Now that the homework is knocked down I've been doing some reading to keep up on the AGW thing. It was easier when it was part of several of my classes but now it's down largely to personal interest. And with that intro, here's a short discussion of a new model presented by the journal Nature.
Sure, but is this a robust model or just an academic exercise?
Good question and the authors have that covered:
Nature wrote:
Self-sustained melting of the permafrost is a robust phenomenon in ESCIMO. It only disappears when man-made emissions are stopped counterfactually as early as in the 1960es. Or by choosing parameter values that do not recreate historical developments. We encourage other model builders to explore these conclusions in their models, and report on their findings.
.
Nature wrote:
Scenario 2 (see Fig. 1, dotted curves) was made to check whether humanity could avoid continuing warming from the self-sustained chain of circumstances of decreasing ocean albedo, increasing water vapour feedback and increasing melting of the permafrost by cutting man-made GHG emissions earlier than in Scenario 1. The answer is no.
Is Scenario 2 better than Scenario 1?
Well yes but...
Given that Scenario 2 is impossible this side of global extinction for humanity, I'd say this puts a rather nice floor to the AGW thing. Things like this paper, but not just this paper, are why I think a +2.5°C year 2100 is the absolute best we can hope for.
This model alone doesn't quite get us to a +2.5°C year 2100 but this model leaves out other considerations (see next paper, or about 100 other papers I've cited up thread over the years), and when you factor in those other processes and models presented in them we have essentially zero chance of getting below a +2.5°C year 2100 without...
You already spent a year convincing me due to computational irreducibility that we can't trust models.
Wolfram’s models are nothing like the climate models used by virtually every major researcher in climate science over the past 40 years.
One thing you overlooked about Wolfram’s approach is the fact that the Third Form of Ignorance:
3) Computational irreducibility (some things... well, some things you just can't calculate however well you can measure them)
Is the basis for the type of modeling that Wolfram does.
Your new homework is to look up the implications for “computational irreducibility” and current climate models (models not used by Wolfram but by the hoard of climate scientists the world over).
Hint: Our global climate is its own shortest description
Also, I already linked to Mathematica and Wolfram Alpha up-thread – in short, I know what Stephen Wolfram is up to.
Found it.
You've previously claimed that the Earth's climate cannot be modeled. But now you are using a model of Earth's climate that suits your needs for the discussions. Except you've already told us that models of Earth's climate cannot be true.
Renewables hit 38% compared to 37% for fossil fuels for the first time. Nuclear accounted for most of the remainder. That means more than 50% of EU electricity generation is now carbon neutral... and the constantly cited 'dangers' of 'renewable intermittency' and 'grid stability' have proved to be easily resolved... even in a large / sprawling and inconsistently designed market like the EU.
Renewables have managed this reversal in market share despite all the entrenched infrastructure and vast financial support behind fossil fuels... the shift will only accelerate as those benefits start to build on their side while dwindling on the other. Renewables cost less... and now they are the dominant force in the market. This is the classic pattern for a market driven technology disruption.
Quark Blast, in response to a post dedicated to trying to help him wrote:
Thanks Boomer!
...
Quark Blast, in 4 long posts right afterwards wrote:
lots of rambling
Thanks Boomer!
______________________
In all seriousness, now that I can mentally write off the rambling: The rest of you might have noticed that I only joined the thread to point out certain fallacies. I don't have the right knowledge to talk much about this and sorting through QB's posts beyond looking for blatant fallacies to call out to bring logic back sorta turned me off from the main content. So, now that I can mentally pay attention to the actual information, could one of you educate me a bit?
For reference, my understanding is only broad strokes: Climate Change = Rising seas and chaotic weather = real bad, rapid action needed because time is running out, carbon-neutral fuel sources needed. Not much about how long we have or how bad things would be other than in broad strokes.
How long do we have until climate change starts? It already has. See the Aussie bushfires, changing rainfall patterns (usually for the worse for a civilisation adapted to the current patterns), melting permafrost and more. Which effects are the most interesting may depend on where you live.
How long until it's too late? Depends entirely on which consequences you want to avoid. There's a pattern among those trying to stop action of declaring some consequence that's about to happen the limit and then calling any action which can't stop climate change before said consequence a waste of time and energy.
I was aware it had already started; weather in my hometown so to speak was already becoming more chaotic, and I heard about some mussels that just died off from warming seas. The can't-stop-X-therefore-waste-of-time thing ... much more about the situation makes sense, now.
Could you elaborate on the big milestones? Based on news and the weather, I'm pretty sure drastically increased storm strength is on the list? As are completely flooded islands.
The 'big picture' issue is "short term" (i.e. decadal) warming. Most species, particularly humans, can adapt to warming spread out over centuries. Warming over the course of mere decades is another matter. That is why you'll constantly hear about 'warming of X degrees by 2100'.
Most estimates indicate that if we can keep warming by 2100 to +1.75°C +/- 0.25°C then most species should be able to adapt to the change and we humans should be able to avoid any significant population decline. That said, we've already passed +1°C and have emitted nearly enough CO2 to make +1.5°C unstoppable w/o some radical new technology (e.g. global CO2 scrubbers). Thus, it is pretty much inevitable that we are going to be somewhere in the uncertainty range around the zone of 'unacceptable losses'.
More intense storms are already here and will continue to worsen. Most of the flooding issues will actually take place over the subsequent centuries (i.e. whatever amount of warming we see by 2100 we will likely see roughly double that amount by the year 3000)... though there are a few extremely low elevation islands (e.g. Tuvalu), cities (e.g. New Orleans), and countries (e.g. Netherlands) for which it is a more immediate concern.
Thus, it is pretty much inevitable that we are going to be somewhere in the uncertainty range around the zone of 'unacceptable losses'.
Or we might very well end up ABOVE that 2 degree C (1.75+0.25) maximum by 2100. The chances of that range from somewhere between "not as low as one would wish" at the most optimistic and "All but guaranteed" at the more pessimistic end of the spectrum.
I think those big milestones will be most visible through changed rainfall patterns. The Indian monsoon weakening or coming late affects a billion or so people, the interiors of North America and Australia drying out would cause grain prices to rise (which seems to cause unrest in the Middle East and North Africa when it happens temporarily), and precipitation arriving via big storms is less useful to humans than when it arrives as lighter rain.
We're currently on track for a lot more than 2 C warming by 2100, 3-5 C is more like it, but renewable energy is now sufficiently cheaper than fossil fuels that so long as politicians don't stand in the way a fair bit of mitigation will occur naturally. If politicians can be persuaded to lead then that gets better.
I like how the meatalhead misconstrues several of my posts, mashes them together inside his inscrutable helmet, and naturally fails to make sense, other than....
The Obvious:
Troll!
.
james014Aura wrote:
In all seriousness, now that I can mentally write off the rambling....
Indeed, that is the common approach of my detractors on these threads. When confronted with cited references they can't comprehend, they simply dismiss it with a personal attack. Good job james014Aura! Now you're part of the club!
:D
.
avr wrote:
How long do we have until climate change starts? It already has. See the Aussie bushfires, changing rainfall patterns (usually for the worse for a civilisation adapted to the current patterns), melting permafrost and more.
Current atmospheric effects are a consequence of the global weather pattern equilibriating with (mostly) CO2 emitted about 30-40 years ago. Just imagine what the baked-in chaos will look like 40 years from now.
.
CB wrote:
Renewables hit 38% compared to 37% for fossil fuels for the first time.
And you note they did that with nuclear in the mix. Go fission!
That stat also hides things like this: Palm Oil!
Which the EU will have to phase out by 2030 according to their own estimates driven by an awakened conscious. Now if they could just figure out the same issue exists for virtually all biofuels (excepting only reclaimed food waste) they might be onto something. Regardless it simply looks like the palm oil biofuel demand simply shifts elsewhere. Instead the EU ought to be looking at ways of fixing the catastrophe of palm oil demand whose fuse they lit. But naw, that won't happen!
:D
.
pauljathome wrote:
Or we might very well end up ABOVE that 2 degree C (1.75+0.25) maximum by 2100. The chances of that range from somewhere between "not as low as one would wish" at the most optimistic and "All but guaranteed" at the more pessimistic end of the spectrum.
I think I've made more than a sufficient scientific case for a floor value of +2.5°C for the year 2100. Just this model here, linked to and discussed briefly on the previous page of this thread, gives us a +2.0°C year 2100.
The authors are not in communication with each other directly but their results are seemingly additive (and hopefully not multiplicative), so if these scientific efforts are anywhere near credible these two alone put us well past a +2.5°C year 2100.
And then there's the paper that uses machine learning to determine how much of the power infrastructure slated for Africa will actually see sucessfull completion. The numbers aren't good. And that's alright when we're estimating the likelihood of coal power plants getting completed but it really puts a crimp in the plan of a carbon neutral 2030. Which is to say, a carbon neutral 2030 is practically impossible and only theoretically hopeful for an entire continent.
I expect the other continents to do better but there are at least another few billion that won't meet the already inadequate standards being achieved in the EU. So where does that leave us?
I ask again:
Why is it that we are still striving for a +1.5°C year 2100?
We've already missed that mark and to make a serious attempt at getting there will only make things worse. Because we've missed it, now is the time to start mitigating procedures where we will assuredly need them. This is the Paris Agreement equivalent of the year 1999 for starting mitigation, the year to start. If we wait 20 years, we'll be screwed for that too.
As for the plan to get us to Net Zero CO2, I ask again:
Any idea what the carbon footprint is of:
- Nearly 500,000 wind turbines
- 80,000,000 rooftop PV systems
- 3 hydroelectric power plants in Alaska
- Other ######### ideas like 8,800 tidal turbines
??? Anyone???
Environmental concerns anyone?
Lawsuits slowing or stopping these efforts anyone?
Remember, those numbers are just for the USA.
I ask because we have approximately 2.8 years of CO2 "budget" left and I don't think we can get all that built in 2.8 years, and 20 years would be pushing it. Now add those one-to-two decades of CO2 emissions with the CO2 emissions wrapped into building all that green infrastructure and we've blown our part for a year 2100 temp well past the +2.5°C mark.
How many million more wind turbines for Europe, Asia, etc.? I ask because this is the kicker:
About 7 billion other people need to put in this level of effort.
With the threat of climate change upon us, it can be hard to be hopeful about the future. But as my friend Hans Rosling, the late global health advocate and educator, wrote in his amazing book Factfulness: “When we have a fact-based worldview, we can see that the world is not as bad as it seems—and we can see what we have to do to keep making it better.” When we have a fact-based view of climate change, we can see that we have some of the things we need to avoid a climate disaster, but not all of them. We can see what stands in the way of deploying the solutions we have and developing the breakthroughs we need. And we can see all the work we must do to overcome those hurdles.
If Bill would look at the mercenary and draconian way in which he suppressed his competition in the OS market through the 1980's and 1990's he would better understand that human beings never on purpose operate from a personally disinterested "fact-based" worldview. No, we look out for our own and #### ###### the future.
{T}oday no country and no continent is getting the job done”. There would need to be a “wholesale transformation of the global economy” if the world is to reach net zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, Kerry said. He said it was necessary for coal to be phased out five times faster than recent trends, the planet’s tree cover to be increased five times faster, renewable energy to be ramped up six times faster and a transition to electric vehicles to be 22 times faster than present.
“We need to all move together, because today very few are on a trajectory of the steep reductions needed to meet even current goals, let alone the targets we need to avert catastrophic damage,”
Finally someone with some swag is taking the Greta Approach to talking about AGW.
Anyone is welcome to elevate the conversation anytime they like, unless you feel I'm "making you" act immature. If the latter case, put me on 'ignore' or grow up. If you want the former case, then interact with any of these recently cited references (helpfully reposted here):
pauljathome wrote:
Or we might very well end up ABOVE that 2 degree C (1.75+0.25) maximum by 2100. The chances of that range from somewhere between "not as low as one would wish" at the most optimistic and "All but guaranteed" at the more pessimistic end of the spectrum.
I think I've made more than a sufficient scientific case for a floor value of +2.5°C for the year 2100. Just this model here, linked to and discussed briefly on the previous page of this thread, gives us a +2.0°C year 2100.
The authors are not in communication with each other directly but their results are seemingly additive (and hopefully not multiplicative), so if these scientific efforts are anywhere near credible these two alone put us well past a +2.5°C year 2100.
And then there's the paper that uses machine learning to determine how much of the power infrastructure slated for Africa will actually see successful completion. The numbers aren't good. And that's alright when we're estimating the likelihood of coal power plants getting completed but it really puts a crimp in the plan of a carbon neutral 2030. Which is to say, a carbon neutral 2030 is practically impossible and only theoretically hopeful for an entire continent.
I expect the other continents to do better but there are at least another few billion that won't meet the already inadequate standards being achieved in the EU. So where does that leave us?
I ask again:
Why is it that we are still striving for a +1.5°C year 2100?
We've already missed that mark and to make a serious attempt at getting there will only make things worse. Because we've missed it, now is the time to start mitigating procedures where we will assuredly need them. This is the Paris Agreement equivalent of the year 1999 for starting mitigation; i.e. now is the year to start mitigation. If we wait 20 years, we'll be screwed for that too.
As for the plan to get us to Net Zero CO2, I ask again:
Any idea what the carbon footprint is of:
- Nearly 500,000 wind turbines
- 80,000,000 rooftop PV systems
- 3 hydroelectric power plants in Alaska
- Other ######### ideas like 8,800 tidal turbines
??? Anyone???
Environmental concerns anyone?
Lawsuits slowing or stopping these efforts anyone?
Remember, those numbers are just for the USA.
By the best estimates we have approximately 2.8 years of CO2 "budget" left and I don't think we can get all that built in 2.8 years, and 20 years would be pushing it. Now add those one-to-two decades of CO2 emissions with the CO2 emissions wrapped into building all that green infrastructure and we've blown our part for a year 2100 temp well past the +2.5°C mark.
How many million more wind turbines for Europe, Asia, etc.?
I ask because this is the kicker:
About 7 billion other people need to put in this level of effort and succeed if we are to hit even a +2.5°C year 2100.
We've already missed that mark and to make a serious attempt at getting there will only make things worse. Because we've missed it, now is the time to start mitigating procedures where we will assuredly need them. This is the Paris Agreement equivalent of the year 1999 for starting mitigation; i.e. now is the year to start mitigation. If we wait 20 years, we'll be screwed for that too.
Anyone is welcome to elevate the conversation anytime they like, unless you feel I'm "making you" act immature. If the latter case, put me on 'ignore' or grow up. If you want the former case, then interact with any of these recently cited references (helpfully reposted here)
So everyones option is to engage in what you want them to engage with or otherwise walk away from the conversation?
You seem, once again, to labor under the delusion that this is somehow YOUR thread and you can choose how people engage with it. It isn't. You didn't post the original 4000+ posts ago, and you aren't a moderator.
Irontruth did engage with the links you posted, by pointing out that this new argument jettisons the previous argument that you spent a year making. Engage with that.
Did your thinking on the issue change? Or did you spend so much energy trying to be right that you missed the baby going out with the bathwater?
That post made me think of the actual OP. The conspiracy theory of explaining away the science hasn't been very prominent in this thread in part because of the prohibition on politics. I'm still amazed this thread is open in some ways, because the politics of this issue is just always underneath the surface and perhaps only survives because it is obliquely referred to.
That said, a "documentary" of sorts came out a few months ago (really, just a well edited youtube video) that I find to be somewhat relevant. The rejection of science and scientists in the climate change debate has always been about enforcing a certain ideology. Several years ago I was sitting in a room having a conversation when one the participants said "You probably believe in all that climate change bullshit too." I of course affirmed it, and he responded, "Man, you can't even measure air." At which point I just excused myself from the room, since I had zero interest in starting the debate from that level. More than one person in the room was the kind of person who flirted with the concept of sovereign citizens.
Anyways, In Search of a Flat Earth is the video. I think if we were to draw a line to what preceded the FE as a cultural movement (which itself got folded into more recent conspiracy theories), there are two antecedents. One is 9/11 trutherism, and the other is climate change denial.
In the very brief time that I've been on this thread, QB has never wavered from the idea that a +1.5 degree year 2100 is impossible, regardless of any attempt to illustrate the opposite. However you've endorsed several folks who suggested that this was no big deal and we really should continue mitigation strategies gradually, over time, while worrying about future consequences only as minor roadblocks to GDP growth.
Now, with these last 4 citations (which, to be honest, we've been asking for so thanks for providing those) you seem to have gone completely around the other way. Are you saying that now we SHOULD begin more strenuous mitigation efforts in earnest?
I won't even PRETEND to understand the science of the citations provided. I've said before that I don't get climate science or really much of anything above math at a HS freshman level. However several of the conclusions suggest there is still a slim hope of mitigating the worst AGW consequences but only if we start now and spend like crazy on young, developing technologies. Isn't that the OPPOSITE of what you've been suggesting all along QB?
As mentioned, anyone is welcome to elevate the conversation anytime they like, unless you feel I'm "making you" act immature. If the latter case, put me on 'ignore' or grow up. If you want the former case, then interact with any of these recently cited references (helpfully reposted just up thread):
Notice how no one took me up on that. Again/per usual. Mark is nominally polite but just as obvious he ignores the posted links. He feigns either ignorance or mental density but I've seen him post here and elsewhere and he's not as dense as he here makes pretense.
That the linked references are to the journal Nature and not Yahoo! News should instill faith in the quality of the science presented and also be seen as proof for the confidence I have in the cognitive faculties of my interlocutors. So get reading. :D
.
Mark Hoover wrote:
In the very brief time that I've been on this thread, QB has never wavered from the idea that a +1.5 degree year 2100 is impossible, regardless of any attempt to illustrate the opposite. However you've endorsed several folks who suggested that this was no big deal and we really should continue mitigation strategies gradually, over time, while worrying about future consequences only as minor roadblocks to GDP growth.
Strictly speaking it's not impossible. I've said that many times.
Practically speaking, this side of....>>>
1) A gross misunderstanding of ocean/atmosphere physics and chemistry shared by all scientists, or
2) Some seemingly vanishingly unlikely but not by definition impossible quirk of the chaos inherit in the system, or
3) The development and industrial scaling of near-miracle tech for CC&S,
>>>....yeah, a +1.5°C year 2100 is impossible.
But see below....
.
Mark Hoover wrote:
Now, with these last 4 citations (which, to be honest, we've been asking for so thanks for providing those)....
There are scores of other links up thread to articles of similar quality. I don't make up my sources but can only cite them as I come across them, one or a few at a time.
Mark Hoover wrote:
....you seem to have gone completely around the other way. Are you saying that now we SHOULD begin more strenuous mitigation efforts in earnest?
What we (global humanity) are doing is heading full force to stop a +1.5°C year 2100. We are spending trillions of dollars to stave off something and the result will be nothing of the sort the rhetoric wants us to believe.
A +2.5°C year 2100 is all but inevitable. Many of the things we will spend money on (e.g. wind turbines) will actually net more CO2 in the atmosphere than if we built solar or even nuclear power generating capacity instead.
Other things look at first pass to be great ideas; stop the Keystone pipeline for instance. How could that be bad for the climate?
Well, the oil that won't go through that pipeline will cause two things to happen:
1) Trains will carry that oil, thus increasing its carbon footprint dramatically.
2) The demand for that oil will cause it to come from somewhere else, say Iraq ( or Venezuela or Gabon or Libya or... you get the idea, no?), and given the economic state of Iraq for the foreseeable future you can #### well bet Iraq will be a little lax in mitigating the environmental impact of their fossil fuel extraction. And by "a little lax" I mean they won't give a ######## ######## #### about it! And so far more CO2 and CH4 will be released than if the fuel had come from Canada.
All that^ and more is madness. Of things in this world that are virtually certain to be wrong, avoiding a +1.5°C year 2100 is top of the list.
Things we can and should do for mitigation ought to already be underway. But if not, yes! start them now because in another 20 years a +2.5°C year 2100 will be as impossible as a +1.5°C year 2100 currently is.
.
Mark Hoover wrote:
I won't even PRETEND to understand the science of the citations provided. I've said before that I don't get climate science or really much of anything above math at a HS freshman level. However several of the conclusions suggest there is still a slim hope of mitigating the worst AGW consequences but only if we start now and spend like crazy on young, developing technologies. Isn't that the OPPOSITE of what you've been suggesting all along QB?
In answer to your question. No.
Spending on fundamental research I'm quite alright with. Bill Gates does this, and I've linked well up thread to his backing industrial solar power research. Elon Musk does this kind of thing too, though he's better known for funding utility-scale battery storage, EVs, and Space X; these latter also for profit.
But there's something you overlook and I've boldified your statement to highlight this. There indeed is a slim hope. For each case. These studies each look in their own little silo and note a consequence not sufficiently considered by the major climate models. So they see a way where things might not turn out that bad for that one narrow thing. But the individual slim hopes aren't directly additive and certainly aren't multiplicative. Maybe we can spend a few trillion dollars and fix this or that consequence. For a slim hope to fix them all would be perhaps $100 trillion or more. Not really a good gamble for a slim hope.
There's a real fat hope that we have a floor value of +2.5°C over the pre-industrial norm in the year 2100. We should begin mitigation based on that.
Smartly.
Stupidly would be to "plant 100,000,000,000 trees" without thinking through the ecological consequences. For one thing it would be far smarter to preserve gravely threatened but still extant forests. Then to rehab extant but degraded forests. Focus efforts initially where there would be other benefits like improving migration corridors. Forests that protect wetlands. Forestry combined with sustainable agriculture. Don't forestate healthy grasslands. And so forth.
The governments of the world traditionally do things like see a need, throw money at it, and then proclaim how awesome it is.
"Projects" in Chicago, anyone?
Fire suppression for 100 years (even though 60 years ago professional foresters were warning about what we now have) in the western USA, anyone?
Vaccinate 24 year old K-6 teachers in preference over 74 year old folks who happen not to live in a group home, anyone?
In short, they do random dumb stuff misusing the scientific basis when they pretend to use the science at all.
As mentioned, anyone is welcome to elevate the conversation anytime they like, unless you feel I'm "making you" act immature. If the latter case, put me on 'ignore' or grow up. If you want the former case, then interact with any of these recently cited references (helpfully reposted just up thread):
Notice how no one took me up on that. Again/per usual.
No one took you up on that because, despite what you believe, you are not in charge of this thread.
Most people are rejecting engaging with those links because those links are yet more intellectually dishonest drivel that you’re vomiting out late at night in a wall of text meant to overwhelm people into conceding to you.
As if by volume of text you must clearly be right.
As mentioned, anyone is welcome to elevate the conversation anytime they like, unless you feel I'm "making you" act immature. If the latter case, put me on 'ignore' or grow up. If you want the former case, then interact with any of these recently cited references (helpfully reposted just up thread):
Notice how no one took me up on that. Again/per usual. Mark is nominally polite but just as obvious he ignores the posted links. He feigns either ignorance or mental density but I've seen him post here and elsewhere and he's not as dense as he here makes pretense.
You're calling for civility, and then accusing Mark of being dishonest.
You know... you can also elevate the conversation any time you like.
No matter what I post people will read into it whatever negative thing they wish, even if they have to parse a single sentence into three parts to make it say three contradictory things. Yes, Mark is well more than smart enough to hold his own with anyone I've seen post to this thread, as I stated in my prior post. That he chooses to play all deferential about it doesn't sway me. I'd prefer he actually interact with the cited papers, though he can do as he likes, as will I.
Review article: Earth's ice imbalance. It's interesting to note that once the albedo effect goes away in the northern ocean the Arctic will realize about 2°C of warming over the current trend and it's already about +6°C over the pre-industrial average.
Expressly stated in another paper - see here -, we can pretty much double the prior modeled rate of global sea level rise if we want to get our best estimate up to a useful scope for mitigation-planning.
As with my two recent citations to the journal Nature*, these latest citations show the trend I've noticed for years now.
Namely, that as we refine modeling, we realize that our older models got it wrong by underestimating (and in some cases wholly ignoring) certain relevant factors. So not only are the IPCC reports based on averaging bad data with good, they are based almost entirely on data insufficient to parse the state of affairs viz-a-viz climate in the year 2100 - the very thing the IPCC reports hope to achieve.
As we all know, these climate effects are not linear in degree of expression and Tipping Elements/Points exaggerate that non-linear character even more so. Thus, to the extent the IPCC is wrong, they seriously underestimate the deleterious conditions which will prevail. Conditions which I have amply demonstrated are already baked in without near-miracle tech and massive industrial scale CC&S.
*Which references were called "yet more intellectually dishonest drivel" by someone here recently. Imagine!?! the journal Nature = "intellectually dishonest drivel". No wonder he can't be bothered to post anything except flaccid invective. :D
* Which references were called "yet more intellectually dishonest drivel" by someone here recently. Imagine!?! the journal Nature = "intellectually dishonest drivel". No wonder he can't be bothered to post anything except flaccid invective.
:D
Your posts are the intellectually dishonest drivel, since you weren’t able to suss that out.
No matter what I post people will read into it whatever negative thing they wish, even if they have to parse a single sentence into three parts to make it say three contradictory things.
No one in this thread can force you to do anything. How you behave is your choice.
For years I've tried asking you direct questions in order to understand your point, and all you've done is dodge or ignore me. Even just a few posts ago I asked you a direct, clear question that you could provide clarity on... and you've dodged. You've refused to even acknowledge it.
On mobile, so it's too difficult to quote, but: first sentences of QB's post.
You are not a victim. Everyone has been inhumanly patient with you while you've done the exact thing you 1, falsely see in their posts, and 2, are complaining about in an extremely hypocritical way.
Stop it, Quark Blast. Turning around and claiming to be a victim after over a year of your intellectual dishonesty is 1, an admission that it's not worth their time to respond to you, and 2, a troll's tactic.
On mobile, so it's too difficult to quote, but: first sentences of QB's post.
You are not a victim. Everyone has been inhumanly patient with you while you've done the exact thing you 1, falsely see in their posts, and 2, are complaining about in an extremely hypocritical way.
Stop it, Quark Blast. Turning around and claiming to be a victim after over a year of your intellectual dishonesty is 1, an admission that it's not worth their time to respond to you, and 2, a troll's tactic.
Victim? Me? Nooooooo! I believe in freedom of speech thanks. Even #### ### ####### speech; or at least the right to spew such.
Nope, I was merely pointing out the obvious:
Literally* every post I make is harangued by certain other posters with patently nothing better to do in life than follow me around the forums and post juvenile barbs in response, even if (maybe especially if! ) my complete sentences have to be perversely dissected in order for them to validate their absurd attempt at a rebuttal.
I find it fascinating that no matter how many top scientific-quality citations I link to, there are others on this forum who can't accept the fact that no less than +2.5°C year 2100 is baked into our current climate; barring development of near-miracle tech and industrial scale CC&S.
I also find it fascinating that most of the others on this forum are want to declare what "we" must do in regards to AGW mitigation, yet they blithely avail themselves of a 'Western' lifestyle and the concomitant enormous carbon footprint that goes along with it. Has anyone even so much as declined next-day/2-day Amazon delivery to limit the CO2 impact of their "needed" purchases? Hmmm..... let us sip our lattes in contemplation of our rank hypocrisy shall we?
The headlong rush we ("we" = global humanity but really mostly the 'Western' nations) are now setting off on will do two things.
1) Change the year 2100 average global temp by ±0.2°C, assuming Tipping Points don't push us well past +0.2°C on the estimated +2.5°C average.
2) Waste at least half of the trillions of dollars being committed to AGW mitigation.
When we fail it'll be said, "We tried our best".
Only that won't be true. Our best would to be starting work on smart mitigation, the kind with actual science behind it, the kind that The Nature Conservancy is working on. But not just the kind the TNC is working on. Fundamental research is very good and in fact necessary for us to have any real hope of meeting the chaos climate change will bring. That and the many other things I've posted up thread, not least is our core issue as a nation - decaying infrastructure.
Rebuilding primary infrastructure at EOL with an eye for optimal efficiency, as opposed to rebuilding perfectly operational infrastructure with an eye for optimal signaling.
I find it fascinating that no matter how many top scientific-quality citations I link to, there are others on this forum who can't accept the fact that no less than +2.5°C year 2100 is baked into our current climate; barring development of near-miracle tech and industrial scale CC&S.
To restate this:
I guarantee a thing will happen... unless something causes it to not happen.
All the green tech initiatives (unreasonably well managed/constructed, of course) that $50 Trillion can buy won't get you a +2.0°C year 2100. Not without industrial scale CC&S. And soon too. If we aren't ramping up on the CC&S by 2030 even a +2.5°C year 2100 will be out of reach.
However, CC&S has all the cachet of nuclear these days but I imagine that zeitgeist will have it's day before much longer, because it is a thing that must be if we want a livable end of century. And Elon says so.
Like controlled fusion power - which has been 30-50 years off since the 1960s despite billions of investment - CC&S has sufficient problems that it may not ever work. Certainly not on the cheap for $100 million, maybe not even for $100 billion.
1. Extracting the CO2. This requires a lot of energy (enough to make power generation from the fossil fuel absurdly uncompetitive even before other costs) or else using a mineral like gypsum to produce calcium carbonate. Moving large amounts of gypsum around also costs, in dollars and CO2 emissions; it's a feedstock not a catalyst here, you need a lot.
2. The waste stream is contaminated. Unless you put even more effort into cleaning it the CO2 or CaCO3 will have other chemicals added which make it not directly usable for other processes - sulfur compounds and a dash of heavy metal ash mostly. Which means you have to dispose of it rather than reusing it, barring a couple of places which have super-clean fuel.
3. Storing the waste. Pumping CO2 back into used natural gas wells is the simplest, but doing so at scale is a problem - once natural gas is extracted the reservoirs it was stored in tend to compact. Any form of storage needs to last a long time, not just 50 years or so.
4. Equipment installation, maintenance and replacement. CC&S equipment costs, running it costs, and it'll need to be maintained and/or replaced every so often. The incentive to cheat is mindboggling, your power plant will actually work better with the equipment out of action and disconnected.
Just because we want it doesn't make it workable. I want alone isn't enough.
Fortunately CC&S is only one option. It's a non-disruptive option which makes it attractive to people troubled by change, but there are other options (renewable energy/energy storage and energy efficiency mostly. Nukes for places who'll be subsidising them anyway).
Right, circa 2109 "known fact":
Effective vaccines take at least 3-5 years to develop, test, produce at scale and distribute.
Direct capture CC&S is not so far off as you think. Fusion might be. Gen. IV nuclear will be emplaced in dozens of countries before end of century I expect - there's just no reason not to that isn't already taken as given by those countries. Then there's Thorium reactors.
As for item, 2. Waste stream contamination. You want contamination, then just look at the developing nation supply line for rare earth mineral mining in support of high capacity batteries. And those processes aren't going to get cleaner as demand increases by orders of magnitude.
"The incentive to cheat is mindboggling", you say. Really? I agree. But somehow that magically doesn't apply to Trillions of Dollars thrown at a half-baked GND? :D
This whole situation has "####### ####" written all over it! When decisions are made from emotion (or greed/power) and not from science you get what we have right in front of us - AGW and a virtually guaranteed +2.5°C year 2100.
Just one small stupid example:
Sure you can close down the Keystone but the demand is still there, so the same amount of oil and gas will come from somewhere else. In Russia oil production typically emits ~42% more GHG than North American processes. Places like Gabon, Libya or Venezuela don't even know what "environmental protection" is so I expect their numbers to be at least as bad a Russia's. Thus by shutting down Keystone we've guaranteed markedly increased CO2 and CH4 emissions and haven't furthered the "green revolution" by a measurable second.
Thorium reactors are, um, not ready for use yet. We'll see whether the Chinese ones work reliably once they're up and running. While some countries have non-commercial reasons for nuclear power (weapons which thorium can't help with, also nukes are easier for a government to control than renewables in general), nukes can't compete on price and may not be a major part of the picture long-term. It'll be nice if we can relieve some pressure with them but don't count on it.
Pretending that demand for oil and gas is inflexible and not subject to price or supply pressures is odd. Demand is notably flexible over the short term and can be influenced by decisions on what to build or tax over the long term. I suspect you're listening to people who are using motivated reasoning there QB.
It's certainly possible to purify flue CO2 and use it commercially. It's not terribly economic - metals for batteries are a lot more valuable per tonne and can take a lot more processing before they stop being economic.
When cheating can be disguised as or come about from delaying maintenance it's just too easy. There are ways of checking but they're yet another expense on CC&S. All the incentives are pointing in the wrong way there. Running a wind farm more efficiently leads to better profits, running a CC&S system more efficiently leads to lower profits.
Using renewables a lot is our way out of the bind. It changes the world more than the promoters of CC&S like, but it's the best way we've got.
Just one small stupid example:
Sure you can close down the Keystone but the demand is still there, so the same amount of oil and gas will come from somewhere else. In Russia oil production typically emits ~42% more GHG than North American processes. Places like Gabon, Libya or Venezuela don't even know what "environmental protection" is so I expect their numbers to be at least as bad a Russia's. Thus by shutting down Keystone we've guaranteed markedly increased CO2 and CH4 emissions and haven't furthered the "green revolution" by a measurable second.
Go Big Green!
:D
Except we can't work on reducing oil supply/usage without shutting down the keystone pipeline. What you're talking about is a possible short term (2-10 years) increase versus the process of a long term decrease. I don't think the short term increase is even guaranteed. You would first have to demonstrate that the Keystone pipeline and Libya are direct competitors.
We can't solve the problem if we don't start solving the problem. In a previous post, you indicated you are in favor of immediate action. This is an immediate action that starts us on the path to solving the problem.
Reducing the supply from the Keystone pipeline reduces the supply, which pushes prices up. Pushing the price of oil and NG up further increases the incentives to switch to non-oil/NG sources of energy.
Thorium reactors are, um, not ready for use yet. We'll see whether the Chinese ones work reliably once they're up and running. While some countries have non-commercial reasons for nuclear power (weapons which thorium can't help with, also nukes are easier for a government to control than renewables in general), nukes can't compete on price and may not be a major part of the picture long-term. It'll be nice if we can relieve some pressure with them but don't count on it.
Pretending that demand for oil and gas is inflexible and not subject to price or supply pressures is odd. Demand is notably flexible over the short term and can be influenced by decisions on what to build or tax over the long term. I suspect you're listening to people who are using motivated reasoning there QB.
It's certainly possible to purify flue CO2 and use it commercially. It's not terribly economic - metals for batteries are a lot more valuable per tonne and can take a lot more processing before they stop being economic.
When cheating can be disguised as or come about from delaying maintenance it's just too easy. There are ways of checking but they're yet another expense on CC&S. All the incentives are pointing in the wrong way there. Running a wind farm more efficiently leads to better profits, running a CC&S system more efficiently leads to lower profits.
Using renewables a lot is our way out of the bind. It changes the world more than the promoters of CC&S like, but it's the best way we've got.
CC&S doesn't only apply to a 'smokestack' and your answers seem to imply that they do. Regardless of how little you favor that option it is the only way to get anywhere close to the Paris Agreement target temperature.
Also I find your concern about "cheating" in regards to CC&S more than a little disingenuous. Tell me, is there no incentive for cheating with trillions being thrown at GND initiatives? Have you factored that into your calculus? Somehow I doubt it.
As for demand for oil and its flexibility:
There are many countries whose economies depend hugely on fossil fuel. These are countries that have no societal grounding in the implicit environmentalism we have from such works as Walden, My First Summer in the Sierra, Silent Spring, or The Uninhabitable Earth.
At the rate we (global humanity) have been emitting CO2 over the past decade we have a mere 2.8 years* of "CO2 Budget" left to spend. The more disruptive the transition is to renewable power the longer it will take and the more CO2 and CH4 will be emitted. If these oil and gas exporting countries are scrambling to make ends meet, they are not going to give a ####### about (e.g.) capping old wells to secure CH4 leaks.
A short term increase to affect a long term decrease only works if CC&S is also a thing. Assuming of course that something like a successful Paris Agreement is the result you want. But then if just the two most recent Nature articles I linked to above are correct, we've already sailed past hope of anything less than a +2.5°C year 2100. Which leaves us with brilliant minds like Elon Musk staking a serious claim in CC&S.
* And if China keeps up it's current post-COVID rate of industrial production the global "budget" will be spent before the end of 2022. Sooner if the 'West' joins in as we are certain to do in order to shake the Coronavirus induced recession.... Although there are new strains of the Coronavirus coming out of South Africa, England, Brazil and L.A., so we may yet see a resetting of the CO2 clock from the continued disruption. More likely though in that case - global humanity will say #### ## to the at-risk population and go on about our business perpetually wearing masks, etc.
1) Reduce consumption of animal products - meat and dairy. According to a New York Times report, meat and dairy account for approximately 14.5% of the world’s greenhouse gas every year — the same amount as the combined emissions from all the cars, trucks, airplanes and ships in the world today.
2) Eat locally and seasonally. No more ######## bananas people! Ever! Unless you live in a tropical zone.
3) Unplug and shut off devices when not in use. “On average, 10% to 15% of the home's electric bill comes from something called a phantom electricity. This is when you have something plugged in and charging, but it's not actually charging."
4) Reduce flying and driving. “When it comes to looking at electric and hybrid vehicles, unless you have a very, very high emitting vehicle, one of the best things you can do is keep what you already have, because of course, a lot of emissions are made in the creation of an item.”
5) Buy less. The average American throws out 4.4 lbs. of trash a day. Do you really need it? Is it really necessary? Can something else make do? Do you need to own it?
6) Buy used.... er, I mean, buy "second hand".
7) Composting. According to Kellogg, half of household waste can be composted. So pooping in your backyard isn't crazy? Who knew!
Given that the 'Western' economies (now including China) pretty much thrive on not doing items 2 through 6, I'd say this is not a particlularly good list. I mean, in the absctract... OK. But in this world, the one that actually exists? Yeah no, not happening.
1) Reduce consumption of animal products - meat and dairy. According to a New York Times report, meat and dairy account for approximately 14.5% of the world’s greenhouse gas every year — the same amount as the combined emissions from all the cars, trucks, airplanes and ships in the world today.
2) Eat locally and seasonally. No more ######## bananas people! Ever! Unless you live in a tropical zone.
3) Unplug and shut off devices when not in use. “On average, 10% to 15% of the home's electric bill comes from something called a phantom electricity. This is when you have something plugged in and charging, but it's not actually charging."
4) Reduce flying and driving. “When it comes to looking at electric and hybrid vehicles, unless you have a very, very high emitting vehicle, one of the best things you can do is keep what you already have, because of course, a lot of emissions are made in the creation of an item.”
5) Buy less. The average American throws out 4.4 lbs. of trash a day. Do you really need it? Is it really necessary? Can something else make do? Do you need to own it?
6) Buy used.... er, I mean, buy "second hand".
7) Composting. According to Kellogg, half of household waste can be composted. So pooping in your backyard isn't crazy? Who knew!
Given that the 'Western' economies (now including China) pretty much thrive on not doing items 2 through 6, I'd say this is not a particlularly good list. I mean, in the absctract... OK. But in this world, the one that actually exists? Yeah no, not happening.
CC&S doesn't only apply to a 'smokestack' and your answers seem to imply that they do.
Really? Are you talking about forestry (not really CC&S as you're describing it), burying biochar (unproven for this purpose), the opium-pipe dream of drawing CO2 directly from the atmosphere in some sort of industrial facility (put down the pipe if so, it's no good for you QB), or catching natural gas that'd otherwise be flared off (not CC&S but I can see how confusion might arise) or what? Remember I'm not from inside the echo chamber you're getting info from and don't share its assumptions. I don't actually know what you mean here.
Quote:
Regardless of how little you favor that option it is the only way to get anywhere close to the Paris Agreement target temperature.
I don't think that it is a way of getting there. I'm not sure there is one. Mitigating the CO2 rise via methods that seem likely to work is worthwhile anyway.
Quote:
Also I find your concern about "cheating" in regards to CC&S more than a little disingenuous. Tell me, is there no incentive for cheating with trillions being thrown at GND initiatives? Have you factored that into your calculus? Somehow I doubt it.
GND? Anyway, I've pointed out how CC&S lends itself naturally to cheating, you've mentioned nothing but your feelings.
Quote:
As for demand for oil...
The quote system breaks here. Anyway, fearmongering about disruption should be beneath you, and this is the third time recently you've posted bootlicking aimed at billionaires. I wonder if you're reading propaganda aimed at them?
QB - you're giving me way too much credit. I just took an hour just trying to read the Earth's ice imbalance review you cited. What is the Albedo effect? What are situ measurements? Is it good science to only use satellite readings, and have those readings only be about 45 years old, to extrapolate all the patterns of changes to the ice sheet throughout history? What are grounded ice sheets, are those attached to the land somehow? Isn't there a difference between south pole ice and north pole ice? Why does this paper make the distinction between evaporation, melt runoff, wind erosion and so forth, when the reality is it's all part of the same "water cycle" right? What's "buttressing?" Is it good science to use all the GIOMAS and PIOMAS data over a few months and estimate ice sheet density loss over years?
The only thing I think I really got is that this paper is concluding that sea ice is melting due to global warming, and in turn, this melt is contributing to the rise in sea levels and increased C02 being released into the atmosphere. This extra C02, as pointed out in a previous citation you posted, will likely continue warming trends even after humans hit net 0 emissions.
So... is that right? Scientifically, is that accurate? I have NO idea! Quarkinator, you'll also notice I'm not engaging with the folks that regard your citations and conclusions as "intellectually dishonest." How the HECK would I know folks? I don't even know if the paper I just read is good science, what half the terms are, or why it's telling me something I already knew - sea levels are rising because the ice is melting. People have been delivering that dumbed down part of the conclusions since the 80's.
So no Blast-o-butter, I cannot keep up with the science in the citations you post intelligently enough to engage with them. If I said "you're wrong" about your conclusions regarding warming trends after the albedo goes away, I would have absolutely no data to back up my statement. I don't even know what albedo is, why its important, or what should normally happen when it ends.
Those are the kinds of things I actually came into this thread to try and learn
Mark, flaccid invective aside, you can see among prior posts by others that, with certainty, your understanding matches or exceeds that of the other active participants in this thread. Take for instance this, "The quote system breaks here". Allowing that as an acceptable excuse (Who after all could possibly be expected to work around the "failure" of the quote system on these threads? /<sarcasm>), you shouldn't have any trouble working your way to the 'top of the class' with some minimal homework on your part. If jargon is tripping you up I uncritically recommend using an Internet search engine to illuminate those for yourself*.
The Coronavirus situation illustrates rather well how it is governments do such a ##### job at managing large complex issues. The clear successes all involved private companies as the primary driver with the government playing a distant secondary roll (really just government funding guarantees). The areas of greatest failure are all government controlled - vaccine distribution (with the EU about 3x worse than the USA!); K-6 distance "education" (the mayor of Chicago dropped some stats that show just how bad it is - pre-K enrollment down >30% with certain groups exceeding 40% absenteeism for all elementary grades); tracking virus variants in the breech instead of proactively testing for them (a project with a pittance of a budget all things considered).
Other useless factoids like the fact that a mere 100 fossil fuel entities are involved in over 2/3rds of the global GHG is rather beside the point, unless one has been living 'off-grid' one's whole life. We would all be speaking German (or Russian) if 'Western' economic might hadn't opposed certain tyrannical regimes over the last century and companies like Exxon and Saudi Aramco weren't doing their part. In addition how many billion people have been brought out of poverty during that time? Hasn't fossil fuel been at the heart of the economic engine that whole time?
I'll answer one of your questions though, "Why does this paper make the distinction between evaporation, melt runoff, wind erosion and so forth, when the reality is it's all part of the same "water cycle" right?"
If one is going to effectively model a complex system one needs to model all the identifiable parts. Leaving out significant parts of the system is exactly what prompted many of the various papers I've cited on this thread, including the two most recent ones from the journal Nature.
And AGW is the largest and most complex issue that humanity has ever faced. Why leave out critical elements in the analysis? Because time? cost? expertise? Well OK then but be prepared for asinine results when scoping out the problem and attendant solutions when taking that approach.
If you have time, watch the documentary produced by Michael Moore - Planet of the Humans. I have a few issues with it but you can't deny that he's fairly documented a metric #### ton of dog-and-pony propo around "green" tech; especially biofuel power generation and wind power.
*Incredibly one person was having difficulty with GND as related to AGW/climate change - you know, the topic of this thread - so if you can do better than that, I think you're golden! :D
Go ahead and try it out. See what happens when you do a search on "GND climate change" and see if the first result isn't bang on!
Albedo is a measurement of the amount of sunlight which reflects back into space rather than warming the surface. Clouds and ice caps tend to increase the planet's overall albedo, while open oceans and bare land tend to decrease it. This is the same effect seen with sunlight hitting and mostly reflecting off a white sidewalk without warming it, while adjacent black asphalt absorbs more of the light and gets hotter... just on a planetary scale.
The 'albedo effect' is the ice-albedo feedback loop... as the planet gets warmer more and more of the ice covering it melts... which decreases the planetary albedo and thus in turn leads to even MORE warming. This is the second largest 'feedback' effect enhancing the effects of the atmospheric CO2 warming forcing.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
What are situ measurements?
In situ just means 'on site'... measurements taken directly at a location rather than by radar, satellite, or some other remote technology.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
Is it good science to only use satellite readings, and have those readings only be about 45 years old, to extrapolate all the patterns of changes to the ice sheet throughout history?
Yes and no. Obviously, it would be better to have satellite data stretching back for centuries... but as satellites didn't exist... we don't. Should we therefore NOT use the most detailed and accurate readings that we DO have? Also, estimates of ice sheet changes throughout history rely on a lot more than just satellite readings. Indeed, the best indicators for that particular type of data over the past half million years or so are ice cores.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
What are grounded ice sheets, are those attached to the land somehow?
The portion of an ice sheet which extends into the ocean, but is still touching the ground at the bottom of the water is 'grounded'... the portion where there is water between the bottom of the ice sheet and the bottom of the ocean is 'ungrounded' and thus effectively floating.
When floating ice melts it does not significantly change sea level due to Archimedes principle... the ice was already displacing a mass of water equal to its mass. Thus, whether the mass is in the form of ice or water doesn't matter... the total volume occupied by the water is the same. Grounded ice, on the other hand, is being supported by land rather than floating... and thus when it melts it contributes to sea level rise.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
Isn't there a difference between south pole ice and north pole ice?
Ice is ice, but most of the ice at the north pole is a few meters thick and floating on the ocean, while most of the ice at the south pole is a few MILES thick and sitting on top of land.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
Why does this paper make the distinction between evaporation, melt runoff, wind erosion and so forth, when the reality is it's all part of the same "water cycle" right?
Yes, but our ability to measure and model each of these factors accurately varies. In recent years we've been learning a great deal about 'bottom melt'... the melting rates of the underside of ice sheets, particularly when they extend into the ocean and become ungrounded.
I'd say that the authors are just letting people know that they covered all their bases and considered the latest research on all of those factors. The entire paper is basically a 'state of the science' summary of those issues.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
What's "buttressing?"
Ice sheets 'flow' very slowly downhill to the oceans... ice that formed hundreds of miles inland eventually reaches the ocean and breaks off ('calves') or melts. The term 'buttressing' refers to the greater friction where an ice sheet is touching land. If an ice sheet becomes ungrounded it loses this 'buttressing' effect and begins to flow more 'swiftly' (though still really really slow) into the ocean... causing the rate of ice loss to increase.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
Is it good science to use all the GIOMAS vand PIOMAS data over a few months and estimate ice sheet density loss over years?
Those sources actually go back to the start of the satellite era and thus are very good sources for ice in recent decades.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
The only thing I think I really got is that this paper is concluding that sea ice is melting due to global warming, and in turn, this melt is contributing to the rise in sea levels and increased C02 being released into the atmosphere. This extra C02, as pointed out in a previous citation you posted, will likely continue warming trends even after humans hit net 0 emissions.
Not exactly. Melting ice doesn't impact CO2 emissions much at all. Indeed, by releasing cold water into the oceans it actually increases the amount of CO2 which the oceans take OUT of the atmosphere.
Where melting ice DOES contribute to continued warming is primarily with the ice-albedo feedback as discussed earlier.
...and yes, warming will continue for thousands of years after humans hit net 0 emissions... just at a vastly slower rate as all of the natural feedback effects play out. Again, Antarctica is covered in ice which is MILES thick... melting a little off the top doesn't change the albedo at all. It would take thousands of years for all of that ice to melt, and thus we'll be seeing slow albedo changes for a long long time to come.
As to QB, more often that not the papers he cites do not say what he claims they do. For example, "Expressly stated in another paper - see here -, we can pretty much double the prior modeled rate of global sea level rise if we want to get our best estimate up to a useful scope for mitigation-planning."
Yet the paper in question does NOT 'expressly state' that. It doesn't even implicitly state that. QB tends to see what he wants to see rather than what is actually there.
Thanks to both the B folks (QB, CBD) for helping to educate me and I will continue copious amounts of Google searches to try and keep up!
There's one thing I can speak to, on a personal level, and that's Quarky's comment that the vaccine rollout illustrates how government is bad at big, complex issues.
Spoiler:
The global megacorp I work for has been involved in the rollout. Under the previous administration we were tapped for our distribution chain to help. However, our involvement was basically a showpiece and we didn't really do anything/ship a single vial until early January.
Per my own perception this was in large part due to the fact that there was no actual plan for our company's involvement prior to Jan. While SOME government agents and agencies do a poor job, other agents and agencies began to step up to the plate.
Currently our trucks are changing routes and running shipments out at increasing rates as we've been "activated" by the current administration. It will take some time but I am starting to see with my own eyes the activity underway.
I'm not trying to make this political, hence the spoiler but I will say that SOME big, complex issues have collapsed under government control. Others have gotten done and, RARELY, some have actually flourished as folks have pointed out upthread. Saying all government fails at all complex issues is an absolute, and as we know...
Only the Sith deal in absolutes.
Corporations are not any better. Corporations and economies are motivated by profit - they will make moves to continue to drive profits. Fossil fuels have been at the forefront of economic growth for the past century b/c alternatives either didn't exist or weren't profitable.
As The Son of Dunker keeps pointing out, several sectors of the alternative energy markets are becoming profitable. With no irony at all, this is where many companies are shifting to. They're not researching better battery arrays and grid cables because they care about the environment; that's where the MONEY is when Big Coal finally gasps it's last.
110 years ago, a sewing company ignored the safety of their workers and several burned to death in a terrible fire. More recently, a meat production company ignored the safety of their workers and several of them got sick with a deadly pandemic virus.
My point is: companies gonna Company.
I don't know that I'm going to no. 2 in a bucket in the backyard, but I've already taken some of the suggestions you've put out here at the "personal" level for trying to do right by the environment. Fact is though, not everyone is going to. There's no "perfect" way to motivate every person on earth to work towards a common solution to this threat.
So... we turn to governments and corporations to herd people like cats into participating in the solution.
Correction, I've never said anything like, "the vaccine rollout illustrates how government is bad at big, complex issues.". I said, "governments can't do large problems well and timely".
The current pandemic is certainly a big complex problem and we (global humanity) have decidedly failed on a timely approach despite the unprecedented gift of several effective vaccines inside a year. But the current pandemic is only illustrative of the point I'm making regarding AGW.
For with AGW the problem is far, far worse. As outlined previously up thread:
We have approximately 2.8 years of CO2 "budget" left to meet the better end of the Paris Agreement and I don't think we can get all the green infrastructure needed built in 2.8 years, and even allowing 20 years would be pushing it. Now add those two decades of CO2 emissions to the CO2 emissions wrapped into building all that green infrastructure and we've blown well past the +2.5°C mark for the year 2100.
Now for the kicker:
About 7 billion other people need to put in this level of effort as well.
No problem, right? Barely an inconvenience.
:D
Or do you think global humanity will pull this one off? Based on what?
Mark wrote:
There's no "perfect" way to motivate every person on earth to work towards a common solution to this threat.
So... we turn to governments and corporations to herd people like cats into participating in the solution.
As to QB, more often that not the papers he cites do not say what he claims they do. For example, "Expressly stated in another paper - see here -, we can pretty much double the prior modeled rate of global sea level rise if we want to get our best estimate up to a useful scope for mitigation-planning."
Yet the paper in question does NOT 'expressly state' that. It doesn't even implicitly state that. QB tends to see what he wants to see rather than what is actually there.
That attack is so lame I'll just let the lead author's institutional publication put the SmackDown CBs gross error:
These findings suggest that climate models may underestimate glacial ice loss by at least a factor of two if they don’t account for undercutting by a warm ocean.
Or, if you prefer, from the paper itself:
ScienceMag wrote:
First, when glaciers are perturbed at their terminus by increased undercutting rates, the glaciers speed up and thin, which is conducive to more retreat if the ice fronts are close to floatation and not calving on a ridge. This feedback cannot be captured by a linear approximation of retreat based on regional ocean forcing as prescribed in the most recent Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison Project (ISMIP6). For example, glaciers continued to retreat in SE Greenland after 2010, even as TF values returned to lower values (Fig. 1). Second, model projections used to forecast sea-level rise from the Greenland Ice Sheet do not include realistic ice-ocean interactions because they lack the novel bathymetric and ocean TF details required to reproduce the rates of undercutting that force the retreat. If these models do not incorporate a forced retreat by undercutting, then they will produce retreat rates that are too low compared to observations. In the absence of realistic ocean TF and ensuing feedbacks, ice sheet numerical models will therefore underestimate the mass loss of Greenland glaciers. As warmer waters controlled more than half of the mass removal at calving margins in our ice sheet wide analysis and ocean TF is expected to increase in the coming decades, current numerical models may underestimate future mass losses by at least a factor of 2.
Building the level of renewable generation and storage necessary to reach the state’s goals would drive up costs exponentially, from $49 per megawatt-hour of generation at 50 percent to $1,612 at 100 percent.
And that's assuming lithium-ion batteries will cost roughly a third what they do now <meaning July 2018, and 1/3 is the projected decrease BTW>.
.
Here is a recent non-####### debate between Jeff Nesbit and Bjorn Lomborg on whether humanity should aim for a “carbon neutral” 2040.
Some of the more salient points were given at 45:00-43:30+-,
+-45:00-46:00,
50:00-50:50,
52:45-56:00,
1:12:30-1:13:58,
1:15:00-1:17:15
but the entire thing is worth watching.
I find it amusing that Jeff Nesbit’s argument boils down to ‘a carbon neutral economy is inevitable’ so let’s go all in. Why not? For one, I’d like to have a likely middle class living waiting for me in 2050 and not the poverty of paying back the trillions of dollars of debt a carbon neutral 2040 would give us. And if it’s already screaming forward at an inevitable pace, well, let it and not tax my future to death thanks.
Previously you seemed to be siding with Bjorn Lomborg.
Are you instead saying that this is a big deal? Since your exasperation in the above post (not the one I'm quoting, but the one directly above) would seem to suggest that you think it is a dire problem that requires a great deal of effort to solve.
I'm confused, because these two stances are mutually exclusive.
Either the problem is large and requires a lot of resources to solve... or....
The problem is small and does not necessitate the usage of a lot of resources to solve.
I wrote: "As to QB, more often that not the papers he cites do not say what he claims they do."
QB then decided that he was obligated to prove my point.
He had previously written: "Expressly stated in another paper - see here -, we can pretty much double the prior modeled rate of global sea level rise if we want to get our best estimate up to a useful scope for mitigation-planning."
...and to 'prove' this 'correct' he then cited the actual text: "These findings suggest that climate models may underestimate glacial ice loss by at least a factor of two if they don’t account for undercutting by a warm ocean."
and: "As warmer waters controlled more than half of the mass removal at calving margins in our ice sheet wide analysis and ocean TF is expected to increase in the coming decades, current numerical models may underestimate future mass losses by at least a factor of 2."
Even if we set aside the fact that many climate models already DO include some factor for ice sheet bottom melt, the primary problem is simply that the rate of "global sea level rise" which QB claimed the paper said would double is NOT the same thing as the rate of "glacial ice loss" / "future mass losses" which it actually stated.
In addition to ice losses from other sources (e.g. mountain glaciers) than the ice sheets, sea level rise is also caused by other factors, including; thermal expansion (i.e. warmer water takes up a larger volume), slower currents (i.e. as ice melts the salt concentration of the oceans decreases and currents move more slowly... allowing runoff water to 'build up' along the coasts more), and land shrinkage (e.g. greater consumption and evaporation of ground water causes the land over them to subside and thus increases relative sea level).
Doubling the rate of mass loss from ice sheets WOULD NOT double the rate of sea level rise because it is not the only factor. It isn't even the largest. Since the industrial revolution, sea levels have risen more from thermal expansion and mountain glacier melt than they have from ice sheet melt. That is changing as ice sheet melt has increased in recent decades, but doubling just one factor contributing to sea level rise DOES NOT double TOTAL sea level rise.
