RealClimate logo


Forced responses: Mar 2018

Filed under: — group @ 1 March 2018

This month’s open thread on responses to climate change (politics, adaptation, mitigation etc.). Please stay focused on the overall topic. Digressions into the nature and history of communism/feudal societies/anarchistic utopias are off topic and won’t be posted. Thanks. The open thread for climate science topics is here.

346 Responses to “Forced responses: Mar 2018”

  1. 1
    Thomas says:

    “I genuinely think [climate deniers] understand perhaps better than myself and a lot of left-leaning liberals the consequences of climate science. And because they understand the consequences, they can’t accept the science.

    The artistic director of Griffin Theatre Company, Lee Lewis, directed this staging of Kill Climate Deniers, which she described as having “a uniquely Australian train-smash structure”.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-01/kill-climate-deniers-playwright-takes-on-bolt-breitbart/9478748

    Get that inta ya! :-)

  2. 2
    Killian says:

    Cross-posting this to both threads because sciency over there and rate of changey over here.

    Uh-oh.

    https://insideclimatenews.org/news/27022017/global-warming-permafrost-study-melt-canada-siberia?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

  3. 3
    Dan DaSilva says:

    Would like to see a study on how job funding, public praise, and awards produce bias within a politically charged endeavor such as climate science. Everybody has bias and it is self-reinforcing and tends to produce a class of people with a common goal. Positive feedback comes from all directions, even opposing views reinforce this echo chamber. The scientists with the most harden and vocal views tend to get the most attention and the whole process ratchets up.
    Maybe the least biased person is skeptical of both sides and receives no funding, no praise, and waits for the facts. That being said, being unbiased alone is not a virtue. This person would not be virtuous because of this she would just be unbiased. But certainly, bias in science is not a virtue.

  4. 4

    Not sure how the *January* FR thread got ‘reactivated’, but over there Killian was talking about Jevon’s paradox and energy efficiency.

    Let me quote good old Wikipedia on that (yeah, I know it’s not the last word in rigor):

    Considerable debate exists about the size of the rebound in energy efficiency and the relevance of the Jevons paradox to energy conservation. Some dismiss the paradox, while others worry that it may be self-defeating to pursue sustainability by increasing energy efficiency. Environmental economists have proposed that efficiency gains be coupled with conservation policies that keep the cost of use the same (or higher) to avoid the Jevons paradox. Conservation policies (such as cap and trade) do not display the paradox, and can be used to control the rebound effect.

    So, while some concern about Jevon’s may be merited, I don’t think that wholesale dismissal of energy efficiency is.

    The essay Killian quotes also talks about the spiritual dimensions of our environmental crisis. I have some sympathy with the point; my father (a ‘born-again Pagan’) would certainly have agreed whole-heartedly. Yet I can’t help but note that en masse humanity has tended to be relatively refractory to repeated–nay, incessant–efforts toward spiritual reform.

    That thought leads me to conclude that, while confronting the spiritual dimension of our greedy and short-sighted behavior with regard to the environment has undoubted value, it’s probably also wise to pursue technological solutions in parallel to the spiritual ones.

  5. 5
    Bill Henderson says:

    Our biz captured society media have understated and continue to understate climate change so that climate change is characterized as still possible to mitigate within economic and political business as usual relying upon only mitigation strategies and instruments that work within this continuing market-based governance.
    https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_56b252a7d78b485badde2fadcba88d00.pdf

    “The net result is that the seriousness of the climate challenge is rarely discussed honestly and the public is largely ignorant of the escalating risks. But unless we have that conversation, constructively, community support for the massive changes, and opportunities, that lie ahead will continue to elude us, and the barriers to change will only get larger, given the Establishment’s dominant denialist mindset.” Ian Dunlop http://www.climatecodered.org/2018/02/do-we-have-capability-to-reverse-global.html

    “In the face of both triumphant denialism and predatory delay, trying to achieve climate action by doing the same things, the same old ways, means defeat.” Alex Steffin https://thenearlynow.com/the-last-decade-and-you-489a5375fbe8

    Biz globally refuses to accept that climate mitigation – after at least two decades of inaction – must now be disruptive, has to be disruptive like cancer treatment, for one very relevant example.
    https://medium.com/@bhenderson_84277/cancer-metaphor-lessons-for-climate-mitigation-4a0e5f935856

  6. 6
    sidd says:

    Re: soil carbon metastudies

    The Nave paper i referred to is a metastudy. I include a brief list of some others.

    Lal(2003) dryland soilC doi: 10.1007/s00267-003-9110-9

    Lal(2005) Tropical forest soilC doi: 10.1300/J091v21n01_01

    Bellamy (2005) UK soilC doi: 10.1038/nature04038

    DeLuca(2011) soilC prairies doi: 10.1890/100063

    Olson(2014) Ag soilC sequestration: doi: 10.2136/sssaj2013.09.0412

    De Stefano(2017) soilC sequestration in agroforestry doi: 10.1007/s10457-017-0147-9

    Jackson(2017) soilC ecology doi: 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-112414-054234

    Nave(2018) US forest soilC sequestration doi: 10.1073/pnas.1719685115

    sidd

  7. 7
    jb says:

    Danny boy at 3: I’m sure that Exxon, the GOP, the Koch Broes, or a plethora of other institutions would be happy to fund your research. Go for it. We, or at least I, await your results with bated breath. Please hurry, though. Bated breath is stressful on the body.

  8. 8
    Thomas says:

    RE: 3 Dan DaSilva says:
    1 Mar 2018 at 11:08 AM
    Would like to see a study on…..

    GO research the topic, study it deeply without BIAS basing your study and conclusions on actual verifiable ‘sane/real world’ quality evidence and not only on hypothetical mumbo-jumbo make-believe.

    Then write it up yourself and submit it for Peer-Review at a prestigious Journal.

    Problem solved DDS.

    You might even win a Nobel Prize for it.

    Until then you have nothing useful to say on that or any other subject for that matter.

  9. 9
    nigelj says:

    Dan De Silva @3

    Firstly you provide no hard evidence of scientific bias in the agw community. But thats not surprising coming from you.

    Maybe look at it like this. Climate scientists do get funded, and no doubt enjoy being praised, but they know their studies will get torn apart if there are weaknesses or bias, both by nit picking attention seeking colleagues, and the sceptical community. This is a powerful incentive to be unbiased and rigorous.

    Sidd @5, thanks for that.

  10. 10
    Killian says:

    #4 Kevin McKinney said Not sure how the *January* FR thread got ‘reactivated’

    It didn’t. It only went dormant as this one became active.

    Killian was talking about Jevon’s paradox and energy efficiency.
    Considerable debate exists about the size of the rebound in energy efficiency and the relevance of the Jevons paradox to energy conservation.

    Considerable debate exists about the reality of climate change, too, but those who understand it do not care. Same here. Only economists and fools dismiss Jevons’ Paradox.

    Environmental economists

    This is a term, and a job/work without meaning. Congenitally deaf musician. Intelligent Design. environmental economics, which is the mainstream economic analysis of the environment. (via Wiki) Using mainstream economics to analyze the natural world is a form of dementia, imo. It is wholly irrational to analyze issues of ecology only via abstract ideas of value, money, commerce, etc. Ecological economics is much closer to reality, actually considering the natural world in their studies, but it is still an attempt to understand what an elephant is from within it’s stomach.

    have proposed that efficiency gains be coupled with conservation policies

    Perhaps you missed this from that post: 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.

    Conservation policies (such as cap and trade) do not display the paradox

    Because cap and trade is a shell game. It achieves exactly nothing except to make a few people rich.

    So, while some concern about Jevon’s may be merited, I don’t think that wholesale dismissal of energy efficiency is.

    It’s not a dismissal of efficiency. But, since you don’t listen, or perhaps don’t recall, and have not bothered to get yourself better educated about permaculture, et al., aka regenerative design, you don’t properly contextualize the comment about being intelligent that I made (and you failed to address, or even consider, apparently.)

    Permaculture is all about efficiency as part of redundancy. We have zones to manage time and effort efficiently. We capture and store and shift in time energies of all kinds. We have the concept of Appropriate Technology. is it appropriate to build millions of new cars? No. Is it appropriate to use the ones already made rather than junking them? Depends, but largely, yes, if it moves us toward sustainability in the end. Not just blind devotion to tech, but careful use of tech, at the lowest level possible. Another great shortcut to efficiency is to never have your system break down and lose productivity and efficiency through lost production, time, materials, etc., so we support every function with *at least* two elements, and design so that every element has *at least* two functions. Each is efficient in it’s own right, but redundancy creates resilience (where in tech, especially hi-tech, it creates waste, e.g., every phone having a different battery), and the output of the whole is cycled through the system and helps increase productivity and health.

    Etc.

    Your comments here were rather moot, which you would understand if you listened more and learned about regenerative design.

    That thought leads me to conclude that, while confronting the spiritual dimension of our greedy and short-sighted behavior with regard to the environment has undoubted value, it’s probably also wise to pursue technological solutions in parallel to the spiritual ones.

    That is an odd conclusion. Spirituality doesn’t work, so it has to be tech, which is destroying the world. Huh. How about, spirituality doesn’t work – which I agree with and have said many times that esoteric, purely human constructs are poor design metrics and poor bases for analysis – so turn to the most obvious example: Nature.

  11. 11
    nigelj says:

    Kevin McKinney @4

    Agreed. Jevon’s paradox of efficiency driving further consumption seems very real to me given humanity clearly has an insatiable appetite for energy and technology.

    However I think it would be ridiculous to somehow say efficiency is ‘damaging’, because efficient use of resources means we can extend their availability as long as possible providing we find a way to counter Jevons paradox. There appear only two ways of doing this, so either using the force of the law, or hoping people make voluntary reductions in the use of resources or some combination of both of these.

    One thing is for sure people don’t make personal decisions or pass laws in a vacuum, so they need to be educated about the resource problems facing humanity, and that means getting this stuff into schools as a core issue.

  12. 12
    Omega Centauri says:

    Kevin @4
    My take on Jevon’s is that people respond to price. But, I think they respond to the total price, not just the price of the energy. Get a more energy efficient car say, and the cost per mile may be lower, but not nearly
    as much lower a percentage as the percentage decrease in fuel costs. At least
    thats what one would expect from an informed rational actor. So while total miles may go up, I would think the increase would be not so much as to use up all the savings.

  13. 13
  14. 14
    Thomas says:

    2 Killian, excellent ref.

    Note: “Scientists know thawing permafrost unlocks carbon.”

    Kind says it all really in one short sentence.

  15. 15
    Thomas says:

    Nigelj, given Mal and Ray are not up tot he task set for them, I toss a little info your way.

    Hansen el al in published peer-reviewed and cited papers suggests (in my own words here not his) that was is needed now is a 6% reduction year on year starting now out to 2040+ in total Man-made CO2 emissions across the board.

    Now currently Fossil Fuels use is in fact still increasing by roughly 2-3% per year from now out to 2040.

    Therefore roughly Hansen et al are calling for a 8-9% real reduction on curent BAU “@ 2018” out to 2040, or shit hits fan, no under 2C is even possible long term. His stated goal is bring atmos CO2 back down to 350 ppmv before 2100 and keeping it there as the minimal sane/moral thing to do.

    Hansen is not alone here, I am merely using him as an example … beware getting caught in faux arguments about the “details” or if he is “credible” for this is not the point I am making here at all.

    The issues is about is SACRIFICE being asked for by PEOPLE …. yes or no. The answer is Yes by Default of what the scinece says and what the scientists already know but fail to spell it out in simple terms.

    The Pontius Pilate Defense

    Now my figures may be out a little and the words not 100% correct as stated by me.

    But Hansen’s papers have been up there for 5+ years or at least one year now that addresses these issues frankly and bluntly and with scientific rigour.

    Now of course it is fine for other scientists to critique that work or disagree with it.

    But the subject a week ago was people here DENYING that Climate Scientists were asking the people of the world (no one specifically) to make sacrifices.

    When climate sciences say that, it is really easy to catch them out, and this is what deniers and others keep doing. When a normal citizen of whatever tribe sees this it is not then a surprise that they would accuse posters here and elsewhere of either LYING about what the Scientists do say or are off with the faeries and delusional… and therefore worth IGNORING and RIDICULING.

    Do you follow what I mean here? In regard that prior “tete a tete” with Mal Adjusted etc etc etc.

    One ref: https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.pdf

    52 pages!

    It has been shown that the
    dominant climate forcing, CO
    2
    , must be reduced to no more
    than 350 ppm to restore planetary energy balance (Hansen
    et al., 2008) and keep climate near the Holocene level, if
    other forcings remain unchanged. Rapid phasedown of fossil
    fuel emissions is the crucial need, because of the millennial
    timescale of this carbon in the climate system. Improved un-
    derstanding of the carbon cycle is needed to determine the
    most effective complementary actions. It may be feasible to
    restore planetary energy balance via improved agricultural
    and forestry practices and other actions to draw down at-
    mospheric CO
    2
    amount, if fossil fuel emissions are rapidly
    phased out.

    another ref:
    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/011006/meta
    and
    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/011006/pdf

    and another:
    ftp://halo.ess.uci.edu/public/prather/papers/187r_esd-2016-42-typeset_manuscript-version2.pdf
    There is no time to delay. CO
    2
    extraction required to
    achieve 350 ppm CO
    2
    in 2100 was

    100 PgC if 6 % yr

    1
    emission reductions began in 2013 (Hansen et al., 2013a).
    95
    Required extraction is at least

    150 PgC in our updated sce-
    narios, which incorporate growth of emissions in the past 4
    years and assume that emissions will continue at approx-
    imately current levels until a global program of emission
    reductions begins in 4 years (in 2021 relative to 2020; see
    100
    Figs. 9 and 10 for reduction rates)
    and cites
    https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=17132457750424356023&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en

    and this one 2013

    Assessing “Dangerous Climate Change”: Required Reduction – PLOS
    journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081648

    by J Hansen – ‎2013 – ‎Cited by 353 – ‎Related articles
    Dec 3, 2013 – (2013) Assessing “Dangerous Climate Change”: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature. PLoS ONE 8(12): e81648. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0081648.

    Cumulative
    fossil fuel
    emissions through 2012
    are
    370 GtC
    and
    increasing almost 10 GtC per year. Th
    e
    current
    emission rate would need to decrease 6% per year
    to limit emissions to 500 GtC.
    If reductions
    had begun in 1995, the required reduction rate would have been 2.1
    % per year,
    or 3.5% per year if
    reductions had begun in 2005. If emissions continue to grow
    until 2020, reductions must be
    15% per year

    to stay within the 500 GtC limit, which emphasizes the urgency of initiating emission reductions
    .
    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0e5d/eaa5598a6fba0cb2d41328128e624cb02698.pdf

    and on it goes ….. where it ends no body knows. :-)

    I have more papers and articles to quote from. So does everyone else, but they do not want to. Some things are worth forgetting while one is trashing stupid climate science deniers here and there. They do not really “challenge” people much to be frank.

    These are few papers, acknowledged that there literally thousands out there one could read. The PUBLIC bar the exceptions do NOT read them and if they did they would not understand them or know what they were saying, nor can they know which papers have credibility and which ones do not, and then on top of that is DO THEY HAVE THE TIME to even attempt understanding agw/cc science?

    Nope. It’s that simple.

    But then as soon as some “dill” shows up whether pro-con it’s not uncommon to be ridiculed for not-knowing, and typically ignored. Even scientists and academics turn here and elsewhere and get ignored when they ask a question or ask for help.

    Get confused and mention someone’s paper and you’ll be pilloried for being a dill and not knowing a thing about HOW science really works and told that “paper” is crap, and not a soul will bother to explain it .. because THEY CAN”T communicate in simple terms to everyday people – ak their Inferiors!

    That’s the reality 24/7/365 all over the place. The exceptions prove this rule.

    Therefore it must be ALL the deniers, and Fox news and the Koch Brothers fault …. not them!

  16. 16
    Thomas says:

    Lastly, remembr a time when a high end Scientist in a doco or similar was explaining the nuances of physics or astrophysics on the TV. That stuff is really complex, right? But did you follow what he was saying and what he meant, as explained to you an average person with a High School certificate or better, how hard the work is that they are doing and why they are doing it?

    Think of Brian Cox perhaps. Were you able to grasp the basics and understand what he or she were saying?

    Ok, now think of a time when a climate scientist was doing the same in a TV interview or in a doco, or an academic on Youtube teaching a class on it or giving a public lecture. How did you FEEL about that?

    Now put Brian Cox on a panel with a climate science denier (eg Q&A in Oz) and even his mind goes to Jello in an instant and loses all composure and his words become gobbledygook.

    Why is that? :-)

  17. 17
    nigelj says:

    Thomas @15 – 16, fair enough. I saw M Mann talking one on one with the public and he was great.

    Imho debating forums are different. Climate “denialists” seem to have no scruples about lying or being misleading and are sometimes lawyers etc trained in rhetorical debate. Climate scientists should be very careful before entering such debates. Its like entering a field full of land mines.

  18. 18

    Killian, #10–

    Because cap and trade is a shell game. It achieves exactly nothing except to make a few people rich.

    Cap and trade cleaned up acid rain in the Smokies efficiently, quickly, and economically.

    https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20090810/cap-and-trade-perspective-stopping-acid-rain

    It has failed signally in cutting European emissions, due primarily to a lack of political courage. But the existence of bad examples of a class does not negate the possibility (let alone the actual existence!) of good examples.

    That is an odd conclusion. Spirituality doesn’t work, so it has to be tech, which is destroying the world. Huh. How about, spirituality doesn’t work – which I agree with and have said many times that esoteric, purely human constructs are poor design metrics and poor bases for analysis – so turn to the most obvious example: Nature.

    Except that wasn’t my conclusion. You may want to reread the paragraph you cited:

    …while confronting the spiritual dimension of our greedy and short-sighted behavior with regard to the environment has undoubted value, it’s probably also wise to pursue technological solutions in parallel…

    Also, I find your statement rather confusing, as it was your source that brought up the whole notion of a ‘spiritual’ response to the problem, not me.

  19. 19
    Thomas says:

    How to spell “beat up”?

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/russian-trolls-sought-to-inflame-debate-over-climate-change-20180302-p4z2fg.html

    aka Fake News.

    2 posts per account about climate/energy issues over 3 years.
    8 posts per day over 3 years.

    Mr KIA Titus Victor et al make more posts than that online!

    One Facebook post created by a Russian-controlled group called “Native Americans United” shows what appears to be a young girl in a braid peering out over an unspoiled prairie. “Love Water Not Oil, Protect Our Mother, Stand With Standing Rock,” a reference to an Indian tribe that opposed the Dakota Access Pipeline. The post also said, “No Pipelines. No Fracking. No Tar Sands.”

    So effing what?

    The truth of DAPL and the actions of the US Govt regarding that AGW/CC water/environmental protests by native Americans and all their supporters is still true.

    How many Americans associated with Troll Factories with connections to US Political parties, US Think Tanks, US Climate science denial groups, and US Govt “sources” and US Govt Agencies post posts on news sites and forums globally on every single issue on the planet every single day in and about every nation on the planet?

    How many Pro-Israeli Hasbara Troll Factories and how many ‘volunteer’ Israeli activists and hacktavists who are US/UK/Israel Citizens post shrill propaganda 24/7 day across social media platforms in every nation of the world?

    How many Cheney Troll Factories posted lies and propaganda about Iraq in 2002/03 across the world? How many times did Cheney et al lie to the Press?

    Fake news is a type of yellow journalism or propaganda that consists of deliberate misinformation or hoaxes spread via traditional print and broadcast news media or online social media.

    Fake news is written and published with the intent to mislead in order to damage an agency, entity, or person, and/or gain financially or politically…..

    What’s the difference between Rep. Lamar Smith and any Internet Troll pushing fake news?

    Lamar Smith is an American Congressman – there is no other difference between them. Both are biased ‘nutcases’, both have significant psychological issues in need of intervention, both are full of shit and spew it endlessly, and the former most likely has a much higher Net Worth and Pension Fund.

    (huge shrug)

    Ground Zero for Climate Science Denial Propaganda and Govt Recalcitrance over AGW/CC Science, it’s serious dangerous implications for the world and the UNFCCC goals in the last 25 years is none other than the USA and her people.

    That’s not my problem to fix.

    Please be nice as I am merely the messenger pointing out the bleeding obvious elephant in the room.

  20. 20
    Thomas says:

    AGW/CC Impacts news report

    Here’s another news article for OCD fanatics to complain about it not being 100% perfect words nor in perfect alignment with 20,000 science papers or in harmony with the meandering minds of a small handful of PhD Internet Trolls who keep denying the reality of the known implications of Climate Science and instead insist on denying those 24/7/365 a year for decades right here and wasting thier lives unnecessarily arguing with idiot climate science deniers or imperfect news media journalists and forum commentators.

    https://theconversation.com/the-freak-warm-arctic-weather-is-unusual-but-getting-less-so-92590

  21. 21
    Thomas says:

    18 Kevin McKinney, not equivalent situation. The reality is extremely different.

  22. 22
    nigelj says:

    A nice quick summary of carbon tax versus cap-and-trade:

    https://davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/carbon-tax-cap-trade/

    Cap and trade climate mitigation schemes appear weak to me. They are opaque and complicated, and so the public have no idea, and just assume they are doing the job when they are not. So cap and trade creates a deadly false sense of security.

  23. 23
    Thomas says:

    AGW/CC Impacts
    1)
    New data from the Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) suggests that Antarctic sea ice is now at the second lowest level on record, not long after multiple years of historically high figures were set earlier this decade.
    https://www.inquisitr.com/4810810/antarctic-sea-ice-levels-drop-to-second-lowest-on-record-australian-scientists-warn/

    Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zdV0m34SIk

    2) There is no hurry. Change is easy. PBS Newshour Special Report

    What has driven tens of thousands of Salvadorans to leave home, many for the U.S.? El Salvador’s coffee beans suffered a devastating disease five years ago, and now face an even greater existential threat: climate change. Special correspondent Fred de Sam Lazaro reports on how researchers there are trying to develop a plant that can adapt to warming global temperatures.
    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/the-race-to-develop-coffee-that-can-survive-climate-change

    Ha bollocks and who cares because this is not a 1st World problem. I’ll just buy my coffee beans from someone else obviously. In 50 years that will likely be Eskimos, so no worries mate.

    PS Killian, all ok about the Amazon “study”. Nothing to do with you at all. I was intentionally play acting and was seeing what it felt like being a hand waving hyperbolic ocd peanut fanatic crawling all over someone who made a “mistake” in a report.

    On the extremely rare possibility a cpl of them might have recognized their own bore-holeish A… Retentive obnoxious over-blown behaviour in the Play.

    No chance that mate. (smiling)

  24. 24
    Killian says:

    #18 McKinney said stuff.

    1. I did not post bc of any spiritual bullshit. Anyone thinking spirituality is a good public policy metric is damned fool, prima facie.

    2. So you said spirituality *and* tech *and* cap and trade. Triply wrong.

    The tech stupidity as a response to overshoot is just not worth discussing anymore. It’s the equal of clinate denial. The maths and logic are not arguable.

    Spirituality is irrational, not universal. ‘Nuff said.

    Cap n crap:
    https://www.carbontax.org/cap-and-trade-problems/

    https://www.npr.org/2017/02/24/515379885/environmental-groups-say-californias-climate-program-has-not-helped-them

    There is nothing in cap and trade that changes the system at its core. Piintless.

  25. 25
    Mr. Know It All says:

    19 – Thomas
    “Ground Zero for Climate Science Denial Propaganda and Govt Recalcitrance over AGW/CC Science, it’s serious dangerous implications for the world and the UNFCCC goals in the last 25 years is none other than the USA and her people. ”

    CO2coalition recommended withdrawing from the UNFCCC goals. Recommendation was signed by many scientists – names at the bottom:

    http://co2coalition.org/2017/03/10/petition-to-withdraw-from-united-nations-framework-convention-on-climate-change-unfccc/

    You have to wonder why Aussies get their panties in such a wad over the actions of the USA, when they’re burning plenty of fuel down under:

    http://m.livetraffic.rta.nsw.gov.au/Search.aspx?type=camera

    :)

  26. 26
    Sander Clement says:

    The youngest instability in the polar vortex leading to an uncommon cold snap in Europe has led to a direct increase in CO² emissions because of household warming by natural gas. [https://earth.nullschool.net/#2018/02/28/0300Z/chem/surface/level/anim=off/overlay=co2sc/orthographic=-352.80,45.55,1142/loc=-147.775,-54.647]

    It is noteworthy that these polar outbreaks bring cold air to densely populated area’s. If winter instabilities like this (and before in North America) become more common, and very low winter temperatures reach densely populated area’s more often, this could lead into a significant increase of CO² emissions. Sounds like a negative feedback effect to me. Is this being considered in climate models. (same story maybe in increased summer heatwaves?)

  27. 27

    Killian, #24–

    1. I did not post bc of any spiritual bullshit. Anyone thinking spirituality is a good public policy metric is damned fool, prima facie.

    Here’s the quote to which I was responding:

    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.

    Gosh, forgive me for thinking that the words you select are intended to be seriously thought about.

    There is nothing in cap and trade that changes the system at its core. Piintless.

    And there is nothing in your prescriptions that affords a realistic, timely transition to the envisioned utopia. Too bad; guess that means we’re all doomed.

  28. 28

    Thomas, #21–

    18 Kevin McKinney, not equivalent situation. The reality is extremely different.

    Afraid that’s excessively cryptic; I can’t be sure what you are referring to in my comment.

    However, presuming that the ‘equivalent situation[s]’ intended are the US acid rain cap and trade plan and the ETS carbon market, I would say that of course they are not the same. (I’m avoiding ‘equivalent’ here because it’s a slipperier concept in this context: some aspects perhaps are arguably ‘equivalent’, but there are others that are not.)

    The interesting thing would be how they differ, and how those differences played into the success of the former and what is largely considered to be the failure (so far) of the latter.

    Off the top of my head, there are two key areas. First, the acid rain program was much simpler and ‘crisper’, with a sharply defined scope. It’s described here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_Rain_Program

    By contrast, ETS is continental in geographical in scope, and covers a much greater swathe of the economy. The complication that naturally follows leads to what nigel described: a complex administrative structure that is not very transparent.

    It also leads to the second difference between the two schemes, which I noted in my initial comment on the topic: implementation of the ETS was marked by political timidity, resulting in exemptions and allowances that were far too generous. In turn, that led directly to carbon prices that were far too low to accomplish much. For those who may not have followed this, here’s a 2013 story on it from The Economist:

    https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21576388-failure-reform-europes-carbon-market-will-reverberate-round-world-ets

    I think the timidity follows from the broad scope, not inexorably, but understandably: it’s much easier to be bold in limiting the SO2 emissions of “110 electric power generating plants (261 units in 21 states)”; the worst that was ever going to do was incrementally raise electricity rates in those markets. So the politicians were less intimidated by industry propaganda.

    (It’s also worth noting that back then, there was bi-partisan support for pollution control; the Koch oligarchy, with its fundamentalist anti-environmental agenda, hadn’t yet bought control of the Republican party. And in fact, IIRC, most of the skepticism about the plan was on the Democratic side–Dems were then more likely to favor direct regulation. I myself was a bit perturbed by cap-and-trade ‘licenses to pollute.’ But I was won over by the success of the program.)

    Speaking of the success of the Acid Rain Program, I see that there is a new study evaluating just that. The improvements to the ecological health of the Great Smokies region and to measured air quality were already well-studied, well-known and well-documented. The economic benefits resulting were estimated to be about 40 times the costs, which is a damn fine ratio. But with time, one can do longitudinal studies of health outcomes. And some folks from the NBER did just that:

    http://www.nber.org/papers/w23524

    That’s the abstract; but there’s a nice summary story here:

    http://www.nber.org/aginghealth/2017no3/w23524.shtml

    Trends in mortality from internal causes in near and far counties were the same until 1995, when the mortality rate in counties near affected plants began to fall relative to the mortality rate in counties far from affected plants, the researchers find. By 2005, ten years after the ARP’s introduction, the mortality rate in near counties had fallen by 5 percent. This corresponds to an estimated 7,300 fewer deaths in 2005 for those ages 35-64 in the treatment counties. Results for respiratory and cardiovascular mortality largely mirror those for internal cause mortality.

    The researchers also find that the introduction of the ARP led to decreases in infant and elderly mortality. These mortality declines translate into an estimated 1,800 fewer infant deaths and 26,000 fewer deaths among those age 65 and above in 2005.

    So, in addition to saving pretty much a whole regional ecosystem AND a regional economy (making the world safe for Dollywood!), the ARP also managed to save ~35,000 premature deaths.

    It didn’t ‘change the system’ that much overall; but I don’t share Killian’s view that that accomplishment is therefore ‘pointless.’

    Tuning back to the ETS, I note that, while I’ve described it as a failure *to date*, the EU hasn’t given up on it. In fact, they’ve just done an overhaul intended to address its toothlessness:

    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/european-council-approves-carbon-market-140532785.html

    I have no idea, off the top of my head, whether this will be enough to make a practical difference; and precedent gives some reason for skepticism. Boldness, thy name is not “European Council!” And even at the national level, it’s easy to see parallels–I’m thinking of Germany’s dithering over lignite coal, which has put their emissions goals in doubt.

    But at least these reforms tacitly recognize the existence of a problem with the status quo, and make some attempt at redress. But speaking of German lignite, as I was a moment ago, Bloomberg was able to find some folks who think ETS will help that situation:

    In Germany, the dirtiest power stations are already losing money. Mostly run on lignite, a cheap form of coal usually gathered from strip mines, the economics of those plants is looking so poor that operators may opt to shut them rather than keep losing money, said Bruno Brunetti, managing director of global power at Pira Energy, a unit of S&P Global.

    “We see more upside left for power prices,” he said. “We’re fairly bullish especially as additional coal retirements could be on the cards.”

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-26/pollution-market-gets-a-boost-in-eu-with-move-to-reduce-glut

    Well, we’ll see, won’t we?

  29. 29

    KIA, #25–

    And you have to wonder why many of those 300 ‘scientists’ have credentials like this:

    BOHNAK, Karrol: (B.S. equivilant, meterology, University of Wisconsin-Madison); broadcast meteorologist with over 30 years experience

    Or, for that matter, this:

    BOOTHBY, David: ();
    BRASSEUR, Claude: ();
    BREEZE, Simon: ();

    It’s been investigated in depth here:

    https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/02/27/climate-denier-richard-lindzen-300-scientists-trump-usual-parade-non-experts

    Not much cause for wonder, though, that the board of the CO2 Coalition
    is basically a bunch of ‘usual suspects’:

    https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/03/20/will-happer-rebrands-gmi-as-CO2-Coalition-CoalOILition

    Let’s get the first 3 board members on the record here in their own words, just to illustrate:

    Jan Breslow, MD–“The Earth has supported abundant life many times in the geological past when there were much higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is quite likely that future generations will benefit from the enrichment of Earth’s atmosphere with more carbon dioxide.”

    Bruce Everett, PhD–“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant or poison; it’s plant food.”

    Gordon Fulks, PhD–“CO2 is said to be responsible for global warming that is not occurring, for accelerated sea-level rise that is not occurring, for net glacial and sea ice melt that is not occurring […] and for increasing extreme weather that is not occurring.”

    In other words, these guys are denialists, pure and simple. Put even more simply, they are liars. I could ‘go Medieval on [their asses]’ with a bunch of adjectives to modify ‘liars’, but however factually justified, what would be the point?

  30. 30
    Hank Roberts says:

    Please be nice as I am merely the messenger

    That’s what they all say, isn’t it? It gets boring after a while, though.

  31. 31
  32. 32

    Comment for RC on Munshi ‘circular reasoning’ paper

    #28, Victor–

    OK, that one was worth the price of a few minutes of investigation, as in these dark days I can always use a good laugh. Reading the opening of the ‘circular reasoning paper’ yielded this:

    A unique circular reasoning issue in climate change research is that the use of climate models in empirical test of theory (Rahmstorf, 2007)(Rowlands, 2012)compromises the independence of the empirical test of theory from the theory itself.

    Climate models are an expression of theory.

    Too funny! If the model is supposed to be completely ‘independent’ of empirical testing of that model, then how is testing supposed to work? Clearly, it can’t, because complete ‘independence’ would imply an inability to generate testable hypotheses.

    Author Munshi appears to think that the model physics are assumed. This is of course complete nonsense, as they are derived from literally centuries of experimental work and theoretical analysis, which as prerequisites quite obviously predate the computer models.

    Even better, in a way, is the concluding section of the paper, where Munshi offers up this gem:

    We conclude that the uncertain system of large natural flows is not sensitive to fossil fuel emissions and that the effect of such emissions on the carbon cycle assessed by climate science is a product of circular reasoning.

    I call it a ‘gem’ because it follows–if that’s the right word–from a discussion the burden of which is that the uncertainties in CO2 fluxes are so large that one can’t reject the null hypothesis that the atmosphere is in balance! (That would rather beg the question of how it is that CO2 mixing ratios have increased 40+% since pre-Industrial times–an empirical fact that one might have thought cut rather definitively into the ‘circle of reasoning.’)

    But it’s one thing to argue that ‘we don’t know’–and quite another to argue that proposition in one breath and then in the next to argue that, ‘because uncertainties’, we therefore do know the opposite! That is truly what Ray L. likes to call ‘weapons-grade stupidity’. Munshi is apparently a stats guy emeritus from Sonoma U. biz school; he should know enough to keep track of what his null hypothesis is, and what failing to reject it means.

    In the end, I can only agree with Victor; the Munsi paper is every bit as ‘devastating’ as the Booker essay!

  33. 33
    Thomas says:

    25, yep, you have to wonder. :-)

    I won’t bore anyone with the details (again) and simply say my personal interest besides agw is history politics media, in particular “spin”.

    I have observed for 20+ years and some the flow of institutional/govt/politics/power activist “spin” flowing out of the usa like a virus spreading across the world since the neocons won the 2000 election. It’s as clear as day. It’s not accidental it was a determined plan and it’s been successful… (note Trump pulling out of the paris agreement as useless as tits on a bull that is anyway).

    You could even equate it to a US based “troll factory” of disinformation and lies funded by political/economic donors for self-interest, and connecting internationally with “like minded ideological tribes” of gullible stupid monied self interests in nations like Australia, NZ, the UK and a few groups in the EU, and especially across Eastern European nations and of course “allies” across the MIDDLE EAST.

    With millions being poured into disinfo “think tanks” and supported by tlaking heads with semi-credible PhD ‘authoritative’ deniers like Bob Carter and Jennifer marohasy and funded by the mega rich here and in the US … it’s been a long term conspiracy by actors and the MEDIA here like everywhere else. But it’s ground zero is the USA, that is where the Puppeteers live and pay taxes and have their corps/banks listed.

    In fact I could write a Paper and a Book on it Killian, but I am not interested in pointing out the bleeding obvious that even a blind person could see if they paid a moments attention to it. :-)

    The destruction of the “media/journalism” & Facebook smart phones etc combined at the same time opened the floodgates. Long story, but wise folks with solid reputations/credentials can easily connect the dots and have spoken about it as I have ad nauseum already, aka blah blah blah

    26, re “Is this being considered in climate models.”

    Nope, never has been likely never will be. Nor in any ‘energy use projections’ by Eia/Iea/unfccc etc etc out to 2040

    18 Kevin McKinney, to clarify my comment @21, what I mean by that was the problem with agw/cc is far larger more complicated extensive and is far more embedded in all society/systems than the issues of acid rain and ozone hole were. the latter required a lazer light adjustment of a single “item” in human activity/use — if cooperation was noble and it happened back in the 1990s maybe capntrade could have been one of the tools to drive consumer/business changes. It had some value.

    My feeling is that the world is now far past the point where that approach was constructive/useful tool. May help in some places, eg in China’s capntrade system, and maybe the EU can improve their system. for many reasons from politics to economics to business practices/consumerism, and broader taxation issues and more, I have serious doubts about for a long long time.

    I see recently Wash State with majority Dems could not get a carbon tax/ets up or Oregon.

  34. 34
    Adam Lea says:

    26: I have wondered if there is a feasuible way of making domestic central heating carbon neutral. I have gas central heating, and it has been used a bit more than normal over the last week thanks to continuous sub-zero temperatures, rare for SE UK. The closest I can think of is air or ground source heat pumps, combined with solar photovoltaic with battery storage, but that is not a cheap or easy retrofit in a typical UK house.

    I had my boiler serviced recently and have since wondered whether it is worth changing to a more efficient condensing boiler, or wait until the current boiler ends its life before replacing (it is over 10 years old and in good condition). It is this question of CO2 savings during use vs embodied CO2 from buying a new boiler.

  35. 35
    nigelj says:

    Kevin McKinney

    I’m curious why you are pushing cap and trade so hard. I agree it worked for acid rain and is a good idea in theory. But when applied to climate change some issues have emerged:

    1) Cap and trade is complicated and opaque. I think this is why its promoted as the preferred option by business, so the public cant really understand whats going on or whether its working.

    2) Its easy to lobby against partly because negotiations are basically done in secret quoting commercial sensitivity. This has allowed numerous companies to be exempted. And the lobby groups are far more powerful than with the acid rain issue.

    3) Results have not been compelling. Of course it depends on the carbon price as you alluded to.

    4) A public perception that its all a rort. I think its going too far to claim all the money goes into the pockets of corporates with no end results, but the suspicion is certainly there.

    5) My country relied on imported carbon credits only to find they were fraudulent.

    4) Other things easily googled.

    Have you not considered the merits of a revenue neutral carbon tax? Its much simpler and more “visible” and my instinct says it would be harder to lobby against and also easier for the public to see if its having an effect. These are just impressions, I don’t have time for more, but I posted a link above comparing carbon taxes and cap and trade. Here it is again

    https://davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/carbon-tax-cap-trade/

    I would suggest both cap and trade and carbon taxes can be made to work, but carbon taxes appear more workable in a practical sense, and might achieve results more quickly, which is obviously important given Paris agreement goals. Yeah sure carbon taxes don’t allow us to measure emissions like cap and trade, but the only really accurate measure will be changes to the keeling curve anyway.

  36. 36
    Sander Clement says:

    34: same story here, my boiler is 15 years old. “They” say it is most important to keep it in good condition(cleaned inside), keep the tubes and radiators clean (inside) and use the correct water temperature settings. And then this: you will be amazed how much gas you save by having just 1 degree (or 2) less heating in the house.
    But, about the alternatives, i dont think there is 1 zero-emissions option in our climate. There are zero-emissions houses being build here, they rely on heavy insulation, and are usually being heated by the rest-warmth of all the household equipment, including people, combined. Still,it is energy, and has to be compensated by rooftop solar panels. However, energy is not always delivered when you need it, so you need an expensive Tesla smartwall battery, or just deliver to the net, and take it back when you need it, with a meter that keep your budget.

    Another viable option is ground heat pump. Costs of this is about the same as a roof full of solar panels, but it still needs electricity to keep the heat flow running (its actually an inversed refrigerator). It is being said however, that over years their effectivity can get lower because the heat that is taken from the underground does not being replaced quickly enough:the source cools down.

    I personally think the best way is to minimalise need: reduce the amount of rooms you heat, lower the temperature you are used to, do not switch temperatures to quickly, but gradually change it, keep the system clean and in good order, insulate well (take care of cracks around doors and windows), and if possible make smart use of sunlight coming in the house. If possible, when hot water is running through the sink, make it cool down first. There are heat exchangers available for sewage rest-warmth, but this is pretty basic low-tech stuff, and can be achieved by using a metalor extra long pipe.

  37. 37
    Hank Roberts says:

    > domestic central heating

    I read a few years ago that solar PV had now become cheap enough that it’s economical to use solar PV to heat water — cheaper than installing a circulating water system with collectors on the roof and pipes to basement tanks, and leakproof. Just run the wires to resistance heating element type water tanks, rather than to the electric utility grid.

    If only someone would come up with a decent phase change material (nontoxic and nonflammable) for heat storage.

  38. 38
  39. 39
    Thomas says:

    Killian, sorry, I addressed a comment to you (still to appear at time of writing now) that was really done by Mr KIA, sorry but there;s way too many Ks Ls Ns and Is in both your names, and I missed it (again .. doh) Sorry.

    Mr KIA that comment about what I quoted from you is for you.

    —–

    #26/34, good questions and comments. I can;t add anything but know there is info out there on these matters … maybe a little left-field and not well known. Maybe search for “enviro/alt-energy/alt-eco-building design type sources.

    #32 Kevin, smile :-)
    #29 , yep, liars. It’s simple isn’t it.

    #30/31 Hank, ROFL (hope ur doing well)

    #28 Kevin, yes it was cryptic so I expand on that “notion” into a 15,000 characters of reply LOL …. sorry.

    Have read your detailed reply, and really appreciate that and your obvious extensive detailed and broad based knowledge on the topic and others and your willingness to share that. There is an enormous amount of reasonable reasoning and common sense in your approach. It’s commendable …. and your ability to engage in complex areas of policy (and much distortions i the publoci sphere and people’s personal emotioive buttons) is superb. Kudos.

    I read it and makes a lot of sense, the refs are useful and maningful and people would do well to quielty ponder what’s being said and why.

    On the flip side, I dont reject what your saying one bit … I am more cyncial in todays world ….. still. such broad polciy implications are so difficult to keep and handle on once implemented – I wildly cautious about this ets notions still, and would prefer more overt direct govt intervention on a case by case base, nation by nation grounded in practixal onthe ground changes to cut emissions hard and fast. (I have no hope that’ll happen soon enough either, but this latter Regulation/Law of the land approach to me is more practical in this day.)

    I did spend much time reviewing the whole ETS options long long ago. I saw positives, and yes it could work and then I looked at the “political process” and where the world was headed and the already recorded “failures and errors made which you address, and have disagreed ever since. Fix the worlds political geopolitical bs system, yes I am all for it under those circumstances only. so …… not hopeful.

    You’ll see a post or two popup and to why I still feel this way.

    RE “But at least these reforms tacitly recognize the existence of a problem with the status quo, and make some attempt at redress.”

    Great comment! True!

    RE Well, we’ll see, won’t we?

    Absolutely yes. I hope I get proven wrong a hundred times over!

    cheers and thanks

    PS i hope that covers everything / everyone and i can now stfu finally. :-(

  40. 40
    Killian says:

    #23 Thomas the Hyperbolic said I was making a point about AR boorishness.

    Yes, zero probability. Even I missed it. I never took it personally; I’m an equal opportunity disagreer.

    ————-

    #27 Kevin McKinney said I’m butt-hurt, again!

    Good god, man, do grow up soon. Your butt-hurt responses are getting boring.

    Killian, #24–
    1. I did not post bc of any spiritual bullshit. Anyone thinking spirituality is a good public policy metric is damned fool, prima facie.

    Here’s the quote to which I was responding

    Who cares what the quote is? Why do you, a grown-assed man, supposed activist, and supposedly intelligent – or at least pretending to be – need it explained that posting a link or even quoting a source means the person posting it approves of and supports every dotted i and crossed t?

    Did I make any reference at all to that manure? No. Seems to me I have been quite clear the last **ten years** that anything non-universal is not a useful metric for dealing with The Perfect Storm. Yup. I have been really, really clear on that.

    Gosh, forgive me for thinking that the words you select are intended to be seriously thought about.

    Bull. You were trolling. You know I dismiss such claptrap.

    There is nothing in cap and trade that changes the system at its core. Piintless.

    And there is nothing in your prescriptions that affords a realistic, timely transition to the envisioned utopia. Too bad; guess that means we’re all doomed.

    Aw. If frows a tantwum. Seriously, grow up. Talk about a deflection and Ad Hom the size of Pluto. Criminy. You do realize your opinion is irrelevant, right? Particularly since you have shown you absolutely do not understand even the basics of our problems. My suggested pathway is the *only* pathway that can get us to a regenerative future and the only one that can do so in an extremely short time frame and you have never given a single cogent argument against that other than to declare it can’t.

    You have become useless to this forum. Quit being butt-hurt that I have told you you were, and are, wrong, and get to understanding what is what. Gov’t… cap n crap… lobbying… christ on a stick…

    Then Butthurt McKinney said Thomas, #21–

    18 Kevin McKinney, not equivalent situation. The reality is extremely different.

    …It didn’t ‘change the system’ that much overall; but I don’t share Killian’s view that that accomplishment is therefore ‘pointless.’

    Because you don’t understand the system, and mor importantly, what it must become. Ask yourself, how long did each of those changes take? What infinitesimal part of the overall problem of climate, resources and collapse did they solve? Now, extrapolate out the centuries this approach will take to save us from ourselves.

    at least these reforms tacitly recognize the existence of a problem with the status quo, and make some attempt at redress.

    Oh, yes, and we freed the slaves in the 1860’s an gave women the vote a hundred years ago or so, and everything is JUST FINE for both because regulation and gov’t are **so effective** at rapid system change.

    Well, we’ll see, won’t we?

    No, i do not think you will. You do not start from First Principles or the nature of natural systems, you start from how warm your latte is and what an incredible intellect you are.

    Thomas also disagrees with you at 33: “My feeling is that the world is now far past the point where that approach was constructive/useful tool.”

    Yup.

    Kevin, it does not matter how urbane you consider yourself to be, how influential, how intellectual, what a wordsmith, etc. I think you think such silliness makes you superior to me and it cause you to dismiss what I say. But only one thing matters when facing an existential threat: Answers. You do not have them.

  41. 41
    Killian says:

    Correction.

    This “…need it explained that posting a link or even quoting a source does not mean the person posting it approves of and supports every dotted i and crossed t?”

  42. 42
    mike says:

    @ AL at 34: carbon neutral home heating? Yes, that is a good question and one I have worked on quite a bit. I looked at a carbon dioxide charged heat pump, but it could not produce the BTUs I need for large, old house. I upgraded by natural gas burner inside a holding tank to a condensing hot water heater for under $2K and cut my natural gas consumption almost in half. It is still a long way from a carbon neutral system, but it is smaller footprint and will pay for itself in about 3 years, so I am very happy with the condensing natural gas burner. I put in a Takagi TH3DV-NG
    https://www.google.com/search?q=takagi+t-h3-dv-n&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1

  43. 43
  44. 44
    sidd says:

    Re: phase change heat storage

    Water works well for temperatures around zero C, Glauber’s salt is another old one. But they have better ones now that can be tuned to different working temperatures.

    Wikipedia has a list

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_Change_Material

    I know someone who uses couple thousand gallon tanks to keep his four season greenhouse going all year. He has solar (thermal, not PV) panels feeding them, put them in almost a decade ago. Today would be cheaper to go solar PV to electric heat into storage.

    sidd

  45. 45
    Omega Centauri says:

    Adam @34, Sandler @36
    Do you really need to heating system itself to be carbon neutral? You
    could offset it by making changes alsewhere. I’m a firm believer in making
    more cost effective mitigations first, even if they don’t allow you to
    claim climate purity. But, your satisfaction may of course vary.

    I burn $200-300 of nat gas yearly, but don’t have any acceptable fixes
    (I already have the thermostat at 63, and gather as much passive solar
    as possible). I will get more carbon reduction per dollar, by “loaning” money
    so others can install solar -and earn interest so it isn’t even going to cost
    me. So that will be my next changes.

  46. 46

    #35, nigel–

    I actually don’t mean to ‘push’ cap and trade. It merely seems to me that there are times when it has worked, and that there may be some scope for its use now and in the future, and so I pushed back against Killian’s assertion that it’s completely without value. And when questioned further, I responded. No biggie.

    And actually, I think that there is a lot to be said for the revenue-neutral carbon tax approach. I’ve worked with CCL in the past–Citizen’s Climate Lobby, which advocates here in North America for just that approach–and may do so again in my new home.

    Thomas, #39–

    Thanks. As I said above to Nigel, I don’t mean to suggest that cap-and-trade is the solution to everything, necessarily. I think you are right that the more focused the situation, the more amenable to that approach it likely is.

    Killian, #40–

    Ask yourself, how long did each of those changes take? What infinitesimal part of the overall problem of climate, resources and collapse did they solve? Now, extrapolate out the centuries this approach will take to save us from ourselves.

    Let me repeat: 35,000 premature deaths prevented, a regional ecosystem saved, and enormous net economic benefits (which translate in considerable part into human suffering avoided.) My point is that that was worth doing whether or not it saves the world in 2100.

    Kevin, it does not matter how urbane you consider yourself to be, how influential, how intellectual, what a wordsmith, etc. I think you think such silliness makes you superior to me and it cause you to dismiss what I say. But only one thing matters when facing an existential threat: Answers. You do not have them.d

    Dude, it ain’t about me or thee. As you say, it’s about answers.

    And unfortunately, the answers you think you have appear to have blinded you.

  47. 47
    S.B. Ripman says:

    #34, #37 and #42: Trying to use on-site solar to heat one’s home in the winter is highly challenging if not impossible. The problem is that winter is when the sun shines least, and the coldest part of the winter is when it’s been stormy and cloudy for quite a while (ie., no sun). It’d be great if there were a cost-effective way for homeowners to store heat during warmer/sunnier times for use during cold spells, but if any such animal exists it flies way below the radar.

  48. 48
    Thomas says:

    AGW Mitigation and PR by example by Climate Scientists – the thin edge of the Wedge?

    From dying coral reefs to climate action

    “This may be too much information, but I started using reusable menstrual products, which is a huge deal for carbon.”

    [ The classic example of First World ‘sensitivity barriers’ to climate mitigation issues ]

    For Kim Cobb, a [climate science] researcher at Georgia Tech University in the United States, 2017 was a year of climate action, as she took concrete steps to reduce her greenhouse gas footprint. Like many other climate scientists, she says we must practise what we preach.

    “After 14 years of saying to myself, ‘I do my part because I’m a climate scientist,’ I decided it was time to do more,” Cobb told DW

    “As a climate scientist who can see into the future, are you doing what you can to inspire your friends, family, and members of the general public to shrink their footprints?” she asked.

    We need to talk about solutions to climate change, rather than continue to scream and yell about the problem. People need to see a way forward, and to feel like their actions matter,” Cobb said.

    “[The Public] need inspiration, leadership, and a sense of collective action. And scientists can play a key role in building that momentum.”
    http://www.dw.com/en/from-dying-coral-reefs-to-climate-action/a-42828499

    44 min documentary investigation of real climate realities today. By Australia’s most respected investigative journalism multi-generational award winning weekly current affairs TV program

    Weather Alert – How Australia’s warming climate is changing the way we live and work.

    “This is very ‘now’. This isn’t a future problem which is 10 or 20 or 30 years (away).” Climate Risk Expert

    Across Australia, REGENERATIVE farmers, small businesses, government planners [the independent Reserve Bank of Australia – and independent national Prudential Finance/Insurance Regulator included, Emergency Response Govt Departments ] and major corporations have stopped waiting for politicians to decide whether climate change is real. They’re acting now.

    This is a story that leaves the politics behind [and AGW/CC denialism dead in it’s tracks]and shows what the challenges are for many people across Australia in the face of this ‘new normal’.

    Weather Alert, reported by Michael Brissenden

    http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/weather-alert/9511070

    Includes another reference by Corporate semi-govt CEO to the massive water shortages issue in Perth WA and what has caused it and how severe it already is – directly stating it is a DIRECT IMPACT of CURRENT CLIMATE CHANGE and not simply a temporary rainfall/drought – I mentioned that here very recently with supporting refs as to how serious it is NOW and will only get worse.

  49. 49
    Thomas says:

    AGW/CC Arctic Impacts

    According to a new study published in the journal Scientific Reports, the Arctic spring is occurring 16 days earlier than it did 10 years ago. In fact, the research suggests that for every 10 degrees north of the equator you go, spring comes an average of four days earlier. That means that those in Los Angeles will likely experience spring just a day earlier than a decade ago, while those in Chicago or Washington DC will see it arrive about four days early.

    http://www.iflscience.com/environment/climate-change-has-brought-the-arctics-spring-forward-16-days-in-just-10-years/

    Study https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22258-0

  50. 50
    nigelj says:

    Kevin McKinney @46, fair enough, and its possible that emissions trading suits the industrial sector, and a carbon tax and dividend suits transport issues.

    I favour a light weight version of the “simplification” and reduced personal consumption answer to climate change and resource issues. One problem with more radical and rapid approaches is the severe reduction in demand would quite probably send the economy into the greatest economic depression since the 1930’s, thus downgrading even essential basic infrastructure. Just a thought.