Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 Next
Comments 3301 to 3350:
-
wayne19608 at 01:26 AM on 14 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
how can there be any carbon budget left if we are at 1.2C already and have to subtract the negative aerosol forcing and deal with the time lag of 30 yrs?
-
MA Rodger at 18:58 PM on 12 November 2022Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
The commenter @379 presently calling themselves ScienceTruther is entirely incorrect to cite either Pierrehumbert (2011) or Zhong & Haigh (2013) to support the assertion that "it was predicted from advanced spectroscopy calculations that a four-fold increase in CO2 would be needed for even a detectable, much less dangerous, change in temperature due to CO2." Indeed, Zhong & Haigh demonstrate the exact opposite.
Moderator Response:[BL] Note that the comment being responded to no longer exists.
-
Eclectic at 17:58 PM on 12 November 2022Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
ScienceTruther @379 ,
we have been over all this, with other threads and other monikers, so many times before.
You do not even try to understand the very basic physics. You do not get to be published in Nature journal, and you do not get a Prize in Stockholm. At a long shot, you might have a chance at an IgNobel.
Moderator Response:[BL] Note that the comment being responded to no longer exists.
-
Doug Bostrom at 09:34 AM on 10 November 2022SkS Analogy 9 - The greenhouse effect is a stack of blankets
Forestalling sadly predictable stale misinformation, readers may also want to visit our page Is the CO2 effect saturated?"
As well, folks who'd like to tilt at the saturation windmill would do better taking their arguments there, first taking into account the 20 pages of discussion in comments there so as not to be tiresomely duplicative.
-
Bob Loblaw at 03:53 AM on 10 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
OPOF's comment about cows is to point: it's the conversion of CO2 to methane that is the issue at hand when it comes to cows.
CO2 in (via plant photosynthesis), methane out is not the same as CO2 in , CO2 out.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:33 AM on 10 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
In response to:
"The better way to make the point may be that what Art claims to have learned from a Professor of Geology is potentially Art fooling themself about the matter."
Art Vandelay @28 offered:
"For what it's worth, the same geologist is also of the view that cows are a contributing factor to climate change, even though they too, like us, are part of the natural carbon cycle. Assuming the number of cattle is static their contribution to rising greenhouse gas is zero.
So are cows a problem or not"
There are many easily learned about problems regarding human activities related to production of cows to be eaten by humans. But I will limit my response to the climate change impact aspects of the diversity of 'cattle raising' problems.
The current number of cattle is fairly static. So, setting aside the problem of humans having over-developed cattle raising to the current levels, I will limit my response to the static number of cattle.
There are many climate change impacts due to cattle production, including the reduction of forests to increase the area available for cattle raising. But I will also limit my response to the significant climate change impact factor of methane emissions from cattle. Methane is a more powerful ghg than the CO2 it eventually breaks down to after decades of being excess methane in the atmosphere.
Reducing the number of cattle would reduce the developed ghg impacts of human activity, off-setting some of the already excessive, and continuing to be made worse, global warming impacts caused by human activity.
So the 'static' climate impact of current developed levels of cattle production could be reduced by reducing the amount of cattle production. So, from that limited evaluation of the 'potential problems caused by the human raising of cattle' 'cows are a problem'.
All of that easily available understanding, understanding that has been well established for decades, would appear to confirm that:
"The better way to make the point may be that what Art claims to have learned from a Professor of Geology is potentially Art fooling themself about the matter."
Though, admittedly, it also could indicate that:
"Art Vandelay deliberately tries to fool others ... most likely motivated by the benefits of promoting or excusing fossil fuel use. They may even be the Professor they refer to."
Moderator Response:[BL] Portions snipped. It's one thing to say that someone is fooling themselves, but from the comments policy:
No accusations of deception. Any accusations of deception, fraud, dishonesty or corruption will be deleted. This applies to both sides. You may critique a person's methods but not their motives.
-
Bob Loblaw at 01:48 AM on 10 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
MA Rodger:
I was going to see if Art Vandelay was going to try to defend the "paper", but why wait. The "paper" is short, and the failures of its analysis are obvious in two places.
The abstract states:
The CO2 which humans emit by breathing is commonly thought to fully recycle by photosynthesis. Therefore it is unable to enter the atmosphere and affect the climate. This notion, though popular, is flawed. Suppose a sink-flux of magnitude P limits the amount of CO2 recycled. Then the CO2 emitted in excess of P must be removed into the atmosphere as an airborne fraction and a rise of atmospheric CO2 will accompany the only partial cycling of breath-CO2.
Art Vandelay quoted and highlighted this snippet from the paper:
Rather, all emissions of CO2, including anthropogenic emission by the breath of humans, have an airborne fraction > 0, by means of which they affect the atmosphere, increasing the greenhouse effect.
The paper questions what happens to the CO2 emitted by human breath, once it is released into the atmosphere.
What the paper ignores is the question of where that carbon came from. Scotty did not beam it into the human bodies. It did not appear in human bodies by magic. It came from plants that recently photosynthesized it - some time in the past few years. It may have passed through cattle or some other animal in the food chain on its way to human digestion, but the simple fact is that 100% of the human emission of CO2 by breath was recently extracted from the atmosphere. Thus, it causes no net change in atmospheric concentration (over the time scale of a few years).
The "paper" does not understand what a "cycle" is (as in "carbon cycle"). It is not a one-way path that starts with humans and ends with atmospheric removal by photosynthesis or other factors. Human breathing contributes CO2 to the atmosphere, and that carbon only comes from one of many sources of carbon in the carbon cycle - recent photosynthesis by plants.
The author of that "paper" is ignorant. From all appearances, Art Vandelay selects that "paper" to support his position - not because it is a good analysis, but rather because he likes the "conclusion". Art is no better informed than the author, or he'd see the obvious flaws.
-
MA Rodger at 01:05 AM on 10 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
Bob Loblaw @31,
The work linked by Art Vandelay @29 is not published and is saying no more than 'CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere because there is more going in than coming out' and thus it is argued that 'because there is more than 550Mt(C)/y of CO2 in human breath going in, this is climatalogically significant'. The total flux of CO2 into the atmosphere is roughly 220,000Mt(C)/y. Thus, if human breath was not replacing decaying plants as an emitter and were entirely an addition to the full cycle, it would add a whole 0.25% to that cycle and thus according to the method of the linked work be responsible for an annual increase in atmospheric CO2 of 0.005ppm/yr. The linked work is entirely wrong to suggest such a tiny rise is in any way "reaching climatic significance."
-
Eric (skeptic) at 23:50 PM on 9 November 2022Climate change reparations – who pays?
How about other forms of compensation? A short personal tangent: in the 80's I worked for GTE and got to work with researchers from GTE Labs. Thanks to local monopoly power, companies like GTE and most prominently Bell Telephone had lots of extra money to spend on research including blue sky research. Two of the most consequential inventions from Bell Labs were the transistor and the semiconductor photocell.
There's nothing quite like Bell Labs these days but there are equivalent efforts in fundamental R&D all over the world. China for example researching solar fuels along with S. Korea, and US and Europe to some extent. While the US built up CO2 debt we also garnered some credits with those inventions and others. It makes sense to keep inventing because there are 900 coal units being built worldwide and those units need to be replaced with inexpensive storage used with renewables. Inexpensive storage does not currently exist. Solar hydrocarbon fuel is just one of many possible forms of storage, it can be mainly CO2 neutral and in the long run that fuel can be sequestered in various ways.
Finally, I should be careful not to presume anything about what the rest of the world needs, or what they are already doing. For example: Development of a Solar Fuels Roadmap for South Africa
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:45 PM on 9 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
Art @ 29:
ResearchGate is a place where anyone can post any "paper" they want. There is no indication that the "paper" you link to has actually been published anywhere or has gone through any sort of review.
The "model" in that "paper" starts by describing "a system of only 2 fluxes". Trying to estimate the effects of global carbon cycling using "a system of only 2 fluxes" falls into the "not even wrong" category.
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:29 PM on 9 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
Art @ 28: "And lets all feel free to discuss with civility and respect."
To me, showing civility and respect would include not throwing out one-liners such as "the catch is that more humans = more CO2 in circulation, hence more in the atmosphere.", and not dodging and weaving with distractions when people point out the obvious errors in that statement, and continuing to ignore things such as tree respiration even after people have provided links to you so that you can learn. And not doubling down with "well but" what-aboutism when challenged.
-
Art Vandelay at 23:18 PM on 9 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
So it turns out that published studies exist. This from 2021.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346307914_Human_breath-
Extract from the study..
In short, contrary to published claims [Alexander, 2010; Palmer, 2009; Withers, 2009], the assumption that breath emission is always ideally balanced by cycling of CO2 is not tenable. Given B > P, airborne flux b equals B – P. Cycling implies that breath emission B gives rise to an airborne flux b in excess of the cycling flux P, adding CO2 to the atmosphere. There is a whole range of positive values of b,
excepting only a single point where B coincides with P. Greenhouse effect and global warming will follow an increase in atmospheric CO2, making the escape of breath-CO2 relevant for the climate.
The mainstream argument maintains that 1) emission of CO2 by the breath of humans is fully compensated, largely by photosynthesis, and 2) only non-cyclic processes like the consumption of fossil fuels give rise to an airborne fraction of CO2 which alters the atmosphere. In contrast, I maintain that full compensation of breath emission by photosynthesis is not tenable. Rather, all emissions of CO2, including anthropogenic emission by the breath of humans, have an airborne fraction > 0, by means of which they affect the atmosphere, increasing the greenhouse
effect.
While in the past an increase of the atmospheric greenhouse effect by human breath was denied, this increase, contrary to the burning of fossil fuel, turns out to be an unavoidable consequence of human physiology. It is linearly dependent on population size, thus birth control may be expected to cope with it.Moderator Response:[BL] Link activated.
The web software here does not automatically create links. You can do this when posting a comment by selecting the "insert" tab, selecting the text you want to use for the link, and clicking on the icon that looks like a chain link. Add the URL in the dialog box. -
Art Vandelay at 16:55 PM on 9 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
MA Rodger @ 23.. "The carbon cycle is estimated to include an annual 120Gt(C) flux from the biosphere to the atmosphere suggesting human beings provide directly 0.6% of that flux. This is far smaller than the proportion being bandied about by commenter Art Vandelay."
That's a misundersting on your part. I expressed CO2 from human respiration as a percentage of human emissions, not total flux.
Above and beyond the use of fossil fuels, the impact of humanity indirectly on the size of that 120Gt(C) flux (by replacing natural ecosystems with agriculture & pasture) and any resulting impact that change in size would have on the CO2 levels in the atmosphere is seperate consideration which is yet to be properly set out by commenter Art Vandelay."
There's no shortage of published studies, and some have shown that as much as a third of atmospheric CO2 the result of human activity other than fossil fuel combustion. I would hope that the significance of this would be embraced as we move away from fossil fuel consumption, and with certainty of population growth and a further 6 billion added to a 'developed world'.
"Feel free to continue to flaunt your ignorance."
And lets all feel free to discuss with civility and respect.
One planet Only @ 25..
"But the rate of fossil fuel use, along with other human activity impacts (not the exhaling of CO2 which is simply a small part of the already established carbon cycle) is undeniably causing a significant increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere and related global warming and related climate changes."
Of course it is, and that's why there's a global focus and commitment to remedy that situation.
The better way to make the point may be that what Art claims to have learned from a Professor of Geology is potentially Art fooling themself about the matter.
For what it's worth, the same geologist is also of the view that cows are a contributing factor to climate change, even though they too, like us, are part of the natural carbon cycle. Assuming the number of cattle is static their contribution to rising greenhouse gas is zero.
So are cows a problem or not?
-
JustJustin2 at 12:04 PM on 9 November 2022What can YOU do about climate change? Take this quiz to find out
SkS moderators
Just to let you know, I don’t particularly appreciate my postings being totally removed and my logins disabled merely over a few political and religious comments which were actually in response to user Eclectic’s comments. If you object that strongly to politics and religion in your comments, then why does SkS link to a site that has no science and is pure politics and activism, some of it criminally oriented. Furthermore, with their extremist, end-justifies-the-means view, AGW isn’t merely science to them, it’s religion! So what kind of comments do you expect from such a link – Nobel prize-winning physics ideas (LOL)!?
Whether or not the science is correct about AGW, you must acknowledge that there are many highfalutin financiers and politicians who stand to gain fortunes off of the misery of the more common folks. Take, for example, the quote from Rahm Emanuel, former Whitehouse Chief of Staff.
Never let a crisis go to waste!
And what better crisis could there be than the threat of the planet roasting unless certain draconian measures are implemented in the very short term! Assuming such a climate problem is real, a more sane approach, as suggested by Eclectic, would be to allow the alternative energy technologies to develop, and gradually replace the coal-fired plants and factories with cleaner energy sources as they become available. This is the most that can be done but is not satisfactory to those at the IPCC and COP27! They are demanding a 50% reduction in carbon emissions by 2030 and net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 – or roast! This, however, would not be possible without major (and unlikely) breakthroughs in technology; or ruining the economies of the participating nations and setting back their quality of living by over a century.
This is why the climate change advocates must also support “social justice”, or equivalently socialism. In a constitutional free republic where the power of government is limited, “we the people” can vote out any representative who supports law that is harmful to them, making it unlikely for draconian climate measures to last for long, especially when the “science” says we have global warming while the common folks are struggling to warm their dwellings. In order to implement these climate measures and make them stick, a more totalitarian government is needed where the officials serve the elite (ie. those who control the distribution of wealth) and not the common citizens. In this case, there is no limit to the amount of suffering the government can inflict upon its people.
So, how do these elite financiers and politicians profit from all of this pain and misery of the common people? Well, by shutting down industry in the developed nations and re-opening in third-world countries, they don’t have to pay living wages, just slave-labor rates. Also, these nations are exempt from anti-polution (including carbon emission) regulations imposed on the developed nations. So, in the end, how much have we reduced global carbon emissions – Zero! ?
Finally, in controlling the distribution of wealth by the elitists, guess who gets the lion’s share while everyone else falls into the category of the working poor? And if you think that they will set a good example by cutting back on their own “carbon footprints”, think again! Al Gore didn’t compromise his jet-setting lifestyle and neither will the others.
Moderator Response:[PS] Moderators do not tolerate people who dont obey rules of site and they get no second chances. We will continue to delete your sockpuppets as fast as we find them.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:42 AM on 9 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
Bob Loblaw @26,
The better way to make the point may be that what Art claims to have learned from a Professor of Geology is potentially Art fooling themself about the matter, though some highly educated individuals have been quite miseleading ... most likely motivated by the benefits of promoting or excusing fossil fuel use.
However, I would be curious about the time scale a Professor of Geology would say the carbon that is/was locked away as buried ancient hydrocarbon would be likely to return to being part of the active surface carbon cycle system.
-
Bob Loblaw at 02:56 AM on 9 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
I would hesitate to say that a "Professor of Geology" has misled anyone, but geologists in general do tend to look at some rather long-term processes - at least, the ones that focus on rocks, tectonics, etc. In the category of surficial geology - where the interest focuses on a lot more recent events, such as glacial, river, and wind deposits - the time scales are much shorter.
Not knowing what area of geology Art Vandelay's "Professor of Geology" specializes in, I'd avoid any broad, sweeping generalizations. It is clear, however, that Art has failed to understand the significance of the times involved in any of the carbon cycle storage terms.
As MA Rodger points out, there are discussions worth having regarding how human choices of agricultural system, etc. will change fluxes, storage, rates of transfer, etc. compared to the natural systems they replace. Mr. Vandelay has not shown any useful knowledge/discussion in these matters, though.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:24 AM on 9 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
Art Vandelay's expressed understanding, including the claim that they learned from a helpful knowledgeable Professor of Geology, are very questionable.
The source of fossil fuels is ancient buried hydrocarbons that are not part of the current recycling carbon cycle active on the surface of the planet. They were locked away long ago. Digging them up and oxidizing them, primarily producing CO2 and H2O, adds new excess CO2 to the current active carbon cycle. Some of the excess carbon is taken in by plants (or other living things) or absorbed in the ocean. But the rate of fossil fuel use, along with other human activity impacts (not the exhaling of CO2 which is simply a small part of the already established carbon cycle) is undeniably causing a significant increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere and related global warming and related climate changes.
That understanding about fossil fuels is the reason that Carbon Capture and Storage applied to fossil fuel emissions is recognised as a way to reduce the harmful impacts of continuing to burn fossil fuels. It is also the reason that Carbon Capture direct from the atmosphere and storage is pursued as a solution. Capturing some of the excess carbon and locking it away is simply an attempt to undo some of the harmful impacts of digging up and burning of ancient buried hydrocarbons by putting some of that recently freed excess carbon back into a locked away condition.
It is almost certain that a knowledgable Professor of Geology would understand that story of fossil fuels. But, admittedly, some very highly educated individuals have produced some very questionable claims regarding the impacts of fossil fuel use, including attempts to get people to believe non-sense about fossil fuels.
Hopefully this helps Art understand they had been fooled by someone they thought they could trust.
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:15 PM on 8 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
Art @ 22: "I can equally argue that fossil fuels are carbon neutral."
Only if you have no idea how time constants influence carbon storage.
"Well, perhaps you should consult a geologist as I did."
If you go to the menus at the top of the SkS page, choose "About" and "Team", you will find that I have quite a bit of my own experience and knowledge about forest carbon cycles.
I see you have not yet bothered to learn anything about tree respiration. If you follow the link I gave you in comment #21, you will see the following:
In general, the sugar produced by a tree is allocated and used in the following order of importance:
- Respiration
- Structure
- Storage
- Defense
- Reproduction
Feel free to continue to flaunt your ignorance.
-
MA Rodger at 19:03 PM on 8 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
Arguing by proxy with some anonymous "old professor of geology" isn't my idea of a useful way to establish a proper understanding of any situation.
An adult human being will exhale something approaching 1kg CO2 per day (depending how active they were) so for 7 billion souls per year that would be perhaps something like a flux into the atmosphere of 2.5Gt(CO2) or 0.7Gt(C). The carbon cycle is estimated to include an annual 120Gt(C) flux from the biosphere to the atmosphere suggesting human beings provide directly 0.6% of that flux. This is far smaller than the proportion being bandied about by commenter Art Vandelay.
Above and beyond the use of fossil fuels, the impact of humanity indirectly on the size of that 120Gt(C) flux (by replacing natural ecosystems with agriculture & pasture) and any resulting impact that change in size would have on the CO2 levels in the atmosphere is seperate consideration which is yet to be properly set out by commenter Art Vandelay.
So I for one would appreciate less talk of "anti-science" from commenter Art Vandelay.
-
Art Vandelay at 16:01 PM on 8 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
Bob Loblaw @ 21..Trees and plants are not some magical one-way path that fixes carbon. As they grow, they store carbon - in additional to using large quantities of it as food when they cannot photosynthesize. When they are "eating", they take in O2 and release CO2 - and it really is called "respiration". Once they die and decay, the carbon is released again. Just like humans.
Bob, now you're playing semantics..
I can equally argue that fossil fuels are carbon neutral.
I can't understand why it's so contraversial to state the fact that humans are essentiually combustion engines that convert carbon and oxygen into CO2.
As for the rest of your post, now you're just playing "Look! Squirrel!". Face it: you do not understand the carbon cycle.
Well, perhaps you should consult a geologist as I did. Unlike trees humans and other members of the animal kingdom combust huge amounts of carbon and store very little. Humans, for example exhale roughly 1kg of CO2 daily, so roughly 30,000kg over a lifetime. In less than 3 months we exhale our entire body weight in CO2.
As stated previously, a static human population does not increase CO2 in the atmosphere, but human population is responsible for a higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere than would be the case if humans didn't exist, simply because we convert C and O into CO2. The same applies to all respiring members of the animal kingdom.
Of course, our contribution to atmospheric CO2 purely from respiration is trivial in the grand scheme but that doesn't mean we should pretend that it doesn't exist. That would be anti-science.
-
Bob Loblaw at 12:23 PM on 8 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
Art @ 19 [emphasis added]:
Essentially, humans are combustine engines, so unlike plants and trees, over our lifetimes we emit an enormous amount of CO2 relative to our mass.
Art: meet tree respiration. Tree respiration: meet Art. The two of you obviously don't know each other.
All living organisms consume sugars to produce energy. They do that by burning the sugars. That produces heat, energy, water, and CO2.
Trees and plants are not some magical one-way path that fixes carbon. As they grow, they store carbon - in additional to using large quantities of it as food when they cannot photosynthesize. When they are "eating", they take in O2 and release CO2 - and it really is called "respiration". Once they die and decay, the carbon is released again. Just like humans.
You can actually find resources on the Internet that will explain this to you, if you bother to try.
As for the rest of your post, now you're just playing "Look! Squirrel!". Face it: you do not understand the carbon cycle.
-
nigelj at 09:07 AM on 8 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
Art Vandealy @15
"Humans breathing is indeed a carbon neutral process, but the catch is that more humans = more CO2 in circulation, hence more in the atmosphere."
Read what BL said. Its not increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 over time.Thats what matters. Y
"Similarly, we could run all cars and trucks from biofuels and claim that it's a carbon neutral process. We would be technically correct but also stupid"
It is correct, but it isn't stupid. If its carbon neutral its not increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2, which is the thing we are concerned about. Although personally I believe biofuels have rather a limited future for practical reasons of land availability.
"Anyway, I'm just making the point that human existence is always going to be carbon intensive,"
It is, but so what? The only thing that matters is how much we increase atmospheric concentrations of CO2. Not whether we eat plants or exhale CO2.
We could even continue to be very carbon intensive and capture and store all the fossil fuel emissions we produce, although its not the most economic option, and is completely senseless because we cant maintain a fossil fuel based civilisation for much longer anyway. The resource is finite, and we have already used up all the easy to extract fossil fuels. We are now on the downward slope and will run out, or find the resource is prohibitively costly to extract forcing is to use alternatives.
"and of course most of our emissions stem from the need to remove forests to plant crops and create space for living, working and recreation etc... "
Trying to make it sound like relatively harmless things are causing the problem when the real main underlying culprit is burning fossil fuels.
"And yes it's contentious. So why should a global population policy be any different?...it's all about educating the masses so that we're all aware of the problem, and are all participants in a global solution. "Politicians wont go near something like a global population policy with specific goals on population size etc,etc. Most people dont want politicians in their bedrooms let alone a global coalition of politicians in their bedrooms. And we dont need something like a global population policy, because the problem is largely fixing itself anyway: Population growth is generally already slowing for well known reasons to do with the demographic transition and easier availability of contraceptives.
Our education systems already indirectly raise awareness of the population issues, - without needing to lecture people about it too directly or promote a partcular family size. I dont oppose more explicit education but I cant see schools and governmnts going near such an issue because of the huge potential public backlash.
I don't think theres much more we can do to speed up the de-growth process already underway. And population decline cannot possibly happen quickly enough to be a factor in keeping warming under 2 degrees. It might have some small effect on keeping warming under 8 degrees but by then it would be too late to be useful to us anyway.
"You're (MAR) obviously banking on a lot of new tech in a very short space of time. Good luck with that. "Your underlying point seems to be that the transition to renewables will require burning of fossil fuels to manufacture a new energy grid. The quantity of energy needed to make a new energy grid is vastly less than total quantity of just continuing to burn fossil fuels with all the warming that will cause. This is literally intuitively very obvious and experts have done the maths.
-
Art Vandelay at 07:58 AM on 8 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
Bob Loblaw @ 18, "..and those plants would have decayed into heat and CO2 anyway. Storing them in humans with typical life spans of 60+ years after they "stop growing" delays that decomposition by 60+ years. That slows the carbon cycle down, not speeds it up.
You don't get to pick and chose which parts of the carbon cycle you want to include in your accounting scheme."
Thanks Bob.... Probably best not let discussion get bogged down on this specific point. I did consult with an old professor of geology some time ago, so I always defer to his analysis... The assumption that humans exhaling is carbon neutral is correct but there's an inconvenient caveat, and there's no shortage of misinformation. Essentially, humans are combustine engines, so unlike plants and trees, over our lifetimes we emit an enormous amount of CO2 relative to our mass. In fact, we eat roughly our body mass every few weeks. You could argue that our existence is at the expense of other respiring animals - which offsets our impact on the carbon cycle, but all such arguements whether correct or not are ultimately spurious, because as we're all aware most of our impact on the carbon cycle, aside from fossil fuel combustion, comes from the clearing and burning of large proportions of the world's natural forests for food production, living space and lifestyle. Some of our activities and agri practices also increase the natural levels of methane and other greenhouse gasses which further adds to the greenhouse problem.
So, our collective respiration of CO2, although around 10% of global total CO2 emissions, which seems like a big number, is a problem we can easily exist with, and indeed there's probably some benefit to CO2 levels in the atmosphere higher than pre-industrial. On the other hand, our existence, at the expense of huge amounts of the biosphere is a HUGE problem.
-
Bob Loblaw at 07:20 AM on 8 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
..and those plants would have decayed into heat and CO2 anyway. Storing them in humans with typical life spans of 60+ years after they "stop growing" delays that decomposition by 60+ years. That slows the carbon cycle down, not speeds it up.
You don't get to pick and chose which parts of the carbon cycle you want to include in your accounting scheme.
Now, if you want to discuss the role of agriculture and how that alters soil and biomass carbon storage and cycling vs. natural systems, then go for it. But "humans = more CO2 in circulation" is a gross (and incorrect) simplification.
-
Art Vandelay at 06:47 AM on 8 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
Bob Loblaw @ 16, "More humans = more carbon stored in a fixed reservoir. As biomass accumulates, increasing the number of humans acts as a carbon sink."
Except that more humans = the exact opposite. Our mass comes from the carbon stored in the plants that we ate and continue to eat, and after we stop growing at around 16 years we operate as pure combustion engines, converting carbon from plants into heat and carbon dioxide.
-
Bob Loblaw at 06:41 AM on 8 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
Art @ 15: "...more humans = more CO2 in circulation..."
More humans = more carbon stored in a fixed reservoir. As biomass accumulates, increasing the number of humans acts as a carbon sink.
-
Art Vandelay at 06:31 AM on 8 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
nijelj@13..."Secondly you make youself look like a denier if you promote that humans breathing is the problem. Humans breathing is a carbon neutral process. Look it up on the list of climate myths on the LHS of this page. And obviously we cant stop breathing so the point is moot."
Humans breathing is indeed a carbon neutral process, but the catch is that more humans = more CO2 in circulation, hence more in the atmosphere. Similarly, we could run all cars and trucks from biofuels and claim that it's a carbon neutral process. We would be technically correct but also stupid. Anyway, I'm just making the point that human existence is always going to be carbon intensive, and of course most of our emissions stem from the need to remove forests to plant crops and create space for living, working and recreation etc...
"Thirdly, while I agree that population growth is a problem, what do you suggest we do about it? Because we obviously can't line people up and shoot them and enforced one child policies are a big problem. About all government's can do is make contraception freely available and make sure family planning is taught in school. However even that gets contentious."
Reducing CO2 emisisons isn't easy either, but we're doing it, and we're doing it beacuse we've collectively put systems in place that we've all agreed to, and we now have a timeline of target commitments. And yes it's contentious. So why should a global population policy be any different? We already know that the real carrying capacity of the world is almost a quarter of the current population, and it's not too difficult to work out the ideal population for each and every country or region of the world. A commitment doesn't need to be hugely ambitious, nor does it need to involve lining people up in front of firing squads as many people often suggest when the issue is raised. As we've seen with climate change, it's all about educating the masses so that we're all aware of the problem, and are all participants in a global solution.
MA Rodger @ 14..."Does not the developed world construct cars, build high rise commercial developments, manufacture steel and concrete? They will be doing this in a net zero economy, indeed a net-negative-emissions economy. This is the future of the developed world."
It may well be the future of the developed world but the question is 'when'. You're obviously banking on a lot of new tech in a very short space of time. Good luck with that. Realistically, the developing world isn't going to be waiting around for zero or net-zero carbon technology to be developed and refined to the point of being cost-effective before it matures to first world status. There's nothing wrong with being glass-half-full, but at the same time we need to be guided by reality and common sense.
-
EddieEvans at 01:03 AM on 8 November 2022CO2 is plant food
I see a big need to date these comments. Earth is closer to 420 ppm CO2 today than the "320 ppm" seen below: CO2 is plant food
Earth's current atmospheric CO2 concentration is almost 390 parts per million (ppm). Adding another 300 ppm of CO2 to the air has been shown by literally thousands of experiments to greatly increase the growth or biomass production of nearly all plants. This growth stimulation occurs because CO2 is one of the two raw materials (the other being water) that are required for photosynthesis. Hence, CO2 is actually the "food" that sustains essentially all plants on the face of the earth, as well as those in the sea. And the more CO2 they "eat" (absorb from the air or water), the bigger and better they grow. (source: Plants Need CO2)
-
MA Rodger at 20:24 PM on 7 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
Art Vandelay @12,
I fear what is not remotely sustainable is your argument.
Does not the developed world construct cars, build high rise commercial developments, manufacture steel and concrete? They will be doing this in a net zero economy, indeed a net-negative-emissions economy. This is the future of the developed world. You argue that the developing world will not be a part of this because they will be constructing cars, building high rise commercial developments and manufacturing steel and concrete just like the developed world, but will be using FFs. Why would that be? -
iamwebmaster at 13:10 PM on 7 November 2022Extreme heat makes pregnancy more dangerous
Dress to keep cool. Wear loose, light clothing, and a hat and sunglasses if you go outdoors. Cotton is cooler.
-
nigelj at 11:54 AM on 7 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
Art Vandelay @12
First read my comments @10.
Secondly you make youself look like a denier if you promote that humans breathing is the problem. Humans breathing is a carbon neutral process. Look it up on the list of climate myths on the LHS of this page. And obviously we cant stop breathing so the point is moot.
Thirdly, while I agree that population growth is a problem, what do you suggest we do about it? Because we obviously can't line people up and shoot them and enforced one child policies are a big problem. About all government's can do is make contraception freely available and make sure family planning is taught in school. However even that gets contentious.
In fact the demographic transition and spread of contraception means population growth is slowing in most places, two child families are becoming the norm, and population growth will probably stop eventually even in Africa. There's just not a whole lot more we can do to influence Africa and the established downwards trends in developed and most developing countries. And that is why the focus must be on renewable energy, electric transport, and trying to reduce levels of per capita consumption.
-
Art Vandelay at 10:24 AM on 7 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
MA Rodger @8 ...
" you assert will see rising emissions resulting from the underdeveloped societies "seeking a more first world existence in coming decades," a "first world existence" that has itself become non-emitting."
You're overlooking emissions as a consequence of building 'first world' infrastructure and industry, which includes transportation, high rise commercial development in towns and cities and first-world housing etc. That's a lot of concrete, steel etc and those materials must be mined, refined and transported, often from other countries and over vast distances.
"You are generally ignoring the goal of developed societies to reduce their own emissions to net zero, indeed to go beyond into the realm of net negative emissions."
Not ignoring, just focused on the developing nations who are responsible for the bulk of global emissions, and importantly, the majority of future global emissions this century.
"You also assert that "the transition towards a low carbon future" will involve a period of increased emissions. If a portion of the carbon-emitting economy is put to the task of building the non-emitting infrastructure, it may be thus engaged in more carbon-intense activities but I would be surprised if any impact on CO2 emissions were significant, especially given the delivery of non-emitting power follows close behind."
Leaving aside rebuilding the world's energy sector, replacing one billion motor vehicles alone is surely an enormously carbon intensive transition, necessitating the mining, processing, and transportation of raw and processed materials on an enormous scale. Studies indicate that EV's incur a higher carbon footprint than ICEV's during the manufacturing process, and the payback peried is over many years. Assuming that new demand for motor vehicles will also come from developing nations it raises the prospect of perhaps double the number of motor vehicles globally in coming decades. It begs the question of whether that's remotely sustainable.
NIJELJ @8 .."However I personally think both fossil fuel emissions and population growth are problems."
Population is definitely a huge issue if we deem current first world standards of living (and consumption) as a point of reference for the future. And regardless of our living standards humans will emit CO2 because humans are essentially organic combustion engines. Not only do we exhale about 10% of global CO2, our existance is at the expense of vast amounts of natural forest for both habitation and food production, both of which are highly emissive, with or without renewable energy.
At some point in the not-too-distant future we will be forced to have some difficult conversations to do with sustainable lifestyle and population, and come to an acceptance that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels is just one aspect of a much larger problem that no amount of wind and solar energy energy can ever solve.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:30 AM on 7 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
nigelj @10,
A minor nitpick.
Though "The other alternative of just not using energy is not realistic.", the other 'other alternative' of reduced energy use by the biggest energy users, in parallel with the rapid development of renewable energy systems, would more rapidly end the increasing harm done by continued fossil fuel use.
Reduced energy demand would also reduce the harm done by the renewable energy systems. There would be less energy demand.
Limiting the harm done is the objective, or should be. The alternative would appear to be 'no long-term future for humanity'.
-
nigelj at 05:58 AM on 7 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
MAR @6
Great graphics. Very useful.
-------------------------------
Art Vandelay @7
"Regardless of population rising or not, the "developing world" still consitutes 2/3 of global CO2 emissions.....Given that >50% of the developing world is still living in poverty it amounts to a large number of people who will be seeking a more first world existence in coming decades, so we can only expect CO2 emissions to rise for many decades, as a result of increased energy demand, food production, land clearing, transportation, urbanisation etc. "
There is a sliver lining to the cloud. Africa is in the developoing world and aspire to better lifestyles (and their population is increasing) but their per capita emissions are low because they dont have much fossil fuel infrastructure. This means they could in theory transition directly to renewables without going through the whole fossil fuels phase. This is happening to some extent with rural areas buying solar panels. Its not a panacea because they will be importing panels, but it helps a bit.
"Take-up of renewable energy will offset this to some extent but development itself is a highly emissive process. Indeed, the transition towards a low carbon future will itself also involve an enormous 'burp' of CO2 due to the mining, manufacturing, transportation and construction on enormous scales required to upgrade the world's energy and transport sectors.
If fossil fuel energy isnt used to build solar and wind power it will be used to build coal fired power or something else, so isn't the point somewhat moot? The other alternative of just not using energy is not realistic.
-
nigelj at 05:49 AM on 7 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
Want to briefly clarify that my statement that poor people and poor countries still have a huge environmental footprint was a general statement about impacts. For example conversion of natural habitat to farming, altering of water courses,etc,etc. Such people clearly have low per capita CO2 emissions. And my intent was to show that we shouldn't ever downplay potential crises, whether population problems or climate change or anything else. However I personally think both fossil fuel emissions and population growth are problems.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:10 AM on 7 November 2022Climate Change's Controversial Policy: Loss & Damage
My comment @4 brings to mind additional considerations regarding the challenges of determining the Truth and proper Reconciliation of climate change Loss and Damages.
An obviously challenging developed reality is that people who want to benefit, or who have benefited, from harmful beliefs and actions causing Loss and Damage cannot be allowed to influence the determination of how much Loss and Damage has occurred or the appropriate Reparations.
And that challenging developed reality, harmfully developed human behaviour - not fundamental human nature, applies to far more cases of 'Benefiting from causing Loss and Damages' than the beliefs and actions causing continued climate change impacts.
-
MA Rodger at 18:42 PM on 6 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
Art Vandelay @7,
You shift you argument onto entirely new ground with this latest post.
You new position is that emissions will grow as underdeveloped societies become more wealthy. You are generally ignoring the goal of developed societies to reduce their own emissions to net zero, indeed to go beyond into the realm of net negative emissions. All this is in those same "coming decades" you assert will see rising emissions resulting from the underdeveloped societies "seeking a more first world existence in coming decades," a "first world existence" that has itself become non-emitting.
You also assert that "the transition towards a low carbon future" will involve a period of increased emissions. If a portion of the carbon-emitting economy is put to the task of building the non-emitting infrastructure, it may be thus engaged in more carbon-intense activities but I would be surprised if any impact on CO2 emissions were significant, especially given the delivery of non-emitting power follows close behind. The explanation of China's high CO2 emissions is surely because China took on so much of the existing high CO2-emitting activities previously carried out by the West. Again, the building of non-emitting infrastructure is not a factor that I see at work.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:39 PM on 6 November 2022Climate Change's Controversial Policy: Loss & Damage
Walschuler and Art Vandelay have presented some valid points.
There is more to consider regarding climate change impact Loss and Damages.
Loss and damage, or reparations, is challenging (and challenged). It requires the development of adaptations by the highest harming per capita portion of the population. They need to make amends for harmful past, present and future actions they benefit(ed) from. They need to:
- admit that harmful beliefs and related actions developed in the past and continue to be popular and profitable today. The past harm includes the injustice of developed perceptions of prosperity and status and the inequitable advantages that development created.
- recognize the current continuing harm and harmful developed systemic problems.
- understand that there will be future harm done that people need to be compensated for until the harmful beliefs and resulting actions are effectively limited. The improvement of awareness and understanding, especially among the wealthy and powerful, needs to be significant enough to ensure that collective governing will limit the harmful impacts.
A key consideration is that undeserving beneficiaries of harmful beliefs and actions will try to delay corrections that reduce their perceptions of prosperity and status. Delaying the reduction of harmful pursuits of benefit makes the required future adaptation more severe. And that can make it harder to get support from people who understandably should suffer any required negative consequences.
The delayed reduction of per capita impacts by the harmfully over-developed portion of the global population is building a more damaging situation, including more vicious fighting against deserved losses by undeserving (damaging) wealthy and powerful people.
A major impediment to the understandably required corrections is the perceptions of prosperity and status hat developed via benefiting from unjustified beliefs that excuse harmful unsustainable beliefs, systems and actions.
Admitting to the need for compensation for loss and damage due to climate change impacts understandably includes compensation for harm done by the past harmful development of perceptions of superiority. That is a slippery slope for the wealthy and powerful. Some wealth and power is legitimately obtained by developing sustainable improvements for humanity. But a lot of current day wealth and power is almost certain to be due to harmful actions and the promotion of harmful unjustified claims and excuses.
Admitting to the need for Loss and Damage requires the current day wealthy and powerful to admit that they do not deserve their developed perceptions of status. And it requires them to decide how they will:
- collectively penalize themselves to stop the developed harmful pursuits of benefit
- adequately compensate and correct for all of the harm done everything that contributed to their acquisition of higher status.
Regarding insurance:
The wealthy profit from private insurance programs. They have been reported to harmfully operate private insurance to maximize their profitability. Their actions include declaring that the circumstances some people needing assistance are in make them ineligible for insurance. In addition, the harmful among the wealthy and powerful have a history of abusing their influence on leadership to limit government assistance programs or have those programs implemented in ways that they benefit from.
The required adaptation is clearly the dramatic rapid reduction of harmful unsustainable pursuits of perceptions of prosperity and status relative to others.
The obvious challenge is overcoming the developed powerful resistance to the required adaptation actions.
-
Art Vandelay at 21:30 PM on 5 November 2022Climate Change's Controversial Policy: Loss & Damage
walschuler @1. says:
"Perhaps the role of already industrialized countries should be first and most urgently to subsidize renewables world-wide, to the extent that developing countries get them at a cost that undercuts the cheapest fossil plants by some modest amount.".
That's the argvument for a global carbon credit scheme.
-
Art Vandelay at 20:40 PM on 5 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
MA Rodger @6,
Regardless of population rising or not, the "developing world" still consitutes 2/3 of global CO2 emissions. The importance of that stat is to underscore the significance of population as a metric for emissions. Given that >50% of the developing world is still living in poverty it amounts to a large number of people who will be seeking a more first world existence in coming decades, so we can only expect CO2 emissions to rise for many decades, as a result of increased energy demand, food production, land clearing, transportation, urbanisation etc. Take-up of renewable energy will offset this to some extent but development itself is a highly emissive process. Indeed, the transition towards a low carbon future will itself also involve an enormous 'burp' of CO2 due to the mining, manufacturing, transportation and construction on enormous scales required to upgrade the world's energy and transport sectors. This already explains much of China's CO2 emissions.
-
walschuler at 08:23 AM on 4 November 2022Climate Change's Controversial Policy: Loss & Damage
I would add that to the extent developed countries subsidize developing ones to establish renewables, the action ought to include establishing the production and installation industries for them in those countries, so they are self-sustaining.
-
walschuler at 08:17 AM on 4 November 2022Climate Change's Controversial Policy: Loss & Damage
I would add to the excellent presentation that some of the key questions include:
What precedents exist for dealing with other forms of environmental damage? Can those who pay damages specify how the money is spent by the damaged populations? In view of the universal nature of the climate crisis and the size of the damages already caused and upcoming due to inaction can we afford not to have pretty good control of how the money is spent? Private insurance has a role to play for some cases, perhaps the most localized cases. Also, the government insurance might have roles. In the US the Price-Anderson Act limits the liability of power companies operating nuclear reactors to $450mill per reactor plus up to about 100reactors at $120mill each or $12bill. This money is either by private carriers or assessed as fees to the power companies, which might possibly be recovered later in their utility rates. There is also an arrangement for cases of US makers whose reactors are in foreign countries. See https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10821. Perhaps there are lessons there. I wonder if there are similar arngements for nukes in Japan or Germany. A downside of such insurance schemes is that they often take al ong time to settle, and we need action world-wide. China is ramping up its solar rapidly and has caused a drop in its costs which has contributed to adoption in the US and elsewhere, but has also installed and continues to install more coal powerplants. India is building coal fired powerplants too. Perhaps the role of already industrialized countries should be first and most urgently to subsidize renewables world-wide, to the extent that developing countries get them at a cost that undercuts the cheapest fossil plants by some modest amount. Such subsidies might count against past damages. Electrification network costs, which might be mostly independent of power source types and costs, ought to be borne by the developing countries and installed with future capacity needs in mind. (The future capacity is another problem. Should we all be looking to cap it or to make it indefinitely expandable?)
Moderator Response:[PS] Link activated. Please create links yourself in the comment editor. They are not created automatically
-
scaddenp at 05:34 AM on 3 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
scvblwxq1 - why dont you look at the actual temperature trends for those cities which your source helpfully provides that as well as deviation from long term average? You seem to missed showing that in what you posted.
Moderator Response:[BL] scvblwxq1 has chosen to continue to violate the comments policy and had now recused himself from posting here.
To inform the casual readers, in portions of comments that were deleted, scvblwxq1 was under the misconception that he could determine warming vs cooling by whether or not a city had set a new record high temperature this year. scvblwxq1 does not seem to understand averaging, let alone trend analysis.
-
scvblwxq1 at 05:07 AM on 3 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
All the big cities in the US are seeing cooling and that is not relevant? Maybe if you are pushing a point of view and deceptively calling it science! My aim is to get facts to the readers and let them make up their own minds instead of having a fake website that is only interested in pushing false Climate Change dogma. I sure won't bother posting any more climate information since it will just get deleted 10-20 times as many deaths due to cold as heat isn't relevant if you are just pushing dogma. Goodbye.
Moderator Response:[BL] I'll leave this intact.
Your assertion that "cities in the US are seeing cooling" is not supported by any sort of analysis. Looking at maximum temperatures is "not even wrong".
You have been repeatedly shown that your "climate information" is wrong, and you cannot do anything more that regurgitate incorrect "talking points".
-
scvblwxq1 at 04:37 AM on 3 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
nigelj,
1988 was the hottest year on record, up to that date. That probably helped spawn the Global Warming movement. It never warmed enough to matter to people much, so that movement didn't flourish, and we are still seeing lots of migration in the US to warmer cities.
Moderator Response:[BL] Frankly, you have no idea what you are talking about. I was an undergraduate student in the 1970s, when global warming and climate change was part of the curriculum.
..and the factors causing migration in the US have little to do with climate change.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/non_sequitur
-
scvblwxq1 at 04:12 AM on 3 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
The top 9 cities in the US had no warming last year and all were below their recent high temperature. There was no data on the NOAA site for San Jose, the tenth-largest city, so I stopped at nine cities.
City, Recent High-Year, High-Temp, 2020-Temp, 2021-Temp (yearly averages)
New York 2012 57.8 57.3 56.9
Los Angeles 2014 65.1 63.8 62.7
Chicago 1998 55.1 53.4 53.4
Philadelphia 2012 58.4 58.1 58.0
Houston 2014 74.5 73.4 73.0
San Antonio 2006 72.1 71.8 70.4
Phoenix 2017 77.3 77.2 76.3
Dallas 2012 70.4 68.5 68.1
Moderator Response:[BL] These useless trivia bits are not adding anything to the conversation.
-
MA Rodger at 20:12 PM on 2 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
Art Vandelay @5,
I think if you look properly, the emissions from countries with significant rising population is far lower than 'around two thirds' the total. The territorial emissions from what we can call 'the developed world' does constitute a third of the global total. Add in China and it becomes two thirds.
And China's population is not rising any more.
The place where there is a significant projected increase in population is Africa.
But Africa is presently the source of just 3.7% of CO2 emission.
-
Art Vandelay at 17:23 PM on 2 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
Scientists have attributed recent rain in Australia to the Tongan volcanic blast earlier this year. The blast has temporarily increased stratospheric water vapor over the Antarctic, resulting in a strengening of the polar vortex - and a positive 'SAM' "When the polar vortex and SAM are stronger than usual, like they are now, the powerful westerlies stay closer to Antarctica. Therefore, southern Australia sees fewer colder fronts and less windy weather.
This allows the east coast, between about Brisbane to Hobart, to see more days with onshore winds bringing extra wet weather."
Unfortunately this has conspired with La Niña as well as IOD (Indian ocean dipole) to increase the liklihood of rain across eastern Australia.
https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/how-a-tongan-volcanic-eruption-almost-guarantees-a-flooded-summer-for-australias-east-coast/news-story/3b1be3a36b5681ce70d7327392ed0129
-
Art Vandelay at 16:54 PM on 2 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
"Some of this is very high per capita consumption in developed countries, but even lower consuming people in poor countries have a huge environmental footprint, because of the sheer size of their populations."
True, and in fact developing countries account for around two thirds of global emissions, and rising, so population is indeed the elephant in the room.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:39 AM on 2 November 2022How sea level rise contributes to billions in extra damage during hurricanes
The following quote from the opening statements of the article provide an example of the difficulty of clearly communicating in English, a language that is very flexible in its use and interpretation.
"Had Ian hit a century ago, when sea levels were about a foot lower, the storm probably would have caused billions less in storm surge damage, ..."
When I read that statement I understand the point that lower sea levels would result in less less storm surge damage, and that recent human climate change impacts have resulted in a higher sea level. But someone not wanting to understand that 'fossil fuel use needs to be rapidly ended because of the harmful climate change impacts' could 'fail to read and understand the entire document' and simplistically argue that "Of course there would have been less damage 100 years ago. There was less built back then. This big article and its referenced studies are just another verbose presentation of non-sense"
It usually takes more words to be clearer with little chance of 'alternative understanding'. That is why legal and insurance documents are so wordy.
A clearer statement would have been like:
"Had a storm of recent climate change intensified strength like Ian, intensified by being over warmer waters with more energy and moisture in the atmosphere, hit with sea levels as low as they were a century ago, before the human induced climate change increase of sea levels, when sea levels were about a foot lower, the storm probably would have caused billions less in storm surge damage to the current day developments hit by Ian."
Harmful Populists promote harmful misunderstandings by keeping their statements simple in harmfully selective ways. Their claims are irrational and difficult to defend, making them unable to be common sense in a 'learning population'. That is why they attack anyone who would 'ask embarrassing questions they cannot provide common sense answers to as explanations of their claims'. Harmful Populists also 'evade questions they cannot answer with common sense explanations' and attempt to discredit anyone who presents better, more sensible, understanding that contradicts what they want 'common people' to believe.
