Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,509
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    joxey
    Newest Member
    joxey
    Joined

Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change


donsutherland1
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, bobjohnsonforthehall said:

Access options

Subscribe to Journal

Get full journal access for 1 year

$199.00

only $3.83 per issue

 

We're just talking about super el ninos here, starting with 1982-83.... what occurred during the 1700s wasn't subject to any kind of scientific measurement.

  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bobjohnsonforthehall said:

You said that the "rate of warming is virtually without precedent". This is inaccurate and misleading. The rate of warming is not linear. 

 

You're citing it in such a way as to make anyone who disagrees with you out to be a dinosaur who knows nothing about the subject. That's pretty much the very definition of ageism, but again, you do you. 

And the only way that these future "costs" ever come to bare is if all of the doomsday projections come to pass. Even the IPCC does not believe that. 

What's your view on nuclear power?

China?

India?

Rate of warming in a geological scale. Even as cyclical fluctuations occur, the climate record is unambiguous: the 2010s were warmer than the 2000s, the 2000s were warmer than the 1990s, etc.

That the climate denial movement would be comprised of a larger share of people who hold sympathetic views toward that movement's positions is not "ageism." The notion that it would be comprised of a disproportionate share of people who recognize AGW would be far-fetched. Based multiple surveys, and I provided one of the more recent polls, the climate denial movement would be expected to be largely male and older. 

Even if warming is held to somewhere close to 2°C, there will be some significant adverse impacts. One need not have the worst-case warming scenario to see materially adverse consequences/costs.

As for nuclear power, I support it. I realize some others don't, but at least for now, it is among the practical alternatives available. China, India, etc., are experiencing large increases in fossil fuel emissions. That's an issue that needs to be addressed. Through diplomacy, trade, technology-sharing, etc., there's a lot that can probably be done to change their fossil fuel trajectories while allowing their economies to continue to develop. Indeed, the realities of pollution are already making it imperative that they begin to address the causes of that pollution, so opportunities for engagement exist.

  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

it has to do with the unprecedented type of weather that has been occurring on a large scale.  Looks like Russia loves it because they're about to open Siberia for farming and will be feeding the world since America's bread basket will become unviable for farming.

 

Holy crap really? First you see something out your window and automatically "climate change", then you throw around Russia as a bugaboo and assume that America's farms will soon not be viable? Based on what? They are more viable now than at any point in history for cripes sake.

This is exactly what i am talking about. Say what you will about "climate deniers" who don't want to listen to science, but my goodness. Look in a mirror.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bobjohnsonforthehall said:

What makes no sense? Not sure that I follow.

well, even if you dont subscribe to anthropogenic climate change, there are many other reasons to stop using fossil fuels, chief among them the health impact they have in urban areas, rising rates of asthma, etc.  There has been a civic movement in east coast cities like Providence, RI, to move factories that use fossil fuels out of their cities because of breathing problems people living there have from them.  So moving onto a new source of fuel is beneficial for health along with economic reasons.

 

 

  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bobjohnsonforthehall said:

Holy crap really? First you see something out your window and automatically "climate change", then you throw around Russia as a bugaboo and assume that America's farms will soon not be viable? Based on what? They are more viable now than at any point in history for cripes sake.

This is exactly what i am talking about. Say what you will about "climate deniers" who don't want to listen to science, but my goodness. Look in a mirror.

just look at what's been occurring in the middle of the country, in states like Iowa and Nebraska, farms there have been underwater for two years running.  They're losing billions of dollars because they cant grow crops anymore.

  • Like 1
  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LibertyBell said:

Access options

Subscribe to Journal

Get full journal access for 1 year

$199.00

only $3.83 per issue

 

We're just talking about super el ninos here, starting with 1982-83.... what occurred during the 1700s wasn't subject to any kind of scientific measurement.

Gah! That sucks. Basically says that climate reconstructions based on coral cores from Palmyra show that the most intense ENSO activity seems to have taken place in the mid-seventeenth century. Hardly driven by the greed of the fossil fuel industry at that point in time, no? Also points to the likely cyclical nature that has absolutely zero to do with co2.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Rate of warming in a geological scale. Even as cyclical fluctuations occur, the climate record is unambiguous: the 2010s were warmer than the 2000s, the 2000s were warmer than the 1990s, etc.

That the climate denial movement would be comprised of a larger share of people who hold sympathetic views toward that movement's positions is not "ageism." The notion that it would be comprised of a disproportionate share of people who recognize AGW would be far-fetched. Based multiple surveys, and I provided one of the more recent polls, the climate denial movement would be expected to be largely male and older. 

Even if warming is held to somewhere close to 2°C, there will be some significant adverse impacts. One need not have the worst-case warming scenario to see materially adverse consequences/costs.

As for nuclear power, I support it. I realize some others don't, but at least for now, it is among the practical alternatives available. China, India, etc., are experiencing large increases in fossil fuel emissions. That's an issue that needs to be addressed. Through diplomacy, trade, technology-sharing, etc., there's a lot that can probably be done to change their fossil fuel trajectories while allowing their economies to continue to develop. Indeed, the realities of pollution are already making it imperative that they begin to address the causes of that pollution, so opportunities for engagement exist.

nuclear power can work but they need to do a far better job than Japan did with Fukushima.

and why is switching to Fusion taking so long?  we've been talking about it for 40 years now.  Maybe we need to start genetically modifying humans to make them smarter so they can do this faster.

 

  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bobjohnsonforthehall said:

Gah! That sucks. Basically says that climate reconstructions based on coral cores from Palmyra show that the most intense ENSO activity seems to have taken place in the mid-seventeenth century. Hardly driven by the greed of the fossil fuel industry at that point in time, no? Also points to the likely cyclical nature that has absolutely zero to do with co2.

maybe there's a different way to read that article- do you have an account there?  

anyway, I could see where both could be true, where what happened during the 1700s had a different cause from what's going on now.  I'd love to read that piece too.

 

  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

I love how some like to bend backwards to make excuses for the fossil fuel cartel, which is one of the most corrupt cartels on the planet, right up there with big pharma.

at least some are seeing the light- Goldman Sachs just pulled all its funding for fossil fuel drilling and put $500 million into renewable fuels, and Delta just put $10 billion over 10 years into achieving carbon neutral by 2030.  Amazon just put $10 billion into renewables also.  Now we need to go after Chase and Wells Fargo, who have problems of their own.

 

 

JPMorgan Chase has also moved to eliminate most coal-related financing/assistance and financing for new oil and gas drilling in the Arctic.

https://www.jpmorganchase.com/corporate/news/pr/jpmorgan-chase-expands-commitment-to-low-carbon-economy-and-clean-energy.htm

The notion that business, markets, and more broadly the economy are incompatible with addressing climate change is inaccurate. Companies are beginning to make the move. This movement is still in its early stages, but it is beginning to gather momentum, as climate change poses risks to companies, markets, and economies.

  • Like 1
  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

JPMorgan Chase has also moved to eliminate most coal-related financing/assistance and financing for new oil and gas drilling in the Arctic.

https://www.jpmorganchase.com/corporate/news/pr/jpmorgan-chase-expands-commitment-to-low-carbon-economy-and-clean-energy.htm

The notion that business, markets, and more broadly the economy are incompatible with addressing climate change is inaccurate. Companies are beginning to make the move. This movement is still in its early stages, but it is beginning to gather momentum, as climate change poses risks to companies, markets, and economies.

thanks Don, and it also makes business sense because it's the fastest growing sector of the job market. Not to mention the savings in health care costs.

Whats going on with Wells Fargo?  I know they were recently fined $3 billion for that scam they were running from 2002-2016 (opening fake bank accts and charging customers interest) and their former CEO got banned from the financial industry), but in regards to energy, have they also moved away from funding the fossil fuel industry?

 

  • Like 1
  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Rate of warming in a geological scale. Even as cyclical fluctuations occur, the climate record is unambiguous: the 2010s were warmer than the 2000s, the 2000s were warmer than the 1990s, etc.

That the climate denial movement would be comprised of a larger share of people who hold sympathetic views toward that movement's positions is not "ageism." The notion that it would be comprised of a disproportionate share of people who recognize AGW would be far-fetched. Based multiple surveys, and I provided one of the more recent polls, the climate denial movement would be expected to be largely male and older. 

Even if warming is held to somewhere close to 2°C, there will be some significant adverse impacts. One need not have the worst-case warming scenario to see materially adverse consequences/costs.

As for nuclear power, I support it. I realize some others don't, but at least for now, it is among the practical alternatives available. China, India, etc., are experiencing large increases in fossil fuel emissions. That's an issue that needs to be addressed. Through diplomacy, trade, technology-sharing, etc., there's a lot that can probably be done to change their fossil fuel trajectories while allowing their economies to continue to develop. Indeed, the realities of pollution are already making it imperative that they begin to address the causes of that pollution, so opportunities for engagement exist.

Definitely agree with your last paragraph whole heartedly and am glad to hear it. I appreciate your candor.

What is ageism is defining a group of people in a certain way based on a view, perceived or real, within that group. Some of your recent posts were clearly in that category, even while you attributed misogynistic meanings to others. Self awareness would like to have a little chat.

Warming of 2 degrees may take 100-150 years, even if the ever-incorrect climate models are to be believed. In that time, human adaptability will be well beyond anything that you or I can currently begin to comprehend. This is true looking back even 50 years. 

I have zero problem with finding alternative technologies for the replacement of fossil fuels. That is what progress is all about. I am just not prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater and junk everything in order to try to frantically come up with something that we just might not be ready to produce yet. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, bobjohnsonforthehall said:

Definitely agree with your last paragraph whole heartedly and am glad to hear it. I appreciate your candor.

What is ageism is defining a group of people in a certain way based on a view, perceived or real, within that group. Some of your recent posts were clearly in that category, even while you attributed misogynistic meanings to others. Self awareness would like to have a little chat.

Warming of 2 degrees may take 100-150 years, even if the ever-incorrect climate models are to be believed. In that time, human adaptability will be well beyond anything that you or I can currently begin to comprehend. This is true looking back even 50 years. 

I have zero problem with finding alternative technologies for the replacement of fossil fuels. That is what progress is all about. I am just not prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater and junk everything in order to try to frantically come up with something that we just might not be ready to produce yet. 

what frustrates me is that we've been talking about controllable fusion since the 80s....we've had so many technological advances in so many fields since then, why is it taking so long to develop viable fusion reactors?

 

  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

thanks Don, and it also makes business sense because it's the fastest growing sector of the job market. Not to mention the savings in health care costs.

Whats going on with Wells Fargo?  I know they were recently fined $3 billion for that scam they were running from 2002-2016 (opening fake bank accts and charging customers interest) and their former CEO got banned from the financial industry), but in regards to energy, have they also moved away from funding the fossil fuel industry?

 

I haven't seen anything from Wells Fargo regarding moving away from funding fossil fuels.

  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bobjohnsonforthehall said:

Definitely agree with your last paragraph whole heartedly and am glad to hear it. I appreciate your candor.

What is ageism is defining a group of people in a certain way based on a view, perceived or real, within that group. Some of your recent posts were clearly in that category, even while you attributed misogynistic meanings to others. Self awareness would like to have a little chat.

Warming of 2 degrees may take 100-150 years, even if the ever-incorrect climate models are to be believed. In that time, human adaptability will be well beyond anything that you or I can currently begin to comprehend. This is true looking back even 50 years. 

I have zero problem with finding alternative technologies for the replacement of fossil fuels. That is what progress is all about. I am just not prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater and junk everything in order to try to frantically come up with something that we just might not be ready to produce yet. 

The world is already more than half way to the 2°C goal and the warming has been occurring most recently at a rate of around 0.2°C per decade. That would mean the target would be reached or exceeded within five decades. The timing could be faster depending on the impact of amplifying feedbacks. Research into those feedbacks is continuing and there is some level of uncertainty. One feedback that would be potentially worrisome would be shortwave cloud feedback, which may have played a crucial role in the Eocene warming.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/9/eaax1874

My referencing to the aging shrinking climate change denial movement was never intended to define all older people. It referred to a subset.

My reference to examples of misogyny in the climate change denial movement referenced a paper and highlighted one example (Anthony Watts--the tweet has yet to be deleted). There has been an increase in such tactics in recent years. The increased profile of Greta Thunberg has brought it out into the open. Watts is far from the only actor engaging in such conduct, though he is one with a fairly large following.

  • Like 1
  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/26/2020 at 5:00 PM, LibertyBell said:

what frustrates me is that we've been talking about controllable fusion since the 80s....we've had so many technological advances in so many fields since then, why is it taking so long to develop viable fusion reactors?

There's more options than just fusion:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/whats-next-for-the-energy-grid-11581645094

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/26/2020 at 5:00 PM, LibertyBell said:

what frustrates me is that we've been talking about controllable fusion since the 80s....we've had so many technological advances in so many fields since then, why is it taking so long to develop viable fusion reactors?

 

Actually, there has been good progress, with the performance of the devices improving by about a factor of 10 every decade since the 1950s.

Based on that trend, we should have working prototypes in another decade or so, but the effort is desultory at best. The international centerpiece of fusion is the ITER reactor in France. It was supposed to be ready by 2010, now expected to be finished by 2025, with the first real fusion experiments around 2035 - 2040. Basically a UN managed research effort, makes herding cats look easy.

The problem is that cheap gas and subsidized wind/solar drained any urgency from the search for more energy, so this is run as a hobby effort, no urgency at all. I've visited the ITER site,  no weekend work, single shifts, a handful of workers, lots of visiting dignitaries and probably masses of administrators behind the scenes in Geneva and elsewhere.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, etudiant said:

Actually, there has been good progress, with the performance of the devices improving by about a factor of 10 every decade since the 1950s.

Based on that trend, we should have working prototypes in another decade or so, but the effort is desultory at best. The international centerpiece of fusion is the ITER reactor in France. It was supposed to be ready by 2010, now expected to be finished by 2025, with the first real fusion experiments around 2035 - 2040. Basically a UN managed research effort, makes herding cats look easy.

The problem is that cheap gas and subsidized wind/solar drained any urgency from the search for more energy, so this is run as a hobby effort, no urgency at all. I've visited the ITER site,  no weekend work, single shifts, a handful of workers, lots of visiting dignitaries and probably masses of administrators behind the scenes in Geneva and elsewhere.

I remember hearing about ITER- good to know they're still making progress.

IMHO "cheap gas" isn't the way to go, especially because of the methane leaks associated with it.  Fusion is the ultimate answer.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/26/2020 at 6:54 PM, LibertyBell said:

gas company is going to pay $3 million for faulty gas lines that sparked massive fires near Boston

$53 million in fines, even better.  I'm glad Cuomo banned new gas lines in the NYC metro area (NYC/LI at least) and banned fracking also.  There's one politician at least who has an IQ in the triple digits.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/3/2020 at 10:31 AM, MetHerb said:

Living solar power cells, household microgrids and more projects in the works for the decentralized grid of the future.

I like this- so we could make our own power and sell the excess to our neighbors.  They've already started doing this in Brooklyn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Back last year, Eric Blake of the National Hurricane Center tweeted about Miami’s record 42nd day with a high temperature of 93 degrees or above.

2019 went on to finish with 44. Through September 4, 2020 has had 48 such days.

2019 also went on to record an annual mean temperature of 79.1 degrees, which tied 2017 for the second warmest year on record 2015, with an annual mean temperature of 79.2 degrees, is Miami’s warmest year on record.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A basic primer in slides by Paleoclimatologist Jessica Tierney:

https://www.agci.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/lib/main/19s1_05_08_1800_Tierney_WOR_Aspen2019.pdf

Dr. Tierney has done extensive research on earlier climate regimes e.g., the Eocene warming. She is the co-author of newly published paper on temperatures during the last ice age.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

A basic primer in slides by Paleoclimatologist Jessica Tierney:

https://www.agci.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/lib/main/19s1_05_08_1800_Tierney_WOR_Aspen2019.pdf

Dr. Tierney has done extensive research on earlier climate regimes e.g., the Eocene warming. She is the co-author of newly published paper on temperatures during the last ice age.

Thank you again Don. The old verbiage that a picture is worth a thousand words certainly applies here. After viewing this graphic presentation,  I wonder if we have a thousand words left. As always....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In its coverage of the extreme heat, the Los Angeles Times had a fairly lengthy discussion of climate change.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-09-05/heat-health-risks

This linkage to climate change provides important context for the newspaper’s readers and the general public. The Washington Post also provide climate change-related context when discussing California’s fires and extreme heat. The New York Times did not, depriving its readers of important insight into the events.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the Yale Climate Connections blog:

Like a modern-day Ebenezer Scrooge escorted by the Ghost of Summers Yet to Come, California is catching a glimpse of its future summer weather. The view is a hellish one.

Within a two-week span in August, California saw:

– the “fire tornado” just north of Lake Tahoe

– 130 degrees Fahrenheit heat in Death Valley, which may be the hottest temperature ever reliably recorded on Earth

– a largely dry thunderstorm with 11,000 lightning strikes across California over 72 hours, igniting more than 300 wildfires, including two of the three largest ever recorded in the state (and still growing), creating the worst air quality in the world

– one million acres burned in California in 2020 with 4 months to go in fire season

– tens of thousands of people evacuated from their homes as the fires drew near

– rolling power blackouts during a record heat wave

– gray, unhealthy air. A blood red sun. Flakes falling from the sky, coating everything below in a layer of white… not snow, but ash.

These ghastly scenes all bear links to climate change, and as a result, climate scientists expect them to occur more frequently in the future as global warming continues to raise temperatures and dry the landscape.

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/08/climate-change-is-worsening-californias-hellish-wildfires/

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

From the Yale Climate Connections blog:

Like a modern-day Ebenezer Scrooge escorted by the Ghost of Summers Yet to Come, California is catching a glimpse of its future summer weather. The view is a hellish one.

Within a two-week span in August, California saw:

– the “fire tornado” just north of Lake Tahoe

– 130 degrees Fahrenheit heat in Death Valley, which may be the hottest temperature ever reliably recorded on Earth

– a largely dry thunderstorm with 11,000 lightning strikes across California over 72 hours, igniting more than 300 wildfires, including two of the three largest ever recorded in the state (and still growing), creating the worst air quality in the world

– one million acres burned in California in 2020 with 4 months to go in fire season

– tens of thousands of people evacuated from their homes as the fires drew near

– rolling power blackouts during a record heat wave

– gray, unhealthy air. A blood red sun. Flakes falling from the sky, coating everything below in a layer of white… not snow, but ash.

These ghastly scenes all bear links to climate change, and as a result, climate scientists expect them to occur more frequently in the future as global warming continues to raise temperatures and dry the landscape.

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/08/climate-change-is-worsening-californias-hellish-wildfires/

 

Dickens/Scrooge had his four spirits that led to and ended with a path to redemption. We also have four but they are all horsemen and redemption is not their plan. 
“-Gray, unhealthy air. A blood red sun. Flakes falling from the sky, coating everything below in a layer of white.. not snow but ash” 

The above line could have easily been a paraphrase from Dante’s Devine Comedy.
Our play will end some day the last sentient being, perhaps named Tonio, will ruefully expire, crying out “The Comedy Is Finished” as always .....

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. Dante’s Divine Comedy would be a great fit. Hopefully, humanity will summon the strength, the courage and the foresight to finally take on the climate change challenge. The siren call of climate change denial must be ignored for that to happen. In many ways, just as society would not tolerate open dumping in reservoirs and rivers, it should adopt a similar stance toward open dumping of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Obviously, a transition will be needed, but society has made great technological leaps before when faced with enormous challenges. There’s no reason to believe that isn’t possible today.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/7/2020 at 5:49 PM, donsutherland1 said:

I agree. Dante’s Divine Comedy would be a great fit. Hopefully, humanity will summon the strength, the courage and the foresight to finally take on the climate change challenge. The siren call of climate change denial must be ignored for that to happen. In many ways, just as society would not tolerate open dumping in reservoirs and rivers, it should adopt a similar stance toward open dumping of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Obviously, a transition will be needed, but society has made great technological leaps before when faced with enormous challenges. There’s no reason to believe that isn’t possible today.

One way or the other nature will take care it.  It would behoove us to do it first, nature's method might not be too desirable for humanity heh.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...