Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 Next
Comments 25051 to 25100:
-
Sharon Krushel at 15:20 PM on 14 March 2016After 116 days, MIT fossil fuel divestment sit-in ends in student-administration deal for climate action
#6 - Tristan, I appreciate the way you worded your response. "...willing to sacrifice some measure of profits for one's beliefs." That makes sense to me, and I admire that. I appreciate that you're open to conversation about "the nature of a given industry and whether or not we should accept the way it currently operates."
My contribution to the conversation, from my perspective and experience in northern Alberta, is that not all companies and people within the industry are the same, any more than all scientists are the same. (More on that in my response to Philippe below.) At the risk of monopolizing the conversation on this part of the page, I'd like to relay some stories from the north that might not be on the news.
As I see it, the current environmentalist trend is to demonize the fossil fuel industry as the culprits of global warming - greedy villains who don't care about the environment. People don’t like having their beliefs challenged, especially when their cause has become a meme and, in some cases, developed black-and-white religious fervour. Some of the reporting by the media has been biased toward feeding this fervour. Even celebrities (who may not know what a chinook is) are getting on the band wagon.
A more balanced diet of information on the way the industry operates would include, for example, photos of reclaimed areas, not just mined areas, in the Canadian tar sands. A very critical tourist was shown a beautiful area near Fort McMurray and was asked, “What would you think if this area were to be mined?” He replied that it would be a terrible tragedy. The tourist was then told, “It already has been mined.”
Personally, I don’t remember ever seeing a photo of tar sands reclaimed land shown in the news. Apparently this tourist hadn’t either.
If you would like to get some first-hand information on the tar sands and the way the industry currently operates in regard to the environment and First Nations people, Ross Whitelaw ross.w@telus.net is a very knowledgeable man of integrity who used to work in environment and safety. He's open to questions, and if he doesn't know the answer, he could probably put you in touch with someone who does.
This is the kind of conversation that needs to take place - going to the source for information and exchange of ideas and questions. I've been working with Ross and others as members of the Anglican Church addressing the divestment issue.
Ross recently took a tour of Smoky Lake Tree Nursery, which currently grows all of the reclamation stock for the five major oil sands operators: Syncrude, Suncor, Imperial Oil, Shell Albian and CNRL. They also grow seedlings for conventional oil and gas reclamation. Here is an excerpt from his report, which outlines the lengths to which they go to restore the land with the biodiversity of 61 native species.
Tristan, I like the honesty of your comment, "I am not comfortable deriving income from this source." I understand that, considering the connection between fossil fuels and global warming.
Another view to consider is that, at this point in time, no matter what companies we invest in, the burning of fossil fuels is likely involved. Burning fossil fuels creates far more CO2 emissions than extracting them (e.g., "Final combustion of the oil – mostly emerging from vehicle tailpipes – accounts for 70 to 80 per cent of lifecycle emissions"). And if consumers weren't using them, the companies wouldn't be extracting them. If we’re driving our cars to work or if our work involves operating vehicles or machinery, or selling products that were produced in a factory, we’re still "deriving income from this source."
I recently read a story of a First Nations man in Fort McMurray who lost his job in the oil industry due to low oil prices, so he sought help to set up a small tourist company, which is admirable. However, if you look at this from a global warming perspective, in order for this man's new business to succeed, people have to burn fossil fuels to get there and burn more fossil fuels once they arrive in order to see the sights.
Would it benefit the environment for MIT or other institution to divest from the oil company this man worked for and invest instead in this man’s tourist industry, which would be burning the fuel produced by his former employer?
In light of this, I accept that I am "deriving income from this source" (directly - with investment in reputable fossil fuel companies, or indirectly) because that's the current reality, and I will invest what I can in renewable energy as well, to help speed the transition along.
Managing the transition to renewables is complicated. Alberta is phasing out it's older coal plants first. And renewables are on the increase. The goal is to be at 0 dependence on coal by 2030 - a very ambitious and expensive goal. In the meantime, for the fossil fuels I still have to use, I'd be much more comfortable getting them from the Canadian tar sands or from a well-managed coal plant (especially if it has CCS) than from Saudi Arabia or other countries where we have no control over the environmental or ethical implications or how the royalties are used.
I know it is not my mandate to change people's minds. I am simply grateful for this website and the opportunity to participate in the conversation.
-
chriskoz at 11:02 AM on 14 March 20162016 SkS Weekly Digest #11
Stefan from RC is visiting UNSW, and surely he gave us the first-hand comment about the unprecedented spike in Feb global temps (that are felt especially nasty in SE Australia):
Emergency is the right subtitle for this article. When are the politicians going to wake up?
-
John Hartz at 04:14 AM on 14 March 20162016 SkS Weekly News Roundup #11
richardPauli: Your concerns about the article, Climate change could cause 500,000 more deaths by 2050 by Raveena Aulakh, Toronto Star, Mar 05 2016, seem a tad overblown and misdirected.
The teaser line (sub-headline) to the article is:
Over half a million more people could die in 2050 as climate change affects diet, says a new study in the medical journal the Lancet.
It should be quite obvious to anyone reading the the above sub-headline of the article that it is a summary of a new study published in the Medical Journal Lancet.
The text of the article includes a link to the Lancet article, Global and regional health effects of future food production under climate change: a modelling study.
If you want to know how the numbers reported in a newspaper article were derived, you need to carefully read and digest the study that generated those numbers.
-
richardPauli at 03:19 AM on 14 March 20162016 SkS Weekly News Roundup #11
It was at Sunday section above
Climate change could cause 500,000 more deaths by 2050 by Raveena Aulakh, Toronto Star, Mar 05 2016
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/03/05/climate-change-could-cause-500000-more-deaths-in-2050.html
-
richardPauli at 03:17 AM on 14 March 20162016 SkS Weekly News Roundup #11
The prediction "Climate change cause 500,000 more deaths by 2050" is the worst case of optimism bias I have ever seen.
We should suspect the source. Everyone from the UN, to Oxfam to the Catholic Church is researching those numbers. Even the B&M Gates Foundation fought with the World Health Organization about what numbers are and how to evaluate death rate. It is a very difficult task . but a few years ago, when I scanned the ranges then - it was all over the ranges from 50,000 to 400,000 deaths per year (currently). The data reports take a little digging, but it is all search engine. (just ask "how many die from climate change")
Part of the problem is how to categorize. For instance, is Malaria deaths part of the increase? Famine from salt water inundation by sea level rise? Which floods are counted, only storms or some storms? Then Syrian climate refugees - all of them? Or some? Are the increase in wildfires all categorized as global warming associated?
For a newspaper to say 500,000 by the year 2050.. some 34 years hence seems dangerously misinformed. What are they trying to promote? I have no idea why they would post that.... it shows a very shallow understanding of climate impacts globally. I will be sure to write the publisher at http://www.thestar.com/about/contactus.html Perhaps they can publish a cursory overview of how to evauate future impacts. Their numbers of 500,000 may have been reached in 2015, Maybe this year. Certainly in the next few. Irresponsible publishing.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:42 AM on 14 March 2016Sea level rise is accelerating; how much it costs is up to us
richardPauli,
An elaboration of your point that is very important to understand:
"Observations that are not learned from, or better understanding from evaluation of observations and experimentation being deliberately denied ... is far too common in our 'socio-economic-political system that is based on popularity and profitability' because of the power of deliberately misleading marketing in the hands of callous greedy and intolerant people (who hope to keep their clearly unacceptable handiwork as the most powerful invisible-hand in the voting and market place".
Anyone paying attention can understand that the system, and in particular marketing in the system, is the problem. It can clearly be observed that it encourages the development of people who do not care about advancing humanity to a lasting better future. It encourages people to focus on getting the best possible present for themselves any way they can get away with (often marketed as it being fundamentally essential for everybody to have the "Freedom to do as they please", without any reasoning being allowed to restrict their preferred chosen pursuits).
-
Jose_X at 01:14 AM on 14 March 2016New Video: Why Scientists Trust the Surface Thermometers More than Satellites
satellite data now has feb 16 highest ever
-
BBHY at 11:48 AM on 13 March 2016New Video: Why Scientists Trust the Surface Thermometers More than Satellites
Multiple independent lines of scientific evidence all point to the same thing; global warming caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere from, burnnig fossil fuels.
Anecdotal evidence is not terribly valuable from a scientific standpoint, but is still valid from a human perspective. My family used to go skiiing in the mountains of Pennsylvania in the 60's. Back then, it would be impossible to drive through the Pennsylvania mountains in the middle of winter and not see snow on the ground, but for at least the past decade I have often gone there in February and not a bit of snow was evident until I reached the ski resort, where they make their own. I fear that in another decade or so all the Penn ski resorts will have closed down as the season keeps getting shorter and shorter.
-
richardPauli at 03:18 AM on 13 March 2016Sea level rise is accelerating; how much it costs is up to us
"Lessons not learned, will be repeated."
-
richardPauli at 15:01 PM on 12 March 2016Why We Need to Keep 80 Percent of Fossil Fuels in the Ground
We are stuck. Since optimism can be misdirecting. We must be active and positve while retaining a ruthlessly realistic view. I can only speak for myself, but I think this is what our children must face, what they and we must do:
Suffer, Adapt, Mitigate
To suffer is to accept and endure; we make an active choice to hunker-down and face a painful, inevitable situation.
To adapt is to tap into resilience as we take real action to survive and co-exist with all beings.
To mitigate is to work on real processes to make the problem less severe in the future.we do this with tools of Palliation, Civilization, and Revision
We help with suffering by easing pain with palliative care to ourselves and others.
We best adapt when we band together in shared community effort to service and build a global human civilization.
We make tomorrow better as we revise our failed systems by radical reformation and innovation.There may be lots of other tasks, but I think that a general outline
-
Tom Curtis at 10:18 AM on 12 March 2016Greenhouse Gas Concentrations in Atmosphere Reach New Record
Romulan01 @6, I just had a closer look at the video linked to by Michael Sweet. I noticed that:
1) The CO2 was produced by an endothermic reaction, ie, one which cools the products and hence the surrounding environment;
2) The bottle with enhanced CO2 was open when the CO2 was fed in, thereby preventing pressure build up and a resulting increase in temperature. This is possible because CO2 is heavier than air so the CO2 fed in would displace normal air out of the bottle; and
3) The experiment was conducted indoors (avoiding high convective heat loss), and with only two lamps (providing symmetry in overlap heating).
In short, it avoids all of the problems mentioned in my prior post, and is in fact a very good experiment.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:08 AM on 12 March 2016Greenhouse Gas Concentrations in Atmosphere Reach New Record
Romulan01 @5, Jolan tru.
The experiment has already been done several time by several different people. Perhaps the most famous attempt is that by the mythbusters:
Such attempts have problems, however. In the Mythbusters experiment, for example, the central container would recieve more light than the adjacent containers due to spill over from the adjacent lights, thereby contaminating the experiment. The controll (the ordinary air sample) was not in the central container, so some or all of their measured greenhouse effect may have been simply poor experiment design. Other factors contaminating the various youtube recorded similar experiments include possible heat from the method of producing CO2, high humidity resulting in little or not difference in greenhouse effect between the CO2 enriched and controll sample, and significant wind velocity resulting in large loss of heat by conduction. I have seen no youtube recorded experiment which could be considered sound.
To perform the experiment properly you would need to have a control consisting of pure nitrogen and oxygen in an approximate 7:3 mix (so as to have no greenhouse gases in the control), you would need to ensure not heat loss by conduction or convection (ideally by conducting the experiment in a vacum), and you would have to use the same light with identical placement for the various experimental runs (which would need to be run sequentially).
However, all that might be interesting, but it is uncessary. Here is an observed and predicted IR spectrum from the Mexican Gulf near Texas:
The area under the grapp reprsents total energy per second per unit area radiated to space. Because of that, the large notch in the middle represents a large reduction in energy radiated to space (per second per unit area). For the Earth to be in energy balance, that reduction must be made up for by increased radiation elsewhere, which prima facie must be accomplished by increased temperature. The large notch was caused by CO2 in the atmosphere, a fact known by its location, and by the successful prediction by the model (dotted lines).
Ever since these observations were published in 1970, there has been no scientific doubt of the existence of a greenhouse effect. There has merely been the attempt to manufacture doubt by pseudoscientists.
Since 1970, similar observations with similar accuracy have been made hundreds of thousands of times. What is more, the pseudoscientists who doubt the existence of the greenhouse effect generally (and falsely) claim that the satellite temperature record is more accurate than the surface temperature record, but the satellite temperature record is determined using radiation models of exactly the same kind that show conclusively that there is a greenhouse effect, and which have been confirmed so precisely so many thousands of times.
Finally, if you want a simple explanation of how the greenhouse effect works, I recommend that you start here.
-
michael sweet at 09:55 AM on 12 March 2016Greenhouse Gas Concentrations in Atmosphere Reach New Record
Romulan01,
Here is a youtube video of the experiment that you describe. This was done with a lamp but it works in the sun also. This experiment is commonly done in High School or lower classes. Google is your friend.
The issue is not that simple experiments have not proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the greenhouse effect exists, the problem is that nothing will ever convince the deniers.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 09:40 AM on 12 March 2016After 116 days, MIT fossil fuel divestment sit-in ends in student-administration deal for climate action
Sharon, you seem to have a significant personnal and emotional involvment in this. I'm sorry if I elicited unpleasant emotions, but the substance of my post remains. I certainly would not paint all people in any group with the same brush. I am an immigrant and I have experienced prejudice.
It is a small goup of people who have decided to go the way of the denial but they drive the boat in which the others ride. It is not the same as saying anyone involved in the industry is bad. I seems that what you understood from my words and I am surprised that you would jump to such a conclusion, which amounts to a strawman. Read my post again; I do not suggest anyting like that.
You claim to not have mentioned jobs, technically that's right. I used the word livelihood in my post. Yours said this: "On the other hand, the royalties from Canadian tar sands oil funds schools and hospitals, social programs for the poor, etc." I work in a hospital, forgive me for the short cut. Furthermore, in previous contributions, you discussed that same subject and was keen on pointing everyone's attention on the many people depending on Canada's oil industry for jobs, so it's not like you've never mentioned it.
You also ask: "Can you produce data on which specific companies have funded denial?"
Use the site's search engine with the word "Exxon." You will find recent posts with an extensive discussion on the matter. One can also look at who are the donors to organizations that spread misinformation.
If that can make you feel any better, I have always said that coal is by far the biggest problem and the one to tackle in priority. Not only because it is actually easier to replace than liquid hydrocarbons used in transportation but because it is also the largest source.
I will add that it is disingenuous to hold against the entire population that they do not make efforts to use less. After all, many of them fall hook, line and sinker for the disinformation that's around. But mainly, and as we have discussed before, true change will come as a matter of public policy. Some stakeholders are going at great length to hinder te development of such policies. You can argue that they should not be condemned but I disagree.
The last time I took an airplane was last year to go visit my father who had been in/out of the hospital for 2 months. He was 77 years old and I wasn't sure what was going to happen to him. Call it pleasure if you wish.
The most important of my points remains: going the dishonest way always ends up being bad business. VolksWagen has recently shown that much. No I would never argue that anybody working for VW is a bad person, that would be pretty stupid, and worse, inaccurate. But if you do care about oil companies providing good jobs and contributing for a long time to come, I would advise you to advocate against them going the dishonest route. In the long run, it will bring more harm that any disvestment operation, PR campaign against them and what not. Look at the lead industry, tobacco, financial industry, VW; some things have a way to come back at you.
-
Romulan01 at 09:17 AM on 12 March 2016Greenhouse Gas Concentrations in Atmosphere Reach New Record
I read many of the scientific arguments both pro and con for Co2 being a heat trapping gas. I don't understand most of the arguments because I am not a scientist. It seems to me that a way to settle this argument would be to get two containers fill one with Co2 and the other with regular atmosphere, place a thermometer in the bottom of both and let them sit side by side for a day and then observe the temperature variation in both containers over a 24 hour period to find the truth. This might be an Occam's Razor type of experiment.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 00:15 AM on 12 March 2016Why We Need to Keep 80 Percent of Fossil Fuels in the Ground
TonyW... We're at about 1°C over preindustrial. For us to have already burned enough to push us past 2°C seems a stretch. That would mean there's a full 1°C in thermal inertia, and I would suspect it's not quite that much. Are we on a trajectory that will likely put us over 2°C? Absolutely.
I can't remember who it was now, but one researcher framed it in interesting terms this way, "Can we stay under 2°C? Yes, but only in the models." Staying under 2°C will require that we develop technologies that can effectively pull CO2 out of the atmosphere.
-
Tom Curtis at 23:19 PM on 11 March 2016Oceans are cooling
Cedders @83, the SST has increased by about 0.8 C over the last century. It is that surface layer that impacts the atmosphere, and hence it is the most relevant part of the ocean data to answer Curry's question. Therefore she asks the question about the 0-2000 meter average, which warms very slowly in the deep ocean, brining the average down. That is, her question is no more than rhetorical slight of hand.
With regard to Cheng, Zhu and Abraham - yes oceans reduce the rate of warming, but they do not reduce the equilibrium temperature response.
-
Tom Curtis at 23:04 PM on 11 March 2016How we know the greenhouse effect isn't saturated
ConcernedCitizen @98:
"The suggestion that the atmosphere is made thicker by adding CO2, thus forcing it to radiate from a higher altitude..."
Neither you nor the OP said anything like this, so your claim that it did is simply false.
As it happens, the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere does not make it thicker (each molecule of CO2 replaces a molecule of O2, but as CO2 dissolves more readilly in water, the total number of molecules in the atmosphere decreases by a miniscule amount). Because CO2 is heavier than O2, overall the mass of the atmosphere has increased by about 256 Gigatonnes (0.005%) due to increased CO2 , but fallen by 558 Gigatonnes due to O2 being converted to CO2 then dissolving in the ocean or being taken up by plants. The net reduction is approximately 302 Gigatonnes, or about 0.006%. That is negligible and well below the impact of increased humidity on atmospheric mass.
Finally, overall atmospheric pressure is predicted to increase due to increased temperature - and is increasing to a greater extent than predicted by models so your final claim is also false. It has no relevance to the greenhouse effect other than as a predicted response to warming.
Your completely false claims, coupled with the egregious way in which they misrepresent the OP has taken us way of topic so I will not respond to further egregious misrepresentations other than to note that they are in fact egregiously false, and misrepresentations.
-
TonyW at 18:43 PM on 11 March 2016Why We Need to Keep 80 Percent of Fossil Fuels in the Ground
pete, I believe that 20% is for a chance of staying under 2C, but I think that chance may only be 33%, or close to it. That doesn't seem like good odds, to me. We may already have burned too much to stay under 2C. -
Cedders at 18:09 PM on 11 March 2016Oceans are cooling
A more recent sceptical argument is that, while the ocean appears to show the energy imbalance, the rate of warming is negligible. See for instance http://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/ocean-temperatures-is-that-warming-statistically-significant/ which alleges that the error from network of buoys is greater than thought (I didn't find that line convincing, but the temp graphs get recylced).
Judith Curry writes "with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it is not easy to get much of that heat back to surface... since the 1960s, the warming of that layer [0-2000m] was 0.06 °C... can anyone figure out why 0.06C is a big deal for the climate".
Cheng, Zhu and Abraham find warming of 0.0061 °C/yr in 0-700m, close to models, but one naive question might be why this is less than half the rate of surface warming, and less than 1 °C in a century. Does this slowness mean the oceans will moderate or delay the surface warming more than thought? Is there a simple model to explain this? I wonder if this deserves its own article.
Moderator Response:[Rob P] - As Tom Curtis points out, Judith Curry is engaging in a logical fallacy. Most of the heat accumulating in the ocean is in the 0-100 meter layer. See the image below for the 2015 anomaly.
This has drastic implications for marine life upon which humanity depends for sustenance and income. Coral reefs, for instance, are being destroyed at this very moment because the surface ocean has accumulated so much extra energy that marine heatwaves (associated with El Nino & the warming ocean) are killing coral on a global scale - only the 3rd worldwide bleaching event ever recorded.
-
bozzza at 18:06 PM on 11 March 2016After 116 days, MIT fossil fuel divestment sit-in ends in student-administration deal for climate action
@ 5, Sharon: you are looking to give investment advice and so divestment advice: doesn't this advice have ethical connotations?
-
bozzza at 18:04 PM on 11 March 2016After 116 days, MIT fossil fuel divestment sit-in ends in student-administration deal for climate action
Divestment is not an ethical issue.
Divestment is also called Investment: economics calls this idea, "Opportunity cost!"
If Divestment has ethical connotations then surely so too does Investment?
Why do we have kids?
-
ConcernedCitizen at 17:51 PM on 11 March 2016How we know the greenhouse effect isn't saturated
@96. You misunderstand. The suggestion that the atmosphere is made thicker by adding CO2, thus forcing it to radiate from a higher altitude and causing surface warmuing would have to be acompanied by an increase in pressure at the surface,. This hasnt happened.
-
ConcernedCitizen at 17:48 PM on 11 March 2016How we know the greenhouse effect isn't saturated
@Moderator. Where did I question the GH theory?
I am questioning the 'more CO2 = higher lapse rate thus more surface warmig' theory you are proposing in this piece.
-
Tristan at 17:16 PM on 11 March 2016After 116 days, MIT fossil fuel divestment sit-in ends in student-administration deal for climate action
Divestment does not 'punish' fossil fuel companies. Divestment amounts to the statement: I am not comfortable deriving income from this source. It is a demonstration to broader society that one is willing to sacrifice some measure of profits for one's beliefs. It generates conversation about the nature of a given industry and whether or not we should accept the way it currently operates.
-
Sharon Krushel at 16:58 PM on 11 March 2016After 116 days, MIT fossil fuel divestment sit-in ends in student-administration deal for climate action
A positive and productive alternative to the hypocrisy of divesting from fossil fuels would be for students to rally MIT to invest a minimum % of their funds in renewable energy companies. This, combined with the planned reduction in the campus carbon footprint, would be an ethical move indeed that would actually have a positive impact on the environment and on those who are looking up to them for inspiration.
-
Sharon Krushel at 16:20 PM on 11 March 2016After 116 days, MIT fossil fuel divestment sit-in ends in student-administration deal for climate action
It's like condemning ranchers for all the methane their cattle produce, while you take another bite of your hamburger.
-
Sharon Krushel at 16:16 PM on 11 March 2016After 116 days, MIT fossil fuel divestment sit-in ends in student-administration deal for climate action
Painting all fossil fuel companies, executives and workers with one big broad black brush is prejudice. I hope you can recognize that in what you have written. Have you actually spoken to any of them, and gotten to know them as people? Can you produce data on which specific companies have funded denial? Are they all guilty if one is guilty? If so, you have a strange sense of justice.
Condemning all fossil fuel companies, regardless of their track record, while we are still using fossil fuels for our own benefit is hypocrisy, no matter how you look at it.
Actions based on prejudice and hypocrisy will have negative consequences in the long run. That is the way of ethics.
I've not heard an answer to the ethics question, "If it is immoral to invest in companies that extract fossil fuels, is it also immoral to invest in companies that use fossil fuels?"
The question has been asked, "If the U.S. purchases vast amounts of steel from China, and the production of the steel results in vast amounts of CO2 emissions, who is responsible for these emissions in China - the U.S.? or China? Or is it the automotive industry that uses the steel? Or is it the people who buy the vehicles?
In light of global warming, do you recognize that it's wrong to travel for the sake of pleasure? Do you continue to do that?
The blaming game will just take us in circles and turn people against each other at a time when we most need to be working together, collaborating, sharing and developing ideas and implementing positive changes.
You say, "The very rich of the Western World could easily spare a 100 billion toward a transition effort, as a purely private effort." That's great! As I said, we should be encouraging that. That's a positive action that will have definite positive results.
You say "We must reduce fossil fuel use. However, considering how little sense seems to be coming out of people in large groups..." I agree. And encouraging consumers to condemn the supplier makes very little sense. That's my point. The MIT initiative inadvertently promotes the very attitude amongst consumers that you are condemning broadly in the fossil fuel industry. "I don't need to change MY behaviour!"
I didn't say anything about lost jobs in my comment above. I'm not sure why you brought it up. As difficult as it is to lose one's livelihood, it's not relevant to the issue of hypocrisy I'm trying to bring to light.
It surprises me that divestment from fossil fuel companies is being justified from the perspective of ethics, when, at this point in time, it contradicts the basics of ethics.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 03:55 AM on 11 March 2016After 116 days, MIT fossil fuel divestment sit-in ends in student-administration deal for climate action
Sharon you have already made the point before that the oil industry in Canada provides a livelihood for many people. That is true but by no means an excuse to hold these livelihoods hostage in any way. The reason why fossil fuels industries and their lobbies are often cast as villains is because of their proven track record of funding denial and manufacturing doubt in order to delay or entirely prevent the transition you mention, which is possible only as a public undertaking, driven by public policy.
The overall behavior in the fossil fuel world is of the sort that has already proven so many times to lead to catastrophic failure. The same mode of operation chosen by tobacco. The attitude of utilities spreading cancer-causing chemicals in the water. The denial and irresponsible handling that caused a more recent water quality crisis in Flint. The same mind set that led VW to cheat. The attitude that consists of acknowledgeing that something is wrong but going on with it, developing all sorts of methods to cover, protect, hide, avoid. It is faulty risk/benefit analysis and always fail. It is bad business and will more surely result in the loss of the livelihoods about which you are concerned than any concerted effort to transition.
We are now at a time where the transition is quite feasible. Western countries are richer than ever before. The 2008 crisis was possibly the worst thing to hit the World economy since WWII. Yet, there were no endless lines of folks hoping to catch a bowl of soup, pop-up shanty towns, stores with empty aisles. None of that. This gigantic financial fiasco could be absorbed with what amounted to minimal damage.
The fossil fuel industries have amounts of money that regular folks like you and me can barely comprehend. The very rich of the Western World could easily spare a 100 billion toward a transition effort, as a purely private effort. They really have that much money and more. There are more technologies available than ever before to make the transition. The truth is that, one way or another, the industrial scale use of fossil fuels will be eradicated. It is up to us how controlled that process is.
The fossil fuel industry risk/benefit analysis is completely off. They could lead this effort, thereby exercising significant control on it and ensuring their long term prosperity as the major energy player of the future, if their focus was not entirely on maximizing profit now and securing the best potential profits on the 5 years horizon.
You do have a point, and a shining one at that, on the consumer side. We must reduce our fossil fuel use. However, considering how little sense seems to be coming out of people in large groups, policy efforts are necessary. Public policies, and private initiative like the one from MIT are all part of the big picture showing us in the attempt to wean ourselves off the stuff in a controlled, minimally damaging way. It is unfortunate that the fossil fuel industry is being such a hindrance.
Somehow, a group think started among the FF industry with the fear that, acknowledgeing climate change and modifying their business practice and eventually their vocation, was synonymous with ruin. It does not have to be that way at all. A bunch of old guys with sclerosed thinking are paralyzed by fear of change, even though they are in the most privileged position to tackle that change. I'm not impressed, regardless how many jobs they provide.
-
knaugle at 02:07 AM on 11 March 2016New Video: Why Scientists Trust the Surface Thermometers More than Satellites
Good stuff. I had noticed on Cowtan's site that the uncertainty of satellite data is twice that of the surface temperature data.
-
pete best at 21:27 PM on 10 March 2016Why We Need to Keep 80 Percent of Fossil Fuels in the Ground
if we have to leave 80% in the ground then how long will it take to use up the 20%? and how quickly are we reducing our usage to make that 20% last longer. I am presuming that this 20% always keeps us under 2C or is it 1.5C?
-
Tom Curtis at 19:34 PM on 10 March 2016How we know the greenhouse effect isn't saturated
ConcernedCitizen @95, only a few atmospheric gases radiate heat in the IR spectrum. In particular, O2 radiates in the microwave range where very little energy is emitted, and the visible light range where no energy in emitted at atmospheric temperatures. As a result radiation from O2 is inconsequential. In a similar manner, radiation from N2 is even more inconsequential. Of the major IR radiating gases (CO2, CH4, NO2, O3) CO2 has a far greater abundance than the others, and absolutely dominates their effect. Further, the only of the IR gases to be more abundant than CO2 at low levels (H2O) precipitates out with increasing altitude, and consequently is far less abundant than CO2 at high levels.
The upshot is that your reasoning is fatally flawed by reason of radically false premises.
All of this is largely irrelevant, however. The theory used to predict the impact of increasing CO2 has been used to program radiation models that show stunning accuracy in predicting the observed IR radiation from the planet. This, for example, is the type of accuracy that they demonstrated in 1970 (46 years ago):
The large trough centered around 15 micrometers wavelength is, of course, due to CO2. Area under the curve represents the total power of TOA emissions, so that trough represents a very significant reduction in energy radiating to space.
Similar observations have been made with similar accuracy across a wide range of atmospheric condition. For example, in 2008 comparisons between a model and satellite observations for 134,862 measured values were released:
This represents a stunning accuracy, and the fact that the accuracy was preserved over the full range of latitudes, surface types and atmospheric temperatures shows it is no accident.
Against this very well established theory - confirmed by laboratory and in situ observations to a remarkable extent, you offer hand waving based on radically false premises. Given that you have no model, ie, no mathemtical predictions of observations from your premises, you do not even have a scientific theory. But you want your hand wavey non-theory to trump a theory backed by detailed and extensive comparisons between models and observations over nearly half a century. I'm just not buying it.
-
ConcernedCitizen at 19:08 PM on 10 March 2016How we know the greenhouse effect isn't saturated
"So if we add more greenhouse gases the air needs to be thinner before heat radiation is able to escape to space"
But only for heat radiation absorbed and emitted by CO2. Heat radiation from the rest of the atmosphere is at the same altitude as before, since we arent adding more N2, O2 etc.
So even if this theory is true, 0.004% of the atmopshere radiates from a higher altitude. 99.996% radiates from exactly the same altitude as before.
Therefore the saturation argument still holds true and increasing CO2 is of little effect.
Moderator Response:[PS] Friendly advice. If every textbook on radiative physics validates GHG theory, but you have a differing opinion, then chances are you have misunderstood the theory (as in this case) rather than the theory is wrong. Concluding "therefore the saturation argument still holds" is hubris in extreme. You will get better engagement here if instead you say "given x,y,z, then appears to me that the theory X is wrong". People will help with misconceptions and in the unlikely event of you discovering something new, be inclined to take your argument seriously. And you are very unlikely to find new science unless you have taken time to read the textbook and thoroughly understand the theoretical background.
-
Sharon Krushel at 17:52 PM on 10 March 2016After 116 days, MIT fossil fuel divestment sit-in ends in student-administration deal for climate action
I only took one ethics course in college, but it seems to me that punishing the fossil fuel industry with divestment, while we are still using fossil fuels, is hypocritical. It could also be counterproductive in terms of stopping global warming as it leads people to think they've done their bit for the environment if they've divested, when, in the long run, they haven't done anything significant at all.
If divestment resulted in all of the tar sands in Canada shutting down, it would reduce global emissions by 0.15% (and people would just import oil across the ocean from somewhere else). However, if, for example, everyone were to stop travelling for the sake of pleasure, the reduction in global CO2 emissions would be significant indeed. I wonder if there any statistics on that.
Targeting the industry that supplies the gasoline and jet fuel we use is a perfect example of the psychology of blaming. It is a popular approach to the global warming problem because it relieves us of the very uncomfortable feeling that we should be making changes in our personal choices, and rather makes us feel like members of the league of environmental heroes who will bring down the villain and save the planet.
Essentially, we as consumers are driving AGW. We would be further ahead to stop demonizing our suppliers and encourage people, institutions, manufacturers and industry to take responsibility for their own carbon footprint.
Here's a question for the ethics committee. If it is immoral to invest in companies that extract fossil fuels, is it also immoral to invest in companies that use fossil fuels?
I think investing in renewable energy companies is a positive move for institutions and individuals.
I agree with engaging with the fossil fuel industry as investors with an attitude of inquiry and inspiration, as long as we are not so myopic that we can't see the logistics the company has to deal with.
Ironically, we may need a healthy fossil fuel industry in order to transition to renewables. We need to be careful we don't antagonize and cripple the giant whose resources and expertise we could really use in our quest.
Fossil fuel industry executives and workers are people too, who care about the earth that will be inherited by their children and grandchildren. Many have dedicated their entire careers to working within the industry to minimize impact on the envionment while supplying people with the energy they need to survive and thrive through all these years. Eveyone knows we need to move to a low carbon economy. But right now, some of us would freeze to death before we had a chance to starve to death without a supply of fossil fuels.
If we damage western fossil fuel companies with divestment, we'll just end up importing more oil from places like Saudi Arabia, and they are using the profits to bomb schools and hospitals.
On the other hand, the royalties from Canadian tar sands oil funds schools and hospitals, social programs for the poor, etc. And as technology and efficiency improves, CO2 emissions are going down.
The ethics of this issue are not as black as tar and as white as a wind turbine.
-
TomR at 08:22 AM on 10 March 2016Why We Need to Keep 80 Percent of Fossil Fuels in the Ground
Bill McKibben is a great leader, but he is far too optimistic. We have already very likely burned far too much fossil fuel and 100% of it needs to be left in the ground. We have very likely already crossed the barrier for a 2C rise in global temperature due to the melting permafrost and methane clathrates which the IPCC has yet to consider. Despite this, humans are burning more oil and natural gas than ever before. Coal may have decreased a little, but as of Dec. 31, 2014, it was also at record levels. Deforestation is also at record levels according to the most recent satellite study which show that numerous world governments have been lying. And Europe is chopping down American forests to burn in their power plants.
Of course, Europe has been lying about nitrogen oxide and soot emissions from diesels yet is still subsidizing diesel cars and fuel. The EPA has been lying until recently about U.S. methane emissions. Atmospheric CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide are all at records levels and still increasing at or near their fastest rates ever. CO2e is almost at 500 parts per million.
We need to ban the manufacturer and importation of fossil fuel cars, buses, trucks, and tractors as of five years from now. We need to ban their usage as of 15 years from now. We need to ban the use of fossil fuels for concrete five years from now and the production of electricity from fossil fuels.
It is very likely that billions of humans will die many years prematurely this century due to global warming. There are seven billion on Earth now and probably another 13 billion will be born this century. No one wants to admit that billions will die of starvation as most of the current farmlands of the world will turn into desert including the U.S. Midwest and South. It's about time that Skeptical Science starts reporting this.
We must work quickly to save as many human and animal lives as we can. We must all give up beef and dairy today if you haven't already. Even seafood and pork have footprints which are simply too high. We all should only buy EV cars and only buy renewable energy electricity. We should eliminate our gas water heaters and stoves today. We need to give up flying on airplanes completely. And we have to elect Democrats, because Republicans have sold their souls to the fossil fuel industry, America be damned. Death is rushing at us. Don't be so optimistic. Scientific research shows that pessimists live longer, probably because they take things more seriously.
-
Elmwood at 04:43 AM on 10 March 2016Why We Need to Keep 80 Percent of Fossil Fuels in the Ground
it is hopeless, even obama advocates for an "all of the above" approach to fossil fuel consumption, and at least he admits there's a problem. it only gets worse from there.
rich and powerful people want to keep us enslaved to fossil fuels, they are not going to voluntarily agree to massively subsidize renewable energy.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:04 AM on 10 March 2016During the most important year for climate news, TV coverage fell
Tom Curtis @6:
I agree that there is also the "Sensationalism Sells" motivation behind new media providers. And that is a significant part of how a new media provider may 'try to get attention'. But the report is regarding the behaviour of major established media in the US.
Some "Sensationalism Sells" infuence exists even for the major media. However, there is little doubt that Murdoch has set up (and potentially even directs), Fox to report in accordance with his personal preference, and he definitely has a history of a misguided (misinforming) and denialist (deliberate attempts to discredit) attitude toward climate science. And there is no doubt that American Exceptionalism and the desire of many people in the US to gobble up appealing lies like President George Bush telling them 'they did not have to change how they lived' when he announced that the US would not be formally signing onto Kyoto (I remember how apalled I was when I watched him say it, but I cannot find a video or speech transcript).
The types like Bush desired that US citizens believe they did not have to reduce their pursuit of reward from the burning of fossil fuels. And they still desire that belief to be maintained any way they can get away with, because 'pursuing maximum personal reward any way they can get away with for as long as they can get away with (cheaper and quicker without regard for advancing humanity to a better future for all)' is their chosen 'purpose in life'. It is the truly exceptional damaging and ultimately unsustainable attitude that is still fermetting and growing in pockets in the US and being exported (encouraged to develop) around the world in other potentially fertile regions (like Alberta, Canada) to grow and affect the future of humanity like a cancer, virus or bacterial disease thoughtlessly spreading and growing without any concern about its actual impacts. But unlike those unthinking trouble-makers, these people are able to be aware of the trouble they make and will deliberately try to get away with making it, including deliberately limiting the growth of awareness and understanding that is contrary to their interests, any way they can get away with including influencing what gets presented by the major media providers.
-
bozzza at 14:37 PM on 9 March 2016Will Fossil Fuel Prices Fully Recover?
You can't say my remarks are irrelevant when you take sentences out of context and indeed capitalise words that were half way through said sentence as if it were the start of a sentence. Then you missed the full-stop to complete the faux pas!
Saying all that you were right: I was ranting and just asking people to read up on the Jevons Paradox... a controversial little article now you got me to read a little bit more of it.
-
bozzza at 14:21 PM on 9 March 2016During the most important year for climate news, TV coverage fell
@ 7, fair enough.
I didn't realise Miami was doing this and the problem is actually a clear and present danger. I mean I suspected it was but didn't actually know...
-
chriskoz at 13:55 PM on 9 March 2016Will Fossil Fuel Prices Fully Recover?
bozzza@12,
What point are you trying to argue in this article or its comment thread?
...occurs when technological progress increases the efficiency with which a resource is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), but the rate of consumption of that resource rises because of increasing demand.
And later:
Conservation policies (such as cap and trade) do not display the paradox, and can be used to control the rebound effect
Whilst, in the article, Riduna is trying to point out that FF can be made redundant/displaced by a competing technology (renewables). There is no mention of increased efficiency of coal use that your argument of Jevons would apply. No such topic in any comment either. Unless you clarify how you relate your argument of Jevons to the topic at hand, I conclude your comment is an irrelevant rambling with no substance.
-
John Hartz at 12:15 PM on 9 March 2016During the most important year for climate news, TV coverage fell
Supplemental reading:
Analysis of 50 major newspapers reveals relative drop in media attention at December UN conference compared with 2009 event
Why did Paris climate summit get less press coverage than Copenhagen? by Alex Pashley, Climate Home, Mar 8, 2016
-
John Hartz at 11:55 AM on 9 March 2016Mapped: The sensitivity of the world’s ecosystems to climate
Supplemental reading:
New research exposes urgent need to transform key agriculture regions across Africa by as early as 2025 by CIAT* Comunicaciones, Mar 7, 2016
*International Center for Tropical Agriculture
-
Riduna at 03:49 AM on 9 March 2016Will Fossil Fuel Prices Fully Recover?
jsousa36
You are quite right but Russia has agreed with Saudi Arabia to limit its oil pumping to no more than the (record) level it was pumping in January 2016. Text has been amended to show this.
-
michael sweet at 03:28 AM on 9 March 2016During the most important year for climate news, TV coverage fell
Jenna:
PBS and Miami Herald (cost estimate $500 million). Many hits on Google. These efforts will only help them for a little while, the ground is porous and the water cannot be held back.
-
jenna at 03:15 AM on 9 March 2016During the most important year for climate news, TV coverage fell
@michael sweet
"Miami Beach is spending hundreds of millions of dollars now to pump the ocean back."
Do you have a link or reference to go along with that statement? Thx.
-
michael sweet at 03:08 AM on 9 March 2016During the most important year for climate news, TV coverage fell
An army that solely focused on killing the enemy and neglected its supply line would not last very long in the field.
Miami Beach is spending hundreds of millions of dollars now to pump the ocean back. These costs will only rise as sea level, flooding rains, strong hurricanes and other problems caused by AGW increase.
-
Tom Dayton at 02:36 AM on 9 March 2016Ted Cruz's favorite temperature data just got a lot hotter
Carl Mears has responded to criticisms (mostly Roy Spencer's) of the RSS 4.0 update. (Hat tip to barry at Open Mind)
-
Tom Curtis at 01:51 AM on 9 March 2016During the most important year for climate news, TV coverage fell
OPOF @5, we need not assume direct editorial input to account for the astonishing anti-scientific bias in so much new media. In essence, the AGW denier strategy (borrowed from the cigarette companies and creationists before them) is manufacture controversy. As long as the science is considered controversial, it will be considered premature to frame policy on it. Hence the deniers absolute hatred of any quantification of the consensus of climate scientists agreeing with global warming.
On the other hand, the mantra of news organizations is that controversy sells copy.
There is a natural synergy here such that for purely commercial reasons, new media will inflate the significance of, and give undue prominence to the 'mavericks', ie, the 1 or 2% of climate scientists and their non-scientist promoters over the consensus as determined by the IPCC.
-
Tom Curtis at 01:39 AM on 9 March 2016The global warming 'pause' is more politics than science
steve222 @18, the temperatues series start in late 1978 because that was when the first satellite used for the data started operation (later for the TUT channel).
There are two key tricks with the satellite data. First, the TMT data (and hence the TLT) data which is derived from that channel, draws a significant amount of its temperature information from the lower stratosphere, which is cooling. So much so that the TLS channel shows a trend of -0.259 K per decade to the end of 2015.
The second is that the satellite data shows an exagerated (and delayed) response to ENSO events, and volcanoes relative to surface temperature data. When viewing the full record, that makes the noise and hence the standard error large when calculating trends. When truncating the data to start from 1997 as deniers often do, it gives a false indication of no trend where in fact a trend actually exists.
For what it is worth, the NOAA TMT trend to the end of 2015 is 0.123 K/decade, which is far from flat. The TLT trend would be larger.
One further nuance worth noting is that the weighting function above is actually calculated for the US Standard Atmosphere. The actual atmospheric weights observed will vary depending on altitude of the land surface, and latitude. The later is because convection carries the air mass much higher in the tropics, which lifts the peak weight of the weighting function to a higher altitude. That is why for Fu and Johansson's TTT channel (and artificial channel determined by a linear composition of TMT and TLS data), they use different weights for the TMT and TLS channels for global average, and tropical data. The practical effect is that satellites do not measure the temperatures of the same altitude band of the atmosphere at different locations across the globe.
As warming of the air causes the height of the atmosphere to increase, it will also change the weighting function. That is, a positive temperature trend in the troposphere will result in the satellites using data from progressively higher (and hence cooler) sections of the atmosphere. I know that this effect is not compensated for in the various satellite temperature products. I do not know that it is a significant effect. That is, its effect on trends may well be only -0.00001C/decade or less for all I know. Worse, increasing CO2 warms the troposphere (causing it to rise) but cools the stratosphere (causing it to shrink) thereby increasing the stratospheric contamination of the TMT channel over time. Again, I have no idea of the magnitude of this effect. I just mention these possibilities to highlight that it is far from straight forward to assume the various satellite temperature products represent a reliable record of tropospheric temperatures.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:18 AM on 9 March 2016During the most important year for climate news, TV coverage fell
ryland,
Many multi-mass-media owners definitely control and direct their enterprises to pursue personal objectives while maximizing profit. Very few strive to better inform to advance humanity to a lasting better future (and many will try to use the term sustainable as Green-washing. In Alberta the businesses involved in the undeniably unsustainable production of coal, oil and gas for burning claim to be pursuing sustainable development).
Those media leaders do not try to get everyone to watch or read their product. They try to appeal to identifiable audience types that can be sold to marketers who want focused access to that type of audience (and many marketers, particularly the deliberately misleading ones, want access to an audience that is willing to be easily impressed and is likely to have money to spend or would try to get a loan or credit card and run up debt for something they have been fooled into 'wanting - believing they need it').
And there can be no doubt that getting away with cheaper desired things is appealing, so it is natural to expect it to be easy for people who gamble on benefiting from an unsustainable damaging activity like burning fossil fuels to succeed in their attempts to drum up support for keeping their unacceptable activities 'permitted, desired and cheap'.
And media can also be significantly controlled by the lure of advertising revenue.
The real problem is that advancing humanity to a 'lasting better future for all' is not as profitable as getting away with less acceptable pursuits, and it is easier to drum up popular support for damaging unsustainable activity because people can easily be tempted to 'want more reward for themselves and will not want to understand how unacceptable their desires are' (greedy people share that deliberate desire to not better understand things with intolerant people claiming to be religious, that is why greedy people commonly partner with intolerant people behind a potentially popular political Brand, they know they need each other's support because they fundamentally know their attitudes are unacceptable and have no real future).
Prev 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 Next
