RealClimate logo

Forced responses: Mar 2018

Filed under: — gavin @ 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.

170 Responses to “Forced responses: Mar 2018”

  1. 51
    Mr. Know It All says:

    34 – Adam Lea

    Probably easiest way would be to start from scratch and design a passive solar home. Not practical for most folks though.

    Is your home well insulated? If not, might see about adding some insulation. Could go evacuated tube solar collectors to heat water and use a water to air heat exchanger (perhaps a fan-coil unit or finned-tube baseboard) to heat the house. Probably will be expensive if you design it to not require FF backup.

    Solar collectors:

    As others suggest you could also use solar PV and heat electrically – will not be cheap.

    You could also build a flat panel air heater and just get what you can out of it to reduce heat required from your furnace. Might add some south facing windows, but if it’s cloudy they don’t help much. Also, could take some rigid foam insulation and make “movable” insulation (possibly hinged) for your windows at night, but have to watch out for condensation on the window sills, etc.

    I’ll bet for the right price these folks would design a nice system for you:

    Good luck.

  2. 52
    Thomas says:

    40 Killian says, among other things “Yes, zero probability. Even I missed it.”

    (smile) I wasn’t going to respond, there was no need to, and then got a nudge to say something. I really love your responses better than most Dr Killian. Mind you I do get something out anyone’s response not matter what it is. You know what I mean. You’re a meta-thinker who travels across multiple fields. You’re a pretty rare beast Dr Killian, a Futurist as well. With an eclectic GSOH too, always a very positive sign of ones intelligence and wisdom and values. You write for effect and that’s it because you inner drive is to make a positive difference and not give lip service. You’re a leader and a team builder. You get “quality circles” from the 1980s period even if you’ve never heard the phase. You have an enormously high degree of respect for other people no matter who they are or how stupid they are. You see the best in others and you cry when they act like idiots and fools when really you know they could have done better. And you tell them to their face, which means you have real courage. That’s is an essential need now and into the future that’s unfolding because people really are shit scared atm all over the world and they do not want to admit it lest they fall into an abyss of despair forever. These things I know are crystal clear to you and have been for a very long time, and as much as you have wanted to say “well fuck it” and just walk away it’s impossible to do so. Such is the lot of many at this time and you are exactly where you need to be mate. Keep smiling. Have no fear you know what you are doing and precisely why and despite appearances at times so do I. Call it marketing research or picking the brains of a never ending focus group, it doesn’t matter what it’s called. Maybe I won’t get there with you but while the flame is still lit well I’ll keep following the long term plan that’s been set until I expire. If I’m ‘lucky’ I’ll get to fire that metaphorical ‘single bullet in the barrel’ when the time is right. Until then may as well have some fun. People can become so disarmed when they believe the person sitting in front of them is a total idiot. I’m an ‘observer’ of people and I know many ways how to elicit the information and knowledge that I am seeking. Our journeys have been different and our focus / goals are different but we’re on the same Team. This I know and so do you. (wink)

    Sometimes I am blunt as, other times hyperbolic, and other times quite esoteric. Like now. You have to literally move mountains of soil and rock to find precious gems and the seams of gold. Now ain’t that the truth Dr Killian? (smiling)

    Have a good one.

  3. 53
  4. 54
    Sander says:

    #49 the speed at which changes are taking place the last 5 years are very worrying. It is starting too look like we are in crucial moment, but i still hope it is some kind of peak acceleration and we will see real decline. On the other hand,knowing humanity and its economy drive, i fear it will always live above its budget.

    #45 financially, you money is often spent better somewhere else in saving carbon emissions. There are a few things that often can be done cheaply at home: double glazing, closing gaps and cracks, in some cases PV rooftop panels. But when it comes to the heating system, it takes a lot of effort and money if you want to make a big change here. Trying to make it neutral will cost a serious amount of money that can be spent in better ways on saving , or compensating emissions.

    #47 solar energy for heating has its troubles indeed: you don’t need the heat when the sun shines. You need a long-term storage. One such storages can be a ground heat pump, which can be used both ways: as a heat sink and as a heat source. There is some beauty in this model, but what i don’t like is its complexity. This is not the kind of system that you can apply to the majority of houses (which is often the case in the otherwise good idea’s to live emission-free). It could be in larger scale neighbourhood-level installations, but in every step some efficiency is lost. Still it can be viable. How great would it be if every neighbourhood had its own centralised heat-sink in summer, and heat-source in winter?

  5. 55
    zebra says:

    Adam and others on heating/cooling physics,

    Not a retrofit, but you can build with a passive geothermal slab floor. That ties you thermally to the planet at a depth of about 6 feet– cooler in summer, warmer in winter.

    Of course, using different configurations of piping and insulation may reduce your heating/cooling load even more, but just the passive slab makes a big difference, with minimal initial cost.

  6. 56

    On passive houses in cold climates–it is somewhat expensive and not simple to get done due to factors such as the scarcity of expertise and bureaucratic inertia. But nonetheless it can be, and is being, done. Some random Canadian examples:

  7. 57

    nigel, #50–

    A question: do you regard either cap-and-trade or carbon tax approaches as ‘rapid’ or ‘radical’? (I don’t, and my perception is that both are being pretty widely considered by policy makers today.)

    Or do you mean that the ‘simplification’ you favor should be ‘lightweight’ in order to avoid creating an economic recession or depression?

    A final question: what do you see motivating this reduction in personal consumption? There are conscientious folks out there doing it now, as I’ve already linked. I’m even one of them myself, to a degree, at least. But looking at history, it doesn’t seem very likely that masses of humanity are going to suddenly embrace simplicity just on principle. Our friend Killian has said that adoption will be motivated by ‘necessity’, which I took to mean survival. But the problem with that is that change is then rendered reactive to a threat that’s clear and immediate enough for almost everybody to recognize and respond to. (And my fear is that a whole lot of the responses then would be, shall we say, ‘sub-optimal’ even then.)

    The advantage of a well-designed carbon tax would be precisely to motivate low-carbon personal choices. I think those have a point who argue that if that’s the only strategy employed, then the overall social and economic structure will largely be conserved and ‘drop in’ substitution will be the main response, leading to change that is more incremental than fundamental. But nobody–or at least not me–is saying that a carbon tax should be the only thing undertaken.

  8. 58
    nigelj says:

    Kevin McKinney @57

    “A question: do you regard either cap-and-trade or carbon tax approaches as ‘rapid’ or ‘radical’? (I don’t, and my perception is that both are being pretty widely considered by policy makers today.)”

    No I think current cap and trade and carbon taxes are slow to the point of absurdity. However such schemes should start at a low level and ramp them up to the optimal level over a decade maybe, to avoid inflationary effects. However my observation is they are not being ramped up fast enough, to achieve the required results.

    “Or do you mean that the ‘simplification’ you favor should be ‘lightweight’ in order to avoid creating an economic recession or depression?”

    I did mean simplification (and reduced consumption in general)should be lightweight, in order to avoid an economic depression. Pulling demand out of the economy rapidly and dramatically is what causes economic problems.

    I would add simplification can also be a staged process increasing over time. This is also less likely to cause some sort of economic crash.

    Some form of simplification will eventually be forced on humanity by resource scarcity anyway. The great difficulty is calculating the right way / amount to deliberately do it. I will get to that aspect.

    “A final question: what do you see motivating this reduction in personal consumption? There are conscientious folks out there doing it now, as I’ve already linked……”

    I agree there’s not enough immediate crisis that impacts peoples lives clearly enough to wake them up and force change. You have a few passionate and conscientious people already choosing simplification, and I think they do it for a range of reasons. Its not just the climate issue or even just resource scarcity, its frustration with the capitalist system, and materialism and fair enough, I respect that, but the general public don’t all share the same point of view.

    However its “shades of grey” on how different people respond, and I can see significant numbers of people slowly coming to accept that a less materialistic life makes sense. But I cant see it happening quickly. I would also toss in that a 25% reduction in energy consumption is easy enough for many, but moving beyond that possibly becomes more challenging.

    Killian says “just do it” like diving into cold water the first time. I appreciate the point, but people tend to prefer gradualism and want to be assured that such sacrifices or at least changes are well justified, so they will demand mathematical proof of a dire problem. It would be great to have more of a global model on resource scarcity in this regard. The other issue is the old problem that nobody wants to make sacrifices and move first. this is another reason why we need to provide people with a reasonably high level of proof.

    I agree a carbon tax helps resolve all these sorts problems because it forces everyone to move more or less in unison, or at least creates a big incentive. If its a tax and dividend scheme, it maintains high levels of demand, so potentially avoids an economic crash. If its ramped up gradually over a decade, this will give supply and demand time to adjust and will avoid inflationary effects.

    Yes a carbon tax is unlikely to be a stand alone answer to climate issues. That’s another huge subject in itself. The mechanism doesn’t resolve all problems like lack of recharging networks for electric cars, and so you need assistance for those. But I think its becomes fairly obvious what sort of things are required.

  9. 59
    nigelj says:

    Heating and cooling homes the passive solar way:

    Providing you get reasonable winter sunlight, just build with lots of glass to optimise sunlight penetration, and use concrete floors as heat sinks to retain energy for the night time.

    Have really good curtains to control heat loss at night, and excessive summer heat gain.

    Double the normal amount of insulation.

    This is rough and ready passive solar design, and doesn’t cost that much more than a normal home.

    However the concrete floor is a bit carbon intensive. However I think the gains in energy efficiency would outweigh this problem.

  10. 60
  11. 61
  12. 62
    Killian says:

    #57 Kevin McKinney said nigel, #50– Killian has said that adoption will be motivated by ‘necessity’, which I took to mean survival.

    Incorrect. To avoid further flaming, see if you can state it correctly so we can have a conversation based on actual mutual awareness of what the other said.

  13. 63
    Adam Lea says:

    45: No it doesn’t have to be carbon neutral but that is an ultimate target to aim for. I probably won’t reach it but I can cut my carbon footprint down by trying. I get the impression there are some things that can be done, but beyond a certain point, it becomes too complicated and/or expensive to go the last mile. I have had the loft insulation improved, I have double glazing, and have found that setting the thermostat to 13C (55F) and putting an extra thick layer on means I can be comfortable. If I could turn off the radiator valves in the unused bedrooms that might help a bit more, but they are faulty.

    I have a kind of pipe dream one day of moving to a part of the country where it is possible to buy a plot of land with planning permission for a property, and then hire the necessary skilled people to design and build a house for me which is carbon neutral, with good use of renewable energy and rainwater harvesting.

  14. 64
    nigelj says:

    Kevin McKinney @57, just adding to clarify my previous reply which was a bit rushed. Carbon tax and dividend schemes need to be ramped up gradually to avoid inflation, but they are currently clearly being ramped up far too gradually to be effective enough in reducing emissions.

  15. 65
    Killian says:

    #46 Kevin McKinney said 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.

    Where did I say don’t do that? I said it is pointless, but the context is climate change, not some crappy little program in a limited scale. I would always err on the side of humane action. Use your damned head and stop tossing raggedy Straw Men.

    You do not belong here any longer.

    Dude, it ain’t about me

    Shouldn’t be, but is. Arguing with Straw Men is an ego response. Not responding to other germane comments made is avoidance, which is an ego response.

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

    Sad troll. Pay attention. I came through environmental issues, then Chaos Theory, then Peak Oil and peak everything, then collapse issues and economics, concurrent with full climate awareness to solutions: Perfect Storm World Simulation (2008; check out new effort by Eric Holthouse, Flourish2020, which is a small part of what I designed on paper ten freaking years ago), to permaculture, to the Permaculture and Resilience Initiative, to Occupy to Regenerative Governance. You can’t even describe Regenerative Governance in any real sense, yet make this ridiculous, childish taunt.

    You’re a piker. Up your game. And pay attention: You aren’t ahead of me, you’re behind. I went *through* where you sit WRT climate and solutions ten years ago. You made a conscious decision to let your ego get in your way and settle for ego strokes from your fellow peanuts over any real solutions. That’s on you.

    If you’re lucky, I’ll write up my long list of things one should understand to be able to design a sustainable future and repost it, updated.

  16. 66
    Thomas says:

    55 zebra, an excellent short to the point comment. Well done.

    And congratulations on your First(?) post to the Forced Responses thread since this option became available on the 1st January over 9 weeks ago now. “A small step for man, a giant leap for mankind.”

    Anyhow zebra, do take personal advantage of the fact that there no posting limits here as this blog site has the capacity to keep explaining towards infinity. This zebra is because there are no space limits in cyberspace with the exception on what Webhosting Plan Gavin et al are signed up on and how deep their pockets are. Given they do pay for this out of their own pockets, in case you were not aware of that either.

    In the old days when it was actually busy on RC they had article and UV threads that went well above 1000 comments very regularly.

    So the sky’s the limit mate. Make 2 posts or make 200 in a month on any subject that is acceptably within the guidelines on these UV and FR threads. Enjoy! (smile)

    And should you choose to keep discussing or arguing about “population” as you have in the past, I will do what I have always done the last year or so, bar one (?) single comment recently. I will simply ignore what you and others have to say and get on with doing my own thing.

    But I do reserve my free-speech *rights* if so motivated. (wink)

  17. 67
    Thomas says:

    *expanding* not explaining

    It’s like a Universe unto itself.

  18. 68
    Thomas says:

    AGW/CC Climate Change Impacts on Indigenous People
    Cities and Climate Change Science Conference at the Shaw Conference Centre, Edmonton Canada – home of the Tar Sands Cabal

  19. 69
  20. 70
    Thomas says:

    “You do not belong here any longer.”

    oops tsk tsk, bad form that one – imho, ymmv but that kind of comment never helps. Besides it just not true anyway. therefore it’s not worth saying imho.

  21. 71
    Thomas says:

    “You do not belong here any longer.”

    Sorry can’t agree with that, if only because it is not true imho. I doubt it will help anyone. Though I can empathize with the likely frustration/s behind it. fwiw and stepping back again.

  22. 72
    Killian says:

    #71 Thomas said “You do not belong here any longer.”

    Sorry can’t agree with that, if only because it is not true imho. I doubt it will help anyone. Though I can empathize with the likely frustration/s behind it. fwiw and stepping back again.

    No frustration. He adds nothing. If he does, name it. His analysis is weak, at best, based in politically vacuous paeans to the present paradigm, unwilling to risk, unwilling to acknowledge any hard data that goes against his milquetoast preferences. Yet, he has the temerity to attack the only person on this blog who 1. designs systems and 2. has produced and put out into the world the only comprehensive way forward that meets all parameters we face/must meet.

    When one offers nothing but venom and defensiveness, one is useless.

    If he wishes to belong here, and not in 2010, but now, he needs to acknowledge what has happened in the intervening years and remove himself from the Peanut Gallery.

  23. 73
    Thomas says:

    The Youth and Hansen et al get a win in Court

    New York: A US federal appeals court has rejected the American government’s bid to halt a lawsuit by young people claiming that President Donald Trump and his administration [and Democrat President Obama before him who fought against this case just as hard] are violating their constitutional rights by ignoring the harms caused by climate change.

    Ninth Circuit Rules in Favor of Youth Plaintiffs, Rejects Trump’s Attempt to Evade Constitutional Climate Trial


  24. 74
  25. 75
    Thomas says:

    K. maybe no one ‘belongs’ here?

    It’s pretty ‘nuts’ on the best of days mate. (shrug)

    “I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.”
    Groucho Marx

  26. 76
    Thomas says:

    Jim you say in the ref that the red blobs are high surface temps. Yes?

    Then you say “Another way of looking at the red blob is, a heat black hole.”

    I am confused by your metaphor, as it seems to say the opposite of your general theme theory.

    And just to be clear are you saying that those locations around the equator is where you theorize the ocean temp differential would power the energy needed to convert that into electrical power using your theoretical tech “power generators”? Finding it hard to grasp your point here.

  27. 77
    Thomas says:


    K. you are one of the commenters here, like me, who does not get sidetracked by responding to ‘denier trolls’.

    It also seems historically self-evident that the blog owners have zero interest in your field of knowledge and experience.

    There are very few ‘regular’ commenters on this website now, and the traffic ie visitor page views, is likewise significantly less than what it was a decade ago as well. But the ‘readers’ of this blog are still several orders of magnitude higher than the numbers of ‘residents’ who choose to ‘belong’ here [except on occasions there is some fresh denier meat to be had, as I recently showed in a post about Open Mind. Reminds me of vampire movies actually. LOL ]

    Some people have no interest in learning anything they do not already know. That’s human nature and you see it here every day the last decade. If I may, I humbly suggest you consider simply skim whatever is the going irritation of the day they hold onto, ignoring them and not saying a word ‘directly’ to them, and imagine ie mock up your target market of the people who are seeking true knowledge for the future as a “character figure” and address that “character” by assuming the role of teacher and speaking directly to them.

    And every time a dumb peanut makes a dumb comment, momentarily using imagination send them to the Principle’s office (Pun intended). and then carry on with speaking / educating the ‘fictional character’.

    K. you say that you are: … the only person on this blog who 1. designs systems and 2. has produced and put out into the world the only comprehensive way forward that meets all parameters we face/must meet.

    I believe that is true. Then mock up a approach/style and teach the ‘imaginary character’ all that you know about RenAg design systems and how to practically do that from the ground up, in various ‘real world’ insitu dynamics / locations.

    If anyone asks a mature intelligent question respond to them. Ignore everyone else and every other topic/discussion on RC that you do not give a toss about.

    It might work? It’s pointless arguing with a “drunk” as I outlined in a recent commentary.

    Hey I was not speaking TO the Peanuts, dumb Trolls or Deniers Killian …. but the readers of this blog who do not comment or ask questions.

    Simply teach and this will assist you in developing your existing ideas and the challenges of effective communication in all kinds of ways – even if no one says a single word to you in the next years here.

    I speak from experience on this issue not constrained by my time on this ‘silly’ disruptive at times extremely dysfunctional blog site. Good luck.

  28. 78
    Thomas says:

    K. I’ll reduce the prior comment down to a simple 5 word Chiastic Aphorism:

    “Simply teach by teaching simplicity.”

  29. 79
    Thomas says:

    PS for K.

    I seriously doubt any more than 5% of the visitors have the necessary capacity to grasp or comprehend the knowledge and experience of the core principles which you are hoping to pass on to other people and run with.

    It’s important to keep that in mind. It may only be 1% but that is of no importance because ONE more can make a huge difference to even more people during the rest of that ONE person’s life.

    Keep the big picture in mind and how good ideas travel. Even Eisenstein was ignored and ridiculed by his inferiors, right? So was MLK ridiculed and even violently attacked in the 1960s.

    So what the 95% or even the 99%’s opinion is about you or your ideas are in reality utterly irrelevant mate. Of no import or use to anyone, ever.

    I really encourage you to spend some time listening to Lakoff and glean what you can from him about “the brain and metaphor and communication. His ‘political’ and other views have no bearing on the grounded COGNITIVE SCIENCE he has reported on for +20 years. Therefore ignore any such *distractions* that could get in the way of what he is really TEACHING. OK?

    Next keep learning, eg do some online research into how to write a captivating *keyword rich* Headline for your “comments / articles” wherever you publish them. Empahsis is on the Psychological HOOK … think mark twain he was a genius at it, as are many others. Research this proven concept that works.

    Next extend that research about *writing* by learning more about the critical importance of the FIRST sentence.

    and lastly here is a very simple template to apply in both short and long comments/articles.

    Tell them what you are going to tell them.
    Tell them.
    Tell them what you just told them (ie review/repeat)….

    oh and use Chiastic Aphorisms when ever you can. This is a literary technique used by the best writers in the world. It works. I can explain that more, but psychologically what happens is that whatever is said is automatically and unconsciously LOCKED into the readers Mind and Memory without effort and underneath their conscious awareness.

    And this technique works whether used in a single sentence structure or embedded into whole paragraphs and whole pages. It is an unnoticed technique by the reader once one has the skill to apply it.

    Now if you are already aware of such matters, or you are just not interested inn such things, I apologise. merely trying to offer a suggestion that may help you achieve your goals over time with much less effort and wasted time. That’s all.

    Sharing is caring. Not that 95% of those here would ever in a million lifetimes be capable of recognizing such a simple principle. No chance comprehending yours LOL

    Have fun K.

  30. 80
  31. 81
    Richard Creager says:

    Killian #40 re Kevin McKinney at #27
    “Aw. If frows a tantwum. Seriously, grow up. Talk about a deflection and Ad Hom the size of Pluto.”
    There is something gloriously self-referential about accusing somebody of an ad hom in pidgin baby talk. Especially when Mr. McKinney’s point of criticism was dead on the mark, which probably burned. Do you see it Killian? But I suspect as a lay lurker simply interested in stretching my understanding and offended by his obnoxious mode of discourse Killian will declare that I too “do not belong here any longer.” Good choice of Pluto by the way, as one of the larger minor planets, well known for it’s size among it’s peers.

  32. 82
    Hank Roberts says:

    “… why the new leadership at Interior would rely on someone with a background in electrical engineering to help guide climate policy.

    “A climate change denier is someone who rejects the multiple lines of corroborating scientific evidence that show that rapid change is real, it’s caused by human activities, and it’s extremely dangerous,” Clement said. “For an electrical engineer to suggest that climate change is good for society and is just dandy, there are lots of nonexperts with opinions; the bizarre thing is that sitting political appointees in the Department of the Interior would seek out his advice.”

    Throughout his career at Interior — Goklany joined the Office of Policy Analysis in 1986 — he has questioned the severity of climate change’s impacts, the extent to which humans have contributed to it and the predictions of its future course. Under both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, Goklany weighed in on international climate reports in his personal and professional capacity.

    Michael MacCracken, who took a leave from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to work as senior global change scientist at the interagency Office of the U.S. Global Change Research Program from 1993 to 2002, recalled in an interview Thursday that Goklany frequently submitted comments on behalf of Interior that suggested the United States could adapt to climate impacts more easily than many scientists projected….”

  33. 83
    Thomas says:

    AGW/CC Impacts Agriculture CA USA
    Study indicates that climate change will wreak havoc on California agriculture

    That’s the assessment of a recent paper by a University of California team led by Tapan Pathak of UC Merced. But the researchers focused on a different aspect of California agriculture: You can kiss much of it goodbye because of climate change.

    The paper, published in the journal Agronomy last month, is the most thorough review of the literature on the regional impact of climate change in recent memory. It makes grim reading.

    Climate Change Trends and Impacts on California Agriculture: A Detailed Review by Tapan B. Pathak et al
    California is a global leader in the agricultural sector and produces more than 400 types
    of commodities. The state produces over a third of the country’s vegetables and two-thirds of its
    fruits and nuts. Despite being highly productive, current and future climate change poses many
    challenges to the agricultural sector. This paper provides a summary of the current state of knowledge
    on historical and future trends in climate and their impacts on California agriculture.

  34. 84
    Thomas says:

    1988 prediction by atmospheric physicist of what we now observe: Human caused warming will proceed most rapidly in the northern polar reaches.

  35. 85
    Killian says:

    I have not fully vetted this yet, but the concepts are all legit. 100-year forest in 10 years. A typical food forest will be self-sustaining at 5 years or less, but still growing. I need to look closely at the claims of density resulting in rapid growth, but we DO know density creates massive growth.

    Please, nigelj, et al., stop talking and start listening.

  36. 86
    BilB says:

    SB Ripman

    Simple answer, its called wood, and you burn it in a log fire. There are some extremely efficient slow combustion burners.


    there is cellulosic waste which can be converted to methane for use as piped gas. Do the calcs on how much energy is contained in our community waste material. More than enough to power small gas fuelled generators embedded in hot water systems to provide both electricity and hot water for low solar periods.

  37. 87
    MartinJB says:

    Richard Creager (@81): I don’t know if you saw this on Unforced Variations, but Killian came up with this suggestion: “More important and more useful, a month in the Borehole, no matter what you post, for being a jerk. Some of our long-timers would spend a huge amount of time there.” Do you think he’s even aware that he would be an almost permanent resident there?

  38. 88
    nigelj says:

    From the Guardian: “Look, no lithium! First rechargeable proton battery created”
    Researchers say it’s a crucial step towards cheaper and more environmentally-friendly energy storage”

    “The rechargeable battery, created by researchers at RMIT university in Melbourne, uses carbon and water instead of lithium.

    The lead researcher Professor John Andrews said that as the world moved towards renewables, there would be a significant need for storage technologies that relied on cheap and abundant materials.”

  39. 89
    nigelj says:

    Killian refers to an article that says “But we can recreate little chunks of that habitat (forests) in just ten years our own backyards, workplaces and public spaces, he explains in the Ted Talk below:”

    Its a good article and I hope his theories are correct.

    But Killian cant stop there and says “Please, nigelj, et al., stop talking and start listening.”

    This when a couple of weeks ago I write a post saying there’s enormous potential to grow trees on residential land etcetera.

    Killian please stop posting nasty, patronising, superior nonsense and start reading what people say. You also don’t convince people of much by being patronising. Have you ever had to find clients and run project teams for a living?

    You seem to think you are the only person with any ideas. Sorry you just aren’t. I could see the need for a “simple life” philosophy, less consumption, and population growth slowing in my youth after reading a few pages of limits to growth. This stuff is not rocket science. It’s not new.

    Its a question of how to do these things without sacrificing too much quality of life and maintaining some level of technological progress. This needs open discussion. I thought we could have a discussion on this but its hopeless. You are too defensive and thin skinned and ironically you are very ‘authoritarian’. But thanks for the link on forestry.

  40. 90
    Thomas says:

    Title: AGW/CC Consequences 2.0

    A Much Better Practical, Reality Based Approach for Today (?)

    Informing the Public about what’s really happening in a way they could actually understand.

    My ex-brother-in-law introduced me to an American social norm 20 years ago. While I was

    suggesting another way of doing something, he told me really nicely: “OK that might be

    true. What we do in America though is that when someone is kind of making a ‘criticism’ of

    another, or thinks they have a better idea or way of doing something then it’s normal practice

    to ask them to do the job at hand and show us how you think it should be done.” (words to

    effect of)

    So I did, by taking over cooking the dinner and finishing it off. He liked it. Will you? Let’s

    find out.

    Nothing in this Universe is more complex than human beings. Climate science pales into

    insignificance of complexity when compared to human beings. The only problem there is in

    regard to human beings and especially climate scientists et al in understanding the

    intricacies of climate change is knowing precisely what all the physical data is they need to

    know to then know precisely what happens and why it is so. Humans are so intelligent so

    amazingly clever that given the right information and knowledge they can understand pretty

    much anything about everything.

    So please, do not try and tell me that the reason scientists can’t comprehend everything about

    the science/physics of climate change and forecasts into the future responses is because they

    are stupid – they are not – they are the like all humans, the highest form of life in this


    The only thing they lack is Knowledge. They only thing they lack in effectively communicating

    the hard facts of the consequences of climate change to others (and convincing them it’s a

    crisis) is because they lack Knowledge about Human Beings and they lack a good enough

    Practical Skill level in effectively applying that know how.

    Not Theory. Fact!


    It should be obvious already (but is it?), this post/comment follows on from prior comments

    made on this issue. I recommend making sure you’re aware of those before proceeding.


    Tamino introduces the *Consequences* thread

    February 18, 2018

    “There’s a lot to say on the subject. Please no “gish gallop.” When one sub-topic gets too

    hot, deal with it before resorting to another sub-topic. Yes, the other aspect deserves

    discussion too — but not as a refuge to avoid issues.

    “When somebody, anybody, asks a question, whether it be Sheldon asking others, or others

    asking Sheldon, let’s do the opposite of what most politicians do. To quote from “Braveheart,”

    quit changing the subject and answer the fucking question“.

    One last thing: if Sheldon participates in this discussion, he’s going to be outnumbered.

    That takes guts. Show some respect.

    What Tamino is speaking of there, without maybe being aware of it, is the issue of online


    “Mobbing, as a sociological term, means bullying of an individual by a group, in any

    context, such as a family, peer group, school, workplace, neighborhood, community, or online.

    “When it occurs as emotional abuse in the workplace, such as “ganging up” by co-

    workers, subordinates or superiors, to force someone out of the workplace through rumor,

    innuendo, intimidation, humiliation, discrediting, and isolation, it is also referred to

    as malicious, nonsexual, nonracial / racial, general harassment.
    (many sociology/psych sites with info on this common ‘online’ phenomena)

    Sheldon says:

    March 3, 2018

    “Hi Everybody,

    “About a quarter of this thread is made up of posts telling me that I am not a sceptic.

    And threatening me, that if I disagree with you, you will call me a denier.

    Another quarter of the thread, is made up of posts containing general nastiness.


    [later to Leto he says]:
    “Now piss off, and stop annoying me.”

    Then Sheldon says:

    March 3, 2018 (final comment but still trying his *best*?)

    “Hi Everybody,

    is there anybody on this website who is “open minded” enough, to read my explanation of how

    my graph works? […]”

    Before you accuse me of being big-headed, I have “blind spots” just like you. I need somebody

    like you, to come along and point them out.

    I am no different than you. Together, we should be able to understand the world better

    than we can separately.”

    The next comment was Tamino shutting down the *conversation*.

    Saying: “It’s time for this thread to come to an end. I don’t regret the attempt to

    communicate, but it was not successful.”


    Wrong word usage by Tamino. He and the more than a dozen ‘smartest people in the room’

    FAILED dismally. That’s the whole truth.

    The second truth is that they cannot, will not admit that for what it is.

    Tamino and his *Dirty Dozen* could not even successfully communicate nor Dialogue with one

    person who in fact was MOTIVATED and POSITIVE about the DISCUSSION.

    He was up for it, and within a few days he was telling these *great minds* to basically *get lost*,

    rather than still listening to them actually convince him he was wrong about his opinions,

    about the immediate and long term consequences of AGW/CC upon societies all over the world.

    Remember Sheldon already agreed with GHG Theory of a warming world, and that climate change

    was in fact already a reality – so the only thing they had to do was create a positive trusting

    environment for dialogue and share their true knowledge, in a way that was conducive to real

    dialogue between human beings by sharing their knowledge and build trust with Sheldon

    and then show him the facts about impacts already and those coming in way that

    Sheldon could understand them ….. one person only ….. they ALL FAILED!


    So why then do these people keep bitching about Deniers 24/7/365? Because deep down they know

    it is they who are the failures here by not convincing others including the public

    and politicians of the urgency and seriousness of this issue. The truth is they are all

    deeply scared to death about the looming consequences of AGW/CC! …. but it is their

    Cognitive Dissonance their Denial that then unconsciously reacts (= the reactive mind)

    to failures like Sheldon’s example case. Their own thinking gets seriously distorted as a

    result, that cognitively twists the truth into blaming him instead (and by default everyone else)

    – by doing this it relieves their extreme internalized pressure of the increased Cognitive

    Dissonance emotional pressure of guilt, the internalized self-blame and

    their own responsibility for their repeated failures …..

    This is being Human:101 – and right now is the best time to actually face it and deal with

    it maturely and with true knowledge and a self-awareness of the Collective Failure of all in

    this Field. That’s the truth right there.


    Next one could spend much more time in discussing the oft quoted Dunning-Kruger Effect

    honestly. In how that manifests and relates directly to almost all Climate Scientists, Academia and

    activists for action on AGW/CC. Jim Hansen is one great example of someone

    who has not fallen

    into these traps. He’s rational and logical and refuses to be distracted from the “main game”.

    Unfortunately there are the majority of others who like Dr M Mann as an example only, cannot stop

    referring to *deniers* 24/7 almost every time he writes something or opens his mouth in public.

    Therefore by doing this he and others allow discussions be repeatedly distracted away from the

    *main game* and therefore the communication to become seriously distorted in the public’s mind.

    Individually and collectively this has been repeatedly proven over decades beyond all doubt.

    Any exceptions proves this Rule as correct and valid.

    How come the *denier tribe* and *ideologues* have no problem in convincing people of bullshit and

    blatant irrational lies, while the Scientists have continually failed to share the actual

    facts and truths of AGW/CC is a major global crisis already?

    Have failed to convince everyday people about the simple Facts of the matter and the

    truth based on scientific evidence ….. like WTF is that all about?

    Fools, idiots and liars are smarter than climate scientists, the best academics and the

    entire IPCC system for 30 years?

    How do continue to be so conceited that you show your faces in public and repeated blame everyone

    else for everything and blame yourselves for nothing? Like wtf is that all about?

    And yet anytime someone sticks their head above the parapet to say “hey guys YOU ARE THE PROBLEM HERE!

    You are the one’s responsible here and you are the one’s who have been failing repeatedly now for

    30 years. You are the ones that need to learn something about Human Beings and then get out there and

    go do it properly and as a coherent dedicated team of players all on the same side … stop

    being silly unthinking dills who’s emotional buttons insist on arguing and insulting each other publicly

    24/7/365 days a year.

    You are the one’s who need to learn how to do this successfully – please stop blaming everyone else

    and your dog for your own repeated FAILURES. Like, Doh~!


    However, despite all that, there were many excellent posts that were made by Open Mind posters

    regarding the *Consequences* and *Impacts* on societies of global climate change.

    A fictional ‘Tamino’ introduces the *Consequences 2.0* thread sometime in 2018

    Hello everyone,

    I was reviewing the Consequences thread and got to thinking ‘outside the box’ because I saw

    many good comments being made and some that included excellent climate science references to

    published papers and the like.

    So this is a new thread titled *Consequences 2.0*.

    I am asking the regulars or anyone passing through the Blog to contribute for your ideas and

    if possible scientific references about the consequences and impacts of climate change.

    What I specifically want is to first create a list of all the currently known *impacts* of

    climate change in the climate system and all society as Sub-Headings. And then to compile

    substantive examples of events or changes these under each item that are backed up by some

    degree credible scientific rigor or self-evidently obvious consequences.

    Briefly, there’s the big ticket items such ASIE, glacier melts, heat waves, extended droughts,

    extreme weather events, agricultural impacts, coral reefs destruction and city water supply

    and so on. These issues need to cover either continental, regional or localized areas or

    across industrial / economic scales.

    These will only be issues up to the present day. Next I will create a Consequences 3.0 to

    focus only on future expected more extreme consequences expected between now and 2040, all

    ting being equal and based on the expected projections for energy, fossil fuel and land use


    Then if this works out successfully I will consider a Consequences 4.0 thread to compile any

    expected Consequences and Impacts from 2040 out to 2100 or beyond.

    Let’s see how we go with initially only focusing on the known and proven past and current

    Consequences and Impacts of human caused climate changes.

    With our focus here being producing written and graphic materials that anyone in the public

    could easily understand about where they live and work. With the additional back up of

    scientific references and more detailed explanations for those who may require more supporting


    Lastly, at no time will I allow any reference to agw/cc denialism nor any reference to general

    climate science denial activists and groups be they political, economic or any other type. The

    focus must solely be upon collating good quality materials that can then be published here as

    ‘snap shot summary of the state of play about already known consequences and how they have

    impacted human life and human activities and the environment/biosphere already today.

    I am unsure how this will unfold and I welcome your suggestions on this thread about the

    ‘project’ as a whole. So, let’s give it a go and see what happens. Thanks for getting on


    Your Fictional Tamino



    PS There’s always a Post Script

    “Ha. What crap by Thomas. It’ll never work! He knows nothing and talks too much.

  41. 91
    Thomas says:

    New Zealand’s leading science body has joined an unprecedented Commonwealth-wide push for governments to slash emissions to net zero.

  42. 92
    Thomas says:

    Title – AGW/CC Mitigation – Ten’s of thousands of Climate Scientists et al call for urgent action and Net Zero GHG Emissions

    Global science leaders call for further action on climate change ahead of CHOGM 2018
    March 12, 2018 – PhD student Jessica Kretzmann at her laboratory bench

    The Australian Academy of Science has joined Commonwealth of Nations science leaders from around the globe to call on the Commonwealth Heads of Government to use the best available science to guide action on climate change.

    The call is part of a Consensus Statement on Climate Change launched by 22 national academies and societies of science from around the Commonwealth, ahead of next month’s CHOGM summit in the United Kingdom.

    The consensus statement, which represents the consensus views of tens of thousands of scientists, …. […]

    Secretary of Science Policy at The Australian Academy of Science, Professor David Day, said […] “Even if all the country commitments from the Paris Agreement are met, the best interpretation of the latest data shows that by the end of the century the global climate is likely to be 3°C above pre-industrial levels.

    Read the Consensus Statement on Climate Change

  43. 93
    Thomas says:

    AGW/CC IMPACTS here now, worse tomorrow

    12 MARCH 2018
    The world’s climate is changing, and the impacts are already being observed.

    Changing agricultural conditions, ocean warming and acidification, rising sea levels, and increased frequency and intensity of many extreme weather events are impacting infrastructure, environmental assets and human health
    Impacts such as higher rainfall and increased plant growth will
    be beneficial in some cases. However, others will be detrimental and felt more widely, changing ecosystems and weather patterns, and disrupting industries, economies, food supplies and livelihoods.

    Even if all countries meet their current commitments to greenhouse gas emission reductions, a global temperature rise of more than 3°C above pre-industrial levels is projected by 2100 according to current data.

  44. 94
    Jeremy Grimm says:

    As a sometime lurker on this site I was … disturbed … to see “Forced responses” show up on RealClimate. I was afraid I’d find proposals for spraying aerosols or for deploying Phillip Mirowski’s “space mirrors” as responses to climate change — which I call Climate Disruption to distinguish what is happening from the normal changes in climate that occur without human help. But I was very pleasantly surprised after scanning the discussions I saw on this thread.

    If I might toss in my 2 cents about cap-N-trade and at the same time plug Mirowski’s lecture available on youtube — it’s actually a lecture on Neoliberalism and the Neoliberal response to Climate Disruption, a response that includes cap-N-trade. This is an economics reference but the main subject is climate change.

    Prof. Philip Mirowski keynote for ‘Life and Debt’ conference

    As far as this discussion thread goes, as might be inferred from my nom de plume, I am not happy to admit that I assume Climate Disruption as a given. I don’t anticipate any meaningful action by our present governments. [I believe there could be a major crisis that could change our present system and could lead to real action in mitigating the too soon to come impacts of Climate Disruption … but I am skeptical that the change will lead to any such positive outcome.] So … assume Climate Disruption. What could I do to help some portion of humankind cross beyond the hammer and anvil collapsing our populations along with the populations of whatever species remain when we come to the point of ultimate crisis?

  45. 95
    Thomas says:

    AGW/CC Communication – Goals, Project Planning, and Implementation of strategies

    Barriers to Success Part 1

    This comment follows on from previous comments about “Communication of AGW/CC Impacts, Consequences, and Severe Threats.

    In particular, this relates to the *Sheldon Saga on Open Mind*, the alternative practical suggestion I have posted (if it shows up via Moderation checks) and the impulsive nature of responding to agw/cc deniers on multiple online fora.

    This comment contains one reference about Cognitive Psychology as an example that I believe is worth being aware of for those who suffer from or affected by others personal issues and which may be holding them back for years or even decades.

    And of course, like almost everything else I post here, this is also grounded in the credible proven science and research.

    Title: Why Are You so Impulsive?
    Self-regulation and symptoms of impulsivity

    In a recent issue of the journal Personality and Individual Differences, Idit Shalev (link is external) (Yale University) and Michael Sulkowski (University of Florida) explored the relation between two key aspects of self-regulation with symptoms of impulsivity and compulsivity.

    Of course, both the focus on self-regulation and impulsivity caught my interest in terms of procrastination. As I have written previously, a failure to be able to self regulate can manifest itself as procrastination (or many other problematic behaviors such as compulsive shopping, substance abuse or problematic gambling), and impulsivity is a key correlate of measures of procrastination.

    The more impulsive an individual is, the more likely he or she will procrastinate.

    Shalev and Sulkowski measured two aspects of self-regulation: locomotion and assessment. Locomotion entails initiating and maintaining goal-directed behavior without undue distractions or delay.

    This aspect of self-regulation is about the “getting on with it” or “making something happen.”

    In contrast, assessment is the aspect of self-regulation concerned with evaluating goals and plans in relation to alternatives. It’s about thinking, not acting per se.

    This includes the potential for chronic and continuous preoccupation with the evaluation of the self and comparison to others.

    Two scales have been developed to measure locomotion and assessment. As the authors report, previous research with these scales “found that high scores on the assessment scale are associated with overly critical and comparative thinking, prevalent counterfactual thinking, and REGRET following goal pursuit” (p. 85).

    In contrast, high scores on the locomotion scale have been found to be associated with decisiveness, as well as lack of counterfactual thinking and regret.

    It’s easy to see where this research might lead when you think about impulsivity and compulsivity, as Shalev and Sulkowski did.

    They hypothesized “that assessment would be positively related to obsessive-compulsive, impulsive and anxiety symptoms [and] By contrast, locomotion would be negatively related (or unrelated) to obsessive-compulsive, impulsive or anxiety symptoms” (p. 85).

    Their research
    [end quotes]

    To read more go here:

  46. 96
    Thomas says:

    All About Self-Control

    Self-control separates us from our ancient ancestors and the rest of the animal kingdom, thanks to our large prefrontal cortex. It is the ability to subdue our impulses in order to achieve longer-term goals.

    Rather than responding to immediate impulses, we can plan, evaluate alternative actions, and, often enough, avoid doing things we’ll later regret.

    The ability to exert self-control is typically called willpower. It is what allows us to direct our attention, and it underlies all kinds of achievement.

    There is significant debate in science as to whether or not willpower is a finite resource. Studies demonstrate that exercising willpower makes heavy demands on mental energy, notably on reserves of glucose, the brain’s preferred fuel, creating ego depletion.

    It’s one reason we’re more apt to reach for that chocolate chip cookie when we’re feeling stressed than when we’re feeling on top of the world.

    Recently, scientists have failed to replicate some of the studies underlying the concept of ego depletion, and more research is underway.

    To read more and follow ref links go here:

  47. 97
    Thomas says:

    [re-post of missing post]

    AGW/CC Communicating Severe Threats Consequences Impacts

    Prof Benjamin P. Horton
    Associate Chair (Faculty), Asian School of the Environment – College of Science

    Title: Climate change needs better storytelling to address severe threats

    The World Economic Forum says extreme weather events are the most likely and most severe threat facing humanity in 2018 yet climate change doesn’t get the attention it needs, says one expert from the Earth Observatory of Singapore.

    People are hungry for news about the risk of climate change but boring, technical jargon is alienating them, said the United Nations top environment official Erik Solheim in December 2017.

    People need to be excited and inspired to take action and change their behaviour, he added.

    Yet “the language of environmentalists has been boring, so uninspiring … If we just speak a technical language, with many acronyms and politically-correct phrases, no one will listen,” he said in an interview during a Bonn conference on landscapes.

    Perhaps the consequences of human-driven climate change seem abstract, technical or too far away in the future.

    Do these in turn cause readers to look at climate change news, shrug and then move on to other stories?

    [comment: Yes, they do! Even on climate science blogs]

    There’s a strong case to be made about the importance of communicating the priority we need to place on climate change.

    Recent extreme weather pattern are giving us a glimpse into the catastrophe we might find ourselves in if we fail to act.

    rest of the article here:

  48. 98
    Thomas says:

    94 Jeremy Grimm says:
    11 Mar 2018 at 5:05 PM

    Dear grim Jeremy. Great comment! More please!

    I have been sharing multiple links to people like Mirowski for years with readers here. Those that comment, especially the regulars have repeatedly ignored such contributions. I have also over a long time posted timed links to different parts of that Life and Debt lecture and added more pertinent referenced information but again to no avail.

    As one of the scientist posters here said only yesterday: “You can’t fix stupid!”

    I add: “Even when they are a scientist!” :-)

    This is a good representative comment (by jb) of what people think about my contributions here including many comments that basically mirror your own post now.

    Jeremy you ask:
    “What could I do to help some portion of humankind cross beyond the hammer and anvil collapsing our populations along with the populations of whatever species remain when we come to the point of ultimate crisis?”

    Generally speaking, communicate the truth of it to whoever will listen.

    Coupled with: ignore those who ignore you and/or insult and ridicule you, and communicate clearly anyway.

    Good luck. Again great comment that has lifted the overall tenor and IQ of this whole site in one post. (smile)

  49. 99
    Killian says:

    The scale of this proposal is, in the end, self-refuting — which, again, is part of the point. Still, the fact that the idea has actually been published in a peer reviewed journal gives a sense, perhaps, of where we now find ourselves.

    Ergo, simplicity and sub-300 ppm in 20 to 100 years. Getting to 260 coukd begin stabilization of the ice caps within decades of reaching the threshold. (Previously linked.)

  50. 100
    Ray Ladbury says:

    Thank you for your 400-line rant of imbecilic, uninformed bullshit. For someone who is nominally so interested in psychology, you sure don’t seem to understand much about human motivation.

    Sheldon was not motivated by a desire to understand Earth’s climate. He was motivated by his narcissism, and since that narcissism craves attention, there was no way he was ever going to change his mind. One could also speculate about your own motivations for monopolizing thread after thread with low-information density posts , but frankly, I can’t be arsed to care.

    You seem awfully eager to blame the failure of the reality-based community to the incompetence of scientist. And yet, it is not the job of scientists to communicate scientific findings to the community. It is the job of scientists to foster understanding of their subject matter among fellow experts. Period. There are plenty of of smart journalists and other writers who are quite capable of translating these results into discussions the general public can understand. They’ve been doing so for years. So the problem is not that there are no good treatments of the science for the public. The problem is that the general public doesn’t want to accept responsibility for adopting a sustainable solution that will leave their progeny a livable planet. Humanity may be unique in another respect–as the first species to voluntarily opt for extinction.

Leave a Reply

Comment policy. Please note that if your comment repeats a point you have already made, or is abusive, or is the nth comment you have posted in a very short amount of time, please reflect on the whether you are using your time online to maximum efficiency. Thanks.