Conspiracy theories surrounding human influenced climate change, what's up with that?


Off-Topic Discussions

4,901 to 4,950 of 5,074 << first < prev | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | next > last >>

You seem to be angry at someone... but I have no clue who in this thread that post is directed at.


That's more or less what Mark said a ways up thread. No idea where people are getting this. Especially in this case where I expressly said Greta is the one who's mad. I can understand her POV of course. Basically anyone under 40 is having their financial future sold down the river with all the GND nonsense (it's not all nonsense but several $Trillion of it is). Although, and this is slightly off-topic, the way things are going we may see a near future inflation/austerity (i.e. more taxes) so, happily, the older folks may catch some of the consequences of the GND ########.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
“Quark Blast” wrote:
No idea where people are getting this.

Could be they’re interpreting your increasingly strident rhetoric as impassioned toward someone who has set you off. Your usage of unnecessary emphasis must surely have been aimed at someone.

The rest of us who deal with you often know that it had simply been four days since anyone had given you enough attention so you had to rattle your crib till someone came in to check on you.


Michele Buck - Pres and CEO of Hershey Co. wrote:
We will continue to use our scale and apply the full force of our business to reduce our greenhouse emissions and drive climate action forward.

I was having a discussion of all things AGW with another gamer recently (IRL, not on these or other forums) and the PR blitz by the Hershey company came up. My contention is that this advertising campaign is the company doing mostly image management. I was asked, 'how so?', and put forth the following:

There is one fairly objective standard* - independent auditing - put forth in the article I cited that nonetheless is best interpreted in a way that subverts the PR gloss that the company is putting on it.

BI wrote:
{T}he 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.

What Hershey should be doing is taking this 'green and fair' verification process and expressly offering it to all other chocolatiers - large and small, direct competitors and artisanal. More than that, they should be actively supporting rehabilitation of palm plantations back into diverse tropical forest. If you want to counter, as did the other gamer, with the fact that Hershey is committing to reducing packaging by 30% (e.g.) and that commitment has real and measurable reductions in CO2 emissions, I'll agree that that seems a fair question.

And the answer?

Easy. What Hershey is committing to is saving money. The "innovative packaging solutions" to reduce packaging by xx% by xxxx date is really just to shave expenses. And it's worth noting; they won't be passing that savings on to the consumer. No, the executive team will be giving themselves bonuses for coming up with a money saving scheme. Shareholders too I suppose will see some kickback. No one else though! Everybody else gets the good feeling that comes from buying a chocolate bar from such a wonderfully progressive company you see.

.

BI wrote:
Hershey is also targeting 100% of its plastic packaging to be recyclable, reusable or compostable by 2030.

Well, what do I say to that^ particular?

Easy. What Hershey is committing to is saving money. The "recyclable, reusable or compostable" plastic packaging will almost without doubt cost more in terms of CO2 emissions to recycle or reuse than to burn them in a contemporary biomass power generator. Composting will be a push but may lead to other issues - I'm not sure I want to eat food grown in soil fertilized with plastic compost.

.

BI wrote:
{T}oday the company is committing to end deforestation across its supply chain by 2030 with a new company-wide deforestation policy.

And why are they doing that^?

As I've already mentioned for this one, because the EU is (or will be soon(er or later)) moving away from palm oil as a biofuel, there will essentially be all the palm oil plantation production freed up that Hershey Co. could ever hope for. They literally have to do nothing to make this goal. It's a gimme, and that's ok. What's not ok is Hershey Co. taking any credit for this transition. To do otherwise would be both bad business (should it come to light) and monstrous ethics on their part. In short, this goal is all optics.

Because what they are doing so far is, by far, mostly signal. Certain academics will laud them for it. Governments will praise them for it. And the only way their 'green' efforts will make a difference is if it somehow pushes the chaotic system we call climate into a different (likely unstable) steady state. Which is to say, no difference we can hope to ever measure, even theoretically.

* As mentioned previously this program that the Hershey Co. has committed to is a little hard to fully evaluate since they aren't giving us truly detailed/insider information, and likely never will.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay.


3 things you can do about climate change from home during COVID

1) Plant Native Species

2) Eat Less Beef

3) Choose Slower Shipping

Counter proposals that are just as easy and will save even more in carbon emissions.

1) Preserve high value degraded forests by supporting those who already are

2) Don't eat processed food

3) Stop buying things you don't really need

And the video title is a little unwieldy, they should totally change that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

4.) Consume less power by using the forums on Paizo’s servers to host your forum posts, your personal blog and your ramblingly embarrassing journal where you incessantly talk to yourself.


Here's a calmer and more erudite plea for real and measurable action. The inverse Greta approach if you will.

Net-zero emissions targets are vague: three ways to fix
To limit warming, action plans from countries and companies must be fair, rigorous and transparent.

Nature wrote:

Plans are hard to compare, and definitions loose. The details behind ‘net-zero’ labels differ enormously. Some targets focus solely on carbon dioxide. Others cover all greenhouse gases. Companies might consider only emissions under their direct control, or include those from their supply chains and from the use or disposal of their products. Sometimes the targets do not aim to reduce emissions, but compensate for them with offsets....

Critics could argue that vague targets are better than none. But the stakes are too high to take comfort in mere announcements. Everyone need not make the same choices. But without more clarity, strategies behind net-zero targets cannot be understood; nor can their impact be evaluated.

Here we call on nations, companies and the researchers advising them to clarify three aspects of their targets:
1) Their scope
2) How they are deemed adequate and fair
3) Concrete road maps towards and beyond net zero.

A key date for this clarity will be the next UN climate summit, in Glasgow, UK, in November, where countries will present new climate pledges.

Good points. I'll be shocked - shocked! - if they are heeded and acted upon by COP26.

Notice that the authors (international panel of noted and properly credentialed climate experts) are assuming general atmospheric CO2 removal starting by 2030 and ramping up to 15Gt+/year by century's end in order to meet the Paris Agreement target zone.

Brilliant scientists! Just brilliant they are! And I, yes even I, stand in their company when calling for scaled CC&S. Not that I needed their endorsement but it's always nice to call on real experts to back my case. Ohhh the feels of being right! Lovely. Truly.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yay more monologuing...

Quark Blast wrote:
it's always nice to call on real experts to back my case

It's a change of pace for you, we know.

Quark Blast wrote:
Ohhh the feels of being right! Lovely. Truly.

When you're ever actually in the position to learn what it feels like to be right, I'm sure you'll enjoy the sensation. For now you are "agreed with." 'Agreed with' and 'Right' are not the same things. As the thing you often claim to be "right" about is in fact a prediction about something we cannot confirm for another 79 years, I doubt any of us will remember your monologues well enough to care whether you were right or wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:

Here's a calmer and more erudite plea for real and measurable action. The inverse Greta approach if you will.

Net-zero emissions targets are vague: three ways to fix
To limit warming, action plans from countries and companies must be fair, rigorous and transparent.

Nature wrote:

Plans are hard to compare, and definitions loose. The details behind ‘net-zero’ labels differ enormously. Some targets focus solely on carbon dioxide. Others cover all greenhouse gases. Companies might consider only emissions under their direct control, or include those from their supply chains and from the use or disposal of their products. Sometimes the targets do not aim to reduce emissions, but compensate for them with offsets....

Critics could argue that vague targets are better than none. But the stakes are too high to take comfort in mere announcements. Everyone need not make the same choices. But without more clarity, strategies behind net-zero targets cannot be understood; nor can their impact be evaluated.

Here we call on nations, companies and the researchers advising them to clarify three aspects of their targets:
1) Their scope
2) How they are deemed adequate and fair
3) Concrete road maps towards and beyond net zero.

A key date for this clarity will be the next UN climate summit, in Glasgow, UK, in November, where countries will present new climate pledges.

Good points. I'll be shocked - shocked! - if they are heeded and acted upon by COP26.

Notice that the authors (international panel of noted and properly credentialed climate experts) are assuming general atmospheric CO2 removal starting by 2030 and ramping up to 15Gt+/year by century's end in order to meet the Paris Agreement target zone.

Brilliant scientists! Just brilliant they are! And I, yes even I, stand in their company when calling for scaled CC&S. Not that I needed their endorsement but it's...

k


Others on this thread, who are often caught gawking at their own feet, have been brow beating me from time to time with 'Why we've known that for years', referring to this or that commonly accepted result from the standard cluster of climate models.

I keep warning that we don't know the global climate as well as we think.

Here are two high quality peer reviewed articles that illustrate this conflict.

From 2015: Accelerated dryland expansion under climate change

Nature wrote:
Drylands are home to more than 38% of the total global population and are one of the most sensitive areas to climate change and human activities. Projecting the areal change in drylands is essential for taking early action to prevent the aggravation of global desertification. However, dryland expansion has been underestimated in the Fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) simulations considering the past 58 years (1948–2005). Here, using historical data to bias-correct CMIP5 projections, we show an increase in dryland expansion rate resulting in the drylands covering half of the global land surface by the end of this century. Dryland area, projected under representative concentration pathways (RCPs) RCP8.5 and RCP4.5, will increase by 23% and 11%, respectively, relative to 1961–1990 baseline, equalling 56% and 50%, respectively, of total land surface. Such an expansion of drylands would lead to reduced carbon sequestration and enhanced regional warming, resulting in warming trends over the present drylands that are double those over humid regions. The increasing aridity, enhanced warming and rapidly growing human population will exacerbate the risk of land degradation and desertification in the near future in the drylands of developing countries, where 78% of dryland expansion and 50% of the population growth will occur under RCP8.5.

.

From 2021: No projected global drylands expansion under greenhouse warming
Nature Climate Change wrote:
Drylands, comprising land regions characterized by water-limited, sparse vegetation, have commonly been projected to expand globally under climate warming. Such projections, however, rely on an atmospheric proxy for drylands, the aridity index, which has recently been shown to yield qualitatively incorrect projections of various components of the terrestrial water cycle. Here, we use an alternative index of drylands, based directly on relevant ecohydrological variables, and compare projections of both indices in Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 climate models as well as Dynamic Global Vegetation Models. The aridity index overestimates simulated ecohydrological index changes. This divergence reflects different index sensitivities to hydroclimate change and opposite responses to the physiological effect on vegetation of increasing atmospheric CO2. Atmospheric aridity is thus not an accurate proxy of the future extent of drylands. Despite greater uncertainties than in atmospheric projections, climate model ecohydrological projections indicate no global drylands expansion under greenhouse warming, contrary to previous claims based on atmospheric aridity.

Anyone care to amend their brow-beating of poor little Quarkster now?

No?

Ah well.... no surprise.
:D


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quark Blast wrote:

Others on this thread, who are often caught gawking at their own feet, have been brow beating me from time to time with 'Why we've known that for years', referring to this or that commonly accepted result from the standard cluster of climate models.

I keep warning that we don't know the global climate as well as we think.

Here are two high quality peer reviewed articles that illustrate this conflict.

From 2015: Accelerated dryland expansion under climate change

Nature wrote:
Drylands are home to more than 38% of the total global population and are one of the most sensitive areas to climate change and human activities. Projecting the areal change in drylands is essential for taking early action to prevent the aggravation of global desertification. However, dryland expansion has been underestimated in the Fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) simulations considering the past 58 years (1948–2005). Here, using historical data to bias-correct CMIP5 projections, we show an increase in dryland expansion rate resulting in the drylands covering half of the global land surface by the end of this century. Dryland area, projected under representative concentration pathways (RCPs) RCP8.5 and RCP4.5, will increase by 23% and 11%, respectively, relative to 1961–1990 baseline, equalling 56% and 50%, respectively, of total land surface. Such an expansion of drylands would lead to reduced carbon sequestration and enhanced regional warming, resulting in warming trends over the present drylands that are double those over humid regions. The increasing aridity, enhanced warming and rapidly growing human population will exacerbate the risk of land degradation and desertification in the near future in the drylands of developing countries, where 78% of dryland expansion and 50% of the population growth will occur under RCP8.5.

.

From 2021: No...

... cool.


Quark Blast wrote:

Anyone care to amend their brow-beating of poor little Quarkster now?

No?

Ah well.... no surprise.
:D

What has my stance on this kind of information been for years?


Irontruth wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:

Anyone care to amend their brow-beating of poor little Quarkster now?

No?

Ah well.... no surprise.
:D

What has my stance on this kind of information been for years?

The beatings will continue until moral improves?


Nope.


Quark Blast wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:

Anyone care to amend their brow-beating of poor little Quarkster now?

No?

Ah well.... no surprise.
:D

What has my stance on this kind of information been for years?
The beatings will continue until moral improves?

How do you want me to respond to this? Do you want a respectful, mature discussion, or do you want me to just respond with sarcasm?

This is your opportunity to force me into a corner. You've commented repeatedly that you want a more mature discussion. I'll respond back to you in whatever manner you demonstrate to me, but you have to actually demonstrate it.


We've made progress to curb global emissions, but it's a fraction of what's needed

Phy.Org wrote:

Our research found between 2016 (right after the Paris Agreement was signed) and 2019, emissions from 64 countries were declining while emissions from 150 other countries were increasing. This meant global emissions were still growing, albeit a bit slower.

In fact, these pre-pandemic emission declines were just one-tenth of what they needed to be to keep global warming well below 2℃. This is why it's vital to ratchet up climate mitigation commitments to meet global targets and avoid further environmental damage....

The biggest emission declines came from high-income economies: the UK (declined by 3.6% per year compared to the previous five years), Denmark (-2.8%), Japan (-2%) and the US (-0.7%)....

But a few high-income economies increased their fossil fuel-sourced carbon dioxide emissions in the same period. This includes Australia (+1.0%), Russian Federation (+0.2%), Canada (+0.1%) and New Zealand (+0.1%). For these nations, increased emissions can largely be attributed to the continued growth in oil and natural gas use....

And a recent UN report shows 48 countries intend to reduce emissions beyond their previous commitments. Some countries, such as China and the UK, went beyond their legal obligations and pledged to reach net zero emissions by 2050 or soon after.

These current commitments, however, do not add up to what's required, globally.

If these new commitments are achieved, global emissions by 2030 would be 0.2% below the 2010 level according to UN numbers released last week.

However, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates emissions need to be reduced by 25% to 50% below 2010 levels to keep global heating between 1.5℃ and 2℃....

Whatever strategies we put in place, one thing is for sure. Globally, we need...to deliver at least ten times more emissions cuts than our pre-pandemic efforts, while supporting economic recovery, human development, improved health, equity and well-being.

Oh is that all? I wonder what the Vegas odds are?

:D

.

Phy.Org wrote:
Steve Davis, UCI associate professor of Earth system science.... said the coronavirus crisis and its expected aftermath present the world community with a unique inflection point. "We have been shown what can be achieved through widespread changes in our habits, now we need to implement policy that cements those new ways of doing things," he said.

Gotta admire the moxie in that kid. 'Cement those COVID-19 changes'?.... Power Word Whisper yeeeaah...

"My research aims to both better understand the problems and point the way to feasible solutions." So says professor Davis on his home page at UCI but telling people they need to volunteer for COVID-19 level austerity for just a few more decades seems to be quite the opposite of "feasible".

I want to live for the next 30 years like we have over the past year! Doesn't everybody? What do you say everyone? ....Anyone? ....Someone? ....Nope? sigh....

In other breaking news:

Looks like most of the EU is or will soon be in lockdown because they failed on the vaccine rollout. Also there are protests across several capitals by people getting tired of the lockdown cycle.

Remember when they said, "Two weeks to flatten the curve?" When are those two weeks over?
:D

So-called 'vaccine hesitancy' is something in excess of 60% in France no matter how the question is phrased and the responses measured. In Germany the number is 55% distrust the AstraZeneca jab. Germany! The country of science where I was assured just last year, up thread by a resident, that the rest of the world needs to emulate viz-a-viz the Coronavirus. Maybe not so much now, eh?

The science says to get vaccinated ASAP. The science says K-8 kids are no risk for super-spreader events. The science says, with proper precautions, even adults can gather in large numbers (Cf. Disney World, Sea World, Universal Studios). The science says, with very minimal precautions (like simple distancing - with no masks) - outdoor recreation is safe and healthy! Who knew! And this isn't new science - many of these conclusions were reached last summer and have been confirmed time and again in the months since.

If verifiable actions come out of the promises at COP26 in November I'll be much surprised and relieved.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quark Blast wrote:

We've made progress to curb global emissions, but it's a fraction of what's needed

Phy.Org wrote:

Our research found between 2016 (right after the Paris Agreement was signed) and 2019, emissions from 64 countries were declining while emissions from 150 other countries were increasing. This meant global emissions were still growing, albeit a bit slower.

In fact, these pre-pandemic emission declines were just one-tenth of what they needed to be to keep global warming well below 2℃. This is why it's vital to ratchet up climate mitigation commitments to meet global targets and avoid further environmental damage....

The biggest emission declines came from high-income economies: the UK (declined by 3.6% per year compared to the previous five years), Denmark (-2.8%), Japan (-2%) and the US (-0.7%)....

But a few high-income economies increased their fossil fuel-sourced carbon dioxide emissions in the same period. This includes Australia (+1.0%), Russian Federation (+0.2%), Canada (+0.1%) and New Zealand (+0.1%). For these nations, increased emissions can largely be attributed to the continued growth in oil and natural gas use....

And a recent UN report shows 48 countries intend to reduce emissions beyond their previous commitments. Some countries, such as China and the UK, went beyond their legal obligations and pledged to reach net zero emissions by 2050 or soon after.

These current commitments, however, do not add up to what's required, globally.

If these new commitments are achieved, global emissions by 2030 would be 0.2% below the 2010 level according to UN numbers released last week.

However, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates emissions need to be reduced by 25% to 50% below 2010 levels to keep global heating between 1.5℃ and 2℃....

Whatever strategies we put in place, one thing is for sure. Globally, we need...to deliver at least ten times

...

... cool.


Scientists push to add “huge” fish trawling emissions to national inventories
Bottom-trawling for fish releases more carbon dioxide each year than Germany, a study has revealed, yet this is not included in national carbon accounts

Not included in national carbon budgets huh?
What ya wanna bet it's not included in climate models either.
;P

CCN wrote:

China is responsible for 769m tonnes of underwater CO2 a year while the EU released 274m tonnes....

Potentially, measuring those emissions could lead to monetising them.

Atwood said that several countries, particularly those with large coastlines, are “really interested” in raising funds through carbon credits to protect the seas or to compensate fishing communities.

“Some of the people that are working on Argentina’s [national climate plan] were really interested when they got this study,” she said. “If you have a country which has a lot of trawling going on, there might be another country which can basically pay to stop that trawling.”

But Gilles Dufrasne, policy officer at Carbon Market Watch told Climate Home News these kind of carbon credits were “probably not a great idea”.

Carbon reductions used to create offsets are supposed to be permanent but Dufrasne asked: “Even if a country banned [bottom-trawling] and enforced the policy, how credible is it that this will be maintained for 100+ years?”

He added that measuring these emissions sounded too uncertain to be suitable for carbon credits. When there’s uncertainty, a high estimate is usually appropriate to be on the safe side, he said. But a high estimate means lots of carbon credits, “potentially generating more credits than actually was saved”.

Imagine, a system designed to maximize profit ends up short changing the ostensible reason for considering such a system in the first place?

Reminds me of most wind projects.

Yep.

CCN wrote:

On top of this, he said bottom-trawling companies or their governments could buy carbon credits from a government which banned the practice in one area while continuing to trawl in other regions. They could then use the credits from one region to “compensate” the damages in the other region.

He said: “It could end up being the seafood version of the carbon-neutral LNG deals that are unfortunately so popular right now: you sell a harmful product while supporting its alternatives with carbon credits and make it all look very nice by selling everything together.”....

Another way to reduce bottom-trawling is to reduce fishery subsidies. The study’s lead author Enric Sala told Climate Home in an email: “Eliminating subsidies hopefully would reduce the number of bottom trawlers out there, because in many places bottom trawling wouldn’t be profitable without government subsidies.”

Not profitable without subsidies?

Sounds like a great many other portions of the global economy.

CCN wrote:

The World Trade Organisation’s members have been negotiating the reduction of these subsidies since 2001. The organisation’s new head Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala is trying to conclude these talks, recently posing next to an ice fish sculpture with the words “stop funding overfishing” engraved on it.

At the moment, Atwood said, it is not possible to bottom trawl ethically. In the Netherlands, a method called pulse trawling is being trialled where an electric pulse causes fish to swim up into the net, which is above the seabed.

While this would disturb less carbon, it has been banned by the European Union. There are fears it could damage species like sharks, which are particularly sensitive to electrical currents.

A more ethical way to harvest certain species like oysters, mussels and clams, Atwood said, is to farm them. “There’s been a lot of bad press about some ways of doing aquaculture [fish farming] but they’re actually a really clean marine species to grow,” she said.

When asked if reducing fish and seafood consumption would help, Atwood said that fish is a healthy meat option and is important for food security, particularly in the developing world.

Yes, that portion of the world expected to add another couple billion people over the rest of this century.

Sounds like government subsidies and bottom trawling are a thing for at least another 100 years or so. Maybe not put so much effort into banning something that's not going anywhere, eh?

Not only that but the replacement for fish is CAFOs and we already know what they are doing for the environment. Maybe not trade a bad deal for one considerably worse, eh?

CCN wrote:
As well as bottom trawling, the report’s authors said they were concerned about the “emerging threat” of deep sea mining for minerals, which disturbs the sea bed in a similar way.

Why would we need to start deep sea mining?

Raw materials for the Green New Deal maybe?

But I'm sure those consequences have been modeled and well considered. No such thing as greenwashing, right? Indeed, there will be no head-long rush to profit off of green tech. Nope.
:D


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
...

Uh huh.


Quark Blast wrote:

Scientists push to add “huge” fish trawling emissions to national inventories

Bottom-trawling for fish releases more carbon dioxide each year than Germany, a study has revealed, yet this is not included in national carbon accounts

Not included in national carbon budgets huh?
What ya wanna bet it's not included in climate models either.

Unless those models are working off of measured carbon and not estimated carbon. Measuring oceanic and atmospheric carbon would already account for this source.


Global fishing fleets have expanded dramatically in size - both total numbers and larger vessels - these past 35-45 years and have been advancing into ever deeper waters. The equilibrium between sea floor disturbance and the global atmosphere is decadal. The whole point of adding fish trawling seabed CO2 emissions to national ledgers is because heretofore they've gone unmeasured, uncounted, and therefore unmodeled.


That is only partially true.

A model built on output... yes, your statement could be true.

A model built on measured carbon in the atmosphere and ocean... your statement is false.


CO2 measurements in the ocean have been minimal, especially at depth and away from shore. Trawling has been ramping up these past few decades and the full effect hasn't been seen yet (even if someone was looking for it, and they weren't). It'll also depend on whether trawling is reduced, though I doubt it because feeding people is a thing and the Chinese don't seem to give a ####### #### and are even over-fishing in national waters around Africa because there's no navy to oppose them.
Further, if CH4 is being disturbed by this same activity that's another factor in the global climate equation. It's a chaotic system so it may not take much to nudge it past the next Tipping Point - hard to know if you're not modeling it and hard to model if you're not measuring it.


Most trawling actually happens at shallower depths in coastal regions*. Some of it happens on the slope of the continental shelf, but it's not happening in the deepest parts of the ocean. It's happening right where you assume scientists are already taking measurements... and there's good reasons for this.

So again... what you're saying about carbon measurements is factually not true.

This paper does a good job of adjusting estimated output models, but it doesn't impact models based on measurement, except to help account for any differences from previous estimated outputs and what has been measured.

It's not like this better estimate is going to change how fast coral dies. What does that is the actual carbon amounts... which are being measured.

*When I say "shallower depths", yes, we're still talking about 500-1000 feet down, but we aren't talking about the 2+ miles depth of most of the ocean.


“It’s wiping out biodiversity, it’s wiping out things like deep sea corals that take hundreds of years to grow,” Dr. Atwood said. “And now what this study shows is that it also has this other kind of unknown impact, which is that it creates a lot of CO2.”

Because you know we always call things "unknown" when we've already got it covered. Discovering that CO2 moves from the disturbed ocean bottom in the North Sea and eventually into the atmosphere off of NW Africa is I'm sure entirely inconsequential to climate modeling. In fact I saw the results of one model that flatly declared "Outlook Not So Good" and that sure sounds like the future of our climate and it was a whole lot cheaper to run that experiment. I say we save time and money and base our international accords on that.... or, we could use the science like presented in Nature and adapt our models, and thus also our policy, on that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You're arguing against things I never said.

I'm not defending trawling. I agree that this is useful information in modeling sources of carbon.

But... this paper isn't going to suddenly change what the measurements are from Mauna Loa. We aren't going to go back and change previous measurements of atmospheric CO2 because of this. This has no effect on measurement based models.

I'm happy to discuss these other aspects you want to bring up, but first I want to make sure we agree on simple facts like the above. We can't discuss more complicated concepts if we can't agree on simple facts like how measuring things works.


You're arguing things the study I linked doesn't discuss. The mirror kinda sucks don't it when you're looking at yourself?

More to the point:
The increase in bottom trawling is marked and is still going up. If ocean floor mining becomes a significant thing, and at present it sure looks as if it will (China and Russia certainly don't seem to care at all), the CO2 from the ocean floor sediments will go up dramatically yet again over several more decades.

Climate models most profitably look forward and they can't include measurements and/or estimates that haven't been measured or estimated.

If all we care about is monitoring and modeling the decay of our livable biosphere in real-time or retrospect then your approach is the one to take, but that's not what I or the article linked or the study published in Nature are presenting.

You be you though, the dull roar of it all helps to sharpen my salient points and I truly appreciate that.
:D


Quark Blast wrote:

You're arguing things the study I linked doesn't discuss. The mirror kinda sucks don't it when you're looking at yourself?

More to the point:
The increase in bottom trawling is marked and is still going up. If ocean floor mining becomes a significant thing, and at present it sure looks as if it will (China and Russia certainly don't seem to care at all), the CO2 from the ocean floor sediments will go up dramatically yet again over several more decades.

Climate models most profitably look forward and they can't include measurements and/or estimates that haven't been measured or estimated.

If all we care about is monitoring and modeling the decay of our livable biosphere in real-time or retrospect then your approach is the one to take, but that's not what I or the article linked or the study published in Nature are presenting.

You be you though, the dull roar of it all helps to sharpen my salient points and I truly appreciate that.
:D

k


Quark Blast wrote:


You be you though, the dull roar of it all helps to sharpen my salient points and I truly appreciate that.

What are you actually doing with those sharpened salient points? Real world application. Not merely I'm here to win paizo's forum application.


Quark Blast wrote:

You're arguing things the study I linked doesn't discuss. The mirror kinda sucks don't it when you're looking at yourself?

I'm arguing against a claim YOU made... not a claim the article made.

Modeling output is not the only way to model atmospheric carbon. We can model based on measurements.

Even before your new study, it's already been shown that many climate models are making accurate predictions.


I'm arguing that linear models won't be very good at capturing a non-linear progression of the atmosphere.

You're arguing measuring CO2 after release will only make our understanding of the state of the global atmosphere a decade or three behind.

I'm arguing that we don't have a decade or three to waste. Depending on which "expert" you listen to we (all of humanity) have something less than 9 years and possibly less than 9 months to get on track globally.

Case in point:
The ‘Green Energy’ That Might Be Ruining the Planet
The biomass industry is warming up the South's economy, but many experts worry it's doing the same to the climate.

politico wrote:

Here’s a multibillion-dollar question that could help determine the fate of the global climate: If a tree falls in a forest—and then it’s driven to a mill, where it’s chopped and chipped and compressed into wood pellets, which are then driven to a port and shipped across the ocean to be burned for electricity in European power plants—does it warm the planet?

Most scientists and environmentalists say yes: By definition, clear-cutting trees and combusting their carbon emits greenhouse gases that heat up the earth. But policymakers in the U.S. Congress and governments around the world have declared that no, burning wood for power isn’t a climate threat—it’s actually a green climate solution. In Europe, “biomass power,” as it’s technically called, is now counted and subsidized as zero-emissions renewable energy. As a result, European utilities now import tons of wood from U.S. forests every year—and Europe’s supposedly eco-friendly economy now generates more energy from burning wood than from wind and solar combined....

Why is there insufficient harkening to scientists among the policy set? Especially in the enlightened EU! I mean, the pledges! Think of the pledges!

Who makes those pledges and who makes energy policy? Not the same people, clearly.... or is it?

Now add to this all the other ####### biomass energy projects around the globe, but especially palm oil, and you'll see this as a significant problem living outside the accuracy of our current IPCC climate modeling.

.

politico wrote:
The idea that setting trees on fire could be carbon-neutral sounds even odder to experts who know that biomass emits more carbon than coal at the smokestack, plus the carbon released by logging, processing logs into vitamin-sized pellets and transporting them overseas....

Funny how the carbon footprint of all the biomass pre-processing regularly gets left out of the calculus when moving ahead with biomass energy projects.

Those crazy kids! SMH

.

politico wrote:
Even if new trees are planted in their place, many studies suggest they will take decades, and in some cases centuries, to absorb enough carbon to “pay back” the carbon debt from burning the older trees. That’s a problem, because scientists don’t believe the world can wait decades, much less centuries, to cut emissions. So at a time when global demand for pulpwood is already rising, the U.S. is already the top supplier, and the world is supposed to be expanding its carbon sinks to avoid climate calamities, the green-sounding technology of bioenergy is pulling even more carbon-rich wood out of U.S. forests....

Indeed, no one - and I mean no one credible - is arguing we've got decades. As a stop-gap to get off of coal immediately one could see a very limited argument for biomass energy. But even there natural gas would likely be the better option.

.

politico wrote:
But biomass defenders say that focusing on one tree or even one clear-cut is far too narrow a way to think about forest carbon, because as long as the carbon absorbed by forests equals the carbon released from forests, the climate doesn’t care....

Biomass defenders are arguing out of their ##### ######## with an eye on the bottom line inked in black.

.

politico wrote:
{A}gricultural expansion is the largest driver of deforestation. And as hundreds of millions of people join the middle class in countries like India and China, larger portions of their diets will consist of meat, which is the most land-intensive food; the World Resources Institute projects that unless current trends in population or meat-eating change, the world will have to deforest a land mass nearly twice the size of India by 2050....

Hey! Who's writing this article, me or some other genius?

:D

Let's hope reclaiming some of the Sahel lost over recent decades puts a serious dent in that deforestation figure. Since that continent is where a significant portion of the growth in peoples is expected, it would make sense that improved agriculture there will be more than worth the effort when seen from a global CO2 budget perspective.

.

politico wrote:
The European experience has also shown the power of inertia. Many European politicians and regulators now express second thoughts about the blanket exemptions they gave biomass in the past, but in most countries those exemptions have proved quite resilient. A year ago, I happened to watch a legislative hearing about biomass in the Danish parliament; afterward, leaders from the left-leaning governing party and the center-right opposition both told me they were shocked by the evidence that wood-burning was a fake climate solution, and determined to push Denmark toward a different renewable path. So far, though, they haven’t. Denmark’s plan to reach its Paris goals depends heavily on biomass, eventually with carbon capture and storage; ditching biomass would require some excruciating political choices....

See? Right there^!

That's a particular instantiation of the ubiquitous human propensity to #### ###### ## all the while declaring what a great job we're doing. Now multiply that by an unknown but very large number of other "brilliant" decisions and it makes one wonder why there are any hopeful prognosticators out there.

Elon believes in the salvation of applied, and as of yet uninvented, tech. Let's hope he's a prophet and not of the false sort.

.

politico wrote:
It’s true that forestry is a big industry, says Tufts environmental policy professor William Moomaw, but those forests are going to need to do less economic work if Biden is going to have any hope of reaching his emissions goals. They need to be carbon negative, not just carbon neutral—and they need to get that way fast. “Otherwise, we’re dead meat,” Moomaw says. “We can’t say, ‘Oh, we can sacrifice forest over here, because it’s growing over there. We need to stop sacrificing forest.”

See? How hard is that to say? Follow the science, right?

But #### if there isn't $50 billion chasing another answer. And with about $1.5 trillion of the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 legislation recently passed chasing other ######## answers, I'd say we're* in for one heck of a ride into the next century.

* And by "we", I mean those who follow since the literal we will all be dead before then... with perhaps a handful of exceptions to make the rule.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quark Blast wrote:

I'm arguing that linear models won't be very good at capturing a non-linear progression of the atmosphere.

You're arguing measuring CO2 after release will only make our understanding of the state of the global atmosphere a decade or three behind.

I'm arguing that we don't have a decade or three to waste. Depending on which "expert" you listen to we (all of humanity) have something less than 9 years and possibly less than 9 months to get on track globally.

Case in point:
The ‘Green Energy’ That Might Be Ruining the Planet
The biomass industry is warming up the South's economy, but many experts worry it's doing the same to the climate.

politico wrote:

Here’s a multibillion-dollar question that could help determine the fate of the global climate: If a tree falls in a forest—and then it’s driven to a mill, where it’s chopped and chipped and compressed into wood pellets, which are then driven to a port and shipped across the ocean to be burned for electricity in European power plants—does it warm the planet?

Most scientists and environmentalists say yes: By definition, clear-cutting trees and combusting their carbon emits greenhouse gases that heat up the earth. But policymakers in the U.S. Congress and governments around the world have declared that no, burning wood for power isn’t a climate threat—it’s actually a green climate solution. In Europe, “biomass power,” as it’s technically called, is now counted and subsidized as zero-emissions renewable energy. As a result, European utilities now import tons of wood from U.S. forests every year—and Europe’s supposedly eco-friendly economy now generates more energy from burning wood than from wind and solar combined....

Why is there insufficient harkening to scientists among the policy set? Especially in the enlightened EU! I mean, the pledges! Think of the pledges!

Who makes those pledges and who makes...

... Cool


Quarter Back dude either linkify an article or go line by line quote and respond. Don't do both. Practice some conservation here in virtual space.

Liberty's Edge

QB - You've been bickering your PragerU BS around here for years but yet you still cannot figure out how to setup a profile or avatar for these forums, why?


Quark Blast wrote:

I'm arguing that linear models won't be very good at capturing a non-linear progression of the atmosphere.

You're arguing measuring CO2 after release will only make our understanding of the state of the global atmosphere a decade or three behind.

Except that isn't what I'm arguing at all, and this isn't about linear vs. nonlinear.

Every time something gets pointed out to you, you try to change the subject, and accuse the other person of something they haven't said. I thought you wanted to have a mature and productive discussion.

See, this is why I skim your posts, because you START with false assumptions.


Irontruth wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:

I'm arguing that linear models won't be very good at capturing a non-linear progression of the atmosphere.

You're arguing measuring CO2 after release will only make our understanding of the state of the global atmosphere a decade or three behind.

I'm arguing that we don't have a decade or three to waste. Depending on which "expert" you listen to we (all of humanity) have something less than 9 years and possibly less than 9 months to get on track globally.

Except that isn't what I'm arguing at all, and this isn't about linear vs. nonlinear.

Every time something gets pointed out to you, you try to change the subject, and accuse the other person of something they haven't said. I thought you wanted to have a mature and productive discussion.

See, this is why I skim your posts, because you START with false assumptions.

See, this is why no one on here ever engages with you for long; you start out your replies as a ##### ####### ###### and end up your replies as a ##### ####### ######. You are the most insincere debater on this forum.

Congrats!
:D

Your point, such as it was, would have some validity if we could afford a decade or three delay in adjusting our climate models to the data. But we can't, if the scientists are to be believed, so your point is pointless in the context of the article.

Incidentally, Planet of the Humans and the recently linked Politico article rather compliment each other nicely. Good to know someone else is paying attention.

As for the one kvetching about how I cite and quote references, what can I say, you'll just have to learn to read paragraphs of two, three and sometimes four sentences. The author is making a point and when they wrap up a minor or major point I call it out - either as good or wrong - add a pertinent insight or two and then move onto the next. The link is solely a courtesy so people can see if there's relevant context I'm leaving out.

As for my style of "bickering", I've never heard of that university and it sounds like a private institution so not something I could afford. They must have a killer debate team eh?

As for my profile/avatar, why the ##### # ####### would I care to? I mean really, why?


Quark Blast wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:

I'm arguing that linear models won't be very good at capturing a non-linear progression of the atmosphere.

You're arguing measuring CO2 after release will only make our understanding of the state of the global atmosphere a decade or three behind.

I'm arguing that we don't have a decade or three to waste. Depending on which "expert" you listen to we (all of humanity) have something less than 9 years and possibly less than 9 months to get on track globally.

Except that isn't what I'm arguing at all, and this isn't about linear vs. nonlinear.

Every time something gets pointed out to you, you try to change the subject, and accuse the other person of something they haven't said. I thought you wanted to have a mature and productive discussion.

See, this is why I skim your posts, because you START with false assumptions.

See, this is why no one on here ever engages with you for long; you start out your replies as a ##### ####### ###### and end up your replies as a ##### ####### ######. You are the most insincere debater on this forum.

Congrats!
:D

Your point, such as it was, would have some validity if we could afford a decade or three delay in adjusting our climate models to the data. But we can't, if the scientists are to be believed, so your point is pointless in the context of the article.

Again... you aren't actually addressing what I said.


It’s time to end subsidies for burning wood from forests

”CCN” wrote:

Many are surprised to learn the scale of the problem*. But with nearly €7 billion per year being spent on subsidizing the burning of wood in Europe, it is little wonder that wood pellet use has exploded from 17 Mt in 2013 to 26 Mt in 2018, a 50% jump in five years. If nothing is done, there are worrying signs that this huge growth will accelerate, as European coal plants look to shift to wood burning….

This leads to a large initial increase in carbon emissions, creating a “carbon debt,” which grows over time as more trees are harvested for continuing bioenergy use. Regrowing trees and displacing fossil fuels may eventually pay off this “carbon debt”, but regrowth is slow and the world does not have long to solve climate change. As numerous studies have shown, this burning of wood will increase warming for decades to centuries. This is true even when the wood replaces coal, oil or natural gas. Overall, for each kilowatt-hour of heat or electricity produced, using wood initially is likely to add two to three times as much carbon to the air as fossil fuels.

Sadly, and totally expected, is the fact that these^ facts were known well before the recent push for biomass fuel expansion.

Will these 500 petitioners have their day at COP26? Or will moneyed interests continue to rule the GND?

My money is on the latter. Let’s hope I lose this bet.

Raj Kumar Singh understands the issue.

”CCN” wrote:

Raj Kumar Singh described net zero goals as “pie in the sky” during a global summit hosted by the International Energy Agency (IEA) designed to create global momentum for achieving net zero emissions by the middle of the century.

The virtual ministerial dialogue was attended by more than 40 ministers from large emitting nations.

“You have countries whose per capita emissions are four times, five times, six times, 12 times the world average,” Singh said during a panel discussion with China’s energy minister Zhang Jianhua, US climate envoy John Kerry and the EU’s Frans Timmermans, which have all backed net zero goals.
“Now the question is when are [emissions] going to come down. What we hear is that ‘by 2050 or by 2060 we will become carbon neutral’.” But “2060 is far away,” Singh said in reference to China’s own net zero goal.
“If by that time people continue to emit at the rate at which they are emitting, the world won’t survive. So what are you going to do in the next five years, we want to know that, the world wants to know that. What are you going to do in the next 10 years?” he asked.

Sadly the energy minister doesn’t seem to understand the scale of the issue he’s calling out. For example, the answer to “what are you going to do in the next 10 years?” is simple – nothing.

Does he not understand that the Environmental Impact Statements for projects this large will take at least five years?

Does he not understand that the legal wrangling for projects this large will take at least another five years?

Srsly, we have a definite decade of no action going for significant large scale action on GND proposals. Aside from biomass burning that is; that’s going gangbusters!
:D

As for India:

”CCN” wrote:

India is on track to exceed its target of delivering 450GW of renewable energy by the end of the decade but it continues to expand its coal capacity, recently holding an auction for new coal blocks.

For its climate plans to be compatible with limiting global warming to 1.5C, India would need to abandon plans to build new coal power plants and phase out all coal generation by 2040, according to Climate Action Tracker.

A couple of other points to show how off-kilter the action is from the talking about AGW.

1) Saudi Arabia aims for 50% renewable energy by 2030, backs huge tree planting initiative

”CCN” wrote:

Experts told Climate Home News that while Saudi Arabia’s tree-planting ambition was welcome, it isn’t clear how they plan to plant 10 billion trees in the third-driest country on earth.

According to the Saudi Press Agency, 10 billion trees will be planted across the Kingdom “in the upcoming decades” and an additional 40 billion will be planted across the Middle East….
Environmental economist Kenneth Richards told Climate Home News: “It is not unprecedented for massive tree planting to experience high mortality rates due to local conditions. Given the potentially harsh climatic conditions in the regions that these two initiatives appear to be targeting, it is not difficult to imagine a similar problem.”

Not difficult indeed. Were it as easy as the greenwashing propo makes it sound it’d already be mostly done. Now to be clear I’ve no doubt it will get done. I’ve a metric ####### of doubt it will get done usefully. There will be a lot of dead sticks in the ground on the Saudi peninsula over the coming decades.

What they should be doing is backing well planned and existing efforts to rehabilitate and reforest areas around the globe. But, hey!, that would make sense and not look nearly as shiny.

2) Gas pipeline investment shows flaws in EU ‘climate bank’ approach
Yes, I hear that a “Climate Bank” will be the main focus of Planet of the Humans – 2
:D
.

”CCN” wrote:

It is now proposed in the newly adopted Roadmap that the EIB carbon footprint methodology, in addition to an increased carbon pricing, starting at €80 a tonne in 2020 will help EIB to effectively rule out uneconomic, carbon-intensive projects.  

Yet, the Roadmap doesn’t provide any real example or simulation for how new carbon pricing could impact the EIB’s portfolio compared to pre-Roadmap times. While in theory, a higher carbon price which would be applied to EIB projects can be seen as Paris-aligned, in reality the bank’s methodology does not screen out all dirty investments.
The EIB’s carbon footprint assessment for the methane gas pipelines forming the Southern Gas Corridor is a striking example of this approach. Surprisingly, a 3,500-kilometre long natural gas pipeline was deemed by the European Investment Bank (EIB) as ‘climate neutral,’ before it awarded two of the sections of this massive fossil fuel project a total of €935 million in EU public money.
The applied methodology allowed the EIB to make wrong and highly speculative assumptions. They claimed emissions associated with the gas transported through the pipeline would be matched by avoided emissions from other sources of gas, resulting in no net change to emissions….

As Bankwatch has previously shown, between 2013 and 2019, the EIB provided €4.7 billion to a number of companies with a high share of coal in their power and heat generation portfolios or companies which still plan to develop new coal power capacities.

Interesting, no? When the goal is to stop anthropogenic CO2 emissions what we find the EIB actually doing with public money is no small indicator of how well this battle against AGW will go. The EU and the EIB are about as “climate aware” as any entity on Earth and yet their whole effort is well more than a bit of a cluster.

* Why yes, just watch Planet of the Humans to see really how unsurprising this issue is. It was there to see from the beginning but the masses were too blinded by the greenwashing to understand what they were being told.

4,901 to 4,950 of 5,074 << first < prev | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Conspiracy theories surrounding human influenced climate change, what's up with that? All Messageboards