Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 Next
Comments 23201 to 23250:
-
william5331 at 02:53 AM on 7 September 2016Range anxiety? Today's electric cars can cover vast majority of daily U.S. driving needs
As we transition to renewa le energy in our grids, less and less of the "EMBODIED ENERGY" "embodied energy" of an electric car is from fossil fuel
Moderator Response:[JH] The SkS Comments Policy prohibits the use of all caps.
-
Jim Eager at 02:46 AM on 7 September 2016Range anxiety? Today's electric cars can cover vast majority of daily U.S. driving needs
One Planet is correct that the generation mix where you live is important. While his example of Alberta generates more than 50% from Coal, Ontario generates most of its electricity from nuclear (~60%) and hydro-elecrtic (~24%), with a few natural gas peaking plants (~10%), which are intended to reduce occasional peak-use coal-generated imports from the US midwest. Solar and wind combined are bit players (~6%).
Digby's CO2 emissions of manufacturing (and recycling) are a red herring already dealt with.
Ogemaniac's example of two-car families is a large part of the problem in the first place, while the occasional need for greater range and/or cargo capacity is what car sharing and rental companies are designed to solve.
The fact is we're stuck with the infrastructure we have until we build it's replacement. If you are waiting for perfect you will be waiting forever.
-
Jim Eager at 02:12 AM on 7 September 2016Conservative media bias is inflating American climate denial and polarization
As if there is any shortage of measurable, repeatable methods and evidence employed in the study of the physical science of climate. But then this article isn't about the physical science of climate, it is abut the social science of climate science denial. I find it compelling that Prof-X can't tell the difference between physical and social science.
-
Kernos at 01:57 AM on 7 September 2016Range anxiety? Today's electric cars can cover vast majority of daily U.S. driving needs
Where I live, almost all of our electricity comes from coal powered generators. In this case a hybrid vehicle makes more sense than an electric.
-
Prof-X at 01:25 AM on 7 September 2016Conservative media bias is inflating American climate denial and polarization
I find it compelling... that a scientific community spends so much effort, money and time focusing on the "Political Demographic" that speaks against the scientific Theory they purport, rather than on the proving the science through measurable, repeatable methods. "Methinks he doth protest too much"... when you spend all your time berating and labeling entire sections of the general public, rather than backing up radical doomsday claims with actual non-fabricated science, you certainly look guilty of trying to influence outcomes for your own political ends. It is such a shame that our scientific community has allowed money, greed, power and funding cloud our real purpose... searching for understanding.
Moderator Response:[JH] This comment has been stricken because it constitutes sloganeering which is prohibied by the SkS Comments Policy. Please read and adhere to this site's comment policy.
-
Prof-X at 01:13 AM on 7 September 2016Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
I enjoy it so when the agenda (funding) driven science of climatology states so much they know that just isn't so... or at least isn't all of the story. (snip)
The last twenty years have seen huge steps in our understanding of how, and how much CO2 leaves the deep Earth. But at the same time, a disturbing pattern has been emerging.
In 1992, it was thought that volcanic degassing released something like 100 million tons of CO2 each year. Around the turn of the millennium, this figure was getting closer to 200. The most recent estimate, released this February, comes from a team led by Mike Burton, of the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology – and it’s just shy of 600 million tons. It caps a staggering trend: A six-fold increase in just two decades.
These inflating figures, I hasten to add, don't mean that our planet is suddenly venting more CO2.
Humanity certainly is; but any changes to the volcanic background level would occur over generations, not years. The rise we’re seeing now, therefore, must have been there all along: the daunting outline of how little we really know about volcanoes is beginning to loom large.
Moderator Response:[RH] Read the comments policy for why you were snipped here.
For the remainder of your comment, please cite the actual research instead of just recounting. People here will want to check your sources.
Also, note that annual human emissions of CO2 are 30GT. That's about 30,000 million tons.
-
ianw01 at 23:04 PM on 6 September 2016Range anxiety? Today's electric cars can cover vast majority of daily U.S. driving needs
CBDunkerson: How about some references and data? Sorry, but claims that EVs running on electicity generated predominantly from coal are comparable to ICE vehicles sounds like spin from a vested interest.
-
CBDunkerson at 22:24 PM on 6 September 2016Range anxiety? Today's electric cars can cover vast majority of daily U.S. driving needs
The 'power plant CO2' and 'manufacturing CO2' issues are both red herrings. Certainly we should continue to improve CO2 emissions in both areas, but even if we didn't neither would be a valid argument against electric vehicles.
As Glenn noted, manufacture of all cars involves CO2 emissions. The primary difference being that electric cars replace the internal combustion engine with a larger rechargeable battery pack. The primary source of CO2 emissions from car manufacture is due to the use of steel (commonly made by heating iron oxide and carbon, with CO2 as a byproduct)... and the internal combustion engine is a huge block of steel. Nothing in the electric vehicle battery pack comes close to requiring similar emissions. However, since many of the materials used in rechargeable batteries are currently mined in China, using coal power, the net emissions come out about the same (unless of course you get your steel from China too).
On power plants OPOF's rough estimate calcs above showed coal and natural gas powered EVs in roughly the same range as ICEs. More detailed studies are not far different... 100% coal powered EVs are towards the high end of ICE emissions, but for most of the world EVs get their power from sources that put them on par with the most fuel efficient ICEs and in places with high renewable energy generation there is just no comparison... EV emissions can be as much as two orders of magnitude less than ICEs.
However, the biggest reason that these comparisons are bunk is that they ignore the function of the EV battery. The more EVs are sold the more large rechargeable batteries there are connected to the electricity grid... and the more short term fluctuations in power (such as might be seen by wind and solar power) cease to matter. In short, EVs make wind and solar power more economically viable. Thus pushing the power industry towards cleaner power sources. An effect which completely dwarfs their manufacturing and operational emissions... even if those weren't already on par or better than ICE emissions.
-
Ogemaniac at 21:57 PM on 6 September 2016Range anxiety? Today's electric cars can cover vast majority of daily U.S. driving needs
A car that only works for you 87% of the time is not going to work for a lot of people. It certainly wouldn't work for my family. We use a pretty common strategy (I think) of one small, fuel-efficient vehicle and one larger vehicle with poor mileage. Can an electric replace either? No! It can't replace the Prius because range is critical for this vehicle as most of the miles come from road trips far beyond an electric's range. And it can't replace the truck because the entire purpose of the truck is to haul stuff.
The problem I see with electrics is that they leave a gap in a two-card household. If your other car is small and fuel efficient, you have no ability to haul. If your other car is heavy duty, you have no vehicle that can cheaply take you long distances. Additionally, if you are in a one-car household, an electric would leave you with both of these gaps rather than just one, as a non-electric would.
-
ToddMeadows at 21:14 PM on 6 September 2016An update on methane emissions from fracking (in the US)
"According to a weekend report in The Wall Street Journal, 85% of Texans support expanded renewable generation and only 9% opposed continued expansion." Read More
People are getting the message even in states that are historically pro oil and gas.
-
Digby Scorgie at 18:28 PM on 6 September 2016Americans Now More Politically Polarized On Climate Change Than Ever Before, Analysis Finds
There was a time in my life — less than a decade ago — when climate-change deniers annoyed the hell out of me. But in recent years I have come to the conclusion that social inertia (see Bart Verheggen's article on inertia) is so great that no significant mitigation will occur before the effects of climate change become so damaging as to wreck our global civilization. Note the word "global". I'm sure there will remain local civilizations struggling along in various privileged parts of the globe.
The aforementioned change of attitude has had a calming effect on me. I consider myself now to be just an interested observer monitoring humanity's progress towards collapse. I recommend it. You'll no longer get hot under the collar when some idiot spouts nonsense about the global warming hoax. Sit back, relax, and smile indulgently — while thinking to yourself, "Just you wait, dummy!"
Oh, there's just one problem. I'm an old man. If I live as long as my father, I might just be lucky enough to see an ice-free Arctic in September and the global temperature anomaly nudging two degrees. If you are younger, dear reader, all I can say is, "Tough luck, mate!"
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 18:22 PM on 6 September 2016Range anxiety? Today's electric cars can cover vast majority of daily U.S. driving needs
Digby.
Most cars are considered to have an embodied energy content equal to severla years of driving. Electric cars would be no different. Whether electric cars particularly have a higher content, dunno.The point hopefully is that as we transition to zero-carbon technologies, the production processes behind car (and everything else) manufacturing also become low/zero carbon.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 18:19 PM on 6 September 2016Welcome to Skeptical Science
tommyb86
Further to Tom's last graph, that big change during world war 2 has been identified quite clearly. Most SST records were taken by UK & US ships in the early period of the record. The UK used mainly the bucket method while the US used engine inlets. During WWII the proportion of ships contributing SST records switched to mainly US ships. The transition out of that has been narrowed down to Aug 1945.
Additionally, there does seem to be indications that there was a general warming in higher latitudes during the 20's & 30's. So the spike is quite likely to be a mix of several factors including climate and instrumentation.
Contrast the different latitude bands from GISS:
Why the bigger spike in the tropics/southern extratropics? That is mainly ocean, and the biggest part of that ocean is the Pacific. The big stomping ground of the US Navy in WWII. -
Digby Scorgie at 18:03 PM on 6 September 2016Range anxiety? Today's electric cars can cover vast majority of daily U.S. driving needs
Electric cars might not emit CO2 when driven, and electricity from renewable sources can be used to recharge them, but how much CO2 is emitted in their manufacture? I have read elsewhere that there are significant emissions involved in the manufacture of an electric car.
-
Tom Curtis at 16:09 PM on 6 September 2016Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
RedBaron @71, I will bow to your superior knowledge of farming.
-
Tom Curtis at 16:07 PM on 6 September 2016Welcome to Skeptical Science
tommyb86 @14, the comment of mine linked to by the moderator (TD) is actually a comment about the spike in temperatures in the contiguous USA in the 1930s. Given that the contiguous USA represents approx 2% of global surface area, that is not a major factor in the 1940s spike in global temperatures to which I think you refer.
With respect to the peak in global temperatures, there are three long term trends contributing to global warming from the early to mid-twentieth century. First, the rise in CO2, and anthropogenic forcings generally continued at a fairly steady pace until the mid 1960s, after which it accelerated significantly. This is likely to have contributed about a third of the warming. Second, following Krakatoa (1883) and a series of smaller volcanic eruptions in the late 19th and very early twentieth century, Earth had no large tropical euruptions until the eruption of Augung (1963-64). This is possibly the largest single factor in the early twentieth century trend (but note the differences in the reconstructed forcing histories).
Thirdly, there was a appreciable trend in solar activity from about 1910 to the peak in 1955.
These three together with ENSO may be sufficient to account for the temperature peak in the 1940s, although the data does not match models based on these forcings plus ENSO alone perfectly over this interval (example). That may be due to insufficient weight attached to Black Carbon as a forcing (with the BC forcing being calculated for its effects on snow, but not for its overall effects in an interval where those effects were in some regions sufficient to allow the Peppered Moth to switch almost completely from a light to a dark form). It may be due to some residual effect from ocean variability not covered by ENSO. Or it may (and I think this is most likely) be due to errors in the temperature data. In particular, SST data showed a great reduction in the proportion of temperatures collected by buckets (as in most commercial ships) to those collected by engine manifolds (as in most military ships) in the 1940s, with a concurent significant change in the regions most frequently travelled (and hence for which we have temperature data):
It needs only a slight error in one of the adjustments to create a large artifact in the warming in the 1940s. That possibility is ably argued here.
The upshot is that the peak in 1940s temperatures is at least partly understood just from basic forcings, but we still have some way to go before we understand it fully. Further, given what we know, the possibility that the specific 1940s peak (as opposed to the 1910s-1960s trend) is an artifact relating to the great changes in temperature collection methods during WW2, but possibly also due to some unknown or under appreciated climate forcing, or form of internal variability.
-
nigelj at 13:56 PM on 6 September 2016Americans Now More Politically Polarized On Climate Change Than Ever Before, Analysis Finds
Haze @15
I basically agree. Most of the time warmists should be calm and measured, but sometimes they need to go on the attack and call things for what they really are as long as its carefully crafted and sticks to issues and what people have said, as opposed to name calling, or dreaming up wild claims that become hard to substantiate.
I do have sympathy for climate scientists though. They are in a catch 22 situation because if they become too outspoken they get accused of politicising things, or may be worried that negative publicity could damage their career prospects.
However the sceptics are walking over the warmists. I think people like Tamino get the balance right from what I hear. He is reasoned and measured, but criticises strongly when required and doesn't take any nonsense from people.
Nobody likes arrogant characters, but neither do we have much respect for people who retreat into their shell and get walked all over or try too hard to be over polite.
Of course talk back radio shock jocks go much further and manipulate emotion and say outrageous nonsense because it gets ratings. Their only job description is "get an audience" so they push things to the limits. It's very frustrating for the climate research community.
Conservatives and republicans are perhaps more sceptical of climate change science than liberals, as conservatives don't particularly always like change, and climate change threatens that yearning for stability, so they go into denial about the whole thing. Combating climate change also requires government rules, and conservatives are perhaps more sceptical of big government than liberals. Of course excessive government power is always a concern, but it's hard to see how we resolve the situation without things like regulatory controls on emissions or ets schemes etc.
-
Terry11 at 13:11 PM on 6 September 2016Tom Harris' Carleton University Climate Misinformation Class
Mr. Tom Harris had a stint at Carleton University after which MacLeans published an article called:
“Professor criticized for course denying climate change”
Tom Harris is not a professor and never has been one. MacLeans should publish a disclaimer to inform readers of this egregious mistake, since only highly educated academics with PhD’s deserve this title, not Mr. Harris (who has an MA in Engineering).
His expertise in anthropogenic climate change - none.
Mr. Tom Harris lectured for a short time at Carleton University before he was unceremoniously removed for teaching his anti-anthropogenic climate change rhetoric. MacLeans also doesn’t mention that Mr. Tom Harris and several organizations he has been affiliated with, have been funded by fossil fuel industries…clearly a conflict of interests.
For MacLeans to call Mr. Harris a professor is a travesty. A professor has the highest educational rank at universities and research institutions. They are experts in their areas of expertise and are accomplished and recognized academics. They are scholars with doctorate degrees (typically Ph.D. degrees) who teach in universities. They conduct original research and teach grads and undergrads in areas of their expertise. They publish advanced original research in peer reviewed journals in their fields. A professor may also serve as a public intellectual, offering opinions to media and in other forums on current issues and other complex matters that require expert illumination, which Mr. Harris endeavours to do but fails miserably at, owing to his lack of education on the subject and financial interests in the fossil fuel industry. After much work, a professor may become tenured which allows him or her academic freedom. It is beneficial for society and academy in the long run if scholars are at liberty to examine, hold, and advance controversial views without fear of dismissal, however it must be emphasized that only tenured professors are afforded this freedom since they have the education, peer reviewed publications, extensive experience and overall knowledge required to intellectually select and teach such materials.
Mr. Harris has never put in the several years of education required to become a professor. He has never put in the hard work and time required for research or writing advanced scholarly studies that are published in peer reviewed journals. Mr. Tom Harris opted to teach controversial ideas, without the required education, peer reviewed publications, experience or overall knowledge. Doing so is allowed only to tenured professors for reasons already discussed.Moderator Response:[PS] Note that in North America, "professor" just means any university teacher, quite different to usage in British/Australasian unis.
-
tommyb86 at 12:39 PM on 6 September 2016Welcome to Skeptical Science
Just a point of interest; and I realise this question has probably been answered previously, is there a consensus view on the possible cause(s) of the average global temp spike during the early 1940's?
Moderator Response:[TD] Tom Curtis gave an explanation in a comment.
[PS] See also IPCC Ar5 report, pg 887 ("Early 20th Century Warming").
-
Haze at 12:32 PM on 6 September 2016Americans Now More Politically Polarized On Climate Change Than Ever Before, Analysis Finds
nigelj@13 "However it wouldn’t hurt for warmist climate scientists to sometimes show their anger at the way certain sceptics blatantly lie. We are all human and anger is normal and sometimes justified". Absolutely. Alrthough I understand and appreciate the need for reasoned and meticulous debate, it does mean the playing field is left wide open for climate deniers to occupy and spruik their wares. That is one possible reason, in my opinion, for the fall in the number of Republican voters who accept that climate change is human caused. Why doesn't, for example, Skeptical Science, attack Watts or Nova pointing out and highlighting their erroneous statements and conclusions and sins of omission? Tamino's Open Mind is the only blog I can think of that does go on the attack and he does often get a fairly good audience response
Paul W "Light on logic or reason but that is just not needed in politics. Passion and a rightful quest drives politics. No need to look too carefully at the details as it spoils the show." Entirely agree. Surely there must be a way for climate scientists to inject some passion into the debate. I do hope so for if Donald Trump becomes POTUS I think we are well and truly (fill in your own choice of word or words).
-
Paul W at 11:57 AM on 6 September 2016Americans Now More Politically Polarized On Climate Change Than Ever Before, Analysis Finds
Haze @12 I think the reason that WUWT and Jo Nova are popular has been mentioned. They appeal to a tribal political mentality about emotions and not about data or logic. In politics it's talked about playing the race card as being the reason for electoral success in Australia.
Playing emotional cards is well know for drawing big crouds. Not only do people get to read what pleases them but they get a sense of beloning against an opposing tribe. The 1939 - 45 period was a big example of this kind of emotionally driven period. Sense and logic draw a smaller croud.
The capture of the Republican vote by Trump was another example of the use of identity and emotions where logic was just not allowed to get in the way of a good set of feelings.
Talk back radio also draws big crouds based on the emotions of conflict and belonging. There are lots of pent up emotions that can be ventilated drawing in large numbers. Logic just gets in the way of mass passion.
I have worked as a volunteer in counselling for many groups over 3 decades. People love being around a storming or sounding off person who is sounding rightfully angry or resentful. Like watching the football. The logic of emotions is different from the logic of ideas. Its only beginning to be fleshed out scientifically but advertisers understand it well. Its quite divorced from data and theory. To be able to vent emotions is a "sweet pill" for a very large number of people.
I think the Roman's had something to say about the uses of pigs and the circus.
Jo Nova and WUWT are the contrarian equivalent to Roman pigs and the circus. Great for passion. Light on logic or reason but that is just not needed in politics. Passion and a rightful quest drives politics. No need to look too carefully at the details as it spoils the show.
-
nigelj at 11:51 AM on 6 September 2016Americans Now More Politically Polarized On Climate Change Than Ever Before, Analysis Finds
Why do some climate sceptical websites get a good audience? Firstly we have some climate change sceptics that make very silly claims, or make inflammatory statements (boldly or subtly), or blame the whole thing as being a socialist conspiracy. They are usually writers or meteorologists rather than actual climate research scientists.
This is classic demagoguery. It gets an audience, which is part of the reason they do this. People are attracted to provocative statements, even if they are only subtly provocative. The mainstream media want an audience because ratings matter and drive profitability, so the media “indulge” the sceptics.
In comparison the “warmist” climate scientists are mainly more reasoned and measured. They have to be because science is reasoned and actual climate scientists have to be careful how they word things. However reasoned and qualified statements on why we are altering the climate become complex and nuanced, and so don’t get such a big audience.Tom Curtis is right anyone can be educated on the basics of climate change, but the challenge is holding their attention for more than one minute.
Nevertheless I think “warmists” should stay with a measured, calm commentary. This is the only way to reach open minded moderates. The older sceptics are mainly so set in their ways they can’t be reached no matter what you say.
Terms like climate catastrophe don’t help in my view. However it wouldn’t hurt for warmist climate scientists to sometimes show their anger at the way certain sceptics blatantly lie. We are all human and anger is normal and sometimes justified.
Young people tend to be less sceptical about climate change. This is because they get taught the science at school in a reasoned way, mostly without inflammatory emotive claims about socialiist conspiracies. Of course theres nothing wrong with them being told that about 3% of climate scientists have sceptical views, provided young people are given the logical tools to evaluate the validity of those views.
-
Haze at 11:28 AM on 6 September 2016Americans Now More Politically Polarized On Climate Change Than Ever Before, Analysis Finds
Sorry PaulW I'm not being clear. I don't care a jot about the appeal Watts and Nova have. What I am trying to do is find out why they have it. For example, at the moment Nova is commenting on a paper published in Nature in 2015 entitled "Global wheat yield may drop as temperature rises'. This has received, at the time I write this, 110 comments. The question is why? Why does Skeptical Science almost never attract anywhere near that level of reader participation when it discusses scientific articles? I gave some possible suggestions but from the responses I got from you and chriskozit it is clear I haven't made my aim plain. Or is there, perhaps, an element of motivated cognition involved?
-
Paul W at 10:46 AM on 6 September 2016Americans Now More Politically Polarized On Climate Change Than Ever Before, Analysis Finds
Haze @10 I understand that you are wanting to discuss the great appeal the WUWT and JoNova have on the ideologically driven excitment of the contrarian cause. We have had climate change accepted by Republicans before the Al Gore movie that "Red Flagged" the issue making contrarian issue like anti communism a partisan issue. We have famous Climate Scientists state that they are Republicans and the carbon fee dividend idea of James Hansen is written in terms of Republican sentiments of smaller government with all money returned to the people to stimulate the economy. All good Republican sentiments.
You raise the elitist issue "Or are Real Climate and Skeptical Science seen as being run by elitists who not receptive to and dismissive of the views of "ordinary" Americans and Australians?" I'm not an untrained member of the public so I cant tell. I do have experence with a wide set of lobbists on another issue where after the Al Gore movie a wave of climate denial swept accross the good Christian members like a dose of the flu. There "your an athiest scientist" attitude at myself became spiked with climate conspiracy and "your not one of us as you worry about the climate issue that God will protect us from". Similar non sense attitudes were apparent. Mentioning that the modern Popes saw no difference between science and the work of God did not register as they were protestants. The dog whissle had been blown and their owner had call the flock home.
It was just tribal politics. Whos in and who is out. Part of their identity and not able to be spoken about.
The fossil fuel lobby own these people. It seems cut and dried. Getting minds to start to question requires from my experience "a relationship of trust". I think that you trying to point to this element as though its missing from SkSci and Real Climate. These site have my trust due to the way they use logic and data.
The Republicans who oppose climate science use ideology as their definition point for trust. What can be done about that? Is a good question. They are not being reached in the way you reach Scientists or people who use reason.
-
Haze at 09:52 AM on 6 September 2016Americans Now More Politically Polarized On Climate Change Than Ever Before, Analysis Finds
scaddenp @5 You comment: "Haze, I am not quite sure what your point is. That people are stupid? Dont want believe unwelcome facts?" I prefer not to comment on your first question and to answer yes to your second. In the report the following comment was made: "The sociologists say one major reason why attempts to better communicate the realities of climate change to conservatives have failed is down to “motivated cognition” — described as the tendency for people to only accept information that reinforces their existing political beliefs and their views on the world."
From the coomments by PaulW@8 and chriskoz@9 "motovated cognition" could well be present at Skeptical Science.
PaulW says" the pseudoscience in your post @3 is the simple giving of reality to the popular misconseptions of the poorly climate science educated as if cultural dominance (in the MSM pseudoscience is the dominant culture, where frequent articles from climate scientists are dismissed) makes it real"
What I actually wrote was :"It is also perhaps relevant that, for example, WUWT and JoNova attract far more respondents than do Skeptical Science and Real Climate." That doesn't make any comment on the content of these blogs just that Watts and Nova attract more respondents than Skeptical Science and Real Climate. That is easily determinable fact . That Paul W chooses to totally misinterpret what I wrote seems a clear case of motivated cognition.
chriskoz @9 says 'With the benefit of the doubt, it looks as suggestions posted @3 can be read as the questions of a person ignorant on the subject. Which is fine: everyone can be ignorant about certain aspects of reality until they learn the facts. Now, that you've learned the facts, and understood how far off the mark suggestions @3 are, you should not ask such questions ever again, unless you want to be called a pseudoscientist or more tivially a denier of reality."
The questions I posed had absolutely nothing to do with the science of climate change and everything to do with the selling of climate change to the public, which is what the article is all about. So when commenting on an apparent failure of marketing why am I called a pseudoscientist? Another clear example of motivated cognition.
And by the way chriskoz, my comment "provide a shorter and more punchy piece on why pursuing the lowering of CO2 emissions is not going to lead to penury for the workers." is clearly a statement not a question and doesn't require answers. I cannot comprehend why you regarded as a question. Motivated cognition again?
if Paul W @8 The sociologists say one major reason why attempts to better communicate the realities of climate change to conservatives have failed is down to “motivated cognition” — described as the tendency for people to only accept information that reinforces their existing political beliefs and their views on the world
PaulW@8 Haze @7 Clearly I have completely failed in my attempt to address possibilities for the fall in acceptance of climate change by Republication, You say: "pseudoscience in your post @3 is the simple giving of reality to the popular misconseptions of the poorly climate science educated as if cultural dominance (in the MSM pseudoscience is the dominant culture, where frequent articles from climate scientists are dismissed) makes it real".
Whatever your take on the words I used let me state clearly the message I was trying to get across is that denier blogs get more traffic than climate science blogs That is a statement of fact not some attempt to push the messager of these b logs and asking both why that and what could be done to combat it.
-
grindupBaker at 07:03 AM on 6 September 2016Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural
He's back. Talk at University College London on July 18, 2016 so the "1000frolly" shill thing says. Can anybody tell me where Murry Salby gets this "Thermally-induced component of atmospheric CO2" graph he presents. I want to find the source and ponder it. Searching those phrases on the internet and sks isn't yielding any relevant results.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:08 AM on 6 September 2016Range anxiety? Today's electric cars can cover vast majority of daily U.S. driving needs
Associated with the range of electric vehicles is the more important need for electricity generation to be better than natural gas burning and plug-in infrastructure to be built as a public utility (not expecting a popularity and profitability motivated system to rapidly develop the required result).
Electric cars do make sense as long as the electricity generation to power the vehicle produces less CO2 than the burning of natural gas to generate electricity.
An eia presentation indicates Natural Gas generation produces about 0.55 kg of CO2 per kWh but the total amount of CO2 would be higher due to electrical delivery losses and CO2 or equivalent, like fugitive methane emissions, generated in the production and delivery of the natural gas.
I chose to buy a hybrid because I live in Alberta. In Alberta in 2015 more than 50% of the electricity generation was coal fired (Alberta Government Report for 2015)
Electric vehicle efficiency ranges from 20 to 25 kWh/100 km. If the generation was from natural gas, that would be a minimum of 11 to 14 kg CO2/100 km (higher when other CO2 impacts are added). Alberta's average would be poorer than that. At 50% coal (0.95 kg CO2 / kWh) and 50% natural gas the result would be a minimum of approximately 0.75 kg of CO2 / kWh. That means a minimum of 15 to 19 kg of CO2 / 100 km (actual amount higher due to distribution losses and other considerations).
Burning gasoline generates 2.3 kg CO2 per litre. With a 40% bump of emissions for extraction, refining and transportation of the fuel (what seems to be a reasonable value based on many different values provided by many different sources) there would be 3.3 kg of CO2 per litre. And my hybrid is running 4.7 l/100 km combined city and highway use (in the city I am getting close to 4.2 l/100 km). So my hybrid use generates a total of 15.5 kg CO2/ 100km (only 14 kg/100 km in the city).
Another important consideration I had to make was that Alberta currently lacks decent electric vehicle plug-in locations for long distance travel (or for in city travel). And in Alberta most day-trips to destinations near the city of Calgary or Edmonton would be a round-trip that is well beyond 100 miles total distance (many local day-trips would be longer than 200 miles round-trip).
So the focus needs to be on vastly improving the elctricity generation in many regions. And vastly improving the infrastruction for plugging in when travelling outside of cities in many regions. That will take leadership that many regions are unlikely to have a clear majority vote to support. That may require external motivation on those regions to "Do Better than their population would prefer to do".
-
chriskoz at 23:45 PM on 5 September 2016Americans Now More Politically Polarized On Climate Change Than Ever Before, Analysis Finds
Haze@7,
I may have misunderstood a series of your suggestions posted @3 as thoughtful propositions. In such event, I appologise.
With the benefit of the doubt, it looks as suggestions posted @3 can be read as the questions of a person ignorant on the subject. Which is fine: everyone can be ignorant about certain aspects of reality until they learn the facts. Now, that you've learned the facts, and understood how far off the mark suggestions @3 are, you should not ask such questions ever again, unless you want to be called a pseudoscientist or more tivially a denier of reality. Deniers do not accept the evidence but keep recycling old myths.
You last question:
why pursuing the lowering of CO2 emissions is not going to lead to penury for the workers
can have many elaborate asnswers. The simplest one is: biggest penury will affect not "workers" but those who burn the most fossil fuels and who have most vested interest in the burning. Classical example is carbon tax and dividend policy. Whoever produces most CO2 pays big. In case dividends are paid back in equal proportion to every all citizens, those citizens who produce less CO2 must receive back more than they paid in carbon tax, ergo they are better off under such policy.
-
Paul W at 20:37 PM on 5 September 2016Americans Now More Politically Polarized On Climate Change Than Ever Before, Analysis Finds
Haze @7 the pseudoscience in your post @3 is the simple giving of reality to the popular misconseptions of the poorly climate science educated as if cultural dominance (in the MSM pseudoscience is the dominant culture, where frequent articles from climate scientists are dismissed) makes it real.
Making pseudoscience real as if it holds a rational position that resembles reality is the standpoint of the climate denial. While political popularity is a kind of reality wanting to give it physcial reality outside of political polemics is what makes claims false.
Given the rightwing popularism at work in the English speaking world you have to expect a challenge to your views in this site.
Science is about data and not about being kind or accessable to those holding popular ideology that denies the changes happening in almost all habitats on our planet currently.
If your daughter had a diagnosis of gangrene and 97% of doctors agreed. Does treating the condition as nothing to be concerned about help make decisions about her wellbeing?
The current government claims to have dropped the carbon tax to save money yet it has led to a crisis in the federal budget worse than what they claimed they wanted to fix. So much politics is about appearances that are simply false. Giving falsehoods reality to be nice and accessable gains you what?
-
RedBaron at 15:42 PM on 5 September 2016Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
@ Tom Curtis # 70
You said, "All in all, this means we need a increase in food production per hectare by about a factor of two for current populations (assuming 70% loss of agricultural land to allow for a wild nature), and near three for projected future populations."
I am nearly 100% certain we could do exactly that and very likely more on 1/2 the land currently under agriculture. Probably not England. It is an Island. But in the North America, most of Asia and Africa? I would bet my bottom dollar we can. And I am not just saying that without evidence either. The current industrialized models of production in agriculture are that inefficient in land use. The models are designed to be efficient in other things, not quantity food produced sustainably per hectacre. In fact in some things like the CAFO buisness model, it was specifically designed to be inefficient on purpose as a buffer stock scheme. This from Wiki:
Most buffer stock schemes work along the same rough lines: first, two prices are determined, a floor and a ceiling (minimum and maximum price). When the price drops close to the floor price (after a new rich vein of silver is found, for example), the scheme operator (usually government) will start buying up the stock, ensuring that the price does not fall further. Likewise, when the price rises close to the ceiling, the operator depresses the price by selling off its holding. In the meantime, it must either store the commodity or otherwise keep it out of the market (for example, by destroying it)
The more inefficient the better. Biofuels has the same purpose. The idea is to purposely over produce grain because although an inefficient use of land, it can be stored. Then unlike many buffer stock schemes, instead of destroying the surplus, you waste it as inefficiently as possible on livestock or biofuels. The system does work in what it was designed to do. But in no way can you estimate the land needed to feed the world's population based on that type of system. The system was designed for a world where land was seen as practically limitless. Now within that system, production is incredibly efficient. But the system itself was designed to be an inefficient use of land, to fit the buffer stock scheme instead.
The very first thing you could do to approximately double the food produced per hectare is reintegrate animal production back on the crop farmers land. Then of course they must be properly managed, but there are countless ways to do that without lossing any crop yields at all, and sometimes increasing yields. Remember in industrialised countries like USA over 1/2 the arable cropland goes for producing animal feeds and biofuels. Just by going to a forage based system integrated into the arable cropland you reach that food production goal of "factor of two for current populations" right away. In fact probably would be too fast. Might have to first switch to forage based regenerative systems, to repair the non-arable grazing land first, and gradually remove livestock as wild populations of animals rebuild their numbers in the newly restored habitat. Those removed domestic animals placed gradually into the integrated arable cropland as they are removed from rewilded land. If you took them away too fast the non-arable land would be undergrazed and either recover too slowly or even sometimes degrade even faster.
It a bit hard to really explain it all on a forum like this. But I can say that IMHO we could do exactly what you asked with our current technology and at the same time actually sequester 5-20 tonnes CO2 per hectare per year into the long term stable soil carbon pool. And there are lots of case studies that show this from all over the world.
-
Haze at 14:34 PM on 5 September 2016Americans Now More Politically Polarized On Climate Change Than Ever Before, Analysis Finds
Tom Curtis@4 thanks for a very detailed comment and for enlightening me of the procedures for government funding in America. Because the MSM refer primarily to the President I assumed, incorrectly, he has more power than he actually does have. Your point "educated to the required standard, if they are prepared to put in the effort." certainly applies to me in this instance for although I have a science based PhD, my knowledge of the workings of the American government is clearly inadequate.
chriskoz@6. You state "pseudoscience, represented by Haze@3, is far less difficult than the science." Could you take the time tell me in which part of my comment I represented pseudoscience?
scaddenp@5. I doubt very much that I have better ideas to communicate than the climate scientist but perhaps being a little less scientific and a little more, for want of a better word, chatty might help.
For example, at some stage, the comment might be made that " there is a fear amongst many that cutting emissions of CO2 is going to cause economic pain, often to those who are least able to bear it. As renewables become increasingly both less expensive and more efficient, costs associated with the means of power production eg wind turbines and solar panels are continually falling. Clearly that has a lowering effect on power prices. More importantly perhaps, research into the storage of the energy from renewables is continuing apace and is getting to the point where battery storage is becoming within the financial reach of the average home owner. If the government subsidies on the machinery of renewables can be increasingly directed toward subsidising storage research and development then renewables will, without doubt, lead to significant falls in the costs of domestic power. The hybrid petrol/battery powered hybrid car is a practical example of how advances in renewables cut costs as the fuel bill for these vehicles is a lot less than for conventionally powered cars. That's why they're very popular with taxi drivers.
I don't regard this as deathless prose and wrote it straight off the top so I'd imagine someone with more literary skill than I, would be able to provide a shorter and more punchy piece on why pursuing the lowering of CO2 emissions is not going to lead to penury for the workers. -
Tom Curtis at 12:29 PM on 5 September 20162016 SkS Weekly Digest #36
With regard to the poster, it may technically be true in that we do not have any monthly records or proxies for temperature prior to the 17th century; but there were probably warmer months 6-8 thousand years ago, almost certainly warmer months about 110 thousand years ago, and certainly warmer months multiple millions of years ago. Indeed, in the very distant (pre-human) past, for certain periods, average annual temperatures would have been warmer than July 2016. So, the hottest month ever recorded, but that is more a fact about the shortness of the records, and the lack of resolution in the proxies than about the temperature. And while calling attention to the fact that it was the warmest July since 1880 (or 1850 for less reliable records) is worthwhile, the second "Ever", in orange type by emphasizing the time element makes the whole misleading.
-
chriskoz at 09:51 AM on 5 September 2016Americans Now More Politically Polarized On Climate Change Than Ever Before, Analysis Finds
Tom@4,
Your response to Haze@3 required far more knowledge (e.g. about the workings of US political system, even though you do not live within it) and far more research (e.g. finding Young Earth Creationist example) than the original, essentially random suggestions.
Not to mention the time you had to spend to type your response & structure it into clear bullet points. Thank you.
That comparison further reafirms your point that the pseudoscience, represented by Haze@3, is far less difficult than the science.
I think the same applies to every aspect of life and every skill: it's far easier to promote random but convenient nonsense rather than logical understanding of the facts. Also in political life. A stark axample is current US presidential campain: a random, completely ignorant candidate came in promoting ideas so absurd, contradicting the basics of that political systems and yet, still enjoys enormous popularity of his electorate and beaten all of his reality-obiding, professional opponents.
-
chriskoz at 08:51 AM on 5 September 20162016 SkS Weekly News Roundup #36
Follow up of my post from last week:
David Karoly and Clive Hamilton: why we can't sign the latest Climate Change Authority report
You can read a full report at www.climatecouncil.org.au
Mind boggling, that despite the best efforts of the founders of CCA that it be "free from politics", the political agenda has infiltrated therein! -
Tom Curtis at 08:04 AM on 5 September 2016Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
RedBaron @69, I understand from your comment that it was my second paragraph @66 that you disagreed with, not the first. In particular you disagreed with my assessment that:
"More interesting is the sustainable population at current, or likely near future technologies. I think the evidence is that we have already exceeded it, though primarilly due to the proportion of land committed to food intake, plus the overfishing of the oceans."
That may, in part, be due to a disagreement about what is mean by "sustainable". I have no doubt that we can increase food production into the future sufficiently to support the most likely peak world population of about 11 billion people:
(See also this)
I do not doubt we can do so and maintain ecosystem integrity in the limited sense that O2 production and soil health will not be impared, and a new stable ecosystem will develop. But it will be a stable ecosystem similar to that of Britain's, in which all of nature is shaped by man, and there is no room left for most of the native mega-fauna - particularly predators (such as the bears and wolves that used to be native to Britain).
It may be that is what the world population really desires. It is certainly true that absense make the heart grow fonder when it comes to large predators; and that humans in the end will have no place for lions, tigers etc, except in zoos. The same is true for large grazers, other than those dedicated for human consumption. But I hope we have more space for nature than that, and that would require that we produce the food for the 11 billion on less land than we currently have under agriculture, not more.
What is more, with rising economic expectation in the third world, we need to factor in an increase in food consumption per capita by about 30-50%, and an increase in food quality (ie, more protein and fresh fruit and vegetables). This is particularly the case in Africa where most of the population increase is expected to come.
All in all, this means we need a increase in food production per hectare by about a factor of two for current populations (assuming 70% loss of agricultural land to allow for a wild nature), and near three for projected future populations.
-
scaddenp at 07:33 AM on 5 September 2016Americans Now More Politically Polarized On Climate Change Than Ever Before, Analysis Finds
Haze, I am not quite sure what your point is. That people are stupid? Dont want believe unwelcome facts?
" Or are Real Climate and Skeptical Science seen as being run by elitists who not receptive to and dismissive of the views of "ordinary" Americans and Australians?"
If by that you mean that RC and SkS are not into deceptions, unphysical theories, misinformation, ideological claptrap, conspiracy theories, and accusations of fraud, then you are correct. If these are the concerns and views of "ordinary" citizens, then we have serious problems with education that are not going to be fixed overnight.
If you have better ideas about how we could comminicate the facts and counteract the fiction, then we are all ears. I read WUWT comments at times and despair. Somehow, people need to understand that reality is not a consumer choice and the ideological position need to conform to reality and not the other way round. For many, I think that the question "what data would change your mind on climate change" is viewed as essentially the same as "what argument would convince you to vote for the enemy party". Neither is conceivable and so reality is shut out by participation in an echo chamber of reassuring lies.
-
RedBaron at 03:43 AM on 5 September 2016Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
@ 68 Tom Curtis,
Exactly correct Tom. Industrialization has improve some things dramatically. No farmer wants to give up his tractor etc..., except maybe a few Amish who do without. Industrialization has given us tools. It's how we use those tools that make all the difference. If when we treat those biological systems on which we use those tools to harvest food and fiber as a net sum zero product, (ignoring how fundamentally different biological systems function), then that's when we have problems with unsustainability. Which is just the flip side of the overpopulation coin.
At lower population levels we didn't have this problem because we could always move on to new untapped areas when the areas we were harvesting from collapsed, like you mentioned with fishing. The collapsed areas would recover over time and we could come back to them later in many cases.
However, now we must fundamentally change the production models. We no longer have to option of overuse, abandonment/fallow, and returning decades or centuries later. Instead we must change the production models to methods using holistic systems science and modern technology appropriately applied.
If we take current productive land/fisheries etc. and change the production models, we can regenerate the ecosystems services on that land/fisheries. We also can return to currently abandoned areas and apply these new system science based regenerative models to them as well, returning them to productivity.
So actually when you add the current productive land/fisheries to the abandoned land/fisheries that collapsed earlier due to over use, we can actually increase the total population they can support sustainably long into the distant future.
A great working example of this is China's Loess Plateau Project. This land was destroyed by agriculture and could no longer support much population at all. Since beginning to restore the land, the amount of food and fiber produced has increased every year. The amount of carbon sequestration has increased every year. The runoff water quality has increase every year. The wildlife and biodiversity has increased every year. When you change the production models you see profound differences.
In the USA a similar revolution in thinking is also being taught and is in its infancy. Best exemplified by this quote from the USDA-NRCS.
"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 (Author Unknown)
I am an organic research farmer. I am not afraid of change. I am the change.
-
Tom Curtis at 23:59 PM on 4 September 2016Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
RedBaron @67, the current population is approximately 7.4 Billion, so that my estimate of up to a quarter of that sustained using preindustrial (ie, pre 1750) technology represents a population of up to 1.85 billion. That is 2.64 times the 0.7 billion population in 1750, so I am certainly allowing for some advances in non-industrial technologies.
Having said that, I do not think you are giving serious consideration to the difficulties involved. A preindustrial fishing technology is restricted to small (because of limited work force) wooden, sail powered vessels. Such vessels cannot fish with long lines, nor trawl, nor drift net. Nor can they fish the deep ocean, and increasingly important source of modern fish. Further, they cannot operate more than about a weeks distance from port, and typically will operate within a few hourse sailing from port. Given those limitations, catchable fish will be a very small fraction of currently available, even with a rebound of fish stocks.
Or consider grain growing, with no combine harvesters; with plows being of wood construction with (at best) a cast iron plate to restrict wear on the blade, and drawn by oxen or (hopefully) horses. Harvesting will probably be by scythe. These factors required something in the order 60-80% of the population to be agricultural workers, just to provide enough food for all.
Or consider that such heating fuel we use will be in the form of charcoal, requiring extensive forests over much that is now agricultural land.
And that leaves aside questions of spoilage, famine and drought.
There is often a ridiculous optimism by some people who, urban dwellers nearly all, and with no knowledge of history, suppose that we can get rid of industrialization to advantage. But life before industrialization was nasty, brutish and short. In general, excepting the upper middle class and above, hunter gatherers lived better than the vast majority of even 19th century populations, but only by dint of a very low population per unit area.
-
Tom Curtis at 17:49 PM on 4 September 2016Americans Now More Politically Polarized On Climate Change Than Ever Before, Analysis Finds
Haze @3, first, and rather trivially, in the US, it is Congress, not the President who controlls the purse strings. Consequently, without the approval of the Republican (and ergo AGW denier) dominated House, and the Republican (and ergo AGW denier) Senate, no major advertising campaign promoting acceptance of the science on climate could have been funded by the President. Indeed, the President does not even controll the education system, which devolves to a state and local level such that it is a running battle to keep young Earth Creationism out of the schools in blue states, let alone pseudosciences not so widely acknowledged as such (such as AGW denial).
Second, the pseudoscientific side of the argument has the advantage that they do not need to be, nor appreciably strive to be correct. As a result they can shape their arguments to be persuasive without worrying to much if they are valid. And there is no question that they do that. They quote out of context, cherry pick, use deceiptful graphs, manufacture data from thin air. Worse, when arguments are refuted, they just wait a bit then recycle them again. While doing this, they are appealing to peoples selfish interest in a fairly direct way. I was a rev head when I was younger. Still would be if it were not for global warming. I would love for WUWTs arguments to be true. So, there is a very direct interest for every American who would rather drive a Hummer than an Accord to not believe in AGW. Likewise there is a very direct interest in any older person who does not want their legacy to be tarnished by the fact that their lifestyle created a very major problem for their children. There is even a direct interest for anybody with political leanings towards not trusting the government in that AGW denial gives a superficial reason for not trusting the government.
In contrast the AGW side has its arguments constrained not by the need to be persuasive, but that they be sound. And to know whether or not an argument in science is sound is often hard work. To truly understand the science you need to put in six years of tertiary education just to get to the start point. That is not elitism, anymore than it is elitism to think you require six or more years of experience to become a decent plumber. I personally believe that virtually anybody can become educated to the required standard, if they are prepared to put in the effort. But AGW denial tells you that not only do you not need that effort, but that you understand the situation better than those who have put in the effort (because, purportedly, you can refute their arguments with trivial points). No effort plus flattery plus justifying what you wanted to do already vs effort expected, plus an expectation that you actually understand, plus an expectation that you modify your behaviour in significant ways for future generations. Why on earth would you think these are both equally easy to sell?
Third, the reporting of science in the MSM is woeful. This is the case even outside of AGW, as shown humorously but correctly by John Oliver:
It becomes worse in the reporting of AGW because of false balance - the lazy, irresponsible approach of the MSM to reporting on all topics where they consider their job consists simply of getting a sound bite from "each side" with no attempt to require the sound bites to be cogent, relevant, or well supported. As a result nearly all MSM reports on climate change are accompanied with a deniers sprouting some irrelevancy that purports to refute the evidence.
On top of that, there is a "man bites dog" effect. When the IPCC gets something wrong, that is in fact a big news story because it happens so rarely. So it gets reported. If a AGW denier is wrong, well they are right less frequently than a stopped clock, so that is not a story at all - and gets no coverage.
With these impediments, even the friendly mainstream media on balance disinforms about AGW.
Finally, here are the rankings of the primary pro-biological science website (the Panda's Thumb) vs the two most popular pseudoscience websites on evolution, the "intelligent design" Discovery Institute, and the Young Earth Creationist Answer's in Genesis:
Panda'sThumb: 105,377
Answers In Genesis: 11,865
Discovery Institute: 64,437
Clearly the popularity of pseudoscience on the web is not confined to AGW. This is for reasons already given (under the second point) above. Now, unless you want to start arguing that clearly the belief that the Universe is only 10,000 years old, and that all species were restricted to just a few breeding pairs (six for clean, and 1 for unclean) just 6,000 years ago, at which time a global flood covered the earth to a depth 9 km is more scientific than standard biological and geological science based on the above data, you are committed to the fact that pseudoscience sells easier than science.
And once again, that is because, not being based on fact, they can be shaped to tell you what you want to hear rather than what is true.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 17:48 PM on 4 September 2016As nuclear power plants close, states need to bet big on energy storage
Paul D
From the Isentropic website:
"Isentropic's facilities and operations are currently in the process of being taken over by the Sir Joseph Swan Centre for Energy Research based at Newcastle University."Hopefully the technology will get rebirthed, we need it.
-
Haze at 14:45 PM on 4 September 2016Americans Now More Politically Polarized On Climate Change Than Ever Before, Analysis Finds
It seems that despite the 97% consensus scientists with a Democrat as President for the last 8 years, are unable to convince the American Republican voter that AGW is of serious concern. Perhaps instead of saying it is due to advertising from the anti-AGW side, concentratiing on why their advertising is having less effect might be more profitable. No matter how much the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch et al. can spend, it is nowhere near the amount the Americn government can spend if it so desired. Perhaps the swing away from AGW by Republican voters reflects failure in the approach of AGW proponents rather than success of the approach taken by the anti-AGW factions. It is also perhaps relevant that, for example, WUWT and JoNova attract far more respondents than do Skeptical Science and Real Climate. Why is that? Because Watts and Nova are better funded? Better publicists? More in tune with "ordinary" Americans and Australians? Or are Real Climate and Skeptical Science seen as being run by elitists who not receptive to and dismissive of the views of "ordinary" Americans and Australians?
-
Paul D at 23:15 PM on 3 September 2016As nuclear power plants close, states need to bet big on energy storage
Just discovered some bad news...
According to Isentropics web site (cutting edge energy storage company) they were put in administration in January.
In the months up to that month their published accounts indicate that they were running out of money and although their was some interest in more funding. None came forward.
Wonder to what extent the political change in the UK had on their fortunes? Normally such a company would have plenty of financial support until they had a marketable product. However after the election and a collapse in the Labour vote the government made significant changes to it's energy policy, putting doubt in the minds of energy investors.
More info here:
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05077488/filing-history
-
ubrew12 at 21:41 PM on 3 September 2016Americans Now More Politically Polarized On Climate Change Than Ever Before, Analysis Finds
When you 'save the World', as America arguably did in WWII, your Nationalists tend to think they can walk on water. This is a problem for America that Europe doesn't have. American Nationalists were furious at the Vietnam War protestors because the 'shining city on a hill' doesn't do mistakes. American conservatives have since been given a number of issues upon which to 'circle the wagons' and punish the Anti-War hippies: abortion, guns, the 'War on Drugs' and, to some extent, the 'War on Terror'. But once you build the moat, information doesn't easily penetrate the castle walls: the 'War on Taxes' and the 'War on Global Warming treehuggers' have been inserted into the conservative push-button issues list by deep-pocketed interests that, in many cases, aren't even American.
-
Paul D at 18:41 PM on 3 September 2016Coordinator of UK Ocean Acidification Research Attacks The Spectator for 'Willfully Misleading' James Delingpole Column
The likes of Delingpole continually present confusing and contradicting arguments to support a political ideology.
Political ideologies will always lie and contradict their own arguments to support their flawed ideologies (this includes the left and unions).
In Delingpoles case he is contradicting the long held view that 'global warming' sciences can not possibly make predictions because the system being analysed is to complicated. Whilst here he is claiming a few hours science will do the job (to satisfy his ideology).
-
RedBaron at 17:05 PM on 3 September 2016Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
@ 66 Tom Curtis,
You seem to be mixing science and technology with industrialization. Not all technology is industrial in nature. This is important to remember in agriculture.
The other important thing to remember is that counter intuitively, biological systems yield more when not overused. For example, a fishery that is overfished, yields fewer tons of fish per year than a fishery that is not overfished. Grassland that is overgrazed yields less meat per acre per year than grassland that is properly grazed. Forests that are over timbered yield less wood per acre per year than forests properly managed. We are so wired into net sum zero thinking that people often miss that.
So yes, agriculture (including fisheries) could sustain populations much higher than we currently have, even though the current population already exceeds carrying capacity. We simply need to use holistic systems models of production instead of net sum zero industrial models of production.
Don't get me wrong. Industrial models are very good at some things. But when it comes to biological systems, far from ideal.
-
nigelj at 08:53 AM on 2 September 2016Americans Now More Politically Polarized On Climate Change Than Ever Before, Analysis Finds
The Republicans seem to be taking a very fixed attitude of climate change denial. American conservatives appear to be retreating into very fixed beliefs, and appear afraid of a world that is changing outside of America.
European conservatives are more flexible and receptive to climate change science, probably because two wars on their continent have led to people seeing the need to compromise and cooperate.
Americans emphasise individuality more, and constitutional freedoms. Peoples are shaped by their past histories and America and Europe differ in many regards.
-
ubrew12 at 06:52 AM on 2 September 2016Coordinator of UK Ocean Acidification Research Attacks The Spectator for 'Willfully Misleading' James Delingpole Column
Delingpole: "Does this prove that global warming is not a problem? No it doesn’t. What it does do is lend credence to... sceptics..." Translation: "I have no idea if AGW is a problem or not. However, if you want to know what to do about it, you should listen to me and not those Scientists." It used to be rare to see such public displays of 'the superiority of ignorance', but this is Trump's World, now.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:24 AM on 1 September 2016Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
MDMonty @65, IMO it is dubious that a preindustrial revolution technology could sustain population levels at even a quarter of current levels. Primarily that is because it would not be able to sustain the vast energy inputs into food production; but also because the much slower transport speeds would necessitate the majority of food consumption to be from local or close (over sea) distances. The UK may be able to source wheat from the US, for instance, but not most vegetables or fruit, and not much in the way of meat; simply due to spoilage. A sustainable population level at those industrial levels would be in the order of half to a billion people.
More interesting is the sustainable population at current, or likely near future technologies. I think the evidence is that we have already exceeded it, though primarilly due to the proportion of land committed to food intake, plus the overfishing of the oceans. Simply as regards global warming, we can sustain the current population on greenhouse free energy and transport system, possibly at a higher standard of living than is currently common in Western Countries. That, however, requires a major effort to transition; as the current population with the current energy mix is clearly unsustainable.
-
MDMonty at 09:43 AM on 1 September 2016Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
For clarity's sake: it appears the role of human respiration ("Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?") wrt CO2 buildup amounts to a zero sum when including photosynthesis. In essence this describes a natural sort of equilibrium.
I completely agree insofar as the science itself goes (and the provided formulas-thanks)
Pragmatically -somewhat referring to #64 response (Pointfisha) above- the population of humans is increasing alongside deforestation, excluding deforestation where it is a consequence of industrialization.
This seems to indicate that mass consumption of meat (specifically beef & lamb) has a significant impact on climate.
I guess I am asking what an acceptable human population would be, assuming pre-1750 (pre-Industrial Revolution) technology, in keeping with keeping CO2 levels static or reducing them from current levels. Another way of asking this: at what population will human respiration outstrip the capacity of photosynthesis?
I do realize my query is flawed in that is purely theoretical, and perhaps even dumb: excludes other natural sources of CO2 (vulcanism, animal respiration) but those variables seem outside the scope of this article.
-
chriskoz at 08:50 AM on 1 September 20162016 SkS Weekly Digest #35
On the mitigation front in OZ, Turnbull gov seems to be continuing discredited policy of his predecessor:
Climate Change Authority's key report 'neglects to join the dots', critic says
In an unprecedented move, two of the authority's 10 members – climate scientist David Karoly and public ethics professor Clive Hamilton – plan to release a dissent report within days to highlight their disagreements with the final study.
Thank you David & Clive. I'm looking forward to it.
Prev 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 Next
