any. I'm sure you would know many examples of how small changes or quantities  can modulate large changes, like transistor amplifiers, low concentrations of certain drugs etc.

       We can play this game all day, but everyone can see you are just repeating yourself.

       "Even the war effort of WW2 didnt require significant curtailment of freedoms and some police state" 75-80 million deaths, concentration camps, POW camps and military occupation of entire countries was not a "significant curtailment of freedoms"?

       Strawman again! :) That was a consequence of prisoners of war. Nothing there is relevant to the climate issue. A more pertinent point is the massive economic transformation during the war time economy did not crash the economy or cause mass unemployment as you claim the GND would do. Now I'm not saying a rapid transformation over 20 years for exampe to renewable energy would be easy, just that you are not providing any real evidence it would be as destabilising as you claim. The war effort suggests it wouldn't be. In fact the standard of living actually improved in America during WW2, probably due to the stimulus effect of the war spending.

       And I'm on your side in several respects, eg I dont like totalitarian  and dictatorial government etc, but we absolutely don't need this to combat climate change. A carbon fee and dividend is a market mechanism and doesn't require these things. Infrastructure programmes don't require curtailing freedoms.

       "Nobody could prove we would be able to get to the moon but we did" "There were several Soviet lunar missions that provided PROOF of the ability to reach the moon beginning in the 1950's. Apollo 8, in a prelude to landing on the moon, provided PROOF we could achieve lunar orbit and return a vehicle containing several astronauts to earth."

       You totally missed the point here. Nobody knew we could even put a spacecraft outside of earths orbit until we did. Theres a first time for anything. In fact we have much better proof that renewable energy reduces CO2 emissions. While the totality of the GND is not 100% proven, we do not need 100% proof, and can have good confidence it is soundly based (in a technology sense, put aside the social ideas for another day), and you are not giving me reasons to doubt that.

       "Nobody is saying stop fossil fuel use by tomorrow" "True, but there are those who want it done ASAP and that's not going to happen. People will demand proof and if unproven "solutions" don't show progress, greater sacrifice will be sought and meet greater resistance."

       I think the time frames of 2050 are attainable, quicker perhaps. Economic reports like the Stern Report put mitigation costs in America at 500 billion a year approx. This is not unaffordable. Its what your opiod crisis is costing you each year. Yes I can sympathise people will demand proof things will work, but public polling by Pew research show the majority want more done to tackle climate change, and more renewable energy, so they appear satisfied solutions do exist. The problem is inertia with elected officials. The rest of your comments are hypothetical.

       "We have good information that mitigation strategies would work, and that should be good enough for any sensible person" There's the meat of the matter: "would" Tell that "sensible person" he cannot heat his home, own an automobile or use airline transportation you will learn "would work" is not "good enough" very quickly. Even the imposition of a simple carbon tax in France, resulted in riots. "

       Nothing about climate mitigation means people can't heat their homes.  The job is for generators to transform the electricty grid and costs are affordable as I suggested. Nobody has to go cold and nobody is expected to make huge cuts to electricity use. Your comments are just endless strawmen, and lifted form denialist blogs as I have seen them before word for word almost. 

       "I'm completely on board with renewables but they are, at present, incapable of replacing existing power generation. "

       Another unproven assertion. Research by Jacobsen has shown renewables and storage can replace fossil fuel generation. Published studies by Lazard, a leading expert, show wind power is now one of the cheapest forms of generation and solar power is close behind.

       "The big problem is: The sun doesn't shine all the time and storage technology (like power wall) are insufficient.

       Have a look at the huge Tesla battery storage system in southern Australia. This is the way of the future along with pumped hydro storage. They are building this and have billions of dollars commited to more. Read the related articles recently on this very website, rather than the material you are copying off outdated denialist blogs.

       "It is my personal opinion that technology will get us out of the delemma we're in and Draconian unproven solutions like the GND are a waste of enerby. "

       The GND is based on technology!

       "Re. IPCC documentation, can you point me to those that provide proof that's not speculative? "

       There is nothing speculative in this. Its based on empirical studies, historical data and studies, mathematics, experiments,  deatilked modelling, and the laws of physics. 

       "NThat which I have read, don't meet that standard. This is my quest."

       Nothing would appear to meet your standard because you have already decided what you want to believe for what I suspect and political, ideological and emotive reasons. I suggest try and put them aside and look at the science in the IPCC reports which is good science. Then we need to consider solutions and the economics. Not saying I dont have political views, but I try to put them aside.

       I think if you just go on repeating yourself and dont provide some hard evidence the moderator is going to get annoyed! But thanks for the civil discussion.

11432. nowhearthis at 17:24 PM on 2 March 2019
       New research, February 4-10, 2019
       

       Red Barron

       O.K. I'll tell you again: Let's examine what you label "faulty premise"  You state "Solar employs more people in the U.S. Electricity Generation than Oil, Coal and Gas combined" to counter my claim GND would cause "massive unemployment".  The flaw is, your "count" only pertains to electricity generation.  When you look at the industries as a whole the Fossil Fuel workforce is around 1.9 million vs 374,000 in the solar field.  Then when you add in the fossil fueled automobile industry add 2 million at car dealers, another 940,000 in manufacturing and another 940,000 in the gas station industry.  What about large industrial plants that produce steel, cement, etc. - the building blocks of our society along with all the jobs involved implementing their materials.  Then move on to all the construction workers who use fossil fueled vehicles to go to work, transport materials, etc. and add in the airline industry, alll the food service, delivery jobs, on and on.  Your use of an "electrical generation" pigeon hole is quite silly.  The ripple effect of significant curbing of fossil fuels will result in an employment cataclism and cratering of our economy.  "wild claims" - really?

       I still haven't gotten a response to my original question.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] You are now skating on the thin ice of excessive repetition which is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy. You have posed your "original" question multiple times and multiple people have responded do it with objective science-based answers. It's time to move on.

       Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

       Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site. 
        
       Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

        

11433. nowhearthis at 17:01 PM on 2 March 2019
       What's in the Green New Deal? Four key issues to understand
       

       NigelJ

       I don't expect a "perfect solution", just proof any of the solutions actually  work (to stop or even slow change); others will demand this proof.

       You write: "Scientists and the general public know this [the specifics of planetary CO2) from school"  I dispute that.   Based on the Annenberg survey, only 36% of people can name the three branches of government and 35% can't even name one, much less grasp the nuances of climate composition.   "Even the war effort of WW2 didnt require significant curtailment of freedoms and some police state"   75-80 million deaths, concentration camps, POW camps and military occupation of entire countries was not a "significant curtailment of freedoms"?  Even in America, isolated from the war, there were interrment camps, forced rationing and other governmental mandates that curtailed freedom.  "Nobody could prove we would be able to get to the moon but we did"  There were several Soviet lunar missions that provided PROOF of the ability to reach the moon beginning in the 1950's.  Apollo 8, in a prelude to landing on the moon, provided PROOF we could achieve lunar orbit and return a vehicle containing several astronauts to earth.

       "Nobody is saying stop fossil fuel use by tomorrow"  True, but there are those who want it done ASAP and that's not going to happen.  People will demand proof and if unproven "solutions" don't show progress, greater sacrifice will be sought and meet greater resistance.

       "We have good information that mitigation strategies would work, and that should be good enough for any sensible person"  There's the meat of the matter: "would"   Tell that "sensible person" he cannot heat his home, own an automobile or use airline transportation you will learn "would work" is not "good enough" very quickly.  Even the imposition of a simple carbon tax in France, resulted in riots. 

       I'm completely on board with renewables but they are, at present, incapable of replacing existing power generation.  I believe solar is the future of energy and technologies like black nanotubes, thermophotovotaics and perovskite hold great promise.  The big problem is: The sun doesn't shine all the time and storage technology (like power wall) are insufficient.  It is my personal opinion that technology will get us out of the delemma we're in and Draconian unproven solutions like the GND are a waste of enerby.  Read 'Bottomless Well' by Peter Huber to see where I come from.

       Re. IPCC documentation, can you point me to those that provide proof that's not speculative?  That which I have read, don't meet that standard.  This is my quest.

11434. RedBaron at 15:45 PM on 2 March 2019
       New research, February 4-10, 2019
       

       @28 nowhearthis,

       Again, faulty premise without evidence. You really are just sloganeering.

       Solar Employs More People In U.S. Electricity Generation Than Oil, Coal And Gas Combined

       So tell me again how renewables "crater their economies, give up modern convienences and have massive unemployment "

       I already explain to you how beneficial the changes in agriculture could be. As you can see renewable energy can be beneficial too. Yet you still keep making the unsubstantiated claim that AGW mitigation strategy must be harmful to economies and requires people to "sacrifice" their good standards of living. Just the opposite is true.

       Well first off a conservative AGW mitigation strategy improves lives, and secondly it's ignoring the problem that will cause all the harm. AGW mitigation strategy has a purpose to improve standards of living, not destroy them. We have examples of what happens if we ignore this too:

       The Ominous Story of Syria's Climate Refugees

       I can tell you from experience, if you continue making wild claims without evidence, you won't get far here. But even worse, you will have missed an opportunity to help improve society by avoiding this horible fate that awaits us if we do nothing.

       

       You are more than welcome to debate here, but no one I ever saw post here gets away without making sure they support their position with reputable evidence. Not you, not me, not anyone. Support your spurious claims and logic fallacies or withdraw them.

11435. nowhearthis at 14:33 PM on 2 March 2019
       New research, February 4-10, 2019
       

       Phillippe Chantreau

       The main point is being missed. You cannot expect people to crater their economies, give up modern convienences and have massive unemployment without proof those sacrifices are effective. People in general don't grasp the nuance of CC and will have viceral reaction to the things proposed and in the GND.

       Proof exists for this: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/world/europe/france-fuel-carbon-tax.html That was just a simple tax, imagine the magnitude of reaction for GND policies. It can only come at the price of freedom/liberty and at the end of a gun.

       You must have clear, verified proof if you want to sell these sacrifices.  I'm not the first to ask and millions more come behind me.  CFC was addressed with alternatives and little to no sacrifice, nothing on the scale of CC mitigation theory.  Jenner had clinical proof of the effectiveness of vaccine therapy (smallpox) over a century prior to the campaign you cite.  No such verifiable proof or easy answer exists, that I have seen, to support CC strategies.   

       One response tried to turn the tables claiming CC disasters are proven, in his mind perhaps but not in the general publics.  One of the big indicators claimed was hurricane activity.  The facts work against his argument when you look at things like this:  https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-tropical-cyclone-activity  The difference over time is insignificant and the average of storms reaching America are apparently down from over a century ago.  This isn't a compelling argument and generates skepticism.  Ice storms and abnormally cold weather also undermine CC alarm.  THE MORAL OF THE STORY: It's a hard sell without proof.  Got any?

11436. nowhearthis at 14:12 PM on 2 March 2019
       What's in the Green New Deal? Four key issues to understand
       

       Michael Sweet

       I can appreciate your post, except the part "Reducing CO2 emissions is the only way to prevent more disaster" I have seen no proof to support that.
       The main point is being missed. You cannot expect people to crater their economies, give up modern convienences and have massive unemployment without proof those sacrifices are effective. People in general don't grasp the nuance of CC and will have viceral reaction to the things in the GND.

       Proof exists for this: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/world/europe/france-fuel-carbon-tax.html That was just a simple tax, imagine the magnitude of reaction for GND policies. It can only come at the price of freedom/liberty and at the end of a gun.

       You better have proof if you want to sell it. I'm not the first to ask and millions more come behind me.

11437. Eclectic at 11:52 AM on 2 March 2019
       What's in the Green New Deal? Four key issues to understand
       

       Nowhearthis @20 ,

       my reply @13 was very careful to address the essence of your @11 post.

       The essence, the central part [even if you failed to appreciate its centrality] was an illogical piece of nonsense ~ and that is why your whole post was a failure (a failure both before and after the moderator pruned it).

       Sorry, Nowhearthis, but you are mostly making a lot of rhetorical posturing, and you are failing to achieve common sense logic.   You really do need to educate yourself about climate science & human history.

       #

       Michael Sweet, you forgot to mention that Nowhearthis had changed tack a bit (in his @18 post) to introduce the strawman argument that greenies (or someone) had been attempting to make human activity "stop cold" [unquote].   A strawman big enough for the Burning Man festival?   ;-)

11438. nigelj at 11:42 AM on 2 March 2019
       What's in the Green New Deal? Four key issues to understand
       

       "CO2 is a small part of the atmosphere and most generation is outside human control".

       I know this already. Scientists and the general public know this from school. It is significant of course, but is not the key issue to consider. The more useful thing to say is we know small quantities of CO2 can alter the climate, from scientific research and summarised in the  IPCC studies. Natural additions of CO2 are too slow to be a concern. We are changing things at a very fast rate that creates enormous problems.

       If you disagree, please provide evidence with citations and links.

       "I don't claim to know what attributes to ALL the rise, I believe there is a component resulting from VITAL human activity, most of which you cannot stop cold, without a war, or subjecting humanity to an authoritarian police state."

       Strawman. Nobody is saying stop fossil fuel use by tomorrow, we still have time to phase things down in a planned way. Major projects have obviously been undertaken in the past without the need for marshall law or curtailing freedoms. Even the war effort of WW2 didnt require significant curtailment of freedoms and some police state, and that was a much more immediate thing to deal with.

       The rest of what you say is arbitrary wild claims, with no foundation provided, so can be dismissed until you provide some evidence.

       "The "essence" of my posts: "What demonstrated proof exists to show any of the proposed CC mitigation strategies, actually significantly reverse CC?" Has not been answered."

       It doesn't need to be answered because we dont have to reverse climate change, only stop it or slow it down very substantially. We also don't need absolute proof of concept, before humans change things whether climate issues or anything else. For example many elements of human progress have been made without "proof" as such. Nobody could prove we would be able to get to the moon but we did.

       We have good information that mitigation strategies would work, and that should be good enough for any sensible person. The IPCC has covered mitigation in detail. If you disagree, provide some detailed reasoning why good information is not sufficient for you, and some evidence with citations if you think typical mitigation strategies would not work.

       "First, I have made no assertion "

       You have made several assertions, and with no backing evidence, starting with "I believe there is a component resulting from VITAL human activity, most of which you cannot stop cold, without a war, or subjecting humanity to an authoritarian police state." Here is another "Before we trash our economy, handicap our ability to heat our homes/offices in the winter, push society back 150 years and throw our world into chaos".

       "The CC issue exists on an evolving, dynamic playing field and today's "solutions" may be impotent."

       Sophistry. If we have reduced CO2 emissions we have reduced the probability of large problems. We understand tipping points, when they are likely to occur and their probabilities and we still have time.

       Claiming we should do nothing because we don't have perfect knowledge is stupidity.

11439. Philippe Chantreau at 11:37 AM on 2 March 2019
       New research, February 4-10, 2019
       

       I take issue with the "CO2 generation." In fact, only humans truly generate CO2 on Earth on a very large scale, by combining fossil carbon with oxygen. All the other sources of CO2 only cycle and recombine carbon into CO2. The exception is volcanoes, but they release CO2, they don't generate it. There is a large body of science that shows how human produced CO2 is beyond a doubt responsible for the current increase. I don't see anything from nowhearthis that really puts that into doubt. As for his last question, it is sort of asking before the Montreal protocol for definitive proof that phasing out CFCs was going to have a positive effect. Or asking for proof, before the 1960's smallpox immunization campaign that the campaign would have the desired result. Both of these "proofs" would have been absolutely impossible to produce. It is a demand that is impossible to satisfy in any situation.

       It is reminiscent of the denier's method that consists of attempting to argue that inferred reasoning has no place in science. Same old. 

11440. michael sweet at 11:12 AM on 2 March 2019
       What's in the Green New Deal? Four key issues to understand
       

       Noehearthis,

       The problem is that you are arguing from a completely false premise.  Hundreds of studies has shown that renewable energy will be cheaper, cause the economy to expand, provide more jobs and result in much less pollution and bad health effects.  See Jacobson 2018, the Stern Report or the hundreds of papers cited by Jacobson.

       In contrast, all peer reviewed studies have found that BAu results in complete disaster and economic ruin.  Please provide a peer reviewed study that proves that BAU will not result in complete disaster.

       In any case, in a few decades fossil fuels will run out.  Anyone less than 30 will live in  a renewable energy economy or the economy will collapse from lack of fuel.  Why ruin the environment before making the switch?

       Since this is a scientific site you are required to cite peer reviewed studies that show that BAU will not result in complete calamity.  Please cite data to support your wild claim that BAU is economically sound.

11441. nowhearthis at 10:53 AM on 2 March 2019
       What's in the Green New Deal? Four key issues to understand
       

       The moderator chose to scrub my comment TWICE! (he gets props for paying attention), which was in compliance with his rules.  If there is a reason for his actions I'd appreciate him pointing it out.  I'm reposting the comment below - again.   I expect it to be deleted and my login denied; actions that will provide powerful proof a diversity of opinion and SKEPTICAL questioning are not welcome here.

       Thank you to all who have replied.

       
       To the moderator: I have read your comments policy, fully appreciate its content and support your measures to maintain reasonable dialog. That said, I've not violated any of the rules, particularly "sloganeering", as you alledge. Your rule states: "Comments consisting of simple assertion of a myth already debunked". First, I have made no assertion and second (and most important) no one has "debunked" my question, or provided a valid answer. I've gotten two forms of response: 1) discussion trying to demonstrate the validity of anthropogenicclimate change and 2) those avoiding the question, and/or discrediting me as a "denier" or "troll" and/or mischaracterize my comment (like the one above declaring I "asserted ..... CO2 rise is mostly natural" when I wrote "most CO2 generation is outside human control").  I've commented on two threads, both of which, based on their content, are relevant to the question I raise.

       If you're going to have a website with the name "skeptical", you should welcome a skeptical point of view. Otherise, you have an absence of rational, thoughtful discussion and an echo chamber where like minds, simply reinforce their own belief system, right or wrong.

       Before we trash our economy, handicap our ability to heat our homes/offices in the winter, push society back 150 years and throw our world into chaos, shouldn't we demand proof those sacrifices do what's promised?  I stated America is a small percentage of the global population, most of which is accelerating it's use of fossil fuel and demanding escallating 1st world living standards. The CC issue exists on an evolving, dynamic playing field and today's "solutions" may be impotent. A "global consensus" is highly unlikely, the French can't even impose a carbon tax without major pushback and riots. Let's be real, the Paris accords were a "show pony" with little teeth or actual committment.

       
       If we expect people to fall in line and make dramatic sacrifice promised to be "solutions" without proof, good luck. It will take a capitulation of liberty/freedom and an oppressive, authoritarian police state to make that work.  We better have a good answer to my question:
       "What demonstrated proof exists to show any of the proposed CCmitigation strategies, actually significantly reverse CC?"
       Responses claiming it's impossible to know or determine are essentially saying "we don't have any" and don't cut it in changing hearts and minds. The question is NOT "illogical", it's fundamental and the "illogical" characterization is absurd. As somone routinely commenting in public media and involved in public policy debate, I'm sincerely looking for a valid answer.

       Moderator Response:

       [DB]  Moderation complaints snipped.  Suggestion: read the Comments Policy, adhere to it like everyone else does (with no troubles or complaining).

11442. nowhearthis at 10:50 AM on 2 March 2019
       New research, February 4-10, 2019
       

       MA Rodger 

       To answer your question, I wrote: "CO2 is a small part of the atmosphere and most generation is outside human control".  The EPA, AMS, NASA and others, all distribute content making that claim.  Are they wrong?  I made no conclusion or inference on the topic beyond the statement.

       Still waiting to hear the answer to the simple question:  "What demonstrated proof exists to show any of the proposed CC mitigation strategies, actually significantly reverse CC?"   If these "strategies" are valid, there should be some proof to show that - otherwise it's  conjecture.  If you cannot validate your beliefs, you should be questioning them.

11443. michael sweet at 10:46 AM on 2 March 2019
       What's in the Green New Deal? Four key issues to understand
       

       Nowhearthis,

       If you continue to repost deleted comments the moderators will ban you.

       You have the argument completely backwards.  There is absolute proof that the current path (called business as usual or BAU) is a disaster and will result in a complete calamity if we continue on it.  Scientists predicted that adding CO2 to the atmosphere would increase temperature 180 years ago, in 1896 Arhennius estimated the amount of warming correctly and Hansen's 1989 projections have been right on target.  We have 180 years of correct projections that show CO2 is a disaster.

       The current changes that we see in climate have resulted in hundreds of billions of dollars damage per year for the past decade and killed millions.  Future damages are projected to be extraordinarily if we continue BAU.  Some serious projections include  the extinction of humans (that is unlikely).

       SInce it has been proven without doubt that the current path is a disaster the question is what we can do.  Reducing CO2 emissions is the only way to prevent more disaster.

       My doctor never offers proof that he will cure me.  If he says I have a disease that will kill me if I do nothing but he has a good chance of curing it with some medicine I take the medicine.  There is never proof for what will happen in the future.  Past experience proves that BAU is a disaster.  

       Please give me absolute 100% proof that BAU will not result in a disaster even worse than we have already experienced.  If you cannot offer absolute proof that BAU is a disaster than we must take action to prevent the projected disaster caused by CO2 emissions.

11444. RedBaron at 10:26 AM on 2 March 2019
       New research, February 4-10, 2019
       

       @23 Nowhearthis,

        You said, "Still waiting to hear the answer to the simple question: "What demonstrated proof exists to show any of the proposed CC mitigation strategies, actually significantly reverse CC?"

       and you said earlier,

       "Once again, I ask: Is there a paper, study, analysis, etc. that PROVES (not promises or predicts) we can reverse climate change? -or- If sound mitigation methods exist (as Red Barron posits); is it realistic to think we can get the entire planet to make the sacrifices that will drastically degrade their current quality of life for future promises?"

       I have two problems with this. First of all in my answer to you included evidence the mitigation strategy proposed by me was modeled after the natural biological carbon cycle that actually cooled the planet in the past.

       Global Cooling by Grassland Soils of the Geological Past and Near Future

       Gregory J. Retallack doi:10.1146/annurev-earth-050212-124001

       Is this proof? No. Agriculture is not exactly the same as natural biomes. And humans are new to the equation. There never was in the known geological past ever such a large and fast burning of so many fossil fuels all at once. So we can project based on the best evidence, but your request for "proof" instead of a "projection based on the best evidence" is a logic fallacy and unscientific rhetoric. However, this is very strong evidence that as long as we successfully model agriculture using biomimicry, we can harness this ecosystem fuction to our advantage and reverse AGW. (with appropriate reduction in emissions yielding a net negative CO2 flux)

       The other logic fallicy you made was a faulty premise. In fact it is you who should question your own beliefs, as you can not validate the assumption that AGW mitigation should drastically degrade current quality of life.

       In fact as part of my white paper for policy makers[1] I included examples proving this strategy drastically improves quality of life!

       Just from one example, SRI

       "SRI offers millions of disadvantaged households far better opportunities."

       "their confidence and optimism in the future is sky high."

       And that's just from my first example. I listed at least 10 examples from around the world in all sorts of conditions, rich and poor, developing countries and industrialised coutries and every situation inbetween raising all the major crop types worldwide. They all unambiguously benefit.

       You made a faulty premise not based on evidence, and it has clouded your judgement. I recommend a fresh start.

11445. scaddenp at 10:17 AM on 2 March 2019
       New research, February 4-10, 2019
       

       "CO2 is a small part of the atmosphere"  this sounds like you are trying to repeat the "CO2 is just a trace gas". Note that we can directly measure the increase in radiation due to CO2. Please dont retread just nonsense.

       "most generation is outside human control" - this is another rhetorical trick. Perhaps you have just fallen for it? While CO2 fluxes in and out of atmosphere are huge, the increase in concentration of CO2 is human made. If you a victem of this myth, the please see the detail on this myth here. 

       There is a taxonomy of myths under the arguments  menu item. Please look up the arguments and comment there. You are offtopic here and posting offtopic comments will result in comment deletion by the moderators. 

11446. nowhearthis at 10:09 AM on 2 March 2019
       What's in the Green New Deal? Four key issues to understand
       

       Eclectic

       You wrote: "The essence of your post, was that the recent rise of atmospheric CO2 from 280ppm to the modern-day 400ppm . . . had only a small component due to human burning of fossil fuels."  That wasn't the "essence" of my post, it was a tertiary point.  I said noting about the "rise" of CO2 - you did.  I wrote: "CO2 is a small part of the atmosphere and most generation is outside human control". The EPA, AMS, NASA and others, all distribute content making that claim. Are they wrong? 

       You wrote:"inform the readers here at SkS about the natural mechanism you believe is predominantly causing that large atmospheric CO2 rise. (And preferably show it in a "confirmed" way . . . and without using terms like "may be".)   I don't claim to know what attributes to ALL the rise, I believe there is a component resulting from VITAL human activity, most of which you cannot stop cold, without a war, or subjecting humanity to an authoritarian police state.

       You wrote: "were you also trying to argue that CO2 has inherently negligible global warming effect anyway? "   No, IMHO, it's an integral part of the planet's temperature system and a principal reason the planet is inhabitable.

       The "essence" of my posts:  "What demonstrated proof exists to show any of the proposed CC mitigation strategies, actually significantly reverse CC?"   Has not been answered.  Is there no proof and all the strategies are conjecture?  The sacrifices CC deciples are demanding, will be a hard sell without validation.  

11447. scaddenp at 10:02 AM on 2 March 2019
       New research, February 4-10, 2019
       

       As pointed out to you, it is not a simple question because of your ideas of proof. Tell us what your standards of proof are before you would accept a Dr advice. 

11448. nigelj at 09:32 AM on 2 March 2019
       A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
       

       One Planet Only Forever

       "Another minor difference I hope you will change your mind about is what the name 'Green New Deal' means."

       I agree the original New Deal was a good thing. I have read a history of it. Without it I think America would have spiralled down into a 50 year depression. Keynes got some things right.

       And I see what you mean now. You are saying the GND is really a plan for absolutely everything, but with sustainable environmental goals as a key criteria and modern variation on the theme of a New Deal. I suppose you could be right.

       I still think this ambiguity is possibly a problem, and the inclusion of things like some form of universal basic income would cause conservatives to explode, and you do need some of their votes. However that provision has been softened down (I hope Scaddenp reads my previous comment).

       I personally have absolutely no opposition to the social ideas in the GND, but I'm a bit of a political strategist. Nothing will get done if one can't get votes so you always have to look closely at what swing voters might accept. Of course we have to be careful this does not lead to such wooly weak policies that makes the whole aim of being in politics pointless. Sometimes we have to take political risks and be a bit radical, but I would say make sure its on very sold grounds, and pick the battles.

       I think its too early for a universal basic income although the idea has merit.

       The unite the right issue is a worry. Fortunately we are not seeing too much of this in New Zealand. There is tribalism, but not on the scale of the USA. The problem is unite the right are loud and agressive, and all conservatives are very swayed by that sort of "authoritarianism" because they lean towards authoritarian values, so its a tough thing to counter.

       Vilifying and lecturing conservatives in general probably wont help, but I think its important to point out to them they are letting the fanatics gain control. It's ironic that Pence and Trump are trying to claim fanatical socialists have taken over The Democrats! But Pence and Trump exaggerate, and I think the public can mostly plainly see that.

       I tend to think gunuinely sane good policy, like some form of public healthcare for exampe, will win through in the end, and its best to keep to sane rational arguments and not start a shouting match or war. But theres nothing wrong with pointing out that some politicians policies are plain nasty like Trump's.

       And in countries like Germany conservatives and liberals are much closer on climate and even many social policies. America has gone a bit crazy.

       I think helpfulness is a pretty neutral and acceptable value to promote. Possibly better than constantly emphasising fairness or inclusion, which seems to drive conservatives insane, for reasons that mystify me.

11449. nigelj at 08:43 AM on 2 March 2019
       What's in the Green New Deal? Four key issues to understand
       

       swampfoxh @15,

       The way you worded your very first post @5 left me thinking you were in denial about the contribution of fossil fuels, and were distracting attention by bringing up animals.  Perhaps you are an animal rights activist, or just feel the contribution of animals is underestimated.

       "Both of these studies ignore the GGE of slaughterhouses, on site refrigeration, refrigerated transport of market ready animal products and all of the people who's personal GGEs are emitted by being employed in animal ag. It probably gets worse."

       Well maybe, I will take your word for it. They are not exactly going to be huge contributions.

       Having said that, cutting meat consumption seems like one of the easiest things we could do to reduce the climate problem, and it has a whole range of other benefits for the environment, such as reducing water use, reducing nitrate and effluent runoff, human health, and efficient use of resources. Meat eating is a habit not a necessity.

       Yes population is still growing, but rates are slowing down. Good comment on the Permian.

11450. One Planet Only Forever at 08:41 AM on 2 March 2019
       A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
       

       nigelj,

       Thanks for the reply (and thanks to scaddenp, Mal Adapted, and all those I am forgetting to mention - sounds like an awards speech).

       We, including scaddenp, do seem to have a lot of understanding in common. Though admittedly my thinking is more radical (less common), as pointed to by Mal Adapted (and I do appreciate that radical is not necessarily a negative term).

       One minor difference in our thinking is that I believe many moderate conservatives may actually be easily 'put off' by claims like potential free-riding promoted by a Carbon Fee and Rebate system (potentially seen to be taking from the richer and just giving to the poor). In Alberta, Canada, and the USA, the conservative opposition to climate action is not opposition to net increased government revenue. The New Conservatives in Canada vehemently oppose Carbon Fee and Rebate policies, successfully appealing for support in places full of moderate conservatives like Alberta by calling the actions Tax programs that will do nothing to reduce emissions (they leave off the point about the rebate and their fans do not question it).

       Another minor difference I hope you will change your mind about is what the name 'Green New Deal' means. The New Deal was the radical socioeconomic action plan developed to correct the massively harmful and unsustainable socioeconomic conditions that had developed in the USA decades ago (pre WW2). It had many opponents, including people who would probably have been thought of as moderates, because it costs the supposed economic winners of higher status some of their status relative to others (it made rich people poorer and poorer people richer, but the richer were still richer than all others). But it was undeniably required at the time. A similar socioeconomic condition has redeveloped in the USA. So a New New Deal is being proposed. What is being done is the addition of the Green component because of the importance of the relatively new required corrections for climate action. It is also done because of the synergies of things like new employment in renewables and the ability to connect all the different 'helpful' interests into a common understanding. But the corrections of the GND will make some of the currently richer people signficantly poorer (especially the ones who made big bets on fossil fuels), and those threatened people are gathered in (actually pushed for the creation of) the likes of the New United Right GOP.

       One of the things I need to be more aware of is that my life experience in Alberta, Canada, is probably a far more powerful exposure to the recent (past 30 years) of Unite the Right groups like the GOP developing effective resistance to the clearly required corrections that all global leaders have long been aware were required. People in other regions of the world will not have that intimate experience with that development. I consider myself to be a fiscal conservative, social progressive, who is aware of the importance of helping others, particularly the future generations of humanity. The last consideration is the reason I often comment on how much trouble the current generation is in because of the lack of consideration of the future by previous generations. I see the admission of the need for correction to be an important step (like it is for any harmfully addicted person). Some moderate conservatives may be open to admitting they were incorrect and change their mind to support corrective action on climate change. But the developed socioeconomic-political systems and the resulting Tribes that many conservative-minded people are now in are seriously stacked against that happening. Being Socially Progressive is a significant aspect of my thinking that has kept me outside of the developing New Conservative Tribes.

       The collective diverse Tribe gathered under Unite the Right banners can be seen to include people who want to resist just about every correction that is presented in the Sustainable Development Goals (and the GND). And people tempted to continue to identify with the newly developed Unite the Right Conservative Tribes can only remain Loyal to the Bosses of the New Tribe by being a supporter of resistance to the required climate action corrections. Any person who does not want to be part of that resistance probably has to 'Leave the Tribe'.

       The identification of the harms being done by the Unite the Right leadership are potentially the most powerful wedges available to spring moderates free from the Tribe they still try to identify with (more powerful than any amount of better presentation of technical details regarding climate science or related economic evaluations, though that work is critical and must continue). Admittedly, that may not be a simple task, even for a moderate conservative. A lot of developed perception of status is potentially at stake. And unlike political Liberals (using the current political understanding of that term) who likely only have Fairness added to the core moral objective of Helpfulness (with Fairness unlikely to be at odds with Helpfulness), a political Conservative may have to undo incorrect beliefs about the merits/value of Loyalty, Respect for Heirarchy, Perceptions about what is Pure and Good, and beliefs about Liberty (like the flawed belief that Good results will develop if everyone is freer to believe and do whatever they please).

       There is potentially a lot of hard to do corrective change for a Conservative to work through. It could be perceived as significantly reducing their developed self-image. But helping them focus on helpfulness may help them understand that through the corrections they are actually developing a more sustainable and defendable self-image, participating in Tribes that are part of a larger and diverse collective of more sustainable helpful Tribes that they can proudly have Good Reasons to be Loyal to the Leadership of.

       Any attendees to Davos who change their minds to more aggressively help achieve the corrections that Greta has pointed out is 'their responsibility to be clear leaders of the development of' will be able to be justifiably prouder of themselves. The others will deserve ridicule to embarrass them into behaving better (because they need to behave better).

Prev  221  222  223  224  225  226  227  228  229  230  231  232  233  234  235  236  Next