Whilst the EU and the UK deserve praise for going bold and going early on climate pledges, the most impressive climate leadership has come from vulnerable countries like Rwanda and Jamaica who have put forward plans that deserve both emulation and investment.
Major economies need to ramp up their ambition -starting with the US, where expectations are high for an emissions and finance pledge to make up for lost time. Others like Japan, Canada, Korea, New Zealand and China, have committed to net zero goals by mid-century, but we are still missing their promised new near-term plans to get there.
Similarly, it’s not enough for Australia’s Prime Minister to repackage a plan that was already inadequate five years ago. The good news is there is still time for radical improvement if Australia wants to keep pace with their major allies and trading partners.
If member nations are to achieve the Paris Agreement target of limiting global temperature rise above preindustrial levels by 2°C—ideally 1.5°C—by 2100, they must redouble efforts and submit stronger, more ambitious goals to reduce carbon emissions, according to the report. The document tabulates the national climate action plans [NDCs], of each member nation. The NDCs, which were due at the end of 2020, are essentially blueprints laying out emission reduction targets for each country along with plans detailing how they will meet those stated goals.
So far, the plans {are} all coming up short. The report shows that while the majority of the 75 nations that have submitted NDCs increased their individual commitments, their combined impact puts them on a path to achieve only a 1% reduction in global emissions by 2030, compared to the 45% reduction needed to hit the 1.5°C temperature goal.
I can't figure out why anyone is still calling for the +1.5°C target. But that's clearly the narrative/talking-point that virtually everyone has agreed to; if only tacitly.
What was the reduction we saw in 2020 due to the Coronavirus? Anyone? We were just talking about it. I know the 'official numbers' aren't in yet but from proxies we can say with the exception of a few months there was no effective reduction viz-a-viz a +1.5°C year 2100. In fact, total CO2 in the atmosphere has increased at the same pace it had for the previous 15 years or so.
In the thick of the pandemic panic we were reducing at nearly 7% but ended up with something immeasurable. So if we have 9 years (no, I'm not talking months but years) to reduce by 45% that means we need to get cracking at a 5% reduction this year but we're obviously not on that path. So let's get going next year. Okay, but it'll take at least two years to ramp up a 'green' build out and start to get it online so that it's genuinely making a difference as opposed to the promise of a difference. Which means our actual reduction needs to be about 7.5%/year once we've really committed.
Now that means every nation (but really just roughly the 20-30 worst polluters, for now) will have to act like the world is in the midst of a pandemic panic for over half a decade to get on track. Or, to push the metaphor a little further, we have to 'pandemic panic' for six or so years just to get on the starting line. Building that much infrastructure in so short a time has the additional drawback of pretty much blowing the remaining CO2 "budget".
So that means, since we've blown the "budget", there is 0.0% chance of hitting the +1.5°C year 2100 target.
Darn! All that work for nothing!
:D
"You're laughing?" you say? I'm not one to blubber and that's the only sane alternative.
Okay then, what if we aim for a +2.0°C year 2100?
I know, I know, the IPCC and the Paris Agreement says we need to aim for less than +2.0°C but I like numbers divisible by 0.5 with no remainder. So then, can we get on track for that? At present I'd say we can if we start ramping up green tech at about 10x the rate as we are at present and if we immediately stop investing in fossil sources.
Right now we're doing neither so let me be ridiculously optimistic and stick with my +2.5°C year 2100 and let's hope there aren't any serious Tipping Elements between here and there.
As a final conclusion, the adopted scenario of a COVID-19-related global emissions reduction of −8% in 2020 assumed in this paper may be considered as unprecedented and large. However, the emission reductions of approximately this magnitude have to be continued by policy measures year-on-year over the next decades, independently of COVID-19, in order to keep global warming below 1.5 °C [1]. Obviously, this cannot be attained by COVID-19-like lockdown restrictions; rather, fundamental energy technology changes are required.
In a news release to be read along side the published paper the co-author Ralf Sussmann said, "To reduce CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in the long run, restrictions imposed during the corona pandemic would have to be continued for decades. But even this would be far from being sufficient."
He continued, "The restrictions imposed during the corona crisis, however, are far from being sufficient. They have just resulted in a one-time reduction by eight percent. To reach zero emissions in the coming decades, cumulative reductions of the same magnitude would be required every year, i.e. 16 percent in 2021, 24 percent in 2022, and so on.”
“For this, political measures have to be taken to directly initiate fundamental technological changes in the energy and transport sectors."
Hmmm.... sounds like someone else is calling for near-miracle tech to save the day.
I would say "BOOM!" here but that just doesn't even begin to express the degree if winning I'm experiencing right now. But trust me, the feeling is freaking awesome!
:D
I would say "BOOM!" here but that just doesn't even begin to express the degree if winning I'm experiencing right now. But trust me, the feeling is freaking awesome!
:D
But not the degree of checking to make sure the sentence reads correct.
I would say "BOOM!" here but that just doesn't even begin to express the degree if winning I'm experiencing right now. But trust me, the feeling is freaking awesome!
:D
But not the degree of checking to make sure the sentence reads correct.
"If winning" indeed.
BOOM!
Excellent! This says two things (at least):
1) You have nothing substantive to say on the topic at hand, are stymied and frustrated in your inability to meaningfully contribute, and so resort to lashing out because that's really just who you are*.
Actually there's another error in that post that I figured someone smart would pounce on.... and then I remembered who my detractors are.
:D
Back to the OP(kinda):
I seems that Hershey is going all green. Of course there are nowhere near enough details given in this article, nor the actual announcement by the company, to judge for certain if this is all signal and no substance.
However there is good circumstantial evidence that it's mostly signal. The article mentions, "...the company will prioritize achieving independent verification of compliance with this policy for the commodities in its supply chain that present the greatest risk of contributing to deforestation: cocoa, palm oil, pulp & paper (packaging), and soy."
Palm oil is gonna be a gimmie since with the EU (eventually) moving away from palm oil as biomass fuel there won't be much need to deforest the tropics further for Hershey's sake. It would be far more substantive if they committed to reforestation of palm plantations. But that would be doing something that might impact the company's bottom line, so that won't be happening.
As for some of the other items, like cocoa, I say, "Well ok. So what?" It's like VW saying their suppliers aren't using Uighurs as slave labor. Great! But all that factoid means is those slaves are freed up to force-work for someone less discerning, of which there are plenty. Again, I suspect to really do something would hit the bottom line and you can #### ### bet that won't happen.
There's another guy who's been speaking up lately. Now granted he has a carbon footprint nearly as large as Al Gore's but Jeff Immelt is making a good point here. China of course is saying they're on board and they even have a packet of paper submitted to the UN saying so. But what Jeff is getting at is China doesn't have an actual actionable plan, nor is there to be anyone holding them to that theoretical plan. Our emissions hardly matter - we're already reducing them at a near maximum practical pace - and China (and India, etc.) will make our efforts mute if they aren't watched closely and held accountable. You go Jeff!
Actually there's another error in that post that I figured someone smart would pounce on.... and then I remembered who my detractors are.
There are actually lots of errors in there. Like Time Magazine being a publication not an author that you can cite - or Remote Sensing being a journal and not the author of the peer reviewed study you were quoting. You know, the basic information literacy stuff you - a self professed college student - seem to always fail at.
The rest of it though? Well god QB to catch it we’d actually have to read your insipid walls of text in their entirety - and I doubt any of us in this thread have the wherewithal to give you THAT much attention when simply skimming it shows us more than enough to pick apart.
I usually stop at the first thing I disagree with. It saves me time, plus if anything is predicated on that point, it would be moot if the earlier premise is wrong anyways.
Actually there's another error in that post that I figured someone smart would pounce on.... and then I remembered who my detractors are.
....I doubt any of us in this thread have the wherewithal....
Quite so! Something about heat and kitchens applies here.
.
IT wrote:
I usually stop at the first thing I disagree with.
Truer words have never been spoken!
After all why try and understand a point being argued when it's so easy to coax some spurious meaning from the first sentence, attack that, and then whine about how now one engages in discussion with you.
Quite so! Something about heat and kitchens applies here.
It isn't about not being able to stand the heat, it's about not caring about the total tonnage of the intellectually disingenuous dribble you huck into each post. Six paragraphs that argue three different aspects of the topic that NO ONE BUT YOU is debating over doesn't make you some sort of intellectual heavyweight that we can't keep up with.
It just makes you a self important kid who thinks that his echo chambers are the most correct echo chambers and the only way to be smart is make sure we know each and every thing you thought this time you post.
No one cares that much kid. Put that effort into your homework, maybe visit the library and ask someone there to teach you about primary sources.
Yeah, but you're not trying to have a discussion QB, not really. You're here to score points, to say "boom," to win and be right. You're here for debate, not discussion. That's why I just lurk once in a while. I don't have much to contribute anyway, so no great loss, but for you, from the tenor of your posts, this is a competition not a conversation.
Plus it's been mentioned several times above that when some of the other posters have a valid point that either refutes one of yours or furthers the DISCUSSION to other viewpoints yours hadn't considered, you move goalposts or avoid answering. This reinforces my observation that you're not interested in considering all points, you're only interested in reinforcing your own.
Why is that Quarkable? Why do you NEED to be right about this? Is it because you went to school for this and feel you're an expert? Do you feel some external need for validation? Or do you, as per the tone of some of your more colorful characterizations of your detractors, feel a natural superiority to others in this thread?
I'll admit that I feel inferior in here. Its painfully obvious that I don't know what a good source is or not, what good science is or not, who the good faith or bad faith actors are in the world of climate science and so on. That's another reason I stopped trying to contribute here.
Whatever the case Blast--o-Matic, you need to accept the fact that, no matter what words you carefully choose to reply to or refute my claims here, the reality is your actions from post to post bear it out. You want to win Quark Blast. The sooner we all accept this as fact the sooner we're all on the same page.
Actually there's another error in that post that I figured someone smart would pounce on.... and then I remembered who my detractors are.
....I doubt any of us in this thread have the wherewithal....
Quite so! Something about heat and kitchens applies here.
.
IT wrote:
I usually stop at the first thing I disagree with.
Truer words have never been spoken!
After all why try and understand a point being argued when it's so easy to coax some spurious meaning from the first sentence, attack that, and then whine about how now one engages in discussion with you.
If someone is making an argument, and you disagree with P1, you don't need to bother reading C. If P1 is wrong, then the argument must be fixed to address that before C matters.
If you don't want your long posts ignored... you have the option of writing shorter posts.
Yeah, but you're not trying to have a discussion QB, not really.... You're here for debate, not discussion....
A contention proven false by virtually every interaction you and I have had on this thread (including this one), and by a great number of other interactions I've been a part of on this thread over the years.
.
Mark wrote:
Plus it's been mentioned several times above that when some of the other posters have a valid point that either refutes one of yours or furthers the DISCUSSION to other viewpoints yours hadn't considered, you move goalposts or avoid answering.
Indeed, it has been "mentioned several times" but it has not been demonstrated.
I typically don't truncate other posts when quoting them, unless the verbiage stepped over was either redundant or inapplicable; and even then I use "...." to emphasize a portion of the statement is missing. Whereas I've been misquoted several times, and not by accident, such that my point was presented exactly the opposite of what I contended.
When my detractors reply to a post of mine, one well argued and with references cited and/or properly quoted, merely to make fun of a typo, an inapt auto-correct, or the wrong homophone, you really have to wonder why that's the best "argument" they can come at me with; though I have no doubt they are indeed doing their best.
.
Mark wrote:
Why is that Quarkable?....
Just sticking to the topic of the OP, and if not, I openly recognize the tangent (or derail, whichever is most applicable).
Others (particularly CB, the metalhead, and those not even worth special mention) have little idea on how to engage in formal argument.
Also, facts one can discuss, science too, but policy is argued. Sorry, 'tis so. And mostly the topic is: facts + science = climate policy
.
Mark wrote:
Whatever the case Blast--o-Matic, you need to accept the fact that, no matter what words you carefully choose to reply to or refute my claims here, the reality is your actions from post to post bear it out. You want to win Quark Blast. The sooner we all accept this as fact the sooner we're all on the same page.
Let me paraphrase a recent example of failure to honestly debate with me:
There is an argument allegedly consisting of some number of premises {P} followed by a conclusion {C}, but P1 is judged insufficient; and so P2 to PnandC are summarily waved away.
Three things:
1) There is more than one valid form of argument and there is more than one argument that may be brought to bear towards a given conclusion. Limiting the form of argument one will accept and/or conflating different arguments to make your opponent sound stupid are a sure signs you're losing, badly.
2) A poorly constructed argument, one with an invalid premise - indeed even one with all invalid premises - can nonetheless have a true conclusion. I don't argue in this manner but I state this noting the vain posturing unabashedly displayed here:
"If someone is making an argument, and you disagree with P1, you don't need to bother reading C."
This^ is de rigueur among some who claim to engage in discussion.
I ask you Mark, why would I want to engage in discussion with someone as openly disingenuous as that?
3) Failure to properly handle the data presented, and/or failure to distinguish formal premises from pertinent but ancillary comments (i.e. mishandling ideas and facts, which may or may not bear directly on the conclusion), can cause self-induced confusion on a given issue. And when others do that, it's not my problem.
You see Mark, some people find it easier to level judgement at other persons rather than engage in a critical dialog of ideas. For some having an enemy is a cheap and easy means to feed their self-righteousness, even though the calories are empty and it rots their reason.
A +1.5°C year 2100 is not even possible. Were Thanos to snap his fingers and delete all of humanity today we would miss this target.
A +2.0°C year 2100 is possible only on paper. In any world where there are 200 countries comprised of 8-10 billion humans, that target won't get pegged this side of near-miracle tech + CC&S on a global industrial scale.
A +2.5°C year 2100 is only just possible. This assumes there are no significant Tipping Elements between now and then. Others have admitted that some Tipping Elements have been tipped - the arctic albedo effect has all but melted away - but I contend that the melting of the northern hemisphere permafrost is chomping at the bit and may have already broke its tether - there is a metric #### ton of CO2 and CH4 locked away in the permafrost. We'll know by 2030 I expect as there is considerable effort going into capturing detailed data for empirical modeling, and computing is finally catching up to the need.
The issue is also largely out of our hands - "our hands" being the "West". As mentioned up thread, our emissions hardly matter - we're already reducing them at a near maximum practical pace - and China (and India, and Africa, and South America, and S.E. Asia) will make our efforts mute if they aren't watched closely and held accountable.
And to be clear, that^ reasonable warning is for the +2.5°C year 2100 target, one we can easily overshoot.
QB, how bluntly do they need to say that they know that you, QB, are not arguing in good faith and that you've been proven in error so often that the only reason they bother with the falsehoods you keep posting is to minimize the damage you're causing?
Please, QB: start being honest (both intellectually and otherwise).
There is an argument allegedly consisting of some number of premises {P} followed by a conclusion {C}, but P1 is judged insufficient; and so P2 to Pn and C are summarily waved away.
Three things:
1) There is more than one valid form of argument and there is more than one argument that may be brought to bear towards a given conclusion. Limiting the form of argument one will accept and/or conflating different arguments to make your opponent sound stupid are a sure signs you're losing, badly.
2) A poorly constructed argument, one with an invalid premise - indeed even one with all invalid premises - can nonetheless have a true conclusion. I don't argue in this manner but I state this noting the vain posturing unabashedly displayed here:
So you agree that you base your arguments on flawed premises.
I typically don't truncate other posts when quoting them, unless the verbiage stepped over was either redundant or inapplicable; and even then I use "...." to emphasize a portion of the statement is missing.
Or when you want to change the meaning of what the person said into something you can twist into something you think is a slam dunk insult against them. "I typically don't do the thing that I did two posts ago to imply that all of you are too slow to keep up with me."
Quark Blast wrote:
When my detractors reply to a post of mine, one well argued and with references cited and/or properly quoted
I've only been in this thread off and on for a year a now - I'm aware I missed the two years previous to it - but I can count on one hand the number of times you properly cited your references. You often exhibit a lack of understanding of the difference between an editorial page, an academic journal, an author and a library search tool.
Quark Blast wrote:
merely to make fun of a typo, an inapt auto-correct, or the wrong homophone
You used to claim that these were intentional traps you laid to catch out the true character of the posters in the thread - are you admitting now that they are just garden variety typographical errors?
Quark Blast wrote:
Others (particularly CB, the metalhead, and those not even worth special mention) have little idea on how to engage in formal argument.
Your tone and tenor don't lend themselves to formal argument, you're trash talking on the internet and expect everyone around you to instead engage in a purist formal argument?
We're supposed to what? Allow you to condescend us, glorify yourself with your "BOOM'S" and your other self aggrandizing BS but reply instead purely with intellectual rigor?
Quark Blast wrote:
There is an argument allegedly consisting of some number of premises {P} followed by a conclusion {C}, but P1 is judged insufficient; and so P2 to Pn and C are summarily waved away.
You flat out ignore broad swaths of what people say to you in order to counter your arguments to instead argue one small detail they brought up and pivot back to a restatement of the argument they disagreed with by providing evidence. How is your approach any different than what you just described? Aside from the obvious difference that you're okay with yourself breaking the rules you hold others to.
Quark Blast wrote:
You see Mark, some people find it easier to level judgement at other persons rather than engage in a critical dialog of ideas.
This is a critical dialogue of ideas and not judgement?
Quark Blast wrote:
Whatever boomer.
Or this?
Quark Blast wrote:
Lastly, for people too ####### ###### to read for themselves, here's the CV on the herd immunity claim:
Or this?
Quark Blast wrote:
...you're not really attempting to dialog are you child?
Or this?
Quark Blast wrote:
...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.
Or this?
Quark Blast wrote:
...by all means keep up your facile "rebuttals"
Or this?
Quark Blast wrote:
I love it that people with literally no earned degree in any relevant topic are here to denigrate the contributions of hundreds who've earned degrees and published peer reviewed articles, teach at accredited universities the world over, etc. ad nauseam.
This one has the added benefit of exhibiting your immense arrogance. Here you are assuming (incorrectly I wager) that all of the other posters in the thread lack college degrees and assuming that because you're in college you somehow are superior to anyone else speaking. As if this is Edwardian England and college is a rarity reserved only for the elite of mind or means.
You're posting on the board of a tabletop RPG, a hobby that demographically attracts the college educated - a past time for those possessed of engaged and literate minds. Do you really think that no one here can match the wits of an undergrad?
Further, if it's bad that someone without an earned degree is in the thread - how is it better that you with your as-yet unearned degree (that in other threads you claim is in business) is bloviating about science?
You're the worst kind of hypocrite. You call to task others for occasionally engaging in the EXACT behavior you always engage in.
You constantly self aggrandize in your replies to people as if this is some sort of prize fight and you're playing for the crowd - but there is no crowd. You have no adoring public to perform for. You add digs against the person you're talking to almost everytime you reply - but how DARE they say something about you?
There is an argument allegedly consisting of some number of premises {P} followed by a conclusion {C}, but P1 is judged insufficient; and so P2 to Pn and C are summarily waved away.
I'll give an example:
P1: All dogs are fish.
Would you agree that this premise is true or false? If it is false, would you consider any conclusion that is based on this premise to be sound?
If you want your posts to be read more charitable, then at this point... you're going to have to earn that. If you don't care, then stop wasting time complaining about it.
QB, how bluntly do they need to say that they know that you, QB, are not arguing in good faith and that you've been proven in error so often that the only reason they bother with the falsehoods you keep posting is to minimize the damage you're causing?
Please, QB: start being honest (both intellectually and otherwise).
Show me.
Here's the conclusion from my previous post:
Quote:
A +1.5°C year 2100 is not even possible. Were Thanos to snap his fingers and delete all of humanity today we would miss this target.
A +2.0°C year 2100 is possible only on paper. In any world where there are 200 countries comprised of 8-10 billion humans, that target won't get pegged this side of near-miracle tech + CC&S on a global industrial scale.
A +2.5°C year 2100 is only just possible. This assumes there are no significant Tipping Elements between now and then. Others have admitted that some Tipping Elements have been tipped - the arctic albedo effect has all but melted away - but I contend that the melting of the northern hemisphere permafrost is chomping at the bit and may have already broke its tether - there is a metric #### ton of CO2 and CH4 locked away in the permafrost. We'll know by 2030 I expect as there is considerable effort going into capturing detailed data for empirical modeling, and computing is finally catching up to the need.
The issue is also largely out of our hands - "our hands" being the "West". As mentioned up thread, our emissions hardly matter - we're already reducing them at a near maximum practical pace - and China (and India, and Africa, and South America, and S.E. Asia) will make our efforts mute if they aren't watched closely and held accountable.
And to be clear, that^ reasonable warning is for the +2.5°C year 2100 target, one we can easily overshoot.
What part of that is unsupported by my many citations to peer reviewed scientific literature and context-aware quoted commentary from those scientists - authors and peers?
.
Mark, for your edification, below is an excellent example of disingenuous interaction.
Irontruth wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
There is an argument allegedly consisting of some number of premises {P} followed by a conclusion {C}, but P1 is judged insufficient; and so P2 to Pn and C are summarily waved away.
Three things:
1) There is more than one valid form of argument and there is more than one argument that may be brought to bear towards a given conclusion. Limiting the form of argument one will accept and/or conflating different arguments to make your opponent sound stupid are a sure signs you're losing, badly.
2) A poorly constructed argument, one with an invalid premise - indeed even one with all invalid premises - can nonetheless have a true conclusion. I don't argue in this manner but I state this noting the vain posturing unabashedly displayed here:
So you agree that you base your arguments on flawed premises.
To repeat my question:
Mark, why would I want to engage in discussion with someone as openly disingenuous as that?
Or how about this one Mark?
DirtyPool wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
When my detractors reply to a post of mine, one well argued and with references cited and/or properly quoted, merely to make fun of a typo, an inapt auto-correct, or the wrong homophone, you really have to wonder why that's the best "argument" they can come at me with; though I have no doubt they are indeed doing their best.
You used to claim that these were intentional traps you laid to catch out the true character of the posters in the thread - are you admitting now that they are just garden variety typographical errors?
Mark, my point is of course that my detractors have no way of knowing if one of those cases applies, and yet they excise the apparent accidental error from an entire post and then hasten to make fun of it in the most juvenile manner. Or perhaps ESL is in play here on my part. None of these possibilities occur to them because discussion is the furthest thing from their minds - all they want is to cut loose with an emotional broadside so they can feel good about themselves.
So, Mark, with the unwitting help of my detractors have I satisfactorily answered your compound question* now?
*Why is that Quarkable? Why do you NEED to be right about this? Is it because you went to school for this and feel you're an expert? Do you feel some external need for validation? Or do you, as per the tone of some of your more colorful characterizations of your detractors, feel a natural superiority to others in this thread?
Mark, why would I want to engage in discussion with someone as openly disingenuous as that?
My comment wasn't disingenuous. You literally claimed that your conclusions can be true despite having a flawed premise. Therefore, based on your comment it is reasonable to assume that when I see a flawed premise... it is in fact a flawed premise. You've just agreed that you include them in your argument.
Wow, that is an impressive vocab you got goin on there Quarky McQuarkpants.
Why thank you.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
My question, put simply, was why do you feel the need to be right.
No "feels", I just argue the facts.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
Your answer was to argue that your detractors are disingenuous, they're juvenile, they point out your one mistake (a simple typo) in a sea of accuracy and so forth, so why bother engaging/discussing with them.
I don't. I was engaging with you asking why I dismiss their "arguments" - read: emotional bleating - and it is because they are disingenuous in their posting.
When they don't have me to pick on they wail away at each other over who gets to insult me.
:D
Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
....See, if you are honest, if your detractors run rampant through this thread and you have no need to engage with them, yet you're still here in this thread... there's gotta be another reason. It can't be to talk to me QB. For one I'm not that engaging or knowledgeable on the topic of climate change. For another, I've been in here a few months and you've been at this for years.
No, I'd wager that you very MUCH enjoy engaging with your detractors. You relish the opportunities for your "booms" and your verbose takedowns and your intellectually worded shots at their... what am I saying, all our collective intellects.
That would be a bad bet on your part.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
I see and understand your objections to the Paris Agreement and the effort to hit a 1.5 degree change by 2100. From what others have said in recent posts, I don't know that anyone was actually arguing that.
I've cited plenty of sources that are arguing just that and I figure they are doing so for a couple of reasons.
1) To sound hopeful, to get further funding for their research, to 'rally the troops', to get reelected, to make themselves feel good.
2) They're afraid if they present the level truth people will give up.
I think the Greta approach is better, though decidedly less popular.
:D
Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
What others HAVE argued is that our C02 budget is nearly up on that, though again I'd rather not speak for the others.
But your assertions about a 2.0 or 2.5 degree 2100, those HAVE been engaged with. [Only, no matter what people say, what evidence they cite, whether they show that tipping points are included in the data or not, you just continue re-stating your conclusions.
You laid out the claim and I'm game:
Name me the sources (should just be a simple copy/paste if others have really already put it forth herein) and I'll explain the facts to you dear Mark.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
You say that these objections to your conclusions are invalid or incorrect because the data is wrong your doesn't factor in... take your pick - concrete and steel production ancillary to the projected works, tipping points that some sources have said were included but Gretta and others say aren't, weather data and other variables, etc.
Not sure how I can be more plain for you but let me try one more time.
While explaining the reasons one may want to read past a supposed-flawed first premise, I said, "I don't argue in this manner."
Detractor says, "So you agree that you base your arguments on flawed premises."
I said, "Mark, why would I want to engage in discussion with someone as openly disingenuous as that?" I literally just said, as part of my presentation, that "I don't argue in this manner."
Detractor says, "You literally claimed that your conclusions can be true despite having a flawed premise. Therefore, based on your comment it is reasonable to assume that when I see a flawed premise... it is in fact a flawed premise. You've just agreed that you include them in your argument."
I say, See? I told you so! I literallypreemptively claimed exactly the opposite of the detractor's assertion.
To no avail.
As usual.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
Underlying ALL of that is simply that... you're STILL engaging. You don't believe anyone's replies, but you're still engaging. You think everyone's being disingenuous, but you're still engaging. You have an obviously low opinion of several specific poster's intelligence relative to your own... but you're STILL engaging.
I validly have an exceedingly low opinion of my detractors' insults-veiled-as-argumentation.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
Yet, right here, you ask me
Quark Blast wrote:
Mark, why would I want to engage in discussion with someone as openly disingenuous as that?
I don't know Quarkatron, Scion of Blast Manor, you tell ME!
If I had to guess though, it's gotta be because you get something out of it. Some kind of a positive feeling, like the kind that comes from feeling correct, or superior. In other words, as I concluded above, I think that YOU think you're winning, and by extension that this is somehow a competition.
That's my guess, but I don't know. Fact is, I don't know you at all QB. I don't know much about you other than what you post on these forums. Could be that you're a completely different person than what I'm assuming of you.
All I have to go on is your words, and the way in which you USE them, as well as the way you use others'. So you tell me Quark Blast, why DO you keep engaging?
Because the scientists keep publishing more data and analysis on the broader OP topic, I keep reading and posting tidbits relevant to the broader OP topic.
QED
I'll lay out another bit of fact for you on a tangential topic discussed in this thread last summer:
My prediction: CA has taken steps - they're going to get worse in terms of cases for another week or two and in terms of deaths for roughly a month, then start to recover. There are early signs that the curve is bending already. (Which is bad, right?)
Texas has shown some signs of sanity, they will at least slow, but they've still got a lot of damage baked in and they'll be much slower on the down slope of the peak. The governor may take further action.
Florida is rushing headlong to destruction and seems unlikely to stop soon. There's no reason for that to stop. They'll easily pass NY/NJ on a per capita level if they don't act.
We'll see who's right here in the next month or so.
Florida is what? 27th or so of 50 states for deaths/capita over all and 40th or so when limiting the analysis to people over 50 years old - the most vulnerable segment by age.
California is doing slightly better but not remarkably so.
Especially when you consider their population is the 5th youngest state in the nation and Florida is the 2nd oldest.
California was in lock-down the whole time. Florida not. Statistically, per capita, differences in deaths are minimal between the two states - some stats slightly favoring CA, some FL, and some equivalent.
Disney World open in FL the whole time. Disneyland closed in CA the whole time.
Schools open in FL the whole time. Schools closed in CA the whole time.
Bars/restaurants open in FL the whole time. Bars/restaurants closed in CA the whole time.
Super Bowl LV not a 'super spreader event' as predicted.
Current Ranking - Deaths/capita:
NJ - 1st
NY - 2nd
RI - 3rd
MA - 4th
FL - 27th
CA - 29th
The argument of Florida "rushing headlong to destruction" was given in good faith - the poster is not one of my detractors, though hardly a fan. Will there be a statement of 'I was wrong'? Unlikely. Certainly not one that is given voluntarily.
Now compared to that^ the 'arguments' of my detractors don't even rate.
You're right QB, there IS more data coming out all the time. Data about housing density, or the virus itself, or the effect of social supports (or the lack thereof), or even of the supposed consistency of the restrictions in place in California.
What do you think about those other factors? Are they relevant to why deaths per capita are the way they are between the 2 states? if they are, does that affect at all your sometimes dismissive view of restrictions and lockdowns and their function at keeping folks safer during a pandemic than not employing them?
I don't. I was engaging with you asking why I dismiss their "arguments"
But when your arguments get dismissed it's somehow a cardinal sin. So why are you held to a different standard than those you criticize? Why is it okay for you to dismiss what someone says wholesale but when someone does it to you they're being disingenuous?
Quark Blast wrote:
When they don't have me to pick on they wail away at each other over who gets to insult me.
They typed a snarky sentence, I posted an equally snarky reply, we both seem to have recognized it was merely snark. Everyone in the thread can see that the two post exchange was still more civil than 90% of the things you say to people.
Quark Blast wrote:
Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
I see and understand your objections to the Paris Agreement and the effort to hit a 1.5 degree change by 2100. From what others have said in recent posts, I don't know that anyone was actually arguing that.
I've cited plenty of sources that are arguing just that and I figure they are doing so for a couple of reasons.
He's aware you've posted plenty of sources making that argument - he's saying that no one in this thread was debating the point that you wasted multiple posts arguing. You were effectively debating with yourself, treating this thread as your own personal blog.
Like you tend to do.
Quark Blast wrote:
I validly have an exceedingly low opinion of my detractors' insults-veiled-as-argumentation.
The one who goes for insults first is you, every single time. You're always the first one to backhand someone with an insult.
I have an exceedingly low opinion of the way you use an article clearly labeled "Opinion" as EVIDENCE of something and then call the person who disagreed with you stupid for not accepting your editorial page favorite as legit.
I have an exceedingly low opinion of the way you parade and posture like you think you're winning by posting the same thing for the fifth time.
I have an exceedingly low opinion of the way you argue against the thing that no one is saying over and over to brow beat others into letting you get away with it.
I have an exceedingly low opinion of you trying to overwhelm the thread with a wall of text so that people let you win by default.
I have an exceedingly low opinion of your constant apples to oranges comparisons.
Quark Blast wrote:
Will there be a statement of 'I was wrong'? Unlikely. Certainly not one that is given voluntarily.
You never follow up with an acknowledgement that you were wrong - why do others have to give you a courtesy that you don't yourself give?
Are we sure the world has done "Exactly nothing measurable" to impact C02 rise? I'm honestly asking b/c these figures seemed to come up a lot on a quick Google search but I'm not being either snarky nor disingenuous when I say: I don't know if they can be refuted/picked apart. Still, at first glance from a lay person it seems like the EU has had emissions trickling down steadily for years.
In the US appear to be up and down and from what I understand that's more to do with stuff like the decline in coal but the rise in natural gas. The power sector in the US shows declines, but transportation needs more stringent federal policies in place or it's bound to continue flatlining or rising.
So I don't know Quarkatron 3000, it seems like the world has done SOME things to impact C02 emissions and impacted them in positive ways, just not big enough to hit the 1.5 degree 2100 hoped/wished for.
On a more personal note... C'mon Blastradamus. A proper apology doesn't immediately qualify itself in the same sentence with a "but," and then an excuse that diverts attention from why someone was apologizing in the first place.
Right here in this post, and in others, I've apologized for my lack of acumen and academic skill in chiming in on AGW issues. I've purposely retreated from this thread specifically because I often feel like a rube that doesn't know what he's talking about. Thing is, I don't say "sorry for being dumb... but as you can see from the USA Today chart here, emissions are WAY down!"
No, I JUST apologize. Then I go on with something I want to say. When I wrap up, I usually go back to reminding folks to take what I'm saying with a grain of salt because, again, I'm kinda dumb.
You just... don't DO that QB. You don't just say "oh, sorry Ceeus Beeus, Son of Dunker, I misspoke and mischaracterized your words. You never said that thing about Norway; I added that to prove my larger point about the country. Still, it was misleading of me to phrase it that way so I won't do that again." Instead you just used your use of the word "sorry" to springboard into how right you are about Norway.
Whatever; who am I to teach you anything about how to apologize sincerely. I'm just some poster on the internet. I'm literally words on a screen. You are the only person that can decide how you speak to folks here and elsewhere; what you choose to say and how you choose to say it. My FEELINGS about that message or how it is conveyed has no bearing on it's production.
My ma always taught me to get respect you gotta give respect. She was a devout catholic and honestly believed the whole do unto others bit. In her own way she was also a proponent of Dalton who famously said "Be nice." In other words, I was raised to think that you stay nice to folks even if they're not always nice to you. That's what I'm going to try and do. Food for thought.
Are we sure the world has done "Exactly nothing measurable" to impact C02 rise? I'm honestly asking b/c these figures seemed to come up a lot on a quick Google search but I'm not being either snarky nor disingenuous when I say: I don't know if they can be refuted/picked apart. Still, at first glance from a lay person it seems like the EU has had emissions trickling down steadily for years.
In the US appear to be up and down and from what I understand that's more to do with stuff like the decline in coal but the rise in natural gas. The power sector in the US shows declines, but transportation needs more stringent federal policies in place or it's bound to continue flatlining or rising.
So I don't know Quarkatron 3000, it seems like the world has done SOME things to impact C02 emissions and impacted them in positive ways, just not big enough to hit the 1.5 degree 2100 hoped/wished for.
On a more personal note... C'mon Blastradamus. A proper apology doesn't immediately qualify itself in the same sentence with a "but," and then an excuse that diverts attention from why someone was apologizing in the first place.
Context is everything Mark. My apology to CB was in the context of being less precise than I intended while making a point, the side-effect of which was to imply that CB believes Norway is a Net Zero Carbon economy.
In order to not cause further confusion with a decontextualized apology, I reiterated the point I intended to make using different phrasing in the same 'breath' as the apology. If I were to simply apologize and move on then one of two things (or both) would happen:
1) My point would be lost.
2) I could really muck things up by appearing to apologize for even bringing the point up at all, distancing myself from a point I still hold, and thus inadvertently misrepresenting my position.
.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
Right here in this post....
zip:
, and in others, I've apologized for my lack of acumen and academic skill in chiming in on AGW issues. I've purposely retreated from this thread specifically because I often feel like a rube that doesn't know what he's talking about. Thing is, I don't say "sorry for being dumb... but as you can see from the USA Today chart here, emissions are WAY down!"
No, I JUST apologize. Then I go on with something I want to say. When I wrap up, I usually go back to reminding folks to take what I'm saying with a grain of salt because, again, I'm kinda dumb.
You just... don't DO that QB. You don't just say "oh, sorry Ceeus Beeus, Son of Dunker, I misspoke and mischaracterized your words. You never said that thing about Norway; I added that to prove my larger point about the country. Still, it was misleading of me to phrase it that way so I won't do that again." Instead you just used your use of the word "sorry" to springboard into how right you are about Norway.
Whatever; who am I to teach you anything about how to apologize sincerely. I'm just some poster on the internet. I'm literally words on a screen. You are the only person that can decide how you speak to folks here and elsewhere; what you choose to say and how you choose to say it. My FEELINGS about that message or how it is conveyed has no bearing on it's production.
My ma always taught me to get respect you gotta give respect. She was a devout catholic and honestly believed the whole do unto others bit. In her own way she was also a proponent of Dalton who famously said "Be nice." In other words, I was raised to think that you stay nice to folks even if they're not always nice to you. That's what I'm going to try and do.
Food for thought.
I apologized for the thing I did wrong. I do not apologize for the things others profess to believe that I did wrong. Nor do I apologize for how other people feel. People get to own their own #######; if you know what I mean? I don't control how peeps feel or act, nor would I ever want to. Yuck!
That would be countries like Argentina (45 million peeps) or Ireland (5 million peeps).
Guardian wrote:
“We’re talking about multiple terawatts, dozens of terawatts a year of electricity being used just for bitcoin … That’s a lot of electricity.”...
{E}nvironmentalists say that mining is still a cause for concern particularly because miners will go wherever electricity is cheapest and that may mean places that use coal. According to Cambridge, China has the most bitcoin mining of any country by far. While the country has been slowly moving toward renewable energy, about two-thirds of its electricity comes from coal.
Yeppers, China is some gooood Bitcoin mining country alrighty!
:D
The Guardian piece also touched on one of my older, yet still salient, points that gets derided on this forum whenever I bring it up (presumably because I'm the messenger). Improve Efficiency!
Quote:
The energy wasted by plugged-in but inactive home devices in the US alone could power bitcoin mining for 1.8 years, according to the Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index.
What we have with our modern "Western" society is a very complex web of amazingly inefficient economic interaction. Two-day delivery by air and 50 flavors of candy-coffee are symptoms of this economy. Or perhaps we could characterize them as addictions. No matter, because what's relevant is that we (individually and collectively) aren't going to give up enough of these habits, for long enough, to make a difference viz-a-viz AGW.
In an ideal world we wouldn't be talking about AGW like we are. In a less ideal world, but still a world where large and complex problems were solved with aplomb and alacrity, we could see that we just don't have the CO2 "budget" left to bring the majority of the world up to anything like our very wasteful standard of living and so we'd all drop our economic activity about 40% for the next few decades until things get sorted out.
But our world seems to be the best of all possible worst worlds. And as such we might as well plan for a +2.5°C year 2100 so that we will have a chance of hitting that mark, instead of aiming for something almost literally impossible like less than a +2.0°C year 2100.
That Mauna Loa data shows that atmospheric CO2 levels continue to rise. However, if we look at the values for the last few years it also shows that the annual RATE of increase has slowed.
When the data for 2020 is finalized there is no question that it will show that we actually emitted LESS (and thus the atmospheric level increased less) in 2020 then we did in 2019. Yes, that is mainly due to decreased economic activity associated with the pandemic, but even before covid-19 we had seen virtually no growth in emissions since 2017.
In short, there is strong evidence that we are either approaching, at, or perhaps just over the 'peak' in annual GHG emissions. That's not a solution to the problem, but it will be a 'big deal' in that we will finally be 'headed in the right direction'.
Following the link you provided QB, I do see that the big curve on the graph keeps going up. However, your statement was that
Quark Blast wrote:
the global community has for the past several decades done exactly nothing measurable to impact the rise in the CO2 curve.
Following this link from the graph page explains WHY there hasn't been any measurable change - the entire globe would have to cut all emissions by 50%, just to stabilize the curve.
HOWEVER, that same second page states
The Keeling Curve site wrote:
The recent stabilization in emissions might be viewed as a very small first step toward the required cuts.
So... we've done SOMETHING, and it might not be ENOUGH, but you can't make a blanket statement that "the global community has done exactly nothing measurable to impact the rise in the C02 curve" when the very site you link to as proof says we have, however small.
Add to that the point that Trucker Radio Dunkerson makes above, that the curve shows the annual rate of increase has slowed. This means that the folks on the site admit the global community HAS done something to stabilize the emissions AND their data holds that up showing that the rate of increase has slowed. That is 2 things, from your cited link, that disprove the idea that the global community isn't doing anything.
They are... just too slowly. I wholeheartedly agree with that statement, but not the one where no one is doing ANYTHING.
Following the link you provided QB, I do see that the big curve on the graph keeps going up. However, your statement was that
Quark Blast wrote:
the global community has for the past several decades done exactly nothing measurable to impact the rise in the CO2 curve.
No, that's a partial quote that inadvertently leaves out critical context. Here let me quote it with relevant context for you:
The issue of AGW is a far larger problem, with an equally critical time sensitive window* for action, whereby the global community has for the past several decades done exactly nothing measurable to impact the rise in the CO2 curve. In fact the blips down in the curve have all been due to unplanned events dampening industrial activity for a short time.
Ok, so I quoted myself and put proper emphasis on the context of my prior statement. I even call to that same contextual emphasis again in the end note. Repeated here, also with proper emphasis on this apparently overlooked section, for ease of reading:
*Expert opinions vary considerably as to how large this window is - months to a decade depending on who's talking and what is being measured. Several of the older windows have already closed so there's a degree of "alarmism" to be felt with these, and that's not a good thing if timely action and public buy-in are necessary. Just say'n.
.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
Following this link from the graph page explains WHY there hasn't been any measurable change - the entire globe would have to cut all emissions by 50%, just to stabilize the curve.
HOWEVER, that same second page states
The Keeling Curve site wrote:
The recent stabilization in emissions might be viewed as a very small first step toward the required cuts.
So... we've done SOMETHING, and it might not be ENOUGH, but you can't make a blanket statement that "the global community has done exactly nothing measurable to impact the rise in the C02 curve" when the very site you link to as proof says we have, however small.
Add to that the point that Trucker Radio Dunkerson makes above, that the curve shows the annual rate of increase has slowed. This means that the folks on the site admit the global community HAS done something to stabilize the emissions AND their data holds that up showing that the rate of increase has slowed. That is 2 things, from your cited link, that disprove the idea that the global community isn't doing anything.
They are... just too slowly. I wholeheartedly agree with that statement, but not the one where no one is doing ANYTHING.
You leave off a key word with your emphasis. Re-quoting you, quoting me; "exactly nothing measurable". Notice the word measurable there.
"The global community has" failed to measure up for decades, as the Keeling Curve amply demonstrates.
Now, CB pointed out there is somewhat of a pause going on at present (i.e. last 3-4 years running) in the rise of CO2. But for one of those years, we're into the present decade and that was a year of pandemic-induced slowing of the growth in the global economy, so you can't really count that - it's only 1/10th of a decade and is one of my aforementioned "unplanned events". And given what China is doing these past 6 months and for the remainder of the next 5 years I'd be pretty hesitant at saying we've turned the corner.
There's a world of difference between:
'Whelp, we've polluted as much as we can. Guess we're gonna have to naturally slack a bit what with the belching CO2 by the gigaton'
and
'Let us retool our economy on a global scale with the goal of hitting Net Zero CO2 emissions by 2050'.
We may be doing the former but we're sure as ######### not doing the latter. Presently, empty promises of bold actions combined with fulfilled promises of the wrong #### actions are all that we actually have.
You said nothing measurable to impact the C02 curve. The website you quoted said we ARE taking steps, however small, and CBD pointed out the measurement.
You were wrong. You can try to spin it QB, but your statement was incorrect. You can go back and revise things now, say that we're not doing ENOUGH, and I'll agree with you, but I DO NOT agree that we're doing nothing globally, the Keeling Curve says that we are, and there's a measurement of it.
THIS is why you have detractors QB. It's NOT that I'm not paying attention; I ANTICIPATED you requoting the word MEASURABLE which is why I called that bit out in MY statement upthread and again here.
You made an absolute statement. I and others found factual evidence in your own link that refutes it. You don't agree with our findings so you tell us that we're wrong. Despite the fact that your absolute statement, that the global community has done exactly nothing measurable, is shown to be incorrect.
In short, you believe you're right. Not me, or ANYONE else will convince you otherwise, unless YOU CHOOSE to believe it. THAT is why there are conspiracy theories in AGW - because some folks get siloed into their beliefs on the matter and no matter what is said nothing will sway them.
I'm sorry QB. I know I'm being a tad critical with this post and I really don't want to go that way with you or anyone here on these forums. But dangit all if you aren't doing the same thing with me that you're doing with everyone else upthread. Still, that's no reason to get angry, so I apologize QB.
Look, I appreciate you taking the time to educate me Quarktacular, I REALLY do. You've opened my eyes to a lot re: AGW. I just don't think you and I are connecting here. I will continue trying to reduce my meat intake on a personal level (I've been trying to add more fruit/veggie smoothies into my life and eat more salads/vegetarian meals) and I'll be starting a garden for the first time in years.
I am hearing you, taking some of your advice QB. On this one though, I'm sorry, I think you've just lost me.
You said nothing measurable to impact the C02 curve. The website you quoted said we ARE taking steps, however small, and CBD pointed out the measurement.
You were wrong. You can try to spin it QB, but your statement was incorrect.
zip:
You can go back and revise things now, say that we're not doing ENOUGH, and I'll agree with you, but I DO NOT agree that we're doing nothing globally, the Keeling Curve says that we are, and there's a measurement of it.
THIS is why you have detractors QB. It's NOT that I'm not paying attention; I ANTICIPATED you requoting the word MEASURABLE which is why I called that bit out in MY statement upthread and again here.
You made an absolute statement. I and others found factual evidence in your own link that refutes it. You don't agree with our findings so you tell us that we're wrong. Despite the fact that your absolute statement, that the global community has done exactly nothing measurable, is shown to be incorrect.
In short, you believe you're right. Not me, or ANYONE else will convince you otherwise, unless YOU CHOOSE to believe it. THAT is why there are conspiracy theories in AGW - because some folks get siloed into their beliefs on the matter and no matter what is said nothing will sway them.
I'm sorry QB. I know I'm being a tad critical with this post and I really don't want to go that way with you or anyone here on these forums. But dangit all if you aren't doing the same thing with me that you're doing with everyone else upthread. Still, that's no reason to get angry, so I apologize QB.
Look, I appreciate you taking the time to educate me Quarktacular, I REALLY do. You've opened my eyes to a lot re: AGW. I just don't think you and I are connecting here. I will continue trying to reduce my meat intake on a personal level (I've been trying to add more fruit/veggie smoothies into my life and eat more salads/vegetarian meals) and I'll be starting a garden for the first time in years.
I am hearing you, taking some of your advice QB. On this one though, I'm sorry, I think you've just lost me.
Sorry Mark but you're wrong again. The very small impact CB calls our attention to is in fact lost in the noise of CO2 emissions generally. He might be right that global humanity has crossed the inflection point for CO2 emissions but right now we can't be sure. It will be soon on an Earth-time scale but could be as late as 2030.
Part of AGW are the positive feedback loops - one we've already crossed (Arctic Albedo), and two others may have already been crossed (Amazon Forest Desiccation and Permafrost Melting/Boreal Forest Dieback) with a very good chance of them indisputably being crossed by the actions global humanity is on track to take over the next decade plus. There are other, much longer term loops, that could already be in motion - various ocean currents and monsoon effects, Greenland ice melting and the Antarctic ice melting (especially West Antarctica), but those are theorized to not matter between now and 2100 (except now it looks like Greenland could melt significantly faster than we theorized a decade or so ago, and thus maybe West Antarctica too, so maybe those two are on a middling time frame).
As you yourself quoted two posts up, "The recent stabilization in emissions might be viewed as a very small first step toward the required cuts."
The operative word there is might.
And if our efforts are a "might" too slow, then we'll trigger some more Tipping Elements and push things over to a Tipping Point and our current niggling argument over CO2 emissions really, really won't matter.
:D
People seem to have a pathological need to believe this is turning out well. Yes, I'm sure they're right. Because we all *feel* we're doing enough of the right things there will be peace in our time a pleasant and balmy future climate. /sarcasm
If it helps, it literally doesn't matter what you do. Your contributions, one way or another, will be lost in the daily noise, and if you're over 50 you'll miss the worst of the consequences by far.
I no longer recycle anything but glass. Metals are removed from trash anyway where I live. Plastics are sent over seas to be dumped into rivers and the ocean or sent to biomass burners. Paper and food waste degrade in the landfill or in the biomass burners just as easily either way. There really is little point to recycling as we (USA and EU) presently administrate it.
If you think I'm being cynical, I call it pragmatic. One of my uncles worked at a quarry (near a landfill) and guys who worked there could get extra pay by running the heavy equipment at the landfill to cover vacations and such. In the morning the garbage would roll in on the trucks and they'd move it around with the big D9. Mid day the recycling would roll in and be dumped in the same area and they'd move it around with the big D9. Then in the afternoon the green waste would roll in and be dumped in the same area and they'd move it around with the big D9. This apparently started after China announced they'd no longer take plastic way back in 2017.
I suspect Planet of the Humans was really just scratching the surface of the ######### and corruption.
39% Solar
31% Wind
16% Natural Gas
11% Battery storage
3% Nuclear
That's 84% zero-emissions power generation, ZERO new coal power, and only 16% natural gas. From this we can see that the tide has already turned and natural gas is following coal in to irrelevancy.
Also note that the natural gas additions are primarily limited to three states with deep fossil fuel roots; Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The entrenched infrastructure, politics, and traditions propping up natural gas in these last few bastions can only hold out so long. Economics will inevitably win in the end, with cheaper solar and wind replacing the last vestige of the old fossil fuel monopoly.
That 11% battery storage also represents more than three times the existing total from all prior years combined. We're adding nearly as much battery storage as we are natural gas. Five years ago nearly everyone would have said that was impossible... decades away at the earliest. Now it is reality and mass battery storage will radically transform how the electricity grid works.
Petroleum, coal, and nuclear (in that order) have all fallen below their replacement rates. That is, more electricity generation from those sources is being retired each year than is added (e.g. for 2021 nuclear is adding 1.1 GW, and retiring 5.1 GW).
Natural gas, in contrast, has a very low retirement rate because it only really started taking off about 20 years ago... leaving the oldest plants in the current natural gas boom still with about 10 years to go before they'd normally be retired. However, I expect that, before we get to that point, annual new natural gas additions will have hit zero and some existing plants will be shutting down early because it will cost more to continue running them (e.g. mostly due to the cost of the fuel) than to replace them with newly built renewable power.
That^ is good news. Twenty years ago it would've been great news.
Right now a number of critical metals and rare earths are poised to jump in price significantly - Cu is looking to go past prices we haven't seen in a decade; Lithium is up over 50% since the year began; Cobalt is up over 60% since the start of the year; etc. And those changes make it hard to keep EV prices down since the battery is the bulk of the price for low end EVs and otherwise scarce components make it hard to produce green product at a rate sufficient to meet Paris Agreement goals.
Even crude oil looks like it may stay above $60/barrel (or $70?) for years and if it stays that high the situation spells doom for rapid-enough energy transition globally.
A mere four months ago I was told that "germany has better numbers than the US". Well despite our control being spread among 50 states, and all the other difficulties, the USA has managed to out vaccinate at Germany 3x the rate on a per capita basis. Great Briton at 4x the rate. The UAE over 7x and Israel nearly 12x the rate!
Now to be clear this comparing countries on their respective Coronavirus measures isn't about "who's the best". Nope. This is about how unusual it is for governments, on the whole, getting large scale problems solved well and in a timely manner.
Because for AGW, with the CO2 "budget" draining away at a prodigious rate, we need all the large governments, and most of the rest, to roll into a Net Zero carbon economy in the next sub-decade in order to hit a +1.5°C year 2100 target*. And failing that (which we will), to get Net Zero in a couple of decades to successfully target a +2.5°C year 2100. And I'm seeing no evidence supporting hitting anything less than +2.5°C.
*Let's not bring Tipping Elements into the discussion right now shall we? Good.
Right now a number of critical metals and rare earths are poised to jump in price significantly - Cu is looking to go past prices we haven't seen in a decade; Lithium is up over 50% since the year began; Cobalt is up over 60% since the start of the year; etc. And those changes make it hard to keep EV prices down
You've been making these claims about the prices going up for several years now... and yet EV (and now grid storage) battery costs continue to plummet.
When exactly do you imagine that these higher costs are actually going to materialize?
Quark Blast wrote:
Nope. This is about how unusual it is for governments, on the whole, getting large scale problems solved well and in a timely manner.
Well, you've moved from 'government NEVER gets it right' to 'it is unusual for government to get it right'. That's progress at least.
I'd say that, like human endeavors in general, most governments do an adequate job most of the time. Occasionally they make a particularly good (e.g. current US vaccine rollout) or poor (e.g. entire US covid response prior to that) showing, but most of the time they're somewhere between 'not TOO bad' and 'good enough'.
On climate change the collective governments of the world (with a few exceptions) have definitely been lacking, but they've now risen to the 'not TOO bad' level and seem like they may well make it to 'good enough' (e.g. +2°C by 2100).
Right now a number of critical metals and rare earths are poised to jump in price significantly - Cu is looking to go past prices we haven't seen in a decade; Lithium is up over 50% since the year began; Cobalt is up over 60% since the start of the year; etc. And those changes make it hard to keep EV prices down
You've been making these claims about the prices going up for several years now... and yet EV (and now grid storage) battery costs continue to plummet.
When exactly do you imagine that these higher costs are actually going to materialize?
As demand exceeds supply of raw materials, that's when. Given the size of planned build outs for projects utilizing these materials, the time is already upon us though the squeeze hasn't yet happened.
The question is:
Will the squeeze last for 18 months or 18 years or somewhere in between?
.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Nope. This is about how unusual it is for governments, on the whole, getting large scale problems solved well and in a timely manner.
Well, you've moved from 'government NEVER gets it right' to 'it is unusual for government to get it right'. That's progress at least.
You're forgetting the part where I've stated many, many times that governments generally do a bang up job of blowing #### up - the mere destructive part of wars they are really good at! And since I expressly left that caveat out of my previous post, I qualified with "unusual".
Sorry* to disappoint you.
.
CBDunkerson wrote:
I'd say that, like human endeavors in general, most governments do an adequate job most of the time. Occasionally they make a particularly good (e.g. current US vaccine rollout) or poor (e.g. entire US covid response prior to that) showing, but most of the time they're somewhere between 'not TOO bad' and 'good enough'.
Actually the vaccine development last year was a spectacular job, enabled by government outsourcing and incentivizing the hoped for outcome.
Germany (and indeed the EU as a whole) has done a ###### job at the vaccination rollout. Which is to say, they've done a typical government job.
The USA is doing an adequate to good job (depending on the state), and UK are doing a good job. The UAE and Israel are executing excellent vaccination programs. And that's it - two countries out of two hundred! Woot! ?
.
CBDunkerson wrote:
On climate change the collective governments of the world (with a few exceptions) have definitely been lacking, but they've now risen to the 'not TOO bad' level and seem like they may well make it to 'good enough' (e.g. +2°C by 2100).
Correction:
A number of countries have formally committed to things in writing and speeches. They have, like most every other country, done ########.
And It's the doing that matters I'm afraid.
*Rhetorical "apology" used only as an amusing sarcastic break from the tedium of having to paint my arguments by numbers. So to speak.
Right now a number of critical metals and rare earths are poised to jump in price significantly - Cu is looking to go past prices we haven't seen in a decade; Lithium is up over 50% since the year began; Cobalt is up over 60% since the start of the year; etc. And those changes make it hard to keep EV prices down
You've been making these claims about the prices going up for several years now... and yet EV (and now grid storage) battery costs continue to plummet.
When exactly do you imagine that these higher costs are actually going to materialize?
As demand exceeds supply of raw materials, that's when. Given the size of planned build outs for projects utilizing these materials, the time is already upon us though the squeeze hasn't yet happened.
You're RIGHT!
Quark Blast wrote:
The question is:
Will the squeeze last for 18 months or 18 years or somewhere in between?
When do you WANT it to be? That'll be the RIGHT answer!
.
Quark Blast wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Nope. This is about how unusual it is for governments, on the whole, getting large scale problems solved well and in a timely manner.
Well, you've moved from 'government NEVER gets it right' to 'it is unusual for government to get it right'. That's progress at least.
You're forgetting the part where I've stated many, many times that governments generally do a bang up job of blowing #### up - the mere destructive part of wars they are really good at! And since I expressly left that caveat out of my previous post, I qualified with "unusual".
Sorry* to disappoint you.
You could NEVER disappoint us with how RIGHT you are! We should stop expecting any progress of you at all and simply wait for you to tell us what the RIGHT answer is!
.
Quark Blast wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
I'd say that, like human endeavors in general, most governments do an adequate job most of the time. Occasionally they make a particularly good (e.g. current US vaccine rollout) or poor (e.g. entire US covid response prior to that) showing, but most of the time they're somewhere between 'not TOO bad' and 'good enough'.
Actually the vaccine development last year was a spectacular job, enabled by government outsourcing and incentivizing the hoped for outcome.
Germany (and indeed the EU as a whole) has done a ###### job at the vaccination rollout. Which is to say, they've done a typical government job.
The USA is doing an adequate to good job (depending on the state), and UK are doing a good job. The UAE and Israel are executing excellent vaccination programs. And that's it - two countries out of two hundred! Woot! ?
You go ahead and GLOAT you magnificent paragon of RIGHTNESS! You've EARNED it1 You're so RIGHT about all of this!
Quark Blast wrote:
CBdunkerson wrote:
On climate change the collective governments of the world (with a few exceptions) have definitely been lacking, but they've now risen to the 'not TOO bad' level and seem like they may well make it to 'good enough' (e.g. +2°C by 2100).
Correction:
A number of countries have formally committed to things in writing and speeches. They have, like most every other country, done ########.
And It's the doing that matters I'm afraid.
* Rhetorical "apology" used only as an amusing sarcastic break from the tedium of having to paint my arguments by numbers. So to speak.
THANK you for that correction! No country has done ANYTHING on climate change, regardless of the COUNTLESS examples that I and others have cited here in this thread. YOU are the only RIGHT voice here and we should just listen to you. And later, when someone comes along and points out how you just once again stated an ABSOLUTE ("they have, like most every other country, done ########.") which is also your OPINION, not a FACT, you can masterfully qualify OUT of both of those points and WIN!
Because that's all you are QB: WINNING! Are you TIRED from being SO RIGHT all the time? How TINY and INSIGNIFICANT do we all look down here, in the land of the wrong people, while you tower over us on your pillar of RIGHT?
Mark, I'm glad you feel you can be completely open and honest with me. A very refreshing change of pace around here indeed. Thank you.
My arguments are based on the premise that the signatories to the Paris Agreement are officially aiming for a +1.5°C year 2100, and failing that they are officially aiming for a <+2.0°C year 2100.
CB thinks the latter goal is an odds-on favorite. And I agree that it is if the whole plan, the whole global plan, goes off swimmingly for the next 30 years straight.
Pauses in that plan, things that prevent CO2 emissions reduction at a rate sufficient to hit the Paris Agreement target zone, are more dire the closer to the present that they occur. Because right now we (global humanity) are blowing out CO2 at a rate sufficient to endanger even the upper end of that zone inside the next ten years.
What could cause a pause?
The cost of critical raw materials increasing dramatically (as we are seeing with Cu, Li, Co and could see with limited supplies of Graphite or Mn due to various factors*), which will accomplish two things:
1) Slow production either directly because the material is in short supply or indirectly because increased cost of the raw material increases the price of finished goods over some price point thus reducing sales
2) Increased prices will spur development of other sources of the limiting material(s), though that will typically take years to come on line
And we haven't got years. One of the sober articles I linked to up thread here recently summarized a UN report declaring we have 10 months to get going. Like get going, notpromise to get going but actually doing something substantive. Sadly, from Germany's newest coal-fired power plant to China's many new coal-fired power plants, to name just a couple of signs, we will miss that 10 month do-or-die date by a few years at least.
So then the question becomes:
How many delays of what time frame can the Paris Agreement paper-plan absorb before it's a shredded heap? If there's trouble in the DRC for 16 months is that going to be a problem? If China starts playing hardball with a critical material or finished good would that push things out months or years?
And there are other questions:
What does it mean that the Wizard of Omaha just threw $4.1 billion at Exxon?
Will oil prices stay above $60/barrel? $70? Because that will put a serious crimp in a global green-by-2050 initiative.
This isn't about me "winning" Mark. The only way I win is if we all win. And to do that we need to not throw my our future off the precipice of GND-insanity and pork barrel projects.
*e.g. child labor in "artisanal" mines, but then we don't seem to care about slave labor and sterilization in other countries at present to make smart phones, so... meh?
Prove it. Let other people discuss the topic without having to constantly assert that your views are the most important ones to discuss. Stop telling people their conversation is focused on the wrong things. Let this be a conversation rather than a debate.
If you can do those things - long term- you might convince people that this isn’t about your unjustifiable ego.
We both know you can’t and won’t - because eking out a win is the most important thing to you.
My arguments are based on the premise that the signatories to the Paris Agreement are officially aiming for a +1.5°C year 2100, and failing that they are officially aiming for a <+2.0°C year 2100.
CB thinks the latter goal is an odds-on favorite. And I agree that it is if the whole plan, the whole global plan, goes off swimmingly for the next 30 years straight.
Actually, I've assumed roadblocks and delays in my estimate that we'll end up around +2.0°C. Indeed, we've just lived through a rather significant four year 'hiccup' in progress towards that goal.
Let's consider an example;
The Climate Action Tracker has just released their latest estimate of what the US would need to do to meet its 'fair share' of the +1.5°C Paris target. The big ticket items are;
No fossil fuel electricity generation by 2035
Near zero new fossil fuel light vehicle sales by 2030
Reduce building emissions (e.g. heating fuel) by ~65% below 2015 levels by 2030
All of those are within the realm of possibility, and indeed either in line with or only a little more aggressive than the targets being talked about by the current administration.
Further, I tend to think that these 'fair share' estimates are overly pessimistic because they assume that developing countries are going to need to use fossil fuels to 'catch up' with the developed world. That just isn't true anymore. It will now be cheaper for developing countries to use solar and wind power. They also assume that all developing nations will rapidly improve their standard of living as China and India have done over the past few decades. That just ISN'T going to happen. Which means that they assume quite a bit of 'developmental' carbon emissions that aren't actually going to happen... leaving a little more for the developed countries to emit before hitting any given warming level.
That said, I still don't think it is likely that the US (and the world as a whole) will do enough to reach that +1.5°C target. People will resist the massive retrofitting needed to convert existing buildings to more carbon efficient alternatives. Electric vehicles are catching on more slowly in the US than almost anywhere else due to an entrenched opposition to anything and everything 'environmentally friendly'. Some fossil fuel power plants will just refuse to shut down even when they become unprofitable, and may well receive enough subsidies from friendly politicians to keep limping along for years. Et cetera.
That's why I think we'll end up around +2°C. Not because it is the best possible result... it ISN'T. Theoretically, we SHOULD be able to get to +1.5°C... but it just doesn't seem plausible that everyone is going to be willing to work together to get there. Too many people actively oppose action to reduce global warming.
The amount of infrastructure needed is beyond reasonable possibility for the developing world to go green from here on out. I'll make an exception for solar + battery but only if billions don't go for a full "Western" lifestyle. And you can't just build this stuff, it has to be maintained. Look how good the "West" is at maintaining just the power distribution systems. CA failed last summer. Tx this winter. The whole of the EU very nearly so this last January.
So we've got less than a decade to build more infrastructure than we've built over the past half century....
Naw, I follow the money and $4.1 billion dollars says Big Oil is still a solid investment. Do you disagree with the Great and Powerful Warren? If so, why?
How about them Germans and their Russian partners building Nord Stream 2? Are they building this because it'll lose money?
Federal policy hardly matters - we had perhaps the worst possible policy actions the last four years and it might have slowed the 'renewable revolution' by 0.5% or so. As I said, years ago now, we in the "West" are moving about as fast as we can towards this green future. You can level all the paper arguments you want but it won't change who human beings are. If you want people to change you need to tell them the truth in non-######### ways (thank you Greta) and also incentivize the end result you want.
CB thinks that future is +2.0°C end of century and I, based on all the reading I've done about the science, the engineering, the scale, the time remaining, and human nature, think it's a +2.5°C result at least.
CB complains about too many people actively opposing green power rollout but the issue is on the other side too. We want our "Western" lifestyle and so does the rest of the world (exceptions exist but the Amish, Da'esh and so forth are distinctly minor on the world's stage you must admit). Take for instance just the issues around AC.
The Guardian wrote:
As the world gets hotter, scenes like these will become increasingly common. Buying an air conditioner is perhaps the most popular individual response to climate change, and air conditioners are almost uniquely power-hungry appliances: a small unit cooling a single room, on average, consumes more power than running four fridges, while a central unit cooling an average house uses more power than 15. “Last year in Beijing, during a heatwave, 50% of the power capacity was going to air conditioning,” says John Dulac, an analyst at the International Energy Agency (IEA). “These are ‘oh shit’ moments.”
The main thrust of the article is that AC demand is going increase over 400% between now and 2050. And yes, AC units will likely be more efficient by then but, thanks to the ban on CFCs, that's not so nearly as easy to achieve. And yes, as we move towards 2050 more and more of the electricity used to power the AC will be from renewable sources, but that overlooks the whole CO2 remaining "budget" conundrum. The sooner we spend that "budget" of CO2 the worse will be the consequences of AGW circa the year 2100. If we build green as fast as the engineering and scale of the endeavor allow we spend the budget in no time and end up with a stalled economy to boot. If we build less fast but much smarter we could get by with a +2.5°C result.
Norway is saying great things regarding their mitigation for AGW, and they are apparently doing good things. But the reason they are doing the good things is two-fold:
1) They can afford to in a way the vast majority of humanity cannot
2) They have off-loaded a massive portion of their CO2 footprint to China, Bangladesh, India, etc.
.
Just look at the way they spin things in their favor:
a) Johan Sverdrup is billed as 'low carbon emissions' for the extraction process on its 2.7 billion barrels of oil because they use hydro-electric sourced power
b) They plan to be carbon neutral in the Edvard Grieg area by 2025 for the extraction of oil and natural gas
c) The Alvheim Area is being expanded all the time and they're reusing the initial infrastructure to bring the expansions online instead of building anew
Some appropriate responses to that spin:
a') Let's ignore the incongruity of lauding 'low carbon emissions' for the extraction of oil and gas shall we?
b') Even better! Let's not tout 'carbon neutrality' for the extraction of oil and gas shall we?
c') So, they're not reusing the infrastructure because it saves a large sum of money?
In short, oil and natural gas is a thing for Norway. And fossil fuels are the prime reason they can afford to 'go green' with an all EV domestic fleet. But it's oil and gas - better than coal but still a fossil fuel!
.
The real question that would give full insight to what the Norwegians are doing is this:
How many Norwegian households have two or more vehicles - at least one EV and one ICE?
Or maybe the answer to the following question would uncover some key metrics:
What proportion of households fly to the French Riviera or Indo for annual vacations?
