Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 Next
Comments 26851 to 26900:
-
villabolo at 07:09 AM on 22 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
Tom Curtis @29,
That is, can current monoculture farmers (or their landlords) retain their land for that purpose rather than giving it over for permaculture villages if they desire?
Good point. One thing to keep in mind about my concept is that it will not be done in one drastic move but will have a transition period of 50-70 years.
Agricultaral landlords will keep their own land but will not be able to pass it on to their heirs. Instead their heirs will have the right, as will everyone else, to free occupancy of the village of their choice if they so choose.
-
villabolo at 06:57 AM on 22 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
One Planet Only Forever @#25:
Diligent monitoring to identify people attempting to benefit by behaving in ways that are understood to not be part of a lasting better future for all of humanity and swift action to limit the 'success' of such people (keeping their less acceptable behaviour from becoming too popular or profitable to be easily curtailed). (Some may bristle at this point, but any business enterprise that genuinely wants to have a lasting future needs to do this with their employees to determine who to promote, and who to retrain).
Good point. For example, clinical psychopaths are considered to be 1-3% of the general population but are the cause of most grief in human society. They can be identified through brain scans that they cannot fake (It's a neurological problem with them).
Filtering them out of corporate systems with those brain scans should be a condition of employment.
Another way of preventing "perverse incentives" would be a syndicalistic economy where the employees own, operate and manage their own businesses. They're not likely to slash their own salaries to squeeze a few percent out of a company's costs in order to make stockbrokers and CEOs rich.
-
Tom Curtis at 06:34 AM on 22 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
villabolo @28, leaving aside issues of viability, if your idea for society is voluntary, does that extend to rural landholders. That is, can current monoculture farmers (or their landlords) retain their land for that purpose rather than giving it over for permaculture villages if they desire? If so, then my prediction is that permaculture villages will only ever become an oddity in an overall culture that develops along current lines. If not, then you are only giving the urbanites the ability to volantarilly starve following the massive drop in surpluss food that will accompany the swithch to permaculture villages.
-
Tom Curtis at 06:26 AM on 22 October 2015HadCRUT4: Analysis and critique
knaugle @3, this page for monthly data. This page for links to all HadCRUT4 data. Data format described here. The data is currently available through to August, 2015.
-
villabolo at 06:25 AM on 22 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
CBDunkerson @24:
The bigger problem with 'ecomodernism', villabolo's plan, and indeed virtually all utopian visions... they always seem to ignore human nature.
Human nature has evolved within small intimate groups. Yes, there are many who would want exposure to a greater variety of people but there is nothing in my communitarian vision that would prevent that.
People would either travel 3 to 4 times as much to meet up with those with similar lifestyle or would create a village community of equal minded persons.
Could a society of rigidly concentrated/dispersed humans work? No... because it will never happen. The only way it could happen is if the humans stopped acting like humans.
That seems to be circular reasoning.
'Oh, you want me to leave my Wall Street accounting firm and go live in a small village in the middle of nowhere? Ok, bye!'
You can have a village of Wall Street Brokers each living in their McMansions. Think of their living in a gated community. Also, they would not be in the middle of “nowhere”. Villages made up of different cultures and affinities would encompass the whole region.
Seriously... humans just don't work that way. Ecomodernism. Communism. Objectivism. Et cetera. They're all designs based on fictional vaguely human-like creatures. 'Communists' all share equally with each other. 'Objectivists' all give each other full profit for their own labor. Humans? Not so much.
We’ve had decentralized societies before.
Come up with a system which humans could/would actually accept... then we can argue about whether the technology and economics actually work.
How do you know that many people would not accept such a society?
One thing I should mention is that my society would be voluntary. You would still have cities but I believe that most people would choose to live in modern villages with more land than your average suburbanite.
-
Dcrickett at 04:01 AM on 22 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
The comments here are as interesting as the essay itself, if not more so. Considering the extent of the disagreements, I am amazed at how civil the comments are.
-
ubrew12 at 02:50 AM on 22 October 2015Carbon pollution: the good, the bad, the ugly, and the denial
Corollary to what GWPF is doing with its report: "Take Colonheal and watch those painful Hemorroids disappear! (possible side effects include droopy lip, creeky neck, occasional blindness, paranoid delusions, and suicidal egomania. Discontinue use before any of these occur)."
-
knaugle at 02:47 AM on 22 October 2015HadCRUT4: Analysis and critique
I've noticed the MET stopped issuing their climate bulletins at the end of 2014, and the HadCrut4 data seems to end in March 2015. Yet ver. 4.4.0.0 was released, looks like in August. Is there a disconnect somewhere?
-
knaugle at 02:37 AM on 22 October 2015First Look at HadCRUT4
I haven't been able to find any HadCrut data after about December 2014, neither at the MET web site nor on WoodForTrees tool. Has something changed?
-
ELIofVA at 00:08 AM on 22 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
One thing nature has taught us, if we observe and listen, is that the dynamic stability of a climax forest is dependent on a highly adaptive and large variety of life organisms. Monoculture agriculture is like a primitive eco system where growth of a few species is favored until the limits of that expansion choke that species which favors a different species in a succession community.
I am sympathetic with villabolo's vision. I would not go on to say that all people should live in such villages. However, I do believe that those that do can have a rich varied cultural experience. Also, the spiritual connection by participating in nurturing life sustaining food can be a big improvement over what we have now.
However, the arguments that defend our current high carbon footprint way of supplying abundance is like the primitive ecosystem, works great until you meet the limits of expansion. In our growth economy, that limit is the ability of release heat because of the accumulative concentration of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels and deforestation. The village model is a sweet spot of optimal partnership of community and nature. However, there can be larger cities for some functions. However, in my view there is no need for million + cities. These metropolises are separated from natural services for maintaining stability. They require continued input of non sustainable energy and pollution to maintain stability.
I am an amateur author. I offer my fiction for free, www.2050story.wordpress.com is a short fiction that a 35 year old describes his recent past from his 2050 perspective. In it, he describes how a transformation occured. It is not a utopian world. However, it offers the hope that is will not be a dystopian world, also. This story does not ignore or wish away the huge dilemmas we face. However, it does imagine how our culture might come to an understanding that the current trends will result in disaster and find motivation to adjust what they believe they need to find a better world.
Eli
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:07 AM on 22 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
CBDunkerson's point about the commonly developed attitude of humans in socio-economic-political sysems is indeed the problem.
But it is not 'a given' that greed and other self-interested pursuits that can be personally desired must be allowed to be gotten away with.
"Freedom without Responsibility to participate in the development of a lasting better future for all of humanity" is what is pushed for by those who understand the competetive advanatge they can have through their willingness to behave less acceptably than others.
Obvious options are:
- All humans are raised in socio-economic-political environments where they learn to want to be responsible participants in the development of a lasting development of a better future for all of humanity, which means living as part of the robust diversity of life on this or any other amazing planet.
- Diligent monitoring to identify people attempting to benefit by behaving in ways that are understood to not be part of a lasting better future for all of humanity and swift action to limit the 'success' of such people (keeping their less acceptable behaviour from becoming too popular or profitable to be easily curtailed). (Some may bristle at this point, but any business enterprise that genuinely wants to have a lasting future needs to do this with their employees to determine who to promote, and who to retrain).
Both paths to humanity having a decent future are actually jointly required actions, and require continued efforts to improve the 'understanding of everything that is going on'. And any new learning about the unacceptability of already developed attitudes and activity would be swiftly acted on to curtail those things even if they have developed significant popularity or profitability among a portion of any generation of humanity.
So the real challenge for humanity is undestanding the importance of overcoming the developed undeserved power of undeserving people so humanity can most swiftly achieve its fullest potential.
People who care more about 'getting the best possible present for themselves' and are willing to do things that are contrary to the 'development of the gift of a lasting better future for all of humanity' will fight as viciously as they can get away with against the advancement of humanity. The number of people 'choosing' that attitude and actions needs to be reduced, and the ability of those who resist changing their minds to succeed in their uderstood to be unacceptable pursuits needs to be strictly limited contrary to cries that the potentially damaging Utopian ideal of "Individual Freedom" somehow defends unjust and irrational behaviour.
-
CBDunkerson at 22:54 PM on 21 October 2015Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
Calls for a RICO investigation getting louder;
-
CBDunkerson at 22:50 PM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
The bigger problem with 'ecomodernism', villabolo's plan, and indeed virtually all utopian visions... they always seem to ignore human nature.
Could a society of rigidly concentrated/dispersed humans work? No... because it will never happen. The only way it could happen is if the humans stopped acting like humans.
'Oh, you want me to leave my Wall Street accounting firm and go live in a small village in the middle of nowhere? Ok, bye!'
Seriously... humans just don't work that way. Ecomodernism. Communism. Objectivism. Et cetera. They're all designs based on fictional vaguely human-like creatures. 'Communists' all share equally with each other. 'Objectivists' all give each other full profit for their own labor. Humans? Not so much.
Come up with a system which humans could/would actually accept... then we can argue about whether the technology and economics actually work.
-
ubrew12 at 22:49 PM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
"Ecomodernism holds that not only are humans driving the future of our world, but through technology can decouple our future from natural ecosystems." Anyone familiar with Science Fiction's need for World-building knows that its going to be a little difficult to develop bases on the Moon or Mars without such a decoupling. This will clearly have consequences back on Spaceship Earth (imho mostly positive), but I'm not sure if we need to defend ourselves against it quite yet. As regards any 'debate', I'm not sure if its helped by sentences like this one: "It is a vision of naive young urban professionals."
-
denisaf at 20:29 PM on 21 October 2015New UN climate deal text: what’s in, what’s out
Those quotes from the 1987 UN Report "Our Common Future" are very germaine but they cover only partof the predicament that society will inevitably have to face. The vast infrastructure of industrialized civilization can only provide a declining potential to instigate measures to cope with climate change as it irrevocably ages and the natural reources required for its operation and maintenance get beyond reach of technological systems.
-
michael sweet at 19:42 PM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
villabolo
Can you provide citations to support your claims of permaculture farms that require little work and provide infite food? Why aren't people doing this now if it is so great? Without citations it is just your pipe dream.
-
bozzza at 19:13 PM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
Re: current commercial farming practises,
This includes the acklowledgment of Governments that small players cannot compete as they cannot deal with the losses that seem to be increasing- an insurance issue basically.
** The invisible hand has many aspects!!
-
TonyW at 18:19 PM on 21 October 2015New UN climate deal text: what’s in, what’s out
Digby, yes, I would think that "success" would result in a decline in emissions and that should mean a reduction in fossil fuel production. Of course, even that might not be enough to keep warming below 2C.
On that last point, I'm glad to see that the option of narrowing the goal to 1.5C still exists (not that 1.5C would not be dangerous).
-
ryland at 17:47 PM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
Illuminating that in the article itself and in the comments both here and in the Guardian, no one refers to Huxley's f'ollow up book Ape and Essence. This is surprising as Ape and Essence is hardly arcane (h/t to scaddenp). Brave New World was written pre-WW2 and Ape and Essence post-WW2 and the effect of the war on Huxley is manifest in his contrasting views of humanity in the two books. The author of the piece compares Brave New World with 1984 which is really rather inapprpriate. A better comparison might have been between 1984 and Ape and Essence to compare and contrat the significant effects of the war on both authors.
-
uncletimrob at 17:47 PM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
We also need to consider the connection between access to "nature" and mental health. This page is one of many that concludes that access is vital to mental health enhance-your-wellbeing/environment/nature-and-us/how-does-nature-impact-our-wellbeing . As far as I can tell this goes against the model of ecomodernism.
-
Tom Curtis at 15:51 PM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
villabolo @17, permaculture is less labour intensive than subsistence farming, but is far more labour intensive than current commercial farming practises. That means a population of permaculture farmers can support far fewer information and cultural specialists (like librarians, professors, artists) or indeed, industrial workers. Granted the hours required per week in an established permaculture farm are sufficiently low that the permaculture farmers can if they desire be part time farmers and part time cottage industrialists (or researchers, or musicians, or what have you), but that doesn't solve the basic person hours equation, and only means the researchers, musicians etc in the society are less skilled at research, music etc. That might work for music, where practising has its own joy. It doesn't work for research. Nor does it work for medicine, or for teaching, and so on. The net effect, if your model were implemented world wide, would be an overall loss of technology and knowledge. Health standards would also decline after an initial boost from the elimination of excessive consumption and lack of excercise.
If, as is far more likely, it was not applied world wide, the nations that did not indulge in the experiment would soon find they had an overwhelming military advantage over those that did, and would take advantage of that fact to end the experiment in their favour. Armed forces are, of course, another of those specialized roles that are refined in ability by the fact that other people grow the soldiers food (and make their guns, etc).
-
villabolo at 13:45 PM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
Scaddenp @#16
It would not be subsistent farming. I see that as a recurring theme in your responses. Permaculture is less labor intensive than subsistence farming. It is also more efficient and sustainable than mechanized agriculture and lacks the side effects of soil erosion, over fertilization, etc.
Most of what you mentioned can be done by villages that specialize in whatever business endeavor you care to mention. Each village will have about 200 adults of working age. Four adjacent villages bordering each other will have about 800.
That is enough to man light manufacturing industries, hospitals, theaters, etc. As for energy it would be solar, wind and natural gas as a backup. The internet, wifi can encompass village areas. Security would be a Swiss style army.
Also, four adjacent villages could support a small school of about 250 students.
-
scaddenp at 12:32 PM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
No, not heard of Arcosanti, but I still dont see how numbers stack. Manufacturing (for finite systems), energy, health care, internet, entertainment, security forces, all requiring payment.
And this is assuming that we want to exist as subsistance farmers - and your option is open only to tiny portion of world's people where there is enough land/per person. In my opinion, a sustainable option is one that has to work for everyone, not just those who accident of birth gives them geographical advantage.
Now if you think you can subsist utterly independently (really and truly) and find others likewise interested, then go for it. As solution for worlds problems - nope, not without a massive downsize in population and expectation. Me? I have no ambition to farming - I am from line a farmers that started with my father and ended with me - and have no wish for a life where I cannot use the talents I do possess.
-
bozzza at 12:13 PM on 21 October 2015Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
"..eh?"
That was gold!
-
One Planet Only Forever at 11:54 AM on 21 October 2015New UN climate deal text: what’s in, what’s out
I hope the result is meaningful change of the motivations driving the development of things, and acknowledgement of what has been unacceptable about development so far.
I think the following pair of paragraphs from the 1987 UN Report "Our Common Future" would make a good preface to the Paris Document.
"25. Many present efforts to guard and maintain human progress, to meet human needs, and to realize human ambitions are simply unsustainable - in both the rich and poor nations. They draw too heavily, too quickly, on already overdrawn environmental resource accounts to be affordable far into the future without bankrupting those accounts. They may show profit on the balance sheets of our generation, but our children will inherit the losses. We borrow environmental capital from future generations with no intention or prospect of repaying. They may damn us for our spendthrift ways, but they can never collect on our debt to them. We act as we do because we can get away with it: future generations do not vote; they have no political or financial power; they cannot challenge our decisions.
26. But the results of the present profligacy are rapidly closing the options for future generations. Most of today's decision makers will be dead before the planet feels; the heavier effects of acid precipitation, global warming, ozone depletion, or widespread desertification and species loss. Most of the young voters of today will still be alive. In the Commission's hearings it was the young, those who have the most to lose, who were the harshest critics of the planet's present management."Political and Economic change can be a gradual process, but what has happened since the global awareness of what needed to change was so plainly stated almost 30 years ago has been inexcusable.
-
villabolo at 11:22 AM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
scaddenp@14
I find the irony of lifestyle blocks where people feel very eco-friendly, raising their own food, generating their own electricity - and then using maybe 4x times a much energy as me because they then commute to work, school, activities, in their SUV (because, you know, they need one because they are "farmers")...
In my lifestyle you wouldn't need to drive 4 times as much for most jobs. First, many people won't even need a job if:
All their food is growing within a minute’s walk of their front door.
Their house is paid off and ready to be transferred free to their children and successive generations.
Also, their village or adjacent villages could run a business cooperatively putting their jobs withing a few minutes walk of their residency.
Then there are plugin hybrid vehicles including SUVs; hybrid buses running between villages; etc.
PS: Have you heard of Arcosanti?
-
scaddenp at 10:39 AM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
"doesn't sound like the good life to me" well that is entirely a subjective judgement and fortunately you are probably able to live that way if you chose. Just dont confuse it with a sustainable, low-energy life style.
I find the irony of lifestyle blocks where people feel very eco-friendly, raising their own food, generating their own electricity - and then using maybe 4x times a much energy as me because they then commute to work, school, activities, in their SUV (because, you know, they need one because they are "farmers"), whereas my city lifestyle puts most of that in walking/cycling distance. Many, if not most, lifestyle blocks are basically turning valuable arable land into over-sized accommodation and pet food. I have crunched some of the numbers deep within this analysis
-
villabolo at 10:31 AM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
scaddenp @11.
The land I live in is not considered arable, yet I was able to grow a garden with no problem. There are also fruit trees growing from cracks in the sidewalk and backyards in my apartment complex. I think that the definition of arable pertains to land that can be farmed with mechanized agriculture.
Don't underestimate permaculture.
-
villabolo at 10:04 AM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
scaddenp @#9
Yes, the population density puts it between suburban and rural densities. Commutes will be, if I did my math right, between 3 and 4 times as far.
However, bunching ourselves up, like sardines, until every mega apartment skyscraper has its own doctor and nurse and a violin teacher two buildings down doesn't sound like the good life to me.
-
Stardustoz at 10:01 AM on 21 October 2015New UN climate deal text: what’s in, what’s out
Please note that the link to the Skeptical Science survey is not working
-
scaddenp at 10:01 AM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
if you use the table in the reference above, you get 0.48hect/per person (actually 1.2 acre) including Alaska. 4x what we have in NZ. China is 0.06ha and Netherlands 0.02ha. Dont see this catching on. I think it is less sustainable than current system from its energy cost.
-
villabolo at 09:42 AM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
scaddenp @#7
Note also, that even in US, you have 1.6 acre/person if I have done the conversion from hectare to such an arcane unit correctly.
I also have trouble converting metrics to American. I believe the figures would be ~6 acres per person excluding Alaska. I would only take 1/3 of that for residencies and businesses.
-
scaddenp at 09:37 AM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
That sounds like high energy transport use and I just love commuting (not). Compare that very high density cities, which can sustain good public transport because there are high densities, with land efficiently farmed or are you saying permaculture cannot scale? Good health care because you have very large no. of people within the golden hour, and thriving arts culture because artists can get together. Tough life being a violin teacher if you have less than 50,000 people within 15 minutes.
Sorry, but your vision isnt for me.
-
villabolo at 09:14 AM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
Scaddenp @7
Society won't be limited to that one village but can be open ended with hundreds of thousands of people networking in the same way they do now.
You can have entire factories and retail establishments run by individual villages whose workers live in that village.
We currently have suburbs with people traveling to and fro. The same would apply to this type of civilization.
-
scaddenp at 09:03 AM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
And what about those whose skills are more like arts (musicians especially), brain surgery, programming, etc. A fab factory does not scale down to something a village of 500 can staff so presumably we are live without electronics. What does your health care look like? Note also, that even in US, you have 1.6 acre/person if I have done the conversion from hectare to such an arcane unit correctly.
-
villabolo at 08:15 AM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
@#4 Tom Curtis
The loose figures I cited are for the United States. I was envisioning permaculture which is not labor intensive and can, when the trees mature, be sustained with 1 hour worth of labor per person per day. We are already efficient with producing food with only a fraction of our population necessary and through permaculture we can still have the same efficiency with a substantial amount of time per capita necessary for the rest of our social infrastructure.
Please realize that permaculture/food forests are very different than conventional agriculture.
-
villabolo at 08:14 AM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
@#2 scaddenp:
No, I was proposing it for the US which has a lower population density than the rest of the world.
Also I'm not proposing it in one fell swoop but graduated throughout a 70+ year period where those who are experts in permaculture can teach those who are not. That time period could allow for 10,000 experts to teach 3 times their numbers within a 7 year period to learn basic permaculture techniques and become fully self-reliant. Once the food forests are yielding those persons could in turn teach 3 others and so forth.
In the meantime conventional grain agriculture can be maintained by the professionals who are now doing it.
-
Tom Curtis at 07:43 AM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
villabolo@1, given current estimates of total world arable land, there is currently 1.4 acres per capita of arable land. That means the world's population would need to reduce by 30% to even begin to impliment your utopia. Nor do I think it would be a utopia. As scaddenp points out, a significant reserve of people not employed in agriculture is required to sustain arts, sciences and an industrial base. Without those, your utopian community would quickly regress to a patchwork technology system (some high technology could be maintained locally) that was well below western 20th century standards. The lack of medical facilities (again, population surplus to direct agricultural production) would be partly compensated for by the lack of trade and low population densities significantly reducing the spread of disease, but life would still be "nasty, brutish and short".
-
Jonas at 07:16 AM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
See also:
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2015-09-10/ecomodernism-a-response-to-my-critics
-
scaddenp at 07:14 AM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
Are you proposing massive depopulation of world? You might like to look at this table and see how feasible this is with current population. I guess everyone with very specialised skill-sets that depend on large population densities to make a living are now unskilled agricultural labour? No thanks.
-
villabolo at 06:32 AM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
My "utopia" would be the opposite of ecomodernism. I believe that humanity should live in villages of 300-500 people spread out throughout the land with extensive wild natural areas.
Each village in the United States would have 1,000 acres (4 square kilometers) which would be about a third of its land. This would come out to 2 acres per person.
Food would be grown with permaculture food forests and some mechanized agriculture which is optimum for growing grains.
The remaining land would have its ecology reconstructed to what it was before the Clovis overkill. North America used to have lions, mammoths, giant ground sloths, camels as well as bison. They can either be substituted with their modern equivalent or brought back through genetic engineering.
Decentralized, human scale communities, with participatory democracies and surrounded by the ancient wilderness we once had.
-
Tom Dayton at 02:59 AM on 21 October 2015Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
As usual, Dilbert makes the point concisely:
-
michael sweet at 20:08 PM on 20 October 2015Arctic sea ice extent was lower in the past
Outinthe snow,
Where in Florida are you moving? All of ocean front Florida is pretty low. New houses are built on 2 meter pads with the ground floor being sacrificial. They are "safe" from 15 feet of water. Is yours a new home or an old one at ground level?
No-one will garantee that your home will be safe. You will have to read the data carefully. Virtually any ocean waterfront property in Florida is at risk from sea level rise. This Climate Central map app gives some idea of how high the sea will rise in a best case and buisiness as usual case.
Unfortunately, none of these cases tells us how fast the sea will rise. For the West Antarctic Ice sheet recent analysis have said it could melt in decades to centuries. That will not help you much. If it is decades your children will see your house submerged while if it is centuries they will be fine.
This Realclimate post gives expert opinion on sea level rise to 2100. it ranges from .5-2.0 meters. The Antarctic data came out after the experts were surveyed, they might increase their estimates now. Most of that rise is likely to happen after 2050, is that long enough for you?
I wonder how much flood insurance will go up the next time a city is inundated. After Sandy they were talking about insurance rates higher than mortgages. I think these rises are more likely going forward, what do you think?
Good luck. Post what you decide to do. If a lot of people decide not to buy in Florida it will start to affect nvestors. Perhaps the government will notice.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 14:27 PM on 20 October 2015Other planets are warming
Flux ropes eh? That seems to be in the same category as the recently discussed profession of "IR astronomer." Please provide scientific references explaining specifically what are flux ropes.
The solar wind is nothing new. Suggesting that one can warm up the long term climate of a planet with a change in solar wind is like suggesting that one can heat up a tea kettle by throwing hot stones at it. Eventually you could, I guess, but the barrage of stones required would be quite interesting. We're not seeing that at all. Tom Curtis gave you the numbers, do you realize what they mean?
I will add that handwaving my climate baseline remark does not make it go away. If all solar planets are to be considered as having seasonal variations according to their orbit around the sun, as they should, then it is indispensable to have a long enough base of obervation to determine whether or not what is being observed is due to seasonal variation or not. In order for any observed variable to be determined to have a significant departure from normal, a long enough time serie must be acquired to define normal. You make no logical case at all against that idea, you don't even try and just hand wave. I'm sorry but that's not convincing.
If we are to assume that some planets do not have seasonal variations, we need to have some serious basis for that, grounded in physics. You have any reference defending that idea? I would also like to see some scientific reference explaining why it is reasonable to assume that we can detect a climate change on a planet whose climate is barely hypothesized. I would also like to see an equally serious reference as to why any weather event on a planet whose climate has not been oberved through a full orbit can be ascribed to a "warming climate."
Skeptics on Earth argue that the rash of 1 in 1000 years weather events we saw on a regular basis over the past few years are not due to a warming climate. And yet here we are, with another type of "skeptic," who asserts that other planets phenomena, whose frequency is completely unknown to us, must be due to a warming climate. Something is clearly wrong in the "skeptic" camp.
A multitude of weather phenomena have become observable on other planets only because we have recently acquired the means to observe them. There is absolutely no way of telling whether these phenomena happened regularly before or not. One going with logic should assume that the likelihood of a phenomenon only recently observed to have sarted happening just when we became able to observe it is extremely low. Why would that be? Because it comes in handy to defend a pet theory?
If you discover something just because you started looking, that thing was probably happening all along. Therefore its existence does not constitute a change. Do you realize you're even arguing against yourself?
I must agree with Tom Curtis on this one. You select snippets from news stories, fail to look into their true significance, and automatically assume that they support your theory, while said theory is itself ill defined and rather free of constraints from basic physics.
What is your theory anyway? That high energy particles warm up the planets, including Jupiter? Jupiter, whose magnetosphere is so large that its bow shock with the solar wind is 75 radii away? Really? No thermodynamics problem there?
I'll add that, before condescending onto others about thermodynamics, you should perhaps verify that the ideas you defend do comply with them. For example, take the amount of energy from a star that would be required to heat up a giant gas planet, orbting far from the star, in a way that can be noticed from another planet closer to the star. Then attempt to quantify what effect that amount of energy would have on the small rocky planet, 300 times less massive and much closer to the star. Would that effect be something subtle enough that a significant portion of the intelligent beings populating the rocky planet would deny its existence? Methinks this all doesn't add up...
-
Digby Scorgie at 13:31 PM on 20 October 2015New UN climate deal text: what’s in, what’s out
Would it be correct to say that, if the Paris conference is successful, the production of fossil fuel will begin to decline and continue to do so for some decades?
And if the above decline does not occur, will this imply failure?
-
topquark at 10:59 AM on 20 October 2015Propaganda trumps journalism in conservative media climate reporting
There were also recent reports of another supposed 'discovery' that supposedly overturned scientific orthodoxy:
Anyone know anything about this? It seems pretty dubious to me. There are many independently coded climate models, so any error common to all of them would have to come from basic physics, not a coding problem, and I really doubt that Evans has discovered an error with the underlying science.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:52 AM on 20 October 2015Other planets are warming
sjw40364 @33:
1) The water discovered on Mars was discovered by an orbital platform that has been orbiting Mars since 2006. The observed phenomenon from which water flows have been observed were seen over that entire period. Consequently the situation is that water was found by the first observing platform that was capable of doing so. To infer from that that Mars global temperatures are increasing follows the same logic of an explorer who, on first discovering the Mississipi concluded it was evidence of an imminent Noachian flood.
2) On the outer planets, at least, higher windspeeds are associated with cooler temperatures. That is because heat introduces turbulence that decreases the velocity of the wind. On Earth, things differ because increased temperatures increase absolute humidity, and hence the energy supply for storms - but that mechanism is not available on Venus. Ergo, it is more likely that increased windspeed on Venus is associated with cooling temperatures than the reverse.
There is no data showing any possible connection between temperature change in the interesting phenomenon on Jupiter or Saturn. The connection you form is of the nature of a leap of faith. You desire that all planets be warming, so you infer from any change (or entirely new observation) that it is evidence of that warming with no effort to tie the two phenomenon together.
3) Finally, NASA has not come up with "a new source of energy". The effect of the solar wind on the magnetosphere has been known since at least 1965. The 2009 NASA article to which you refer merely discusses improved understanding on what modulates that energy transfer. It has no significant bearing on the (already known) existence of and scale of the energy transfer.
With regard to that scale, it is extensively discussed by Tenfjord and Ostgaard (2013). They show a total cumulative energy transfer to the ionsphere over the period 1997-2010 of 889,000 x 10^14 Joules (W(Ut)), representing approximately 60% of the total energy from the impacting solar wind (W(Usw)). Averaged over the Earth's surface and the time interval involved, that represents 0.00035 W/m^2. That in turn is an overestimate of the forcing as approximately only 10% of energy transfered to the thermosphere (let alone the ionosphere) makes it to the lower atmosphere, the rest being radiated to space.
Note, further that this energy is not new energy. The solar wind did not spring into existence yesterday. Consequently there is no basis from this data to conclude that changes in the solar wind are warming or cooling the Earth. There is every reason to conclude it is absolutely inconsequential to the climate.
Your reasoning is shown to consist of taking some unanalyzed (by you) data from the news and simply assume that it automatically applies in support of your theory (without analysis) and that it is very significant (again without analysis and in very stark contradiction to the facts). Frankly, I am no impressed.
Moderator Response:[PS] Good response but watch tone.
-
sjw40364 at 09:02 AM on 20 October 2015Other planets are warming
Response to PhilippeChantreau.
So those who claim to follow science are going to contiinue to ignore that during the same time frame that the earth became warmer - the Winds of venus increased - over the entire timeframe that the mission proceeded. And could still be but we don't know - we haven't sent another probe back to check yet.
That Mars warmed up during this same time frame so that we can now oberve the effects of liquid water on its surface?
That Jupiter lost an entire band - and if we are not talking climate - not just on small scales but ones that have lasted just how many years?
Your 30 year scenario strawman is based upon then ignoring those flux ropes between the earth and the sun - knowing as we do that flux ropes transport superheated plasma from one end to the other. We will just ignore that fact too while we are at it I guess.
Every single atmosphereic scientist in the world was stunned by what they found, yet you discount this newly discovered source of energy as unimportat????? Falsified every textbook you had on the subject - so of course it is unimportant to you, you still use them.
You didn't even know that this energy source
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/scientists-discover-surprise-in-101025
And this one even existed when the word global warming was even invented.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/11dec_themis/
But you think you got it all figured out - whiloe you continue to ignore every actual observation in the entire solar system - and right in froont of your nose - you just couldn't see or detect it a few years ago. Mostly because as they admitted - they were not looking. So predictive power is out for sure.
Now NASA knew something was up, knew enough energy was being generated to disrupt satelites, probes, etc. Energy you seem to think just magically adds nothing to the system. In direct opposition to the laws of thermodynamics.
Your strawmen convince no one but yourself. Because of course you refuse to accept 99% of the data.
And even when told of two newlt discovered sources of energy never added to any clculation - you think it's ok to dismiss them. The reality they would skew your hand-picked data - so they must be ignored. The shame you do to science.
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed links.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
In particular: Provide a source for your "flux ropes". Watch your tone and no accusations of fraud.
If you want to have a rant about AGW, there are plenty of other sites which would welcome your input. If you actually do want discuss the science then please observe the following:
Read the sources people provide back to you and read them for understanding, not to dismiss.
Acknowledge where you agree and where you not with explanation and sources - preferrably to peer-reviewed literature.
Discuss the science rather motives. Say what you think rather than declaring what you think other people think.
To any respondents, please likewise follow those guidelines before discussion goes west and I have to start deleting comments.
-
gws at 08:19 AM on 20 October 2015Methane release from melting permafrost could trigger dangerous global warming
Riduna, I do not question the "potential" (possibility) for a large methane release. There certainly is enough carbon making a potentially large emission of methane with a short time frame (10s-100s of years) possible. The question is, how likely is that? Current knowledge, AFAIK, suggests not very. We have yet to see representative measurements that would suggest that current or upcoming warming is likely to lead to this scenario. Is there is evidence for large outgassing from continental shelves, or evidence of large outgassing from lakes? If so, it has not yet affected atmospheric levels.
So far, atmospheric methane is increasing again in midlatitudes, not high latitudes. You said it yourself, "The threat from Arctic CH4 emissions associated with permafrost decay may not be large or abrupt ...". I agree. I also agree that the potential is worrying, but it is one of those worst case, low probability, high impact scenarios. We do not want it to happen, but we should also not present it as something that is very likely to happen. Few people like to be scared by unlikely scenarios.
We do need to work toward minimizing that worst potential. The "fat tail" as it is sometimes called, is not unimportant. It can be useful for certain audiences to work the fat tail (e.g. in insurance calculations), but I think it is generally more useful in working with people to consider the more likely scenarios.
-
Tom Curtis at 06:57 AM on 20 October 2015CO2 effect is saturated
1) when you say "as a model, [radiative forcing is] not fitting", the model from which radiative forcing is derived are Line By Line (LBL) or broadband radiative models. The Line By Line refers to the fact that they calculate atmospheric transmission and emission for each wave number (a measure of frequency) seperately, giving a very fine resolution of radiative transfer. Typically they also divide the amtosphere into about twenty layers or so, calculating in each direction (up or down) the radiation entering, the radiation absorbed and the radiation emitted based on the atmospheric composition at that layer. As of 1969, they produced results with this sort of accuracy:
One such model whose accuracy across a wide range of surface conditions, temperatures and latitudes was studied in 2008 showed the following scatter plot vs observations for 134,862 observations:
If you are not familiar with scatter plots, they are plots of the observed value (CERES OLR) with the model predicted value, with perfect accuracy of prediction meaning the observations sit on the black line shown. The accuracy shown here is absolutely astonishing. The determination of radiative forcing of CO2 was done using models like this, or the lower resolution versions that are essential parts of all climate models (Global Circulation Models). I can only presume that when you say the model is "... not fitting", you simply do not know what models are used for the theory.
2) You also say that "If CO2 makes up 20% of our greenhouse effect, light from stars at this wavelength should be diminished by 20%". That assumes that absorption is the same at all frequencies, which is false (as can be seen in the first graph). IR astronomers tune the frequency of the observatories to 10 to 13 micron (800 - 1000 cm-1)band where there is minimum absorption by any atmospheric component as seen in the first grap above, and this emission spectrum from the University of Colorado:
By doing so they avoid nearly all of the effect of CO2 and H2O on the incoming light. Despite this, they still need to place their observatories high in the atmosphere (either on mountains, in planes or supported by balloons) or in space to get clear images. So, your fundamental premise that absorption is equal across all IR bands is simply mistaken.
Curiously, Goddard's "IR astronomer" friend refers to the 9.5 micron band as being absorption freed (it is in fact the frequency of maximum absorption and emission by ozone) and describes the actual atmospheric window as being a zone of significant absorption and emission by H2O, showing he does not even grasp the fundamental facts of atmospheric absorption and emission.
3) "Steven Goddard" and his (apparently fictional) source always makes a fundamental misake in examining radiation models. He only examines the so-called back radiation. Because H2O and CO2 emissions overlap, and because H2O is very abundant in the low atmosphere, CO2 emissions make up only a very small percentage of the overall back radiation. That, however, is irrelevant. What controlls the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) is the balance of energy recieved and energy radiated to space. Therefore it is radiation to space from the atmosphere which is the dominant driver of surface temperatures, and hence upper atmosphere concentrations that matter. Because the concentration of H2O is controlled by temperature, and temperatures fall rapidly with altitude, CO2 completely dominates emission to space in frequencies of significant overlap with H2O. Consequently, it is emissions to space that must be examined to determine the relative importance of different atmospheric components.
As an aside, because H2O absorbs in more frequencies it still (along with clouds) accounts for 75% of the total greenhouse effect, with CO2 accounting for 20%. Importantly, H2O varies rapidly with surface temperature, while CO2 varies only slowly. As a result, increasing CO2 will result in a rapid rise in H2O, generating a positive feedback on the CO2 rise. In contrast, a rise in H2O will result in only a small response from CO2, resulting in temperatures and H2O concentrations soon returning to their initial values.
Finally, if you want to examine the basis of greenhouse effect in more detail, but explained very clearly, I recommend my post here. It and the following comments also contain more detail on the first two graphs above.
(Note to the moderator, I know that I am close to the point of dogpilling. If that is a problem, I ask that you retain my post as the only one todate directly addressing the issues raised by fred.steffen (rather than his sources). Thankyou)
Moderator Response:[PS] Tom, thank you for your considered and detailed response. I am sure that will be helpful. However, this is close to dogpiling so no more please.
Prev 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 Next
