RealClimate logo

Forced Responses: Jan 2018

Filed under: — group @ 1 January 2018

This is a new class of open thread for discussions of climate solutions, mitigation and adaptation. As always, please be respectful of other commentators and try to avoid using repetition to make your points. Discussions related to the physical Earth System should be on the Unforced Variations threads.

601 Responses to “Forced Responses: Jan 2018”

  1. 551
    Killian says:

    #542 Thomas said Important to listen to anecdotal evidence

    Don’t be silly. You can only know something after scientific studies have confirmed it. Don’t be a Believing Thomas!

    More seriously, looks like that report out of Germany has set off a cascade of awareness. Or reports. Or something.

    FYI, peanuts and friends, this is one of those “Ah-hah!” moments that help me be the Climate Seer, and Seer in general, that you all know and love. In all seriousness, **pay attention to this issue. It may be the non-Arctic canary in a coal mine.**

  2. 552
    Thomas says:

    551 Killian

    Could be the Bug in the Ointment?


    One cannot rationally discuss AGW/CC and not mention Food in the same breath.

    Like Killian suggests, I got this in the 1990s right from the get go.

    Whilst everyone has their own issues that triggers their “frustrations” on agw/cc news forums they do not all come from the same place for everyone.

    eg the existence of climate science deniers and their well funded networks, they have never been my boogie man issue. Denialism is irrelevant to the real issues and as such is a non-event… and the sooner it gets ignored by everyone the better. Stop giving them any air period! eg Ban them from RC forever and a day.

    With No Quarter.

  3. 553
    nigelj says:

    Killian @546

    Ok, but the fact remains some government policies encouraging small population makes perfect sense. High population growth simply cancels out effects of reducing consumption, so both need to be tackled now and in any reasonable way we can. It also makes sense “to use all the tools in the toolbox” to quote your own philosophy.

    And you supported government initiatives in supporting regenerative farming in France, so cant be philosophically opposed to government lead policies.

    There’s also no guarantee that if people accept some form of lower consumption that this automatically leads to them having smaller families in all cases, so some top down encouragement may help.

  4. 554
    nigelj says:

    Killian @548

    The fact remains its unwise to rush into untested radical and very single minded change too fast, if possible, because of the risk of error and massive problems. It doesn’t matter how well they are analysed. Neoliberalism was a case where economists basically rushed in assuming it was the “right answer”.

    Instead it makes sense to try various solutions to the big environmetal problems as sort of experiements, including changes to the capitalist system in parallel with alternative communities. Theres much to be said for experimenting with different social and economic ideas at local scale rather than globally, because this enables them to then be evaluated.

    I note that a universal basic income is being tested in various countries, and in some cases in cities within countries. This makes sense to me. The idea looks quite good, but needs testing. However hopefully they don’t spend forever testing it.

    This sort of relates to incrementalism, if you have read any Karl Popper.

  5. 555
    Thomas says:

    550 Killian (smile) no I didn’t take it as a correction, merely taking the opportunity you presented to show off more of the tickets all over myself. Hehehehe …. I am a joker by default K. and quite intentionally self-deprecating humour, though many see that in an entirely non-humourous light here and have done for years and years. They do not “get the joke” (smiling)

    eg K. there’s no flies on me mate, but you can still see where they have been. I have no fear in being wrong. I’ve had a lifetime of practice being wrong already, hehehe.

    Oh, for the peanuts in the gallery that’s means I can more effectively tell the difference these days. Meaning I know when I am right and happily admit when I am shown to be wrong.

    re “What a beautiful example of the problem betwixt us.”

    (grinning) with no offense intended to N. whatsoever. I have been on ‘text based internet forums’ since the mid-1990s – I know it when I see and why it happens and also how to overcome it too. I am in fact an “expert”. Got the scars to prove it too!

  6. 556
    Thomas says:

    543 Thomas says:
    24 Feb 2018 at 3:44 AM

    A hat tip for anyone who doesn’t have time to look at those refs. A key take-away message is that 30% of all ocean species spend a period of their Lifecycles in Coral Reefs of the world.

    A recent paper has suggested that “science” now has the wherewithall to produce “hot weather dna” corals and could perhaps transplant those from the lab in locations that replaces the reefs that are now dying.

    That looks to me like a Dr Strangelove level of scientific sense, off with the faeries iow.

  7. 557
    Mr. Know It All says:

    475 – nigelj
    “Actually I can think of at least 8 people who have attacked your posts and far more viciously than me in most cases. Ray Ladbury. K McKinney, MA Rodger, BPL, Zebra, Al Bundy, Alan100, Mr KIA.”

    Although many here deserve a vicious attack occasionally, I do not recall attacking anyone “viciously”, and certainly not Killian. Please provide an example of an attack I’ve made against Killian, and I’d really like to see a “vicious” attack. Didn’t know I was so dangerous! :) …..

  8. 558
    Thomas says:

    [First a note to self, do stay away from UV, you owe it to yourself Thomas]

    OK, so Kurt Andersen is a writer. This means he is in the ‘business, art and science’ of Communication. People will of course have varying opinions about his talent in Communication, which is natural and reasonable.

    But let’s dip a toe in the water about how he chooses to Communicate, as an example maybe others could follow. I guess this kind of relates back to this topic on RC here:

    Well, imho, it does and it doesn’t. It depends on how the “individual” chooses to look at the topic of Communication. I say potatoe and you say potato, or I say Aluminium and you might say Aluminum, right? ;-)

    So what does this American writer think about the issues surrounding “communication” in his nation?

    How America Got Divorced from Reality: Christian Utopias, Anti-Elitism, Media Circus | Kurt Andersen 432,209 views
    Clink on “Show More” for a copy of the whole text.

    OR try this version here:
    Since a boat of religious fanatics with buckles on their hats hit the shores near Plymouth Rock and claimed that this was their utopia, America has always been a little bit crazy.

    OR dig a little deeper and try this as well
    His latest book is Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire: A 500-Year History(2017).

    Relevance to AGW/CC discussions of climate solutions, mitigation and adaptation?

    It has ‘everything’ to do with it, because the USA is ground zero for Climate Science Denialism, Climate Science Lies and decades of foot-dragging and lies by it’s Governments be they GOP or Democratic.

    And if I may also add, I have studied and researched American History going back to the 1600s so I ‘know’ what this Anderson has to say is right.

    And for my NZ mate, a while back now, sorry lost the url refs/names, there was this NZ history researcher who worked with an American and they did this study/research about how come NZ was so progressive in regard to Women’s Lib and the Vote versus the extra 30 years it took before the USA was able to provide women with the Vote in that nation.

    And I can recall they too had to go back to the 1600s roots of USA History to see the underlying cause of that.

    Of course, no one exists in a ‘vacuum’ and further research took me back further to the UK and their civil wars over “religion” which then spawned the colonisation of the Americas and how that “society” then developed over centuries. A fascinating study indeed.

    and fwiw it’s one fo the reasons why I can understand the sheer frustration of so many people just like Killian having to endlessly 24/7/365 try and keep his head above water while living in Fantasyland.

    I appreciate the circumstances of where he lives and how hard it is. I know, I have been there and saw it first hand while Clinton was going through Impeachment and Gary Web (another great Communicator) was fighting for his life!

    Ta Da!

    Enjoy what Kurt Andersen communicates so exceptionally well. (smile)

  9. 559
    Thomas says:

    oh bugger: I guess this kind of relates back to this topic on RC here:

  10. 560
    nigelj says:

    “The song remains the same” Its just a song title guys. I’m a music enthusiast. That’s all. I understood the point.

    Don’t forget to find a sense of humour, and take your anti paranoia tablets!

  11. 561
    nigelj says:

    Mr KIA @557 please note I said “and far more viciously than me in most cases.”

    I was thinking of you because you are polite, even although you are 90% wrong 90% of the time.

  12. 562
    nigelj says:

    Mr KIA @557 “Didn’t know I was so dangerous! :) …..”

    Well you do remind me of a toothless little Chihuahua.

  13. 563
    Mr. Know It All says:

    554 – nigelj
    “I note that a universal basic income is being tested in various countries, and in some cases in cities within countries.”

    How is this going to help with the problem of AGW?

  14. 564
    Thomas says:

    Simon Sinek on Millennials and other relevant stuff

    @11 mins he addresses his 4th point which is “environment”

  15. 565
    Killian says:

    #557 MKIA,

    Ironically, in a sense, you do a good job of playing the polite denialist. It makes polite non-denialists feel bad for wanting to throw you out the proverbial window and ,engage in false equivalence, allowing you to remain and keep misleading the world. In fact, they are more likely to kick me out for making denialists B.S. absolutely crystal clear and in not-so-gentle language. I don’t like people who knowingly help end the lives of Earth’s inhabitants.

    But, no, I do not recall you being unduly impolite to me. You play your part well.

    I’d kick you out in less time than it takes me to type, “Bye!”, which isn’t lightning speed given what a crappy typist I am. But I’d also kick out the Peanut Gallery till they got some manners.

  16. 566
    Killian says:

    #554 nigelj said Killian @548

    The fact remains its unwise to rush into untested radical and very single minded change

    That you claim to be polite when you repeat this libel over and over is beyond me. You are a dishonest person. Or just that unintelligent to keep repeating the same false narrative? Nah. we have been over this so many times.

    Only one word fits: Denier. And you know what makes denialists boil over with rage, as you have repeatedly done? Being identified. But it happens every time.

    Theres much to be said for experimenting with different social and economic ideas at local scale rather than globally, because this enables them to then be evaluated.

    The last two hundred years was not enough? Let’s see, socialism, faux socialism, communism, faux communism, dem socialism, faux capitalism… and egalitarian=governed Commonses. Hmmm… seems to me one of those turns out to be sustainable…

    Oh, that’s right! The last.

    …if you’ve read any Popper,

    Funny, you read all sorts of stuff, or claim to, and understand so little.

    But I’ll bite. In what way is suggesting solving climate via regenerative, socially and economically just systems (after ten years of deep analysis) single-minded?

  17. 567
    Killian says:

    #555: It’s not a text issue. There are extremely consistent behaviors here, and a very high percentage of false statements, mischaracterizations, etc.

  18. 568
    Thomas says:

    AGW/CC Arctic Impacts fyi consideration

    Not sure if anyone else on the interwebs picked this up, but as far as i can tell these heat intrusions have already broken the record DMI deviation from mean temp set in the fall of 2016. Data goes back to 1958.,2141.msg143495.html#msg143495

    when you look at the charts for previous years its not the peaks we are recently seeing in the 80+nth mean temps that are the scariest thing IMO. Previous years have had their up jags, but interlaced with down jags that approach the longterm mean. Now there seems to be a new shelf in place below which the temp refuses to fall. If this is a new mode then this forum’s days are limited.,2141.msg143510.html#msg143510

    Areas of Arctic are @ +20C to +30C above average atm (24th Feb).
    All Arctic +6C

    “This is unprecedented….”

  19. 569
    nigelj says:

    Killian @566

    I think the fact still remains that its unwise to rush into untested radical and very single minded change, and obviously by this I mean at large scale. This is commonsense and is EXACTLY what Popper says and what he means by promoting incrementalism. Even carbon taxes are being introduced incrementally, which is a good idea, provided the increments are not too small.

    Your ideas on simple life philosophies at large scale are somewhat untested. They are more tested at small scale but have not exactly been rigorously evaluated with all due respect, to my knowledge. We cant be sure your 80% cuts to consumption etc make sense, and your proposed community structures may be worse than what we have tried already.

    Therefore we should experiment, and change should be at least mildly incremental. However its a “moot point” in a way because this is happening anyway. Your examples of simple life communities are essentially experiments so I dont know why you are getting so wound up.

    I have some economist acquaintances who say a new economic consensus is emerging and that neoliberalism is being discarded to some extent. Change is happening in economics.

    I’m sitting a bit on the fence on some of your ideas. I’m also a swing voter politically. I’m the guy that people have to convince of things! I’m a picky sort of person.

    What alternative lifestylers need imho is a science / maths / economic model: A whole earth model that incorporates consumption, gdp growth, population, resource limits etc. And then one can play with the variables. If this supports your cause, it would be a powerful tool to convince people.

  20. 570
    Thomas says:

    562 nigelj … a classic! ROFL

    565 Killian …. I concur!

    #555: RE: “It’s not a text issue.”

    Allow me to clarify, it’s not entirely a text issue, but underneath text based forums have a constant pattern or “dynamics” involved … which goes beyond disagreements about opinions. That was what I was speaking to. Overcoming the default “text issues” by being face to face will still not resolve entrenched issues of “belief/values” between two people.

    Does that clarify what I was saying and what I meant by it? I hope so. eg the “song remains the same” mis-communication would be a classic example of the point I was making re text and my great grandiose expertise online for 2 decades. I’m so shit hot they should have awarded me a Nobel prize for Peace for it, and not Obama. (smiling)

  21. 571
    Thomas says:

    Oh well, I am wrong again, twice already!

    So much for 410 or 409.3 ppm by end of Feb.

    Up-to-date weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa
    Week beginning on February 18, 2018: 408.48 ppm
    Weekly value from 1 year ago: 406.73 ppm
    Weekly value from 10 years ago: 385.19 ppm
    Last updated: February 25, 2018


  22. 572
    nigelj says:

    Thomas, yeah although it has probably sunk my nice guy image. I have truckloads of one liners like that, normally kept under lock and key.

  23. 573
    Killian says:

    Moe natural practices mimicked to manage land. I.e., restore capacity.

  24. 574
    Killian says:

    554 and 563 UBI.

    UBI is useless as a direct impactor on climate, but can serve as a transitional or bridge option between where we are and nested Commonses. However, you can get the nearly the same effect with reduced work hours, full employment with a liveable minimum wage without all the hassle of changing the system.

    Both would provide more free time for workers or employment and income to use to the unemployed. The free time either builds stronger social bonds or greater creativity/entrepreneurship. UBI would do the latter more effectively, livable work and wages would do the former more effectively.

    Alternatively, mpre enlightened communities would use the time and income windfall to begin the transition to sustainable i.e. regenerative systems.

  25. 575
    Killian says:

    #568 Thomas said Arctic temps done gone crazy.

    I may be wrong, but I think back in 2015, or since, I talked about phase change in the Arctic WRT a shift in winter max extent shifting into March *and* EN-related push being part of more melt and more CH4. I know I specifically said we’d have a clue clathrates were melting if we had over a 4ppm bump from the EN.

    Regardless, I would posit the worsening winter ice formation is as expected given the poles suffer first and winters warm faster than summers, BUT that this is happening within two years of the EN peak, which was my time line in 2015, one wonders if the combination of warm EN-heated Pacific waters (oceans move slowly) and warm air are a trailing edge of the EN effect OR this is signallibg a phase change driven by that EN, or is just an extreme winter event.

    #560 nigelj said song title.

    Are you not familiar with “to coin a phrase?”

    #569 nigel

    You are misapplying incrementalism. I do incrementalism. (How often do I have to repost principles? Build in chunks. Design from patterns to details.) You are misapplying the concept. (Is my faux shocked expression convincing?) You don’t baby step your way away from an incoming artillery shell, mortar or hand grenade.

    Your characterization of regenerative design is childish, stupid, ignorant, and maladaptive. And that’s the best I can say about it.

    Untested? 290k years? Well, 300k: Peoples are STILL doing it.

    If you persist in repeating these fevered rantings I shall see about having you given a nice padded room to play in. j/k

  26. 576
    Killian says:

    Speaking of regenerative design:

    Ooh! And gov’t rubber stamp, too! Nige will be over the moon.

  27. 577
    Cody says:

    Allot of what the “Righties” have claimed for decades, especially about The Science, meteorology & Climate Physics, has been just so much Hooey. But, there has been countervailing abuse of Factual Goodies from what I term the “Path-Oh Left,” or the Green Weenies, as well. This piece, for example, is, to my sense of things, spot on:

    Bernie Sanders, for one, is a big time ‘FACT DENIER’. I have heard he personally was deeply involved in killing Vermont Yankee. Fully amortized, the variable costs from that baby must have been in the fractions of cents per KWh, to the New England grid; & W/O any CO2.

    Instead of building towards a reasonable set of compromises, designed to attract a majority of the American populace, the Path-Oh mindset is all Prius, all of the time. Result? We get election results where the Angry White Boys, get their Oats.

  28. 578
    Thomas says:

    AGW/CC Impacts Downunder – When the Climate Changes then naturally the Weather responds accordingly to reflect that Climate Change.

    Australia is a continent. And across that continent in 4 distinct regions in little more than a weekend UNPRECEDENTED extreme weather events have occurred – such as more rain in 2 hours then the monthly average – and this immediately after an unusual abnormal late summer Cyclone in Broome that’s indirectly connected to the disruption in the Polar Vortex as a result of massive ice loss and record high winter temperatures in the Arctic Circle – go figure.

    This is exactly what Climate Change looks like as it’s IMPACTS are happening in the real world (versus in the scientific theory papers) – all kind sof unexpected unplanned for extreme events and a built infrastructure and building not up to the extreme demands of topdays extreme weather events across an entire Continent.

    This is where “the rubber meets the road” and it is undeniable (except for the severely mentally challenged and narcissistic psychopaths):

    The Weather Forecast …. for the last weekend of Aussie summer and the Tip of an Iceberg

    I know what the climate and the weather is like historically in the region in which I live. Here we went from a long term dry spell when it’s usually raining including a 4 week HEAT WAVE into instant seasonally unusual rainfall and weather and flooding.

    Things like this are occurring all over this continent in which I live and across every other continent on this planet and for AGW/CC and it’s IMPACTS are happening now everywhere and will only become more unpredictable and unprecedented and more damaging as time goes on.

    AND no matter what the UNFCCC nations decides in the next round, no matter what Climate Scientists say today or tomorrow, no matter what the IPCC AR6 has to say about anything, and no matter how much renewable energy is deployed and no matter how many coal fired power stations are closed this year or next year or next decade and no matter who might happen to be the US president from one year to the next.

  29. 579
    nigelj says:

    Regarding my comment on the UBI (universal basic income). This was just an example to point out how some things are being trialed locally, rather than just being abruptly thrust onto society as a whole, and hope it works. The same logic needs to apply to major economic / social change where possible, even aspects of climate change mitigation.

    Of course experiments and / or incrementalism can’t apply to everything, and sometimes change has to be rapid. We are running out of time to respond to the climate issue incrementally or with experiments.

    A UBI is applicable to everyone, working or not. This makes it fundamentally different to a minimum wage. However I agree with full employment and reduced working hours as good goals .

  30. 580
    Thomas says:

    Good to see here we are on top of the skating skateway ice melts situation in various places. That’ll convince those deniers and the US Congress the world is warming fast. We need more graphs.

    Meanwhile, back in the real world – North Pole surges above freezing in the dead of winter, stunning scientists.

    Graham explained that these warming events are related to the decline of winter sea ice in the Arctic, noting that January’s ice extent was the lowest on record. “As the sea ice is melting and thinning, it is becoming more vulnerable to these winter storms,” he explained. “The thinner ice drifts more quickly and can break up into smaller pieces. The strong winds from the south can push the ice further north into the Central Arctic, exposing the open water and releasing heat to the atmosphere from the ocean.”

    Scientists were shocked in recent days to discover open water north of Greenland, an area normally covered by old, very thick ice. “This has me more worried than the warm temps in the Arctic right now,” tweeted Mike MacFerrin, an ice sheet specialist at the University of Colorado.

  31. 581
    Thomas says:

    575 Killian SAYS: I know I specifically said we’d have a clue clathrates were melting if we had over a 4ppm bump from the EN.

    The world came close to that in the 2015/2016 El Nino event Killian.

    According to the scientists at NASA here:

    In 2015 and 2016, OCO-2 recorded atmospheric carbon dioxide increases that were 50 percent larger than the average increase seen in recent years preceding these observations. These measurements are consistent with those made by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). That increase was about 3 parts per million of carbon dioxide per year — or 6.3 gigatons of carbon.

    But do not scare the kiddies, nor mention what the next El Nino will do to the Great Barrier Reef next time around (all other things being equal).

  32. 582
  33. 583
    Thomas says:

    Some people will argue with Killian, but they will not argue with NASA.

    Some people will argue with me, but they will not argue with Neven.

    Everyone will argue with James Hansen and Kevin Anderson though. :-)

  34. 584
    Killian says:

    Despite nigel telling us trees just don’t much matter…

    seems trees… rather forests… are doing and can do quite a bit: Ten times what is now being sequestered.

  35. 585
    Killian says:

    #581 Thomas said 575 Killian SAYS: I know I specifically said we’d have a clue clathrates were melting if we had over a 4ppm bump from the EN.

    The world came close to that in the 2015/2016 El Nino event Killian.

    In 2015 and 2016, OCO-2 recorded atmospheric carbon dioxide increases that were 50 percent larger than the average increase… That increase was about 3 parts per million…

    Actually, it was about 4ppm in my view because I consider extremes more indicative of future change than averages and the highest daily levels were at or near that 4ppm range, IIRC.

    But not over.

    Then, again, I have not checked CH4 for the same period.

  36. 586
    Thomas says:

    Are you in the mood to be inspired by Simplicity and by Logic and by what Holistic Human Thinking can achieve without effort?

    Transforming the Suburbs recorded at the National Sustainability Festival, Melbourne on 11 February 2018


    David Holmgren – permaculture co-originator

    Costa Georgiadis – presenter, Gardening Australia

    Dr Dominique Hes – senior lecturer, Sustainable Architecture, and director, Thrive Research Hub, University of Melbourne

    Kat Lavers – permaculture practitioner and teacher

    Michael Ableman – co-founder, Sole Food Street Farms

    Moderator: Nick Ritar – co-director, Milkwood Permaculture

    And for more from the “human hedge” Costa Georgiadis – presenter, Gardening Australia go here:

  37. 587
    Thomas says:

    577 Cody touches on another important issue. (good luck with that – time for me to narrow my focus to a needle point, and reduce my online activity)

  38. 588
    sidd says:

    Re: reforestation carbon sink, Nave et al. 2018 doi:10.1073/pnas.1719685115

    They have a caveat, the effects depend on how deep you measure, and that might lead to overestimation of benefit:

    “The detectability and magnitude of these differences depends on the depth of reporting (see ISCN Dataset Preparation for details and full discussion). For topsoils (the top 10 cm of the uppermost mineral horizon), the sample size of the nationwide dataset is sufficiently large to detect a 5% difference
    in median C stocks between cultivated and reforesting topsoils as statistically significant (20 vs. 21 Mg of C/ha , respectively). Detecting a small difference in soil C stocks is difficult due to spatial variability (35, 36), and in meta-analyses of management impacts on soil C, we have found the uppermost portions of the soil to be the most responsive (34, 37, 38). In this case, detecting such a subtle change may only be possible because the depth we consider is the most superficial portion of the topsoil, which is in direct contact with physical disturbances and detritus inputs (e.g., crop residues, forest litter). Within this same volume of soil, the median C stock for natural forests (37 Mg of C/ha) is much higher than for cultivated or reforesting soils. However, if C stocks are computed to 30 cm depth (typical of international greenhouse gas inventory and reporting programs), an apparent 2% relative difference between reforesting and cultivated soils (medians of 47 and 48 Mg of C/ha , respectively) is not statistically significant, while both are significantly less than natural forest soils (60 Mg of C/ha). In this case, the differences between natural forest soils and the other two land uses are smaller, possibly indicating that past cultivation mixed surface C downward (39, 40). If this is true, we overestimate the potential for C gain by comparing natural forest to cultivated (or reforesting) topsoils. ”

    In their defense, they continue:

    “Conversely, the preferential cultivation of soils with higher clay, lower sand, and stone contents (Fig. 2) could mean that soils used for cultivation have inherently higher productivity or greater capacity for C storage below 10 cm (e.g., through illuviation with clay minerals), and that these fundamental differences in soil properties are responsible for patterns of C storage in deeper horizons. Ultimately, because our analysis is not intended to provide C estimates for international reporting so much as a quantitative assessment of reforestation impacts on soil C in a highly responsive surface layer, we maintain the focus on topsoils for the rest of this paper.”

    I think planting trees is a good thing if done with care and thought of the locale and what might be expected to come. But regen ag seems like a larger, faster win to me to draw down atmospheric carbon.


  39. 589
    nigelj says:

    Killian @584, grrr, you know I never said trees don’t matter. Whether enough land can be found will be a bit of a challenge.

    However if you saw my property its like a forest. Massive trees. People should at least plant more trees on their properties. It would also hide some of the damn ugly houses.

  40. 590
    nigelj says:

    Scientific American dated January 2018 has a particularly interesting article on saving the Great Barrier Reef from climate change and other problems. Transplanting, fertilising and enhancing corals.

  41. 591
    nigelj says:

    Cody @577

    While there can be fault on both sides of politics, your article talks a lot about the use of high cost imported liquified gas instead of gas from fracking. Its kind of hard to see why you or anyone would blame liberals or greenies for that.

    However its a fact that gas is causing global warming. It needs to be used sparingly, with as much electricity as possible coming from renewable electricity.

    And so poor people probably do need some state financial assistance. If Trump kills that, he is just being plain nasty.

    I’m not totally opposed to nuclear power, but its not cheap power any more, and is slow to build so is unlikely to help much meet the Paris agreement goals.

  42. 592
    Thomas says:

    Mitigation implications of an ice-free summer in the Arctic Ocean (2017)

    5 Conclusions

    Arctic sea ice is a key indicator of global climate change because of its sensitivity to warming and its role in amplifying climate change through the SIAF. However, this feedback has not been incorporated into integrated assessment models and therefore its direct implications have not been addressed. […]

    Our study reveals the significant consequences of rapid Arctic sea-ice loss for keeping climate change to low levels. The sooner the sea-ice-free condition occurs, the more difficult it will be to control climate change, especially if sea-ice recovery does not occur. Emissions reductions should increase significantly compared to current mitigation scenarios that do not include Arctic sea-ice loss. Existing energy infrastructures would have to be replaced quicker and policy instruments that could make such improvements feasible would need to be adopted earlier. Therefore, the already difficult task of achieving the targets of the Paris Agreement may become even more challenging. Our results show that the only way in our scenarios to achieve the 1.5°C target in the presence of SIAF would be through negative emissions, which imply more risks and uncertainties for the future [Rogelj et al., 2015; Hansen et al., 2016]. The implications of considering Arctic sea-ice-free conditions for the transformation of the global energy system are severe.


    Extraordinary interventions: Toward a framework for rapid transition and deep emission reductions in the energy space
    (abstract only, unfortunately)

    “However, to fully mobilize and accelerate these processes, a universal acknowledgment of the climate crisis will be required. When acknowledgement occurs, the world must be ready for action. It will need a framework for rapid energy transition.”

    More info x 12 Citations,5&hl=en

    (Try not to get lost down the rabbit hole – google translate may assist a little with the Russian and Chinese papers)


  43. 593
    Thomas says:

    And this paper (in full) asks some very pertinent questions:

    eg 1. Introduction … paragraph two re IEA 2017

    eg Such definitional assumptions and demarcations are not always clear in the academic literature, yet they are important, for they capture how transitions are framed and also propagated rhetorically to the public [162].

    ~16,000 papers year coming out on agw/cc related issues per year now. That’s a lot of ‘pixels’ to absorb.

  44. 594
    Thomas says:

    Useful Tools

    What is an Analogy?

    What is a Metaphor?

    Idea Framing, Metaphors, and Your Brain – George Lakoff

    How to read and understand a scientific paper: a guide for non-scientists

  45. 595
    Killian says:

    If we lose 3% more of the Amazon, we may lose the Amazon. Global disaster.

    How about we get on with the only plausible solution? (No, nigel. I amin no mood for foolishness.)

  46. 596
    nigelj says:


    “I think planting trees is a good thing if done with care and thought of the locale and what might be expected to come. But regen ag seems like a larger, faster win to me to draw down atmospheric carbon.’

    Makes sense to me. Agricultural land is already there. And you can also plant a few more trees on this land as well.

    The BECCS proposal would apparently require planting forests the size of two India’s, to have major impact on atmpospheric carbon. That sort of land isn’t just lying around everywhere unused.

    But every new study on forests and soil carbon, and also agricultural soil carbon says different things. My real question is do you, or anyone know of a meta study of either of these issues?

  47. 597
    Killian says:

    Efficiency is inefficient, or at least does nothing to solve our problems, which is why I dismiss discussions of efficiency as being an integral part of any solution set.

    Now, you pair efficiency with intelligence and you can get resilience. But it means using a lot less, creating networks that are redundant, so seem inefficient to those who don’t understand the context.

    So many quotable quotes and examples in this essay!

    Even though these newer steam engines burned less coal, the proliferation of steam engines throughout the coal-fired British Empire erased any energy savings. More steam engines just begat more coal digging.

    Jevons concluded that: “It is wholly a confusion of ideas to suppose that the economical use of fuel is equivalent to a diminished consumption. The very contrary is the truth.”

    The idea that using fuels and resources more efficiently leads to greater environmental ruin became known as Jevons Paradox. Oil-fired and electrical driven technologies have honoured the paradox with panache.

    Modern economists don’t talk much about Jevons Paradox, but they do admit that the problem exists and refer it to “rebound.” Just when you think you’ve actually solved a problem, shit rebounds on you, they calculate with their math formulas. When energy efficiency wipes out 100 per cent of the energy savings, economists call the rebound a total “backfire.”
    What the evidence has to say about energy efficiency is stark. Jevons was right about the paradox. …Improving efficiency will not reduce consumption and therefore won’t reduce CO2 emissions. The only way to reduce total energy consumption levels, say in the aviation industry or any other sector, is to limit the number of planes, travellers and airports. Higher energy prices and higher taxes will do that. But that means a shrinking economy and a radical rethink about the dominant role of technology in our decision-making.

    As long as we define environmental, political and economic problems as essentially technical in nature, then we will proscribe energy efficiency as the solution. But if we were to admit that our problems were spiritual and political in nature and bedeviled by population and affluence, then we would endorse reductions in energy consumption and the inequalities that feed such appetites.

    Politicians fear such change… No one is saying we could be happier consuming much less energy and owning fewer energy slaves — even though that’s what the evidence clearly suggests. [No, but I and many others do.] No political party claims that sacrifice and courage will get us to a leaner tomorrow. No political party has advocated that the rich drive less, fly less, live in smaller homes or own less shit.

    Rather than question the tyrannical nature of technological society, almost every political party on earth has opted for more energy efficiency.

    …This refusal to acknowledge the truth leaves the world but two options for change: collapse or revolution.

    Energy Efficiency Curse

  48. 598
    Killian says:

    #592 Thomas

    Ah, the faster the papers come, the more they reinforce the conclusion I reached some ten years ago about two years after I started studying energy, collapse and climate: Simplicity. This one with the Amazon study make as compelling case for simplicity as it is possible to make. Nothing else can solve these things in such short time frames.

  49. 599
    Killian says:

    #588 sidd

    1. The mistake is thinking either/or. We don’t do it that way.

    2. Never ask a scientist about regenerative ag, of which I consider reforestation a part. They are still playing catch up. Not a criticism, just an observation. There’s a lot of carbon in deeper soils and a LOT more to be put there. And we know how to do it all faster.

  50. 600
    Killian says:

    #589 nigelj said Killian @584, grrr, you know I never said trees don’t matter.

    Neither did I. This is why I do not trust you. There is an important difference between tress don’t matter and trees don’t *much* matter, with the latter being equivalent to what you said… whether you understand that or not.