Recent Comments

Prev  442  443  444  445  446  447  448  449  450  451  452  453  454  455  456  457  Next

Comments 22451 to 22500:

22451. scaddenp at 08:05 AM on 8 November 2016
       Watch: Before the Flood
       

       Intensive RG has been backbone farm practise here since 1950s (Gallagher electric fence invented here in late 1930s with massive improvement by the Phillips fence in early 1960s), but latterly, world milk prices have given rise to dairy conversion from both crop and lowland sheep, using large-scale irrigation systems on what was dryland agriculture with lots of nitrate as well as RG. We manage very high productivity per ha with low costs (eg see comparison of US with NZ done by Wisconsin here) with these systems. Since yield per ha seems to be driving force, it is going to be hard to get better soil management established, except that this dairying does increase SOC significantly on places that used to be dryland cropping, but not elsewhere. Intensification on traditional dairy areas by adding more fertilizer  is also bad for SOC.

22452. nigelj at 07:42 AM on 8 November 2016
       President Trump would Make America Deplorable Again
       

       Excellent article, and I couldn't agree more. Trump is in complete denial about climate change. Lets just hope sanity prevails tomorrow.

       How did we get to the current sad state of environmental, political and economic affairs in the western world? I think its historical process that has basically crashed (almost like a computer crash) as follows.

       During the post war period from 1945 - 1985 approximately western economies were protectionist and embraced welfare states, and this did work well in many regards. However the post war period became "top heavy" and hit a brick wall.

       As a result we had the neoliberal market orientated reforms of the 1980s, financial deregulation, and embrace of free trade and very high levels of immigration. Some of this was definitely wise, but it essentially swung too far in some regards, and became a sort of economic religion that has lost touch with reality and ordinary folk.

       Free trade has considerable merit, but has created some big losers in western economies, blue collar workers in particular.

       We have failed to look after the casualties of globalisation with sensible government policies, and so people like Trump have tapped into their frustrations. However Trumps policies will just make things even worse. Brexit is a similar phenomenon.

       The failure to mitigate the downsides of neoliberalism have allowed the crazy people to gain control, or get close to it.

       And crazy people, fascists, demagogues, conspiracy theorists, and haters of liberalism and government programmes will be likely to be climate change sceptics. It goes hand in hand.

22453. RedBaron at 07:32 AM on 8 November 2016
       Watch: Before the Flood
       

       @13 scaddenp

        Now that request is much much easier! Not only can you eliminate nitrogen fertilizers in a dairy system, your yields can even go up! Like before I will start with the easy to understand video to let you see the concept, then another like to a dairy manual and case study info at the USDA.

       Trantham's Sustainable 12 Aprils Dairy Grazing Program: A Top Farm that Almost Went Under

       12 Aprils Grazing Dairy Manual

       And there is a different  method used that also yields more per acre, but a bit less per cow by pure MIRG that doesn't need nitrogen fertilizers. Useful if you don't have a no-till planter useable for planting into sod.

       Pastures for Profit: A guide to rotational grazing.

       What a lot of those guys do is raise something else to make up for the increase in forage while the yields per cow slightly drop. Something like sheep or beef. Or in some cases instead they let some go back for a season for wildlife, similar to this:

       Grassland birds: Fostering habitat using rotational grazing

       One thing for certain though. I am quite confident the issue as to why the dairymen in your area are failing to continue to sequester carbon is the nitrogen they are using. There is absolutely no need for nitrogen ever in a dairy operation. It actually is counter productive as Tom found out only after he was forced to stop using it due to bankruptcy. Same thing Gabe found out too with his beef and corn operation. Same thing I am finding out with my vegetable research.

       There is also one more option available for you if you are willing to expand beyond just dairy. You could try pastured eggs. Now this guy raises beef, but some of his graduated intern students use the exact same system, but with dairy and laying hens combined:

       Meet the farmer: Polyface Farm

22454. scaddenp at 06:43 AM on 8 November 2016
       Watch: Before the Flood
       

       Thank you RedBaron. That goes a long way to explaining the dissonance between what is published and talked about here, and what you claim for US agriculture. Podzols are all we have.

       Like Digby, I have got a lot of reading to do just from the reference list of the Savory paper you linked to. Now, how about an approach to dairying that isnt treating the soil as a  hydroponic medium while pouring nitrates into river and groundwater...

22455. John Hartz at 06:17 AM on 8 November 2016
       Watch: Before the Flood
       

       Red Baron:

       Out of curiousity, are you familiar with the work of the International Center for Biosaline Agriculture (ICBA)?

22456. John Hartz at 04:54 AM on 8 November 2016
       President Trump would Make America Deplorable Again
       

       JonBo69: I personally believe that your questions/concerns about what Trump will do as President on the climate change front will be rendered moot after the votes are tallied tomorrow and Hillary Clinton is declared to be the "President-elect." 

22457. Jonbo69 at 04:11 AM on 8 November 2016
       President Trump would Make America Deplorable Again
       

       I have posted the following comment elsewhere but am reposting as this is a more relevent thread. Ireceived a partial reply, but seek further opinions:

       If Trump wins the presidencey we know he's going to srew up the climate, but additionally I am also wondering what will happen to the funding of climate science and also the independence of the main scientific institutions and organisations seeing as they are all supposed to be involved in some socialist conspiricy to get people to pay more tax? Are we likely to see climate scientists face prosecution? Any guesses?

       Also, as a Uk citizen, I've already started to think about what can be done if Trump wins and goes about implemnenting his denialist policies. I think there should be a call to boycott all American owned businesses - McDonalds, Starbucks etc and to have ongoing demonstrations outside of these places in every town and city.

22458. Digby Scorgie at 19:40 PM on 7 November 2016
       Watch: Before the Flood
       

       RedBaron @9

       Cor blimey, mate!  You've given me a lot of homework!  I'm going to be off the air for quite a few days while I digest this!

22459. RedBaron at 15:23 PM on 7 November 2016
       Watch: Before the Flood
       

       @8 scaddenp,

       I think that would be an almost impossible task, since podzols are primarily forest soils. So right off the bat, just being in grass shows it most likely was degraded already when the forest was removed. BCCS would basically use that as pasture only until the topsoil recovered, then reforest it if possible.

       Now for years it was thought impossible to ever convert a podzol into a mollic soil. I did hear a soil scientist in a lecture claim almost as an aside that this is no longer the case. But he didn't provide a case study or published paper, so I have no way to pass that along to you.

22460. RedBaron at 14:47 PM on 7 November 2016
       Watch: Before the Flood
       

       @Digby Scorgie,

       Agreed with pretty much everything you said! We do have to have a clear vision, and it must use technology available right now! You are absolutely correct. Since you are unfamiliar, let me give you double sets of examples, first to show you what it can look like, and gradually ease into a more scientific analysis.

       Lets start with Beef (although it applies equally for all large grazing herbivores)

       How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change | Allan Savory

       Restoring The Climate Through Capture and Storage of Soil Carbon ... White Paper

       Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie

       Next lets add wheat and most small grains. Here is what it looks like and analysis of case studies.

       Why pasture cropping is such a Big Deal

       Liquid carbon pathway unrecognised

       Carbon That Counts

       Next rice

       India's Rice revolution

       The System of Rice Intensification (SRI)… … is climate-smart rice production

       JOURNAL ARTICLES ABOUT THE SYSTEM OF RICE INTENSIFICATION (SRI)

       And even though probably the most significant gain is in NOT growing so much corn, (at least 50-70% less) there still is a need for SOME  corn. So to do that requires a kind of integrated hybrid system between the modern industrial and regenerative models.

       Gabe Brown: Keys To Building a Healthy Soil

       Innovative No-Till: Using Multi-Species Cover Crops to Improve Soil Health

       I actually could go on and on for every little crop, but hopefully you have a clear picture of the principles in your mind now, and can see the pathway forward. There are actually a few minor gaps still, but nothing substantial enough to limit the potential of this mitigation strategy. Like the movie correctly stated, things like vegetables are about 1% or so. The big ones covering the majority of land are covered with the posts above.

22461. scaddenp at 14:07 PM on 7 November 2016
       Watch: Before the Flood
       

       Can you point me to a paper showing net SOC from MIRG operating on a podzol that wasnt degraded by cropping before the trial started? Podzols are what we have and no one here can point to any SOC increase from any dairy operation except short term gains on degraded soils.

22462. RedBaron at 13:10 PM on 7 November 2016
       Watch: Before the Flood
       

       @Scaddenp,

       Not only am I familiar with both those studies, I happen to agree with them. In fact I was stating that very thing long before the studies came out! As I have stated elsewhere here at this forum, that's why we have two sets of numbers, with very different calculated ranges of mitigation potential. Those two sets of numbers corresponding to the potential for industrial ag to mitigate AGW, and the potential for regenerative ag to mitigate AGW. There are fundamental differences that are profound with regards to ecosystem function.

       Industrial ag is based on a net sum zero production model. Regenerative ag is not bound by this, as it is a complex biological model. Just to give an example pertinent to the movie. Methane. In the industrialised production model we have now we can improve methane emissions by careful manure handling and collecting methane as a biogas fuel. But at the absolute MAX the best we could even even theorectically do is collect 100% of the methane cows emit. Grass fed beef in a properly managed MIRG system has the potential to offset 100% of all cow emissions plus a substantial % of emissions from other sources due to increased biological oxidation of methanotrophs in the soil that grow and maintain themselves at concentrations lower than atmospheric. That's just one example to iilustrate the point.

        

       The subsurface location of methanotrophs means that energy
       requirements for maintenance and growth are obtained from
       CH4 concentrations that are lower than atmospheric Soil Microorganisms as Controllers of Atmospheric Trace Gases (H2, CO, CH4, OCS, N2O, and NO) RALF CONRAD* Max-Planck-Institut fu¨r terrestrische Mikrobiologie, D-35043 Marburg, Germany

       In realistic terms that means the best we could ever hope for without fundamental changes in the production models would top out around 18-20%. Although some unrealistically optomistic studies top it out at nearly 60%. I have doubts it could ever reach that high. Maybe.

       But change the production models and we get very different numbers starting at 62% min and going all the way up to 250%+. BCCS is just a completely different approach that doesn't function in the same way as the systems those links you posted function.

22463. scaddenp at 11:17 AM on 7 November 2016
       Watch: Before the Flood
       

       I dont want to knock good farming practises and advantages to climate from that but I am still skeptical about claims being made. Are you aware of these Powlson paper RedBaron?

       "Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change: A critical re-examination to identify the true and the false"

       and

       "Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate
       change mitigation"

       Both suggest the advantages are being oversold. Perhaps we need some food labelling to indicate whether the farm source is managing to increase SOC?

22464. Digby Scorgie at 10:59 AM on 7 November 2016
       Watch: Before the Flood
       

       RedBaron @4

       That's an interesting way of putting it.  However, for someone like me who is ignorant of agricultural practices, it might be more enlightening to read a description of future practices as changed to be indefinitely sustainable and how these differ from current practices.

       This reminds me of systems engineering.  I worked with systems engineers for part of my career and I learnt a little about the discipline in the process.  Regarding the above, two systems-engineering lessons seem to apply:

       The first lesson is that one has to have a clear vision of what it is one is attempting to build, or in this case, establish — hence my first point above.  As my erstwhile colleagues put it, "If you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there."  So describe how the farmers of the future in the various branches of agriculture go about their business.  How does this differ from today?  One can't get from A to B if you don't know what B is.

       The second lesson concerns technology.  Whatever one sets out to build, one should only rely on currently available technology.  To get from the A of current practice to the B of future practice, one cannot assume use of a technology that has not been shown to work.  But I should imagine one would have to exclude any technology that relies on the burning of fossil fuel.

       Perhaps what I ask has already been done.  If so, I've not seen it in any of the generally available news sources.  If not, well, that would be an interesting project for someone with the relevant expertise, would it not?!

22465. RedBaron at 06:04 AM on 7 November 2016
       Watch: Before the Flood
       

       I actually like the movie. However, as expected the "backlash" from getting agricultural science wrong is in fact happening as I predicted. It is much like the backlash on energy fueling denialism. (pardon the pun) So to try and counter in some small way this nuance, I compiled a mock interview will many of the agricultural "giants" that are influencing using regenerative agriculture as a biological carbon capture and sequestration (BCCS) mitigation strategy. Most these viewers are not farmers or scientists, and quoting scientific studies or facts seems to fall on deaf ears. But hopefully this may have an effect. It seems to have in at least some cases.

       “As the small trickle of results grows into an avalanche — as is now happening overseas — it will soon be realized that the animal is our farming partner and no practice and no knowledge which ignores this fact will contribute anything to human welfare or indeed will have any chance either of usefulness or of survival.” Sir Albert Howard - father of organic agriculture

       So yeah we need those animals on the farm.

       But why are they a problem?

       “The number one public enemy is the cow. But the number one tool that can save mankind is the cow. We need every cow we can get back out on the range. It is almost criminal to have them in feedlots which are inhumane, antisocial, and environmentally and economically unsound.” Allan Savory

       So that is the problem? The feedlots and the vast acres of monoculture corn and soy supplying them. Why are those bad?

       "We try to grow things that want to die, and kill things that want to live. That is pretty much how (industrial) agriculture functions." Colin Seis

       Oh I get it, pesticides!

       But I heard pesticides are safe, why would killing a few weeds and grasses and insects fungi etc. be a problem? Who cares about a few bugs, and worms?

       “It may be doubted whether there are many other animals which have played so important a part in the history of the world, as have these lowly organized creatures.”
       - Charles Darwin 1881

       What about weeds?

       A flower is an educated weed. -Luther Burbank

       OK I get it. We define whether something is a pest or not. In a different context a pest could be beneficial, as flowers are food for bees and pretty too. But wouldn't it be expensive? I like organic foods but the price at the market seems a bit higher.

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

       So would changing the way we do agriculture help?

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

       Solution? That's pretty strong words. Even as big a problem as climate change? How can that be?

       "The answer lies in the soil." - Fred Streeter

       The soil? Really?

       To forget how to dig the earth and to tend the soil is to forget ourselves. ~Mahatma Gandhi

       Wait! That's philosophy! I mean in practical terms!

       "The nation that destroys its soil destroys itself." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

       What's so special about the soil besides the worms Darwin talked about?

       “When you increase organic matter, good things happen.” -Jay Fuhrer

       What good things?

       "When farmers view soil health not as an abstract virtue, but as a real asset, it revolutionizes the way they farm and radically reduces their dependence on inputs to produce food and fiber." -USDA

       OK, I think I am starting to see how these are connected. Less pesticide inputs and  the important creatures survive and can do their job! What would that radical change look like? How is agriculture done differently? Is it just the cow?  Or can this work for other animal species?

       "The pigs do that work (by rooting in the forest and that creates the temporary disturbance on the ground that allows germination for higher successional species.) And so it allows for those pigs to be not just pork chops, bacon, and that. But now they then become co-conspirators and fellow laborers in this great land healing ministry ... by fully respecting the pigness of the pig." Joel Salatin

       That's interesting, the pigness of the pig! So how would we figure out the pigness, cowness, chickeness, or even the tomatoness and wheatness or any other of our agricultural foods?

       "Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labor; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison

       I think I get it now! It took the greatest minds in the history of sustainable agriculture. But now I understand what to look for when grocery shopping! Thanks so much everyone!

       There is more carbon missing from the soil than extra in the atmosphere.

       So forget about the guilt trip. If the meat and vegetables you eat are raised properly on land that is increasing in organic carbon, you'll actually be helping mitigate climate change with every bite!

22466. jg at 05:18 AM on 7 November 2016
       US Passenger Vehicle Emissions Comparable to 1980 Mt. St Helens  Eruption Occurring Every 3 Days
       

       Hi William, I like your suggestions and will look into drawing the 2nd. Your first suggestion my be covered already by one of our illustrations here:

       Human vs natural CO2 emissions

       The first diagram in this post is based on the graphic I've linked to. 

22467. John Hartz at 03:35 AM on 7 November 2016
       2016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
       

       Jonbo69:

       Check out:

       Trump just proposed ending all federal clean energy development

       He’d end all research on solar, wind, efficiency, batteries, clean cars, and climate science, too.

       by Joe Romm, Think Progress, Nov 4, 2016

22468. francis @ uea at 02:32 AM on 7 November 2016
       New research from last week 11/2012
       

       The original article (not just the summary in Wollny) is at http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/100637#page/367/mode/1up  It's 17 pages long, by Andrée as mentioned earlier by Doc Snow at 03:48 AM on 23 March 2012, and in German.

22469. Jonbo69 at 02:30 AM on 7 November 2016
       2016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
       

       If Trump wins the presidencey we know he's going to srew up the climate, but additionally I am also wondering what will happen to the funding of climate science and also the independence of the main scientific institutions and organisations seeing as they are all supposed to be involved in some socialist conspiricy to get people to pay more tax? Are we likely to see climate scientists face prosecution? Any guesses?

22470. bozzza at 19:26 PM on 6 November 2016
       Tracking the 2°C Limit - September 2016
       

       In Leonardo DiCaprios movie he talked about a certain thickness of ice that had melted off Greenland.

       That sounded like the scariest part of the movie to me: but was it true?

22471. bozzza at 19:24 PM on 6 November 2016
       Tracking the 2°C Limit - September 2016
       

       PluviAL, in short I agree enitrely: science is heavily political but it always was.

       The people lead: Governments follow! This is what we all don't realise yet the media moguls know that our lack of information as a general public is the key to the status quo continuing to buy our representative governments.

22472. bozzza at 18:19 PM on 6 November 2016
       US Passenger Vehicle Emissions Comparable to 1980 Mt. St Helens  Eruption Occurring Every 3 Days
       

       All you need is a graph on global sea ice... highlighting 2016 against the sattelite record.

22473. Tristan at 17:48 PM on 6 November 2016
       2016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
       

       You missed the most important news, from Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul.

       "I am very proud to have invited Canadian Dr. Tim Ball, Tony Heller (AKA Steve Goddard http://ow.ly/j3rq305NUEP) and Jennifer Marohasy to appear at a climate seminar at Parliament House next Tuesday evening."

       Where apparently he'll be "will be announcing his report on the Climate Science evidence of CSIRO".

       That'll teach those pesky actual scientists!

22474. nigelj at 06:25 AM on 6 November 2016
       US Passenger Vehicle Emissions Comparable to 1980 Mt. St Helens  Eruption Occurring Every 3 Days
       

       William @3, I totally agree. However you can imagine what the deniers will say. "Volcanic emissions of CO2 in recent decades are underestimated, the figures are junk science concocted by people promoting big government (or some other ulterior motive, or grand and completely silly conspiracy theory).

22475. PluviAL at 04:34 AM on 6 November 2016
       Tracking the 2°C Limit - September 2016
       

       I see it more dire: Science is documenting frightening trends, scientific professionalism depending on sustention of credibility, must systematically emphasis prudent conservative interpretations, especially in light of ruthless backlash, and backstabbing, by economic interests leveraged in politics; the result is constant error on the conservative side. What this means is that we will always find surprises on the negative side, because science would not err on the pessimistic side on this issue; we see it in IPCC reports every time.

       My pessimistic interpretation, is that we will find strange extremes, like that tectonic motivation is affected, maybe primarily motivated by ice, and water loads choreographed by lunar gravitation. I know I am being the lone-deranger on this lightly held hypothetical-theory, but it’s an illustration of the strange surprises to expect.

22476. william5331 at 03:59 AM on 6 November 2016
       US Passenger Vehicle Emissions Comparable to 1980 Mt. St Helens  Eruption Occurring Every 3 Days
       

       The graphic was great.  None of the deniers will read the text and few would understand if they did.  How about two more graphics.  a) The total yearly emissions from all geological sources vs the total yearly emissions of us and b) Our yearly rate of emissions vs the rate of emissions during the laying down of the Siberian traps.  Then we can send this to our denier friends in a form they can comprehend.

22477. PluviAL at 03:14 AM on 6 November 2016
       Watch: Before the Flood
       

       Mired in desperation, while buoyed by tears of joy in the hope in the heroic efforts and achievements, this video is a delicious way to welcome one more day in which contribute my little bit to help, especially as my 3 year-old worked herself into my lap to watch the saving of, or destruction of her world. Thanks for finding this, and for all the effort SkSc contributors make toward this critical comunal effort; this is what all the statistics and arguments offered in SkSc really mean.

22478. Tom Curtis at 01:43 AM on 6 November 2016
       US Passenger Vehicle Emissions Comparable to 1980 Mt. St Helens  Eruption Occurring Every 3 Days
       

       Joel_Huberman @1, your source suggests the Siberian Traps released 30,000 GtC of CO2 over the period of its erruption, ie, over a period of over a million years, representing an annual emission rate of around 0.03 GtC per annum.  In contrast, since 1850 humans have emitted 560 GtC at a mean annual rate of 3.4 GtC.  Since 1965 (ie, over the last 50 years for which we have published data), we have emitted 370 GtC at 7.4 GtC per annum.  Since 2010 the average annual emission rate has exceeded 10 GtC per annum.  In short, we are emitting CO2 at rates that far exceed those during the deposition of large igneous provinces.

22479. Joel_Huberman at 00:51 AM on 6 November 2016
       US Passenger Vehicle Emissions Comparable to 1980 Mt. St Helens  Eruption Occurring Every 3 Days
       

       Interestingly, the Large Igneous Provinces (LIPs; massive, long-time volcanic activity) that have been associated with major extinction events in our planet's geologic/biologic history have released multiple thousands of gigatons of CO2 over their lifetimes. If we humans are releasing 46 gigatons per year, I suspect that we're emitting CO2 at a rate comparable to that of LIPs--natural events that wiped out large portions of extant species.

22480. roc2ud at 00:30 AM on 5 November 2016
       Watch: Before the Flood
       

       Just finished this up last night.  The weather station in Greenland is possibly the most disturbing.

       It reminded me of when my parents and I vacationed in the Northwest and we visited Glacier National Park.  At the time (I don't know if they still do this 20 years later) they had a series of signs that posted were the glacier extent ended.  So of course, the signs just kept going back farther and farther.  I don't think I appreciated at the time that the glacier was disappearing; I probably thought it would come back eventually (within my lifetime), but that clearly was my young ignorance. 

22481. Digby Scorgie at 16:11 PM on 4 November 2016
       Watch: Before the Flood
       

       My wife and I watched the film together.  Afterwards we were musing on the corporations, politicians and media that are complicit in the campaign to sabotage climate action.  Her comment was that these guys don't have their heads in the sand, they have their heads in the tar sands!  Hmm, I wonder if there's a cartoon in that!

22482. sauerj at 14:25 PM on 4 November 2016
       Barack Obama is the first climate president
       

       Tom @3: Thanks for your feedback. 1) On mandatory %renewable requirements on energy consumed, I still worry that the ratio of btu per capita will simply go up in step w/ reductions in %FF/total consumed energy. We will consume energy with whatever money we have available; as prices drop, we will use more. Net effect: no reduction in carbon emissions, until higher prices drive industry & markets to lower cost solutions. 2) Cap & Trade is a viable solution (Shi-Ling Hsu rates it as #2 best option in Case for Carbon Tax), but he & Hansen's complaints seem logical, a) not as effective as free market cost, leakage likely, b) arbitrary carbon ceiling limits likely lower industry's cessation potential, c) middle-man economic burdens. 3) Agree that 100% fee & dividend may be hard to pass, and sadly the end result may instead be some sort of payroll tax offset (like mentioned on Dicaprio's recent BTF video). Yes, this would not have the broad reaching efficacy as the full CCL CFD proposal. But, what is missing is not getting congress to act, what is missing is political will from the public (but I would be naive to think that is an easy nut to break, but the growing Climate Solutions Causcas, with 20 & growing congress members, gives one hope).

       Lastly, it is likely that I believe in CFD so much because Hansen gave such a convincing argument for it (& its simple logic) in his Storms book, which was my first indepth introduction to AGW science.

       John @4&5: Thanks for your feedback. 1) Pre Mar-2016 (when I joined CCL), 18 hits came up for 'Citizens Climate Lobby', but only 6 of these 18 articles had any real mention of CCL (others were only CCL authors or the word 'Citizens' separately or no mention of CCL at all, not sure why they were hits). What I was thinking about was an article with CFD and CCL blaringly in the title. 2) But, alas, I admit, I was wrong! One of these 18 articles (HERE, dated 6-18-2013, by Dana) was all about CFD and CCL. A very good promotional article, with CFD and CCL blaringly in the title! Thanks SkS for promoting CCL at that time; I am sorely sorry that I missed the opportunity it gave me then. Although, at that time, there was no CCL chapter in my town. Now, there are chapters in almost every district. Maybe it would be good to occasionaly re-run this article as it is very good, and may help other people like me to connect the dots & get involved. 2) Dana's concluding paragraph was so apropos to my situation. Here is how I think many the average reader (like me) feels: Struggles for some way to help, some way to get involved. Extremely depressed because he/she has come to realize that everything he/she has ever done their whole life (30+ years, in my case, of engineering over $100 million of manufacturing expansions) was all based on wrong economics and therefore was all wrong! And, more so, realizes that he/she can't do any real good now because they are enslaved by the status quo, as their family's subsistence depends on abiding with the status quo. There really isn't much a person like this can do but lie to their colleagues thru-out the work day and feel, deep down, that all they are really doing is screwing the people of the future. 3) I am sure that the SkS vision includes empowering individuals like this to get involved in as effective ways as possible; after all, it all boils down to getting carbon emissions down, using any good means possible. Now, based on my readings, I had assumed that all would have agreed that CFD is king, and that everything else is less effective, hence my frustation why CFD and CCL isn't promoted more. (My error, as I see now that there was in fact one such good article). Maybe I'm not so right on CFD being king, but one thing is true, the CCL organization is extremely talented, organized and wise. And, it gives a person, like me, something (powerful I think) to finally work for, and that makes all the difference. Now my life is not a complete contradiction of my morals. For this reason of citizen empowerment, I would hope that SkS would repeatedly rally to promote CCL, and its effective vision of CFD, its depth of talent & passion, its deep organization and the grace of its spirit. There may be many a person, like me, still out there that may need a smack over the head, i.e. an article that connects the dots and says in blaring letters: 'Go Here to Help!'

22483. nigelj at 13:27 PM on 4 November 2016
       Barack Obama is the first climate president
       

       Tom Curtis @3, I can't fault your logic and cap and trade makes a lot of sense in theory, however I have one reservation related to the politics. Firstly my understanding is cap and trade involves globally trading emissions permits and forestry credits, etc. You do realise that the integrity of those permits etc would be very suspect given the nature of many of the countries in this world and their institutions?

       If it all goes wrong by the time we work out what's really happened, global warming will be well beyond 2 degrees. Global cap and trade seems a bit idealistic. Other systems to reduce emissions just seem more transparent to me.

       By the way I was a fan of cap and trade when it was first proposed in my country, as it seems to push some responsibility back onto markets. It's just doubts have crept in and markets sometimes work in sub optimal ways.

22484. amhartley at 11:30 AM on 4 November 2016
       Debunking climate myths with Leonardo DiCaprio's Before The Flood
       

       https://www.beforetheflood.com/ says the film will be available for free on Natl Geog channels until 7 Nov.

22485. John Hartz at 08:26 AM on 4 November 2016
       Barack Obama is the first climate president
       

       Recommended supplemental reading:

       5-4-3-2-1: Counting Down Obama’s Legacy on Climate Resilience by Christina DeConcini & C Forbes Tompkins, World Resouces Instittue (WRI), Nov 2, 2016

22486. John Hartz at 08:20 AM on 4 November 2016
       Barack Obama is the first climate president
       

       sauerj: You are critical of SkS for not promoting the Carbon Fee & Dividend (CFD) advocated by the Citizens' Climate Lobby. Doing so would not be consistent with the stated purpose of SkS as set forth in the "About" section of this website. You can access the SkS purpose statement by  clicking on the "About Us" button located on the bottom of this webpage.   

22487. John Hartz at 08:10 AM on 4 November 2016
       Barack Obama is the first climate president
       

       sauerj:

       Your criticism of SkS's lack of attention to the Citizens' Climate Lobby does not hold up well to scrutiny. Please enter the words, Citizens Climate Lobby into the SkS Search box and click Go. Also enter the words, Citizens' Climate Lobby into the box and click Go.

       BTW, the official name of the organization is Citizens' Climate Lobby, not Citizen's Climate Lobby.

22488. Tom Curtis at 07:47 AM on 4 November 2016
       Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 3
       

       chriskoz @2, while I think spelling names correctly is desirable as a matter of ettiquette, the variant spellings of Katharine only because of variant faulty reproductions of the original greek name,  Aikaterine; followed by various phonetic spellings of the word.  In short, Katharine is only Katharine because some among our ancestors misspelt Katerine.  So while it is a point of etiquete to spell names as the person who they name desires, it is a small point of ettiquete - and hardly worth down voting a post over. 

22489. Tom Curtis at 07:38 AM on 4 November 2016
       Barack Obama is the first climate president
       

       sauerj @2:

       1)  Your analysis of supply and demand is incomplete.  Specifically, if the demand for fossil fuels were reduced by (for example) a mandatory requirement that 10% of standing energy requirements, increasing by 5% per annum, be supplied by carbon free sources (renewables plus nuclear), the initial result would be a drop in demand for fossil fuels, resulting in a price drop.  That price drop, while working to sustain demand, would also render more expensive sources of fossil fuels uneconomic.  Those sources of fossil fuels would close as a result, reducing the supply and therefore tending to increase the price.  Even low price sources would rallel increase in price with a sufficiently large drop in supply.  That is because reduced production would increase the relative proportion of fixed costs relative to total costs of production.  Consequently, parallel regulations for road and rail transport would quickly render nearly all current sources of fossil fuels uneconomic except at a high price to a small residual market.  Therefore it is not true that fee and divident schemes are the only effective measure to tackle global warming.

       2)  In particular, cap and trade schemes are economically almost identical to fee and dividend schemes, provided the return on the auction of permits be distributed in a like manner.  Cap and trade schemes, however, have the advantage of easy coordination across seperate national markets.  This can be achieved by setting equal per capita targets for all nations, and allowing trade of excess emissions permits from poorer to richer nations.

       3)  The CCL scheme, like most fee and dividend schemes, proposes an equal per capita fee.  While this is easilly justified on the good, libertarian grounds that the global atmosphere is a commons, and that therefore each individual has an equal right of access to the commons.  It follows that each individual has an equal right for compensation for any fee charged for exploitation of the commons.  I am cynical, however, about the political rights rhetoric about individual rights, regarding it as a mere subterfuge to disguise a pattern of legislating in favour of the interests of the wealthy.  Therefore I do not expect any scheme such as the CCL's with equal per capita dividends to ever recieve bipartisan support in either the US or Australia.  Schemes which return a small equal per capita dividend plus a bonus pro rata on tax returns is more likely to do so.  One that makes the bonus pro rata on pre tax income is even more likely to do so.  While I have objections to both those variants, the important thing is to get action on climate now - and focusing on the equal per capita dividend is unlikely to do so.

22490. Dcrickett at 03:26 AM on 4 November 2016
       2016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #44
       

       Perhaps the most apt climate change cartoon I have ever seen.

22491. Dcrickett at 03:22 AM on 4 November 2016
       Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 3
       

       #2 Your complaint would have more traction if you had not MISPELLED mispelled a common word.

       I am often guilty. A neurological problem of mine called Benign Essential Tremor often helps me generate mispellings, a.k.a. typos. Composing in a word processor document and then pasting helps greatly.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH]  Please note that the use of all caps is akin to shouting and is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.

22492. sauerj at 01:10 AM on 4 November 2016
       Barack Obama is the first climate president
       

       c

       A little rain on the parade: I have trouble understanding how any carbon cessation strategy, other than a carbon tax (preferrably a revenue-neutral carbon fee & dividend, CFD as proposed by Citizen's Climate Lobby, CCL) is ever going to cut carbon emissions down to sustainable levels. So, I am perplexed why we are not unifying behind the simple logic of CFD, and make this the #1 focus. It may be hard to enact, but anything else, I feel, will ultimately be a waste of time. I believe the following data backs this up.

       This LINK link (last chart) indicates that US energy efficiency (by unit GDP) has gone up 58% since 1990. Therefore, you'd expect carbon emissions would have gone down by 58% during that same time. Not so; this next LINK link (1st timeline chart) indicates that US carbon emissions have stayed flat-lined since 1990; this means that US consumes 58% more stuff than they did in 1990. Why did these conservation measure do nothing to reduce carbon emissions? My simple brain says, because of the flywheel inertia effect of supply vs demand economics keeping the fossil fuel demand up. Maybe I'm over simplifying, but I think I'm more right than wrong.

       The following is what keeps ringing in my head: Anything but putting a price on carbon (which is a morally legitimate inclusion of their future external costs), no matter how "environmental" right these other efforts might seem, is a near-complete waste of time (other than for the message, and your own personal future adaptation to a carbon-free economy). You might have reduced your personal footprint, but all you really did was keep the cost of FF's down, and because of that somebody else or, more likely, some large-scale industry (which must operate on a least-cost, capitalistic basis to survive) will be more than glad to use the FF's that you so heroically tried to keep in the ground. In other words, you didn't accomplish a thing (other than broadcast a message and adapt only yourself to what will eventually be required). But, in terms of achieving real net change, you did nothing.

       Now a counter argument would say that since renewable energy cost is falling below FF energy, then this will drive conversion. Yes, but not really! 1) What is missing in this argument, is that, because of the lowered FF cost, the demand per capita will simply go up. We will just "add on" the renewable energy onto the FF energy we were using before. I think the above data proves this. And, further more, 2) Electricity, even renewable electricity, will still cost ~4x more than gas, and ~2x more than oil (energies used for their high-temperature, thermal combustion potential, for example, drying). To replace this with electricity (using other high-temperature energies, i.e. hydrogen electrolysis or bio-diesel for example) will therefore cost ~3-5x today's FF costs. This is a near-impermissible hump of economic survival proportions for many status-quo, business as usual industries (all driven by US & OUR us & our market demands). Simply getting renewable electricity slightly more competitive over FF electricity (as FF prices will simply drop along side with renewable prices) will not be near enough to promote re-tooling industries that require these high-concentrated energy demands. Ultimately, CFD is required to overcome the flywheel effect of supply vs demand economics. I believe nothing short of this will be effective. ... And, the industries that do not survive the new economics will simply wither away, as they should for the sake of future generations. 

       Is not this cessation logic predominantly true? Or, is it too polarizing to be the primary battle cry? Why are not other groups (350, Climate Parents, Interfaith, Catholic Covenant, etc) not promoting this logical strategy? ... Likely Answer: Maybe these activist group leaders understand all of this, and they know they are seen as political adversaries by those we need to get on board (in congress). So, they purposely do not toot the CFD horn, as they know that will give a foothole for pundits to poison the political will that CCL is fragilely trying to build. Yes, that makes good sense. ... Wisdom! ... However, I do think SkS itself could toot the CFD horn a bit louder. Case in point, I knew about the power of CFD back in 2009 when reading Hansen's Storms (he probably mentions CCL in that book, but it didn't sink-in then) but I didn't know that the CCL organization even existed until 6 years after of reading SkS posts. And, I only heard about them when local chapter did a call-out in a local newspaper. That lack of attention by SkS is not good, sorry!

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Post slightly edited per request of commenter.

       Please note that the use of all caps is akin to shouting and is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.

22493. Kirdee at 13:25 PM on 3 November 2016
       Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project
       

       Hi. I've been visiting SkS for some time now and generally find the explanations of the science of CC a useful balance of technical detail with layperson language. The filtering by knowledge level is a novel and useful tool (I usually read all levels!).

       I've been exploring the topic of consensus and the flip-side, denial. So I've just read both Cook et al 2016 and the "petition paper" by Robinson et al (both of which are linked to in your article but at which I arrived quite indepently).

       It is clear from reading Cook et al and your article above the value of understanding who is providing the opinions. Cook et al finds that the higher the level of expertise in climate science, the greater the level of consensus. Analogies of getting a heart condition checked out by a motor mechanic are relevant when comparing the findings of Cook et al (ie 97% of expert climate scientists agree that climate change is caused by human activity) versus the OISM petition, signed predominantly by non-climate, possibly non-practising, unpublished, general scientists.

       So it is useful that you and other websites, notably the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html) have tackled the credentials of both the signatories and the creators of the petition and Robinson et al paper. Thank you.

       However, I think it would also be useful to tackle the paper itself. Climate change is bewildering to non-scientists, and when one comes across a paper as apparently credible-seeming as the Robinson et al paper, it is difficult for a non-scientist to sort the credible science from the rubbish. Robinson et al's theory about solar irradiance looks pretty good on the graphs, and the longer-term fluctuation in earth's temperature also makes our current increases look pretty modest.

       So I've done just enough preliminary digging into those aspects to convince myself that the Robinson et al paper is at best incomplete in its presentation of evidence (for instance, this webpage about solar irradiance http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html), and in reality, deliberately misleading.

       Yes, go ahead and expose the poor credentials or vested interests of those with opinions that contrast the majority view or have a disporportionate influence, but we need to not simply write-off everything that those people say as rubbish simply because of those credentials or interests. The discrediting of those views should also be focused on the validity or otherwise of their scientific claims, backed up with credible science and analysis. I think it is far more powerful to expose the errors or holes in their arguments than to simply call them fraudulent.

       You have all the relevant science within this site. I suggest that it would be a useful counter to the OISM petition and paper for you to list the scientific claims made in the paper and provide links to the relevant science or other references as you did with the list of studies on consensus. Then your debunking of the petition and paper would not need to rest on the absurdity of the perceived size of 31000 signatories as a representative sample. 

       Regards, Kirdee.

22494. bozzza at 11:25 AM on 3 November 2016
       Debunking climate myths with Leonardo DiCaprio's Before The Flood
       

       As it is system that corrupts man of course regulated markets are responsible: what is representative democracy if not just another system waiting to game those who participate in it?

22495. chriskoz at 07:48 AM on 3 November 2016
       Barack Obama is the first climate president
       

       ...we transitioned from the worst climate president ever (Bush) to the best (Obama).

       It goes without saying that with the next president, we must not go in a big time yo-yo to the dark ages & the worst imaginable fool (whose name is forbidden in my household, so I won't even mention it here) worse than Bush, who would destroy in no time, everything Obama has done.

       As the election day nears and the absurdity of the fool having a real shot at the White House looms, I start to worry. Not really about the unusually low morale nor about total ignorance of reality by the fool:  Congress, even Republican, would not easilly allow the foolishness to take over US politics. But at stake are the very things we're talking about here: there would be no opposition within the Republican Congress to destry all climate legacy Obama left, e.g. starting from KXL veto overturned.

       But let's hope all my talk is just unnecessary scare and the next president Hillary Clinton will strive to at least match if not surpass Obama/s legacy.

22496. chriskoz at 06:47 AM on 3 November 2016
       Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 3
       

       I raised the issue of Katharine's name few times here.

       Now I started down-voting all posts where Katharine's name is mispeled. It'd be nice to have some bot to automatically send an email to the offending commenter reminding their mistake.

       William@1 you have Katharine Hayhoe's name boldfaced at the title, how could you've missed it?

22497. william5331 at 05:21 AM on 3 November 2016
       Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 3
       

       Kathaerine

       Talk to us about how power companies are integrating privately owned renewable energy generating systems into their grids in such a way that it is worthwhile both for the power company and for the small investor in renewable energy.  This is the barrier to greater uptake.  The cost of equipment has reached the level of economic feasiblility.  The power companies all over the world are dragging their feet.  What models are there out there that we can point to.  Power companies are like sheep.  They need a leader.

       Moderator Response:

       [GT] Spelling corrected.

22498. Rob Honeycutt at 00:44 AM on 3 November 2016
       Debunking climate myths with Leonardo DiCaprio's Before The Flood
       

       I think the difference is related to producer vs consumer, though.

       Few consumers are going to make the effort to specifically demand sustainable foods in the volumes that would make a difference. People have to eat and they essentially eat what is available to purchase.

       Careful and creative regulation could do a lot to shift the practices of producers in a manner that could have a significant effect much more quickly.

22499. RedBaron at 11:43 AM on 2 November 2016
       Debunking climate myths with Leonardo DiCaprio's Before The Flood
       

       Rob,

       Yes overall you can help by reducing the beef you eat, but you can help even more by simply chosing grass finished rather than corn finished. And we can help even more by not subsidizing the over production of commodity grains and converting that acreage back to grassland/savanna/forest depending on what the top successional biome is local to that region. And that strategy is the very best because grassland/savanna/forest all can support food and fiber production at the same time as supporting wildlife biodiversity. In most cases even more food and fiber per acre than commodity grains. Grasslands still support grazers and grain. Savannas still support both grazers and nuts, fruit, timber and omnivore species too. And forests can be managed as both timber and food forests. All it takes is good careful management and all 3 can become carbon sinks without disrupting the food supply or economies, actually improving both.

22500. Rob Honeycutt at 10:28 AM on 2 November 2016
       Debunking climate myths with Leonardo DiCaprio's Before The Flood
       

       I was actually concerned they were going to overplay the beef thing much more. At least they didn't make the bogus claim that 51% of greenhouse emissions come from meat, like some do. They made the more rational and supportable claim that agriculture accounts for 18% of man-made CO2e (if I remember correctly).

       Overall, yeah, you can help reduce your carbon footprint by limiting how much beef you consume. 

       (I was thinking the same thing about the Chik-fil-A connection when watching. :-)

       I get my hackles up a bit when lifestyle changes get overplayed when the big nuts to crack are primarily systemic issues related to the sources of energy. It's terrible framing to say, essentially, "If you were to just behave as I'm saying you should behave then all will be well." It's a perfect way to get people to reject everything flat out.

       In all that could have gone wrong, I think they did a really good job of sticking close to the science and projecting the incredible sense of urgency we face.

Prev  442  443  444  445  446  447  448  449  450  451  452  453  454  455  456  457  Next