You are certainly being idealistic. Why you would call that a lie is beyond me. Expecting people to adopt your ideas of simplification and hugely reduced consumption levels requires enormous idealism. That is self evident and beyond debate. Ditto for ideas about adopting a completely new economic system. Ditto for your ideas of simply stopping any more mining. Idealism is ok, but at some point we have to confront reality and what is possible.
Most people don’t care about the problems of generations far into the future because psychology tells us we are hardwired to respond best to present threat’s not far distant threats as below:
Even getting people to see the terrible effects of climate change on the next generation is hard work (although we should try of course), while you expect people to be worried about generations 1000 years into the future because of a hard to quantify issue like mineral resource scarcity.
This is why I think the best we can realistically achieve is a light weight version of your ideas and must rely on getting population size down. We have a window of opportunity to get population down before resource scarcity becomes a huge issue.
And why are you worried if humanity eventually runs out of some mineral resource in 1000 years time (or whatever)? You have written many pages telling us how wonderful hunter gatherer life is.
And you appear to conflate biodiversity loss with technology. The biodiversity problem is caused mostly by deforestation, habitat loss, population pressure, insecticides etc, not technology. Sure mining despoils the landscape, but its very hard to avoid this and much can be reinstated. We simply have to start doing this better.
Making technology and mining 100% perfectly sustainable is by definition impossible. All we can do is adopt a plan of harm minimisation. Expecting people to give up on mining is not realistic. Things that can be made genuinely sustainable are farming, use of timber, fishing and so on.
Mr. Know It Allsays
25 – nigelj
“The sort of environmental deregulation promoted by the Republican Party in America since Reagon has had disastrous consequences epitomised in the Trump Administration.”
Please describe a few of the “disastrous consequences epitomized in the Trump Administration”. I hope you realize that he was elected, in part, because of OVER regulation of the environment – people got tired of hearing stories about tens of thousands of dollars in fines PER DAY for having a pond; or a drip of oil coming out of their car.
24 – anonymous
I suspect that for a fee, they would license their patent, or perhaps sell it. OR they could sell products used to achieve the desired results in the soil. Having a patent is of no value if you can’t use it to make money; and the best way to make money is to sell your product as much as possible.
On running out of mineral resources, I doubt that will be an unsolvable problem. We can always find more – that’s what we do – see oil, gold, coal, uranium, etc. If there is a profit in producing more someone will do it, or they will find an alternate that works. Many humans have a thing between their ears that makes it possible.
40 – KVJ
“I just wonder why nobody in the socalled mainstream media are concerned with Koch-brothers-gate and everyone with “Russiagate”?”
You really don’t know? Russiagate cannot be stopped while T is in office. If it were stopped, the many people involved in the silent coup against Trump (many top BHO officials, FBI, CIA, DOJ, etc) would be investigated and their crimes uncovered. They MUST keep T on defense – if he goes on offense, they go to prison. ;)
41 – Russell
You nailed it!
42 – nigelj
That sounds fairly reasonable.
45 – Colin
Money is paper and has carbon in it. Everyone send me your money and I will sequester it.
Most Americans did not vote for this. Most of america supports renewable energy and America is actually about evenly split on general environmental regulations:
You appear live in a fantasy world separate from what polling actually shows and what Trump has actually done. The GOP used to be great on the environment. What went wrong?
You say “people got tired of hearing stories about tens of thousands of dollars in fines PER DAY for having a pond; or a drip of oil coming out of their car.” Please provide proof any of this actually happens.This is also not the sort of thing Trump is changing as per the links I have posted.
And alleged primarily by those who, like the Kochs, have elevated the rejection of the duty of government to regulate to a religious dogma–one which, like most religious dogma, aligns well with their economic interests. (At least as viewed through the lens of a short time frame.)
The Trump presidency has taken an axe to regulation in general, but it has done so without any regard for proper analysis of benefits and costs, as far as I can tell–analysis which WAS done in the initial rulemaking process. That’s one reason that so many attempted ‘reforms’ have foundered in court challenges.
The one thing I’ll say is that they did run on doing just this sort of thing. And no wonder it’s the one promise that’s really being kept: it’s the one the folks with the bucks really want to see happen.
KIA 53: Please describe a few of the “disastrous consequences epitomized in the Trump Administration”.
BPL: Trump legalized dumping coal waste in rivers, something that had been prohibited under the Obama administration.
He is doing his best to repeal efficiency standards in cars.
His energy policy is centered around coal and oil.
He removed controls on offshore drilling which had been added for safety reasons after the Deepwater Horizon spill.
He allowed drilling for oil and gas in national monuments.
You could have Googled any of this. Trump’s administration has been a disaster for the environment and it can only get worse as long as he’s in office.
KIA is the point of your posts to prove your cognomen false?
Signed Concerned Reader
Killiansays
Re #52 nigel said the same dumb crap he’s said for years.
You are ignorant of what it is I do, yet repeatedly try to characterize it. Stop. It’s stupid and dishonest because you have had this stuff explained to you repeatedly.
But, hey. one more time:
* The solutions I set out are based in *design principles,* not wishes and assholes.
* They are design principles, not overbearing White, high school principals. Try to understand the difference. Just as engineering has a set of principles, so does ecological engineering. “Keep it simple, Stupid,” e.g., is an engineering principle. It is mirrored by, “Small, slow solutions” in permaculture. Another is said to be, “Keep the target user in mind,” and in permaculture we might say, “Design in place,” or “let design emerge, don’t impose design” to get to a similar outcome.
These are for your edification, though you are inedifiable, so…. In reality, permaculture principals are not just principles, but First Principles, which means they are foundational and cannot be simplified any further. I.e., they come from Nature, herself.
You’ve read comments like this before, yet still lie about it all being idealism. Idealism is ideological and has nothing at all to do with what I say. But, you prefer to pretend you’ve never heard any of this before. That makes you a liar.
Additionally, we have also repeatedly dealt with the issue of what is possible vs. what is probable and at no point have I stated optimism we WILL react sanely and safely, but, rather, have clearly stated the chances of that are small, BUT we have a responsibility to do out best.
There’s no ideology, no idealism, in any of this. You’re just…. not bright.
patrick027says
I’m curious how big that pond was, where it was, how it formed, and what was in it?
Mr. Know It Allsays
55 – nigelj
“Please provide proof any of this actually happens.”
56 – Kevin
” That’s one reason that so many attempted ‘reforms’ have foundered in court challenges.”
Nah, those challenging Trump on any issue shop for a court that agrees with them and they file their challenge in that court. The courts are biased – THAT’s a problem. ;)
Thanks for the replies Gentlemen, but my challenge was this: “Please describe a few of the “disastrous consequences epitomized in the Trump Administration”.”
I’m looking for “disastrous consequences”, not sensational headlines or unpopular policies, etc – just “disastrous consequences epitomized in the Trump Administration”. ;)
Mr. Know It Allsays
58 – Paul
“Nope. Conventional crude oil is depleting as predicted, now having to go to costly shale oil.
And how about that helium?”
Exactly as I predicted – conventional crude depletes, so they find something else – shale, fracked oil, or switch to NG, solar, wind, coal, nuclear, etc. Humans adapt.
Helium? Don’t know much about how it is used. I’d want to know how much is used in weather balloons – would hydrogen work – yes it’s flammable – can that be made to work safely – yes it’s heavier, but could they “make do” with it? Sounds like they need to conserve. I don’t know how the cooling systems work for superconducting magnets,etc – I wonder if a 2 stage system could be used where the first stage was another gas – maybe N2 – so the He usage could be reduced? Just a wild guess.
nigeljsays
MR KIA @63, thanks for the links. The pond is quite a story, and I agree its all silly bureacracy gone mad but 1) you get the same right through the private and public sectors where different organisations lap over each other in responsibilities, 2) its only one example so one cant generalise from it to all environmental rules and 3) it doesn’t look like Trump has changed the relevant rules.
The problems generated by the Trump administration listed in the links I posted and listed by BPL are disastrous in the main. You need to open your eyes and face the obvious. I’m a swing voter, so I have no great party loyalty, probably born that way, and it gives me a certain level of objectivity.
nigeljsays
Killian @61, I never said permaculture is idealistic. I said some of your other claims are idealistic and they are.
I even said its not a bad thing to be idealistic. So before you accuse others of not being bright perhaps have a think about that.
If you had said right at the start that we can only do our best, rather than making huge ambitious suggestions, it would have helped.
Remember I could accuse you of lies and ignorance if I wanted, 24 / 7. I control my temper. It should not be too much to ask others do the same.
Andrew Heapsays
Gavin Foster
@theFosterlab
Follow Follow @theFosterlab
More
CO2 recently reached 415 ppm. To mark this occasion we have updated our CO2 compilation for the last 3.5 myrs. Just to be clear – the last time CO2 was this high was 2.5 myrs ago (see fig). Sea levels were 10-20 m higher, global climate +3 C. more here:
Can anyone explain the above tweet in terms of how does 415 ppm then (2.5 myrs ago) give +3C and yet we still have wriggle room to stay below 1.5C now?
KIA 63: I’m looking for “disastrous consequences”, not sensational headlines or unpopular policies, etc – just “disastrous consequences epitomized in the Trump Administration”. ;)
BPL: And as shown in that very post, you’ll explain away any examples, so it’s not a very honest request, is it?
3 links, but just one 4-year old story. (Well, OK, there was the oil-drip link, but it concerned a prying neighbor, not any level of government, so I’m going to ignore that one henceforth as irrelevant.)
And how did that 4-year-old Wyoming pond story turn out, pray tell?
Under the settlement reached Monday in federal court, Johnson will not have to pay the fines or drain the pond. But he will have to plant willow trees around the pond to protect the ground from erosion, and he’ll have to put a fence to temporarily protect it from livestock.
So as I see it, the EPA went too far, but apparently did have some valid concerns, and the judicial system seems to have worked more or less as it should in balancing the concerns of both sides. Shocking!
Color me skeptical that this is a particularly representative instance; there will, in any bureaucracy, private or public, cases where regulations or procedures fail to match the circumstances well, and where those charged with administering them are not appropriately judicious or flexible. If you’ve got a solution to that, please share! The world could use it.
But the solution isn’t to do away with all (or most) environmental regulations. They were put in place not to exercise power for the pure sake of it, but because many decades of failure to protect the natural environment from human abuse had become self-evidently harmful–older readers may remember the time the Cuyahoga River caught fire! (No, that isn’t a typo.)
And the rule-making process has built into it cost-benefit analyses and public feedback provisions that thoroughly vet rules before they are enacted. So, the regulation is not guaranteed to be perfect, nor necessarily free from unintended consequences, but at least it will not have been made thoughtlessly.
On the other hand, the axe taken to environmental protections by the current Administration has been, as far as we can tell, wielded in a highly reflexive manner.
All told, the Trump administration’s environmental rollbacks could lead to at least 80,000 extra deaths per decade and cause respiratory problems for more than one million people, according to a separate analysis conducted by researchers from Harvard. That number, however, is likely to be “a major underestimate of the global public health impact,” said Francesca Dominici, a professor of biostatistics at the Harvard School of Public Health.
KIA quite ruins his effect by invoking Fred Singer’s op-ed dump of last resort.
The rules of climateball forbid Wayback links to journal dafter than The American Thinker or Marxism Today . and the Birch Society’s New American falls in the middle of that range.
lomillersays
WRT to the EPA finning the guy for building a pond, the stupidity here is not the EPA fining the man, it’s that the man let the fines accumulate to $20 million rather then simply getting the proper permits and following the regulations sound environment practices when building the pond.
You’re a swing voter? I thought you lived in NZ? I am ashamed to admit it but I voted D for years until they went off the rails. My past votes set our country up for many of the problems we have today caused by Ds I helped elect.
67 – Andrew
Just guessing: perhaps estimated +3C is not accurate, and/or possibly differences in the Earths orbit?
68 – BPL
I just wanted to see some actual disasters listed, not future disasters, bad policies, etc.
Considering you’re a self-proclaimed know-it-all, it’s ironic that you don’t understand how one of the most important materials in physics research and medicine is used.
As for the massive depletion in crude oil, no, we can’t “always find more”.
Killiansays
Re #66 nigelj said
16 May 2019 at 3:07 AM
Killian @61, I never said permaculture is idealistic.
Jesus… Permaculture is a key aspect of my analyses, ergo, for my suggestions to be idealistic, so does permaculture. I was, once again, making this point as an example for your addled mind to try one last time to understand. No, I didn’t list everything that underpins my thinking. Why would I waste the time? Permaculture is fully rational, not idealistic. Calling needs-based thinking, evidence-based thinking, using less so we all don’t die, etc., idealistic is garbage analysis.
I said some of your other claims are idealistic and they are.
I have made no claims. I state what is known and I do analysis. That’s it. There is nothing idealistic about ducking when someone fires a bullet at your head.
I even said its not a bad thing to be idealistic. So before you accuse others of not being bright perhaps have a think about that.
It’s insulting to label as idealistic that which is fully rational, supported logically, supported factually, historically viable and is sound forward-looking analysis.
Your backhanded caveat does nothing to lessen the insult. You mean it in a diminishing sense. You mean it dismissively. You use it that way. Not only do you not have the ability to analyze anything with any rigor or quality, but you constantly attempt to dismiss those with demonstrated skill with shit-eating weasel words like “idealistic.” Screw you.
If you had said right at the start that we can only do our best, rather than making huge ambitious suggestions, it would have helped.
WTF are you talking about? Huge? Ambitious? Do you really not know how to use a dictionary?
Remember I could accuse you of lies and ignorance
No, you can’t. You have tried repeatedly and merely showed your incompetence there, too. When it comes to me or anything I post, walk on by.
I control my temper.
Lying is controlling your temper? Commenting on every single issue raised on these boards is controlling yourself? You have nothing to say, yet cannot stop commenting. Your truly unique brand of ignorance, incompetence and dishonesty are… yucky. At least KIA, et al., have an agenda that drives their drivel. We know they are dishonest: They’re denialists. What the hell drives your constant pointless posting other than wishing to see your words on the screen and tell yourself you’ve germane to the conversation?
Blather at someone else. You’re useless in these discussions.
I don’t think Thomas Crowther and other soil scientists who study the Arctic would agree that they are baffled by increases in “natural” methane in the atmosphere.
I could be wrong about that.
I have mulled over the Crowther quote more. Al has said the Crowther quote did not square with IPCC SR15 and I think that makes perfect sense actually because the IPCC reports and projections have always been ramped up, not down, with each iteration. I think that if you asked Crowther what about about the IPCC reports that don’t support your idea that 12-15% of current atmospheric accumulation of CO2 arises from warming soil? He would say, of course, they don’t square with IPCC reports and projections because the IPCC reports and projections are wrong. Alarming as any IPCC report has been, the next iteration has always, come out and said, essentially, well, the situation is worse than we indicated in the last report.
The Grist article is pretty clear and easy reading, a person like Donald Trump might understand it if he read it, but we can’t be sure of that. It is dumbed down a bit. Go to the underlying studies if you are interested in a more sophisticated presentation. Or be baffled by the new methane releases! Shazamm!
How are we doing on CO2? Peachy!
May 5 – 11, 2019 414.37 ppm
May 5 – 11, 2018 410.77 ppm
3.6 ppm increase in pretty noisy number. Has the rate of increase been rising over the past two years? Yes, it has. Is it continuing to rise? Wait and see. I am going to scoot on a limb a bit and say that when the numbers are in, we will see that the rate of CO2 increase is still on the rise in 2019. But should be fine. Don’t get wound up or depressed. Keep replacing those incandescents with the leds or cfls.
Warm regards
Mike
Dansays
re: 72. “Do not believe ANYTHING that comes out of a US university. They are all extremely biased.”
That is pure ignorance and hate, complete with the obligatory use of Trumpster all-capital letters. You still have no clue about how science is conducted despite having been told many times. You have no absolutely critical thinking skills re: science (someone truly failed you there when growing up).
nigeljsays
Killian @75
Ok so when you post comments and / or copy and paste saying we should get rid of inequality completely, live in new sharing communities, abandon high rise urban living, reduce our energy use by 90% , stop all conflicts, you are not being idealistic. Right. Got it (Sarcasm).
Karsten V. Johansensays
At least we now know that the usual stupid 25 pct of the “american” population in 2020 if the atomic annihilation hasn’t begun before the, will “choose” the next idiot-in-chief same as the old one: Trump or maybe even more bizarre and cracky: Biden. Or the other way round. Who get to start or continue the oil war against Iran and bail out the banksters next time, make sure the global temperature will roll on to six degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times etc.? I am not losing any sleep over that question.
According to a 2017 report by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the fallout included plutonium-239, an isotope that is one of the world’s most toxic substances, and one with a radioactive half-life of 24,100 years.
The staying power of that material is the problem. It’s still there, only 18 inches of concrete away from waters that are rising.
“That dome is the connection between the nuclear age and the climate change age,” climate change activist Alson Kelen told the Australian broadcaster.
Cracks have reportedly started to appear in the dome. Part of the threat is that the crater was never properly lined, meaning that rising seawater could breach the structural integrity.
Wonder if they are concerned with the 250K deaths caused EACH YEAR by medical mistakes?
I wonder if such a blatant attempt to deflect reflects an inability to find a defense of the reckless actions the Administration has taken?
Also, I wonder just who “they” is supposed to refer to? Is every researcher identifying a harm supposed to quantify it in relation to every other possible harm in the literature somewhere?
I’m guessing that journals would probably have to raise their limits on article length considerably, if so. Also, we’d start cutting a lot more trees to print scholarly journals, with all the attendant emissions. Probably not a good plan. ;-)
re 79 Karsten V. Johansen – I’m not saying Biden is perfect, but I think he’s very far removed from Trump (and I don’t think it’s a done deal just yet that he’ll be the Dem nominee). Also, we have AOC in congress. There is hope for US (pun intended).
nigeljsays
Mike @76
Regarding this Crowther thing. I think you have “grabbed the wrong end of the stick”. Crowther said we are experiencing an additional 12-15% emissions right now when it is absolutely clear this is not expected until later this century. It appears to have possibly been a ‘typo’ on his part. Not that later this century makes it better but its important in terms of carbon budgets.
You have to read MARs stuff carefully. In no way is he / she suggesting it will not happen.
The IPCC reports have sometimes ramped down, eg scaling back climate sensitivity. Although I suspect that will change yet again.
…when you post comments and / or copy and paste saying we should get rid of inequality completely
1. We lived that way for 290k years. 2. Some still do. 3. Some who don’t, want to.
I see nothing “idealistic” about what has always been, still is, and will continue to be. Returning more people to that is not idealism if it is based on the maths, logic and necessities of the current world condition. You’re just oo damned dense to get that. It would be idealistic if it wasn’t the only way to do regenerative systems, of it if were based on some bullshit kumbayah, pseudo-religions crap. But it’s not. It’s the only way to manage resources at all scales less a massive network of AI’s managing every decision we make. Where is the idealism? You just have zero actual skill in any of this.
live in new sharing communities
See above. Same thing. You can’t design and successfully manage resources at various scales, all interconnected, from the home to the globe, without the people actively collaborating. Neither businesses nor government can do it, but the people who actually use the resources, in situ, can. It’s not that it’s ideal, it’s that it’s *necessary.*
I’ve said this to you so #%&##^@ many times it makes my head explode that you consistently come back and disparage and belittle what I say by $%##$#@ lying about the character of the analysis. It’s disgusting behavior. It’s dishonest. It’s your own weird little brand of soft denial. I nailed you when you first arrived here as a denialist and you confirm it over and over. Since you are a confirmed climate denialist
Oh, yes! Oh, my! Climate Chaos is *such* a big scary monster, but we can’t actually DO anything that would actually SOLVE the problem. It’s just too inconvenient!
I spew thee out of my mouth. What was it Jesus said to the church at Ephesus, I spew thee out of my mouth for thy milquetoast blah-blah-blah? Yeah. Exactly that.
abandon high rise urban living
I have literally never said this or anything like it. Learn the principles, one of which is adapt in place, and another is work with what you’ve got. Why lie?
reduce our energy use by 90%
You know I am not the only person who says this. I used to be one of the few, but now well-known academics are on the same page. Kevin Anderson, I think, has said similar, but I may be confusing him with others. Regardless, I have posted such on these fora. It’s, again, math. As I have said over and effing over and effing freaking over.
You, however, call it idealism rather than analysis. Because you’re a damned lying denialist.
stop all conflicts
Yeah, that’s terrible. Good lord…
But, let’s bite once more, though I have made this point myriad times on these fora…
Regenerative systems, because they mimic nature, balance inputs and outputs. They can vary over space and time (think mshroom’s cycle vs a tree’s), but we seek always to balance. This requires a degree of cooperation unknown by most modern humans, but not all humans. Some do it. Others aspire to. Your view seems to be, “People won’t!” Sorry, that’s lazy, weak, immoral. You are saying people will actively choose extinction over what ends up being a higher quality of life for humanity as a whole. I guess what *you* say should be called Fatalistic Climate Denial (FCD).
Further, what of time? Do you think we have time for more wars, for more seizure and exploitation of resources by one nation over another? Do you? If we don’t have *time* for war, and if *war* destroys the ecosystem all the more, and recovery sucks up still more unsustainable resources, do you really think it a good idea to keep doing it, or idealistic to point it out? I promise you, if wars continue, collapse comes. Period.
Heck, jsut the war machine itself will prevent avoidance of collapse. Huge amounts of resources used to keep it up. It goes, or we go.
you are not being idealistic.
No, asshat, I’m not. The steps I promote, the solutions I promote, are the *only* approach, imo, suggested by anyone on the planet, that addresses every problem, every social ill, every imbalance, every injustice, every aspect of climate and resource issues.
I hope you’re still reading because all that was just reflex prologue. Here’s what you really need to hear:
…when you post comments and / or copy and paste saying we should…
That one word is the entire problem. Should is a modal. It is used to show probability, but also to show opinion/advice. That is how you use it. There is no should here. There is no ought, no may, no can, no might, no shall, no will, no would, no could. There is only must. That we must does not mean we will.
And I have said that over and over and over and over. I have said the likelihood of “will” is very small. I have NEVER said otherwise. Not here, not anywhere. And I have said it over and over and @$^#$%# over! Where the flying %@#$ is the idealism in stating what is necessary, but we almost certainly won’t?
You can’t possibly be as stupid as you would need to be to get this wrong so many times, going through the same goddamned ritual for years, so we end up, necessarily, where we began: Your true conservative, climate denying colors flying. And if you *are* that stupid, well, then what is the point of conversation?
This is the last time I respond to you.
Killiansays
Re #81 Hank Roberts said Permaculture is a key aspect of my analyses, ergo, for my suggestions to be idealistic, so does permaculture.
K, ergologic fails. Draw a Venn diagram and ponder your certainty please.
No, Hank, it doesn’t.
No, I didn’t list everything that underpins my thinking.
Not my FAIL, your’s.
Killiansays
Re #80 Hank Roberts said Another item for the “Hey, what could go wrong” file:
only 18 inches of concrete away from waters that are rising.
…Cracks have reportedly started to appear in the dome. Part of the threat is that the crater was never properly lined, meaning that rising seawater could breach the structural integrity.
I guess they made Jurassic Park 60 years or so too late. Dr. Two First Names Ian Malcolm could have straightened them out.
Or, shucks, permaculture, about 40 years too late. Principle: Zero waste. Principle: Natural before mechanical before hi-tech. Principle: Small, slow solutions.
If permaculture had existed and become the decision-making process for humanity, we’d have had neither oil nor nuclear.
Sigh…
Sadly, pro-nukers will learn nothing from this. “But we can do so much better now!” depite the hundreds of little accidents every year, the leaks around the world, 3 Mile, Chernobyle, Fukushima…
patrick027says
re my last… i.e., I do believe that the Dem candidates are basically good people. I wouldn’t compare any to Nero or Caligula, Voldermort, Darth Vader… (except just now where I implicitly did – you need to compare in order to come to the conclusion that there is ‘no comparison’; I tend to think any two things can be compared if you try). (In no way meant to imply that all others are like those villains mentioned above. Just some others. One in particular.)
Bill Buasays
That is truly unfortunate Mr. Know It All @83. Are you sure that is all that was on the ballot. There seems to be a lot of ignorance in politics in that country …. in a similar vein as in the U.S., from what I’ve seen.
nigeljsays
Killian @87, I oppose war as well. I actually said the word ‘conflict’ and I was thinking more broadly than just war, but the point is utopian peaceful worlds are idealistic “by definition”. I don’t understand why you don’t just accept such things are idealistic. You just make yourself sound like you are arguing black is white.
I wasn’t disparaging the idea of having some idealism. I’ve been on protest marches, and I long for a better world, a more just, peaceful, fair sort of world and of course one where we fix this climate problem one way or the other.
I guess its just that I’m also a realist as well, and I can’t get too enthusiastic about promoting ideas where I think its unlikely that many people would rise to the challenge, even if the consequences for future generations are significant, and reducing energy use by a whopping 90% falls into such a category. It also doesn’t entirely make much sense imho, but I’m not going to repeat what I have already said on it.
Have you not considered that it’s possible the author of that 90% number plucked it out of a hat, just to give people a big jolt? And that there’s not much analysis behind it and its just a guess? But reducing energy use by some lesser number does of course make sense for all sorts of reasons. I encourage people here and on other websites to conserve electricity, consume less, and think about whether they really need some of the things they buy, etcetera.
If you want to persuade people it needs certain skills. This starts with not disparaging them even if they are critical, and not suggesting change that is so radical it causes them to freeze and become defensive. As I have said before change can always be ramped up over time. Once one step is completed, one can encourage them of further steps and this is normally how we do things, within some overall plan of course.We start with small steps. But of course if you are satisfied that your approach to communicating the issue is working to convince people, then keep it up.
patricksays
“You have to go bigger [than weather systems].” [Now there’s a thought.]
Wind and solar are pure, direct manifestations of the sun’s energy pouring over earth. They are great, inexhaustible, will always exist, and are available everywhere. That is, the wind always blows somewhere and the sun always shines somewhere. But not always where you are and when you want to use it.
When the sun is over the hemisphere that is occupied by the Pacific, it is of not much use to most people, except those on the islands and ships in the Pacific — but that is a small population.
Ignoring for the moment the problem of the sun at night, discussed later, the availability of solar and wind depends on the weather. To have the adage about sun and wind always being available somewhere come true, that somewhere needs to be larger than the weather systems. The area of the EU is hardly large enough to cover that somewhere. Preferably, it should include part of North Africa — say, sunny Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and the Ukrainian plains.
The EU can transition to renewable energy when energy production and distribution is managed on the scale of the EU. The argument for countries with large hydro resources will be that those resources are more profitable when used in conjunction with wind and solar. The profits and ownership of the power plants — wind, hydro, and solar — can stay local. The overall system and regulations need to be at the EU level.
A 100% renewable energy Europe is possible, but only when parts of Ukraine below one meter of snow can get their energy from sunny Spain and the windy North Sea, when cloudy Western Europe can get energy from the winds of Eastern Europe, when the lights on still-wind nights get their electricity from Sweden’s hydro generators, when … I think you get the idea.
Weather systems are easily a few thousand kilometers across. You have to go bigger.
Mammoth Mountain, California, has exhibited unrest over the past ~30 years, characterized by seismicity over a broad range of depths, elevated 3He/4He ratios …
Mother Nature offers to rescue us by upping the supply of 3He, just in tme for use in fusion power plants. Just dome the volcanic field and purify the gas.
Killiansays
Perhaps it begins… The end of, “Can’t be done!” and “People won’t!” in sight?
‘This is bigger’: Palestinian and Israeli teens strike together for the climate
Killian #88 re: Ergologic fails. “No, I didn’t list everything that underpins my thinking.” And so the “Ergo” is justified only in your own mind. We are not telepaths. What’s the term for the opposite of hearing voices, where one imagines that others hear and should share one’s thoughts?
Kevin the Chemistsays
Does anyone have hard factual data on the latency period of CO2 release at atmospheric level and then going to the troposphere? Theory I have seen puts it at between 11 to 40 years? I assume you know where this is going….
Next, for any given combustion to form CO2, has anyone considered the amounts of water vapor (an even larger-acting GHG according to many) released into the air during the same CO2 releases (each CO2 is accompanied with 1-2 equivalents of water) and also the corresponding heat of reaction….
Entropic mansays
Dan da Silva
” The reasoning that Micheal Mann uses to deduce man-made global warming is that there is no natural phenomenon known that could cause this warming”
Michael Mann uses more than reasoning, he has evidence. There are a number of natural phemomena which might cause global warmng. The ones we know, such as albedo, orbital changes, land use, solar insolation etc all add up to a slight cooling tendency. That leaves CO2 as the remaining cause.
As a resident of Ireland I cannot deny that leprechauns are causing the warming, but evidence is sparse.
A better link for the Founders Pledge report on climate change charities (see my comment at #45 above) is:
https://founderspledge.com/research/Cause%20Report%20-%20Climate%20Change.pdf
Killian @48
You are certainly being idealistic. Why you would call that a lie is beyond me. Expecting people to adopt your ideas of simplification and hugely reduced consumption levels requires enormous idealism. That is self evident and beyond debate. Ditto for ideas about adopting a completely new economic system. Ditto for your ideas of simply stopping any more mining. Idealism is ok, but at some point we have to confront reality and what is possible.
Most people don’t care about the problems of generations far into the future because psychology tells us we are hardwired to respond best to present threat’s not far distant threats as below:
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5530483
Even getting people to see the terrible effects of climate change on the next generation is hard work (although we should try of course), while you expect people to be worried about generations 1000 years into the future because of a hard to quantify issue like mineral resource scarcity.
This is why I think the best we can realistically achieve is a light weight version of your ideas and must rely on getting population size down. We have a window of opportunity to get population down before resource scarcity becomes a huge issue.
And why are you worried if humanity eventually runs out of some mineral resource in 1000 years time (or whatever)? You have written many pages telling us how wonderful hunter gatherer life is.
And you appear to conflate biodiversity loss with technology. The biodiversity problem is caused mostly by deforestation, habitat loss, population pressure, insecticides etc, not technology. Sure mining despoils the landscape, but its very hard to avoid this and much can be reinstated. We simply have to start doing this better.
Making technology and mining 100% perfectly sustainable is by definition impossible. All we can do is adopt a plan of harm minimisation. Expecting people to give up on mining is not realistic. Things that can be made genuinely sustainable are farming, use of timber, fishing and so on.
25 – nigelj
“The sort of environmental deregulation promoted by the Republican Party in America since Reagon has had disastrous consequences epitomised in the Trump Administration.”
Please describe a few of the “disastrous consequences epitomized in the Trump Administration”. I hope you realize that he was elected, in part, because of OVER regulation of the environment – people got tired of hearing stories about tens of thousands of dollars in fines PER DAY for having a pond; or a drip of oil coming out of their car.
24 – anonymous
I suspect that for a fee, they would license their patent, or perhaps sell it. OR they could sell products used to achieve the desired results in the soil. Having a patent is of no value if you can’t use it to make money; and the best way to make money is to sell your product as much as possible.
In other news, AOC says her end-of-the-world in 12 years claim was not literal. WHEW! We dodged a bullet there! :)
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/05/12/ocasio-cortez-climate-change-destroy-earth-12-years-claim-not-literal/
On running out of mineral resources, I doubt that will be an unsolvable problem. We can always find more – that’s what we do – see oil, gold, coal, uranium, etc. If there is a profit in producing more someone will do it, or they will find an alternate that works. Many humans have a thing between their ears that makes it possible.
40 – KVJ
“I just wonder why nobody in the socalled mainstream media are concerned with Koch-brothers-gate and everyone with “Russiagate”?”
You really don’t know? Russiagate cannot be stopped while T is in office. If it were stopped, the many people involved in the silent coup against Trump (many top BHO officials, FBI, CIA, DOJ, etc) would be investigated and their crimes uncovered. They MUST keep T on defense – if he goes on offense, they go to prison. ;)
41 – Russell
You nailed it!
42 – nigelj
That sounds fairly reasonable.
45 – Colin
Money is paper and has carbon in it. Everyone send me your money and I will sequester it.
Industrial scale CO2 burial proposal
https://rotterdamccus.nl/en/
sidd
Mr Kia #53, some of the Trump administration’s damaging environmental policies and rollback of good regulations as below:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46471447
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/03/how-trump-is-changing-science-environment/
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/donald-trump-environmenal-agenda-738964/
Most Americans did not vote for this. Most of america supports renewable energy and America is actually about evenly split on general environmental regulations:
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2017/05/16/public-divides-over-environmental-regulation-and-energy-policy/
You appear live in a fantasy world separate from what polling actually shows and what Trump has actually done. The GOP used to be great on the environment. What went wrong?
You say “people got tired of hearing stories about tens of thousands of dollars in fines PER DAY for having a pond; or a drip of oil coming out of their car.” Please provide proof any of this actually happens.This is also not the sort of thing Trump is changing as per the links I have posted.
KIA, #53–
“OVER regulation of the environmen..”
ALLEGED over regulation, please!
And alleged primarily by those who, like the Kochs, have elevated the rejection of the duty of government to regulate to a religious dogma–one which, like most religious dogma, aligns well with their economic interests. (At least as viewed through the lens of a short time frame.)
The Trump presidency has taken an axe to regulation in general, but it has done so without any regard for proper analysis of benefits and costs, as far as I can tell–analysis which WAS done in the initial rulemaking process. That’s one reason that so many attempted ‘reforms’ have foundered in court challenges.
The one thing I’ll say is that they did run on doing just this sort of thing. And no wonder it’s the one promise that’s really being kept: it’s the one the folks with the bucks really want to see happen.
KIA 53: Please describe a few of the “disastrous consequences epitomized in the Trump Administration”.
BPL: Trump legalized dumping coal waste in rivers, something that had been prohibited under the Obama administration.
He is doing his best to repeal efficiency standards in cars.
His energy policy is centered around coal and oil.
He removed controls on offshore drilling which had been added for safety reasons after the Deepwater Horizon spill.
He allowed drilling for oil and gas in national monuments.
You could have Googled any of this. Trump’s administration has been a disaster for the environment and it can only get worse as long as he’s in office.
KIA said:
Nope. Conventional crude oil is depleting as predicted, now having to go to costly shale oil.
And how about that helium?
https://www.aip.org/fyi/2019/helium-users-grapple-supply-crunch
Impacting the party supply stores first
49 – Killian
That was an awesome video! Great math refresher. All should watch it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI1C9DyIi_8&list=PLxuM31_RPf_otxnEJMngu84Hl7dxA83DT&index=17&t=11s
KIA is the point of your posts to prove your cognomen false?
Signed Concerned Reader
Re #52 nigel said the same dumb crap he’s said for years.
You are ignorant of what it is I do, yet repeatedly try to characterize it. Stop. It’s stupid and dishonest because you have had this stuff explained to you repeatedly.
But, hey. one more time:
* The solutions I set out are based in *design principles,* not wishes and assholes.
* They are design principles, not overbearing White, high school principals. Try to understand the difference. Just as engineering has a set of principles, so does ecological engineering. “Keep it simple, Stupid,” e.g., is an engineering principle. It is mirrored by, “Small, slow solutions” in permaculture. Another is said to be, “Keep the target user in mind,” and in permaculture we might say, “Design in place,” or “let design emerge, don’t impose design” to get to a similar outcome.
These are for your edification, though you are inedifiable, so…. In reality, permaculture principals are not just principles, but First Principles, which means they are foundational and cannot be simplified any further. I.e., they come from Nature, herself.
You’ve read comments like this before, yet still lie about it all being idealism. Idealism is ideological and has nothing at all to do with what I say. But, you prefer to pretend you’ve never heard any of this before. That makes you a liar.
Additionally, we have also repeatedly dealt with the issue of what is possible vs. what is probable and at no point have I stated optimism we WILL react sanely and safely, but, rather, have clearly stated the chances of that are small, BUT we have a responsibility to do out best.
There’s no ideology, no idealism, in any of this. You’re just…. not bright.
I’m curious how big that pond was, where it was, how it formed, and what was in it?
55 – nigelj
“Please provide proof any of this actually happens.”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wyoming-welder-faces-75000-a-day-in-epa-fines-for-building-pond-on-his-property
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/21656-epa-fines-man-almost-20-million-to-date-for-building-pond-on-his-property
https://www.offthegridnews.com/current-events/77-year-old-vet-faces-15-years-in-jail-for-building-ponds/
Oil drip from car:
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100417170429AAWfs1a
57 – BPL
On dumping coal mining waste into streams, it wasn’t against the law until BHO’s last day in office – it’s really a nothing burger according to snope-a-dopes. Just sensational headlines:
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/02/06/dump-coal-waste-into-streams/
56 – Kevin
” That’s one reason that so many attempted ‘reforms’ have foundered in court challenges.”
Nah, those challenging Trump on any issue shop for a court that agrees with them and they file their challenge in that court. The courts are biased – THAT’s a problem. ;)
Thanks for the replies Gentlemen, but my challenge was this: “Please describe a few of the “disastrous consequences epitomized in the Trump Administration”.”
I’m looking for “disastrous consequences”, not sensational headlines or unpopular policies, etc – just “disastrous consequences epitomized in the Trump Administration”. ;)
58 – Paul
“Nope. Conventional crude oil is depleting as predicted, now having to go to costly shale oil.
And how about that helium?”
Exactly as I predicted – conventional crude depletes, so they find something else – shale, fracked oil, or switch to NG, solar, wind, coal, nuclear, etc. Humans adapt.
Helium? Don’t know much about how it is used. I’d want to know how much is used in weather balloons – would hydrogen work – yes it’s flammable – can that be made to work safely – yes it’s heavier, but could they “make do” with it? Sounds like they need to conserve. I don’t know how the cooling systems work for superconducting magnets,etc – I wonder if a 2 stage system could be used where the first stage was another gas – maybe N2 – so the He usage could be reduced? Just a wild guess.
MR KIA @63, thanks for the links. The pond is quite a story, and I agree its all silly bureacracy gone mad but 1) you get the same right through the private and public sectors where different organisations lap over each other in responsibilities, 2) its only one example so one cant generalise from it to all environmental rules and 3) it doesn’t look like Trump has changed the relevant rules.
The problems generated by the Trump administration listed in the links I posted and listed by BPL are disastrous in the main. You need to open your eyes and face the obvious. I’m a swing voter, so I have no great party loyalty, probably born that way, and it gives me a certain level of objectivity.
Killian @61, I never said permaculture is idealistic. I said some of your other claims are idealistic and they are.
I even said its not a bad thing to be idealistic. So before you accuse others of not being bright perhaps have a think about that.
If you had said right at the start that we can only do our best, rather than making huge ambitious suggestions, it would have helped.
Remember I could accuse you of lies and ignorance if I wanted, 24 / 7. I control my temper. It should not be too much to ask others do the same.
Gavin Foster
@theFosterlab
Follow Follow @theFosterlab
More
CO2 recently reached 415 ppm. To mark this occasion we have updated our CO2 compilation for the last 3.5 myrs. Just to be clear – the last time CO2 was this high was 2.5 myrs ago (see fig). Sea levels were 10-20 m higher, global climate +3 C. more here:
Can anyone explain the above tweet in terms of how does 415 ppm then (2.5 myrs ago) give +3C and yet we still have wriggle room to stay below 1.5C now?
KIA 63: I’m looking for “disastrous consequences”, not sensational headlines or unpopular policies, etc – just “disastrous consequences epitomized in the Trump Administration”. ;)
BPL: And as shown in that very post, you’ll explain away any examples, so it’s not a very honest request, is it?
#63, KIA–
3 links, but just one 4-year old story. (Well, OK, there was the oil-drip link, but it concerned a prying neighbor, not any level of government, so I’m going to ignore that one henceforth as irrelevant.)
And how did that 4-year-old Wyoming pond story turn out, pray tell?
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/279421-epa-settles-water-pollution-case-with-wyoming-farmer
So as I see it, the EPA went too far, but apparently did have some valid concerns, and the judicial system seems to have worked more or less as it should in balancing the concerns of both sides. Shocking!
Color me skeptical that this is a particularly representative instance; there will, in any bureaucracy, private or public, cases where regulations or procedures fail to match the circumstances well, and where those charged with administering them are not appropriately judicious or flexible. If you’ve got a solution to that, please share! The world could use it.
But the solution isn’t to do away with all (or most) environmental regulations. They were put in place not to exercise power for the pure sake of it, but because many decades of failure to protect the natural environment from human abuse had become self-evidently harmful–older readers may remember the time the Cuyahoga River caught fire! (No, that isn’t a typo.)
And the rule-making process has built into it cost-benefit analyses and public feedback provisions that thoroughly vet rules before they are enacted. So, the regulation is not guaranteed to be perfect, nor necessarily free from unintended consequences, but at least it will not have been made thoughtlessly.
https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/basics-regulatory-process
On the other hand, the axe taken to environmental protections by the current Administration has been, as far as we can tell, wielded in a highly reflexive manner.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/climate/trump-environment-rules-reversed.html
Cited analysis here:
https://newsatjama.jama.com/2018/05/10/jama-forum-a-breath-of-bad-air-trump-environmental-agenda-may-lead-to-80%E2%80%85000-extra-deaths-per-decade/
KIA quite ruins his effect by invoking Fred Singer’s op-ed dump of last resort.
The rules of climateball forbid Wayback links to journal dafter than The American Thinker or Marxism Today . and the Birch Society’s New American falls in the middle of that range.
WRT to the EPA finning the guy for building a pond, the stupidity here is not the EPA fining the man, it’s that the man let the fines accumulate to $20 million rather then simply getting the proper permits and following the regulations sound environment practices when building the pond.
65 – nigelj
I provide links to 2 EPA pond fiascos. One in Wyoming and one in Montana:
https://www.offthegridnews.com/current-events/77-year-old-vet-faces-15-years-in-jail-for-building-ponds/
Trump repealed the rules on small bodies of water like ponds:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/28/executive-order-trump-targets-obama-rule-water-pro/
You’re a swing voter? I thought you lived in NZ? I am ashamed to admit it but I voted D for years until they went off the rails. My past votes set our country up for many of the problems we have today caused by Ds I helped elect.
67 – Andrew
Just guessing: perhaps estimated +3C is not accurate, and/or possibly differences in the Earths orbit?
68 – BPL
I just wanted to see some actual disasters listed, not future disasters, bad policies, etc.
69 – Kevin
They are very concerned with an estimated 80K deaths PER DECADE? Wonder if they are concerned with the 250K deaths caused EACH YEAR by medical mistakes?
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/05/03/476636183/death-certificates-undercount-toll-of-medical-errors
Nah, they are hyperventilating and losing their minds over the roughly 300 people killed by rifles in homicides per year. They say we should ban rifles.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls
Do not believe ANYTHING that comes out of a US university. They are all extremely biased.
64 – MKIA
Dumbass, you said H was heavier than He. Wrong. Don’t you know HS chemistry?! IDIOT!
And here’s the scoop on lifting gases for balloons, etc:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifting_gas
Mr. Know It All said:
Considering you’re a self-proclaimed know-it-all, it’s ironic that you don’t understand how one of the most important materials in physics research and medicine is used.
As for the massive depletion in crude oil, no, we can’t “always find more”.
Re #66 nigelj said
16 May 2019 at 3:07 AM
Killian @61, I never said permaculture is idealistic.
Jesus… Permaculture is a key aspect of my analyses, ergo, for my suggestions to be idealistic, so does permaculture. I was, once again, making this point as an example for your addled mind to try one last time to understand. No, I didn’t list everything that underpins my thinking. Why would I waste the time? Permaculture is fully rational, not idealistic. Calling needs-based thinking, evidence-based thinking, using less so we all don’t die, etc., idealistic is garbage analysis.
I said some of your other claims are idealistic and they are.
I have made no claims. I state what is known and I do analysis. That’s it. There is nothing idealistic about ducking when someone fires a bullet at your head.
I even said its not a bad thing to be idealistic. So before you accuse others of not being bright perhaps have a think about that.
It’s insulting to label as idealistic that which is fully rational, supported logically, supported factually, historically viable and is sound forward-looking analysis.
Your backhanded caveat does nothing to lessen the insult. You mean it in a diminishing sense. You mean it dismissively. You use it that way. Not only do you not have the ability to analyze anything with any rigor or quality, but you constantly attempt to dismiss those with demonstrated skill with shit-eating weasel words like “idealistic.” Screw you.
If you had said right at the start that we can only do our best, rather than making huge ambitious suggestions, it would have helped.
WTF are you talking about? Huge? Ambitious? Do you really not know how to use a dictionary?
Remember I could accuse you of lies and ignorance
No, you can’t. You have tried repeatedly and merely showed your incompetence there, too. When it comes to me or anything I post, walk on by.
I control my temper.
Lying is controlling your temper? Commenting on every single issue raised on these boards is controlling yourself? You have nothing to say, yet cannot stop commenting. Your truly unique brand of ignorance, incompetence and dishonesty are… yucky. At least KIA, et al., have an agenda that drives their drivel. We know they are dishonest: They’re denialists. What the hell drives your constant pointless posting other than wishing to see your words on the screen and tell yourself you’ve germane to the conversation?
Blather at someone else. You’re useless in these discussions.
https://grist.org/article/scientists-are-baffled-by-a-giant-spike-in-this-greenhouse-gas-its-not-co2/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=daily
I don’t think Thomas Crowther and other soil scientists who study the Arctic would agree that they are baffled by increases in “natural” methane in the atmosphere.
I could be wrong about that.
I have mulled over the Crowther quote more. Al has said the Crowther quote did not square with IPCC SR15 and I think that makes perfect sense actually because the IPCC reports and projections have always been ramped up, not down, with each iteration. I think that if you asked Crowther what about about the IPCC reports that don’t support your idea that 12-15% of current atmospheric accumulation of CO2 arises from warming soil? He would say, of course, they don’t square with IPCC reports and projections because the IPCC reports and projections are wrong. Alarming as any IPCC report has been, the next iteration has always, come out and said, essentially, well, the situation is worse than we indicated in the last report.
The Grist article is pretty clear and easy reading, a person like Donald Trump might understand it if he read it, but we can’t be sure of that. It is dumbed down a bit. Go to the underlying studies if you are interested in a more sophisticated presentation. Or be baffled by the new methane releases! Shazamm!
How are we doing on CO2? Peachy!
May 5 – 11, 2019 414.37 ppm
May 5 – 11, 2018 410.77 ppm
3.6 ppm increase in pretty noisy number. Has the rate of increase been rising over the past two years? Yes, it has. Is it continuing to rise? Wait and see. I am going to scoot on a limb a bit and say that when the numbers are in, we will see that the rate of CO2 increase is still on the rise in 2019. But should be fine. Don’t get wound up or depressed. Keep replacing those incandescents with the leds or cfls.
Warm regards
Mike
re: 72. “Do not believe ANYTHING that comes out of a US university. They are all extremely biased.”
That is pure ignorance and hate, complete with the obligatory use of Trumpster all-capital letters. You still have no clue about how science is conducted despite having been told many times. You have no absolutely critical thinking skills re: science (someone truly failed you there when growing up).
Killian @75
Ok so when you post comments and / or copy and paste saying we should get rid of inequality completely, live in new sharing communities, abandon high rise urban living, reduce our energy use by 90% , stop all conflicts, you are not being idealistic. Right. Got it (Sarcasm).
At least we now know that the usual stupid 25 pct of the “american” population in 2020 if the atomic annihilation hasn’t begun before the, will “choose” the next idiot-in-chief same as the old one: Trump or maybe even more bizarre and cracky: Biden. Or the other way round. Who get to start or continue the oil war against Iran and bail out the banksters next time, make sure the global temperature will roll on to six degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times etc.? I am not losing any sleep over that question.
Another item for the “Hey, what could go wrong” file:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/05/20/us-put-nuclear-waste-under-dome-pacific-island-now-its-cracking-open/?utm_term=.d35ea86520d7
K, ergologic fails. Draw a Venn diagram and ponder your certainty please.
KIA, #72–
I wonder if such a blatant attempt to deflect reflects an inability to find a defense of the reckless actions the Administration has taken?
Also, I wonder just who “they” is supposed to refer to? Is every researcher identifying a harm supposed to quantify it in relation to every other possible harm in the literature somewhere?
I’m guessing that journals would probably have to raise their limits on article length considerably, if so. Also, we’d start cutting a lot more trees to print scholarly journals, with all the attendant emissions. Probably not a good plan. ;-)
Climate change rejected in Australian elections:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/world/australia/election-climate-change.html
In case you can’t open that one, try this one:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/18/climate-issue-rejected-historic-landslide-win-in-australia-after-labor-loses-unlosable-election/
re 79 Karsten V. Johansen – I’m not saying Biden is perfect, but I think he’s very far removed from Trump (and I don’t think it’s a done deal just yet that he’ll be the Dem nominee). Also, we have AOC in congress. There is hope for US (pun intended).
Mike @76
Regarding this Crowther thing. I think you have “grabbed the wrong end of the stick”. Crowther said we are experiencing an additional 12-15% emissions right now when it is absolutely clear this is not expected until later this century. It appears to have possibly been a ‘typo’ on his part. Not that later this century makes it better but its important in terms of carbon budgets.
You have to read MARs stuff carefully. In no way is he / she suggesting it will not happen.
The IPCC reports have sometimes ramped down, eg scaling back climate sensitivity. Although I suspect that will change yet again.
A solar development option worth pondering:
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/05/19/repowering-old-mines-with-new-energies-in-the-southwestern-united-states/
Re #78 nigelj said nothing. Again.
…when you post comments and / or copy and paste saying we should get rid of inequality completely
1. We lived that way for 290k years. 2. Some still do. 3. Some who don’t, want to.
I see nothing “idealistic” about what has always been, still is, and will continue to be. Returning more people to that is not idealism if it is based on the maths, logic and necessities of the current world condition. You’re just oo damned dense to get that. It would be idealistic if it wasn’t the only way to do regenerative systems, of it if were based on some bullshit kumbayah, pseudo-religions crap. But it’s not. It’s the only way to manage resources at all scales less a massive network of AI’s managing every decision we make. Where is the idealism? You just have zero actual skill in any of this.
live in new sharing communities
See above. Same thing. You can’t design and successfully manage resources at various scales, all interconnected, from the home to the globe, without the people actively collaborating. Neither businesses nor government can do it, but the people who actually use the resources, in situ, can. It’s not that it’s ideal, it’s that it’s *necessary.*
I’ve said this to you so #%&##^@ many times it makes my head explode that you consistently come back and disparage and belittle what I say by $%##$#@ lying about the character of the analysis. It’s disgusting behavior. It’s dishonest. It’s your own weird little brand of soft denial. I nailed you when you first arrived here as a denialist and you confirm it over and over. Since you are a confirmed climate denialist
I spew thee out of my mouth. What was it Jesus said to the church at Ephesus, I spew thee out of my mouth for thy milquetoast blah-blah-blah? Yeah. Exactly that.
abandon high rise urban living
I have literally never said this or anything like it. Learn the principles, one of which is adapt in place, and another is work with what you’ve got. Why lie?
reduce our energy use by 90%
You know I am not the only person who says this. I used to be one of the few, but now well-known academics are on the same page. Kevin Anderson, I think, has said similar, but I may be confusing him with others. Regardless, I have posted such on these fora. It’s, again, math. As I have said over and effing over and effing freaking over.
You, however, call it idealism rather than analysis. Because you’re a damned lying denialist.
stop all conflicts
Yeah, that’s terrible. Good lord…
But, let’s bite once more, though I have made this point myriad times on these fora…
Regenerative systems, because they mimic nature, balance inputs and outputs. They can vary over space and time (think mshroom’s cycle vs a tree’s), but we seek always to balance. This requires a degree of cooperation unknown by most modern humans, but not all humans. Some do it. Others aspire to. Your view seems to be, “People won’t!” Sorry, that’s lazy, weak, immoral. You are saying people will actively choose extinction over what ends up being a higher quality of life for humanity as a whole. I guess what *you* say should be called Fatalistic Climate Denial (FCD).
Further, what of time? Do you think we have time for more wars, for more seizure and exploitation of resources by one nation over another? Do you? If we don’t have *time* for war, and if *war* destroys the ecosystem all the more, and recovery sucks up still more unsustainable resources, do you really think it a good idea to keep doing it, or idealistic to point it out? I promise you, if wars continue, collapse comes. Period.
Heck, jsut the war machine itself will prevent avoidance of collapse. Huge amounts of resources used to keep it up. It goes, or we go.
you are not being idealistic.
No, asshat, I’m not. The steps I promote, the solutions I promote, are the *only* approach, imo, suggested by anyone on the planet, that addresses every problem, every social ill, every imbalance, every injustice, every aspect of climate and resource issues.
I hope you’re still reading because all that was just reflex prologue. Here’s what you really need to hear:
…when you post comments and / or copy and paste saying we should…
That one word is the entire problem. Should is a modal. It is used to show probability, but also to show opinion/advice. That is how you use it. There is no should here. There is no ought, no may, no can, no might, no shall, no will, no would, no could. There is only must. That we must does not mean we will.
And I have said that over and over and over and over. I have said the likelihood of “will” is very small. I have NEVER said otherwise. Not here, not anywhere. And I have said it over and over and @$^#$%# over! Where the flying %@#$ is the idealism in stating what is necessary, but we almost certainly won’t?
You can’t possibly be as stupid as you would need to be to get this wrong so many times, going through the same goddamned ritual for years, so we end up, necessarily, where we began: Your true conservative, climate denying colors flying. And if you *are* that stupid, well, then what is the point of conversation?
This is the last time I respond to you.
Re #81 Hank Roberts said Permaculture is a key aspect of my analyses, ergo, for my suggestions to be idealistic, so does permaculture.
K, ergologic fails. Draw a Venn diagram and ponder your certainty please.
No, Hank, it doesn’t.
Not my FAIL, your’s.
Re #80 Hank Roberts said Another item for the “Hey, what could go wrong” file:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/05/20/us-put-nuclear-waste-under-dome-pacific-island-now-its-cracking-open/?utm_term=.d35ea86520d7
a radioactive half-life of 24,100 years…
only 18 inches of concrete away from waters that are rising.
…Cracks have reportedly started to appear in the dome. Part of the threat is that the crater was never properly lined, meaning that rising seawater could breach the structural integrity.
I guess they made Jurassic Park 60 years or so too late. Dr. Two First Names Ian Malcolm could have straightened them out.
Or, shucks, permaculture, about 40 years too late. Principle: Zero waste. Principle: Natural before mechanical before hi-tech. Principle: Small, slow solutions.
If permaculture had existed and become the decision-making process for humanity, we’d have had neither oil nor nuclear.
Sigh…
Sadly, pro-nukers will learn nothing from this. “But we can do so much better now!” depite the hundreds of little accidents every year, the leaks around the world, 3 Mile, Chernobyle, Fukushima…
re my last… i.e., I do believe that the Dem candidates are basically good people. I wouldn’t compare any to Nero or Caligula, Voldermort, Darth Vader… (except just now where I implicitly did – you need to compare in order to come to the conclusion that there is ‘no comparison’; I tend to think any two things can be compared if you try). (In no way meant to imply that all others are like those villains mentioned above. Just some others. One in particular.)
That is truly unfortunate Mr. Know It All @83. Are you sure that is all that was on the ballot. There seems to be a lot of ignorance in politics in that country …. in a similar vein as in the U.S., from what I’ve seen.
Killian @87, I oppose war as well. I actually said the word ‘conflict’ and I was thinking more broadly than just war, but the point is utopian peaceful worlds are idealistic “by definition”. I don’t understand why you don’t just accept such things are idealistic. You just make yourself sound like you are arguing black is white.
I wasn’t disparaging the idea of having some idealism. I’ve been on protest marches, and I long for a better world, a more just, peaceful, fair sort of world and of course one where we fix this climate problem one way or the other.
I guess its just that I’m also a realist as well, and I can’t get too enthusiastic about promoting ideas where I think its unlikely that many people would rise to the challenge, even if the consequences for future generations are significant, and reducing energy use by a whopping 90% falls into such a category. It also doesn’t entirely make much sense imho, but I’m not going to repeat what I have already said on it.
Have you not considered that it’s possible the author of that 90% number plucked it out of a hat, just to give people a big jolt? And that there’s not much analysis behind it and its just a guess? But reducing energy use by some lesser number does of course make sense for all sorts of reasons. I encourage people here and on other websites to conserve electricity, consume less, and think about whether they really need some of the things they buy, etcetera.
If you want to persuade people it needs certain skills. This starts with not disparaging them even if they are critical, and not suggesting change that is so radical it causes them to freeze and become defensive. As I have said before change can always be ramped up over time. Once one step is completed, one can encourage them of further steps and this is normally how we do things, within some overall plan of course.We start with small steps. But of course if you are satisfied that your approach to communicating the issue is working to convince people, then keep it up.
“You have to go bigger [than weather systems].” [Now there’s a thought.]
Wind and solar are pure, direct manifestations of the sun’s energy pouring over earth. They are great, inexhaustible, will always exist, and are available everywhere. That is, the wind always blows somewhere and the sun always shines somewhere. But not always where you are and when you want to use it.
When the sun is over the hemisphere that is occupied by the Pacific, it is of not much use to most people, except those on the islands and ships in the Pacific — but that is a small population.
Ignoring for the moment the problem of the sun at night, discussed later, the availability of solar and wind depends on the weather. To have the adage about sun and wind always being available somewhere come true, that somewhere needs to be larger than the weather systems. The area of the EU is hardly large enough to cover that somewhere. Preferably, it should include part of North Africa — say, sunny Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and the Ukrainian plains.
The EU can transition to renewable energy when energy production and distribution is managed on the scale of the EU. The argument for countries with large hydro resources will be that those resources are more profitable when used in conjunction with wind and solar. The profits and ownership of the power plants — wind, hydro, and solar — can stay local. The overall system and regulations need to be at the EU level.
A 100% renewable energy Europe is possible, but only when parts of Ukraine below one meter of snow can get their energy from sunny Spain and the windy North Sea, when cloudy Western Europe can get energy from the winds of Eastern Europe, when the lights on still-wind nights get their electricity from Sweden’s hydro generators, when … I think you get the idea.
Weather systems are easily a few thousand kilometers across. You have to go bigger.
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/05/22/europe-transitioning-to-renewable-energy-is-impossible-without-the-eu-eu-re-politics-part-2/
Most potent 1 minute (0:43) climate video yet: for May 24 School Strike for Climate. (Greta Thunberg’s retweet.)
https://twitter.com/thelukemullen/status/1130954026558808064
This morning it’s 1594 places in 118 countries, and counting! –Greta 11:02pm, 22 May
https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1131440274054557696
K 87: This is the last time I respond to you.
BPL: Let’s wait and see.
Mother Nature offers to rescue us by upping the supply of 3He, just in tme for use in fusion power plants. Just dome the volcanic field and purify the gas.
Perhaps it begins… The end of, “Can’t be done!” and “People won’t!” in sight?
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/05/24/bigger-palestinian-israeli-teens-strike-together-climate/
Killian #88 re: Ergologic fails. “No, I didn’t list everything that underpins my thinking.” And so the “Ergo” is justified only in your own mind. We are not telepaths. What’s the term for the opposite of hearing voices, where one imagines that others hear and should share one’s thoughts?
Does anyone have hard factual data on the latency period of CO2 release at atmospheric level and then going to the troposphere? Theory I have seen puts it at between 11 to 40 years? I assume you know where this is going….
Next, for any given combustion to form CO2, has anyone considered the amounts of water vapor (an even larger-acting GHG according to many) released into the air during the same CO2 releases (each CO2 is accompanied with 1-2 equivalents of water) and also the corresponding heat of reaction….
Dan da Silva
” The reasoning that Micheal Mann uses to deduce man-made global warming is that there is no natural phenomenon known that could cause this warming”
Michael Mann uses more than reasoning, he has evidence. There are a number of natural phemomena which might cause global warmng. The ones we know, such as albedo, orbital changes, land use, solar insolation etc all add up to a slight cooling tendency. That leaves CO2 as the remaining cause.
As a resident of Ireland I cannot deny that leprechauns are causing the warming, but evidence is sparse.