This is a new class of open thread for discussions of climate solutions, mitigation and adaptation. As always, please be respectful of other commentators and try to avoid using repetition to make your points. Discussions related to the physical Earth System should be on the Unforced Variations threads.
Dear nigelj,
That is, I note your comments to Strough at 345 and 346, and to Thomas at 347 all came *after* I called you on your statements in my post to you at 337.
You’re welcome.
Please pay attention here: You clearly understand what I said at 337 because you used far more appropriate and accurate language after 337. Had you done so before, my 337 would never have been written.
Stay on this path.
Please.
The James Baker III, (& Former Secretary of State George Shultz)
(ground-breaking; “Lead,” whatever …) Statement of February 2017 on AGW:
https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/climate-change-conservative-answer/
Published 7 February 2018
“Propositions about ‘coal’s terminal decline’ may thereby be premature.”
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa3a2/meta
#327 Scott E Strough said 325 Nigelj,
Be careful of confirmation bias…
Keep in mind too that by no means is this the end. No diminishing returns level has been found yet. There are people even far more advanced than the above.
Examples beyond even what these farmers are doing include:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxMNHsK-IpI&t=665s
https://www.milkwood.net/2010/12/07/why-pasture-cropping-is-such-a-big-deal/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=18&v=6P81ZLODRQo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI&index=10&t=1151s
These guys are all way beyond what we need to reverse AGW with no sign of diminishing returns in many decades.
I and you have posted example after example over the years, but still people doubt because a scientist didn’t quantify it explicitly for them. One thing is truly needed to be known: Is it possible to increase soil carbon 1% over a short time frame of a year to a few years? The answer, unequivocally, is yes. Thus, we can mitigate all emissions. Period.
The next thing to say is not, oh, well, we don’t want to, so it’s not important! No, the next thing to say is, how do i help make this happen?
Nigel talks, he doesn’t do, so he cannot yet understand nor accept this. He is not the only one, of course, but he thinks he knows the answers and keeps making declarative statements about what *will* happen, so it is important to wake him up.
Here, however, *you* go off the rails, Scott: We can do this, and at a net profit, so we should do it ASAP while we still can.
Profit. Wrong. I realize you are not interested in the debate about actually getting to sustainability, but that makes your statements flawed on occassion, as in the above. By choosing not to understand the resource/economics aspect of the problem, you make a false statement/conclusion that profit can be had and, by implication, is suggested as an outcome. But there is no way to have profit without growth, and no way to continue growth without collapse. Unfortunately for you, you can’t afford to not understand the entire system and still hope to understand solutions.
Executive summary:
Yes we can reverse Global Warming.
It does not require huge tax increases or expensive untested risky technologies.
It will require a three pronged approach worldwide.
1)Reduce fossil fuel use by replacing energy needs with as many feasible renewables as current technology allows.
2)Change Agricultural methods to high yielding regenerative models of production made possible by recent biological & agricultural science advancements.
3)Large scale ecosystem recovery projects similar to the Loess Plateau project, National Parks like Yellowstone, Savory’s Operation Hope etc. where appropriate and applicable.
This is incorrect. Without reduced consumption and changing governance and economics, these goals will never be achieved. It is simple math. Consumption falls or society does. There is not enough stuff. Societies that have attempted to use complexity to solve complexity have failed. We will, too.
Your call for more renewables is misguided. In OECD countries the challenge, and the call, should be to reduce consumption to the level of current renewables. I have posted before about U.S. consumption being four or five times what the U.S. can physically support, and so must fall or it will destroy the ecosystem planet-wide. Ignoring this, as you are *choosing* to do in this post, is, imo, not just misguided, but unethical. We are too close to the edge to pretend there is no edge.
Without simplification, all your other suggestions will be pointless in the end.
“All-electric ferry cuts emission by 95% and costs by 80%, brings in 53 additional orders”
https://electrek.co/2018/02/03/all-electric-ferry-cuts-emission-cost/
Killian @350
“All I said is it will be hard to scale up.I wish you had. We would not be having this conversation. But that is absolutely *not* what you said.You said, “…are slow to scale up, and land areas are limited, etcetera.”
Ok fair point. But sometimes people have limited time, and so words get left out or badly selected. THATS ALL IT IS. Most people read between the lines, and know on issues of mitigation, a lot of its opinion. You are being just a bit precious. They dont look at “will” and take that as simply as you think.
And your own writing sometimes lacks clarity and consistency. None of us are as clear as we think we are, although I get the general theme of what you are saying easier than Zebras posts.
I have no dispute with your technical material on regenerative farming, and who can do it, and that side of it. As I said above regenerative farming has a range of merits so it makes sense regardless of the climate side of it. That is just a bonus advantage. plus I have read at least something on the subject of permaculture.
The stuff on capitalism is simply your opinion, and disagreement over it is not “lying” or climate denialism.
I don’t think capitalism should be completely thrown out, but I firmly believe capitalism has to change substantially, which is more than a lot of people would subscribe to. They see it as a religion that must not be questioned or altered, and that it must ideally be of the laissez faire variety.
An interesting book is “How Will Capitalism End? By W Streck, who is a critic of capitalism particularly the neoliberal interpretation.
I have my own ideas what has to change. Just one issue is corporations are going to have to either voluntarily take on board environmental values, and more than in a green washing sense, or it could ultimately be forced on them. That’s assuming we keep a corporate structure of some form.
So capitalism certainly has to at least change, and I think the real debate is how. One approach is to start by clearly identifying the strengths and good points (like competition between firms, and empowering individual initiative and inventiveness) and the bad points, which might include excessive monopoly power, the single minded growth and profit focus, inequality etcetera.
But if people want to do their thing with alternative style communities, I have no problem with that either. That’s another approach. I’m a bit cynical I suppose, but I’m not standing in the way, and discussion here on the pros and cons does not mean I rubbish it to other people. It may be the way society eventually does develop, but that will depend on whether experiments work and attract people.
But I don’t see an alternative economic structure as the primary solution to climate change, for various reasons, and I believe the priority is renewable energy etc, but obviously this is not the only thing that we need to do. We have to also reduce our individual carbon footprint, so therefore some level of general personal consumption. That means we have to simplify our living to some extent which appears to be your philosophy, but its a question of how much makes sense which is a matter we disagree on to a point.
I don’t want to restart this simple living debate etcetera, I’m just clarifying my view. Plus I’m busy right now, and might come back to it later.
Killian @351, I made a very similar comment to Scott Strough some considerable time ago before I had ever read anything of yours.
So, nijelj, you’ve been asked to share your great climate wisdom with the unwashed masses, yet, you have stated, effectively, this should not be happening.
https://www.farminguk.com/News/France-to-make-half-of-all-food-in-public-sector-organic-or-local-by-2022_48536.html?refer_id=1900#.WnllqGWT6xc.twitter
Who. The. Hell. Is. Listening. To. You?
Killian @358
I have never stated that organic farming “should not be happening” either in effect or otherwise. We have it developing in my own country, and I generally support it in internet comments.
And I note the organic revolution in France has been empowered by government laws. I have specifically stated on this website that government law should support organic farming and alternative approaches in general. I seem to recall you did not favour this approach of using the law.
Anyway, regardless of the mechanism, France is doing some sensible stuff with organic agriculture. It is likely to take time to spread to other countries, but I will not dwell on being pessimistic about that. Maybe Im too pessimistic at times. We just have to hope for the best.
The French have never listened to anyone. They have long gone their own way, and good on them
Experiments with alternatives to capitalism and alternatives to industrial agriculture, and also attempts to change capitalism can all happen at the same time, and hopefully something good will come out of it.
Some current anecdotal Climate Change impacts where I live:
Extreme and Severe multi-day Heatwaves and Extreme Fire Danger
It’s mid-summer, it’s been really dry for months, and temps expected yet again +10C above average circa 45C in some locations = 113 Fahrenheit [°F] aka 318.15 Kelvin [K]
http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/heatwave/#heatwave-forecasts
https://newsroom.psba.qld.gov.au/Content/Home/Home/Article/Fire-risk-set-to-rise-as-Central-Queensland-swelters/-2/-2/13919
Some current anecdotal Climate Change impacts where my sister lives:
If you live in Florida, doctors say climate change is already affecting your health
[sources: President of the Florida State Medical Association & Florida Clinicians for Climate Action]
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article199310404.html
VIC.GOV.AU Health website says:
Heat kills more Australians than any natural disaster.
Heatstroke is fatal in up to 80% of cases.
During the 2009 Victorian heatwave the number of deaths increased by 374 people.
https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/heat-stress-and-heat-related-illness
Oh, btw, Global CO2/e PPM is still increasing, and therefore so is GHG Forcing across the board. This increase is ‘expected’ at this point in time to keep increasing between now and 2040 according to Energy Use Trends/Projections, the UNFCCC data and Paris Agreements, and Scientific Papers to date.
Just sayin’ – Need to now go to burn some more fossil fuels to “fire up” my Air-conditioner again and keep it on for several days 24/7.
Cheers
Dear nigelj, killian, scott, zebra, et al fyi to ‘consider’ (myself included some days)?
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/cross-purposes
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/at_cross_purposes
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/get_one%27s_wires_crossed
https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/window-of-tolerance
Sorry for the self-promotion but the article at the following link provides some data on the potential of agriculture to sequester carbon.
The article: Reducing CO2 Flux by Decreasing Tillage in Ohio: Overcoming Conjecture with Data was published in the Journal of Agricultural Science today.
Abstract: While the literature is clear about excessive tillage decreasing soil carbon (C) content, there are few experimental studies that document the comparative effects of soil and crop management on C sequestration. Using micrometeorology we measured CO2 flux from a maize crop grown on both no-till and tilled soils in north-central Ohio. We used Bowen Ratio Energy Balance (BREB) systems to quantify the flux between the atmosphere and either the soil surface (at crop planting) or 0.2 m above the canopy once the crop was established and growing. The no-till plot sequestered 263 g CO2 m-2 (90% confidence interval -432.1 to -99.9) while the tilled plot emitted 146 g CO2 m-2 (90% confidence interval -53.3 to 332.2) during 104 days of the 2015 growing season; a net difference of 410 g CO2 m-2. The difference is statistically significant at the 90% confidence level (based on a bootstrap analysis). The results indicate that no-tillage practices can sequester C, maintain soil productivity, and ensure landscape sustainability.
The article can be downloaded at:
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jas/article/view/71911
Killian @358
And even if regenerative farming is slightly hard or slow to scale up, I don’t think that matters. I thought I had made that clear.
Regenerative agriculture is a centuries long time scale project to 1) make farming more sustainable and 2) draw down atmospheric carbon over century time scales, not just the 50 years Paris accord.
Humanity has to start thinking a little bit longer term and see the larger picture and connections between things. At least you see this, but many people don’t.
However on another matter, the best way of building soil carbon is apparently grass land farming. However meat consumption is carbon intensive and inefficient so its hard for me to see areas of grasslands increasing much. I would say the proportions of lands in crops and grasslands will probably stay much the same, and it will be a case of managing each better.
“Science … is part and parcel of our knowledge and obscures our insight only when it holds that the understanding given by it is the only kind there is.” Carl Jung.
354 – Killian
“Your call for more renewables is misguided. In OECD countries the challenge, and the call, should be to reduce consumption to the level of current renewables……”
So total energy consumption in the USA should fall to the level of current renewables? Currently renewables account for about 10% of the total US energy budget, and about 15% of our electrical energy budget. If, in order to save the world, we must reduce our energy budget by 90%, then we’re doomed because we’re not going to get anywhere near a 90% reduction. The EU isn’t much better off than the USA.
Renewables = 10% of US budget:
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=92&t=4
EU not much better:
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Renewable_energy_statistics
If land practices are as awesome as some say, then we should not need such drastic cuts in FF use.
More on the nature of economics since so many still hang their analysis on economics rather than the nature of Nature.
Physics envy.
https://aeon.co/ideas/few-things-are-as-dangerous-as-economists-with-physics-envy
Thomas @361, I agree there’s a lot of talking at cross purposes, and misunderstandings, and lack of clarity, and I’m guilty of it at times. I have always maintained half the problems in the world are due to people misinterpreting each other.
A lot of it is simple lack of clarity due time pressure, and the complexity of the subjects, and disagreement over definitions.
We just have to do our best, and not jump to conclusions too fast, and get too angry. God knows, with people like P Carson its hard not to get angry.
Speaking of economics, we have the parable of the ox, a most entertaining introduction to the financial sector.
https://www.reddit.com/r/investing/comments/169o9j/the_parable_of_the_ox/
Economics is based on assumptions that people always act rationally and independently, and have full and relevant information.
I mean, what could possibly go wrong?
Cody@364, why not give the full quote:
“Science is the tool of the Western mind and with it more doors can be opened than with bare hands. It is part and parcel of our knowledge and obscures our insight only when it holds that the understanding given by it is the only kind there is.”
It is not the only understanding we can have, merely the only understanding we can rely on.
Mr KIA #365,
It’s all about time frames.
If you cut the US population in half, you would get a 75% reduction in Liquidation of Natural Capital (CO2 and other environmental insults). Much of that reduction is market-driven, not from regulation.
The math involved– multiplying fractions– may be too advanced for some here, but it is just that simple.
So, “saving the world” is something that will happen over the next few hundred years, by pushing for renewables as much as possible while simultaneously pushing for a reduction in the global population with equal effort.
You and others are just trolling by never specifying the time-frame. Even my friend Kevin M isn’t strongly defending the “zero emissions in 20 years” idea, so for you to be questioning it is silly strawmanning.
There will be disruption over the next few centuries, but that can be minimized. Once you get the ball rolling in the right direction, there will be lots of virtuous feedback, including the farming stuff.
Killian @366 again ‘simplifies’ by cherry picking instead of looking at the complexity of Nature
https://aeon.co/essays/has-the-time-come-for-a-quantum-revolution-in-economics
Deb @#362: Thanks for that study, just the kind of thing I was looking for. Please feel free to post more of the same (self promotional or otherwise! ‘-) ).
362 Deb O’Dell, well done and ty for sharing.
#365 Mr. Know It All said
354 – Killian
“Your call for more renewables is misguided. In OECD countries the challenge, and the call, should be to reduce consumption to the level of current renewables……”
So total energy consumption in the USA should fall to… about 10% of the total US energy budget
Yes.
then we’re doomed because we’re not going to get anywhere near a 90% reduction.
Because you say so,
Got it.
Thanks for playing.
Bye.
________________________
nigelj, you are back to saying stupid things. Don’t say stupid things if you want respect.
You said, again, 363 nigelj said Regenerative agriculture is a centuries long time scale project
This is stupid. Your comment is stupid. Mind you, I am no saying you are stupid, just your comment. I repeat: The Green Revolution took mere decades, and that was CREATING an entirely new food infrastructure. We are talking about people… making gardens.
Stop saying stupid things. Or, if you think they are not stupid, offer more than your insipid, repeated, stupid opinion.
Or, as I said above to someone else: Because you say so? Brilliant. That’s what we call propaganda.
If you are not a denialist, why are you against, or attempting to diminish, everything we must do to actually be sustainable?
However on another matter, the best way of building soil carbon is apparently grass land farming. However meat consumption is carbon intensive and inefficient so its hard for me to see areas of grasslands increasing much.
Anything actually sustainable is hard for you to see. I don’t care what you can’t see. I am tired of what you can’t see.
#362 Deb O’Dell said Sorry for the self-promotion but the article at the following link provides some data on the potential of agriculture to sequester carbon.
The article: Reducing CO2 Flux by Decreasing Tillage in Ohio: Overcoming Conjecture with Data was published in the Journal of Agricultural Science today.
Abstract: While the literature is clear about excessive tillage decreasing soil carbon (C) content, there are few experimental studies that document the comparative effects of soil and crop management on C sequestration. Using micrometeorology we measured CO2 flux from a maize crop grown on both no-till and tilled soils in north-central Ohio. We used Bowen Ratio Energy Balance (BREB) systems to quantify the flux between the atmosphere and either the soil surface (at crop planting) or 0.2 m above the canopy once the crop was established and growing. The no-till plot sequestered 263 g CO2 m-2 (90% confidence interval -432.1 to -99.9) while the tilled plot emitted 146 g CO2 m-2 (90% confidence interval -53.3 to 332.2) during 104 days of the 2015 growing season; a net difference of 410 g CO2 m-2. The difference is statistically significant at the 90% confidence level (based on a bootstrap analysis). The results indicate that no-tillage practices can sequester C, maintain soil productivity, and ensure landscape sustainability.
The article can be downloaded at:
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jas/article/view/71911
Thank you for your work. Science has come far to late to soil science. We need more like this to continue to PROVE what is already KNOWN, and put a cork in the likes of some here who know nothing and say much. Like this:
#359 nigelj said Killian @358
I have never stated that organic farming “should not be happening” either in effect or otherwise.
I didn’t say you did, sir genius. Re-read the post you *think* you understand.
Experiments with alternatives to… industrial agriculture
There is nothing experimental about it. We know exactly how to do it. Why mislead about this? Or are you just not being careful… again? Aren’t you a climate guru now? Should you not be careful with your words? Or are you choosing to prevaricate again?
Inquiring minds…
Also, “organic” is meaningless. Learn the appropriate terms, please.
Further to #359 by nigelj re my #358.
Nigel Climate Guru J has said again in this thread, as he has over and over, that changing agriculture to regenerative *will* take… oh, sorry… will likely take… oh, sorry… will probably take…. or what the hell ever… will AT LEAST take longer than 50 years. He “sees” hundreds of years, in any case.
Yet, here have a nation committing to half organic/local in FOUR years. Why? Because this, like most things we will do in a healthy world, involves NOT doing things we do now more than it does DOING anything new or radical. It does not require building out new systems or any of the other difficulties usually associated with tech revolutions. It involves, mostly, just stopping.
But nigelj, not actually knowing anything he didn’t get from an article, cannot wrap his head around this.
So, what I said to you, Nigel Climate Guru J, is that what was happening in that article, changing to 50% organic/local in 4 years should not be possible.
Because it takes hundreds of years.
Get it?
Adaptation — a long list of ways a bamboo or recycled-paper TP business is evaluating its impacts, including production in China and shipping:
https://thekritic.net/2017/06/who-gives-a-crap/
367 nigelj, no worries mate, what I said was merely a heads up for some self-reflection for those who are up to the task. I agree with your comment. PC included. Life’s too hard already, right? (smile)
very OT: I’m wondering will the Warriors get their act together this year? (I doubt it until I see it.) Why can’t they play like the All Blacks do? :-)
—
377 Killian says: “Yet, here have a nation committing to half organic/local in FOUR years…”
Maybe it’s me who misread that ‘article’ but my take away message was that it was only about French Govt “purchasing” decisions/sources… and not a national committment of/for the whole nation.
iow it was “leadership” step to help encourage, give boost, to grow the organic sector over the long term. First but making it more profitable it would increase further investment and expansion of their market share … which in turn provides the funds necessary to also ‘market/promote’ the sector to the avg consumer and the big fact or of economies of scale that will typically lead to lower unit retail prices, and therefore more competitive with industrial ag products.
Again, maybe I got that wrong or my memory is failing me but I always happy to be corrected with evidence and/or sound reasoning.
378 Hank Roberts good point. It’s been known (maybe not well known) that international shipping of any product is the cheapest less GHG emitting form of transport bar none. Much details about this is out there and has been (in connection with agw/cc issues) for maybe 20 years or so. From memory that also included the capital and production costs of getting the iron ore and building the ships and evaluating the ton/km over their life cycle of use. fwiw.
maybe sendle is where things will go across the board, but I am not hopeful given where we are at (psychologically and politically and economically) right now in Australia and elsewhere. But I do wish them well.
Killian @377.
There’s a pretty obvious difference between saying regenerative farming is a centuries long project, and regenerative farming will take centuries to achieve anything. And I don’t know why you are saying I’m sceptical of the French initiative on regenerative farming, when 1) I supported it in a post above and 2)have repeatedly stated I support regenerative farming.
You appear to believe everyone has to 100% agree with every positive claim about regenerative agriculture, (or anything else)and if you don’t its denialism or some sort of attack on the basic idea. I don’t operate like that, if people say stupid stuff I point it out. Not saying you are saying stupid stuff, but you surely see what I mean. I always try to put criticism of some specific aspect in context, by assuring people I agree with the basic principle. Not sure what else you would expect.
So you are being totally frustrating, and make conversation impossible. That is your problem to sort out, not mine.
zebra @371
“If you cut the US population in half, you would get a 75% reduction in Liquidation of Natural Capital (CO2 and other environmental insults). Much of that reduction is market-driven, not from regulation. The math involved– multiplying fractions– may be too advanced for some here, but it is just that simple.”
Big claims that sound optimistic to me. But maybe I’m wrong. Show us your work, or at least an example of your maths, or the basic assumptions, or a link to something.
“So, “saving the world” is something that will happen over the next few hundred years, by pushing for renewables as much as possible while simultaneously pushing for a reduction in the global population with equal effort.”
Ok but how? Until you post some ideas on how you are not contributing much.
You also provide no evidence that this will be sufficient. Do you seriously think consumption can stay at current levels or higher, and that 3% growth can continue indefinitely? This flies in the face of all projected population and resource trends. This is not to say I agree with killians cuts to consumption which are too severe, but he is possibly just giving people a sharp jolt, to get them to at least do something.
If we lump climate change in together with resource shortages, for the sake of simplicity, its surely more realistic to consider a need for 1)renewable energy etc 2) smaller population and 3)lower growth in countries that can afford this. If we don’t, these things will be forced on us anyway the hard way.
“You and others are just trolling by never specifying the time-frame. Even my friend Kevin M isn’t strongly defending the “zero emissions in 20 years” idea, so for you to be questioning it is silly strawmanning.”
Nobody has said zero emissions in 20 years to my knowledge. The Paris goal is 2050, so nearer 30 years. I think its important to at least have an objective. It may well go past this, but its sensible to have some goal.
I think a lot of your claims are in the trolling category, in that they are deliberately provocative, but never backed up in a normal kind of way.
“There will be disruption over the next few centuries, but that can be minimized. ”
If you say so.
“… here (we) have a nation committing to half organic/local in FOUR years”
Wrong, we have a current government [that may or not last 4 years] stating government will mandate procuring merely half of governments purchased produce from organic or local [ie, not necessarily organic] producers within 4 years.
Check back in 4 years.
Thomas @373 yeah understood. I think league in NZ is a lost cause. I think we are probably too small population to be strong in both league and union. It will need a miracle.
Things seem to be moving faster with regen ag than some think possible.
https://civileats.com/2018/02/13/no-till-farmers-push-for-healthy-soils-ignites-a-movement-in-the-plains/?utm_content=bufferbe1b9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Hank Roberts 378,
Excellent. Illustrates a couple of my favorite points:
1. “It’s the topology, stupid.” Although, if I recall what Australia looks like, wouldn’t the proper comparison be local production with sea transport against China with sea transport? Anyway, the geographical imperative operates, and hub-and-spoke arrangements of population allows for the carbon-neutral local distribution.
2. The scatological imperative: A very large sector of the billions on the planet would see a major improvement in standard of living without burning lots of FF. Proper sanitation is a big “nudge” in the direction of sustainability.
Nigel, #382–
Actually, there has been talk of a 20-year timeline for reducing emissions. Usually it proceeds from the calculated carbon budget and consideration of current and/or probable emissions rates.
For an (illustrative) example, see the per capita emissions graph here:
http://www.climate2020.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/EVANS-BARDER-LEPISSIER-CLIMATE2020.pdf
Certainly I’ve spoken of a 20-year net zero trajectory, and advocated for that as a goal (though I have also said that my guess is that it is likely not to be fully achieved.) That’s the conversation that Zebra was referring to.
There’s a useful discussion about the remaining time at current emissions rates here:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-only-five-years-left-before-one-point-five-c-budget-is-blown
But here’s the most relevant bit:
Clearly, 20 years at current emissions isn’t the same as a 20-year trajectory to net zero. But then, one implication is that even the 20-year net zero trajectory would have us exceed the emissions budget for a 1.5 C ‘66% probability of avoidance’ benchmark.
That’s insanely risky, from a coldly logical point of view, but here we are.
#379 Thomas said 377 Killian says: “Yet, here have a nation committing to half organic/local in FOUR years…”
Maybe it’s me who misread that ‘article’ but my take away message was that it was only about French Govt “purchasing” decisions/sources… and not a national committment of/for the whole nation.
Yes, someone else said the same. I won’t argue the point except to say it is a distinction without a difference given the context is rebutting the claim of impossibility/low possibility of change within useful time frames. It made it’s point, but, yes, I should have read more carefully and fully. But you two should have noted the intent of the article and its accuracy as a rebuttal – particularly since the same person claiming my work cannot succeed is also guilty of saying gov’t is a key to success… and here is a gov’t making a rather stunning statement.
#381 nigelj said Killian @377.
There’s a pretty obvious difference between saying regenerative farming is a centuries long project, and regenerative farming will take centuries to achieve anything.
No, there is not, especially given your conclusion it’s not an important part of solutions over 50-100 years. I often think your language skills just are not that high.
And I don’t know why you are saying I’m sceptical of the French initiative on regenerative farming, when 1) I supported it in a post above and 2)have repeatedly stated I support regenerative farming.
See? I did not say that.
You appear to believe everyone has to 100% agree with every positive claim about regenerative agriculture
No, you seem to think that I do, but wothout any reason, for I have never said nor implied such. What I *know* is that you are utterly ignorant on the topic and should shut up about it until you no longer are. I’ve grown soil. I know how to do it. That is why I know we can both from study AND personal experience. You are just some guy who read a few words about it, yet can singularly assess its usefulness. It’s incredibly arrogant of you.
(or anything else)and if you don’t its denialism or some sort of attack on the basic idea.
You’re back to being weird. What I have said, clearly, is you are WRONG because of IGNORANCE and that your stances on issues and suggested solutions are equal to, and thus indicate you may be (previously I have said likely are or are) a denialist. Regardless, they are exactly the arguments “soft denialists” make: Incremental change that changes the system not at all and leaves us largely where we started, because, god i love capitalism!
I paraphrase, bot sharply and playfully, so don’t come back with some pedantic point-by-point whine about that paragraph; I acknowledge the slight hyperbole.
I don’t operate like that
You do.
if people say stupid stuff I point it out.
You don’t know which is which WRT climate and mitigation… nor politics… nor economics…
Not saying you are saying stupid stuff, but you surely see what I mean. I always try to put criticism of some specific aspect in context, by assuring people I agree with the basic principle. Not sure what else you would expect.
Stop disagreeing out of ignorance. Have I not been clear?
So you are being totally frustrating, and make conversation impossible. That is your problem to sort out, not mine.
Wrong, again. You are, quite simply, virtually always wrong. That is the problem. You are wrong and have absolutely no awareness of that. Capitalism is not good and cannot lead to regenerative systems because – ta-da! – they are mutually exclusive. Regenerative land use can happen virtually overnight, so you saying it is virtually impossible for it to be important in 50 or 100 years is more than wrong, it is bizarre. I have already made this point: @ 70% of all food production is from smallholders. This means quite a few are already regenerative because… drumroll… that is where much of the knowledge of regenerative practices originated, and the rest can be some degree of regenerative in a single season, and certainly can learn it in a few classes. An essentially dead field can be productive in a single season, and bountiful in 2 to 5 years.
How all that translates to Can’t be done!!! is beyond me. So stop saying it. You keep wanting me to give you respect **in my area of expertise** when you keep saying really stupid stuff. You don’t just get respect, you earn it. Show you deserve it.
#372 A peanut said now I will say something really, really stupid.
Then he said, Killian @366 again ‘simplifies’ by cherry picking
1. One cannot “simplify” content by saying absolutely nothing about it. The link was about economics and physics and said absolutely nothing about the connection between economics and Nature.
2. Peanut clearly read my intro without reading the content at the link.
3. The link was about the deficiencies of economics as a discipline. It is not cherry-picking to post a critique to support an ongoing line of argument. It is the other sides job to support their arguments, not mine. I would be cherry-picking if I were writing, say, a critical analysis of Capitalism and only chose negative sources. I am not doing that. I am rebutting claims Capitalism is good, growth is good, and Capitalism can lead to sustainable systems.
instead of looking at the complexity of Nature
What peanut posted agrees with me:
The article also said,
Nor do you have to be to exchange things, and that is all that is needed, is to exchange things. There is no need for money, the focus of the article, in a sense, at all, nor any form of economics because no matter how you do economics, you cannot have a regenerative society outside a Commons because hoarding is waste/imbalance. Nature does not waste. We must not. We meet needs. Moving beyond that is imbalance. Where “hoarding” does occur, it must be in the form of storage, not sequestration via ownership. The article says
Here’s a shortcut: Share. Commons.
Oooh! Permaculture design! Principle: Every element supports at least two other elements. Principle: Every element is supported by at least two other elements. He’s right, though, I understand neither Nature nor quantum physics. Nope… Peanut got me there!
I’m gonna have to sue this guy for stealing my comments! To wit:
I am constantly saying we use the wrong risk assessments, right? Ah… the world really is fractal! (Which I am sure peanut will inform us I also do not understand.)
I hear an echo-o-o-o. Silly, peanut. Keen, Daly… been there, said that.
Steve likes this word. He says it a lot. At least he did when I talked to him in 2010 and in Facebook and Twitter comments and essays and videos… but I surely did not understand him!! (And I must have cherry-picked the times I mentioned him here! But for what? After all, this essay was posted to show I am wrong…!! So confusing…)
Peanut, try not to post stupidly, k?
All fun aside, I think peanut was trying to say I wasn’t presenting economics fairly, yet this article presents economics exactly as I have. You see, I know Steve Keen. But I didn’t need Steve to tell me any of this. I “met” reality long before I met Steve, and I “met” the people at theautomaticearth between meeting reality and meeting Steve. I likely met Steve via Nicole.
Anywho, if you’re going to (foolishly) do economic theorizing and base (stupidly) policy on that, then, yes, certainly, go the Keen route. The Keen/Daly/Foss set get much closer to reality than the twaddle talked about here.
Final note, just to be clear: Dear Peanut, permaculturists (or anybody who read even the simplest introduction to Chaos) already apply quantum thinking. Quantum just means, really, what Nature does… and we already do that.
This is the absolute dumbest take down I have ever seen here. LOL… what a peanut. That said, there is much for many of you to learn from the article. Just don’t let it fool you into thinking economics is anything more than voodoo. It’s not. It’s a construct. Economics can try to copy physics, but cannot actually fully do so because all it does is describe what people do. Why people do things is affected by so many factors at any given time one can only approximate. We must do one thing: Exchange. It needs no fancier name than that.
#361 Thomas re cross-purposes.
No. I understand exactly what the others are posting.
Eerie. After posting to peanut, went to Facebook and this was the memory:
Wonder if any of you know why it’s eerie/coincidental without looking…
Answer: All had accurate takes, some even predicting it, on 2008 and what should have been the solutions. Much of what they said, and I agreed with, was done in Iceland.
You know, it’s strange. I can predict accelerated rates of SLR, clathrates and permafrost melt, Antarctic melt, 2016 melt records, and even 2008, as well as point out the faults of economics… and have my detractors try to insult me with info that agrees with me… yet, you’d think all those were the opposite of what they have been if you read attacks on me on this site.
Hmmm…
https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/can-15-million-college-students-address-climate-change
“We are not prepared for today’s climate, let alone for another degree of global warming,” says study author Noah Diffenbaugh, a Stanford University professor of earth system science.
http://time.com/5156775/climate-change-paris-agreement-research/
Together, our results suggest that the aspirational UN emissions targets are likely to yield substantial reductions in climate risk relative to the changes arising from pledged national commitments but also that those aspirational targets are likely to produce substantial—and potentially high-impact—increases in the probability of unprecedented extremes relative to the current climate.
full paper http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/2/eaao3354.full
Of course other sources (and logic?) suggest the aspirational targets will not be achieved anyway. Therefore …..
“The South Africa Weather Services have told me that their models don’t work any more.” said Helen Zille, premier of the Western Cape province.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/02/15/world/science-health-world/growing-global-water-crisis-climate-change-may-last-straw/
“The South Africa Weather Services have told me that their models don’t work any more.” said Helen Zille, premier of the Western Cape province.
The prospect of empty water pipes haunts other urban areas in climate hot spots.
California has just emerged from a five-year drought — the worst on record. In 2014-15, Sao Paulo’s 12 million souls came close to their own “Day Zero.” Beijing, New Delhi, Mexico City and Las Vegas [and PERTH] are among other cities that have been facing “huge water supply risks for more than a decade,” noted Hoekstra.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/02/15/world/science-health-world/growing-global-water-crisis-climate-change-may-last-straw/
Echoes from the Archives
12 Edward Greisch says:
24 Jan 2012 at 1:17 AM
10 Peter Kriss: Now that I have seen the questions, I am less interested in answering many of them. Some questions may be for filtering on expertise. It seems to me that to provide guidance to the public about climate risks, you would ask questions about things that would affect the public, such as:
When will Los Angelenos notice a water shortage?
When will GW cause a global famine?
Was the Russian drought of 2010 caused by GW?
Was the Texas drought of 2011 caused by GW?
When will GW get bad enough for 95% of US voters to believe in GW in spite of fossil fuel company propaganda to the contrary?
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/the-vision-prize/#comment-225655
—
6 years later ….
2. Talk about the real world, not abstract ideas
3. Connect with what matters to your audience
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/01/ipcc-communication-handbook/
—
98 Thomas says:
8 May 2016 at 7:45 PM
I recommend some analytical thinking be applied to this paper and the 118 references.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0149989#abstract0
The point? There’s no point in arguing with people who do not know what they are talking about. There’s no point in trying to tell people things they do not want to know. Sure ignore the ‘trolls’ but even better, ignore the social media loonies (and delusional politicians) that are out there too. :-)
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/unforced-variations-may-2016/comment-page-2/#comment-651773
[including the WUWT kind of people]
—
I honestly believe that every TV News and Newspaper and Meteorology Org. ‘weather report’ should include at the end a special AGW/CC report on the current global CO2 ppm reading for the day, plus the latest weekly summary +/- last year and a decade ago, and a more detailed report on the monthly mean avg. when that becomes available each month.
Plus they should also cover a conclusive summary each month of Global Temps Anomalies as per what MA Rodger does here. So that such material is in the public’s and politician’s face 365 days a year.
Repeat repeat repeat!
I believe that the community of climate scientists and related academics and AGW Orgs must come to the realisation that climate science and marketing/advertising (and therefore Psychology) are two totally different Domains – and accept with great humility and wisdom that they are experts in only one of those Domains.
Before it is too late. Although I do suspect it is already too late, maybe it’s still worth a shot?
I am very curious about how well the AR6 will be conveyed to the world and how that world will respond this time around.
Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide – Mid-February 2018
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/data.html
2017 2 5-11th 406.03
2017 2 12-18th 405.91
Period Average was 405.97 ppm
In 2018
February 14: 407.92 ppm
February 13: 408.00 ppm
February 12: 408.63 ppm
February 11: 408.51 ppm
February 10: 410.05 ppm
February 09: 409.01 ppm
February 08: 407.35 ppm
February 07: 408.20 ppm
February 06: 407.97 ppm
Period Avg.: 408.40 ppm
Currently running about +2.43 ppm above last year.
Perspectives and Context of current CO2 ppm readings
Arctic Sea Ice Extent still tracking below 14 mln sq kms in February is a new Record Low for this time of year.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Recently Arctic Regional SSTs have been reported at +12C to +30C above average – ample refs out there – or ask at https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php Multiple disruptions to the Arctic norms appear to be occurring there now.
The ENSO Outlook remains at LA NIÑA status
Climate models also suggest this event may have peaked, with all model outlooks indicating the tropical Pacific Ocean will continue to warm, and seven of eight models suggesting a return to neutral by April 2018. This would be in line with typical El Niño / La Niña evolution, where events tend to peak in December/January and transition back to neutral in the autumn months.
The La Niña in the Pacific Ocean continues to decline. Sea surface temperatures in the central tropical Pacific have warmed steadily since late December, with most models forecasting La Niña will end early in the southern hemisphere autumn.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/index.shtml
Cheers
Trends in Antarctic AGW/CC Impacts
Pine Island Glacier new Rift forming
A new internal rift starts to appear on Pine Island Glacier on the latest #landsat8 imagery; very similar to the internal rifts that resulted in the 2015 & 2017 calving events [1/2]
https://mobile.twitter.com/StefLhermitte/status/964254595030618113
~17.5 km upstream of the current ice front
Trends in AGW/CC Impacts – Rossby wave: The little-known phenomenon fuelling Tropical Cyclone Kelvin off WA
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-16/rossby-wave-phenomenon-fuels-tropical-cyclone-kelvin/9451796
Related (teleconnected?) with the nth hemisphere Jet Stream/Polar Vortex undulations …. “Rossby waves can usually be observed as a pair of twin low pressure systems, with one on either side of the equator.”