Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 Next
Comments 35501 to 35550:
-
foolonthehill at 08:02 AM on 16 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
wili
'We can have a robust modern industrial global capitalist constantly-growing economy, or we can have a viable earth.
Aye, there's the rub.
If, like me, you live in first world country and have any form of loan with a bank, you are tied to constant growth. Our system is based on it.
Can we have growth that doesn't cause further damage the planet? On worldwide scale - I doubt it.
The best I can hope for is to minimise it as much as possible. Slow it down. Keep slowing it down. Slower and slower. Allow the system to change. Work out our options for the future. Together.
Our future is fraught with problems. It comes with the biggest threat of all. War. Like many here, I am too young to remember a World War. I do have relatives that do and I have been told enough to realise that, 100 years after the first one, we have to avoid it at all cost.
A forced landing with stalled engines and raised undercarriage may be the best we can hope for. A crash will lead to direct conflict. Surely that's not what we want? (and sorry for calling you Shirley)
-
MA Rodger at 08:01 AM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
JPostma @39.
If a photon is travelling at the speed of light, how is that photon experienced by the universe? Apply relativity. Time is infinitely dilated, i.e. time has stopped, and all distance along the path-in(t)egrated vector of travel has been shrunk to zero. So there is no time nor any space as far as the universe sees things - they do travel at the speed of light, and relativity does apply. I have this dreadful feeling - you understand relativity less well than even your purile inderstanding of thermodynamics.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:58 AM on 16 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
foolonthehill... But I think the leasees are going to just be paying market rate for their space. It's the owners of the building who get the benefit. I'm not sure though. It's a good question that I'll ask my friend about. (Actually, my entire family consists of architechs, so I have lots of resources on this front. My friend just happens to do very large projects like this.)
In fast moving Asian markets I think a lot of really shotty buildings were erected. It's an unfortunate reality. Even though some of those high rises are barely a couple of decades old, they probably are better off being replaced by newer, more energy efficient construction. Really, there are some truly awful buildings over there.
"I think it can free us rather than enslave us."
I'm with you there. As bleak as things sometimes seem today, I'm actually very optimistic about the future.
-
foolonthehill at 07:09 AM on 16 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Rob
'I don't think there's any greenwashing going on here because those developers have a huge incentive to make these buildings as green as possible. It saves them tremendous amounts of money.'
I'm not convinced about this. Most large building are not occupied by the developer - they are leased to corporates. It is the corporate that makes the saving in running costs. The developer gets increased rental income from a 'desirable building'.
I am not professionaly qualified to commment on the lifecycle assessment of these buildings. My sister is an architect and also thinks that the numbers add up. She has never shown me what I would consider truly independent research (ie not supplied by architects or construction companies) so I still struggle with this topic.
The life cycle over '100+ years' is also a little bugbear with me. Any fast moving economy in Asia will tell a different story as to the life of modern buildings. I doubt that many buildings will be around for this length of time. There is a mindset of 'new is better' that is quite challenging to someone with an Old World mentality like myself. The skyline of Tokyo is constantly being altered. Even in the US the 'tallest building in the world' was demolished after only 60 years to be replaced by something that the market felt was more appropriate...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singer_Building
Discussions such as this are always enlightening. The solutions to our problems with climate change will be many and varied. The main thing is to get people engaged in them.
In NZ (and I assume in many western countries), topics of conversation amongst the middle class melieu I encounter, rarely venture into solutions to problems that are facing us. I could get a considered opinion on the market value of any property in the area and a rental appraisal for it. I could obtain a rundown of the menu at the latest 'foodie' haunt (I prefer 'foodist'). I can be regaled by the performance figures for the vehicles that sit outside.
This is what we really need to change. I believe that the battles over climate change denial are ending. The discussion will soon move to solutions. Every decision in our life should now factor in our carbon footprint. It doesnt have to dominate us. We can live with it. We can make informed decisions. I think it can free us rather than enslave us.
-
tstreet at 06:58 AM on 16 July 2014New study improves measurements of the warming oceans
Perhaps this study is relevant to the issue as to when the heat in the oceans will have a significant impact on land temperatures. Billions of brain cells may have been wasted debating whether or not temperatures have increased the last 16 to 18 years. I say waste because if most of the heat is going in the oceans won't it eventually come back to bite us in an extreme matter. Of course, warming oceans have many of their own negative impacts on sea life. Not to mention ocean acidification.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:55 AM on 16 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
wili... I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. I don't believe the choices are that stark. We clearly cannot do what we've done over the past century, but we can, I believe, transition our systems to carbon-free energy in a way that manages to get us past peak population.
After that, it's projected that human population would contract, thus the "constantly growing" aspect of the problem would also subside.
-
wili at 06:05 AM on 16 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
We can have a robust modern industrial global capitalist constantly-growing economy, or we can have a viable earth. Not both. I choose a viable earth, but I guess that's just me.
We can have a somewhat managed collapse now(or rapid contraction...whatever you want to call it) that spreads some of the pain and lessens the worst suffering, or we can have a total uncontrolled collapse later that wipes out nearly everyone and takes most of the earth with it. There are really no alternatives I can see at this point. More and more people are coming to that conclusion.
http://simplicityinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/CrashOnDemandSimplicityInstitute13c.pdf
-
tstreet at 06:02 AM on 16 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
Closed mindedness is endemic througout the population, young and old. But it is tough to keep an open mind when one has spent years forming a opinion based on a pretty thorough review of the situation and the facts. In any event, there is probably a certain amount of closed mindedness on both sides of the global warming issue. I support AGW theory but it might be a sign of closed mindedness if one announces the debate is over. I get it though. We need to move on and fix the problem even if we do not have 100% certainty.
-
JPostma at 05:37 AM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
Also, in fact, the botanist's greenhouse is the original greenhouse, and is the origin of the term "greenhouse", because they grow green food. Therefore these are not "artificial", rather, they are the proper and legitimate name given to them originally.
However, the radiative greenhouse effect as originates out of these 1-D models is indeed artificial, as we have seen people acnowledging that such models are indeed artificial and are not actually representative of the physics of the atmosphere.
A real, original greenhouse (a botanist's greenhouse), stays warm by trapping heated air, while it doesn't get hotter than the solar insolation due to thermdynamic contraints.
The atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect has adopted the name "greenhouse effect", but it in fact does not follow the physics of the original greenhouse, and therefore the atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect has some degree of artificiality to it.
The postulates of this new atmospheric radiative greenhouse should likewise be able to be applied to a real original greenhouse, since they would do what is postulated that the atmosphere does in terms of trapping radiation, etc. However, as an experimental apparatus which can test the new conception of a radiative greenhouse, measurements show that the expected resulting temperature from this new interpretation is not observed inside them. A real greenhouse is still only warmed due to trapping warm air, while the expected results of the artificial radiative greenhouse effect, using any argument or model for it, do not manifest, thus confirming their artificiality.
-
JPostma at 05:14 AM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
"So does the photon perform a special dance to avoid breaking the Sky-Dragon-Slayer-version of laws of physics? Or, when the photon was emitted by that ancient star so long ago, was the state of the universe 13 billion years hence alreay 'known'? Was it emitted only because it would truly be destined for a colder place? Will that poor little photon be really destined not for the sun but for a passing Vogon spaceship that is about to happen-by just in the nick of time?"
Well it is rather simple: a cold source does not heat up a hotter source. Radiation from a cold object does not warm up a warmer object. This really is basic heat flow mechanics and thermodynamics. It works the same for radiation as it does for conduction. If you have a hot object touching a cold object, the hot object is heating the cold one only; if you separate them with a gap, the radiation from the cold object does not sunnedly start to warm the warmer object.It is good to think about life as a photon. How is the universe experienced as a photon? Apply relativity. Time is infinitely dilated, i.e. time has stopped, and all distance along the path-inegrated vector of travel has been shrunk to zero. So there is no time nor any space as far as the photon sees things - they do travel at the speed of light, and relativity does apply.
-
JPostma at 05:07 AM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
Yes, N2 and O2 are also heated from other gases, and again, they can not emit this heat as radiation to lose it. Radiatively active gasses can radiate though and thus, they can lose heat. So, N2 and O2 trap heat, because they can't shed heat through radiative emission. Radiatively active gasses though can lose heat by emission. No one said that IR active gases do not absorb and emit. Rather, zero-emissivity gasses do not absorb and emit and ths they trap heat. I am sorry if you thought it seemed like I was saying that radiatively active gases do not absorb and emit. The point is that zero-emissivity gases do not radiatively absorb and emit, but they do get heated from physical interaction with the surface and other radiatively active gases, and thus, they hold on to that heat, and the IR active gases are the ones that help cool it. So yes, as you say, if there are gases which are radiatively inert, such as O2 and N2, then the atmosphere will warm up above insolation temperature. Thus N2 and O2 are the heat trapping gases while the radiatively active gases are the ones that can emit and thus cool.
"You have been told several times that atmospheric scientists do not rely on the behaviour of artificial greenhouses to establish the properties of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. That you persist in claiming the reverse, alongside your unwillingness or inability to admit that experiments and observations confirm the existence of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, and your unwillingness or inability to think through the implications if you were correct, speaks volumes as regards your comprehension, scientific integrity, and credibility."
As has been pointed out: An "artificial" greenhouse, by which you mean a botanist's greenhouse, should work exactly like the maths of the 1-D model, and by the rest of the radiative greenhouse effect argumentation aside from the 1-D model, with the glass ceiling taking the place of layers of atmosphere and absorption/scattering etc.
An artificial greenhouse demonstrates that such arguments do not manifest - the internal temperature does not get higher than the maximum solar insolation, even though any version of argument for the radiative greenhouse effect says that it should.
So, the radiative greenhouse effect is not observed in an experimental apparatus (a botanists greenhouse) where it should be observed - and this is of course independent of whatever argument you wish to use for the radiative greenhouse effect. The core principle, that of a higher temperature being induced inside than the insolation temperature, is refuted by empiricism (and also by theory if you can follow it properly).
Glad to have had the chat.
-
Paul D at 04:54 AM on 16 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
You have to ask why people like Murdoch believe they can make pronouncements on subjects like Climate Change.
There are two scenarios regarding his thoughts:
1. He believes he is an expert - which should ring alarm bells in anyones minds and implies he has delusions of grandeur (probably accurate).
2. He doesn't believe he is an expert - which implies he feels his influence is useful to override scientists, which also should ring alarm bells.
In both cases he is being manipulative.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:44 AM on 16 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
wili... There are a few facts of reality that we have to face in order to solve the problem. First, it's just a fact that we need our global economy. Without it we can't feed the 7 billion people on this planet. If we collapse the economy we would quickly devolve into mass starvation, even in the most prosperous nations. Personally, I think that is something that needs to be avoided.
Second is, if we continue to emit CO2 on a BAU path, we will also create an unimaginable and unmanageable crisis involving the starvation of billions.
It seems to me, the point solving the problem is to minimize human suffering as much as possible. Minimizing human suffering also involves the protection of the natural systems that support life on this planet. (If we don't care about human suffering, then just let nature take it's course. She will rid the planet of our species and clean things up in a matter of a miniscule million years or two. That's the George Carlin solution.)
I'm not an economist, but when I read Kevin Anderson my sense is what he's suggesting is a recipe for economic collapse that would make matters worse. (And perhaps I don't fully grasp the intricacies of his arguments yet.) I think what the IPCC and the DDPP are proposing is a much more sensible, whole-systems approach approach to solving the problem.
I would suggest that it's a mistake to assume that something is seriously wrong with anyone who doesn't exactly agree to your perceptions of the challenge. We all want to solve the problem here and these are the best kinds of discussions to have. I wish there were more discussions in the public about how we solve the problem over whether there's a problem.
-
MA Rodger at 04:39 AM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
Of course, what I find truly remarkable about these Sky Dragon Slayers is how much slaying they do. Any science that gets in the way - slay it.
Here's a thing, mind. The very first star bursts into life in the early universe and sends forth a red-wavelengthed photon. Off it goes across inter-stelar space for 13 billion years, near-missing planets, deflected by black holes and countless other adventures before entering the Earth's atmosphere, straight in through my open bathroom window, only to be reflected off a mirror and back up into the sky. There ahead is its destination, our sun. But steady on!! This sun is a bit yellow. Oh no!! It's too hot!!!! If the poor little photon impacts the sun it will be allegedly breaking the laws of thermodynamicks, the most important laws there are in the entire universe.
So does the photon perform a special dance to avoid breaking the Sky-Dragon-Slayer-version of laws of physics?
Or, when the photon was emitted by that ancient star so long ago, was the state of the universe 13 billion years hence alreay 'known'? Was it emitted only because it would truly be destined for a colder place? Will that poor little photon be really destined not for the sun but for a passing Vogon spaceship that is about to happen-by just in the nick of time? -
Composer99 at 04:30 AM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
JPostma:
You claim, of N2 and O2:
They gain heat by conduction with the surface, and then they can't radiate it away because of their low/zero emissivity. The atmosphere heats by conduction with the surface too. The atmosphere does not only get heated by absorption of surface radiation, you can not ignore the other modes of heat flow as an attempt to make it all about radiation.
Currently, radiative heat transfer from the Earth surface to the atmosphere is 358.2 W/m2 (the amount absorbed by the atmosphere). Conduction & convection heat transfer, taken together, from Earth surface to the atmosphere is 18.4 W/m2. In fact, the total current non-IR heat transfer from the Earth surface to the atmosphere is 181.9 W/m2. If you have disproved the greenhouse effect, the atmosphere is positively frigid, from top to bottom. It follows that the surface also becomes very cold since the atmosphere is no longer insulating it.
But, N2 and O2 collide with radiatively-active (that is, greenhouse gas) molecules (water vapour, carbon dioxide, etc.) and the latter radiate heat away from the atmosphere into space. If we accept that you have disproved the atmospheric greenhouse effect, greenhouse gases do not absorb at IR bands and hence they do not emit at them either (via Kirchhoff's laws). Thus by your own contention, heat energy entering the atmosphere has no means of escape, at least not until the atmosphere warms up enough to start warming the surface instead!
There you have it. If we accept your conclusion about the atmospheric greenhouse effect, either greenhouse gas molecules (unphysically) do not absorb IR radiation, but only emit it, or greenhouse gas molecules (also unphysically) neither absorb nor emit IR radiation. The end results are contradictory and nonsensical, but they follow necessarily from accepting your position.
An "artificial" greenhouse, by which you mean a botanist's greenhouse, should work exactly like the maths of the 1-D model, and by the rest of the radiative greenhouse effect argumentation aside from the 1-D model, with the glass ceiling taking the place of layers of atmosphere and absorption/scattering etc. An artificial greenhouse demonstrates that such arguments do not manifest - the internal temperature does not get higher than the maximum solar insolation.
You have been told several times that atmospheric scientists do not rely on the behaviour of artificial greenhouses to establish the properties of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. That you persist in claiming the reverse, alongside your unwillingness or inability to admit that experiments and observations confirm the existence of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, and your unwillingness or inability to think through the implications if you were correct, speaks volumes as regards your comprehension, scientific integrity, and credibility.
I'm done.
-
wili at 03:45 AM on 16 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
The primary function of the global industrial economy is to rip the guts, bones, blood and skin out of the earth and turn them into toxins. If that is a system that someone thinks is benign and worth preserving...well, what more can one say?
By the way, congratulations everyone--we had the top-commented-on post for this week! And furthermore we have been honored with the observation that we have "deep and abiding perspectives about what should be done in order to prevent dangerous climate change"!! (Note to editors: There should be a period after that wonderfully descriptive phrase...perhaps it was lost in the exitement of the moment? '-))
I'll also note that I do, on occasion, become a bit...grumpy, at least, contemplating the total destruction of the living systems of the planet and the wholy inadequate responses to it that we seem to be even capable of conceiving.
Don't you?
If not, perhaps there is something seriously wrong with you??
-
JPostma at 02:50 AM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
"All models of real-world phenomena are wrong. I'm fairly certain that instructors aren't telling students that 1D models are accurate representations of atmospheric physics. I'm fairly certain that they're saying some form of "This is a lie, but it's a useful lie.""
Well, some models actually do make reasonable statements about reality. The 1-D greenhouse model does not, and in fact it violates reality at some pretty fundamental levels. To use it as a teaching tool is only to teach the wrong thing and wrong ideas and wrong method. Some models help. Some hinder. This one hinders.
In fact they do not say that it is a useful lie. Such an idea is irrational and illogical in any case. As seen here, they say that it provides a reasonable approximation to reality, to understand some basic features. That is wrong. It wrecks all of the basic features.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:49 AM on 16 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
foolonthehill... That's funny that you pulled up the Pearl River Tower, because I'm pretty sure my friend worked on that building since I'm pretty sure he was at Skidmore back in 2006.
If you do a full lifecycle assessment on buildings like these, over the 100+ year useful life of the building, by far the largest amount of energy is consumed (and CO2 produced) is by the electrical and heat/cooling systems. The energy from construction and travel related to the development of the project is a very tiny fraction of the total life cycle emissions.
I don't think there's any greenwashing going on here because those developers have a huge incentive to make these buildings as green as possible. It saves them tremendous amounts of money.
I think it really does often make sense to replace some older, less efficient buildings. The amount of energy they consume can be very high, and they'll continue to consume that level of energy until they're replaced. So, you're getting a lot of bang for the buck. You're stopping that energy consuption from the old building and replacing it with a building that is far more efficient.
I was just discussing this issue with my friend over the 4th of July weekend, and I literally asked him point blank, "So, can you guys really get these buildings so they generate as much energy as they use?" He said, "It's challenging, but if we have enough mixed use, then yes."
-
DSL at 02:43 AM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
Postma: "Yes, the point is that if the 1-D model is a teaching tool, then what is being taught is wrong."
All models of real-world phenomena are wrong. I'm fairly certain that instructors aren't telling students that 1D models are accurate representations of atmospheric physics. I'm fairly certain that they're saying some form of "This is a lie, but it's a useful lie."
-
JPostma at 02:38 AM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
"If, as you say, O2 and N2 have low emissivity, it follows from this law that they have low absorptivity, and cannot on their own trap radiated heat in the amounts required to maintain the observed Earth surface and atmospheric temperatures. By your own words you contradict yourself."
They gain heat by conduction with the surface, and then they can't radiate it away because of their low/zero emissivity. The atmosphere heats by conduction with the surface too. The atmosphere does not only get heated by absorption of surface radiation, you can not ignore the other modes of heat flow as an attempt to make it all about radiation.
"The behaviour of artificial greenhouses are irrelevant with respect to the existence of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. As KR notes, it is a red herring fallacy."
An "artificial" greenhouse, by which you mean a botanist's greenhouse, should work exactly like the maths of the 1-D model, and by the rest of the radiative greenhouse effect argumentation aside from the 1-D model, with the glass ceiling taking the place of layers of atmosphere and absorption/scattering etc. An artificial greenhouse demonstrates that such arguments do not manifest - the internal temperature does not get higher than the maximum solar insolation.
"Several of your other comments suggest you are ignorant of, or unwilling to consider, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, from which the average Earth temperature sans atmospheric greenhouse effect is derived."
Of course, that law is discussed at length in my papers and has even made its appearance here, in worded form. I am sorry if you missed that. Indeed, it sets the effective temperature of the Earth - but this is not to be thought of as appearing at the ground surface, but somewhere in the middle of the atmosphere.
I'm sorry that you've missed these points.
-
DSL at 02:27 AM on 16 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
Sam: "but it looks to me like a mean would have pretty well the same appearance as giss and hadcrut."
What I'm trying to point out is that warming from the enhanced greenhouse effect is not responsible for much of the increase in global mean surface temperature in the early 20th century. Nearly half of the 1C of enhanced greenhouse effect warming (AGW) of the 20th century did not occur prior to 1940. Nearly all of the 0.7C warming since 1960 is due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (eGHE). The eGHE was on the increase during the first half of the 20th century, but it wasn't the dominant forcing. Solar variation was the dominant forcing at the time. See this and this for more.
There was no single mechanism responsible for the global mean surface temperature signal. There still is no single mechanism. It is a combination of a variety of forcings, feedbacks, and oscillations.
-
Composer99 at 02:17 AM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
JPostma:
Your response to my comment shows up the blatant falseness of your claims.
Witness such gems as:
In fact, real greenhouses demonstrate that they do not get hotter than the solar input. This contradicts the radiative greenhose hypothesis while supporting the trapped-warm-air hypothesis of why greenhouse interiors are warmer than outside.
and
as real greenhouse temperatures contradict the radiative greenhouse postulate of being able to induce a higher temperatre than the solar input.
The behaviour of artificial greenhouses are irrelevant with respect to the existence of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. As KR notes, it is a red herring fallacy.
Or how about this:
That some molecules in the atmosphere scatter/absorb radiation, does not mean that they heat the surface. In fact, low emissivity is what leads to higher temperatures than otherwise, and O2 and N2 have basically zero emissivity, meaning that they hold on to and trap heat already...they being 99% of the atmosphere.
Per Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation, it is in fact the case that low emissivity equals low absorption at equilibrium (say, the atmosphere with an effectively constant incoming solar flux). If, as you say, O2 and N2 have low emissivity, it follows from this law that they have low absorptivity, and cannot on their own trap radiated heat in the amounts required to maintain the observed Earth surface and atmospheric temperatures. By your own words you contradict yourself.
Several of your other comments suggest you are ignorant of, or unwilling to consider, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, from which the average Earth temperature sans atmospheric greenhouse effect is derived.
So much for rational, logical, and physical argument on your part.
-
mbryson at 01:36 AM on 16 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
I've encountered 'stubborn clinging' in just about all age groups— after all, if one argument defending your view doesn't work, you can always imagine there's another... So I don't think it's about age.
But there's another big reason why Murdoch is so misinformed and ineducable: he's wealthy and powerful (and an aggressive businessman). Who, of all the people around him, would tell him he's wrong? If you depend on him for your position, it would be downright imprudent to say anything like "oh, by the way Rupert, all of recent warming is due to humans, and high-emissions scenarios project much larger temperature increases than what you've said"?
Funglestrumpet is right: the influence of his views is magnified by his glorious wealth and power— when people like that say something, it's automatically respectable no matter how false and self-serving...
-
JPostma at 01:11 AM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
Yes, the point is that if the 1-D model is a teaching tool, then what is being taught is wrong.
It is the 1-D models which misrepresent physics. As many people have been taught by this tool, their idea of how things might work will likewise misrepresent physics. The initial conditions and the boundary conditions of the physics have all been messed up by that model. Better physics such as absorption, scattering, etc., does not equate to a source becoming warmer because its radiation is absorbed somewhere else. And indeed real greenhouses do not demonstrate the radiative greenhouse postulate.
-
JPostma at 01:03 AM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
"The atmospheric greenhouse was demonstrated experimentally by Tyndall in the mid-19th century, and as Tom Curtis has shown, has been documented empirically on multiple occasions."
In fact, real greenhouses demonstrate that they do not get hotter than the solar input. This contradicts the radiative greenhose hypothesis while supporting the trapped-warm-air hypothesis of why greenhouse interiors are warmer than outside.
"Further, the fact of its existence follows, necessarily, from the radiative properties of greenhouse gas molecules in the atmosphere."
That some molecules in the atmosphere scatter/absorb radiation, does not mean that they heat the surface. In fact, low emissivity is what leads to higher temperatures than otherwise, and O2 and N2 have basically zero emissivity, meaning that they hold on to and trap heat already...they being 99% of the atmosphere.
"It is, in short, a real 'thing'."
This is only a statement of claim. I have demonstrated physical, mathematical, and logical reasons for why the radiative greenhouse effect is erroneous.
"(1) persevering in your make-believe notion that the simple 1-dimensional model is the basis of scientific acceptance of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, rather than its actual status as a high school or undergraduate teaching tool;"
I have stated that adding more layers or higher dimensionality does not actually fix the mistake of getting the solar input wrong. The 1-D model is not an approximation but an outright error, an outright mistake. It should not be used for a teaching tool at all, and any idea of a radiative greenhouse effect which comes out of it is entirely, completely wrong.
(2) from (1), persevering in arguing that your rebuttal of this teaching tool constitutes a rebuttal of the actual atmospheric greenhouse effect whose existence has been experimentally and empirically confirmed; and
But it has not actually been experimentally and emirically confirmed, as real greenhouse temperatures contradict the radiative greenhouse postulate of being able to induce a higher temperatre than the solar input. To continue to argue that the 1-D model is a teaching tool is to make the point that what is being taught is wrong.
(3) re-asserting your argument without any new counter to the rebuttals raised either by the OP or by comments, which IMO constitutes sloganeering.
The same can be said for you. However, I have actually been making rational logical physical points while the common slogans of the radiative greenhouse effect which originate out of that erroneous teaching tool keep on being presented over and over as if that teaching tool has any legitimate claims to reality, which it does not.
-
funglestrumpet at 01:01 AM on 16 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
Murdoch is a wealthy man and he can't take it with him when he pops his clogs, so to speak. So, seeing that this side of the fence believes the evidence shows that climate change is going to challenge those who inherit his wealth, perhaps he might like to satisfy himself that we are wrong and that they will have as secure a lifestyle as he obviously thinks they will.
As he believes in his view of climate change so much, let him put his money where his mouth is. Invite him to fund a repeat of John Tyndall's 1859 experiment (With Royal Society oversight to ensure the integrity of the results) that proved the greenhouse effect and then explain scientifically, with whatever help he can muster (Lawson, Monckton, Abbot, Python (and the rest of the circus), etc.), why he thinks it is all balloney (well, most of it according to him). Dare him to publish his results (prominently) in his U.K./U.S.A national media channels/newspapers with this side's response. Both sides should be constrained to a set number of words (to be agreed). (Perhaps the Guadian might like to sponsor this side of the debate with exclusive rights to publish the correspondence and outcomes.)
Daft as the above might be (it is more intended as a thought-starter than a finished, completely thought through idea), let's face it, anything is worth a try. As thing are, Murdoch is going to continue spouting his erroneous opinions and editors, enjoying their freedoms, are going to take the view: "It's only an idea, but look whose idea it is!" and faithfully walk to heal, fetch the stick when its thrown and enjoy their "Whose a good boy, then?" bonuses, no doubt saying "No worries, sport" as they do so.
-
wili at 01:00 AM on 16 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
"People of privilege will always risk complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." - John Kenneth Galbraith
-
KR at 00:56 AM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
JPostma - I'm sorry, but your entire argument is a strawman fallacy. The 1-D model you discuss is simply an explanatory tool, not the justification for the understanding of the radiative greenhouse effect.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
The scientific understanding of the radiative greenhouse effect is based upon spectroscopy, radiative physics, atmospheric composition, and observations of (among other items) lapse rates, evaporative exchanges, convection, TOA and surface IR, etc. Not on a simplified model used in classrooms - a model that is simplified, but correct in that it relates some important factors demonstrating the effects of changing effective surface emissivity.
It doesn't help that your geometry is wrong, and thus is your estimate of insolation, that glass greenhouses are a red herring with respect to radiative phsyics, etc. You have presented exactly nothing of substance.
Your whole argument is based upon a misrepresentation of the science. As such, it's not even wrong.
-
JPostma at 00:52 AM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
Just as an example of something interesting when you consider latent heat of liquid water rather than ignoring all such other physics in an attempt to make it all about radiation, consider the effect that latent heat has at the surface - the result below was calculated using real-time, actual solar input at the surface of the Earth:
Above you can see that latent heat from liquid water prevents the temperature from dropping below zero, which will thus give a daily-averaged temperature reading which is higher than you would expect, because the curve doesn't drop below zero when basic daily input energy considerations would make you think it should. Latent heat is like a heat battery than turns on at 0C and keeps it there. Of course, latent heat from water vapour releases out of the atmosphere at a temperature higher than 0C.
This shows that latent heat keeps the surface warmer than otherwise, as a function of the mass of water on the surface. And that's just for liquid on the surface. The atmosphere releases the latent heat of water vapor too, which will bump the temperature anomaly up higher still. Integrated over all mass quantities, the integrated temperature anomaly offset is about +60C.
So the point is, making the surface temperature all about atmospheric radiation and a radiative greenhouse effect is wrong.
The 1-D models aren't a useful approximation, they are an anti-physics error, a massive wrong way to think about the physics. They are a fiction which produce a cognitive "scientific" landscape totally divorced from reality.
Check out this data from a temperature measurement station with sensors going to .86m into the ground, and up to 1.5m altitude. This data was collected over a few months:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoJM4taoNFo
You need the 2D heat flow PDE to model something like that, and that is what needs to be modeled if you want to understand heat flow in the atmosphere and surface. (Though we'd need data going deeper into the ground, and higher into the air, and for longer time.) The 1-D models are simply 100% divorced from being able to explain what is seen in that data sequence...they contradict it in fact. The point being that the 1-D models need to be completely rejected as fictional, and hence, any of the type of thinking associated with them or commonly referred back to them, such as the radiative greenhouse effect, likewise must be rejected.
-
Composer99 at 00:39 AM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
JPostma:
The atmospheric greenhouse was demonstrated experimentally by Tyndall in the mid-19th century, and as Tom Curtis has shown, has been documented empirically on multiple occasions.
Further, the fact of its existence follows, necessarily, from the radiative properties of greenhouse gas molecules in the atmosphere.
It is, in short, a real 'thing'.
In your attempt to "disprove" the greenhouse effect, you are engaged in three ongoing misbehaviours on this thread:
(1) persevering in your make-believe notion that the simple 1-dimensional model is the basis of scientific acceptance of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, rather than its actual status as a high school or undergraduate teaching tool;
(2) from (1), persevering in arguing that your rebuttal of this teaching tool constitutes a rebuttal of the actual atmospheric greenhouse effect whose existence has been experimentally and empirically confirmed; and
(3) re-asserting your argument without any new counter to the rebuttals raised either by the OP or by comments, which IMO constitutes sloganeering.
-
wili at 00:37 AM on 16 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
California just put restrictions on water use for the first time.
Humans can't survive more than about three days without water, yet we are willing in these circumstances to outright restrict its use.
Humans lived for almost all of their time on earth with essentially no use of fossil fuels, so it is obviously not as vital to human survival in the same way that water is.
So why can't we directly restrict the use of these substances, substances that are in the process of destroying the systems that support complex life on earth, including human life.
This is an existential issue.
As Churchill put it: "The era of procrastination, of half measures, of soothing and baffling expedience, of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences.”
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:32 AM on 16 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
I agree with the comments that Murdoch is l very likely to be aware of the best understanding of this issue, but is chosing to not help others better understand it.
He certainly has the capacity to properly understand this issue, as do his media creators. So it is highly likely that Murdoch is in the make-believe business for the benefit of himself and a collective of unacceptable characters he hangs around with. His job in the gang is to try to 'make' people 'believe' what is in the interests of that unacceptable group rather than have more people be more aware and actually better understand how unacceptable they are.
And people who are inclined to want to get more benefit for themselves any way they can get away with are easy targets for the make-believe stories created and disseminated by the likes of Murdoch's mouth-pieces of myths, including his own mouth.
This is a group of people who have no interest in developing a sustainable better future for all, especially if doing so means reducing their ability to benefit from thinigs they have been able to get away with - those unacceptable activities they relied on getting away with.
Their problem is they have locked themselves into attempting to succeed by getting away with unacceptable actions. They stand to lose a lot if their deception is unconvincing. They are threatened by any information that contradicts their 'way to wealth'. So they pour a lot of effort into prolonging popular support for the unacceptable unsustainable actions their personal success relies upon.
That group really needs the likes of Murdoch to be successful for as long as possible. The development of the best future for humanity needs the likes of Murdoch and the gang he hangs out with, to fail to succeed, as quickly as possible.
-
JPostma at 23:42 PM on 15 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
Well, there is no other way that the radiative greenhouse effect is actually postulated. The 1-D models are its source. And as we've seen and had agreement on, the 1-D models do not correspond to physical reality in any way.
The Earth is not flat.
Solar input flux heating is not -18C.
If it were -18C it wouldn't be able to melt ice, create clouds.
The solution to that problem is not to postulate a radidative greenhouse effect, but to get the initial conditions right: the Earth is not flat and solar input is not -18C.
There is a minimum level of complexity required for a model to have any meaninglful correspondence with reality. The 1-D models do not satisy that. All they state is that energy in = energy out, and that's fine and obvious.
Therefore, the idea that radiation from the atmosphere heats the surface needs to be discarded, because that idea only comes out of the postulate required to save a bad model, a postulate which is itself therefore wrong. We see people agreeing that the 1-D models do not correspond to actual reality, but then they immediately turn around and try to justify the postulates from the 1-D model. This is not the way to go about things.
It doesn't matter if you add more layers or have higher dimeniosnality models. The postulate of the radiative greenhouse effect still has no basis. And we have been looking through the IPCC models, and there is no actual greenhouse effect in them, anywhere. Neither Spencer nor anyone else can identify it and say where in the models it is, or how it originates. What they will do however, is always refer back to the 1-D models! It's kinda crazy.
The 1-D model is not a simplified model. It is a wrong model which violates very, very basic, in fact fundamental features of the actual physics occuring at the surface. Such as sunshine melting ice and creating clouds. It is a wrong starting point, initial approximation - not a close one.
The fffective temperature is not an actual temperature measurement, but an inference given energy conservation and assuming unit emmisivity. For Earth, this is ~255K, corresponding to the expected ~240 W/m^2 average output from the globe. This temperature should not be expected to be found at the ground surface since for radiation, the surface is not the ground surface, and also, because of the natural lapse rate gradient of -g/Cp (can also factor for latent heat release which lessens the slope, as I showed in that paper) which mathemtically necessitates that the average will not be found at either extremity (ground surface or TOA), but somewhere in the middle, thus automatically making the surface warmer than the average.
A spectral plot is not evidence of a greenhouse effect. It is evidence of spectral absorption and scattering. You get spectral absorption and scattering when you have a cooler gas in front of a warmer source. The cooler gas does not cause or induce the temperature of the warmer source. As we have seen, solar input is actually much higher than -18C, latent heat release will hold the surface at a warmer temperature than otherwise, and the lapse rate gradient automatically necessitates a warmer bottom-of-atmosohere than middle and top. The 1-D model as designed by climate scientists is indeed, exactly and directly, about the attempt to use the spectral absorption of a cold gas as a way to make up for the erroneous "solar-heating deficit" produced by those very models. Yes the surface can warm the colder gas via absorption in that gas of "warm" surface radiation, but this does not translate back to a requirement that the surface must increase in temperature, because it is heating that gas. And such a scheme completely dismisses the existence of the lapse rate, of latent heat, and real-time physics where the sunshine actually does induce behaviour that the averaged solar input of -18C does not have the power to achieve.
And finally, let us be reminded that a real botanist's greenhouse should be able to function by that math and logic of the 1-D model and by the same of the spectral absorption argument: this should induce a higher temperature inside a greenhouse "glass box" than the maximum solar input is providing. The glass roof serves the role of the layers of the atmosphere and of miles of spectral absorption and scattering. But it doesn't happen - the maximum temperature is only equal to the solar input. Empirical measurement demonstrates that spectral absorption and/or layers of atmosphere absorbing radiation from the surface do not cause the surface to become warmer. When you factor in the fact that setting the solar input to -18C is not going to be able to reproduce any of the significant physics that actually occurs in real-time from actual high-power "hot" sunshine, then the rest of the thoughts and postulates which have ever extended from that likewise be extinguished. You should start over. The models aren't working anyway, the temperature isn't increasing like it was predicted. It is a good reason to reevaluate. Start over using actual heat flow physics in real time with the heat flow PDE, and show people all the work.
-
climatelurker at 23:18 PM on 15 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
There's a new book out ('Sons of Wichita') about the Koch's. If you want a look into the world of these "titans" you should definitely read it. Murdoch fits RIGHT into what's described about the Kochs. I'm willing to bet he expends 90% or more of his brainpower thinking about how to beat his competition, get under their skin, spy on them... play the 'great game'.
He's clearly not dumb, or he wouldn't have built the empire he sits on top of, but he's one person with one brain, and only so much time to spend his thoughts on. These guys are so focused on the dramas they create that they have no more brain cells left to focus on anything else. And I'd bet they NEVER slow down enough to stop and honestly think about the alternatives to their own worldviews.
-
shoyemore at 17:51 PM on 15 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
Murdoch's views would be just commonplace ignorance if he was not such a powerful individual.
His power may be judged from the fact that Tony Blair called him every day in the week leading up to the Iraq invasion in 2003. He is a powerful man whom even the powerful kowtow to.
He is a real threat when his misconceptions and confusions become the core agenda of a massive news organisation, and he has the ears of the elite in every country. Correcting Murdoch and his minions is what Skeptical Science is all about, and well done with this post.
-
Larry E at 16:21 PM on 15 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
This 2006 article in The Economist (Aircraft emissions - The sky's the limit) may be dated in some respects; however, its observations on how comparisons of emissions from air travel and other travel modes are worth consideration.
http://www.economist.com/node/7033931
-
foolonthehill at 16:15 PM on 15 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Rob
'Again, the solution to the problem is pricing carbon.' No argument from me there buddy.
'If he is the best person for the job, should he not be doing that work?' That is a decision he must make. I would hope that he does so in full recognition of his contribution to climate change. Not taking the job may result in a worse result for the environment - he would be the best judge of that. I just hope that his loan repayments and the company profits don't unbalance his decision process. Less painful decisions are often the simplest to make.
I am intrigued by the carbon neutrality of many buildings touted by developers. The prospect of greenwashing always seems close at hand. From my limited knowledge, the embedded carbon seems to be conveniently overlooked (such as your friends travel emissions).
Auckland has numerous buildings that have sprung up recently which quote fantastic efficiencies in their operations. They invariably have replaced similar sized buildings that have stood for many years and that would have continued to do so. Their replacement is justified on the basis that they 'don't function to todays corporate requirements' or 'the floor plate didn't allow sufficient flow' or other seemingly specious factors.
The main reason for replacement seems to be that the newer buildings can command a higher rental for the developer. Is that the best we can hope for in the future?
Gotta love the occupants of this 'green' building -
-
Sam martin8679 at 16:12 PM on 15 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
Hi DSL i was referring to giss and hadcrut which both show something pretty similar. Those coloured dots from figure 10.1 are hard to make much sense of without a mean but it looks to me like a mean would have pretty well the same appearance as giss and hadcrut.
-
Larry E at 15:43 PM on 15 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Rob said "If he is the best person for the job, should he not be doing that work?" Maybe it falls under the category of essential travel, which both wili and I left room for. However, you did say earlier that he (or she) was doing it to pay the mortgage and raise the kids. I hope he is training local architects so he can travel less. Where is he located and what countries does he have projects in?
-
Larry E at 15:35 PM on 15 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Rob, I agree that aviation is a hard nut to crack, but it is essential that we do crack it. It is the only major economic sector that is not reducing its emissions, while the other sectors are. Accordingly, under current trends by 2050 tourism could account for 40% of global GHG emissions, and as an indicator aviation presently accounts for 75% of tourism emissions. (See refs A & B below). For the World Cup, aviation GHG emissions amounted to 98% of the total. Refs A through C concern travel habits and impact, particularly on climate. Ref D contains Ref C and other info pertinent to the discussion in this comment thread.
Ref E is a thorough study of airliner efficiency and emissions over the decades, and the prospects for further improvement.
@wili referenced a statement by climate scientist Kevin Anderson that an annual reduction of 10% in emissions from all uses of energy is needed, and discussion by others followed. The explanation behind Anderson's conclusion is quite simple and compelling. See Ref F below (video of his 2011 presentation at UK DFID), in which he also answers the question of why his analysis is different than those by others. Here is a summary of that:
1. EMISSIONS GROWTH RATES ARE NOT LOW-BALLED. Virtually all other climate pathway studies assume a 1-2% per year emissions growth rate to the emissions peak, but the actual rate has been 3-5% per year.
2. REALISTIC EMISSIONS PEAKING DATES ARE USED. Virtually all other analyses use an emissions peak between 2010 and 2016. The Stern report was 2015; the UK Committee on Climate Change's work is based on 2016; the recent ADAM report for the EU had 2015. Wherever you look, people are assuming very low growth rates to a very early peaking date. "And you can look around you. You can see the emissions that are occurring globally. And you can think, 'Is any of that in any way, shape or form a good illustration of the real world in which we live?' And if not, then you might start to think, 'Why is this analysis different?' Even the UK's Committee on Climate Change, which is doing much more than many countries around the world, embedded a 2017 peaking date for China and India in its report. But no one's ever talked to the Chinese or the Indians about that."
3. SO, THE PROBLEM IS AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE WORSE THAN RECOGNIZED, AND TECH ALONE CAN'T FIX IT. Supply technologies cannot be put in place fast enough to bring you off the peak quick enough. "That's not to say better supply technology is not important - in fact, it's a prerequisite to getting to a low carbon future. But, it will not do it in and of itself. You have to have radical reductions beforehand, and technology cannot deliver those, particularly the supply technologies. Perhaps the demand side can do that and certainly behavioral can move you much faster, but you simply cannot put the big supply technologies in place fast enough in the wealthier parts of the world."
4. SOCOLOW'S WEDGES "ARE THE WRONG WAY AROUND." Socolow "has us starting with small reductions from the pointy ends of the wedges and progressing to larger reductions at the big end. That might have worked if we had started earlier, but because we are so late in addressing climate change we need to get the big reductions almost immediately," and we $can back off decades later to a tapered finish. (See: Socolow et al. 2006).
Reference G is a link to the conference "Radical Emissions Reduction," held in December at the Royal Society, London. From the webpage a program and a book of the abstracts (101 pp.) can be downloaded.
--------------
A. Cohen S., Higham J., Peeters P., Gossling S. (2014). Why tourism mobility behaviours must change. Ch. 1 in: Understanding and Governing Sustainable Tourism Mobility: Psychological and Behavioural Approaches.
B. Cohen S., James E., Higham J., Gossling S., Peeters P. (2014). Understanding and Governing Sustainable Tourism Mobility: Psychological and Behavioural Approaches. Routeledge, NYC. ISBN: 978-0-415-83937-2.
C. Gössling S.; Upham, P. (eds) (2009). Hypermobile travellers. Ch. 6 in: Climate Change and Aviation: Issues, Challenges and Solutions.
D. Gössling S., Upham P. (2009). Climate change and aviation: Issues, challenges and solutions. http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/Aviation-and-Climate-Change_.pdf
E. Peeters et al. (2005). Fuel efficiency of commercial aircraft: An overview of historical and future trends. (Netherlands National Aerospace Lab).
F. Anderson K. (2011). Climate Change: Going beyond dangerous — Brutal numbers, tenuous hope, or cognitive dissonance? Video of presentation at UK DFID.
G. The Radical Emissions Reduction Conference, Dec. 10-11, 2013. Venue: Royal Society, Carlton House Terrace, London.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 15:06 PM on 15 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Wili... "Is the economy more important than the planet?"
What is important is solving the global warming problem. We're going to need a working economy to do that. It's not an either/or choice. We need both.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 14:50 PM on 15 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
If he is the best person for the job, should he not be doing that work?
No, actually, I don't think you can just relay the work to a local architect since that's already an inherent part of the process.
And what I'm talking about relative to carbon neutral buildings is, they build high rises that, with a certain level of mixed use, can generate as much energy as they consume.
Again, the solution to the problem is pricing carbon. Creating additional restrictions does not address the fundamental problem.
-
DSL at 14:38 PM on 15 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
Sam, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "half of that." See IPCC AR5 WG1 Ch. 10, especially section 3, and to the point figure 10.1. What are you measuring from? There's been roughly 0.7C warming since 1960 with virtually no contribution from solar variation.
-
DSL at 14:23 PM on 15 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
And not only satellites but direct surface observation. That is, downwelling longwave radiation has been instrumentally measured at the surface (see Wang & Dickinson 2013 for a review of observation-based studies).
-
Sam martin8679 at 13:40 PM on 15 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
About the nearly 1 degree that we have already caused- what is the proposed mechanism for the nearly half of that which occured between ~ 1910 and 1940? I was under the impression that was not thought to be co2 related warming.
-
foolonthehill at 13:22 PM on 15 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Rob
'And so, you think my architect friend who is developing carbon neutral high rise buildings around the world should stop doing his work?'
Is your friend the only person capable of doing this work? Can he not relay the relevant information to a local architect?
(I dont think i'll get into the 'carbon neutral' aspects...)
-
Rob Honeycutt at 13:02 PM on 15 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Larry E...
"...yet growth in average distance traveled and number of trips are increasing consistently at an unsustainable rate. Airliners today are negligibly more efficient that piston-powered ones of the late 1950s."
Yes, your first statement is correct but I think that addressing the demand side through carbon pricing would change that trend.
Your second statement is incorrect. When early jet engines were introduced in the 1950's then were less fuel efficient that prop engines of the time, and those prop engines were not so efficient either. But modern high bypass torbo fan jets are more efficient. And the carbon emissions for long distance travel are actually lower per passenger mile than other forms of transportation.
"Yes, but scope for improvement is limited..."
The scope for improvement is limited in the nearer decades. Again, avaition is a big nut to crack. As I linked in one of my first comments, there are ideas like super cooled ducted fan systems that have the potential to be carbon free. As well, there is a lot of work being done in non-food crop biofuels.
"For your friends who feel trapped, the need for a smaller house and more frugal lifestyle, is indicated."
Really? And so, you think my architect friend who is developing carbon neutral high rise buildings around the world should stop doing his work?
"Aviation is a great place to start."
I'm sorry but I'm just going to have to disagree here. When surface transportation accounts for 40% of emissions and when buildings also account for almost 40% of emissions... why would you want to "start" with the industry that generates 6% of emissions? It's a serious question. I don't understand this thinking.
"A nice touch, but involving a minor lifestyle change."
My point being that small incentives can go a long way. Don't use a sledge hammer when a smaller tool can get the job done.
-
Lloyd Flack at 12:54 PM on 15 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
Non-scientist,
I doubt very much it is his age. Plenty of older people have a healthy curiousity and can change their minds.
I think ubrew12 is much closer to the mark. He does seem to be extremely, perhaps obsessively, competitve and society wide cooperation of the sort required to deal with climate change gets in the way of his games. I think a lot of denialists are game players who want the fun of putting down opponents. This makes them want to see opponents as dishonest and deserving of mockery and put-downs. Think of people like Mark Morano, Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt, all malicious game-players addicted to sneering at opponents.
But I think there is something else. I think billionaires for whom their business is everything can unintentionally attract an echo chamber of flatterers who tell them what they want to hear. Their advisors do genuinely see them as the great man or woman. If you aren't curious and don't seek knowledge from outside your inner circle you can end up out of touch with reality. I think this has happened with Murdoch, with Gina Reinhart and with the Koch brothers.
-
wili at 12:37 PM on 15 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Is the economy more important than the planet?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 12:24 PM on 15 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
foolonthehill... My original post was suggesting that aviation is a harder nut to crack and that there are other issues to address like surface transportation, buildings and efficiency that offer much bigger emissions reductions for far less money. I'm not saying that aviation emissions shouldn't be addressed; it's a very important issue to address. But the question is how to address it in the most effective and timely manner and how we address it in ways that fit into the larger goals of getting to zero emissions in a time frame that keeps us below 2C.
Prev 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 Next
