Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 Next
Comments 15751 to 15800:
-
jef12506 at 03:08 AM on 8 January 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #1
The dynamics are not correct at all. The relationship of Co2 to degrees C is not 1 to 1. Once the greenhouse is in place it will continue to warm even without additional Co2 until Co2 begins to drop. That and the fact that the effects of the Co2 currently in the atmosphere has yet to kick in as there is a lag. Also keep in mind that we have released as much Co2 since Al Gores presentation than all Co2 released prior to that. The warming that we are experiencing now, between 1.2 and 1.6 depending on the metric, is from Co2 released prior to 1980's. If we stop all Co2 right now the planet will continue to warm for another 50 years or more just considering Co2 and no other feedback mechs.
Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate the work that SS does but please be real.
We need to act now with the biggest global wide project ever known to man if we seriously want to have a livable planet left.
Moderator Response:[JH] Please calrify what "dynamics" you are referring to in the first sentence of your post. Also explain where SkS is being unreal about manmade climate change.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:57 AM on 8 January 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #1
bozzza,
I partially agree.
The trend of global awareness and understanding is increased acceptance of the stated objectives of the Paris Agreement to keep warming below 2.0 C, with the desire to limit the accumulated human im-pacts to 1.5 C warming (That is why the Paris Agreement was agreed to and is supported by responsible global leaders).
The related understanding is that climate science is the basis for understanding the limits of human activity related to those increases of global average surface temperature, because once those increases have actually been observed 'it is too late'.
That has lead to increased efforts to better understand the relationship between increased CO2 and ultimate rebalanced global average surface temperature. It is understood that things are currently not completely adjusted to increases of CO2 that have already occurred.
It has also lead to 'pursuers of Private Interest in benefiting more from the undeniably unsustainable and definitely damaging burning of fossil fuels' to fight to win any way they can get away with. They are the ones who creating the incorrect generalized impression that 'No one is trying to limit warming to 2C!".
A related growing awareness and understanding is that there are many other armful results of the pursuits of benefit from the burning of fossil fuels, not just increased CO2. So there are many Good Reasons to rapidly terminate the undeservingly popular and profitable activity.
Good Responsible Aware People already understand the need for that change. Others can learn to be Good/Helpful. And some people will not Personally limit their Pursuits of Private Interest, and they will fight against any 'imposed limit on their freedom to believe what they want and do as they please'. That is all to be expected, with the last group clearly becoming understood to need help, to be kept from impacting others (to be kept out of competitions for popularity and profitability - or be removed from positions of already occurred but clearly undeserved Winning) until they learn to change their minds.
-
Jeff H at 23:01 PM on 7 January 20182017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52
Yes, nijelj comprehensively debunked Rhoowl’s ‘arguments’.
What frustrates me is that my comment earlier did the same and yet Rhoowl posts later making profoundly unscientific comments correlating plant biomass with fitness (i.e. Plants are noticeably bigger and stronger). Such a flippant remark would not pass muster in a peer-reviewed journal. What is meant by ‘stronger’ is anyone’s guess. The fact that terrestrial vegetation is already reaching and exceeding saturation points is clear by now. Moreover, as I said before, there are species-specific responses that differ, generating phenological asynchronies that must be factored into community and system-wide effects, along with changes in stoichiometry that will affect not only plant metabolism with trophic interactions.
Deniers see the world in a decidedly linear way: cause-and-effect relationships in complex adaptive systems, however, are profoundly non-linear. This may explain why there are so few population ecologists and environmental scientists among denier ranks.
-
michael sweet at 21:54 PM on 7 January 2018One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
Pluto,
I am sorry that your limited finances result in your being unable to read the relevant literature (or blog posts like SkS). You seem focused on money. For the record, I am not paid anything to educate you. As I pointed out, I also currently cannot afford Lithium batteries (they will likely be cheaper than lead acid in two or three years).
Since you complain about cost so much, I am amazed that you are unwilling to switch over to the cheapest form of energy, wind and solar, and favor nuclear, the most expensive energy. The price of renewable energy is going down and drives down consumer prices where ever it is installed. Fossil is holding out because utilities can stiff customers more for it than renewable energy.
A very large fraction of fossil energy infrastructure is old and requires replacement. If we build new fossil fuel plants the money will be wasted at the same time the environment is destroyed. Economically it makes more sense to stop building fossil plants and build out only renewable energy. The nuclear plants in South Carolina and Georgia are an example of wasted money consumers have to pay for.
In any case, what you can afford for energy has nothing to do with keeping up to date on the energy debate. Read more and keep an open mind. Coming to SkS and lecturing us on energy policy using outdated information does not help advance the conversation.
-
MA Rodger at 20:35 PM on 7 January 2018CO2 limits won't cool the planet
With the back-&-forth in-thread above between myself & Aaron Davis presently stalled/snipped/ended, it would perhaps be proper to set out a more grown-up comparison of the Arctic/Antarctic temperature cycles. This relates to the 'second' of the three existential issues facing Arron Davis's grand analysis. Polar climate is not well enough defined by the "slant path sun angle" for his analysis to work. (The other two existential issues are described @17(1) & (2)) A comparison @22 showed that "slant path sun angle" (latitude) for 52N is not the defining feature of the difference between Feb/Mar and Aug/Sept average temperatures. Of course London & Irkutsk at 52N are far from the poles, so quick look at polar temperatures and what drives them is what is being attempted here.
The peak-to-peak temperature range at the actual poles is very similar North and South although the relative length of summers (longer in the North) and winters (longer in the South) would evidently prevent an Aaron-Davis-type analysis.
And of course, just as at 52N, in the polar regions under analysis N/S 60º-70º "slant path sun angle" does not fully define the energy fluxes. This graph from Aaron Donohoe plots the various flux anomalies for N & S polar regions for each month (the exact latitudes of the zone represented are not given).
In this graph, the yellow trace CTEN (atmospheric Column Tendency) shows energy absorbed by the atmosphere and evidently has a bigger wobble North than South with North twice the size of South. (But note it will be the integrals of these yellow curves that Aaron Davis is attempting to measure.)CTEN is the net imbalance after all the other energy fluxes are accounted for. The largest of these other fluxes, ASR (absorbed solar radiation or "slant path sun angle") looks similar North&South peak-to-peak but measuring it Feb/Mar-to-Aug/Sept, the Northern ASR has a bigger range by about 7%. Similarly, SHF (Surface Heat Flux) is 20% bigger, and the other two, Out-going Longwave Radation and MHT Meridional Heat Transfer (warm winds minus cold winds), are both about 100% bigger. These differences result in CTEN being somewhat out-of-phase with ASR and CTEN Feb/Mar-to-Aug/Sept 100% bigger in the North.
The larger Northern temperature range suggested by CTEN (& shorter southern summers) is born out by surface temperature data. A bigger Northern temperature range is evident within the monthly anomaly base data provided in BEST station data. Thus a very quick and dirty analysis (stations roughly coastal at ☻74.74 S, 24.41 W , ☻69.92 S, 79.48 E, ☻66.70 S, 141.57 E, ☻73.13 S, 94.15 W , ☻71.53 N, 157.18 W, ☻73.13 N, 72.00 E, ☻71.53 N, 30.42 W, ☻71.53 N, 157.18 E) yields a Northern peak-to-peak temperature range 40% larger than the Southern and a Feb/Mar-to-Aug/Sept temperature difference 150% larger.
Thus, while ASR is the biggest input into polar seasonality, it is far from being the overwhelming influence. This second graphic from Aaron Donohoe (from the same source) presents the zonal Jan & Jul anomalies for the northern hemisphere. It shows the difference between Jan-Jul atmospheric zonal flux anomalies (MHT in pink) peaking in the 60N-70N zone (0 .87 to 0.94 on the graph) with the MHT winter/summer warming half that of the 250Wm^-2 ASR summer/winter warming. Yet in all this, Aaron Davis assumes his grand analysis somehow will find the temperature signature of a CO2-induced -0.2W^m-2 cooling, an impossible task.
-
Pluto at 17:47 PM on 7 January 2018One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
One Planet Only Forever @31
Where did you get that quote
"Fad-like Desire of a sub-set of humanity for the freedom to get away with unsustainable actions that create negative impacts on others including future generations"
and what's meant by "unsustainable actions"?
-
Pluto at 16:03 PM on 7 January 2018One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
michael sweet @34
I am amazed that you are so confident in your opinions when you have not read the relevant literature.
There is a good reason why I may not be quite up-to-date on many scientific/technological developments. In my case, there is no "need to know". I have no job in this field (nor any other field, actually) and I simply can't afford such batteries, not even the home version that recently came out. What happened was that we bought what generating equipment we could based on the technology available at the time (about 10 years ago). Some of it is based on propane use. Also, we have a wood pellet stove and solar heating to supplement our propane furnace. This is the best we can do under the circumstances, and we can't afford to be further taxed and regulated for doing so. If this isn't good enough, you are welcome to cover our expenses for the upgrades you deem necessary.
-
bozzza at 13:43 PM on 7 January 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #1
No one is trying to limit warming to 2C!
-
michael sweet at 12:05 PM on 7 January 2018One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
Lithium ion batteries are better and cheaper than lead acid. Unfortunately, I had to purchase lead acid for my boat because Tesla does not make small (1 kW) batteries yet. For your house look at the reference I cited in my last post to you.
Jacobson 2015 describes using hydrogen as primary storage for electricity. Using fuel cells to regenerate the electricity would be very efficient. Jacobson models the US power supply (all power, not just electricity) and finds that renewable energy can easily supply all power as reliably as fossil fuels. Jacobson finds that renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels.
Other researchers recommend using electrofuels (methane or liquids) generated using renewable electricity and CO2 from the air. These have the advantage that all the storage facilities and technology are already built. Since you have a PhD I am sure you can follow up using references that have cited Jacobson 2015. Scientists that research energy are confident that renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) can supply the entire economy for the entire world. They generally do not like nuclear (with a few exceptions) or fossil fuels.
I am sorry that you are so far behind in this discussion. Perhaps reading Jacobson 2015 and a selection of the papers that cite it will bring you more up to date. I am amazed that you are so confident in your opinions when you have not read the relevant literature.
-
Pluto at 10:56 AM on 7 January 2018One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
That's great if you now have a battery that can get you through a power failure. Evidently, there have been some developments in this technolgy of which I was not aware. However, there is still a big gap between a battery getting a city through a power failure and a battery that can act as the primary power source for a city. If it takes several days for the battery to recharge from a power failure that lasted only a few hours, then it is sadly inadequate as an energy storage device for a purely sustainable power system. Since every "clean energy" source nowadays can produce power only in certain weather conditions (ie. wind or sunshine) I would hate to bet on those batteries being recharged adequately.
-
Eclectic at 08:02 AM on 7 January 2018Past 150,000 Years of Sea Level History Suggests High Rates of Future Sea Level Rise
TLander @43 , on the other thread [Climate Myth Number 68 , in the comments section, Page 2 , Comment #80 ], I have given two strong reasons why your thinking is wrong.
Various other reasons exist as well — but (to misquote Einstein) : Two would be enough.
If by some strange means you have gained the belief that the recent large rise in atmospheric CO2 is not responsible for planetary warming & the consequential fast rising volume of the sea — then the honor of making Comment #81 awaits you on that other thread ["Is the science settled" Myth No. 68 ]. There you can provide whatever disputation you are capable of — for clearly in your own mind, the science is not settled and the scientists are all wrong.
-
John Hartz at 06:49 AM on 7 January 2018One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
Recommended supplemental reading about energy storage — especially for Pluto.
Elon Musk’s giant lithium ion battery in South Australia has responded in record time to the first power failure since it was installed as a back up power source.
It comes just weeks after Musk won a $US13 million bet that he would supply South Australia with the Tesla battery within 100 days or it was free.
State Energy Minister Tom Koutsantonis says the investment in the battery has already proved its worth, exceeding expectations in its first test.
Tesla's giant battery has already responded to a power failure in South Australia by Sarah Kimmorley, World Economic Forum (WEF), Dec 21, 2017
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:37 AM on 7 January 2018One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
Ploto@24,
Anyone or any group whose life actions have absloutely no negative impact on anyone else can be 'left out of it'. They are essentially choosing to be irrelevant, which is fine.
The undeniable trend of developing awareness and understanding is that the 'Fad-like Desire of a sub-set of humanity for the freedom to get away with unsustainable actions that create negative impacts on others including future generations' is not going to be tolerated by Humanity.
-
DrivingBy at 06:13 AM on 7 January 2018On its hundredth birthday in 1959, Edward Teller warned the oil industry about global warming
@nigelj
"Also consider humanity responded well to the ozone issue"
Sometimes civilization does get it right, rather shockingly. The huge and successful US/Europe smog reduction was another. My sour take: it won't last, Europe is commiting civilizational suicide and amidst the decline there will be no agreement to handle such issues. I do hope I'm wrong.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:28 AM on 7 January 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #1
An recent additional item:
'All happening very quickly': Tesla battery sends a jolt through energy markets by Peter Hannam, The Sydney Morning Herald, January 6, 2018
Moderator Response:[JH] Muchas gracias!
-
TLander at 00:46 AM on 7 January 2018Past 150,000 Years of Sea Level History Suggests High Rates of Future Sea Level Rise
Subsidence and Coastal Erosion are not historically constant where a large percentage of the worlds population is located. I agree that a majority of the coasts aren't developed, but the issue is where we are developed. Do we care about coasts where people don't live? The coasts where people don't exist will be fine, because no one lives there and it will just be the norms that have been going on forever. I don't see your argument. I will agree that in the coastal regions where humans haven't developed that there is more or less a historical constant of subsidence and coastal erosion, but from my understanding the issue with sea level rise is that the coastal cities(where people live) will be inundated and destroyed from massive storms/encroaching waters costing money and human life. In these areas, coastal erosion and subsidence are a huge deal and need to be completely accounted for. Yes, the sea level will rise all around the world. Most of the coast will be effected, but it will only matter in terms of human life and cost in the areas where people live.
All of the icecaps could melt and sea level could rise to its max, but it we would still have issues with coastal erosion and subsidence where people are concentrated.
You can even factor in storm surges/flooding destruction being more prevalent due to the destruction of beach dunes and by damming rivers upstream, which is the source of sediment that creates protective barriers on the coasts to fend off storm surges. These protective barriers are destroyed in areas where human development is high.
I read "Climate Myth Number 68 : Is The Science Settled," and is it supposed to validate anything? Am I supposed to learn something from it? I agree that humans are increasing the CO2 in the atmostphere. I agree with it 100%. I don't agree with it being the cause of droughts, wildfires, "extreme weather", or even hugely responsible for sea level rise.
Moderator Response:[JH] The concluding sentence of your post:
I don't agree with it being the cause of droughts, wildfires, "extreme weather", or even hugely responsible for sea level rise.
Your personal opinion carries ver little weight on this website. You are now obligated to document with references to appropriate scientific materials how your opinions have merit.
-
SirCharles at 23:44 PM on 6 January 2018New research, December 25-31, 2017
Also => Ice Loss and the Polar Vortex: How a Warming Arctic Fuels Cold Snaps
The loss of sea ice may be weakening the polar vortex, allowing cold blasts to dip south from the Arctic, across North America, Europe and Russia, a new study says.
-
michael sweet at 23:17 PM on 6 January 2018One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
Pluto,
Your argument that energy canot be stored to run the entire economy because you are unable to find an energy storage device for your home (you apparently cannot locate Tesla on your computer) does not make sense. By the same logic we cannot launch a satalite into space because gunpowder does not have enough energy and cannot have commercial airplanes because rubber bands cannot power them. Technologies to run the economy are different from those needed for individual houses.
You need to read much more and learn about the technologies that are proposed for the future. Arguing that you are not aware of these solutions is not convincing.
-
John McKeon at 21:14 PM on 6 January 2018Climate Chats - New Year, New Life, New Climate
nigelj ... ominous ...
The ominous of course being that which he satirised, not the man himself. :-)
-
Pluto at 19:53 PM on 6 January 2018One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
Eclectic @28
If you know about electrical energy sources better than batteries, please let me know what they are and where to find them. I'm hoping to build a power backup system that will protect all of our computers without having to buy a separate UPS for each one. Also, I would much prefer the conventional 60 Hz sinusoidal voltage over the square wave that UPSs generally deliver. As I said in my previous posting, however, the best my electrician could come up with was a bank of one or two dozen 12 V lead-acid batteries. Between that and the expense of expanding our solar array and/or adding a wind turbine, I decided to simply stay with the grid-tie arrangement.
-
Eclectic at 18:47 PM on 6 January 2018One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
Pluto , I have no wish "to rain on your charade" [excuse awful pun]
. . . but you are so angry, that you forget that there are many other forms of energy storage than batteries.
btw, "Caesar" is a metaphor for your civic duty.
And as for the Good Samaritan — he chose to do the right thing. Something which you have difficulty with, it seems.
The Paris Climate Change Agreement, though weak and feeble (and voluntary!) is at least some sort of start in doing what's right. And the Good Samaritan would approve of it, don't you think, Pluto?
-
Pluto at 18:04 PM on 6 January 2018One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
Eclectic @25
There is one other point I forgot to make in my previous posting @26. I'm not sure who you mean by "Caesar" but the UN is no "Caesar" to me nor to President Donald Trump. As I keep saying, leave me and US out of this climate charade.
Moderator Response:[JH] Excessive repetition snipped. Your repeated violations of the SkS Comments Policy means that you are on the cusp of relinquishing your privilege of posting comments on this venue.
-
nigelj at 17:58 PM on 6 January 2018Climate Chats - New Year, New Life, New Climate
While I was typing this, they started a discussion of life of George Orwell on the radio, which is rather an ominous coincidence.
War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength!
-
Pluto at 17:43 PM on 6 January 2018One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
The Good Samaritan helped the victim out of his own free will. He was not taxed or coerced by his government in any way. Big difference!
I'm not sure how the topic of energy storage came up, but if you are thinking in terms of storing clean energy from solar or wind sources, you better think differently. No battery (or array of batteries) even comes close to being able to deliver the kind of power needed for the heavy machinery in factories, farms, or even workshops.
Back in 2009, I asked our electrician about expanding our (residential) solar array, possibly adding wind power, so that we could be "off-grid" and not have any power bills. He told me that we would first have to change our stove and clothes dryer from electric to gas (propane) because either one would totally drain the battery bank within a few minutes. If we are running into these kinds of problems just to make "clean sustainable energy" work for a house, just imagine what we would be up against in trying to make it work for an entire city!
Additionally, batteries are heavy, expensive, and involve toxic waste (mostly sulfuric acid) which is making environmentists unhappy even now. Just wait until they are produced and disposed of on a much larger scale. Also, a battery that is 65 percent efficient is considered to be a darned good battery.
Then there is the issue of DC to AC conversion. Electrical energy stored in batteries is in the form of DC (ie. fixed positive or negative voltage) whereas plugin appliances generally run on AC (ie. sinusoidally varying voltage). The devices needed for the conversion further cut down on efficiency and may place limitations on the amount of power the battery bank can supply. Also, long distance transmission of DC power is totally unfeasible — a lesson that Thomas Edison learned way back when.
The bottom line here is that when generating clean sustainable energy, use it or lose it! There is no storing it.
-
nigelj at 17:30 PM on 6 January 2018Climate Chats - New Year, New Life, New Climate
Nice video Adam. I get where you are coming from.
Humanity is growing too fast in several ways, like it's on steroids. It's going to end in trouble, especially for future generations, as the planet imposes harsh corrections on us.
But I think sending emails is worth it, and I have had a few of my own published. No problem was ever solved by staying silent.
-
Eclectic at 17:06 PM on 6 January 2018The science isn't settled
Replying to TLander from another thread :-
TLander, you are deceiving yourself if you propose that there is some as-yet-unknown or undiscovered dominant cause of the rapid modern global warming. You wish to imply that that we should halt activities designed to mitigate CO2 emissions . . . until such time that your not-even-yet-hypothesized mechanism of rapid global warming gets discovered (and also shows itself to be so strong and beyond human influence, that it is futile for humans to attempt softening [through CO2 reduction] the warming effect caused by your notional new discovery).
TLander, there are at least two counter-arguments against your proposal.
You are already aware of (A) : That for many decades, many tens of thousands of scientists have very closely studied climate-related science (and the underlying physics). This is not the era of science in the mid-1800's . The chance of them entirely missing a major previously-unknown factor . . . is exceedingly small. Indeed, so vanishingly small, that surely no sane man would gamble the health of his planet on that chance.
But you might not be aware of (B) : That CO2 (and the other greenhouse gasses) form a superb match for the physics of modern global warming — both in theory and in empirical evidence. Merely a correlation, you say? No — the theory backs the observations, and the observations back the theory. So, if you are proposing an as-yet-unimagined novel "dark cause" of Global Warming . . . then you have a big problem, a double explanation which you need to pull out of your hat.
Firstly you need to find a "dark cause" factor which very closely matches the historical & growing effect of CO2. Then you also need to discover another new factor — this time a cooling factor which matches and cancels out the known warming effect of CO2.
All a very big ask.
TLander, the implication is that you have not thought things through.
-
Eclectic at 15:30 PM on 6 January 2018Past 150,000 Years of Sea Level History Suggests High Rates of Future Sea Level Rise
TLander @42 . . . your post seems to have been "snipped" for wandering too far off topic.
But I should point out that your "third factor" — namely coastal erosion — can well be described as an historical constant , rather than a large new threat to coast dwellers. Likewise with tsunamis, and coastal subsidence/uplift.
The man-caused local coastal erosion [that you mention] is a very tiny portion of the total world coastline.
Of your (unfounded) proposal that CO2/greenhouse-gasses are highly unlikely to be the cause of Global Warming (or Climate Change, or whatever word-label you care to use for the underlying reality) . . . well, you evidently have not thought the matter through — so I shall reply to you on a more appropriate thread.
[ I haven't yet decided which would be the most appropriate thread — there are several eligible threads, and at this stage I am leaning towards using "Climate Myth Number 68 : Is The Science Settled" ]
-
bozzza at 14:52 PM on 6 January 2018Climate Chats - New Year, New Life, New Climate
Life is a bunch of lies: Nietzsche said this is what we had to discover in order to survive!
(I think haha!)
-
Eclectic at 14:44 PM on 6 January 2018One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
Pluto @22 et seq. :-
(A) "Render unto Caesar . . . "
(B) Was the Good Samaritan "stolen from" by the victim he helped?
Pluto, your knowledge of ethics seems as deficient as your knowledge of energy storage.
-
Digby Scorgie at 14:37 PM on 6 January 2018Climate Chats - New Year, New Life, New Climate
Adam is concerned for the future of his niece, as well he might. Integrating a lifetime of observing the antics of humanity — in a completely unscientific way — I conclude that the probability of his niece enjoying a happy old age on a pleasantly habitable planet are extremely low.
Still, I still think we should go down fighting. And my way of fighting is to use the pen, or to be more up to date, the keyboard. In 2017 I fired off nine "e-mails to the editor" to four different publications and saw six of them published in all but one publication. I don't know if it helps, but one can hope.
-
Pluto at 14:31 PM on 6 January 2018One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
(-snip-)
Moderator Response:[DB] Off-topic ideological rant snipped.
-
Pluto at 14:30 PM on 6 January 2018One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
michael sweet @19
The jobs discussed in the link you provided were a small drop in the bucket compared to what is needed. As I stated @13 (but the "moderators" snipped), the intermittent nature of solar and wind power makes their use unfeasible except possibly as a grid-tie in a system with a more reliable main source such as coal or nuclear. If that's not good enough, then blame Al Gore and his Washington comrades for wasting the capabilities of thousands of scientists and engineers who could have made advances in these critical technologies such that we don't feel in such dire straights now. At this point, all I can say is that if the AGW believers/advocates are correct, then we are toast, period.
-
Pluto at 14:29 PM on 6 January 2018One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
Eclectic @18
In regard to your Christian ethics, I believe the commandment says "Thou shalt not steal", and to my knowledge, it was never amended to give governments an exemption.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:36 AM on 6 January 2018One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
Pluto@13:
Regarding the 'transfer of wealth' you allude to:
The Kyoto Accord and Paris Agreement requirements for 'the people/nations that are more fortunate because they got away with more burning of fossil fuels' to charitably assist 'the less fortunate who are negatively affected by the climate changes already created and being increased by prolonging that unsustainable trouble-making activity' are simply the natural understanding of the fair corrections required for the future of humanity. And that charitable assistance includes renewable energy technology development and transfer to assist the less fortunate develop to a better way of living without transitioning through the damaging step of fossil fuel burning.
And the required fair correction to minimize the harm done to future generations is the 'charitable/helpful' rapid termination of the global burning of fossil fuels as well as the 'charitable/helpful' reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere to a level of 350 ppm.
That may be 'perceived' to be 'unjustified wealth transfer', but that would be a misunderstanding. And that misuderstanding would be common among people who have developed unjustified perceptions of prosperity and opportunity.
The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are the result of about 50 years of collaborative global leadership pursuit of increased awareness and better understanding. The Climate Action Goals are based on Climate Science. Achieving those goals requires increased public awareness and understanding of climate science. That requires leaders/Winners among humanity to responsibly raise awareness and understanding.
The climate science awareness and understanding is a key aspect of the SDGs. Climate change impacts many of the other SDGs. Achieving the Climate Action Goals makes it easier to achieve those other goals.
Private Interests that are contrary to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals have deliberately fought any way they can get away with to delay the inevitable trend of increased awareness and understanding that would make the Private Interest pursuers of benefit from the Damaging Dead-end Fad of burning fossil fuels (and many other developed and developing unfair harmful ways of Winning Private Interests) into the Losers they deserve to be.
I hope that increases your awareness and helps you understand what is going on, and why efforts to increase awareness of climate science are closely linked to the politics of what is going on.
I am preferring to understand things as Helpful or Harmful related to achieving the SDGs. That allows all manner of categorization to be set aside. Right-Left, Capitalist-Socialist-Communist-Anarchist, Spiritual (as opposed to dogmatic religious)-Agnostic-Athiest, Dictatorship-Democracy-Autonomous Collectives where people take turns being on the leadership team ... all can be helpful or harmful.
What I have observed (as apolitically as I am able - and others can also see/confirm if they look for it), is that the people Uniting and 'claiming' to be Right or Conservative are typically fighting against some or all of the SDGs being achieved (and all of the SDGs must be achieved for humanity to really have a better future). So that is a clarification I will try to make in the future rather than simply calling Unite the Right wrong/harmful.
-
Daniel Bailey at 09:18 AM on 6 January 2018CO2 effect is saturated
BC embarrassed himself, and forever established himself as a denier, on this NOAA thread on Facebook.
Put your coffee down before reading.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:28 AM on 6 January 2018One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
Pluto@13:
Some responses to your claims:
1) "Al Gore (first as U.S. Senator and then Vice President) started his activism on global warming, stressing the importance of reducing our fossil fuel while mentioning nothing about actually solving the problems of obtaining clean sustainable energy."
Re-read Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". It is full of truths that are inconvenient including his promotion of the need to stop burning fossil fuels and change to renewable energy sources.
2) As for the lack of 'supportive leadership': That would be the Bush Administation and the Republican Controlled House and Congress since 2010. And I agree that specific group have been incredibly deliberately unhelpful.
Renewable energy 'has to be the only source of energy' in the future. The other types, like burning fossil fuels, are Dead-ends. Terminating the burning of fossil fuels and developing the replacement requires Leadership. That type of leadership is severely lacking in politics and the economy, and not because of Al Gore and AGW activists. There really is a problem. Get focused on the real problem (hint: They like to keep what they are really doing as secret or misunderstood as possible. And they abuse misleading marketing to do that, as well as to attack threats to their Private Interest. And they also abuse misleading marketing to tempt people to be greedier and less tolerant in order for them to unjustifiably Win more of their Private Interest - connect that to Unite the Right and you are on the Right Track).
3) "Also, Al Gore has not exactly been a leader by good example with his power usage being 20-30 times as high as the average American."
How does his CO2 generation compare? He has also paid to offset CO2 his actions created. But most important, how do all the others who are comparably wealthy to Al Gore compare to Al Gore?
-
Eclectic at 02:02 AM on 6 January 2018Past 150,000 Years of Sea Level History Suggests High Rates of Future Sea Level Rise
TLander @40 — agreed, few would care to deny that a considerable portion of the world's population lives near the coast, where (as you rightly say) there is the issue of land subsidence / sea level rise. As ever in this world, the poor suffer disproportionately more greatly than the rich, when assailed by adverse events [events rapid or slow].
Though you are somewhat obscure when you allude to a third risk affecting the coast-dwellers. Were you referring to the increasing heat waves (and especially the high-humidity heat waves) which would increasingly make parts of the tropics unlivable as AGW worsens? That risk is already beginning to nibble at us — but of course applies inland as well as at the coastal regions.
-
michael sweet at 01:45 AM on 6 January 2018One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
Pluto at 16
Many jobs are currently being created in renewable energy. Your assertion that jobs in renewable energy are empty promises is simply ignorant and wrong. Please support your wild, incorrect claim that there are not an immense number of jobs in renewable energy or withdraw your claim.
obs installing solar panels on top of houses cannot be outsourced to India.
-
TLander at 00:05 AM on 6 January 2018Past 150,000 Years of Sea Level History Suggests High Rates of Future Sea Level Rise
I beleive that is completely wrong.
It is pretty well known that a majority of the population in the world lives near the coasts and that a majority of the money is concentrated at the coasts. Just look up population/wealth maps of China, India, Europe and the United States. Even poor communities, specifically islands, have issues with subsidence due to pumping groundwater and salt water infiltraition causing dissolution like in Florida where they are dealing with sinkholes do to infiltration. It's not a poor/rich problem. It's a problem with where we build our cities and how we think we can control the Earth. We could keep mitigating and mitigating, but living near the coasts has more risk than just rising sea level or even subsidence.
-
Eclectic at 20:09 PM on 5 January 2018One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
Pluto @15 . . . yes, I am missing that point here. And I hope (while I retain my Christian ethics) that I will always continue to be missing that point. Always !
-
Eclectic at 20:06 PM on 5 January 2018One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
Pluto @16 , you might care to consider the USA southwest, where "renewable energy jobs" are increasing (if I can believe that Schwarzenegger politician). OTOH, in the northeast of the country, another (rather different) politician has promised a bigly increase of jobs in Coal & other industrials . . . but that promise has become no better than hot air. Just as you and I both expected.
-
Pluto at 19:33 PM on 5 January 2018One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
Eclectic@ 14
Likewise about clean sustainable energy — which would produce more jobs than coal or nuclear can.
Promises of jobs is one of the oldest tricks in the book. Invariably, such promises fall way short of expectations, and sometimes entire industries collapse. For example, the NAFTA and GATT treaties destroyed the entire textile industry in the US after we listened to the mumbo-jumbo about how some menial jobs might be lost to Mexico, but they would be replaced by higher paying high tech jobs in the States. WRONG! The entire industry "went south".What's much more likely to happen with clean sustainable energy is that the AGW politicians will give lots of speeches on it but no funds, and therefore no jobs.
-
Pluto at 19:13 PM on 5 January 2018One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
Eclectic@ 14
. . . you cannot seriously be proposing that the people advocating that the AGW problem be tackled . . .
You're missing the point here. Nobody is tackling anything. What the AGW politicians want is for you and me to cowar in the corner and be accepting of more taxes and regulations and a sizeable chunk of our wealth being redistributed to third world nations. After all, they are trying to save us from the AGW threat. Well I'm not doing it! And from now on, count on leaving me and US out of this climate charade.Moderator Response:[DB] Off-topic snipped.
-
Eclectic at 17:19 PM on 5 January 2018One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
Pluto @13 , you seem to have gotten things completely ass-backwards about Gore and the "AGW followers". Despite their manifest imperfections, you cannot seriously be proposing that the people advocating that the AGW problem be tackled . . . are somehow enormously worse than their opponents who are happily harming the planet & refusing to face the situation.
Likewise about clean sustainable energy — which would produce more jobs than coal or nuclear can.
Nuclear fission power is collapsing — it is extremely uneconomic. But you knew that, from another thread where you raised the same points.
Coal mining & burning is vastly more toxic than the photovoltaic-cell manufacture/usage cycle. And you know that, too.
Wind turbine blades killing/injuring birds — is an absolutely minuscule effect compared with other human-caused mortality of birds. (Not to mention the expected avian mortality from the advance of global warming.)
Pluto, your anger is blinding you intellectually.
-
Pluto at 16:39 PM on 5 January 2018One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
I realize that Comments Policy of this forum includes a "no politics" policy, but in view of the following statements, I presume this policy does not apply to this particular page.
The UN sustainable development goals make perfect sense.
I completely agree with your identification of the problem: "People able to get away with pursuits of Private Interests that are impediments to the pursuit of the Global Public Interest of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals."
My criticism is of politicians who are good at making announcements but not so good at following through. If those are the troublemakers, I am not sure what you do with them other than vote them out.
What I am questioning is the willingness of developed countries to transfer a significant portion its wealth to another country in the name of climate change.
Therefore, I will feel free to speak my mind, political or otherwise. I have a doctorate degree in physics and was one of thousands of scientists working in the defense industry who lost their careers in the early 1990s with the defense downsizing that occurred with the "end of the Cold War", sometimes called the "outbreak of peace". THIS is when the United States should have started acting on AGW problems if in fact they existed. The UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report came out in 1990 which warned of possible threats posed by the enhanced greenhouse effect from human emissions, especially carbon dioxide. Also, Al Gore (first as U.S. Senator and then Vice President) started his activism on global warming, stressing the importance of reducing our fossil fuel while mentioning nothing about actually solving the problems of obtaining clean sustainable energy. To address these problems, especially with the urgency he was claiming, it requires the participation of many different scientists with various backgrounds in order to cover as many bases as possible. Oftentimes, several different technological breakthroughs are needed for a new alternative energy system to work. This is where many former defense scientists could have been put back to work, but guess what? — NO JOBS! Instead, the "peace dividend" (savings from the defense cut-backs) went into helping the former Soviet scientists, bailing out failed financial institutions, and getting involved in every skirmish in the Middle East, all with the support of Al Gore and his climate change followers. One of the scientific careers that was destroyed in the process was mine. So, I hope you understand that Al Gore is one person I am not cheering on. For a person who seems to revere "what the science says", he sure has helped to destroy lots of scientific careers.
Because of the anti-science attitude held by Al Gore and his political AGW followers, we are not nearly ready to switch over to any sort of clean sustainable energy. They only talked to scientists who could come up with good scare stories about what would happen if we don't cut back on our carbon emissions while barely mentioning the possibility of finding solutions. That, of course, would mean that more scientists and engineers would have to be hired — a commitment they did not want to make.
While some advances have been made in the area of alternative energy resources such as solar and wind, the intermittent nature of their operation makes it impossible for them to provide reliable power on their own. They may be able to mitigate the fossil fuel burning to some degree by grid-tying them to a power system run on conventional coal and nuclear fuel. Then, on sunny and/or windy days, the solar arrays and wind turbines reduce the load on the main generators, reducing the amount of fuel needed the meet power demands. Both solar and wind power, however, also have some bad side-effects that I'm not sure have ever been adequately addressed. For example, the photovoltaic cells used in the solar panels don't grow on trees. They must be manufactured and that involves toxic chemicals and lots of energy. Also, the latest manufacturing methods use nitrogen tri-flouride (NF3), a non-condensible greenhouse gas about 17000 times as strong as carbon dioxide. In the case of wind power, I have heard claims that the wind turbines are difficult and expensive to maintain and that the spinning turbine blades can be a real menace to the aviary population (ie. birds and bats) which play and important role in controlling disease carrying and crop destroying insects. With any new alternative energy source, we must ask the question of which is worse, the problem or the solution.
In addition to finding new energy source technologies, there may be ways of greatly increasing the efficiency of electric motors and generators based on existing technology. Nickola Tesla, a Serbian immigrant, has numerous patents in this area. Perhaps it is time we start dusting them off and seeing if his ideas could be of benefit in solving our current problems. Just because these patents are old does not mean they are useless or obsolete. Of course, qualified scientists and engineers would have to be hired to do this.
In view of the fact that Al Gore and the AGW community in general has done little or nothing to find solutions to the AGW problems they are preaching, I can only surmise that they themselves are not concerned about any AGW threats. Also, Al Gore has not exactly been a leader by good example with his power usage being 20-30 times as high as the average American. If they the AGW icons are not worried about such threats, why should I be?
Moderator Response:[DB] A broad-based post such as this is not a license to trot out every diatribe and unsharpened axe and vent. Off-topic and sloganeering snipped.
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 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.
-
Eclectic at 09:02 AM on 5 January 2018Past 150,000 Years of Sea Level History Suggests High Rates of Future Sea Level Rise
TLander @38 , I suspect the reason that the subject of local land subsidence is not mentioned much, is that subsidence is not a factor affecting most of the world. Yes, parts of the USA and northern Europe — but these are wealthy regions and there is relatively little cost in "adjusting" to a slow and steady subsidence. OTOH the sea level rise is accelerating : towards a cumulative effect which will swamp [excuse pun] subsidence effects over the next century or so, and involving all the world's continents & islands.
-
Eclectic at 08:45 AM on 5 January 2018CO2 effect is saturated
Brian Catt @455 , from what I've seen of the Uni. Chicago lecture, it does not support the thrust of the statements you have made. Please explain better, what you are intending to say — since your comments are coming across as "confused about the science".
Then there are the simple errors in your statements, such as (A) the current "tiny variation" [unquote] in surface temperature. [Alas, not so. The temperature is shooting upwards like a rocket. There's been nothing like this in the 200,000+ years of human history. And scientifically, the cause is obvious and undisputed. ]
.... And (B) water vapour causing "300 time greater effect" [unquote] in warming compared with CO2. Is that what you think? Or did you mean to state 3 times greater? Because that is around the upper limit of the multiplying "feedback" response by H2O to the driving force of CO2.
-
TLander at 08:41 AM on 5 January 2018Past 150,000 Years of Sea Level History Suggests High Rates of Future Sea Level Rise
It actually doesn't say anything about using local subsidence in the calculations at all. Only general mention I find is in section 2.1.
"Sea-level measurements are affected by vertical land motion. Corrections for local land motion can come from long-term geological observations of the rate of relative local sea-level change (assuming the relative sea-level change on these longer times scales is from land motions rather than changing ocean volume), or from models of glacial isostatic adjustment, or more recently from direct measurements of land motion with respect to the centre of the Earth using Global Positioning System (GPS) observations. Here, the ongoing response of the Earth to changes in surface loading following the last glacial maximum were removed from the tide-gauge records using the same estimate of glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA; Davis and Mitrovica 1996; Milne et al.2001) as in our earlier study (Church et al.2004)." I'll have to dig in more to see if they used local measuresments of subsidence for corrections.
I'm sure that the satellite atlimetry is accurate, but that doesn't change the fact that if you have cosatal lands falling at 2in(~50mm) a year and sea level rising at 12mm/year than no matter what we do, the coasts will be under water in short time. Subsidence is a big reason that floods are becoming more expensive and frequent along the coasts.
Here is a link to an article Houston Chronical did on a USGS study of subsidence in the Houston area.
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/For-years-the-Houston-area-has-been-losing-ground-7951625.php
Some areas show subsidence rates as high as 4'/year.
I'm not arguing that sea level is rising. I am arguing that the influence of subsidence is a compounding issue tied to sea level rise that doesn't seem to be talked about much. Its seems to be more of the issue than sea level rise, especially for coastal cities. We could completely drop fossil fuels tomorrow and it wouldn't change the fact that the coastal cities will be in sinking faster and faster and will be in trouble no matter what.
-
oldmanthames at 08:14 AM on 5 January 2018On its hundredth birthday in 1959, Edward Teller warned the oil industry about global warming
Edward Teller was a nuclear scientist and a designer of the hydrogen bomb. Perhaps in his speech he was intending to plug nuclear energy as the alternative to fossil fuels. Unfortunately this has not proved very successful.
-
John McKeon at 07:03 AM on 5 January 2018Climate Chats - New Year, New Life, New Climate
Thank you for speaking up, ClimateAdam. I feel the same way towards my grandchildren and grand nieces and nephews. Of course they are proxies for our sense of our common humanity. I feel most motivated when I consider, like you, that we could lose it all.
Prev 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 Next
