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:
-
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.
-
nigelj at 04:43 AM on 11 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
John McKeon @7, I'm a New Zealand citizen. I take a little bit of interest in American politics because Im interested in politics and its hard to avoid American politics, Trump is in our news virtually every day.
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.
-
michael sweet at 03:54 AM on 11 February 2019A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals
Red Baron,
I have read many of your links in the past. While I do not claim to be an expert at land restoration, I am a professional nurseryman who works the land every day. (I have retired from teaching school and own a 5 acre nursery). I find your claims to be very lightly documented. Your first link here is to a blog post, the second is to press release about a 2002 paper and the third is to a 2008 article in a minor journal that is no longer published. The post I linked cited recent peer reviewed articles from prominent scientific journals.
It defies logic to think that soils could absorb all the carbon emitted by land use change, including lands that have been degraded so badly it will take generations to restore them, and all the carbon from fossil fuels. Substantial documentation is required. Blog posts and articles from 2002 are insufficient to convince me.
I do not like to harp on negative stories so most of the time I do not comment on your claims. That does not mean that I have been convinced, it means we have gone over this before and I do not feel the need to rehash an old argument (it is against the comments policy). In this case I had recently read what I thought was an informed comment on your topic, citing recent peer reviewed articles, and thought others might want to hear a different view.
While improved land use will certainly help the resolution of AGW, it is not a silver bullet that can remove all CO2 on its own. Fee and dividend to all citizens is a reasonable idea. Compension for possible sequestration of carbon by farmers is a separate issue.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:50 AM on 11 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
nigelj,
I share John McKeon's challenge of assertions that the environmental sustainability of human activity should be considered and acted upon separate from corrections to achieve social and economic sustainability.
That is not exactly how the issue is often described in comments here, or the general public discussion, but there is good reason for phrasing it that way.The Green New Deal should be understood to be an update of the socioeconomic New Deal implemented by the Roosevelt Administration to correct the harmful developed results of the socioeconomic-political games that had been played. And a similar socioeconomic problem has redeveloped. As such, environmental sustainability can be understood to be appropriate to add to the required socioeconomic corrections of today. And the environmental corrections need to be done in a way to does not compromise efforts to correct the social problems that have developed.
The best understanding of the required corrections of what has developed and the governing objectives for new developments is the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). They are the latest developed understanding in a string of global collective efforts to understand what is required for the future of humanity (the history of development includes the decisions to form the UN which succeeded to establish the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - see more about this in my comment @35 on the SkS re-post of “A New Green Deal must not sabotage climate goals”).
The SDGs are a robustly established and indivisible compendium of Goals (Objectives) that must all be achieved and improved upon for humanity to have a better future. They include environmental, social, economic and political elements. I presented them in that order for Good Reason:
- without a sustainable environment on this or any other planet there can be no sustainable society
- without a sustainable environment and society there can be no sustainable economic activity
- and a political system Tribe trying to win leadership is unsustainable if it does not develop and defend sustainable global environment, society and economic activity.
Tragically what can be seen to continue to be happening is the prolonging of, and temporary regional expansion of, Political Tribalism built on interests that are contrary to improving awareness and understanding and the application of that knowledge to achieve and improve on the SGDs. And the incorrect application of marketing science to produce misleading social, economic and political marketing is a major problem that needs to be corrected. And it will not be corrected by compromising the corrections that are understood to be required just to 'get along with people who are determined to not be corrected'.
The collaborative global effort to develop a sustainable better future for global humanity started after WWI with the League of Nations (and similar efforts were developing before that time to varying degrees but they lacked the true understanding of “Humanity as a robust diversity of humans living in ways that sustainably fit into a robust diversity of life” and “Global - we developed to live on a finite planet” the larger yet still small worldviews of the Renaissance and Enlightenment, and even the Reformation with its broadening of diversity of religious views and freeing people from unjustified Rule by unjustified Leaders can be seen as part of the efforts).
Even the more global efforts been tragically combative because of temporary regional winning by 'Tribal political groups with developed interests that are contrary to improved understanding and the application of that knowledge to develop a sustainable improving future of global humanity'. The combativeness and harmful failures are the result of the developed socioeconomic-political tribal groups that decide to focus on competing for impressions of superior status relative to others and fight to conserve those impressions. They even develop perceptions that Their Tribe is a victim because the required corrections will reduce their incorrectly developed perceptions of status relative to others.
I have recently been reading two books that highlight the need for everyone to have a more comprehensive and correct understanding of what is going on (there are many other books related to this, but I am reading these two right now). Common basis for discussion and debate is essential. And that common basis does not exist regarding discussions about the corrections that climate science has identified are required for humanity to have a future. The highest level common basis is required.
My developed understanding (open to improvement by Good Reasons) is:
The Universal (Highest level) Objective is:- Improving awareness and understanding and applying that constantly improving knowledge to develop a sustainable constantly improving future for humanity.
- The understanding of the viable sustainable future for humanity is: A robust diversity of people sustainably fitting in to the robust diversity of life on this, and other, amazing planets.
- Another way to understand the Universal Objective is from the perspective of Future Generations: What sustainably helps the future generations into the distant future?
The lack of progress in developing the required corrections and new developments is due to the success of people who strive to compromise the awareness and understanding in regional populations to incorrectly and harmfully develop 'Combative Tribes of fearful and angry people who are determined to oppose the improved understanding of required corrections and new developments - tribes that powerfully resist correcting developed things that undeniably need to be corrected'.
I have just started reading “I'm Right and Your an Idiot” by James Hogan, after finishing a book that comprehensively presents the case that socioeconomic-political systems can develop unjust and harmful results for “Others”. And system corrections often appear to be the only way to end the harmful actions. And those system corrections involve not allowing any In-Group to continue to be unaware of, or incorrectly understand, the perspectives of All Others, especially correcting In-groups that develop hatred for specific Out-groups (like bullies target their victims, rather than engaging with the entire population, and often believe they are the victims of actions of Others who try to correct them).
A related book is “The Opposite of Hate” by Sally Kohn. It is about the way that people you would consider to be decent and kind if you met them can be motivated by basic desire for inclusion and status to join 'In-groups with desires for status relative to Others' and become intensely combative and harmful to Others socially, economically and politically (yes, how the Nazi's in Germany got the population to do the horrific things they all participated in. But also how the horrors of Rwanda happened in a population that had been 'getting along fine with their diversity', and how it would be possible for the same to happen in any supposedly advanced nation today).
The book highlights the importance of Systemic Thinking or Holistic Thinking, seeing the larger picture, having a larger worldview. Her book presents the case that a history of systemic actions have developed In-groups among the current population with incorrect perceptions. Those incorrect In-groups fail to understand the harmful systemic history that developed the current situation. And they fail to consider the perspective of the Out-groups they have a developed disliking for (or just a lack of concern for, which can be just as harmful). They resist improving their awareness and understanding. They focus on defending and increasing the perceptions of self-image or Status of their In-group.
A larger worldview (consideration of all of humanity now and into the far future) is challenged by harmful people who encourage people to join them in an In-group that believes itself to be a victim when Others (not their in-group) try to correct the incorrect beliefs and perceptions of status relative to others that their In-group has unjustifiably developed.
That type of In-group does not care to improve its awareness and understanding of what is going on when that improved awareness would be contrary to their interests. They divisively polarize themselves away from that improved understanding. Those In-groups can develop a powerful dislike/hate for those not in their In-group. And they can get angrier if the facts of their incorrectness get pointed out. This can be seen to be happening regarding the need to rapidly curtail the burning of fossil fuels. The In-group of people who have developed incorrect perceptions of their status relative to others as a result of flaws in the socioeconomic-political systems want to maintain their developed undeserved perceptions of status.
There is an In-group that is undeniably correct. And it should 'correct Others'. The corrective actions will justifiably negatively affect developed perceptions of status of that group of Others. However, it can be expected that those corrective efforts will result in the 'Others that need to be corrected' perceiving themselves (their In-group) as being harmed by the corrective efforts. The undeniably harmful and incorrect In-group will easily develop a powerful incorrect belief that they are 'the victims'. And to maintain the perception that they are Victims, they deliberately resist improving their awareness and understanding. They deliberately do not want to understand the perspective of those correcting people who are clearly not in their In-group. They especially resent having it pointed out that their desired actions are harmful to the future of humanity (because they believe that the best future for humanity will develop if they are freer to believe what they want and do as they please - doing harm to Others while excusing the harm done any way they think they can get away with like claiming the unsustainable perceptions of wealth from burning fossil fuels will solve the future problems created by that unsustainable and harmful activity.).
From that perspective, the concern for the future of humanity, it is correct for the objectives to be clearly what is best for the future of humanity, achieving and improving on all of the Sustainable Development Goals, not compromising the future of humanity just because an In-group has developed interests that are harmful to the future of humanity.
-
RedBaron at 01:05 AM on 11 February 2019A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals
@Michael Sweet #33
Thanks for the link. Yes I have seen these sorts of analysis before. Too often I see very obvious flaws in studies designed to minimize the perceived potential of this new paradigm.
Little Known Glomalin, a Key Protein in Soils
Glomalin, the Unsung Hero of Carbon Storage
Liquid carbon pathway unrecognised
But that might be obvious to me because it is well within my silo, but it often is not nearly so obvious to a climate scientist whose silo is physics.
For example. You look at a study and find that NPK fertilizers or biocides are used, then you know they haven't studied this new paradigm at all, but rather are studying the carbon sequestration potential of the old paradigm. That's well known, modeled by the Roth C model for climate scientists, and at least 2 orders of magnitude smaller than the liquid carbon pathway. Usually even a net loss! But with certain improvements can be a fairly tiny net gain. Still, no improvement can compare it to the LCP.
You would be well in your rights to ask why this is so obvious to me. That's because of the research done on the glomalin producing arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and inorganic chemical fertilizers.
Role of Mycorrhizal Symbioses in Phosphorus Cycling
You can see the plant AMF symbiosis trades carbon for phosphorus (and other nutrients too). This is what drives the LCP pumping vast quantities of carbon deep in the A and B horizons of the soil profile, rather that the Roth C which models the decay of biomass at the surface O horizon in the soil profile.
But there is more to it. Because once you add NPK fertilizers to the soil, this symbiosis becomes superfluous, and instead parasitic. Its a feedback mechanism.
Phosphorus and Nitrogen Regulate Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Symbiosis in Petunia hybrida
But we can turn it back on again too!
The Use of Mycorrhizae to Enhance Phosphorus Uptake: A Way Out the Phosphorus Crisis
As long as we use NPK fertilizers to supply plant nutrition, then we have shut down the LCP and instead sequester carbon 2 orders of magnitude slower! But if we instead use this new paradigm to supply plant nutrition, we activate the LCP and soil carbon rises on average rate of 5-20 tonnes CO2e /ha/yr!
-
John McKeon at 18:52 PM on 10 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
Nigelj, I did write a long response to your latest, but on taking up your suggestions about reading the media link and checking past discussion, I am reminded that you are probably a US citizen whilst I am an Australian equivalent. So my response needed to be held back or modified a lot, because I have only a sketchy feel for political culture in your country. But I did have a question which is worth forwarding to you now:
"... a carbon fee and dividend ..."
Would you classify this as an instrument of environment policy or of socio-economic policy? Or both?
-
nigelj at 14:30 PM on 10 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
Meant to say "clearly the economic system relies on the environment for its survival and the economy can influence the environment.....
-
nigelj at 14:26 PM on 10 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
John McKeon
Thank's for your views. There has already been a lot of discussion on these issues here.
"How can you separate environmental goals from socio-economic goals?"
I feel they are just different things entirely. It's virtually self evident. Governments have entirely different departments dealing with these things. They are only part of some integrated whole to the same extent that the justice system, and education system are.
These are the socioeconomic objectives I referred to in The Green New Deal in clause 15: " providing all people of the United States with—(i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security". The body of the text also referred to minium wages.
Now come on, the connection between these socioeconomic goals and green objectives (environmental objectives) is pretty tenuous. They are of course sensible goals, and imho the government has at least some part to play, but that is another thing that could be handled separately.
"For me the word "Green" as a political designation has always been about the integrated system that our only planet represents to us. Our human economy and political systems are a part of that whole."
Clearly the economic system relies on the economy for its survival and the economy can influence the environment, so the economy has to be based on sound and sustainable principles. However the Green New Deal didn't actually reference that signifciantly and instead drifted off into talk about miniumum wages and affordable housing. These are separate concerns surely, and 'socio'economic goals, so a different thing from economic policy as such. The distinction is important.
"Political resistance to Green politics comes from working people who naturally are fearful of loosing their jobs,"
Yes, but not only this. Conservatives may have some resistance to ideas about the state being expected to provide quality affordable healthcare (read universal), affordable housing and economic security and so on. Tying this to the climate change objectives may lead to opposition to the climate change objectives, and the package as a whole. I don't like that it would, and I like grand plans, but I'm also a realist.
Also read the media link I posted.
-
EV’s: Crucial to Reducing CO2 Emissions
I saw on twitter that Tesla have recently bought a super capacitor company and the comments about the acquisition were that it was a natural fit for them. Super capacitors can charge and discharge very quickly so maybe they’ll be used as an interface between the batteries and the motors/chargers, presumably reducing charge time and improving battery reliability and utility. It’ll be interesting to see if this produces a step improvement for EVs.
-
John McKeon at 11:12 AM on 10 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
And I should add that by saying "we have to live within our means" I was in no way implying that people who depend on their threatened job(s) be cast aside as not important. In any change they must be looked after first and foremost.
-
John McKeon at 11:02 AM on 10 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
"... a Green New Deal ... include general socio economic provisions [is] really a contradiction ..."
How can you separate environmental goals from socio-economic goals? A decarbonised economy is going to look very different from what we have now, no matter what way you look at it.
"[It] ... could alienate some voters."
There will be political resistance as well as political support, come what may. Don't you think it is better to lay it all on the line and try to engender discussion and support as far as one can manage?
For me the word "Green" as a political designation has always been about the integrated system that our only planet represents to us. Our human economy and political systems are a part of that whole.Political resistance to Green politics comes from working people who naturally are fearful of loosing their jobs, nudged on unmercifully by the financial vested interests who seem to want their investments to be cash cows forever.
But we only have one planet and we have to live within our means. There are many capitalists and workers who well and truly accept this reality. Let's capitalise on that! :-)
-
nigelj at 10:51 AM on 10 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
What the Green New Deal will be up against here. Somewhat predictable. Sigh.
-
nigelj at 05:34 AM on 10 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
The Green New Deal full text here. A very sensible list of environmental and socio economic goals imho.
One criticism: I don't see how something called a Green New Deal can include general socio economic provisions (specifically the ones at the end of the text). Its really a contradiction, and could alienate some voters. I think they need a separate Economic New Deal.
And the lack of something like a carbon fee and dividend is questionable, because without this a lot of heavy lifting is placed on government. But it could be hung off this plan.
-
nigelj at 05:14 AM on 9 February 2019EV’s: Crucial to Reducing CO2 Emissions
Cities have higher concentrations of C02 from vehicle traffic but I have not seen evidence this is a serious problem for peoples health. However if concentrations of C02 build up inside homes from keeping the windows closed it can cause headaches, and even be fatal if there is absolutely no ventilation.
However the main toxic effects of increased CO2 concentrations on human health are CO2 causes warming, which can create a pathway towards more ozone production which is toxic for humans, and more atmospheric water vapour, creating acid rain. Of course global warming causes more heatwaves and exacerbates various tropical diseases.
news.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/co-010908.html
According to the last IPCC report all the warming since approx. 1980 is attributed to human causes. Free copy can be downloaded here.
-
David Kirtley at 03:28 AM on 9 February 2019EV’s: Crucial to Reducing CO2 Emissions
KateAllatRalPM@10: "Does anyone know the contribution rate for each factor?"
Here is a great visualization which graphs the various factors which influence the earth's temperature.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:02 AM on 9 February 2019EV’s: Crucial to Reducing CO2 Emissions
KateAllatRaIP @10,
In addition to Evan's response:
- The health problems in cities are due to other pollutants from burning fossil fuels (NOx, SOx and particulate matter), not CO2. Ending the burning not only ends the climate change impacts, it ends the other harms of the ultimately unsustainable activity (future generations cannot continue to benefit from burning up non-renerwable resources. The future generations only get the future problems).
- What can be done to adapt to the reality of human caused climate change? Stop the human causes of climate change quicker to reduce the magnitude of the impacts. And have the portion of the current generation that benefited most from making the problem pay for all the adaptations required for the created climate change impacts.
-
Evan at 01:51 AM on 9 February 2019EV’s: Crucial to Reducing CO2 Emissions
KateAllatRaIPM@10 Earth's orbit varies in 20,000, 40,000, and 100,000 year cycles. This is too slow to explain warming that is occurring at a rate of 0.1-0.2C/decade.
Volcanoes cause warming by emitting CO2 over time periods of 1000's of years. No volcanoes have been seen doing that over the recent 800,000-year ice-records. But you correctly mention volcanoes as a possible source, which they were in the deep past, which means that you should accept that they cause warming through CO2 emissions. They are simply not a problem now because there have not been any large eruptions in the last million years or so.
NASA watches the sun very, very closely, because it can be a problem for their satellites and astronauts. In the satellite era NASA has not recorded any solar activity that could account for the current warming.
Because you accept that volcanoes can cause warming, and because the link between volcanoes and past warming is CO2, then you should appreciate why human CO2 emissions are linked to the current warming by looking at the following graph. Over 400,000 years of ice-core data CO2 goes up and down in a very narrow range of 180-300 ppm. In the last 60 years CO2 has risen 100 ppm, and it is rising 2.5 ppm/year. This is much much faster than volcanoes can emit CO2.
We are the problem.
-
MA Rodger at 21:34 PM on 8 February 2019Climate's changed before
Philippe Chantreau @639,
We do agree that the Toba genetic bottleneck theory is not entirely convincing. The genetic finding is well established, that there were few humans on the planet in those days but if Toba created such a bottleneck it needs better evidence to become established given that there are plenty other factors were at work that could have kept human population low through those times.
-
KateAllatRaIPM at 17:24 PM on 8 February 2019EV’s: Crucial to Reducing CO2 Emissions
High CO2 level develops health problem in larger cities and its reduction can definitely be good of our hearts and languages but is it really a major contributor to the greenhouse effect and global warming?
Climate change has been caused by many natural factors, including changes in the sun, volcanoes, Earth’s orbit, and CO2 levels.
Does anyone know the contribution rate for each factor?Also if climate change is inevitable, what can we do to prepare for it?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:41 PM on 8 February 2019EV’s: Crucial to Reducing CO2 Emissions
Wol,
I agree the claim made about ICE being 40% of CO2 emissions is wrong.
The World Bank data also shows transportation being 20% of CO2 for 2014. And electric power generation is nearly 50% (clearly the largest source of CO2).
A portion of that electricity would power transportation (mainly trains and city transit trolleys). But to make a total of 40% for transport, about 40% of that electricity would need to be for transport. And even if that was what was evaluated, that should have been stated rather than the lazy claim that all of the 40% was from ICE.
-
Mal Adapted at 09:02 AM on 8 February 2019A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals
Sunspot @21:
Without population reduction and the complete overhaul of our economic system to eliminate the need for growth, every suggestion here is useless. We can, and will, outgrow the benefits of them all.
Over the long (centuries) term I agree with you, but in the long term you and I will be dead. In the short (decades) term OTOH, AGW is a clear and present danger. I don't know about you, but I'm planning to live at least another 30 years, and capping the warming by then will at least buy us more time to solve the underlying problem.
Thankfully, a significant reduction in the rate of warming can be accomplished without overhauling the global economic system, merely by internalizing some fraction of the marginal climate-change cost of fossil fuels in their market price. If the price of FFs is set high enough to make carbon-neutral alternatives competitive, consumer thrift and the profit motive can then build out the global carbon-neutral economy. That will requires collective intervention in the 'free' (of collective intervention) market for energy. That, in turn, 'only' requires eough votes in the US Congress to enact a revenue-neutral Carbon Fee and Dividend with Border Adjustment Tariff. There are some encouraging signs of growing bipartisan support for just such a measure. See citizensclimatelobby.org for more info.
-
Wol at 08:23 AM on 8 February 2019EV’s: Crucial to Reducing CO2 Emissions
>>Globally the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, probably exceeding 40%, is the internal combustion engine (ICE), widely used by the transport sector for propulsion ......<<
But, acording to:
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions
..all transport (which includes aviation) emits some 20% of CO2.
I suppose we are all getting used to wildly varying figures in the emissions debate, but it doesn't help discussion with deniers when they can point to different numbers and you can't counter them.
-
rxrankings at 07:17 AM on 8 February 2019Climate's changed before
"With modern technology, the survival numbers would likely be higher than 10,000 but the mortality rate (the percent of humanity who perish) would be infinitely higher." — How can you say that?Show me a climate event in the past 30 years that has killed at least 1 million people directly. Even in severe droughts we have most people dying from poverty and unable to afford food, NOT lack of food. I can make a bold statement and say ALL climate related deaths in the past 30 years are due to lack of technology awareness or poverty or being careless. There has not been a storm that concrete and steel cannot handle. So my question is, with all the warming we have had in 30 years, no one has died, why should I believe you when you say another 5 degree rise in temperature will kill billions??
Moderator Response:[DB] Please note that at Skeptical Science there are thousands of active discussion threads on just about every topic related to climate change science. As such, users are encouraged to confine comments to the topic of the thread on which they are place. Further, it is incumbent upon those making hyperbolic assertions to then support them with citations to credible sources.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
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.
Off-topic snipped.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 07:10 AM on 8 February 2019Climate's changed before
MA Rodger,
I am aware of the Toba bottleneck theory, but there is considerable debate as to the true impact of the event. The genetic bottleneck around that period is a relaity nonetheless, and is found in several other primate species.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 07:08 AM on 8 February 2019Climate's changed before
rxrankings at 635 "Russia, able to grow wheat in Siberia (previously) thought impossible"
This is false. The chief crops of neolithic Siberia (8000 BCE and after) included millet, wheat, barley and hemp.
-
MA Rodger at 06:56 AM on 8 February 2019Climate's changed before
rxrankings @635,
When you first use the phrase @632 "in the recent past" (which I quote @633) you are referring to humanity "demonstrat(ing) extrordinary resilience to (abrupt) changes in the recent past." I assume growing wheat isn't the sort of "abrupt change" that would provide this "demonstartion (of) extraordinary resilience" you speak of.
And in terms of "demonstrating" stuff, you demonstrate a poor grasp of the energy requirements needed to melt the Antarctic ice cap. Today's global energy use (132,000TWh) is enough to melt 1,600 cu km of ice. Antarctica has 26,500,000 cu km of ice so melting it in 10 years would be an interesting project. What's your plan for obtaining this level of energy in the next 10 years? -
MA Rodger at 06:49 AM on 8 February 2019Climate's changed before
Philippe Chantreau @634,
Toba has been associated with the genetic bottleneck theory in which proponents see the human population dropping to less than 10,000 people. With modern technology, the survival numbers would likely be higher than 10,000 but the mortality rate (the percent of humanity who perish) would be infinitely higher.
-
rxrankings at 06:10 AM on 8 February 2019Climate's changed before
By recent past I meant the examples I gave: "Saudi Arabia, being a desert and able to grow wheat"; "Russia, able to grow wheat in Siberia (previously) thought impossible and probably able to grow enough in the whole country to feed the entire planet". Dinosaurs and Mammoths couldn't grow wheat or travel in Ships to warmer climates, they used to die if it became too hot/ too cold or too dry. Humans book a ticket, crank up the AC, turn on the heater or eat wheat instead of meat. Tomorrow if the whole of Europe turned into an oven and Antarctica melted, it would take less than 10 years for a continent wide migration and resettlement. If we have enough fossil fuels, humanity could survive for centuries on a desert filled planet. Show me the impact of Global warming and I will show you the current technology that can handle it.
-
funkymystic at 06:08 AM on 8 February 2019There's no empirical evidence
Hey all, I need some help. Could you please help me debunk the following denial arguments?
http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/scientists-refute-manmade-global-warming/?fbclid=IwAR29INEysNzz0Zqr-A2yfruHB7jhgfSX_-U1VW9T8-4Ol7UX-fTP5dkE-iE
http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/manmade-co2-output-global-warming-hoax/?fbclid=IwAR0a1eoZpXe8xpoVTOT37HZXEahSY6smLHackdy2nX2EPkgmHyGGKh83Yrg
https://youtu.be/AFOGUrNsadM
Thank you
Moderator Response:[PS] Looks like gish-gallop of long-debunked stuff. Use the search function on top left to find your way through the myths. (eg enter OISM). Even a google of "David Evans" will find articles on his failed predictions. However, if you are trying to convince someone whose denial is based on idealogy, (as the web side would suggest) you are likely to only get motivated reasoning and more denial. Ask your antagonist what data would change their mind. If they cannot answer, then you are dealing with a faith position and scientific reasoning will not help.
-
nigelj at 05:11 AM on 8 February 2019EV’s: Crucial to Reducing CO2 Emissions
Electric cars in cold climate and heaters draining the battery. Double glazing can reduce heat loss by up to 80%. This would mean less need to use the heater. Could be an optional extra.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 02:59 AM on 8 February 2019Climate's changed before
MA Rodger, I think that the worst that happened in human times was the Toba eruption, but I could be wrong. Humans and other mammals show evidence of genetic bottlenecks in the wake of that event although there is controversy as to the true global effect of it. In any case, it was a far cry from anything like major object impacts or large igneous provinces.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:54 AM on 8 February 2019EV’s: Crucial to Reducing CO2 Emissions
As a follow-up to my comment@3, it would appear that EVs are better than OK compared to ICE vehicles in cold climates.
In very cold climates diesel engines are never turned off because the combustion cylinders need to be warm to start them again. That would not be a problem for an EV, though the increased range of a hydrogen fuel cell system may be the better option in that sort of condition.
-
Evan at 00:55 AM on 8 February 2019EV’s: Crucial to Reducing CO2 Emissions
Regarding the appeal of EVs, a great orator once put it this way.
"Resistance is futile."
If you drive one, you will want one. A few cons, yes. But many more pros!
-
MA Rodger at 18:58 PM on 7 February 2019Climate's changed before
rxrankings @632,
When you say "we have demonstrated extrordinary resilience to such changes in the recent past," you presumably do not consider the Triassic as "the recent past." So what "such changes" are you referring to?
-
rxrankings at 15:44 PM on 7 February 2019Climate's changed before
"Those abrupt global warming events were almost always highly destructive for life, causing mass extinctions such as at the end of the Permian, Triassic, or even mid-Cambrian periods."
This is the weakest part of the argument. Why should humans fear abrupt changes when we have demonstrated extrordinary resilience to such changes in the recent past? The future looks even brighter, we have the capability to grow food for two or three earths, Saudi Arabia is growing wheat, Russia will soon be able to grow enough wheat for the entire planet. There were just a handful of deaths due the 'polar vortex'. El Nino and La Nina are just weather channel jokes countered by cranking up the AC or the heater. Just what is this event which we cannot handle? Show us from recent past.
-
michael sweet at 12:31 PM on 7 February 2019SkS Analogy 18 - Cliff jumping and temperature changes
It appears that the NCDC temperature records page is down due to the government shutdown. My previous numbers were probably incorrect.
The NSIDC had this to say about the "record cold" during January:
"Conditions in the upper US Midwest were colder than any previous winter period in the past two decades. Low temperatures in northern Minnesota and all of Wisconsin on January 30 and 31 were in the -27 to -35 degrees Celsius range (-17 to -31 degrees Fahrenheit). Large areas of Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, and the Dakotas reached temperatures below -20 degrees Celsius (-4 degrees Fahrenheit). However, few all-time low temperature records were set during the cold snap. Very mild [hot] conditions followed the cold snap in early February." My emphasis. source
Some "record cold", a few records and then warm weather. The deniers crow about normal cold and the mass media follow along. In the 1920's this would have been cold but not exceptional. People have forgotten what cold weather was. Cliff Mass was right.
Prev 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 Next
