Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 Next
Comments 12001 to 12050:
-
william5331 at 05:00 AM on 15 February 2019Climate Damages: Uncertain but Ominous, or $51 per Ton?
You can't put a per ton price on carbon emissions if the likely result of such emissions is to trash our economy and ecology (which seems more than likely). We simply need to adopt Hansen's suggestion and put a small tax on carbon coming out of the ground or accross our boarders and send every cent of the collected money to every registered tax payer by cheap electronic transfer. But that is not the whole story. The important part is that the per ton tax must rise each year by a pre-determined amount. The inevitability of such a rise is the critical factor. Think of the effect on our investments long before the actual amount of the tax is an economic factor.
-
Max or not at 03:09 AM on 15 February 2019Temp record is unreliable
It ks not : https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201813
Moderator Response:[PS] Link fixed. Please learn how to create links yourself by using the link button in the comments editor.
And to go straight to the chase, the link reports global land/sea surface temperature anomaly is estimated to +/- 0.15C not 0.01.
-
Max or not at 03:04 AM on 15 February 2019It's El Niño
I don't think it is the cause of el niño but that it is pushing ONI value higher whatever the value are negative, neutral or positive.
-
Max or not at 02:46 AM on 15 February 2019Earth’s oceans are routinely breaking heat records
So it is 0.15°C-0.2°C from 1955. I better understand why Terajoules are used !
-
WesIsh at 01:07 AM on 15 February 2019Temp record is unreliable
How is it possible to measure the current temperature of Earth i.e. the biosphere with the precision and accuracy of 0.01 C over a time period of 1 year?
-
RedBaron at 00:48 AM on 15 February 2019A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals
@ Michael Sweet,
Actually, I did provide references that farmers successfully sequestered 5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr on average in multiple 10 year case studies. I am sorry you couldn't find it, but this website doesn't allow me to keep repeating over and over and over citations you missed or don't like because of the format they are written. That's an average. I know of higher, but did not use those higher numbers because I am trying to stay conservative in my claims.
But I believe you are missing the most important point. I take full responsibility for this, because I failed to emphasize and communicate it.A carbon market with verified carbon offsets specifically takes advantage of the best known economic motivator known to mankind, the capitalist free markets.
If you want somebody to do something, pay them to do it, and they will!
Right now the farm bill pays farmers to produce a glut of corn and soy in a way that causes AGW, being somewhere in the range of 10-20 % of emissions.
Sadly we are paying farmers to be a significant source of AGW and they are doing it! Society is getting what we paid for.
So right off the bat as soon as we stop paying farmers to over produce corn and soy by means of unsustainable methods causing AGW, they will stop doing it. That reduces emissions at least by 10% alone, using the conservative low end.
Then of course they still need to make a living. So this carbon market with verified carbon offsets will instead pay them to do their farming in a way that sequesters carbon in the soil.
That means restoring the tallgrass prairie ecosystems would now be more profitable than raising corn and soy! And what would any farmer with a lick of sense do? He would stop raising a glut of corn and soy, and instead replant degraded crop fields with prairie grasses. Instead of raising corn and soy to feed animals and gasoline tanks, we can raise animals on the prairie and restore the most productive terrestrial biome on the planet. One that indeed does sequester carbon in the soil at least the average rates listed above in my previous posts.
However, since you are still skeptical, here is a new citation more in the format you are used to analyzing:
If you convert that study's C figures to CO2e, you will find that we here in the US have confirmed what the Aussies were saying decades ago, but no one listened.
Again, pay US farmers to do it and watch out. They have exceeded expectations in every case imaginable. Pay them to sequester carbon and just watch the carbon disappear into the soil!
-
MA Rodger at 00:09 AM on 15 February 2019It's El Niño
Max or not @@197,
It is difficult to understand much of what you actually ask.
But regarding the 18;6 year cycle of the lunar orbital plane and ENSO. The 2015/16 El Niño did coincide with the 'minor lunar standstill' which occurs every 18.6 years. And the 2015/16 El Niño was 18 years behind the 1997/98 El Niño. If the 18.6 year lunar cycle were triggering major El Niños perhaps there should have been a major El Niño in 1978/79 (2 x 18.6 yrs before 2015) and perhaps another in 1960/61 (3 x 18.6 yrs before 2015). Yet there wasn't. (See ONI data here.) That there were no such El Niños in those years surely suggests your proposed linkage between ENSO and the lunar orbit is solely based on a single conicidence that has not been repeated in the past, and so probably will not repeat in the future.
-
michael sweet at 23:26 PM on 14 February 2019On Buying Insurance, and Ignoring Cost-Benefit Analysis
Wol,
I am glad that we agree that all the costs of each technology need to be considered. For fossil fuels that would include the 500,000 people killed each year in the EU by pollution from internal combustion engines (uprated for the entire world), costs to rebuild every port city in the world due to sea level rise and replace the 10% of world farmland at risk from sea level rise, all extreme storm damage like the 500,000 cattle killed in recent Australia rains, firestorm damage like recent California damage and other damage caused by burning fossil fuels.
Calculations counting health damages but ignoring the rest of my list indicate that renewable energ ywit hstorage is cheaper than fossil fuels.
From an economic viewpoint the only choice is to convert to renewable energy as soon as possible. The Stern review was the first of many reports I am aware of that costed out the damage from fossil fuels and concluded that we must switch to renewable energy. Since then the costs of renewable energy have dropped over 50%. Please cite a serious economic review that supports your suggestion that renewable energy is not the most economic choice.
Spinning reserve is a problem for fossil fules and the nuclear industry (especially the nuclear industry). It is generally not an issue for renewable energy except for the possibility of transmission line failure, which can be covered by a smart grid. Night-time lack of solar power can be anticipated in advance by suppliers so spinning reserve is unnecessary. Likewise, in practice, operators have found wind and solar can be forecast in advance so spinning reserve is not needed. Nuclear plants require 100% spinning reserve at all times since any fault causes an immediate emergency shutdown of all generation. Recent hot and cold waves have caused critical shutdowns of fossil fuel plants in Australia and the USA while wind and solar continued uninterupted.
-
Max or not at 13:54 PM on 14 February 2019Earth’s oceans are routinely breaking heat records
Are you sceptical about 95% confidence interval ?
How much degrees celsius all this terajoules are ?
Moderator Response:[PS] Error estimates for OHC have been studied in detail. See here for methodology and detailed results.
-
Max or not at 13:49 PM on 14 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #6
0.79 plus or minus 0.15 degre celcius for land-ocean, so we are between the second and ninght year for the record with 100 %. We could even be the first if the the 2016, 2015 and 2017 temperature are in their bottom uncertainties range and this year at the top !
-
Max or not at 12:55 PM on 14 February 2019It's El Niño
Hi
Climate models predicts higher air than sea temperature; is it el-niño effect no ?
The last two big el niño were in phase with the 18.6 lunar tidal effect, it' s seems to have construct an hiher amplitude...it's seems to impeach la niña in the las two before that.
The next is in 2034; sea surface temperature is actually far below the air temperature. Could we experience an almost flat line in the air temperature to 2034 while the sea surface will continue to rise gently ?
-
scaddenp at 11:54 AM on 14 February 2019A Duplicitous Minister?
Wol - not clear as source is not transparent. The only two I could find were 2018 units with 25MW/50MWh and 30MW/30MWh respectively in Vic and 2 (30MW and 50MWh) in SA joining the initial Tesla 100MW/129MWh already operating.
So whatever? (Power and energy broadly same).
12 new plants would need to average 150MW or MWh to scale for that much storage.
A clearer source for the pipeline would help.
-
Wol at 10:00 AM on 14 February 2019A Duplicitous Minister?
>>....with capacity to store 1,800 MW.....<<
??? Power or energy?
-
nigelj at 08:20 AM on 14 February 2019Climate Damages: Uncertain but Ominous, or $51 per Ton?
Great article. The economic models are based around a few things such as climate change damages. I'm not an economist, but it does not take much to see that the damages outweigh the benefits as below.
skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm
And this list does not even include the distinct possibility of some abrupt and severe form of change to global atmospheric or ocean circulation patterns. Regardless of whether an abrupt change is towards abrupt warming or some peverse form of cooling, such a change would indisputably be hard to adapt to due to its abrupt nature.
And this needs repeating. The article says estimates of net damages keep increasing while mitigation costs are falling. Very important idea.
And the modelling is based around discount rates and rates of future wealth creation. Discount rates assume an investment today will grow in value in the future, and nobody disputes this has been the pattern thus far historically, but we are always in a situation of "assuming" such a pattern would continue. It is never a "given" and is always based on assumptions. So are the typical assumptions made sensible? One assumption is the economy will improve its quality of output, and this seems reasonable but is a different thing to quantity and this is what is most relevant to a discount rate. Another assumption is efficiency would improve. Its reasonable to assume we would waste less and be smarter about things, but reducing waste comes up against an obvious limit fairly quickly.
It's assumed that population will grow giving economies of scale, but many trends are already towards lower population growth (and this is ultimately no bad thing anyway). Its assumed that technology will perpetually improve at past rates, but some evidence suggests rates of technological innovation have actually already slowed (even although this appears counter intuitive). Its reasonable to assume innovation will continue in renewable energy for some decades, and prices will drop but even that will have limits.
It is assumed that there will be perpetual economic growth at rather high rates of 3% per annum. This is implausible, because resource scarcity, the need for sustainablity, combined with market saturation and climate impacts all suggest economic growth will relentlessly slow in coming decades and centuries, and probably fall, so those who optimistically count on high economic growth offsetting the climate problem are delusional.
This is not to say economic growth will stop tomorrow. It's likely it will continue and greatly help lift people out of poverty, but there are limits on the timescales relevant to the climate problem.
Therefore those counting on future wealth creation bailing us out of the problem are delusional. Those assuming a high discount rate are delusional. They just aren't very smart. They are pollyanahs.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:38 AM on 14 February 2019Climate Damages: Uncertain but Ominous, or $51 per Ton?
A fundamental and critical point by-passed or ignored by a 'calculated cost per unit of new excess CO2 created' is that it is understandably undeniable that it is unacceptable for anyone or group/tribe to do something that creates negative consequences for another person or group/tribe. It is even unacceptable when the harmed person is desperate enough that they supposedly agree to the harmful actions (like workers unnecessarily at risk in lower cost operations that do not implement the best known and constantly improving safety and protection measures).
What has developed clearly contradicts that understanding. But that does not mean that the moral/ethical understanding is incorrect. It means that the undeniable moral/ethical understanding that it is unacceptable to harm others is being allowed to be over-powered by other interests.
This is a case of a portion of current day humanity wanting to benefit by doing harm to future generations (and others in the current generation). They want to operate the global economy in ways that are not sustainable and are understood to be harmful to the future of humanity.
No math can make that acceptable. And any discounting of the future costs pretending that wealth always grows is ridiculous (in the intended definition of being deserving of ridicule). Every 'marketplace correction' that has ever occurred is proof of that understanding. And there is irreversible harm done by every one of those 'corrections' (which includes the unnecessary death of many among the proorest). The climate challenge is a matter of correction. How big and harmful it is is a matter of how the correction occurs. Who is harmed is the issue. And right now all discussion is still about how OK it is to harm the future generations as long as the 'Price is Right for the people wanting to benefit in the current generation'
What is needed is the most rapid correction of what has developed that is possible. And that has to start by always admitting that what has developed, including the socioeconomic-political systems that developed, are incorrect. It is especially incorrect that resistance to correction of understandably harmful activity remains 'acceptable'.
That understanding should be the preface/basis for any discussion like this one about 'pragmatic actions that are hoped to create sustainable adequate corrections in the current systems'. I personally doubt any significant correction will occur without corrections to the systems. I consider such efforts to be like the classic definition of insanity. But I admit I could be mistaken (but I highly doubt it based on what has happened so far).
-
william5331 at 05:22 AM on 14 February 2019EV’s: Crucial to Reducing CO2 Emissions
Right on in all respects but one. I don't believe that self driving cars will ever become the industry standard. Have you ever seen a computer program that didn't have a raft of glitches when first released. Have you ever seen one that couldn't be hacked. With an electric car without bells and whistles, it should be so easy to maintain that we will reverse the helplessness we feel when we look under the hood of a modern car. Changing a motor, for instance, should be as easy as undoing 6 nuts, extracting the faulty motor and inserting a new one. The old one goes for refurbishing or recycling. Ditto inserting new up to date batteries and using the old one at home to store energy from your solar array. The car manufacturer that produces the simple but hugely reliable, easy to repair electric car (bolt on and off bits that tend to get dented for instance) will sweep the market.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:38 AM on 14 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
nigelj,
My understanding is that linking the required massive corrections of climate action (more massive today because of immoral behaviour of some leaders/Winners, particualrly through the past 30 years) with actions that will also correct unfair and harmful developments, like the poor health care for many in the USA, is a way to pull people out of the Tribal brainfreeze of their harmful membership in a Tribe that promotes and Unites unjust attitudes and actions that are based harmful on things like Greed and Intolerance.
Morality should clearly be Universally governed by the objective of Do No Harm, with an aspiration to Help Others, especially the future generations. The problem is that the other 5 potential basic human inclinations (those other measured triggers of behaviour) can be encouraged to over-rule the Help/Harm principle.
The other motivations/triggers for human behaviour are not actually Moral Justifications. They are undeniable real basic motivations. But Morally and Ethically they all need to be governed by the Universal Moral/Ethical Objective of "Improving awareness and understanding of what is really going on and applying that improving knowledge to help develop sustainable improvements for global humanity into the distant future - As a minimum Do No Harm to that pursuit (the largest worldview)"
The Green New Deal is aligned with that understanding (as are the Sustainable Development Goals and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
-
Wol at 16:33 PM on 13 February 2019On Buying Insurance, and Ignoring Cost-Benefit Analysis
Michael @ 7:
>>Clearly the OP does not have enough space to reinvent all of science. Mr. Ackerman has to leave out things that are well known to be true. As Nigelj has shown, the statement that renewable energy is cheaper than any other energy source is easily confirmed with a simple GOOGLE search.<<
Passing quickly over the intended irony/sarcasm of the first paragraph, there are all sorts of things that come into the equations and many can legitimately add or subtract them. Storage is very relevant: producing energy when it's not needed is wasteful without it and sans storage the deficit on windless nights has to be made up by conventional means, which often mean spinning reserves.
-
nigelj at 05:30 AM on 13 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
Mal Adapted
"That said, a stable global population with a steady-state, 100% renewable or recycled economy would seem to be our only long-term alternative to eventual global economic and demographic collapse."
Correct, and I would go further and say this is inevitable. It will either be forced on us by deteriorating circumstances, and in a painful way with possibly increased mortality rates as the system becomes very stretched, or we can adopt it in a more timely and proactive way in the coming couple of decades, by trying to bend the population curve down more, and adopt more recycling and a more sustainable economy. And obviously also transition to renewable energy. Its a simple choice of a) or b).
Unfortunately I'm in a gloomy mood and tend to think nothing much will change until its absolutely forced on us. We will go on using up resources at a huge pace. The best we might do on climate is stop warming getting above 3 degrees. The related issues are on such a vast scale, and humans have so many limitations that its hard to turn the ship around. I hope I'm wrong of course.
OPOF
Yes I agree clearly we should tackle climate and socio economic goals in parallel, and as part of one cohesive philosophy that puts fairness and sustainability at the top of the list. Thats what political parties do or should be doing. But Green New Deals should stick to environmental issues, and those that clearly overlap with them, not issues about healthcare etc.
-
nigelj at 05:18 AM on 13 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
OPOF @29, yes that sounds right. Have a read of this:
-
michael sweet at 03:08 AM on 13 February 2019On Buying Insurance, and Ignoring Cost-Benefit Analysis
Wol,
I noticed that the article also left out that all matter is made of atoms and that electricity is caused by the flow of electrons.
Clearly the OP does not have enough space to reinvent all of science. Mr. Ackerman has to leave out things that are well known to be true. As Nigelj has shown, the statement that renewable energy is cheaper than any other energy source is easily confirmed with a simple GOOGLE search.
In addition, the cost of renewable energy is still going down. Costs of fossil fuels will only go up as they are used up. Distractions like questions about storage, which have been answered in the peer reviewed literature, while leaving out the immense current and future costs of fossil fuels (coal alone kills over 10,000 Amenican citizens and causes over $40 billion in health costs per year, not to mention sea level rise and stronger storms) is simply stalling reasoned discussion.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:02 AM on 13 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
My statement about Unite the Right members (like the USA GOP) being "... Loyal to the Authority they see as Puritan Protectors of the Status of their Tribe" is based on the understanding presented by Jonathan Haidt in "The Righteous Mind".
The Righteous Mind in a nut shell is that it is possible for humans to think that 'morality' is based on:
- Help/Harm
- Fairness
- Loyalty to a Tribe
- Subservience to or respect for Tribal Leadership
- Perceptions of Cleanliness of their Tribe relative to Others
- Freedom to do as you please
Many members of humanity develop an understanding of morals that people are free to do as they wish as long as they are governed by:
- Not harming Others
- Being Fair to Others
Others will willingly do harm to Others and be unfair to Others because they have become Loyal, Authority following, Defenders of the perceptions of Purity, Cleanliness and Superiority of Their United Right Tribes (they will deliberately compromise the moral concerns of harm and fairness in order to be Loyal, Subservient followers of the 'Authority in Their Tribe' and steadfast believers of the Superiority and the Purity of Their Tribe). As presented by Sally Kohn in "The Opposite of Hate" they will fight (even viciously) against anything they perceive as 'unacceptable', including fighting against improving their awareness and understanding of the harmful incorrectness of Their Tribe and its Leadership.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 16:06 PM on 12 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
Mal Adapted,
I agree with the importance of rapid action to minimize the climate change harm that is done to the future of humanity. But I would suggest that many significant recent global conflicts, including the Syrian and Sudan tragedies that were likely triggered by unanticipated climate events (prolonged droughts), were more due to incorrect Social, Economic and Political development than the climate change impacts.
So climate change impacts do need to be urgently addressed, but the incorrect socioeconomic-political systems create more threats that are actually more immediate. So I would suggest it is important to "Add" climate action to the long understood need for Social, Economic and Political corrections (that include developing decent health care for all citizens of the USA and reversing things like Gerrymandering, Voter Suppression, and twisted Census Questions that the GOP have implemented (or tried to implement), in desperate attempts to prolong their ability to regionally win politically incorrectly).
And it is important that the corrections implemented regarding climate change be done in concert with actions that also correct related already developed Social and Economic problems. The leadership of France blew it when they implemented a Carbon Fee without clear related programs to assist those already suffering who would be further negatively impacted. Even a Carbon Fee and Rebate program may be an inadequate way of addressing the existing developed Socio-Economic situations that require correction.
I will close with a different perspective on Phillip's comment @25. The lack of responsible leadership regarding the required corrections of developed Socioeconomic-political systems through the past 30 years has developed larger more urgent problems that all need to be corrected. The likes of the current Winners of Control of the GOP would probably like more people to give up on caring about the future of humanity, but it is essential that the current GOP supporters who are incorrectly Loyal to the Authority they see as Puritan Protectors of the Status of their Tribe be exposed to how harmful and unfair, how fundamentally morally incorrect, their Tribal Leadership actually is. Much harm has been done by their incorrect unjustified Winning.
The real problem is that the GOP Tribe, like other Unite the Right Tribes, is determined to remain United in resistance to correction of all of their collected interests that are undeniably in need of correction based on improved understanding, including resisting effective climate action. Their history of actions is very evident. They are United to resist correction. So even though a portion of the GOP say they support climate action, as long as they remain Loyal Followers of the current GOP Leadership they will vote against any effective correction even if it is understandably harmful to do so (even if they are nice helpful caring Family/Community people, they will support harmful actions to defend the Status of their Tribe).
Sally Kohn's book is quite Enlightening regarding the tragic harmful Tribalness that has developed and can powerfully resist correction.
-
JWRebel at 13:35 PM on 12 February 2019On Buying Insurance, and Ignoring Cost-Benefit Analysis
An excellent explanation, clearly hitting the main points and making an appeal to easily grasped parallels.
-
JWRebel at 13:33 PM on 12 February 2019On Buying Insurance, and Ignoring Cost-Benefit Analysis
nigelj @1: It is very manageable. Spending 3.1% on the military primarily buys us enemies; better to spend the money on really defending ourselves from what is really threatening us. The defense money could easily be diverted — making the net costs $0.
-
Wol at 11:35 AM on 12 February 2019On Buying Insurance, and Ignoring Cost-Benefit Analysis
nigelj @3: Thanks. I was going to complain that externalities aren't considered costs but the Wikipedia article does address them. Whether the piece we are referring to does I don't know, but a 20 - 30% extra cost would change the argument substantially.
-
Mal Adapted at 10:57 AM on 12 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
OPOF @24, well said. I differ slightly with
the Sustainable Development Goals are understood to be collectively required (nothing sustainable is achieved if only some parts of the holistic objective are achieved - but admittedly climate action is a significant element of the set of objectives).
I would say rather that if we don't address anthropogenic global warming immediately, we won't have the option to do the others. IMHO, a 'market-driven' transition to a carbon-neutral global economy is achievable without broad social upheaval, through policies like a US national Carbon Fee and Dividend. It would only be a quick fix, not addressing the fallacy of endless economic growth, but it would postpone the urgency of that debate. There's no reason to stop debating, of course, but I predict a well-designed CF&D with BAT will lead to a quicker climate fix than reorganizing global society from top to bottom.
That said, a stable global population with a steady-state, 100% renewable or recycled economy would seem to be our only long-term alternative to eventual global economic and demographic collapse. Capping the warming only buys us time. Hopefully we won't approach stability by repeated over- and undershoot, albeit in a stable climate!
-
nigelj at 09:21 AM on 12 February 2019On Buying Insurance, and Ignoring Cost-Benefit Analysis
"Does the electricity get measured in Kw, or Kwh? (Power or energy?) Does the cost include decommisssioning costs or replacement? There are other criteria but you get my point."
Levelised costs of virtually all forms types electricty generation here and here. (comparing like with like, and including lifetime costs and maintainance etc). Includes data on battery storage as well.
-
nigelj at 09:03 AM on 12 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
John McKeon @21
"Decarbonising economies is a huge task and very, very necessary. "
Yes, and hopefully nobody would argue with that. And something about The Green New Deal is connecting with people because they are noticing it and talking about it. Perhaps because it's a bold statement and comprehensive, and unequivocal something thats been a little lacking from people like Hilary Clinton. I dont see anyone who is environmentally conscious writing it off as complete rubbish either, so its being talked about for the right reasons.
But the devil is in the detail. Like I said thats when real discussion will start. How do we fund such a massive government infrastructure spend? From what I hear the plan proposes either deficit financing or money creation. Given the economic costs appear to be around 1.5% of gdp this might well be possible, but its going to be a political battle, and imho a carbon tax avoids many of these difficulties.
And then there's the question of the social provisions. The messages are fine by me, but is the Green New Deal the right document to deliver them in? Yes as OPOF points out the plan is not going to be put up as one piece of legisation, but by mixing so many things together in one document negative reactions against the social provisions will be used as an excuse to label the green provisions socialist (they aren't imho but you know what I mean). People will say remember The Green New Deal....It's stupid mud slinging, but why invite it?
But the plan is an honest, open statement of what The Democrats stand for and takes a stand over a set of values. Something to really admire in that. Maybe this will win through in the end.
-
Wol at 08:19 AM on 12 February 2019On Buying Insurance, and Ignoring Cost-Benefit Analysis
>>In the windiest and sunniest parts of the world (and the United States), new wind and solar power installations now produce electricity at costs equal to or lower than from fossil fuel-burning plants<<
A statement which on its own looks good, but comes without any parameters.
Does the electricity get measured in Kw, or Kwh? (Power or energy?) Does the cost include decommisssioning costs or replacement? There are other criteria but you get my point.
Deniers always bring up the "sun doesn't shine all the time" and "wind doesn't blow all the time" arguments - which are, with the paucity of power storage, valid. A statement such as this is no counterargument without the full facts being available.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:07 AM on 12 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
Whatever we do, I am tending to think it will too little, by orders of magnitude, too late. Humans are failing because of the flaws in their nature. We continue playing our little games while massive changes are taking place right in front of our eyes, geological scale events that command far less attention from the public than some famous girl's dress color on some day.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320718313636
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:16 AM on 12 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
The Green New Deal is not intended to be a massive single piece of legislation.
The Objectives of the Green New Deal need to be understood to lead to a collective diversity of required legislative corrective actions, like the Sustainable Development Goals are understood to be collectively required (nothing sustainable is achieved if only some parts of the holistic objective are achieved - but admittedly climate action is a significant element of the set of objectives).
Trump won partially because the Demorcats missed reaching out to and connecting with all of the economically and socially disadvantaged. However, a failure of the likes of the Democrats to correct misunderstandings about "what is helpful and what is harmful and what is really going on", is not a good reason to compromise improved understanding.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:45 AM on 12 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
I see many comments that appear to be based on the belief that compromising understanding for the benefit of incorrectly developed popularity and profitability is required (another way of referring to beliefs that the current controlling interests of the likes of the GOP need to be allowed to compromise what is actually understood to need to be corrected to develop a sustainable better future for humanity).
The Tribes that encourage people to be greedier and less tolerant of diversity and try to keep their regional and global collectives United to have more power to resist correction are a serious "developed and developing" problem.
That harmful development needs to be corrected. Believing it is possible to get better results out of an understandably corrupted system without correcting the serious flaws and errors that have developed in the system is like that classic definition of Insanity.
The United Tribes like the GOP need to be broken up for Good Reason. Either the GOP will end up correcting itself or it will have no future (and will do as much harmful resistance to correction as it can get away with).
The ability of groups like the GOP to evade exposure of their members to the understanding of their collective unacceptability is a serious problem that needs to be corrected.
Each action in the Sustainable Development Goals can be a wedge in the likes of the GOP, as long as the people trying to improve the understanding of the incorrectly developed beliefs among the likes of the GOP Unite in support of all of the Sustainable Development Goals. The alternative, a fracturing of the efforts to correct all that is collectively incorrect about the GOP, is likely exactly what the Tribal Leaders of the GOP want. They want to see Climate Action people arguing against Social correction people, or against other pursuers of different environmental or social or political corrections. The likes of the GOP do not want to see anything "change contrary to their interests". They really do not want to see "All Others Uniting to Correct Them".
-
michael sweet at 21:48 PM on 11 February 2019A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals
Red Baron,
I see no references to peer reviewed data in your most recent response. It appears to me that your claims of unbelievable amounts of CO2 sequestered in farmland come from your personal projections unknown to anyone else. Your objections to fee and dividend are unsupported by the peer reviewed literature.
You have made these unsupported claims repeatedly here at Skeptical Science. To me it is simply propaganda for your personal agenda. Find some papers that support your claims. While I think your goals of improving land using organic principles is laudable, you have not demonstrated that it is achievable.
I will not post again on this topic unless you provide actual citations to support your wild claims.
Climate Smart Agriculture may assist in the response to AGW, but it is not a silver bullet to resolve Global Warming.
-
scaddenp at 19:34 PM on 11 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
KR - actually that is a good point. Thanks for injecting some hope. Nigelj - the public support in the poll was based on a paraphrase of text which pretty much asked if you support motherhood and apple pie. The numerous attack points in the actual text will see that support plummet as the detail becomes known.
-
nigelj at 18:33 PM on 11 February 2019On Buying Insurance, and Ignoring Cost-Benefit Analysis
Great read. Agree with the need to base risk analysis on worst case scenarios even if they are low probability. This is the entire planet we are talking about, so you have to be very cautious.
Article says "Robert Pollin, an economist who has studied green new deal options, estimates that annual investment of about 1.5 percent of GDP would be needed. That’s about $300 billion a year for the United States, and four times as much, $1.2 trillion a year, for the world economy. "
To put this in context, America spent approx. the following last year as a percentage of GDP: Military 3.1%, education 4.9%, healthcare (private plus government) 17%, and pensions 7.4%. These numbers are easily googled.
It just seems that a Green New Deal investment of 1.5% is very manageable. Even if it was 3% its manageable.
So why is the world in such a state of apathy and slowness on the whole thing? I think it's not really economic. It's psychological apathy and confusion. It's denial campaigns, and poor communication to the public of costs. Its political capture by corporate lobby groups.
-
John McKeon at 18:18 PM on 11 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
nigelj says:
“Carbon fee and dividend is an economic mechanism applied to an environmental problem. There is a substantive difference between that and quality healthcare, minimum wages etc. I'm surprised you can't see this.”
Thank you for setting me straight about your home country. By the way, of course I can contemplate and discuss quality healthcare and minimum wages and environmental policies, all as distinct issues.
Decarbonising economies is a huge task and very, very necessary. It will be transformative in every which way. We might not make it without a lot of casualties*, but what else is there to do but try to get this massive project rolling faster and hope for the best for our descendants.
[*Casualties from environmental events, including starvation and disease, and casualties of conflict engendered by humanity’s flagging environmental fortunes.]
-
william5331 at 16:37 PM on 11 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
We can have as many new green deals as we want and the MPs will nod their heads and agree with each of them and then go off and do the bidding of their financers. Who Pays the Piper Calls the Tune.
-
nigelj at 15:29 PM on 11 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
I suspect the public will like The Green New Deal and polls suggest they do here, but I suspect politicians will hate it particularly the GOP.
America has developed a total schizophrenia between the population and politicians. A lot of this is probably due to the huge influence of lobby groups and financial donations. It's the same everywhere but seems particularly obvious in America.
But a lot of it comes down to how its funded. Thats when the real debate will start.
-
2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
I think it was quite worthwhile. I am certain this particular proposal won't go anywhere as written, but the Overton Window, the the range of ideas tolerated in public discourse, is moving as a result.
I see clear changes occurring in political discourse due to AOC's "70% marginal tax rate" discussion, for example (the norm in the US from the 30's to the 70's, but not now), and expect the same of the Green New Deal.
-
scaddenp at 14:06 PM on 11 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
Seems to me more like a shot into own bows, sinking the ship. I suspect this will put climate action in the US even further back but I would love to be proved wrong. Ideally, the GOP should respond with a counter-deal without the junk but I think flying bacon is more likely.
-
2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
From the OP - I think that the socioeconomic aspects are part of the "New Deal", while the "Green" refers to the climate change/ecological aspects. Don't make the mistake of assuming that the "Green" portion means this is strictly about the ecology.
It's definitely ambitious, and definitely won't go anywhere. But if I interpret it correctly, it's a first shot across the bow, a first point of disccusion regarding these topics in a town where nothing of this scale has been seriously considered since Franklin D. Roosevelt.
-
nigelj at 08:58 AM on 11 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
Venus has an atmosphere of nearly pure CO2, (through nearly all layers) and surface temperatures of 460 deg.c that have been attributed directly to the CO2. So it seems logical to suggest if we keep adding CO2 to Earths atmosphere warming will continue until we reach something similar. It certainly looks like earth has a way to go before the greenhouse effect 'saturates'.
-
BeezelyBillyBub at 08:45 AM on 11 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #6
Never trust a priest or a physicist. Don't believe in things you don't understand.
*Earth's Oceans Lost In Space* - Nature Communications 2016
https://www.natureasia.com/en/research/highlight/10512
*Greenhouse Gases Boil Oceans Away* - Motherboard 2016
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/53dgmx/greenhouse-gases-could-eventually-heat-the-planet-enough-to-boil-the-oceans-awayPlanets with too much carbon dioxide could lose oceans to space - New Scientist 2016
https://www.natureasia.com/en/research/highlight/10512
> Ocean loss due to vapor drift takes millions of year, but will happen likely sooner.Stephen Hawking, All of Earth's oceans boil away into nothing - Inverse 2017
https://www.inverse.com/article/33729-stephen-hawking-trump-climate-change-venus-syndrome
> Everybody says his deathbed message is wrong, he can't defend himself.THE CURIOUS CASE OF EARTH'S LEAKING ATMOSPHERE - ESA 2016
http://sci.esa.int/cluster/58028-the-curious-case-of-earth-s-leaking-atmosphere/
> Most interesting, earth leaks 90 tons/day into space at the poles. When magnetic poles flip, we can end up with as many as 7 poles roaming the earth all at once, lasting as long a thousand years, taking decades to pass overhead. This is especially interesting if crustal rebound affects gravity which may affect molten flux which affects magnetic flux. Or whatever.> Another interesting factor is lower stratospheric mid-latitude ozone depletion in conjunction with magnetic field weakening. While the Antarctic ozone hole is mending the lower mid-latitude stuff has never stopped depleting, and that's where the majority of this stuff is. We never could detect the decline there until we got some new fancy ass space junk up there.
We’re Boiling the Ocean Faster Than We Thought - Intelligencer 2019
By Eric Levitz The Intelligencer > boring 2019
> Illustrates we're not as smart as we like to think.Several billion years ago Venus had oceans and atmospheric oxygen - Daily Star 2019
https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/environment/news/welcome-the-age-climate-change-1699726
> The author is a physicist. I trust him, a little.Rapid discharge of the earth-space battery foretells the future of humankind - PNAS 2015
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/112/31/9511.full.pdf
> No trees no air. The vacuum of space sits down on Gaia's face.Earth will not be fine without us...
unless you are subterranean bacteria.
cut 'n paste this post to people who say:
EARTH WILL BE FINE WITHOUT US
I used all caps cuz young people hate that
This is so new, I didn't watch it yet.
https://youtu.be/HtqKdBqvkus
*The Vomitorium* https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMBRo_pT8k6JXI0kWPgGEdg/discussion
*The Dumpster*
https://lokisrevengeblog.wordpress.com/Moderator Response:[PS] There might be gems in there but it looks like a gish gallop without any coherent argument. You are advised to pick a particular point you want to make. Find an appropriate thread for posting and then make your case using links to support your argument not make it.
Use the link tool in the comment editor to create your links, pasting in a URL directly into a comment doesnt work.
-
RedBaron at 08:34 AM on 11 February 2019A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals
@Michael Sweet,
I was not refering to you and your own silo of knowledge personally, but rather the rhetorical "you" and specifically the source behind the forum thread to linked to.
The scientific basis of
climate-smart agriculture
A systematic review protocol
Working Paper No. 138The point being this is a review of minor upgrades to the traditional agricultural methods as can be clearly seen by title of the table:
Description of practices included in the meta-analysis
A person would need to know that the LCP functions entirely differently than the majority of those methods listed as part of the meta-analysis. It's as if they studied the metaphorical apple to claim results regarding oranges.I am sure most of those so called "climate smart" practices are at least marginally better than the current widely regarded GAP. But I am equally sure that particular paper had little to nothing to do with the new paradigm based on research of the LCP. There are a few things partially applicable, but most of it doesn't apply at all. I gave you one example with the use of fertilizers, but that's a long list and I could actually go right down the list with similar.
And lastly, please stop saying I advocate a silver bullet when the exact opposite is true. From the link I gave in post #30
- Reduce fossil fuel use by replacing energy needs with as many economically viable renewables as current technology allows. Please note that most current forms of ethanol gas additive are not beneficial because they further degrade the sequestration side of the carbon cycle and take more fossil fuels to produce than they offset.[8]
- Change agricultural methods to high yield regenerative models of production made possible by recent biological & agricultural science advancements.[9][10]
- Implement large scale ecosystem recovery projects similar to the Loess Plateau project, National Parks like Yellowstone etc. where appropriate and applicable.[11][12][13]
This is quite clearly a well rounded 3 pronged approach and vastly superior to the Fee and Dividend to all citizens approach BECAUSE that approach omits 1/2 the carbon cycle. You are actually on the side of the plan that takes a silver bullet approach, focusing only on reducing emissions.
Indeed the primary flaw of the EICDA is they pay the dividend to everyone equally whether that have a positive carbon footprint or a negative carbon footprint. That's basically shuffling the deck chairs on a sinking Titanic.
While a carbon market with verified carbon offsets literally only pays those dividends for verified and measured carbon sequestration in the soil. Then you will see how fast farmers adopt the actual LCP found in those agricultural case studies. They will be paid to perform a service. The ones performing the service of soil sequestration the most effectively will be paid more for that service.
Much more efficient dynamic than paying exactly the same regardless of whether they help or harm efforts to balance the carbon cycle.
-
nigelj at 08:15 AM on 11 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
Scaddenp @11, yes exactly. I don't understand why people cant see this.
However I dont think pragmatistics is a word. I think you meant "pragmatists", or "pragmatism" and I'm all in favour of this. Gareth Morgan is basically a pragmatist in some ways, sadly not a great sales person.
-
Eclectic at 07:14 AM on 11 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
Blaisct @12 ,
your ideas about CO2 are quite confused. "Saturation" has no direct relevance to global warming / greenhouse effect.
On SkepticalScience, you can educate yourself by reading the Climate Myths [see top left corner of the page] or reading a number of other threads discussing the mechanisms of greenhouse gas actions. This is very basic science indeed. Think of (your possible namesake?) Blaise Pascal and his intelligent approach of learning and thinking about problems ~ and coming to intelligent solutions.
Once you have understood the physical realities, then you can move on to the best political approaches to abating the AGW problems.
-
blaisct at 06:21 AM on 11 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
Will some one please run some experiments to prove their theories before we make laws that may be going after the wrong culprit. Stop relying on statistical correlation and statistical models to condemn CO2. A statistical correlation is not a proof.
Let’s test the Beer Lambert law which is the dominate physical law that governs greenhouse gases and radiation absorption. Lets run an experiment to see how important CO2 is in gw. Bill Nye (the science guy) has already done one experiment with two 1 liter soda bottles one filled with air and one filled with CO2 on a dark table with thermometers installed (and the sun shining). The bottle with the CO2 got very hot. Beer Lambert would predict those results. Let’s rerun the experiment with bottles (current air CO2 and pure CO2) that are 16 meters in diameter (distance of reflected radiation from the table). Beer Lambert law says that they would be the same temperature after thermal mixing. Beer lambert predicts that no mater how large the bottles anything larger than 16 meters would still be the same temperature when the air is allowed to mix (bigger the bottles the longer the mixing time). At 16 meters the mixing equilibrium should not take long – mins vs hrs. A fan in each bottle would eliminate the mixing time variable. The energy comes from the radiation not the gas, when the radiation (of CO2’s frequency’s) is gone the heating stops.
A lot of assumptions in this experiment: the bottle would need to be made of some thing that was transparent to CO2 frequency’s, natural thermal mixing must not be impaired, the bottles must be insulated from outside heat transfer, albedo of the surface must be the same and sufficient to generate CO2 frequency’s, no water in the bottles, a bottle is probably not the best shape, and sun shining. In other words, just as close to earth’s atmosphere as possible with just the CO2 variable.
Another way to run the experiment is to take Bill Nye’s bottles 16 meters above the table. Beer lambert law would predict that both bottles would be the same temperature because they are beyond the saturation distance of current CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. In this experiment we can make the table as big as we like we just can’t change the albedo. The bottle material of construction in this experiment must not have any albedo effect.
For water the beer lambert law says the bottles needs to be about 100 meters in diameter.
Does anyone know of any experiments like this?
If these experiments prove Beer Lambert law works for CO2 in our atmosphere it shows that Beer lambert is the dominate greenhouse law and CO2 is already saturated (enough) in the atmosphere, more or less (down to 20ppm) will not change the temperature. But this does not change the significant statistical correlation of CO2 to gw. A statistical correlation is not a proof (unless used in a scientifically designed experiment). I would start looking else where for the cause of gw. I would put high priority on things that also correlate to CO2. My bet is albedo.
I don’t have any ideas on how to prove the “radiation forcing” theory proposed by the IPCC. I have read experiments that demonstrate radiation forcing with light of CO2 frequency’s supplied. The fact that NASA and other researcher have not detected any radiation of CO2 frequency’s in the troposphere makes CO2 specific radiation forcing doubtful.Moderator Response:[PS] This is extremely confused. You need to read closely how the greenhouse effect work. Experiments in a lab measure the radiative properties of gases, but GHE is something that depends on these and the temperture/pressure in the atmosphere. Because it is critical to many application, the effect of the atmosphere on radiation passing through it has been deeply studied. The observation base used by climate models originated with the USAF (MODTRAN). The increase of radiation warming the surface due to the GHE has been directly measured. See here for most recent experiment. Observation match the theory at multiple levels.
"The fact that NASA and other researcher have not detected any radiation of CO2 frequency’s in the troposphere makes CO2 specific radiation forcing doubtful."
Please provide a reference for this statement (Otherwise it is simply sloganeering and not compliant with policy). I suspect you have either misunderstood material or been misled by a misinformation site.
-
scaddenp at 06:06 AM on 11 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
Well I think Green New Deal actually typifies a lot of what is wrong with US politics, speaking as arm chair observer living in NZ. Under "it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal" you would applaud the first 4 points as aspirational goals dealing with problems that need to be addressed. No issue.
The fifth point would be a short precise of what right-wing would call the "the liberal agenda" and frankly would doom it. Now I dont disagree with many of those points but getting a green deal on the earlier points is going to need votes from some of those who would see this item as a serious red flag. Worse, it just plays into the hands of those promoting the idea that climate change is a manufactured crisis pushed by a nefarious conspiracy of international illuminati to undermine capitalism and "freedoms". They would see the Green New Deal as a trojan horse and possibly with some justification.
There are also points there I think are fundimentally unobtainable and/or undesirable. A changing social landscape is a given. You cannot necessarily fix "deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities". When a mine is exhausted it closes. Mechanised agriculture needs less labour. It would be like trying to mandate a continuation of blacksmiths and lively stables.
"achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability"
Come on, that is a frustration matrix - might as well try to legislate on 2nd law of thermodynamics. Try "optimal" instead of "maximal".
It looks to me like a bunch of good ideas have been torpedoed by ideologues by providing a target-rich document to those who will oppose it. I would be amazed if this could be sold to american people and worse still it may poison the ground for more sensible future proposals.
Idealogues are the bane of politics no matter what the colour. Now is the time for pragmatistics like no other.
-
nigelj at 05:13 AM on 11 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
OPOF @7, yes there is a relationship between environmental, social and economic ideas, but mix those goals up in a single document called a Green Plan and we are just handing the GOP an easy weapon to cry socialism or expensive free public healthcare and other inane and misleading but effective scaremongering, then the green goals become discredited by association. It needs to be about strategy.
I would have had two plans, a green plan and an economic plan. Yes there is overlap obviously, but they are not one and the same thing.
I do like the fact the Democrats have a Green Plan, something comprehensive, rather than just a couple of isolated ideas that would get lost among so many other political policies.
Prev 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 Next
