Recent Comments

Prev  304  305  306  307  308  309  310  311  312  313  314  315  316  317  318  319  Next

Comments 15551 to 15600:

15551. One Planet Only Forever at 04:12 AM on 26 February 2018
       2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
       

       NorrisM,

       You also seem to believe it is acceptable for people in the future to have to 'adapt or mitigate'. That misunderstanding needs to be corrected. Correcting that misunderstanding will make it clear that many among the most fortunate today 'owe others, specially the future generations' what it takes to correct the incorrect things that have developed.

       'Future adaptation' is not a 'fair or legitimate' option. Globally correcting that misunderstanding will change everything - for the better (except for those who want to maintain undeserved developed perceptions of personal prosperity or opportunity).

15552. NorrisM at 03:28 AM on 26 February 2018
       2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
       

       OPOF @ 143

       Thanks for this summary of the continuing changes that we will be required to address with climate change.  They obviously will be things that must and will be addressed as the costs of operating our society. When these adaptation costs become too burdensome for the public then you will see the outcry that will get the public behind more mitigation measures. I just see at the present time a different mix of adaptation and mitigation than many others on this website. 

15553. One Planet Only Forever at 03:19 AM on 26 February 2018
       2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8
       

       jef,

       I agree. The increased uncertainty regarding the potential upcoming 'regional growing season weather' due to the rapid rate of change of global climate conditions makes it harder for farmers to choose appropriate crops to plant.

       And the increased probability of regional weather events that damage crops, like the recent flooding of fields in India by massive rain events, and to the food production challenge.

       Of course the massive food producing region in Bangladesh is seriously threatened by sea level rise combined with increased amounts of rain in rain events.

       However, a related food production problem continues to be the inequity of distribution of produced food to the global (and regional) population. Even without the new challenges of global warming climate change the 'more than adequate global (and regional) production of food' has failed to result in adequate nutrition for every human.

       Solving those problems today will help future generations sustainably live better. All that is needed is for the most fortunate today to be willing to change their minds and charitably help advance all of humanity to a sustainable better future.

15554. NorrisM at 03:19 AM on 26 February 2018
       2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
       

       Bob Loblaw @ 138 and michael sweet @ 40

       Here is the NASA interactive graphic that shows Miami is still around with 6 feet of sea level rise:

       climate.nasa.gov/interactives/climate-time-machine

       I think that Miami will be a fascinating analysis of the dynamics of American politics when it comes to solving the issues of sea level rise.  Who will pay the bill?  The Miami Herald article referenced by the Moderator suggests that they will be looking for federal money on the grounds that their adaptations will somehow assist other areas of the country.  I am not sure that the rest of the country will so sympathetic to assisting the wealthy who have developed this land full-well knowing that it would be vulnerable to rising sea levels.  How long have sea levels been rising?  From what I understand a couple of hundred years.

       I fully understand the issues with the porous rock that underlays Miami.  Again, how long has this been known?

       New Orleans is another fascinating case where a lot of the sea level rise has been caused by the subsidence in the land mass from drainage.  Again, who will foot the bill?

       I acknowledge michael sweet's correction that my calculation was one of future sea level rise from 2018 to 2100 whereas the IPCC prediction of 1m goes back to ballpark 1870 (I believe).  This was a mistake on my part because I forgot that the IPCC prediction related to a different period.  It was not an intentional misrepresentation.

       My mistake indicates the confusion that I suspect there is with the public when 1m of sea level rise (best guess) is predicted by 2100. 

       What the public wants to focus on is the "here and now".  From where we  are today,  what can we expect by 2100?   It is too sophisticated to talk to the public about 1 m since 1870 unless the point is made at the same time that we have already seen 9 inches of the predicted 39 inches.

       As for the recent Nerem paper, I was aware of it but my understanding is that it is one paper and it certainly is not the considered view of the IPCC at this time.  I am not sure if it was referenced by the recent US Climate Change Report.  Secondly, the predicted acceleration of the sea levels by the climae models was some time in the future. 

       But if Nerem is correct then this certainly is information that has to be taken into account.

       michael sweet, I would very much appreciate it if you could again provide me with the link to where the US Climate Change Report references predicted sea level changes.  Does it specifically accept the Nerem paper?  I thought the Nerem paper would have come out too late to be considered.

       Moderator: Again it is difficult to discuss issues in a vacuum without crossing into other threads where these things are discussed.  Perhaps ms could reply to me on the sea level change thread with a cross reference to this thread. 

15555. jef12506 at 02:46 AM on 26 February 2018
       2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8
       

       Sea level rise has obvious consequences and destructive storm surges will be devastating for many in the not too distant future.
       What will be way more destructive and will happen sooner than most understand is the destruction of our ability to produce enough food to support the population. It is happening right now but for now where there is destruction in one region there has been production in another. We can not rely on such good luck for much longer.

15556. One Planet Only Forever at 02:42 AM on 26 February 2018
       2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
       

       NorrisM,

       To help you better understand how to 'correctly' evaluate potential impacts of sea level rise I offer the following 'increment' of better understanding. To determine the region where the ground surface is affected you need to compare ground elevation to:

       • Mean Sea Level
       • + The potential rise of sea level due to global warming
       • + The increase at High Tide
       • + The maximum potential storm surge including any potential increase due to global warming climate change
       • + Wave action which is potentially increased by global warming climate change. Note that the impact of waves is the added height of the wave tops plus the inland velocity moving the water to even higher ground surface levels further inland.
       • + inland surface runoff occurring during the same event which is undeniably increased by global warming climate change - the Houston event proved that.
       • The identification of any below ground human creations like parking basements, that would be compromised because they are lower than the ground water level increases.

       A related 'increment' of understanding is that the 'building today' of the sustainable fix that will survive far into the future would include the complete demolition of the currently built items that would potentially be within the range of increase water encroachment, be impacted in the future, with the area they had been built in reclaimed to the pre-development natural conditions.

       Note that attempting to accomplish something by building walls is a fool's game. A wall needs to be maintained to survive into the distant future. And if the wall becomes understood to be inadequate, if the original attempts to conservatively determine what would be required are incorrect, it can be almost impossible to practically improve the wall. That imposition of a future cost would be unacceptable, so the initial wall would need to be a massive feature, able to endure thousands of years into the future.

       And a further increment is that sea level rise is only one of the many climate change impacts that today's 'most fortunate who got their fortune from the global burning of fossil fuels' have to address by revising/strengthening of already built items. Other actions required by Today's most fortunate beneficiaries of the entire history of burning of fossil fuels include:

       • Increased snow weight on all buildings in regions that may have snow, including regions that have an increased potential for snow events due to global warming climate change.
       • Stronger maximum wind speeds everywhere.
       • Upgrade all drainage systems for increased peak rain intensities, especially dam spillway features (to avoid the future near disaster as almost occurred in California in 2017).
       • Upgrade all surface runoff reservoirs to hold increased total runoff from a multi-day rain event combined with snow melt.

       And the next increment of understanding is Today's 'most fortunate who got their fortune from the global burning of fossil fuels' have to pay to do the upgrading/strengthening changing everywhere on the planet, including being the ones to pay for impacted regions where the people did not gain significant benefit from the burning of fossil fuels, did not benefit from the creation of the problem that has to be corrected for.

       And what I have mentioned is only part of what has to be required to be  done by today's most fortunate beneficiaries of the global burning of fossil fuels to be 'fair to those who do/did not benefit as much from the activity', especially to be fair to the future generations who get no benefit, just the burden of dealing with the impacts.

       Hope that helps you become a Better Understander.

15557. John Hartz at 01:07 AM on 26 February 2018
       2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
       

       Speaking of sea level rise in Miami...

       Sea-level rise is a regional threat. It will need a regional game plan to fight it by Harvey Ruvin, Miami Herald, Feb 13, 2018

15558. michael sweet at 20:13 PM on 25 February 2018
       2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
       

       Moderator,

       Norrism has produced no data to support his wild claims about sea level or "Maybe adaptation is not such a bad thing".  We have only his unsupported word.  On sea  level he ignores the data he has been given and makes up absurd claims.  We had a long discussion about "harming the economy" where he produced nothing beyond his unsupported word.  He dismissed the Stern report with he thought he had heard someone criticize it but produced nothing in writing.  He ignores questions that he doesn't like.  

       Norrism should be required to support his wild claims just like everyone else.  It is very time consuming to find peer reviewed data to show his claims are false and then he denies the data.  He should have to answer the questions he faces.  It is impossible to debate smoke.

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Agreed.

15559. michael sweet at 19:54 PM on 25 February 2018
       2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
       

       Norrism:

       The "distance" between us is caused by you always minimizing the dangter.  I provided a link upthread for you that estimated as much as 8 feet of sea level rise by 2100 from the US Climate Change report released by the Trump administration.  Since recent peer reviewed studies linked above have shown that sea level is accelerating a minimum of 0.68 meters is expected.  As Bob Ladlaw says, the physics indicates that much more is projected.  Where did you get 11 inches? Since we have already seen 9 inches and at 3.4 mm/yr 12 more inches is expected by 2100 even your minimum estimate is 21 inches.  Your numbers are deliberately incorrect.

       Looking at Bob's map from Climate Central, at only 6 feet (two feet less than what might occur) most of Miami is under water.  Looking a little north I seee all of Fort Lauderdale is underwater and Miami is actually an island.  Since they get all their water from wells located at 3 feet above sea level (the old sea level, now it is 2 feet 3 inches above sea level) their water will all be gone.  They already have salt intrusion problems.

       In addition, the Climate Central maps only show land that is submerged at mean higher high water.  That means homes that are at 6.5 feeet are flooded several times a month by spring tides, hardly livable.  They will need a bridge to get past Fort Lauderdale when they ship in food.

       If you simply deny all the problems caused by AGW it is easy to claim it is not too bad.  You have beeen provided with the data.  You are just not able to remember the bad things.

       You have not given me a descritpion of where you are going to put 100,000,000 climate refugees.  Canada will have to take at least several million.  Where in Canada do you propose to put several million people from Bangladesh?

15560. nigelj at 15:47 PM on 25 February 2018
       “How is That Conservative?” Former Climate Denier now Backs Action
       

       This interview is excellent:

       evidencesquared.com/ep20/

       "We talk to David Roberts from Vox about the intractability of conservatives on climate change and whether polarization is something to be avoided or embraced." 

15561. One Planet Only Forever at 15:21 PM on 25 February 2018
       2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
       

       NorrisM,

       All of your arguing is attempts to excuse unacceptable developed desires to get away with creating a bigger problem - unless you admit that people today have to conservatively correct things so that the actions of the current generation will almost certainly develop a sustainable better future for humanity.

       I am an Engineer. I apply developed, but still uncertain, understanding to 'safely design things that will hopefuly last into the future'. So do all other responsible engineers.

       The responsible actions to address the uncertain creation of sea level rise would be for the people today benefiting from creating the uncertain future problem to have to build solutions that are likely to survive long into the future (not leave it to future generations to try to solve).

       And to be safe, structural designs are based on a 98% probability of performing adequately in the future. That would mean evaluating the range of possible sea level rise and associated storm event surges to determine the level that only has a 2% chance of being exceeded in the future. And that evaluation would have to include the uncertainty regarding how much irresponsible action will occur, how bad it could get, conservatively.

       So, less aggressive action today to reduce the future impacts would require more expenditure today to correct for the possible worst future that is being created.

       Said it before. Will say it again. Less action taken earlier to correct a problem likely develops a larger future problem requiring more dramatic corrective action.

15562. One Planet Only Forever at 14:54 PM on 25 February 2018
       “How is That Conservative?” Former Climate Denier now Backs Action
       

       nigelj@8,

       I agree. A lot of education is required regarding what actions are helpful/acceptable. And it must continue in every future generation.

       The UN Sustainable Development Goals, or any of the many other presentations of the same set of objectives grouped into different categories, are a very good set of measures of acceptable actions.

       If those Good/Helpful Goals are substantially met there would be a dramatic reduction of the probability of development of events like the Vietnam War where bizarre declarations of what is required for the future of humanity get made-up and become temporarily regionally considered to be 'justified'.

       The US Military assessment that minimizing climate change impacts is an important way to improve the 'National Security of the USA and its International Interests' probably similarly applies to the achievement of many, if not all, of the SDGs.

15563. Bob Loblaw at 14:00 PM on 25 February 2018
       2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
       

       NorrisM:

       Miami? Completely there, with 6 feet of sea level rise?

       That's not what I see on this map. At least, not if you include MIami Beach, Key Biscayne, and close to the shore where much expensive real estate is located. Or large areas inland of Miami. What NASA site did  you use? I didn't find one in the first few pages of a google search.

       And please don't bring back that whole linear extrapolation of current rates as if accelerated sea level rise in the future is unrealistic. It is not "an assumption", it is a projection made by actually looking at the physics of climate change and glacier melt, and how it affects sea level. You know: that "science" stuff.

       A linear extrapolation only works if your "what if?" is "what if the experts that study this have got it all wrong?"

       Dikes don't help in MIami: the "rock" is Swiss cheese and water will just percolate under it. Miami is already having problems and spending money:

       http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170403-miamis-fight-against-sea-level-rise

       The rest of your post is basically a "technology will save us with magic money" argument. Talk about wild exaggerations and assumptions.

15564. NorrisM at 11:50 AM on 25 February 2018
       2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
       

       michael sweet @ 134 and Bob Loblaw @ 135

       I just went on the NASA website to check out Miami.  It is completly there  with 6 feet of sea level rise.  At the present rate of sea level rise of ballpark 3.5 mm/yr by 2100 this represents about 11 inches of sea level rise.  So once again we are back to "what if"s to get to some significant impacts (I am not going to define "significant"). 

       So a lot of the "distance" between us is our lack of ability to see into the future and our disagreeing beliefs on what will happen based upon those differing views.  Right now, the IPCC is somewhere around 1m. by 2100.  I do not have the ranges at my fingertips but I do believe these predictions are based upon assumptions of accelerating sea levels which are predicted sometime in the future.

       Paul Ehrlich did not help things with his wild predictions made in the 1970's and 1980's.  So along with the problems of the climate models not being able to accurately represent our actual climate (and therefore accurately predict the future), we do have a bit of the problem that "we have been here before" with dire predictions that simply did not come true.

       I see climate change as a concern but I also see a host of other problems with our world that could make all this worry about 2100 a little academic (accidental nuclear destruction, AI, developments in genetic engineering) when there is absolutely no one who can look into the future 80 years from now and tell us where sea levels will be. 

       So we plod along doing the best we can (knowing that we live in democracies that have a lot of priorities to deal with) but I do not think there is a chance in the world that millions of refugees will be knocking at the doors (or landing on the shores) of the US and Canada in 2100 or sooner.   Wild exaggerations like this are not helpful. First of all, these nations will take steps to protect their people by spending funds to build dikes to protect large areas of the land if these sea levels continue to rise at accelerating levels (probably with foreign aid).  Secondly, maybe at some point we actually will become more proactive at reducing the world population long before then by methods of birth control and other family planning incentives so that we do not have rampant poverty in many places of the world. 

       I think the cartoon at the top of this blog misses the point that this is a very long process and if it becomes more and more of a problem then the world will deal with it.  You may say it will be too late but everything that I read suggests that it is already too late if the dire predictions do come to pass. My understanding is that even a frog would jump out of a slowly heating pot of water.  Hopefully, we are a little smarter than frogs.

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] As others have already noted, your claims about SLR and Miami are without evidence and merit.  As for "rates" of global SLR, recent research demonstrates that the rates of global SLR are now accelerating and are thus greater-than-linear already:

       "Global sea level rise is not cruising along at a steady 3 mm per year, it's accelerating a little every year, like a driver merging onto a highway, according to a powerful new assessment led by CIRES Fellow Steve Nerem. He and his colleagues harnessed 25 years of satellite data to calculate that the rate is increasing by about 0.08 mm/year every year—which could mean an annual rate of sea level rise of 10 mm/year, or even more, by 2100."
       
       "This acceleration, driven mainly by accelerated melting in Greenland and Antarctica, has the potential to double the total sea level rise by 2100 as compared to projections that assume a constant rate—to more than 60 cm instead of about 30." said Nerem, who is also a professor of Aerospace Engineering Sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder. "And this is almost certainly a conservative estimate," he added. "Our extrapolation assumes that sea level continues to change in the future as it has over the last 25 years. Given the large changes we are seeing in the ice sheets today, that's not likely."

       Per Nerem et al 2018:

       "the observed acceleration will more than double the amount of sea-level rise by 2100 compared with the current rate of sea-level rise continuing unchanged. This projection of future sea-level rise is based only on the satellite-observed changes over the last 25 y, assuming that sea level changes similarly in the future. If sea level begins changing more rapidly, for example due to rapid changes in ice sheet dynamics, then this simple extrapolation will likely represent a conservative  lower bound on future sea-level change."

       

       Tamino weighs in with more.

       If you wish to pursue a discussion on SLR and how it impacts global port cities like Miami and others worldwide, this thread is a good place for that.

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

       Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit off-topic posts, intentionally misleading comments, ignore when others have demonstrated you to be wrong (sloganeering) or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
        
       Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.

       Sloganeering and off-topic snipped.

15565. Riduna at 11:38 AM on 25 February 2018
       2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8
       

       Sea level rise is serious and damaging by itself but made infinately worse by storm surges - and there are likely to be some very destructive storm surges in the latter part of this century, particularly if there is an increase imn the polar-tropical thermal gradient.

15566. One Planet Only Forever at 09:51 AM on 25 February 2018
       2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8
       

       nigelj,

       I agree with your comment.

       My only comment is to encourage you to say "its a slow process, we future generations will adapt, buildings get rebuilt anyway".

       It is important to be clear that Others will be suffering the consequences of the way a portion of the current day population pursue personal benefit.

       This ties into the ethics/acceptability of Private Interests. Everyone's actions are their Private Interest. What is important that they ethically limit their Private Interest pursuits to actions that do not cause any harm or increased risk of harm to Others - As The Other's See It.

       And the future genrations are the largest pool of Others. And as bluntly stated in the 1987 UN Report "Our Common Future" many people do not properly consider the future generation's perspective because none of the future genrations can vote, sue, or otherwise get even.

       Climate science has unintentionally exposed the insideous ways that competition to Win Private Interest pursuits leads many people to behave/argue less ethically (less acceptably).

15567. nigelj at 08:06 AM on 25 February 2018
       “How is That Conservative?” Former Climate Denier now Backs Action
       

       Bob Loblaw, Altemeyers study sounds very plausible. These very excessively obedient people remind me of children that have never fully grown up.

15568. Bob Loblaw at 07:40 AM on 25 February 2018
       “How is That Conservative?” Former Climate Denier now Backs Action
       

       Nigelj:

       In "The Authoritarians",a lot of Bob Altemeyer's study looks at what he calls "authoritarian followers" - the people that blindly follow authoritarian leaders. He says the worst combination is a large group of authoritarian followers following a "social dominator" who will say anything to gain/keep power. He's developed a series of questions that provide what he calls a Right Wing Authoritarianism scale (RWA). Be very, very afraid of someone who is both a high RWA and a high social dominator.

       Not that we have any place like that currently. Not at all. Can't imagine it.

       I will follow up your Wikipedia suggestion on Moral Foundations Theory.

15569. nigelj at 07:16 AM on 25 February 2018
       “How is That Conservative?” Former Climate Denier now Backs Action
       

       A perfect example of authoritarianism and obedience.

       "The invasion of the body snatchers is complete. Donald Trump has taken over the conservative movement and bent it to his will."

       www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/24/cpac-trump-conservatives-republicans

15570. nigelj at 07:09 AM on 25 February 2018
       2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8
       

       The threat of sea level rise is very serious and insidious, ihho. However some people out there probaly rationalise the issue by saying to themselves "its a slow process, we will adapt, buildings get rebuilt anyway".

       It may be worth doing an article explaining why this a simplistic and deluded view in numerous ways. It could amass all the relevant research links. 

15571. nigelj at 06:19 AM on 25 February 2018
       “How is That Conservative?” Former Climate Denier now Backs Action
       

       Taminos material was interesting. J Bell says global warming causes both droughts and floods, heat and cold, so is ridiculous nonsense. Various people gave very good, if predictable rebuttals.

       What intrigues me is whether Bell is truly sceptical, or knows perfectly well that a warming world could cause seemingly contradictory responses,  and has simply trawled through the global warming issue to find anything that might confuse people who aren't very bright, or are easily lead because their politics makes them sceptics. Either way, it leaves us little option but to waste time with rebuttals.

       Regarding the authoritarian personality. Moral foundations theory on wikipedia has some interesting and credible information as well.

       Blind obedience is a terrible, dangerous thing  and very authoritarian people are difficult for many of us to live with, yet others actually seem attracted to these personalities.

       I think the origins of authoritarianism are simply that its a basic parenting skill. I think it just becomes very excessive in some people, possibly because it reinforces conservative values, or they were over disciplined as children, so became very authoritarian themselves. Left and right economic movements can both have authoritarian leaders.

       However excessively authoritarian people are very resistant to acknowledging their problem. 

15572. nigelj at 05:03 AM on 25 February 2018
       “How is That Conservative?” Former Climate Denier now Backs Action
       

       "the only Good Purpose/Objective is actions that understandably improve the future for humanity."

       So true. However it comes down to interpretations of good actions. Remember that quote from the  Vietnam War. “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.”

       Excuse my cynicism. Everyone thinks they are doing good saving humanity. I guess a lot of education is needed on the right way of doing it! 

15573. One Planet Only Forever at 03:36 AM on 25 February 2018
       2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
       

       NorrisM,

       Upon further reflection I am adding to/changing my recommendation/hope for you.

       I hope you will change your mind about what is acceptable and be able to correctly make statements like the example correction I provided without having to refer to yourself as part of the problem.

       The future you indicate is indeed a 'possible future', especially if deliberately irresponsible and harmful leaders, like the current Winners of leadership in the USA, achieve more undeserved Winning in other locations.

       The future of humanity requires more people actively trying to help others become more aware and better understanding of what is really going on and the corrections/changes required to actually improve the future for humanity.

       Admittedly the required corrections have become significant for those who wasted the past several decades trying to prolong their ability to enjoy their life in ways that were understandably unsustainable and harmful to others, especially damaging to the future of humanity. The required corrections will indeed be perceived negatively by those people, but they will understand why they deserve a negative consequence, even if they fight against having to suffer it.

       Those developed unsustainable perceptions of prosperity and opportunity will have to be corrected. Humanity has to have a better future.

       Hopefully humanity is turning around. While you focus on finding evidence to try to justify continued reluctance to change direction, I see a declining number of wealthy people being able to easily impress people into supporting their understandably unsustainable and harmful desires.

       The worst case scenario is indeed continued damaging winning by the wealthy and powerful who are opposed to the better understanding of the changes required by the constantly improved understanding of climate science (like the deliberate ignorance that allowed the USA sub-prime mortgage debacle to become the massive disaster it developed into).

       Hopefully real responsible leaders will over-power the harmful less responsible pursuers of competitive advantage, like the ones in the USA who recently won the ability to do more harm to the future of humanity, to incrementally reverse progress towards a better future in their pursuit of damaging Private Interests.

       We should all try to help others be more helpful, aware, and better understanding of what is really going on and how they think about the acceptability of things. That is key to over-powering those who try to Win by keeping people unaware, incorrectly aware, or misunderstanding what is going on.

15574. Bob Loblaw at 02:11 AM on 25 February 2018
       “How is That Conservative?” Former Climate Denier now Backs Action
       

       For a fascinating look at how one "skeptic" views his contributions to the discussion, I suggest looking into this recent post by Tamino and the very long series of comments that follows:

       https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/02/18/consequences/

       I also sometimes recommend the following web page and the book and oher materials contained on it. The book is very long - start by reading the web page itself (short). The writer is a (now-retired?) social psychologist, who spent a career studying the authoritarian mindset.

       The Authoritarians

15575. Bob Loblaw at 02:04 AM on 25 February 2018
       2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
       

       Some may consider all the costs of adaptation as "good for the economy". After all, we live in a throw-away society for many cheaply-made consumer goods, and buying new ones creates jobs for someone.

       If we treat all the land and development that will be flooded due to sea level rise as "throw-away" goods, then large amounts of money will have to be spent to replace them. That will add to the GDP, at least locally. Business is booming!

       One might ask where all that money comes from, though. Well, governments can just borrow it can't they? Disaster relief! The whole global economy can run on money governments borrow to provide disaster relief. I'm sure there won't be any problems with that.

15576. michael sweet at 00:18 AM on 25 February 2018
       2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
       

       Norrism @132:

       Do you realize that "adaptation" to sea level rise means moving the majority of the world's great cities inland many miles, hundreds of millions or billions of refugees with no-where to go and the inundation of a substantial amount of the best farming land in the world?  In Miami alone over a trillion dollars of real estate is in danger with sea level rise that is possible by 2100 and sea level will continue to increase after 2100.  With a 1.5C increase Miami is doomed, the question is how long it will take to inundate the city.

       Can you provide data to show that there will be enough farmland left after 2 meters of sea level rise to feed the current world population?  Will you  be willing to accept several million refugees from Bangladesh into Canada?  

       You say "Maybe adaptation is not such a bad thing. It will keep our populace busy amidst automation removing jobs."

       People will be active building all those new cities on current farmland.  Teaching all those refugees English will employ a number of others.  You are blind to the consequences of the path that you are in favor of.

       Let us suppose Miami is inundated and two trillion dollars of real estate is destroyed.  Four million people move to Kansas and spend a trillion dollars to build new housing that is half as good as their old houses.  Economists count that as adding a trillion to GDP.  The people have worse housing and had to spend a trillion dollars that they could have used for other, better stuff.  Be careful what you wish for.

       Please describe where you think a hundred million refugees can be placed worldwide.  Keep in mind all the complaints from about a million refugees from Syria.

15577. Harry Twinotter at 17:01 PM on 24 February 2018
       Why remote Antarctica is so important in a warming world
       

       fishfear.
       
       What you think is irrelevant in this context, what is relevant is what you can demononstrate with evidence. So accusing Skeptical Science of bias is intellectually dishonest. I could go on about your use of rhetorical questions and sloganeering, but I think I have made my point.
       
       You can demonstrate your appeal to your own authority by posting citations to your publications easily enough.

15578. One Planet Only Forever at 16:04 PM on 24 February 2018
       2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
       

       NorrisM,

       Thank you for the reply, but you did not answer my specific questions.

       However, the lack of a direct answer is answer enough.

       All I will add is that you should correct the way you state what is going on, with the following as an example of the more accurate way to say it:

       "Basically acknowledged that my best guess is that I am not concerned that the incrementalism that we see in the most irresponsible government actions around the world (including the US - due to the deliberate lack of responsible leadership in nations like the USA) will mean that we cannot meet the 2C threshold by 2100 (the requirement is 2.0 C increase, not 2.0 C at 2100 with more to follow). This will mean that if based on the developed climate science the climate model predictions of accelerating rates of sea level and temperature are correct that we those others in the future (that I do not care about) will be spending more money on adaptation (because people did not 'have' to care about how their desired pursuit of a better Present for themselves was harmimg the fuure of humanity)."

15579. NorrisM at 14:37 PM on 24 February 2018
       2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
       

       OPOF @ 130

       I did respond to you but it seems that my comment either did not make it onto the website for some technical reason or was deleted although I do not think it was in any way inflammatory.

       Basically acknowledged that my best guess is that the incrementalism that we see in government actions around the world (including the US) will mean that we cannot meet the 2C threshold by 2100.  This will mean that if the climate model predictions of accelerating rates of sea level and temperature are correct that we will be spending more money on adaptation.

       Maybe adaptation is not such a bad thing.  It will keep our populace busy amidst automation removing jobs.  When you look at the renewal that happened in Germany and Japan after WWII and the advantage it provided to them with modern equipment and facilities (look at China last 30 years) you sometimes wonder whether reconstruction is not something that we humans require to keep us going.  Kind of like ants and anthills.  You kick one over and away they go rebuilding it. 

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Re your first paragraph, your response to OPOF was not deleted by a Moderator.

15580. NorrisM at 14:14 PM on 24 February 2018
       2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
       

       nigel @ 129

       Thanks Nigel.  I had reported on Nextra's announcement earlier based upon it having been reported on Climatewire.  Still unclear to me on the battery storage issue but obviously that would be a major breakthrough.

15581. nigelj at 12:14 PM on 24 February 2018
       “How is That Conservative?” Former Climate Denier now Backs Action
       

       This is related: "How six Americans changed their mind about global warming".

       www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/21/climate/changed-minds-americans.html

       There appear to be several pathways to this, but one common factor is just actually reading some sensible books, or attending a well presented lecture by some climate expert. So facts do change some peoples minds.

       Instead, some  people are reading climate denialist websites, and think tank echo chamber websites because its easier and free, which is unfortunate. NASA has great material on their website on  the basics of climate change, presented more like a book.

       Perhaps people are suspicious of climate material in the daily news media, out of a basic distrust of the traditional print media. I think such distrust can be overstated. News media are like anyone, they don't want to get things constantly wrong, and be embarrassed constantly. You just have to read between the lines and use some sense.

       The other thing is, and I say this reluctantly, Al Gores movie probably didn't convince many Republicans for obvious reasons, because of Gores strong political affiliations. However it was still a very skilled and 99% accurate presentation imho. 

       While people should look at the information on its merits, rather than the source of the information, ideally the movie would have been better coming from National Geographic or someone similar. But it's all history now. And its hard to know, because a movie from some established movie company could have been too dry, and not grabbed peoples attention like Gores movie did.

15582. One Planet Only Forever at 10:14 AM on 24 February 2018
       “How is That Conservative?” Former Climate Denier now Backs Action
       

       nigelj,

       The most important thing for everyone to understand, admit and have guide their actions is that:

       • the only Good Purpose/Objective is actions that understandably improve the future for humanity.
       • any actions that are harmful to future generations are simply unacceptable, no matter how beneficial a portion of the current day population consider the harmful actions to be (the most appalling claim making includes making claims that current day perceptions of wealth inevitably grow into bigger better perceptions in the future, or that it is OK to create future negative consequences if the current day benefits are perceived to be bigger).

       If that completely universal understanding and acceptance ever develops, everyone honouring that understanding and never tempted to push a limit, there is no need for refereeing (or policing, or military power anywhere, or charities attempting to correct the inequities that otherwise develop). Of course that is a fairy tale future. And it is why ideologies based on the belief that 'Better Results will develop if people are freer to believe what they want and do as they please' have no real future.

       As the 1987 UN Report "Our Common Future" bluntly declared, the lack of concern for the future generations of humanity, and any other group that has no power to 'effectively get even with the ones benefiting from causing harm or higher risks of causing harm', is the reason so many unsustainable and harmful activities develop popular and profitable support. And those 'unsustainable and harmful to Others' ways of doing things are also easier and cheaper than more responsible ways of acting which makes it ore difficult for more responsible ways of pursuing profit to Win.

       And once an activity develops significant undeserved popularity or profitability it can be very difficult to correct the incorrect development.

       The much bigger climate change impact correction problem faced by today's generation of humanity, bigger in magnitude and the required rate of correction (as exposed by the continuing to improve awareness and understanding of climate science), is undeniably due to the lack of fair and responsible action by many of the most fortunate humans since the 1980s, since the time it became clear to all of those most fortunate humans that they 'had no Good Reason to continue to try to get away with what they had developed a damaging addiction to'.

15583. Tadaaa at 07:36 AM on 24 February 2018
       How to Change Your Mind About Climate Change
       

       @nigelj

       "I agree about climategate. Private emails from other organisations would probably be much the same or worse. In fact, what surprised me about climategate is how little of substance was revealed. It actually convinced me more that scientists could be trusted. "

       100% spot on - and me too, you put it better than i did

15584. nigelj at 05:52 AM on 24 February 2018
       “How is That Conservative?” Former Climate Denier now Backs Action
       

       Libertarians and conservatives could perhaps look at the issues this way. First they often point out that the alleged problem with command and control hierarchical economies is that a central body can become over constricting, and cannot have enough information to make optimal economic decisions. (F Hayek, 1899 -1992 talked along these approximate lines). This is a fair criticism, although since the age of advanced computers this theory may no longer actually be entirely correct.

       The idea of the market is to let individuals make free decisions and the market will decide what they buy and value. This enocurages innovation. (Adam Smith 1723 - 1790). I'm a fan of this basic theory fwiw.

       The problem with the market is individuals can also do things that are very destructive to the community or other individuals.

       The solution is that markets must be policied, and need boundaries and regulations imposed by government, or in a few limited situations organisations can be self policing. Behaviours known to be destructive to the community and other individuals must be illegal, but only if its harming them in significant and material ways ( JS Mill 1806 - 1873).

       If a specific behaviour, like using a dangerous material in certain situations is banned, this in no way stops innovation and individual initiative, because it doesn't stop people using that material in other situations. Since the basic purpose of markets is to encourage innovation, market rules do not damage markets, provided they are sensible rules. That is the main thing people need to know along with what OPOF says.

15585. One Planet Only Forever at 04:02 AM on 24 February 2018
       “How is That Conservative?” Former Climate Denier now Backs Action
       

       The development of better understanding regarding climate science is an important 'incremental' step for a person who has developed a strong preference for Conservative/Libertarian beliefs.

       I suggest the next incremental step in better understanding is the acceptance that the required objective of responsible leadership (in politics, business, media, academia ...), is to fairly correct what has incorrectly developed to limit the impact on future generations to 2.0 C increase.

       And the next logical increment of better understanding is the recognition of the failure of the Competitive Marketplace to responsibly respond for the benefit of the future of humanity. Consumerism and materialism competition to appear to be more prosperous than Others can incline many people to develop more desires to be freer to believe what they want and do as they please (including excusing understandably harmful ways of Winning their desired Private Interests to the detriment of Others including all those future generations of humanity who have no ability to effectively get 'even with them').

       The understanding of the harmfulness and unsustainability of the burning of fossil fuels was undeniably internationally established at the 1972 Stockholm Conference. The urgency of correcting the problem of CO2 from burning fossil fuels has become better understood since then. And the 1987 UN Report "Our Common Future" left no doubt about the main excuse for lack of responsible leadership by the winners in political and economic market competitions, a lack of action to limit harm done to future generations was popular and profitable because it could be gotten away with.

       The development of understanding since 1987 leading to the Kyoto Accord leaves less doubt about what acceptable/unacceptable leadership actions are. And the Paris Agreement tightens up that understanding.
       So, since 1987 (or earlier), the 'actions of already fairly fortunate people to still tried to get significant further benefit from the burning of fossil fuels rather than correcting their ways' is obviously a flaw in the Socio-economics of the Marketplace. It is as if the 'Invisible Hand was biased toward being harmful'. It is a result that clearly cannot be blamed on 'too much regulation of the marketplace games people play'. Though admittedly some 'regulations' like the attempts by some USA states to 'restrict the sale of Tesla vehicles in their state through regional regulation' are understandably deliberately harmful.

       That leads to the next increment of better understanding, the marketplace requires Helpful Refereeing; monitoring and enforcement that discourages harmful actions and encourages helpful actions.

       Those are admittedly big steps for some people to take, but those are logically the steps that they must take if they truly want to be helpful rather than harmful or irrelevant.

15586. One Planet Only Forever at 03:33 AM on 24 February 2018
       2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
       

       nigelj@128,

       Though everyone agrees to use the term incrementalism, I am almost certain that the likes of NorrisM do not agree that the objective of the incremental change must be limiting total global impacts to 2.0 C.

       NorrisM never responded to my comment @46, perhaps because my comment @62 accurately represented his position.

       However, NorrisM's comment @69 implied he was still considering a response to my requests for a response. But, my comment @70 may have 'pinned him down too much' for him to bother to try to ceate a reasonable sounding response. Or he may have considered my comment @90 to be an accurate understanding of his position.

       But NorrisM has commented since then in ways consistent with an understanding that the type of incrementalism he would support is actions that would likely significantly fail to meet the objective of limiting future impacts to 2.0 C increase.

       As I have mentioned in an earlier comment, doing less action earlier to meet an objective requires more action later. The likes of NorrisM appear to like the idea of having to do less (leaving more for others to do later), and even hoping to get away with prolonging their ability to benefit from the understood to be unacceptable activity or, even worse, increasing their ability to benefit from the damaging activity, developing an even bigger challenge that Others have to deal with.

       The understanding of the harmfulness and unsustainability of the burning of fossil fuels was undeniably internationally established at the 1972 Stockholm Conference. The urgency of correcting the problem of CO2 from burning fossil fuels has become better understood since then. And the 1987 UN Report "Our Common Future" left no doubt about the main excuse for lack of responsible leadership by the winners in political and economic market competitions, a lack of action to limit harm done to future generations was popular and profitable because it could be gotten away with.

       The development of understanding since 1987 leading to the Kyoto Accord leaves less doubt about what acceptable/unacceptable leadership actions are. And the Paris Agreement tightens up that understanding.

       So, since 1987 (or earlier), anyone who was already fairly fortunate but still tried to get significant further benefit from the burning of fossil fuels rather than correcting their ways has no excuse. Their developed perceptions of prosperity or opportunity deserve to be shattered, the sooner the better to 'be fairer' about achieving the undeniable required objective, fairly limiting global total impact to 2.0 C.

15587. NorrisM at 02:20 AM on 24 February 2018
       The EPA debunked Administrator Pruitt’s latest climate misinformation
       

       Moderator

       I was disappointed to get to the end of this post only to find that further discussion had been terminated.  I was hoping to challenge Alchemyst to read a fascinating debate that took place on the curryetc website based upon a recent paper by Peter Lang.  Lang's questionable premise is that the "root cause" of the demise of the nuclear industry in the US were anti-nuke protesters which caused over regulation.  The paper is found in the December 2017 topics on the curry website.  I had been spending my time reading all 256 posts on that website before I commented here.

       However, Lang did not anticipate that someone with over 35 years experiencer in managing construction of nuclear plants in the US would take him on.  He goes by the name Beta Blocker for reasons explained in the blog.  His basic premise is that the poor managment processes of Westinghouse and others were largely to blame for the massive cost overruns which really sunk the industry and provided the fodder for the smarter nuclear protesters who appeared at hearings.

       My suggestion to respond to the suggestion of michael sweet was going to propose that you let Peter Lang publish his paper on this website and let others take a run at him.  I understand that there has been some "history" with Lang on this website which might complicate my suggestion.  Lang does not do well against Beta Blocker.

       There was one other commenter on that blog who was very knowledgeable called Ristvan.  His view in a nutshell is that concrete and steel sunk the nuclear industry.

       But the "supply" issue of nuclear sources suggested by Abbott does not seem to be the real issue given that the new nuclear reactors will use 99% rather than 1% of the energy in uranium.  Beta Blocker is clearly retired now but is in communication with those active in the industry.  I get the sense that Small Modular Reactors do show promise.  He also deals with storage issues.

       I undertstand that this post may not see the light of day but I wanted to support michael sweet's suggestion of a paper on this topic. 

       I believe you have my email as part of registration on this website if you want to reply without posting. 

15588. nigelj at 12:43 PM on 23 February 2018
       Standing Rock is everywhere: one year later
       

       On the subject of water:

       www.carbonbrief.org/climate-change-could-cause-more-severe-droughts-98-per-cent-european-cities

       "More than 500 European cities could face sharp increases in droughts, floods and heatwaves if climate change continues to rise unabated, a new study finds."

15589. Alchemyst at 12:14 PM on 23 February 2018
       2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
       

       nigelj

       we need to be in accrord halfnium

       could we rely on the grey econonmy here. I was renovating a house and had a tonne of timber to dipose, I'm ashamed to say I had the choice of paying $50 for the authorites to dispose or find an alterntive. we had a bonfire one summers night. thinking that this saved me money the next tonne we dumped it at the front of the house, spread the word that there was free firewood it took 2 weeks for he heap to just vanish.

       Burning wood in power stations is probay less efficient than wood burning stoves n the home. They convege the population into foragers 

15590. Tom Dayton at 10:38 AM on 23 February 2018
       What Does Statistically Significant Actually Mean?
       

       Here is a good 2017 article: "The Bayesian New Statistics: Hypothesis testing, estimation, meta-analysis, and power analysis from a Bayesian perspective," Kurschke & Liddell, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. Full text is available both in browser and as downloadable PDF.

15591. nigelj at 09:03 AM on 23 February 2018
       The EPA debunked Administrator Pruitt’s latest climate misinformation
       

       I don't have remotely enough knowledge of nuclear power technology to write an article. But Alchemyst, it appears you or anyone else are being given a golden opportunity here to submit something.

       I would just suggest an article needs to obviously be based on verifiable credible source material, with internet links, and should mention within the body of the article the problems as well as the benefits of nuclear, and in a full, open way. If it doesn't, it will be cut to pieces by readers, and called one sided. If its an article that is open and transparent, it may serve some useful purpose. I don't care if the tone of the article is negative or positive on the issue, as long as its upfront like this.

       But IMHO the writer is perfectly entitled to reach their conclusions firmly for or against nuclear power and as strongly as they wish, and is not expected to sit on the fence.

       I remain a bit sceptical of nuclear power, but hopefully not closed minded.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] No more please. Continued offtopic posts will be deleted.

15592. nigelj at 08:22 AM on 23 February 2018
       2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
       

       Riduna, I must admit my instinctive reaction to BECCS isn't positive, so I need to see some convincing defence of the idea.

       However while BECCS makes electricity twice as expensive it is also drawing down atmospheric CO2. It would be interesing to know how much value this adds in dollar terms somehow?

       I agree no generating company is going to choose BECCS at this stage, unless they are amazingly green orientated. The only way to really implement BECCS is government command and control, or government subsidies that make it attractive enough. Neither are wrong in principle imho, however BECCS would need to prove itself robustly first.

15593. nigelj at 06:14 AM on 23 February 2018
       Standing Rock is everywhere: one year later
       

       Try telling the people in the white house. They can't seem to comprehend climate change, and that water can become a scarce resource.

       All politicians think about is next months profits, their own popularity, and that white man has all the answers. And they think a lot about their campaign donors. Politicians are all sock puppets for their campaign donors.

15594. nahs at 01:50 AM on 23 February 2018
       “How is That Conservative?” Former Climate Denier now Backs Action
       

       it is great to hear  a man from Conservative supporting climate change as a reality.i wish the congressman to follow Jerry Taylor's example,including The President Trump and support climate change actions.

15595. michael sweet at 01:48 AM on 23 February 2018
       The EPA debunked Administrator Pruitt’s latest climate misinformation
       

       Alchymist,

       I must inform you that the BBC and Wikipedia are not peer reviewed sources.  You have provided no peer reviewed data to support your claims.  Abbott is peer reviewed.  Your BBC link is for school children. It does not give the full formulation of the conntrol rods.  Boron cannot be fashioned into rods by itself.  It must be mixed with and coated by other exotic materials to form the control rods.  You must account for all the materials put into the plant, not just a few of them.

       The breeder reactors you support are run at extremely high temperatures with extreme neutron fluxes.  All the piping, valves,fuel rods and the container vessel must be made of exotic metals and alloys to withstand the extreme conditions.  We have only the unsupported word of an anonymous person on the internet that all these materials exist against the peer reviewed study of Abbott, who is an expert in the field, that they do not exist.  You have provided no information to determine if the metals in the valves, piping and container are in sufficient supply to build.  We have only your personal assertion that the control rods can be manufactured.

       You are repeating yourself without providing supporting data.  That is sloganeering.  You have provided no peer reviewed data to support your claims, that is trolling.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] It is time to wrap this discussion. This site is not a good forum for discussions of pros and cons of nuclear power (BraveNewClimate did that better) and it is offtopic for this thread. If we had a thread based on peer-reviewed literature concerning nuclear power, then the science could be discussed there but so far we have not been able to find an author to write one. Volunteers welcome.

15596. Alchemyst at 01:21 AM on 23 February 2018
       The EPA debunked Administrator Pruitt’s latest climate misinformation
       

       Sweet  you are trolling

       I have shown that Abbott is using whie swan arguments in his paper. 

       for example he quotes liitations on nuclear materials citing Halfnium. 

       I quote your post 13 feb 3:16 am

       "not enough rare elements like hafnium exist,"  

       How halfnium is hardly ever used in civilian reactors. So abundance linits does not pose a limitation on nuclear reactor build.

       Boron is the prefered  material, and there is no shortage of Boron in the world. this is taught to 14 year old schoolchildren in the UK 

       http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/intermediate2/physics/radioactivity/nuclear_power_stations/revision/2/

       You are trolling.

       For those interested see below. Howeve Sweet you are trolling, most people have been into the argument on one side or the other, but you even when your statment has been shown to be without basis

       My references in the earler post to nigelj, you now  state

       "note that you have provided no references that address Abbotts peer reviewed claims that not enough rare elements exist to build out nuclear power. None of your citations say how much of any metals are required to build the reactors you support. I have provided a reference to prove that enough materials exist to build out all needed renewable energy systems. Abbotts conclusion stands unchallenged."

       I pass you onto Wikipedia where the status of Halfnium in civilian reactors is stated  that it is hardly ever used and other materials are prefered.

       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_rod

       Control rods are used in nuclear reactors to control the fission rate of uranium and plutonium. They are composed of chemical elements such as boron, silver, indium and cadmium that are capable of absorbing many neutrons without themselves fissioning. Because these elements have different capture cross sections for neutrons of varying energies, the composition of the control rods must be designed for the reactor's neutron spectrum. Boiling water reactors (BWR), pressurized water reactors (PWR) and heavy water reactors (HWR) operate with thermal neutrons, while breeder reactors operate with fast neutrons.

       Halfnium has excellent properties for reactors using water for both moderation and cooling. It has good mechanical strength, can be easily fabricated, and is resistant to corrosion in hot water.[9] Hafnium can be alloyed with other elements, e.g. with tin and oxygen to increase tensile and creep strength, with iron, chromium and niobium for corrosion resistance, and with molybdenum for wear resistance, hardness and machineability. Such alloys are designated as Hafaloy, Hafaloy-M, Hafaloy-N, and Hafaloy-NM.[10] The high cost and low availability of hafnium limit its use in civilian reactors, although it is used in some US Navy reactors. Hafnium carbide can also be used as an insoluble material with a high melting point of 3890 °C and density higher than that of uranium dioxide for sinking unmelted through corium.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Given that your discorse with Michael Sweet has devolved into name calling and given that you are now engaging in excessive repitition, it is time to shut down this discussion. Your future posts on this topic will be summarily deleted. 

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

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

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.

15597. michael sweet at 22:19 PM on 22 February 2018
       The EPA debunked Administrator Pruitt’s latest climate misinformation
       

       Alchymist,

       Apparently I misread your post because you said "Sweet please try and stop insulting peoples inteligence" immediately after quoting me saying nuclear was much more expensive than renewable energy.  

       I am glad that we agree that nuclear energy cannot compete economically with renewable energy. 

       I note that you have provided no references that address Abbotts peer reviewed claims that not enough rare elements exist to build out nuclear power.  None of your citations say how much of any metals are required to build the reactors you support.  I have provided a reference to prove that enough materials exist to build out all needed renewable energy systems.  Abbotts conclusion stands unchallenged.

       Serious energy researchers do not consider significant amounts of nuclear energy in the mix in the future.  In Smart Energy Europe (cited at least 75 times in less than 2 years from publication) the first of 9 steps to convert to full renewable energy is to remove nuclear energy from the system.

       I note that none of your citations is peer reviewed.

15598. nigelj at 14:59 PM on 22 February 2018
       Why remote Antarctica is so important in a warming world
       

       jclairea @8

       Good point. Pacific island nations get a double whammy. Serious sea level rise, stronger tropical cyclones, water salination problems, lack of resources.

       I also see what you are doing there. Demolishing his comments with niceness.

15599. One Planet Only Forever at 14:54 PM on 22 February 2018
       2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #7
       

       In addition to the recent dramatic and concerning history of Arctic Sea Ice and climate changes, there is the following new news report today February 21, by  Jason Samenow in the Washington Post (not Fake): Arctic temperatures soar 45 degrees above normal, flooded by extremely mild air on all sides

15600. Going South at 13:50 PM on 22 February 2018
       2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #7
       

       Or we could talk about the year average for 2017. 2nd lowest for extent, but lowest ever for volume. Just sayin' ....

Prev  304  305  306  307  308  309  310  311  312  313  314  315  316  317  318  319  Next