This month’s open thread for climate topics. Please stay vaguely on topic and do not abuse other commenters.
Reader Interactions
402 Responses to "Unforced Variations: Oct 2024"
Compliciussays
Geoff Miell says
30 Sep 2024 at 9:50 PM
Looks like we’re on the same intelligent evidence data based team, and abhor disinformation and wild unsubstantiated claims and seriously flawed published studies by people here and elsewhere, but it would help your case and mine if you read more closely what I say (or anyone was saying) before replying. Thanks.
Nigelj says
1 Oct 2024 at 3:46 PM
I note your commentary with Don Williams late last month which I completely reject as factually wrong and unsupportable, along with your reply and questions to me as well. I cannot see there is anything I can do to help you out of your misguided dilemma. Honestly you are completely lost. I don’t want to say any more. It is clear sharing genuine factual material here, including peer reviewed detailed studies by experts and scientists is a waste of time and space if it says what you refuse to accept by default and then with you continually dismissing these experts and research studies data and conclusions out of hand. You and almost all here are living a world of extremely motivated denial and hurt. I nor anyone else I could imagine could help you with this no matter material you were shown. Or rather asked to look at and understand it. Die happy with your foolhardy beliefs in tact.
Piotr? Have a great day. lol
Nigeljsays
Complicius
I’m absolutely mortifed (sarc). The problem is your comments October 1st are just empty, evidence free rhetoric. You haven’t quoted what I said and provided any specific evidence of relevance. You havent listed the studies you claim I have dismissed out of hand. The following applies to your comments “That which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence” (Hitchens Razor )
And no a peer reviewed study that you or someone else may have quoted months back doesn’t help. I have no idea what you are referring to. Nobody should be expected to trawl back to see if its relevant or has merit (it probably doesn’t anyway). Your comments need to be reasonably self contained.
You say on last months UV thread: “Emotionally driven self-deluded hopism entrenched with fraudulent claims like SA’s above and the RE myths by Sylvia is all they have left now.” “They are like children”, (referring to people on this website) “The great reckoning is upon us. The US empire and the west are going to be wrecked.Good riddance. ” It all sounds like trolling by any normal dictionary definition.
Compliciussays
It’s simply called “an opinion,” Nigelj.
noun:
A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
Example: “That, in my opinion, is right.”
Compliciussays
PS for nigelj
Dr. James Hansen, former NASA scientist and prominent climate expert, is also critical of the current, overly conservative approach to assessing how severe the situation is and what needs to be done. Many, like myself, feel that the underlying issue is our long-term reliance on cheap, abundant energy, which has fueled unsustainable economic activity and consumption. This has, in turn, driven rapid population growth, soon expected to reach 9 billion by 2040.
Unfortunately, it seems the solution may come from the consequences of inaction: catastrophic climate impacts combined with widespread economic collapse. Humanity will likely endure, but in a very different form from the unsustainable reality we face today.
I am in possession of hundreds of peer-reviewed climate science and technology papers I could share but would not be so presumptuous nor wish to drown you in onerous data. These many many other aspects to life inform my thinking and conclusions on what are challenging and emotionally confronting matters of life and death.
Nigeljsays
Complicius, I also believe the IPCC are underestimating the severity of climate change and I have said so before.
I agree that cheap energy has indisputably caused negative environmental impacts. However if we were to choose to reduce our energy use, this would cause considerable problems for our society. Our society has become kind of addicted to energy use.
We probably just have to try to reduce as many negative environmental impacts as we can within the framework of moderately high energy use, preferably renewables. Sure we might run out of materials one day. We will just have to adapt.
Compliciussays
patrick o twentyseven says
28 Sep 2024 at 6:37 PM
On EROEI and
Silvia Leahu-Aluas says
1 Oct 2024 at 11:42 AM
On electric vehicles are viable now and will replace ICE within years.
Problem solved then. We all live happily ever after.
Feel free to believe whatever you wish. Terrific. Be at peace then.
“ (2024) Systemwide energy return on investment in a sustainable transition towards net zero power systems ”
I’ve still only read/skimmed quickly through some of this; it seems to be just about the electricity supply, and I haven’t found the extent to which the scenarios grow/expand electricity supply, eg, if it is sufficient to replace all or most direct fuel use. I read ahead a bit and … how much do the results depend on EROI learning curves for PV systems going into the future? … But I noticed a slight error in my original numbers so I decided to discuss a bit more now, and provide a few quotes; hopefully I didn’t miss any important context for them:
All scenarios (described in Table 1) are run from 2015 to 2050 with 5-year time intervals for the nine major regions. The global-level power sector model presents an aggregated version of all nine major regions.
From last paragraph before section “Impacts of the energy transition on global EROI”
…“The systemwide EROI was estimated at the point of electricity generation and consumption, with estimates at the point of final energy consumption leading to lower EROI. Due to similarities in trends in this result, we present the detail using point of final consumption (F) and provide the point of generation (G) estimation, not including losses from electricity transmission and distribution, in Supplementary Information Note 4.
Immediately following:
Figure 2 illustrates the global EROI results for nine main scenarios. During the 30-year ET period, global EROI values were shown to remain above 16, maintaining a value above 10, the upper limit for the net energy cliff22,38.”…
…
“From 2015 to 2020, Fig. 2 provides a summary of the historical situation of global power systems. The EROIs for all scenarios start from 18.8 and increase to above 20. The growing trends are observed because of the slow integration of renewables into modern power systems, which reduce fossil fuels use and thus improve EROI, while further enabling technologies are not yet required.
After 2020, three major EROI trends emerge depending on the concrete ET pathway (Fig. 2a, b). The five LUT-BPS scenarios form the first group of trends in which EROI continues its increasing trend until 2025, and then shifts its trend to a continual decline up to 2050. The continued EROI increase by around 18% through 2025 is due to the replacement of fossil-fuelled power plants with renewables. At this point, variable renewable energy (VRE) has gone up fivefold (Fig. 2c) and the gross electricity generation from solar and wind technologies go beyond 50%. The decline after 2025 (Fig. 2a) is associated with the expansion both of solar PV and wind power capacities and of the enabling technologies, mainly batteries and gas storage towards the end of the ET period.”…
1 kWh AC produced by a rooftop PV system in Europe; 976 kWh/kWp annual (div by 8766 h/yr (I used 365.25 d), implies CF ≈ 11.1 % (insolation on PV 1331 kWh/m² annual ≈ 151.8 W/m² =→ CF of 15.2 % but performance can vary with lighting and temperature (and soiling, snow, decay of quality over time…)
30 years at 0.7% linear***(??it’s not exponential decay?? I had been working under the assumption… ) annual decay ≈ 27 years equivalent production as new:
Questions: are 976 kWh AC the annual output per kWp AC (ie inverter output capacity) or DC (panel/module capacity)? If the later, the 11.1% CF may give an inflated impression of variability. There are wiring and inverter losses, including clipping losses, etc. Related: what is the ILR? ( https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=35372# ). And is this 976 kWh/kWp for the average of 30 years or for the as-new performance? (So the EROEI might be 30 rather than ≈27 for the mono-Si.) Does the EPBT (energy payback time) account for some fossil fuel inputs having same or larger electrical equivalents rather than smaller (as they would for input to engines and power plants to produce mechanical work and/or electricity (aside from CHP plants** https://www.energy.gov/eere/iedo/combined-heat-and-power-basics )).
Tomáš Kaliszsays
in Re to patrick o twentyseven, 5 Oct 2024 at 6:59 PM,
To your question regarding the annual output per kWp, I know from a few talks with photovoltaic dealers / businessman in Czech Republic that for this central European country, they simply count with 1000 kWh average annual output per kWp. I therefore suppose that it is a net value which can serve for economic calculations.
As regards the decay, I think that it pertains also to the kWp output. So if you have an older facility with lower kWp than ten years ago, you obtain commensurately less kWh per year.
By the way, I noted somewhere that in Sicily, the average annual output per kWp is 2000 kWh.
Using 365 d/yr:
kWh/m²yr ; kWh/m²d ; implied CF (%) (see below****)
1460 ; 4 ; 16.67
1576.8 ; 4.32 ; 18.00
“Iowa
1720.9 ; 4.71 ; 19.6 Alberta
1773.7 ; 4.86 ; 20.2
1825 ; 5 ; 20.83 Kansas
2003.2 ; 5.49 ; 22.9
“Colorado”
2245.9 ; 6.15 ; 25.6
2500 ; 6.849 ; 28.54
“ Camino a Mina Avaroa, Municipio Colcha K, Potosí, Bolivia” (ignore the box in SW US, zoom out and go to the Altiplano)
2889.6 ; 7.92 ; 33.0 (PS based on the DNI of that location, a 2-axis tracking CPV system could have a CF of 40.0 % !! (40.02 %, or 39.99 % if based on 365.25 d/yr)
————- ———-
The DC capacity (nameplate) of a panel/module is AIUI based on performance under standard conditions: 1000 W/m² irradiance (flux density), with a standard spectral distribution (via “airmass”, right?), at a reference temperature (what about directional distribution? ie. direct beam vs diffuse light (impacts antireflection capability etc.?))
Given a simplifying assumption of constant conversion efficiency of the panel, the DC output CF (capacity factor) would ideally (no shading or soiling, etc.) be the GTI in kWh/m²*(time unit) ÷ (hours in time unit). If the panel to AC output efficiency were constant then you’d get the same CF in AC relative to the effective AC capacity. This is how I calculated the CF values above.
In reality the temperature varies, as does the spectrum (humidity, zenith angle…) (might be a small impact?), etc. AIUI there is a general tendency for performance to drop off as the irradiance gets low. Shading (which can disproportionately impact the output***) by trees (when not too close), buildings, other panels (eg. in an array) would tend to increase as the Sun gets closer to the horizon …
PS ideas:
1 for tracking arrays, as the Sun’s elevation decreases, try tilting every other panel/row 90° from the Sun (or from the orientation of the other panels, which would tilt to just avoid casting shadows on each other (non-concentrating (and luminescent concentrating) panels don’t lose much output from being a few ° off)) to minimize shading on the other panels, then 3 out of 4 tilted as such, etc., to catch most of the Sunlight on a subset of panels with minimal shadows.
2 internal wiring of cells in panel: tiny automatic switches and MPPTs to reroute currents around shaded regions, matching currents and voltages to reduce shading/soiling (bird/insect poop) impacts (too hard?)
I noticed that the default setting for residential, commercial, and utility PV seems to use optimal tilt, with azimuth angle 180° (I’m guessing due South (or North))…
The optimal orientation of a fixed panel may not be due equatorward at some tilt from vertical, because in addition to local topography, buildings, etc., there could be diurnal cycles in cloudiness, and temperature (obviously), which are asymmetric across solar noon. Eg. cool mornings and afternoon thunderstorms would make an eastward adjustment beneficial, whereas morning fog or stratus breaking up later in the day … etc. (This is for total energy production.) (Of course, with climate changing, one may not want to get to precise with such optimization.)
For PVOUT, residential, commercial, and utility kWh/kWp values, (“Specific photovoltaic power output”=“PVOUT”=?? “Theoretical (Site Data)” (see table here: https://globalsolaratlas.info/support/methodology ))
kWh/kWp divided by the GTI_opt CF for 7 locations: = 74% – 85%, with averages over locations for each of the categories (PVOUT, residential, commercial, utility) ranging from 77.6% to 82.0%.
“ Camino a Mina Avaroa, Municipio Colcha K, Potosí, Bolivia” (ignore the box in SW US, zoom out and go to the Altiplano)
2889.6 ; 7.92 ; 33.0
(PS based on the DNI of that location, a 2-axis tracking CPV system could have a CF of 40.0 % !! (40.02 %, or 39.99 % if based on 365.25 d/yr)
————- ———-
The DC capacity (nameplate) of a panel/module is AIUI based on performance under standard conditions: 1000 W/m² irradiance (flux density), with a standard spectral distribution (via “airmass”, right?), at a reference temperature (what about directional distribution? ie. direct beam vs diffuse light (impacts antireflection capability etc.?))
Given a simplifying assumption of constant conversion efficiency of the panel, the DC output CF (capacity factor) would ideally (no shading or soiling, etc.) be the GTI in kWh/m²*(time unit) ÷ (hours in time unit). If the panel to AC output efficiency were constant then you’d get the same CF in AC relative to the effective AC capacity. This is how I calculated the CF values above.
In reality the temperature varies, as does the spectrum (humidity, zenith angle…) (might be a small impact?), etc. AIUI there is a general tendency for performance to drop off as the irradiance gets low. Shading (which can disproportionately impact the output***) by trees (when not too close), buildings, other panels (eg. in an array) would tend to increase as the Sun gets closer to the horizon …
PS ideas:
1 for tracking arrays, as the Sun’s elevation decreases, try tilting every other panel/row 90° from the Sun (or from the orientation of the other panels, which would tilt to just avoid casting shadows on each other (non-concentrating (and luminescent concentrating) panels don’t lose much output from being a few ° off)) to minimize shading on the other panels, then 3 out of 4 tilted as such, etc., to catch most of the Sunlight on a subset of panels with minimal shadows.
2 internal wiring of cells in panel: tiny automatic switches and MPPTs to reroute currents around shaded regions, matching currents and voltages to reduce shading/soiling (bird/insect poop) impacts (too hard?)
I noticed that the default setting for residential, commercial, and utility PV seems to use optimal tilt, with azimuth angle 180° (I’m guessing due South (or North))…
The optimal orientation of a fixed panel may not be due equatorward at some tilt from vertical, because in addition to local topography, buildings, etc., there could be diurnal cycles in cloudiness, and temperature (obviously), which are asymmetric across solar noon. Eg. cool mornings and afternoon thunderstorms would make an eastward adjustment beneficial, whereas morning fog or stratus breaking up later in the day … etc. (This is for total energy production.) (Of course, with climate changing, one may not want to get to precise with such optimization.)
For PVOUT, residential, commercial, and utility kWh/kWp values, (“Specific photovoltaic power output”=“PVOUT”=?? “Theoretical (Site Data)” (see table here: https://globalsolaratlas.info/support/methodology ))
kWh/kWp divided by the GTI_opt CF for 7 locations: = 74% – 85%, with averages over locations for each of the categories (PVOUT, residential, commercial, utility) ranging from 77.6% to 82.0%.
Long story short, if the EROEI in that location (1331 kWh/m²yr (GTI)) is ~ 30, then EROEIs globally may tend to be ~ 40 or even higher.
And then there’s tracking.
patrick o twentysevensays
re
“ Camino a Mina Avaroa, Municipio Colcha K, Potosí, Bolivia”
2889.6 ; 7.92 ; 33.0
(PS based on the DNI of that location, a 2-axis tracking CPV system could have a CF of 40.0 % !! (40.02 %, or 39.99 % if based on 365.25 d/yr) (PS based on the DNI of that location, a 2-axis tracking CPV system could have a CF of 40.0 % !! (40.02 %, or 39.99 % if based on 365.25 d/yr)
CF based on 1000 W/m² peak. I suspect peak at this location is (regularly) above that, because a panel facing radially out from Earth’s axis, on an equinox, with no shading and no atmosphere, would have a CF = 1/π ≈ 31.831 % (relative to full Sun in Space). So the CFs I gave probably understate the variability at this location, but are a fair description of the energy density.
PS those values above were for specific locations in those states/province (see links).
PS of course, ground-mounted installations (or any where the panels are significantly above or tilted relative to underlying sfc.) will tend to have some additional ‘EI’ in the EROEI, lowering the EROEI.
Assuming zero growth in energy demand (population or gdp) can you show how solar PV and Wind are capable of relacing producing fossil fuel energy supply to the tune of at least 200 Trillion kwh per year? Knowing recoverable Oil likely to run out by 2040 and Gas by 2100.
Before crunching any more numbers you may like to watch the video. It’s by Dr Charlie Hall the man who invented the term EROI. He’s, well, kind of what you an expert on the subject of energy and ecology.
And here is an earlier article by him discussing solar PV EROI
“The EROI of our various energy options, and its associated issues, may be the most important issues that will face future civilizations. The present discussion tends to vacillate between people who accept (or advocate) very high EROIs for solar vs people who accept (or advocate) very low such EROIs. I trust only one study, the one I did with Pedro Prieto, who has a great deal of real world experience and data. This study attempted to (conservatively) estimate all the energy used to generate PV electricity in Spain by following all the money spent (per GW) and using physical analysis where possible, and energy intensity of money where necessary. We found that the panels and inverters, which are the only parts measured in most studies, were only about a third of the energy cost of the system. As noted in the responses to Ugo’s last post we estimated an EROI of 2.45:1 in 2008 assuming a lifetime of 25 years and at the juncture with the distribution system. Studies that we think used more or less appropriate boundaries (Palmer, Weissbach) got similar results.” https://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-05-27/the-real-eroi-of-photovoltaic-systems-professor-hall-weighs-in/
When Oil was producing huge gushers in the early mid 20th century, the EROI on US Oil was around 100:1
Nigeljsays
Dharma
“Assuming zero growth in energy demand (population or gdp) can you show how solar PV and Wind are capable of relacing producing fossil fuel energy supply to the tune of at least 200 Trillion kwh per year? Knowing recoverable Oil likely to run out by 2040 and Gas by 2100.”
The numbers on recoverable oil don’t sound right. The only source Dharma gave said: “We then use our estimated URR values, combined with the observation that oil production in a region usually reaches one or more maxima when roughly half its URR has been produced, to forecast the expected dates of global resource-limited production maxima of these classes of oil. These dates range from 2019 (i.e., already past) for conventional oil to around 2040 for ‘all-liquids’….”
This is referring to production maxima not when oil will run out.The following sources from Live Science and Worldometer say there are about 50 years of usable oil reserves left at current consumption levels and excluding unproven reserves.
Dharmas quote also omitted when recoverable coal would run out which is generally more like 100 years minimum.
Of course I acknoweldge the underlying issue of whether we have enough fossil fuels left to build out a new wind and soalr energy grid. There is also the question of whether we would have enough fossil fuels left to build out new gas or coal fired plant to replace old plant. The point being we really need to look at what is the best system to build not agonise over remaining reserves of fossil fuels.
“As noted in the responses to Ugo’s last post we estimated an EROI of 2.45:1 in 2008 assuming a lifetime of 25 years and at the juncture with the distribution system. Studies that we think used more or less appropriate boundaries (Palmer, Weissbach) got similar results. When Oil was producing huge gushers in the early mid 20th century, the EROI on US Oil was around 100:1”
I haven’t investigated the EROI issue very much, but its extremely difficult to reconcile very low estimates of EROI for solar power given its now cheaper generation per mwhr than coal. Something doesnt make sense or add up. Would be interested in Patricks views. Whatever troubles solar power might have in terms of EROI, the alternative of just continuing to burn fossil fuels is VERY high risk from a climate perspective.
Dharmasays
Nigelj says
18 Oct 2024 at 8:15 PM
“Knowing recoverable Oil likely to run out by 2040 ” yes, I misspoke. That is not what I meant to say. It is incorrect and needs qualification.
Nigelj, did you watch the video, read any of the articles in this comment or any others? I acknowledge your important point that: “I haven’t investigated the EROI issue very much”.
About this quote (sic):
“As noted in the responses to Ugo’s last post we estimated an EROI of 2.45:1 in 2008 assuming a lifetime of 25 years and at the juncture with the distribution system. Studies that we think used more or less appropriate boundaries (Palmer, Weissbach) got similar results. When Oil was producing huge gushers in the early mid 20th century, the EROI on US Oil was around 100:1”
Nigelj, why are you making up your own fabricated ‘quotes’ that are not true or correct – and thus misrepresent the facts in my comment?
Dharma brings up Charles Hall’s video and links a paper about the EROI (Energy Return On Investment) of solar PV. However, the linked commentary is from 2016, and the original study giving an estimated EROI of ~2.45:1 was from 2008. Since then, solar module costs have dropped by well in excess of a factor of ten, which at first approximation would lead one to think that the EROI of solar PV might then be more like 25:1.
A key issue in net energy analysis is the omission of the effects of end-use efficiencies on the energy returns of technologies. Now, an analysis shows that these effects strongly favour the energy returns of wind power and solar photovoltaics, which are found to be higher than those of fossil fuels.
If that is correct–and I’ve seen similar results elsewhere, including papers previously linked here on RC–then any EROI problem we face isn’t a matter of fossil vs. renewables.
Nigeljsays
Dharma
“Nigelj, why are you making up your own fabricated ‘quotes’ that are not true or correct – and thus misrepresent the facts in my comment?”
I havent made up any fabricated quotes. I copied and pasted the quotes exactly as they were and from YOUR commentary and put them within quote marks. I did combine two separate quotes together in one paragraph for the sake of simplicity. Is that what you are worried about? If so you are being paranoid and you are nit picking and have gone crazy.
Your insinuations of dishonesty and evil intent on my part are not backed up with any explanation or evidence. Killian does the same. Why this website tolerates this is beyond me.
… Energy pay-back time (EPBT) results for fixed-tilt ground mounted installations range from 0.5 years for CdTe PV at high-irradiation (2300 kWh/(m2·yr)) to 2.8 years for sc-Si PV at low-irradiation (1000 kWh/(m2·yr)), with corresponding quality-adjusted energy return on investment (EROIPE-eq) values ranging from over 60 to ~10. Global warming potential (GWP) per kWhel averages out at ~30 g(CO2-eq), with lower values (down to ~10 g) for CdTe PV at high irradiation, and up to ~80 g for Chinese sc-Si PV at low irradiation. In general, results point to CdTe PV as the best performing technology from an environmental life-cycle perspective, also showing a remarkable improvement for current production modules in comparison with previous generations. Finally, we determined that one-axis tracking installations can improve the environmental profile of PV systems by approximately 10% for most impact metrics.
The study assessed a typical U.S. utility-scale PV system
installed in 2023 with modern silicon modules, single-axis
trackers, and central inverters. The effects of PV module
manufacturing regions were considered for imported
modules and domestic modules. Evaluating installation
locations across multiple U.S. regions show the effects of local
irradiation and grid characteristics on payback times.
[…]
The energy payback times from the NREL study are between
0.5 and 1.2 years for utility-scale PV systems in the United
States, as shown in Figure 1. The features for the different
system scenarios are reported in Table 1. EPBTs are primarily
affected by the amount of solar radiation and the grid
efficiency where a system is installed. In less than 1.2 years,
these systems produce enough electricity to offset all the
energy needed to manufacture them, operate them for
30 years, decommission them, and process wastes.
OTOH, I found another study about a ground-mounted system in China … well it’s not in front of me right now, I remember: EPBT 2.3 years? – maybe (skimmed very quickly, saw a number) irradiance ~2000 kWh/m² ?? – Is it a more remote location?
Dharmasays
I think the most immediate question is to ask why do you accept or believe in these kinds of lightweight presumptuous superficial reports from the NREL? I ask because I find them wanting.
These documents and their oversimplified summaries, skim over nuanced data, leading to assumptions and broad hypotheticals instead of relying on thorough, accurate information and solid evidence.
In my experience my conclusion is it’s because that is all they have to work with. But their reason for being and their MO is to push positive narratives at every opportunity into the market place of ideas.
This is the type of material I was referring to in an earlier comment where I warned – “…. and not be misled by disinformation, overhyped promotional biases, or incomplete science and economics research and theories.”
Susan Andersonsays
So nothing should be done because it’s never enough. Solutions not welcome. Progress and trying to overcome opposition don’t matter.
The world is a messy place. We can act or give up. The latter is lazy and stupid.
Most of us can see we’re headed for disaster, but that’s not an excuse to carp at anyone who won’t do the woe is us dance.
Tim Walz did fair, though he missed several easy slam dunks in his statement and followup:
>failed to make it crystal clear that it is Republicans who repeatedly have hamstrung FEMA’s budget for response to the increasing cost of natural disasters (climate and other),
>failed to mention that Republicans want to ditch the current Federal Insurance Programs and dump it back into the state’s lap,
>tell people that Trump’s supporters have plans (and Trump will fully embrace come the day he knows he has won) to:
>>dismantle NOAA,
>>privatize The National Weather Service so folks will have to pay twice; once to get the weather forecast and while still paying tax dollars to continue providing the infrastructure from the ground to space,
>>God knows what would happen to entities like the National Hurricane Center, the Storm Prediction Center, the Space Weather Prediction Service, and on and on!,
>>pullback every unspent dollar he can from the I.R.A.,
>>pull us out of The Paris Agreement yet again,
>>throw up every roadblock he can to slow/stop further development of wind farms in particular,
>>remove climate change data/information throughout the federal government (remember how climate change info disappeared from the EPA site while he was President…now they will try implementing that everywhere in the government, and
>>will severely restrict and silence federal scientists (those who aren’t shown the door in the purge)
>While he did say that Trump is completely dismissive of anthropogenic climate change (and did remind people that Trump thinks climate change is a “hoax” and rising sea level will yield more beachfront property). He missed an opportunity to remind folks that Trump failed when he was President for four years and that is a major contributor to why we are still importing so much in the way of solar components because Trump’s term as cheeto-in-chief almost nothing was done to help develop a domestic renewable energy supply chains.
I’m not optimistic that Harris will win the Electoral College. I wish to hell I was. She is still underperforming (compared to Biden 2020) with older white voters in the Rust Belt trio, with Latinos and segments of the under 35 crowd everywhere. I hope she is putting her best supporters that can truly appeal in particular to the under 35 and college crowds as climate change matters to them across party lines. And get them to actually translate concern into massive action and vote (not an act that comes naturally to these groups compared to us old folks). Particularly every college in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
Compliciussays
Remembering of course a Vote for Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party is a Vote for the Dick Cheney’s of this world the Neocon Zionist Warmongers and Genocidal maniacs in Israel and Washington DC.
But so does Voting for Trump and the Republicans, so you can’t lose either way. It’s a Win-Win!
small snippet …. “Unlike you, we don’t believe in chosen people, and the Palestinian people on that land who have been displaced and pushed into Gaza and slaughtered regularly over 76 years, we will not stand for that… The Israeli regime, if they strike Iran, we will hit them much harder next time, and they can pretend that they got away, but we hit very hard last time; we hit their bases. And, unlike the Israeli regime, which always carries out slaughter and genocide, carrying out a holocaust in Gaza, we strike their military targets, because, unlike you, we actually care about human rights. Not you.”
How soon before the Cold War v2.0 explodes into world war III? Given Israel just attacked Russia naval air base in Syria. And Iran seriously smashed up Israel despite the news black out across the west.
-Missile Barrage Overwhelms Israeli Defenses-video evidence https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/operation-true-promise-2-iran-strikes
They (western MSM/politicians/govts) are all lying to you 24/7.
No one is forcing you to believe the lies. It’s your own choice.
Vote for Sanity and Truth – at least Vote Jill Stein – but please do not vote for the current Psychopaths.
Nigeljsays
Complicius says: “Remembering of course a Vote for Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party is a Vote for the Dick Cheney’s of this world the Neocon Zionist Warmongers and Genocidal maniacs in Israel and Washington DC.But so does Voting for Trump and the Republicans, so you can’t lose either way. It’s a Win-Win!”
False claims. Huge lack of evidence. Lots of trolling. Way too much false equivalence between democrats and republicans. Democrats lean liberal so equating them to “neoconservatives” is ludicrous. Democrat governmnets have obviously not been perfect, but they have rightly defended many other countries (WW1, WW2, Korean War, Ukraine, Israel), and not plotted the invasion of Iraq like Bush and Cheney did. And now the Republicans are backing away from supporting Ukraine.
Cheney promoted torture while Biden has opposed torture of suspects and has moved to close down Guantanamo bay. The Democrats promote a proper palestinian state on the west bank and many support a permanent ceasefire in Gaza while the Republicans are less supportive of these things. Multiple polls and commentaries support this.
Regarding the video of Israel allegedly being hit by multiple missles. Theres no way of knowing whether the video is genuine. Its totally gullible to take it at face value. These days its easy to fake videos. Although its likely both sides of the conflict have been hit by more missles than they admit. Famous quote “the first casualty of war is the truth”. Of course the authorities sometimes lie, – as if we didnt know this, and needed your pearls of wisdom (sarc).
Don Williamssays
1) Dealing with climate change requires the united effort of the entire world — we are all on this lifeboat with no other place to live. Uninhabitable space for tens of trillions of miles in all directions. How does inciting hatred and corrupt, hugely expensive continuous wars help humanity?
2) In 2002 the Democratic Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Robert Graham, said he saw no evidence that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to the USA — the only justification under UN law for invading Iraq. Nevertheless, 29 Democratic Senators voted for the war — including John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden. You might want to look at the $14 Million Israeli billionaire Haim Saban dumped into the Democratic Party in 2002 — and at that 2007 interview Haim gave to Haaretz boasting of how he dumps money into US politics to buy US military protection of Israel. Of how the Clintons sucked up to him whenever he visited the White House..
3) Dick Cheney had not shown his face in public since 2008. In contrast, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden have since all received the Democratic nominations for President with Biden succeeding in winning.
4) If Democrats are promoting a Palestinian state on the West Bank then why have they said nothing as Bibi Nethanyahu and the Likud have engaged in slow motion genocide there — slowly taking more and more land year after year for at least the past 30 years. In case you wonder how the terrorists recruit new members.
Why did Joe Biden give Bibi that big hug? Which did nothing to aid Israel but encouraged millions of Muslims to consider killing a few thousand American tourists in the next decade. Well, it did announce the White House was open for business. Does no one remember Bibi coming here in 2002 and helping Cheney lie us into invading Iraq?
Nigeljsays
Don Williams
“1) Dealing with climate change requires the united effort of the entire world — we are all on this lifeboat with no other place to live….How does inciting hatred and corrupt, hugely expensive continuous wars help humanity?”
I agree with your points but you are lecturing me, and I didn’t suggest otherwise. I said that the Democrats have come to the aid or defence of allies under attack. This doesnt mean I LIKE wars.
“2) . Nevertheless, 29 Democratic Senators voted for the (Iraq) war — including John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden. ”
Apparently its because they believed George Bushes claims / lies that there were weapons of mass destruction despite what Robert Graham said. Thats what the written record apparently shows. Maybe they were gullible to do that, but the Democats didn’t do the lying. The Democrats didn’t plan and start the war. So I just feel its false equivalence to say The Democrats are as equally culpable for Iraq as the Republicans (if you are impluyng that). Just my opinion of course.
“You might want to look at the $14 Million Israeli billionaire Haim Saban dumped into the Democratic Party in 2002….”
Both Democrats and Republicans have accepted donations form Israel. So its a moot point.
“4) If Democrats are promoting a Palestinian state on the West Bank then why have they said nothing as Bibi Nethanyahu and the Likud have engaged in slow motion genocide there — slowly taking more and more land…”
The polling I have read suggests the Democrats Party leadership have only recently changed their position and favoured an independent palestinian state. But they now have a different position to the GOP.
“Why did Joe Biden give Bibi that big hug? Which did nothing to aid Israel but encouraged millions of Muslims to consider killing a few thousand American tourists….”
Because Biden is a hugging sort of guy apparently and America does support Isreal. Whats he supposed to do, be really cold towards Bibi? It might be tempting but it would only encourage Israels enemies.
Israelis occupation of the west bank is totally illegal and unjustified. But its beside the point. The point is the Democrats do not have identicial views on the issue to Republicans. Complicius made the claim that Biden and Trump are essentially the same and that The Democrats and Republicans Parties are all the same and as bad as each other. It is not true and its FALSE EQUIVALENCE all things considered. I’ve pointed out some foreign policy differences. They are not huge but there are differences. There are also more substantial differences in social and environmental policy and views, and some significant economic differences. Then there is Agenda 25 which is dramatically different to anything the Democrats propose. Its also a steaming pile of rubbish and very bad environmentally. I think its very unwise to vote for Republican politicians right now. But thanks for your comments.
Compliciatedsays
To Nigelj:
I agree wholeheartedly that free speech is important, and so is maintaining respectful, constructive discourse. However, I’d like to clarify my stance on the comment you mentioned. It’s true that I may have expressed strong frustration with the current geopolitical climate, especially the destructive nature of certain foreign policies, but this wasn’t meant to “gloat” over anyone’s suffering or destruction.
When I said, “The great reckoning is upon us… good riddance,” I was referring to a broader critique of systems and structures that, in my view, have contributed to global instability and environmental degradation. This wasn’t aimed at people or designed to incite hate, but rather to express frustration with the policies that I believe are unsustainable in the long term.
I understand how such comments can be misinterpreted, and I will take care in the future to ensure my words are not taken as incitement or wishful thinking for anyone’s harm. My ultimate aim is to discuss solutions and challenges in a way that moves the conversation forward, not to derail it or antagonize others.
Nigeljsays
Compliqius. Ok fair comment. I do think you should choose your words more wisely. As we all should at times. I thought you might have been broadly critiquing the system – but I wasnt 100% sure either. When people wish my destruction, I have to assume they might be serious and react accordingly.
Radge Haverssays
Aaand the socially stunted Complicius sock puppet has officially succeeded in derailing a climate thread.
Who/what does that remind you of? The stuff of grifts.
Don Williamssays
Climate Change can not be treated in isolation from the other social forces and powers of the world. Environmental concerns are the first thing that gets discarded in a war.
There are many things that can derail the energy transition — high debt/ lack of money for one thing. Economic depression. Corruption.
Another is Lack of cooperation among nations because no one wants to accept the sacrifices if others will freeload or take economic/military advantage. Rising mistrust and competition — due to a leader’s actions in a different area — can make it impossible to gain the necessary agreements.
But, hey, Exxon was able recently to sell Iraq’s oil back to the Iraqis –reportedly for $350 million — who in turn are handing it over to China’s PetroChina. So I suppose we should all just jump up and shout “Yay”. Well, maybe not the paraplegics in our VA hospitals.
re https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825060
“Professor Marandi effectively silenced this Journalistv […] “Unlike you, we don’t believe in chosen people, […] because, unlike you, we actually care about human rights. Not you.”” – Well I don’t know about the “you” being addressed but it’s obviously not me. And – the gov. of Iran, or some part of it, supports terrorists, so, … there’s that.
“They (western MSM/politicians/govts) are all lying to you 24/7. ” Please differentiate between Fox News et al. and MSNBC, PBS, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Vox, Propublica, etc. and official government vs individual members (MTJ) etc., and between blue-type state and red-type state governments and societies/churches/etc. Seeing all as one is part of the problem, here.
“Vote for Sanity and Truth – at least Vote Jill Stein – but please do not vote for the current Psychopaths.”
Ideally, we would have instant runoff/ranked choice ballots (potentially computationally involved in the electoral college system (nested loops) – but doable – also Ideally we’d modify or ditch the electoral college). That way you could have your protest vote and still exert your full voting power to stop Trump. But see Susan Anderson @ https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825276 – be careful what you wish for (remember Brexit). I will vote for Kamala Harris, and do so with enthusiasm – not because she’s perfect but because she’s basically a good person, a capable person, and from electing Kamala, we have a better path forward. (You can’t always expect your first next step to get you directly to your final preferred destination).
PS Note that as Vice President, I believe it would look bad if she differed too much from Biden’s positions.
Also, if she were perfect, could she win? Would a perfect person even run for the leader of a nation? Seems to me that positions at the U.N. or various N.G.O.s or grassroots organizer might be a better fit. Perhaps it is a basic problem with representative democracy that leaders must be trusted by the people and so may feel pressure to express loyalty, or maybe we’re just so used to that kind of campaigning (…
patrick o twentysevensays
…“ she’s basically a good person, a capable person”… → … she’s a good, capable person …
The qualifier “basically” was unnecessary, in retrospect.
And compare to her opponent, Satan*, aka. Biffigula (Biff Tannen + Caligula), aka. ‘He who must have his name on buildings’, aka. “Cinnamon Hitler” (quoting Trevor Noah several years ago) – and his group of Death Eaters, Nazis, the Christian Taliban (deciding what types of health care women and children and … etc. can have, regardless of the complexities of biology and mind, … etc.), and the Lex Luthor League (Peter Theil, Elon Musk, Rupert Murdoch, Koch Bros). Too many steps backwards! (While the West as it is now still deserves criticism (which I, a Westerner, realize), IMO there has been a great moral awakening over the last 200 years, the last 100 years, the last 50 years, etc. I was wondering if CJ was observing a decrease in the entropy of the Universe based on a comment about recent moral decline a month ago: …““ the social imperatives of genuine human nature and the common good principles of life that have been abandoned in recent decades.” ” Remember Jim Crow, brutal slavery, genocide, witch hunts, inquisitions, the Crusades, societally-accepted wife beating, … )
(*Actually, the Devil would be much smarter – and more detail oriented!)
And remember the down-ballot races! Congress, State governments … your school boards!
Well said sir. As an ‘R’, I voted today casting my vote for Harris/Walz and for the ballot opponents of my other fellow Republicans who continue to deny climate/environmental reality and the need for even more action on the associated fronts.
patrick o twentysevensays
… complexities of biology and mind ? – sorry, my “mind” reference could be misinterpreted – “complexities of biology” is sufficient.
Another set of thoughts I had:
(“(You can’t always expect your first next step to get you directly to your final preferred destination)”- referring to issues in general.)
Bear in mind some steps may be taken in parallel. Ie. don’t just pull on one lever of power – pull too hard it may snap. Try multiple levers. Eg. vote in more than one race – for the best person who can win, but also, if you are able, persuade, encourage, pressure, and offer support for them to be their best – or even better (and if you know any persuadable voters in other countries…) – Because POTUS is not God, not even an emperor or king, and even emperors must strategize (eg. Marcus Aurelius) – steer the ship of state too sharply and the rudder could break. To some extent, leaders must get their people to follow. Politicians and candidates for office have to make strategic choices, just as we do. (Not intended as a defense for mistakes Joe Biden made (IMO), but something to keep in mind going forward. )
Davidsays
Patrick o 27,
Solid outlook by you. I’ve thought about what you outline in your comment for awhile now given the risen of anti-science thinking/action on the climate, land use, and the biodiversity crisis amongst fellow conservatives here in the U.S.
You’re correct, it’s not just who the next POTUS is. What happened with the IRA legislation (not a single R vote even from those R’s who haven’t been infected) showed me something. Something not healthy about my party. Kind of a last straw so-to-speak. So yeah, engagement is required at all levels.
So, what to do? I’m too old, too dumb, and too poor to effectively confront these huge issues at any level outside the ballot box and locally in conversations and local action. I’ve already found that using the term ‘climate change’ straight out of the gate when discussing politics locally too often meets with almost immediate wall raising. Not always, but often in line with expectations given the political makeup of where I live (it’s quite conservative) even with good friends. Interesting though, land use and the biodiversity crisis are much easier to have discussions about.
If you or anyone here have suggestions regarding beginning climate change discussions and taking political action starting at the local level, Id be tickled to hear them. The excellent Skeptical Science site is already a place I’ve begun to mine, but I welcome more suggestions.
“Complicius” is a further embodiment of persons approaching Real Climate discussion fora with the sole aim – to spread anti-western / anti-American propaganda.
For more details, see further stuff published on the website he refers to:
I would like to propose again that if the moderators wish that people with such an agenda have also a chance to publish on Real Climate, it is enabled only in a separate part of RC forum, clearly assigned as “unmoderated”.
Best regards
Tomáš
Nigeljsays
Tomas Kalisz, I feel free speech is important and criticism of western society is ok, but there are limits. Nobody has to provide a platform for comments that are massively off topic, that incite hate or violence, or gloat over our alleged destruction for example Complicius on last months UV thread: “The great reckoning is upon us. The US empire and the west are going to be wrecked. Good riddance. ” His / her whole post belongs in the borehole.
Compliciatedsays
To Tomáš:
I understand that you’re concerned about the nature of some posts, and I fully support having a healthy, respectful discussion space. However, I want to clarify that my intention has never been to spread “anti-western” or “anti-American” propaganda. Rather, I strive to bring up valid geopolitical and environmental concerns that are critical to understanding the broader context of climate change and energy policy.
The link to Simplicius’ work is provided as a resource for those interested in deeper analyses of global political dynamics. While it may be critical of certain Western policies, critique is not synonymous with propaganda. Constructive criticism of any nation, including Western countries, is a vital part of informed discourse, especially when it comes to the global challenges we face today, like climate change.
The issues I raise relate directly to how global political conflicts hinder collective action on climate change, which is why I see them as on-topic. That said, I am fully open to feedback on tone or approach if it seems my posts are being interpreted differently than intended.
I also believe moderation should be fair and transparent, but I don’t think creating separate “unmoderated” sections is the best solution. Instead, discussions can benefit from clear, consistently applied guidelines about what is considered on-topic and civil in a forum like this. If we stick to the facts, remain respectful, and avoid inflammatory rhetoric, I think we can all benefit from a diverse range of perspectives.
Tomáš Kaliszsays
in Re to Compliciated aka Complicius, 6 Oct 2024 at 12:10 AM,
Simplicius site has nothing to do with “analyses”, it is clearly fed by Russian propaganda. Ukrainian nazis, decadent West, and stuff like this. You can assert an opposite to people who do not know this, not to me.
If you really would like to bring a constructive criticism, you must avoid such sources.
From yesterday at ProPublica; guess what one of the issues being targeted using FOIA’s requests is?
“Heritage Foundation Staffers Flood Federal Agencies With Thousands of Information Requests
The conservative think tank’s requests are clogging the pipeline at federal agencies in an apparent attempt to find employees a potential Trump administration would want to purge.”
. https://www.propublica.org/article/have-government-employees-mentioned-climate-change-voting-or-gender-identity-the-heritage-foundation-wants-to-know
.
.
No matter how many times Trump, Vance & the campaign publicly deny any connections or plans; this doesn’t change the truth. They are going to do every single thing they can to thwart federal action/protection where the climate and environment are concerned. If Trump wins, combined with the near-certain loss of Democratic Party control of the U.S. Senate, better hope the D’s somehow can swim against the tide and gain control of the U.S. House to slow the nose cutting.
Ummm… the extreme temps of ’23 were driven by an El Nino that started well after the extremes did? I don’t claim to be a climate scientist, just an excellent, accurate analyst. Also, are we now claiming that the Pacific-located El Nino stretches into other oceans? It would have to to explain the ocean heat content across more than just the Pacific.
This is a reach from people scrambling to understand something that doesn’t fit what they previously knew. But it’s Occam’s Razor-simple: The oceans can’t hold as much heat as was believed, likely due to the speed of build-up, so we’re getting exchange with the atmosphere at overall levels that had been more stable in the past. But there are two issues: Magnitude of change and rate of change. You can go from 0 to 130 mph in a supercar safely over as little as 20 or 30 seconds, but punch the pedal to the floor and you’re likely going to lose control if you are not a skilled driver. Perhaps a bit oversimplified, but that’s the gist.
And I guess the issue of changes to ship fuels is being dismissed?
Three years from now, remember I said this.
Compliciussays
To Killian:
“And I guess the issue of changes to ship fuels is being dismissed?”
It’s not just the reductions in IMO shipping aerosols that we should consider—there have also been significant, ongoing reductions in man-made aerosols like SO₂ worldwide. This includes reductions in the U.S., China, India, and Europe in recent years, all of which are accumulating and leading to atmospheric changes.
I kept checking the new satellite info on the website PACE Ocean Sciences, which Gavin previously championed as a crucial source of global data on this topic, including albedo changes. https://pace.oceansciences.org/data_table.htm
But eventually, I stopped waiting for updates, as it seems to have gone quiet. No updates from the RealClimate website either, which makes me wonder how significant this data was after all.
Here are some relevant references, though it seems like the discussion around this issue has largely disappeared from climate circles:
A question to our hosts: Is it possible or considered worthwhile to modify the main page that would add a “last updated” to a post’s title block for those posts still being occasionally updated with new info?
[Response: This is only the 2023 post. I have added a ‘last updated’ to the lede, which could help, and I’ve reduced the number of other ‘featured stories’ so that it stays on the top two on the main page. Thanks. – gavin]
“Also, are we now claiming that the Pacific-located El Nino stretches into other oceans? “
Something like that. The Atlantic had a large spike concurrent with El Nino
Notably, this happened in 1878 as well — a huge El Nino in the Pacific and a large temperature spike in the Atlantic
I’m of the train of thought that there are common-mode mechanisms across the set of ocean basins. This is in contrast to teleconnections, which are argued more as one behavior is impacting another.
Common-mode:A correlation is due to a shared influence, not a direct interaction between the regions themselves. Both are responding to a common underlying driver.
Teleconnection: Regions are linked by a mechanism that transfers information, energy, or momentum over long distances. The influence is not due to a shared cause, but rather an active interaction between different parts of the system.
I think the common underlying driver is tidal orbital dynamics interacting with the seasonal cycle. Sunspot activity is way down the list of strong drivers.
Nigeljsays
Paul Pukite, I do think the idea tidal forcings causes el ninos sounds intuitively appealing. But why would a common mode driver related to tidal forcings cause regular and frequent el ninos in the pacific but only very occasional temperature spikes in the Atlantic? I would logically expect it to effect both oceans equally.
NigelJ, The model of fluid dynamics in an ocean basin involves the boundary conditions of the basin itself. This is what contains and sets the standing waves of the oceanic dipoles/tripoles such as ENSO and AMO. But since the individual ocean basins have different dimensions, the characteristic wavelengths of the standing waves will differ. No different in principal than the other kind of waves (acoustic, E-M) generated in cavities and waveguides. The outcome of this is that the generated non-linear responses will be incommensurate across the basins, but which also means that they can go in and out of synch over the years.
This is still a common-mode response, but like conventional tides, they can be out-of-phase or respond distinctly to various tidal factors across spatially separated regions.
What I have found is that a common global tidal forcing can be used to model individual responses to AMO, PDO, ENSO, IOD and others simultaneously. The modulation responses only differ, with cross-validation approaches used to avoid over-fitting. It’s a model that deserves investigation since — let’s face it — nothing else seems to be working.
“cause regular and frequent el ninos in the pacific but only very occasional temperature spikes in the Atlantic?”
There are many temperature spikes in the Atlantic, and just like the Pacific the spikes can have different magnitude. As with conventional tides, the time between the biggest will vary geographically. For AMO, the model will fit ALL the details. https://geoenergymath.com/2024/09/23/amo-and-the-mt-tide/
Killiansays
I’ve got no problem with a sort of antipode view of ocean changes, but I’d like to see something about the mechanism before signing on whole-hog.
As in why there are 2 tidal bulges per day? Newton explained it.
Killiansays
Do better. We aren’t talking about tides, for f#@&sakes. Or are you still not clear on the collapse of the biome we need to be alive? The time for silly nonsense is well past.
Nonsensical to assume what “antipode” refers to on an Earth sciences blog? If it’s not used to describe points on the Earth that are diametrically opposite, I guess it’s used as a pretense indicator for the ordinary word “opposite”, much like the word “elide” instead of “delete”.
I honestly thought you understood where I was going with the explanation, which is amusing.
Piotrsays
Tomas Kalisz: Another possible explanation is that the strange Tomas Kalisz tirelessly promoting Sahara irrigation scheme with annual operational costs in trillions USD in hope that he helps saving Saudi Arabia and Russia as fossil fuel sources for the world economy […] does in fact exist in your posts only”
– “TENS of trillions” annually to achieve a fraction of 0.3K cooling.
– I don’t consider you “strange” – this word has at least possibility of being brilliant but misunderstood by others. You are NEITHER.
– Instead I consider you … not the sharpest knife in a drawer, who has proven times and times again that he doesn’t understand what he reads, nor does he understand (the logical implications of) what he writes.
And one who tries to boost his ego by coming up with his absurd and unsupported by facts opinions, theories and proposals, for the typical conspiracy theorist/contrarian psychological payout: “ if 1000s of climate scientists haven’t thought of this, but I Tomáš Kalisz, without any climate knowledge, had – then I must be really, really, smart .
I have never said that you “hope” to support the regime of Russia and Saudi Arabia – the very definition of Lenin’s “useful idiots of Russia” is that they either have NO IDEA that they play straight into Russia’s hands, OR they don’t allow a thought of this, when others point it to them.
And no – all the above does not “only you exist in my posts. I merely put a dot over i – all the proof is on YOUR posts. By the fruits, not their declarations about themselves, you shall know them.
A new infilled global temperature dataset is now available: DCENT_MLE_v1. This dataset estimates more #globalwarming than other datasets: an increase of 1.59 °C from the late 19th century to 2023, with an uncertainty range of [1.48,1.72] °C. https://www.wdc-climate.de/ui/entry?acronym=DCENT_MLE_v1_0
DCENT_MLE_v1 is based on the non-infilled DCENT dataset. DCENT incorporates improvements developed by the DCENT scientists over many years, such as using deck metadata (e.g., country of origin of a ship) to improve sea surface temperature estimates. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-03742-x
DCENT_MLE_v1 follows the methodology of HadCRU_MLE_v1 to infill unobserved regions of the planet. HadCRU_MLE_v1 was developed to better account for nonuniform warming across the planet, such as the high rate of warming in regions of sea ice loss. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.4791
Since DCENT does not yet have estimates of measurement and sampling uncertainties, I used the HadSST4 measurement and sampling uncertainties for sea surface temperatures. DCENT and HadSST4 use the same underlying sea surface temperature observations. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD029867
For measurement and sampling uncertainties of land observations, these were calculated using the standard approach described by Brohan et al. (2006) and using data from GHCNv4 to better account for the distribution of weather observations in DCENT. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006548
Significantly and constantly elevated for 18 months now.
ECMWF uses a depth of 10 meters for their Sea Surface Temperature product, while NOAA uses the top surface layer. Which makes this increase even more significant than the spike in the NOAA dataset.
Absolute temperature graph: 60N-60S 2023-2024 vs Average 1991-2020 https://cdn.xcancel.com/pic/orig/media%2FGY4h2ZXXQAAhBdv.jpg
In case anyone missed this, NCEI @NOAANCEI has been impacted by Hurricane Helene, as their data center is located in Asheville and as such their data are unavailable online
On the plus side, at least September wasn’t as totally f&%king nuts as last year 2023?
James Hansen in early July said – “In September, global temperature surely will fall well below the unusually-high September record (Fig. 1); with that, the 12-month running-mean global temperature (Fig. 2) will decline noticeably.”
Reflections:- http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/Reflections.2024.07.12.pdf
Dr Hansen also said: “Global SST is now at about the level that it was 12 months ago (Fig. 5), but still far from the
pre-El Nino level. Global SST will soon be falling below the elevated late-2023 levels, but
we should not expect SSTs to fall back to the pre-2023 level as the aerosol effect continues
and greenhouse gas forcing continues to grow. The moderate size of the El Nino suggests that
global temperature will probably fall to only about +1.4°C relative to the preindustrial level.
Zonal-mean SST anomalies (Fig. 6) provide an informative summary. In our interpretation,
the strong midlatitude warming in the Northern Hemisphere will not disappear. However, the
ocean has natural variability on the time scale of years and decades, so others may interpret
the warm anomalies in the North Pacific and North Atlantic differently. Given the absence of
observations of the global aerosol forcing, a little patience will provide data allowing a more
persuasive interpretation of ongoing climate change. ”
UAH TLT has reported for September with the global TLT anomaly still running at full “bananas”, (unlike the SAT anomalies which has sen some cooling). The Sept UAH TLT anomaly is +0.96ºC, up on August’s +0.88ºC and continuing within the range seen since Sept 2023 of +0.80ºC to +1.05ºC.
The Aug-to-Sept increase was a NH thing, with the NH warming (Aug +0.96ºC, Sept +1.21ºC – this the largest up-tick in UAH’s NH TLT anomalies thro’ the “bananas” period), and the SH cooling (Aug +0.81ºC, Sept +0.71ºC).
(To put these “bananas” anomalies in context, the warmest pre-“bananas” year in the UAH TLT record was 2020 +0.37ºC global, +0.41ºC NH, +0.32ºC SH.)
(The TLT “bananas” saw last year Jan-Dec 2023 average a ‘scorchisimo!!!’ +0.51ºC globally. With Jan-Sept 2024 now averaging a mega-toasty +0.91ºC, a ‘scorchisimo!!!’ 2024 can only be prevented if Oct-Dec 2024 averages below -0.68ºC which would be a new record 3-month low, that ‘frostyisimo!!’ record being currently -0.56ºC set Jan-Mar 1985.)
And a proper nerdy look at the NH & SH UAH TLT numbers through these “bananas” months, the NH have been ‘sort-of’ on the rise through the period (OLS yields +0.1ºC/year) while the SH has been cooling at roughly he same rate.
And an ultra-nerdy look, the NH Land & NH Ocean TLT numbers (which are not posted for Sept yet) show that sort-of’ rising NH trend comprises a Land component with peak “bananas” in Sept23 {+1.34ºC}, cooled thro’ to Jan24 {+0.89ºC} but since has warmed again with a new peak “bananas” set in Aug24 {+1.35ºC}. The NH Ocean component hit its peak “bananas” in April24 {+0.97ºC} and has been cooling since {to Aug24 +0.70ºC}.
Given the large Aug-to-Sept uptick in the TLT NH anomaly, the Sept NH Land & Ocean numbers will be interesting when the arrive.
Compliciussays
To me, it seems like the latest data is once again pointing to a message that isn’t directly related to ENSO dynamics.
Complicius,
You say “once again” which would seemingly imply you are involving more than just “the latest data” in your considerations of data “pointing.”
Your comment is presumably saying that you would expect the ‘effects’ of the 2023-24 El Niño (the “ENSO dynamics”) to have been seen ended by now in the “the latest data.” Such a comment would be helpfully accompanied by an indication of what “the latest data” is being pointed at.
The SOI shows the 2023-24 El Niño kicked-off Jan 2023 and peaked in Sept-Oct 2023 and NINO3.4 shows that it peaked Nov-Dec 2023. But its impacts around the globe go on far longer. The NOAA global surface temperature data (currently the data-provision from NCEI Asheville NC is down while recovering post-Helene) shows quite a solid El Niño signal through 1997-98. 2009-10 & 2015-16 for the Northern Hemisphere Oceans with a very broad peak July-year-1 to Sept-year-2, a broad peak that perhaps is becoming more a double-peak Sept-year-1 & Sept-year-2.
(I am maintaining a graphic showing 5-month rolling averages of global, SH, NH Ocean & NH Land temperatures here – first posted 14 Feb 2024.)
Given the global temperature rise from AGW is causing such things as an increase in the stratification of ocean temperature, should we be at all surprised if the “ENSO dynamics” are changing?
So I would not be in a rush to dismiss the 2023-24 El Niño as responsible for the on-going “bananas”.
The enduring issue is that GHG models to first-order find only a monotonic change of intrinsic factors (such as temperature) with atmospheric concentration. Any other changes, such as the rapid temperature spike, are not accounted in what’s considered a mean-valued model. The effort may indeed need to be placed on how GHG modulates natural process such as ENSO, but the problem there is that there is no accepted consensus model for ENSO. That’s a general rule of science — if you can’t model the fundamentals, you have no chance of predicting a perturbation. There is also the concept of a tipping-point but that still has to follow thermodynamics relationships such as the Arrhenius rate activation law, which is not that explosive for typical reactions or changes in state. And of course, there are always the impulse functions, such as the Hunga-Tonga volcano or the sudden change in aerosols due the pandemic, which lead to impulse responses (or Green’s function responses that you can search for in recent papers).
It all reminds me of a trouble-shooting exercise that one goes through when some piece of equipment goes haywire. Except there are no systematic controls or duplicate apparatus one can use to isolate the problem.
“What’s to be done? None of us likes turbines, or hydro, and obviously not nuclear either. So how do we get out of this mess?”
“I don’t know — how do we?”
“Whatever the answer is, it absolutely must involve stopping thinking about science as though it were a religion. Once upon a time, the Church would solve the big problems of the day with rogations and novenas and so on. People now trust science [and the latest hypothetical scenario papers like 100% WWS] in the exact same way. And that’s because we aren’t prepared to give anything up. We need to stop flying, stop consuming such ridiculous quantities of energy. But no, no, people say, anything but that. The solution has to be magical, somehow, and it’s science that’s got to give it to us. There’s no way for us just to face the problems in a realistic way.”
From “Death as told by a sapiens to a neanderthal”, Juan José Millás and Juan Luis Arsuaga
Nigeljsays
Complicious, people are addicted to energy use. Its a hard habit to break. Especially when all our jobs are dependent on it, and it provides basic goods needed to survive, and flying is such a nice thing. Thats why I promote renewables. Its a compromise solution.
James Charlessays
No ‘green’ solution?
“The problem with both visions of the future – and the spectrum of views between them – is a fundamental misunderstanding of the collapse which has begun to break over us. This is that each assumes the continuation of that part of industrial civilisation which is required to make their version of the future possible, even as the coming collapse wipes away ALL aspects of industrial civilisation. Most obviously, nobody had developed even an embryonic version of the renewable energy supply chain which is the essential first step to turning non-renewable renewable energy-harvesting technologies (NRREHTs) into the envisioned “renewables” upon which the promised techno-psychotic future is to be built. That is, until it is possible to mine the minerals, build the components, manufacture and transport the technologies without the use of fossil fuels at any stage in the process, then there is no such thing as “renewable energy” in the sense which the term is currently promoted. “ https://consciousnessofsheep.co.uk/2023/07/19/our-predicament-re-stated/?fbclid=IwAR3VlY4z4EV1kM6nTSv2FjmBAmvCEGjqqhiwuc1zQtSn3sIcGDGdqiNaN0Q
Nigeljsays
James Charles, thanks for the link. Renewables are clearly not fully renewables until they are the dominant energy source and no longer need fossil fuels in the manufacture or supply chain. This doesnt diminish their value in reducing emissions as they gradually reduce the need for fossil fuels, and particularly because they are a step towards a fully renewable system. If the writer doesnt understand this, I feel he should pack up his computer and try another occupation. Maybe brick laying or something.
James Charlessays
“ . . . remember that people have been developing technology for the last two
1:00:44 million years and for the last two million years each new technology was supposed to solve humanity’s problem and
1:00:50 yet over the last two million years each new technology created its own new problems which were then solved with yet
1:00:58 again new technologies so the belief that technology will be the savior is
1:01:04 complete delusion but it’s a very human delusion so people who think that are
1:01:09 deeply delusional. . . “? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsbtt-6Dpww&t=2002s
Nigeljsays
James Charles, you have raised a completly separate issue. Its interesting material, but I dont accept that technology was deveoped to “solve societies problems’ per se. It was developed to make things better and reduce manual labour. Subtle but important difference.
People certainly believe technology makes things better or people would live quite differently.
Of course technology makes some things worse – the obvious one being environmental degradation to the point we really have to confront this and figure out a solution that mitigates the problem, but I suggest without expecting people to go back to the stone age.
Killian essentially proposes mostly go back to much older simpler forms of technology and less of it, apart from modern communications and one or two other things. Nice in theory but difficult to define how much simpler we should go, and how to get there and persuade people its of real benefit to them. One can point at benefits to future generations but humans are not psychologically wired up for such long term thinking.
But commonsense does suggest to me that many people could get by with a bit less consumption, and still have a good life. But a lot less consumption, and the picture is less pleasant.
James Charlessays
“As for green energy subsidies spurring the development of new, lower-cost clean technologies, there is nothing new about wind and solar generation that receives the lion’s share of subsidies. After almost half a century, neither are cost-competitive, especially when the additional costs of addressing their inherent intermittency are included—costs that others must pay. And new technologies, such as direct air capture of carbon, will only be commercially viable if the U.S. imposes carbon taxes of several hundred dollars per ton, which few politicians will be willing to do.
The overwhelming majority of green energy subsidies reward politically powerful constituencies and businesses whose primary purpose is not to build better energy mousetraps but to build only ones that qualify for the largest subsidies.” https://realclearwire.com/articles/2024/09/03/do_green_energy_subsidies_work_1055865.html
James Charlessays
complete delusion but it’s a very human delusion so people who think that are
1:01:09 deeply delusional. . . “?
Killiansays
Killian essentially proposes mostly go back to much older simpler forms of technology and less of it, apart from modern communications and one or two other things.
Liar.
Admins: Why is this allowed? Been going on since 2016. If you don’t want me to handle it, shouldn’t you?
Dharmasays
James Charles says
11 Oct 2024 at 1:59 AM
Thanks for the lecture ref. I’d not seen him before. It’s a very good lecture and did like how he addressed the closing question, part of which you quoted. It led to a few other potentially good ideas, we’ll see.
I was so impressed with Professor Tadeusz Patzek I created a new info page with this lecture the centre piece of much more to come.
No matter how we frame it—there are undeniable hard limits to growth! https://substack.com/home/post/p-150134168
thanks for the unexpected tip off.
Nigeljsays
Killan
Nigelj: “Killian essentially proposes mostly go back to much older simpler forms of technology and less of it, apart from modern communications and one or two other things.:.
Killian: “Liar. Admins: Why is this allowed? Been going on since 2016. If you don’t want me to handle it, shouldn’t you?
NigelJ: Im not a liar. You have provided exactly zero evidence Im a liar. My comments are a fair summation of what you have been proposing here for years. You have talked frequently about the downsides of modern technology, and you have called EV’s “useless pieces of crap” and you have opposed the use of ICE cars. You have talked about the need to use bicycles, horses and carts, and basic public transport and you have promoted “walkable cities”.
You have promoted “simplification”, which is generally defined to mean living with less modern technology and being frugal with quantities of technology used amongst other things. Its certainly what simple living communities do You gave me a link to permaculture weekly that talked about acceptable types of technology.
You have argued that we should focus on basic needs for food shelter and clothing, not wants. This can ONLY realistically mean using less modern technology. You have specifically advocated that the world should cut its energy use by 80-90% within the next two decades. Its not realistically possible to do this WITHOUT reducing the use of modern technology and also going back to some extent to older forms of technology using manual labour. Perhaps you dont understand even the most basic the implications of what you say.
You have talked about maintaining a “technology bridge” of certain types of modern technology (modedrn communications, recycling plant, healthcare and another that I have forgotten). This means by definition we have to live with much less modern technology!
Its all there in this website records.
Geoff Miellsays
Dharma (at 13 Oct 2024 at 12:46 AM): – “No matter how we frame it—there are undeniable hard limits to growth!”
The Limits to Growth are not limits of quantity, but of energy.
Club of Rome member Ugo Bardi presented a report/book to the Club of Rome titled EXTRACTED – How the Quest for Mineral Wealth is Plundering the Planet. A YouTube video was produced & published on 10 Jun 2024 to promote it The Voiceover from time interval 0:03:48 says (bold text my emphasis):
“We will never run out of minerals, but we will run out of cheap fossil fuels and high-grade ores.
The limits to mineral extraction are not limits of quantity, but of energy.
Extracting minerals takes energy, and the more dispersed the minerals are, the more energy is needed.
Technology can mitigate the depletion problem, but cannot solve it.
The depletion of fossil fuels is already becoming a serious problem. The peak of conventional oil production may have passed between 2005 and 2008, while all other oil and gas resources could peak within the next ten years. Coal production could increase for several years, but at a tremendous cost to the environment.
Production from uranium mines is likely to decline during this decade.
Metals such as copper, zinc, nickel, gold, silver and others, are expected to reach their productive peak within less than two decades.
As cheap minerals start to disappear, the mineral industry will begin extracting ever costlier and dirtier minerals, such as shale gas and shale oil.” https://youtu.be/u_Y29DqzWkc?t=228
Meanwhile, the climate crisis gets worse as we/humanity delay rapidly reducing GHG emissions.
Last year’s El Niño showed us what +1.5 °C global warming is like, but a medium strength one within the next ten years will likely show us what +2 °C global warming will be like.
There is very little time and a +2 °C set of impacts are reported to be twice as bad as +1.5 °C – worse fires, worse floods, worse droughts and crop failures, worse heatwaves, worse hurricanes, cyclones and typhoons.
An assessment was published in the journal BioScience on 8 Oct 2024, titled The 2024 state of the climate report: Perilous times on planet Earth, by William J Ripple, Christopher Wolf, Jillian W Gregg, Johan Rockström, Michael E Mann, Naomi Oreskes, Timothy M Lenton, Stefan Rahmstorf, Thomas M Newsome, Chi Xu, Jens-Christian Svenning, Cássio Cardoso Pereira, Beverly E Law, & Thomas W Crowther. It begins with:
We are on the brink of an irreversible climate disaster. This is a global emergency beyond any doubt. Much of the very fabric of life on Earth is imperiled. We are stepping into a critical and unpredictable new phase of the climate crisis. For many years, scientists, including a group of more than 15,000, have sounded the alarm about the impending dangers of climate change driven by increasing greenhouse gas emissions and ecosystem change (Ripple et al. 2020). For half a century, global warming has been correctly predicted even before it was observed—and not only by independent academic scientists but also by fossil fuel companies (Supran et al. 2023). Despite these warnings, we are still moving in the wrong direction; fossil fuel emissions have increased to an all-time high, the 3 hottest days ever occurred in July of 2024 (Guterres 2024), and current policies have us on track for approximately 2.7 degrees Celsius (°C) peak warming by 2100 (UNEP 2023). Tragically, we are failing to avoid serious impacts, and we can now only hope to limit the extent of the damage. We are witnessing the grim reality of the forecasts as climate impacts escalate, bringing forth scenes of unprecedented disasters around the world and human and nonhuman suffering. We find ourselves amid an abrupt climate upheaval, a dire situation never before encountered in the annals of human existence. We have now brought the planet into climatic conditions never witnessed by us or our prehistoric relatives within our genus, Homo (supplemental figure S1; CenCO2PIP Consortium et al. 2023). https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biae087/7808595
Nigeljsays
James Charles copy and pasted material:
“As for green energy subsidies spurring the development of new, lower-cost clean technologies, there is nothing new about wind and solar generation that receives the lion’s share of subsidies. After almost half a century, neither are cost-competitive, especially when the additional costs of addressing their inherent intermittency are included—costs that others must pay. And new technologies, such as direct air capture of carbon, will only be commercially viable if the U.S. imposes carbon taxes of several hundred dollars per ton, which few politicians will be willing to do.The overwhelming majority of green energy subsidies reward politically powerful constituencies and businesses whose primary purpose is not to build better energy mousetraps but to build only ones that qualify for the largest subsidies.”
That entire comment is wrong or misleading on so many levels, and its pretty much free of evidence to back the writers assertions.
The writer confuses invention of wind and solar power with the ‘development’ of wind and soalr power – enabling it to be scaled up in the modern world.
His comments about costs are not accurate either. Wind and solar power do provide lower cost generation than established sources (refer to the Lazard International Enery Analysis). Electricity storage costs are however still expensive. But nobody has claimed we can solve the climate problem with renewables for free: It is going to cost us some money at least in the short term, but longer term by 2050 it helps solve the climate problem and saves us a lot of money. Refer:
Regarding the comments about green energy subsidies benefiiting business etcetera… Sure they benefit businesses. Somebody has to build the generation. It doesnt matter if subsidies benefit businesses as long as generation gets built and subsidies are used properly. No evidence is provided that businesses are improperly using the subsidies. Clearly plenty of generation is being built.
The government has strict conditions on how subsidies are used and audits the contracts or monitors results. The writer literally doesn’t seem to understand this, and sounds like he has anti capitalist or anti corporate motives or he is a conspiracy theorist.. Hes entilted to his views, and we mostly all have some healthy scepticism of the corporates, but the writers anti corporate dogma is getting in the way of fixing the climate problem. And thats extremely unfortunate foir us all.
I would hardly assign my post as an “analysis”. I just expressed my feeling that it appears that there is still no global study clearly showing, e.g. on the basis of the same method of soil moisture evaluation as in the Chinese study
cited by Kevin, that there is no general trend towards “continent desiccation” (or an opposite thereof).
In this respect, I further expressed my feeling that there is no benchmark yet for evaluation of validity of model projections of future precipitation as they were summarized in the Carbon Brief article
cited by you, and a hope that extension of studies like the Chinese analysis of soil humidity on the entire globe perhaps helps.
I agree that cutting GHG emissions is reasonable, because lot of expected consequences of global warming raise justified concerns.
Greetings
Tomáš
P.S.
Apologies for a delayed response.
Piotrsays
Kalisz: I just expressed my feeling
Please express your feeling in a appropriate forum (a Hallmark discussion group?).
RC is a scientific discussion group, so we don’t share our “feelings”, but falsifiable arguments.
TK: “there is still no global study clearly showing, e.g. on the basis of the same method of soil moisture evaluation as in the Chinese study
Your Chinese study uses DIRECT measurements of soil moisture “in China in 2002–2018” – ergo is IRRELAVANT to your “feelings” that “the same method” can be recreate GLOBAL precipitation patterns.C
How do you propose to MEASURE global soil moisture in “centuries / millennia” BEFORE we were started to obtain direct measurements.
Nigel has told you so – but you as ALWAYS – ignore the facts and arguments that conflict with your “feelings” that you must be very very special, to have thought of something that 1000s of scientists over decades have failed to.
With respect to Chinese study cited by Kevin McKinney, I expressed the hope that the satellite measurements of soil moisture might be perhaps available also for other regions than China, and thus serve as a basis for the desired global reconstruction of soil moisture during the last two decades.
Greetings
Tomáš
Piotrsays
Re Tomas Kalisz: I expressed the hope that the satellite measurements of soil moisture might be perhaps available also for other regions than China,
And what relevance it has to:
a) your opening “hope” that we can reconstruct global patterns of precipitation during the “centuries or millennia” BEFORE the satellites – and
b) to my direct question to that: How do you propose to MEASURE global precipitation during “centuries/millennia” before present ?
And we can add a third:
c) Why T.Kalisz brain always drifts off on a tangent the moment his original “beliefs” and “hopes” are questioned?
Hint: As zebra says about the deniers: “they never answer the question”.
a) There was recently a discussion between zebra and many others what is hope, faith, belief etc. Unfortunately, too high level for me.
I would say that hope may be a kind of an optimistic approach to human life.
My hope regarding precipitation reconstructions has multiple layers. The hope that
(i) the available satellite data might perhaps enable also soil humidity evaluation beyond China is, for example, a bit stronger than the hope that
(ii) there might be proxy records for past precipitation that may amend historical precipitation records and enable a reliable precipitation reconstruction for the industrial era, and this hope is still stronger than the hope that
(iii) an even longer global precipitation reconstruction, based mostly on proxy records and thus, perhaps, covering entire holocene, could be possible as well.
b) In absence of any hint from Real Climate audience with respect to existence or non-existence of a global past precipitation reconstruction., I tried to search myself.
In an article “Assimilating monthly precipitation data in a paleoclimate
data assimilation framework”, Clim. Past, 16, 1309–1323, 2020 https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-16-1309-2020,
the authors write in the paragraph bridging pages 1309-1310:
“To reconstruct local millennia-long hydroclimate variability, tree-ring series were used, for example, in southern–central England (Wilson et al., 2013) and in southern Scandinavia (Seftigen et al.,2017). Pauling et al. (2006) reconstructed a 500-year-long seasonal precipitation field over Europe back to the 16th century by using instrumental measurements, documentary data, and proxy records. A reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere hydroclimate variability from multi-proxy records and documentary data is available between the 9th and 20th century
(Ljungqvist et al., 2016). A similar reconstruction was also produced for southern South America for the last 500 years (Neukom et al., 2010). Centuries-long tree-ring drought atlases are available for North America (Cook et al., 2010b), Asia (Cook et al., 2010a), Europe (Cook et al., 2015), and eastern Australia and New Zealand (Palmer et al., 2015) to study long-term hydroclimate variability. Steiger et al. (2018) produced the first global hydroclimatic reconstructions at annual and seasonal resolutions by combining multi-proxy data with the Community Earth System Model Last Millennium Ensemble model simulations (Otto-Bliesner et al., 2016) over the last 2 millennia. A multi-century global reconstruction making use of observational precipitation datais still missing.”
The Steiger et al (2018) reference “A reconstruction of global hydroclimate and dynamical variables over the Common Era” is also an open access article,
It appears that the proxy data the authors used include tree rings, sediments, speleothem (stalactites and stalagmites from karst caves), glacial ice, and even coral reefs and marine sponges.
c) As a proper troll, I leave your question unanswered.
Greetings
Tomáš
Nigeljsays
Tomas Kalisz, regarding the sources you quote on paleo climate reconstricions of regional precipitation. This seems relevant, but why didnt you initially do a simple google search for paleloclimate studies like this? Why waste everyones time with endless conjecture about it all?
The studies do seem to show reconstructions are possible, so maybe I was a bit too sceptical, but I note the abstract mentions that such studies are not very accurate, and I note they only address precipitation, not changes in humidity etcetera that Piotr mentioned.
Could you please scan the studies and provide some data on the quantum of changes in past precipitation trends and the causes so we can see how past warming rates have affected precipitation, at least regionally? Since you seem to be arguing that land use change is very important to precipitation and more so than warming, and that modern global warming might not cause significant changes in precipitation (?).
Im still not convinced precipitation changes are equally or more important issue than the rate of warming, which affects so many different things.
1) As regards my searches, I have to admit that in my initial search, I have not found anything particularly relevant and therefore tried to ask the RC audience for a help. Then I tried harder and found better search terms that provided the clue.
2) Meanwhile, I found a NCAR website beautifully summarizing pros and cons of five paleoclimate proxies:
On one hand, it appears that all these proxies comprise a complex information about past climate, which is not easy to decode properly.
On the other hand, it appears, to my surprise, that the comprised information about (hydro)climate does not include temperature and/or precipitation only, but in some cases may be indeed suitable also for evaluation of the parameters mentioned by Piotr, like soil humidity / water availability for evaporation. According to expert comments provided on the respective webpage, just the drought atlases derived from tree rings might be perhaps indeed useful as a proxy for soil humidity.
3) I think that evaluation of possible causes for past changes of a regional or global climate is hardly possible without a comparison of the respective past climate, reconstructed from available observations and from available proxies for the observable climate data, with a model or a set of models of the same past climate. I am afraid that my amateur “scanning” of a few randomly selected publications cannot replace systematic professional work needed for accomplishing such a task properly.
Greetings
Tomáš
JCMsays
To Tomas,
Regarding precipitation analysis, it’s interesting to consider global precipitation sensitivity alongside the so-called climate sensitivity (the temperature sensitivity to radiative forcing). CMIP6 indicates a precipitation sensitivity (PS) of 2 – 2.5% per K.
Model Name PS(% per K) ECS
CESM2 ~2.3% per K 5.1°C Meehl et al. (2020)
GFDL-CM4 ~2.0% per K 3.9°C Held et al. (2019)
UKESM1-0-LL ~2.1% per K 5.4°C Sellar et al. (2019)
EC-Earth3 ~2.2% per K 4.3°C Döscher et al. (2021)
IPSL-CM6A-LR ~1.8% per K 4.6°C Boucher et al. (2020)
MIROC6 ~2.0% per K 2.6°C Tatebe et al. (2019)
MRI-ESM2-0 ~1.9% per K 3.1°C Yukimoto et al. (2019)
CNRM-CM6-1 ~2.1% per K 4.8°C Voldoire et al. (2019)
MPI-ESM1-2-HR ~2.4% per K 3.0°C Mauritsen et al. (2019)
HadGEM3-GC31-LL~2.5% per K 5.5°C Williams et al. (2020)
NorESM2-LM ~2.0% per K 2.5°C Seland et al. (2020)
CanESM5 ~2.1% per K 5.6°C Swart et al. (2019)
Observations:
Adler et al. (2017) analyzed precipitation trends using the Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) dataset, reporting an increase in global precipitation of about 1.1% per K: “Global Precipitation: Means, Variations, and Trends During the Satellite Era (1979–2014).” Surveys in Geophysics 38(4): 679-699.
Wentz et al. (2007) used the Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) to estimate global precipitation trends, reporting that the global precipitation rate increased by 1.3 ± 0.3% per K over the period 1987–2006: “How much more rain will global warming bring?” Science 317(5835): 233-235.
These findings suggest some discrepancies between observations and model means.
Modeled Land Connections to Global Precipitation:
When comparing to Lague’s idealized CESM experiment, a suppressed evapotranspiration (ET) of -1.3 mm/day is associated with a global precipitation change of -0.17 mm/day.
This equates to a decline of -0.13 mm/day (approximately -50 mm/year) in global precipitation for each 1 mm/day of ET suppression, resulting in about a 6% reduction from a baseline of 2.5 mm/day (approximately 900 mm/year). Alternatively, this corresponds to a decline of -0.14 mm/year in global precipitation per 1 mm/year ET suppression.
Reanalysis:
For the period from 1980 to 2014, reanalysis shows a decreasing ET slope of -0.20 mm/year2, while the CMIP6 mean indicates an increase of +0.37 mm/yr2. Multi-source ensemble products such as REA, DOLCE V3.0, and CAMELE report a decline of -0.28 mm/yr2 during the same period. In contrast, land surface models (LSMs) show an increase of +0.32 mm/yr2.
Excluding outliers, reanalysis products yield a historical slope of -0.2 mm/yr2 in recent decades, which is a significant departure from model expectations of approximately +0.3 mm/yr2.
Quantification:
Reanalysis suggests a decadal change of -2 mm/year in ET, translating to a 10-year suppression of -0.3 mm in global precipitation. Over 50 years, this accumulates to an annual precipitation suppression of -1.5 mm, or about 0.17% of a baseline of 900 mm.
The 50-year period was chosen as it represents approximately the time for a 1K temperature change in the recent historical record at a rate of 0.2K/decade.
Relative to the CMIP model’s decadal change in ET (+3 mm/year), this results in a difference of -5 mm/year, leading to a 50-year suppression of precipitation of -3.5 mm (0.4% of a baseline of 900 mm/year).
Comparing the CMIP6 model precipitation sensitivity of around 2% per K with SSM/I observational data of around 1.3 ± 0.3% per K yields a model overestimation of precipitation change of about 0.4% to 0.7% per K.
This is in the ballpark of the discrepancy between reanalysis and CMIP class models for the change in terrestrial ET.
From where else could the “missing” precipitation sensitivity originate when a 2-3% change per K is consistent with theory (all else being equal).
Summary:
Allow for a theoretical precipitation sensitivity of 2-3% per K as an upper bound, as depicted in models, and subtract the underappreciated effect of direct ET suppression to align more closely with GPCP or SSM/I datasets. This demonstrates how biophysical effects can be deduced from climate observables.
Additionally, the discrepancy suggests a potential misattribution of global mean temperature change of about 0.04K – 0.1K per decade since the 1980s related to ET, as discussed previously on another thread. This appears consistent with a global precipitation sensitivity that’s lower than theoretical expectation i.e. impeded moisture cycling -> higher temps.
The IPCC AR6 WGI acknowledges that precipitation sensitivity could be as low as 1% per K in its statement: “For every degree of global warming, the global mean precipitation is projected to increase by about 1-3%.” This is despite CMIP class models never reaching such low values.
cheers
PS
as an additional note, and in line with the comment policy for this site, I encourage others to avoid explicitly or implicitly impugning the motives of others, or to personalize matters in discussion.
We each bring unique personal values, assumptions, perspective, and cultural norms to the discussion. I understand that some “believe” humanity is too insignificant to impact global climate variables in this way. Nevertheless, it is evident how such impacts can be reflected in climate observables and trends at any scale.
I understand that these dynamics may be difficult to grasp within the current forcing-feedback paradigm, and the concept of biophysical stabilization may seem daunting. However, the challenges of quantifying historical effects and the perceived inconvenience of stabilization must not result in denial.
Piotrsays
JCM I understand that some “believe” humanity is too insignificant to impact global climate variables in this way.
Projections, my dear JCM, projections. It has been YOU, who DECLARED the effect of humans on evaporation to be “profound forcing to climates“, decried the “mind-boggling under-recognition of the extent of human impact” and blamed the degradation of environment
on climate science’s “artificial overemphasis” on a “trace gas”.
And yet despite such strong claims, you didn’t provide …. ANY NUMBERS to support them. In the absence of such numbers – the only alternative is that you have based your pronouncements on your … “beliefs” . Was it: humanity is TOO significant NOT TO DRIVE global climate in this “mindboggling” and “profound way.” ?
In contrast to your belief-based pronouncements, I came to this discussion open-minded, without any preconceived, belief-based, opinions – ready to be led by facts. To this end, I looked up some data for an elementary scale analysis. I found: that the global evaporation (Trenberth et al 2007): was 486,000 km3/yr .
Then I estimated the effect of deforestation:
Assuming 40.5 mln km2 of forests in 2021 vs 42.4 mln km2 in 1990, gives us the deforestation rate of 0.06 mln km2/yr . Even if we assumed that ALL of the 73,000 km3/yr evaporation from land comes only from the forests. this would give max. 100 km3/yr reduction in evaporation from deforestation. Which means that – deforestation reduces global evaporation by … -0.02 %/yr, less if we allow for non-forested land to have some evaporation.
A truly “ profound” and “mindboggling” result, eh?
But wait maybe reforestation could have somehow an outsized effect on AGW? I have checked this one too, ironically, using Lague et al. 2023, the only paper relevant to this issue that JCM brought up. Based on that – EVEN IF we converted ENTIRE CROPLANDS on Earth to a swampy forests – the effect on global GMST would a cooling by … a fraction of a fraction of 1K.
Of course we need the croplands to provide food for the 8 billion of people, so we can’t convert 100% of the croplands to swampy forests – say we have a very ambitious plan of shrinking the global agricultural land by 1/5 and reforesting it – the resulting cooling would have been: “a fraction of a fraction of 0.2K“.
MIND-BOGGLING, I am telling ya, MIND-BOGGLING!
The 100 km3/yr reduction in evaporation from deforestation (or let us assume a half thereof, provided that forest is replaced with cropland which also enables evaporation, only at a smaller rate) may look small, indeed. Over 30 years since 1990, it is, however, already 3000 km3 (or a half thereof).
I agree that 1500 km3 less evaporation is still a fraction of one per cent (ca 0.3%) of the base value which is about 500 000 km3. I agree that it may be too little to make a significant DIRECT contribution to the warming observed during these three decades.
These changes, however, run much longer than the last 30 years, and the cumulative value of evaporation decrease caused by deforestation and further human interferences with land hydrology may be thus in the order of 10000 km3. You will likely object that even if the cumulative value of this change during the entire anthropocene was 50000 km3, it is still less than 10% change (assuming pre-anthropocene annual global water cycle intensity slightly above 50000 km3).
I think that JCM can consider as mind boggling the circumstance that such a change in evaporation, and its possible consequences on global hydrology (please note that I assume a negligible DIRECT effect on global mean surface temperature) may be still considered as unimportant.
Can present climate science exclude with certainty that we have not prepared, during the millenia-long continental deforestation and further changes in terrestrial hydrology, the stage for present anthropogenic global warming (which seems to be indeed DIRECTLY caused by the sharp increase in atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases during industrial era)? Are there studies convincingly excluding that the deforestation and further human interferences with terrestrial hydrology have not significantly increased climate sensitivity towards changes in atmospheric GHG concentration?
I do not think so, because it appears that the single study dealing with the relationship between land hydrology on one hand and global climate on the other hand seems to be still Lague 2023, which deals solely with the DIRECT effect of a change in land hydrology on global mean surface temperature, and is absolutely silent about possible effects on climate sensitivity.
You may, of course, object that it may be, from a practical point of view, irrelevant if we prepared the stage for the GHG-caused AGW by the suspected changes in terrestrial hydrology or not, because we need the cropland anyway and cannot change it back into forest. If you think so, I admit that you may be right, I do not know. I am, however, afraid that you might be also wrong. I cannot bring a clear reason why. I just think that arbitrarily assuming that certain aspect of an unexplored phenomenon is unimportant and therefore does not deserve any attention may be misleading and potentially lead the discipline into a dead end.
Greetings
Tomáš
JCMsays
Hallo,
As a general remark to the thread: It’s important to be aware of active misunderstanding and to avoid being misled.
I don’t know what is the intent in these responses, but it disregards the entire dialogue and teachings over quite some time now. Be aware of misleading examples.
For the sake of simplicity and using the assumed quantities provided, while also being careful to account for the fractions of fractions to appease minimizers:
73,000 km3 annual terrestrial ET is providing 4K cooling globally accounting for one fraction of the fraction of Piotr’s fractions. This cooling is set at 1/2 of the maximum effect from CESM for the sake of example.
A slope 100km3/yr2 as proposed by Piotr is accumulating 3,000 km3 during a 30 year period, or 4% of a baseline 73,000.
4% of 4K cooling is 0.2K globally after 30 years.
Taking another fraction of a fraction for the sake of being doubly conservative (half max effect divided by 2 again) is 0.1K effect over 30 years in such a scenario. 0.03K per decade.
This is not so far off from the lower end 0.04K per decade in my contributions, being super careful to maximize the minimization of the issue, and using Piotr’s misinformed opinion of the rate of ecological destruction 0.6 million square km per decade.
Misleading in a way to dilute the effect in global latent flux is an irrelevant distraction; a consequence of active misunderstanding.
I will continue to provide occasional clarifications in response to Piotr’s mission to attack, censor, mislead, and create division.
Many numerical examples have been provided and I have no shame in the belief that humanity profoundly impacts directly terrestrial biosystems and hydroclimates.
My chosen profession is conservation stewardship based on this belief, supported by experience. Under my own cultural norms and values, I perceive the active distortion of arguments concerning the scope of human impact on the Earth System to be nothing short of harmful and damaging.
Johan Rockstrom, from a conventional carbon centric perspective, articulates remarkably well how my values align with those expressed on platforms like RealClimate. He offers advanced wisdom in a way that might be palatable for trace gas enthusiasts.
“””Six of the nine planetary boundaries that regulate the stability of the whole system are in the red, and the reddest of them all, I’m afraid to say, is biodiversity loss. So that is the number one concern we have today, and it’s the one that we’ve put on the back burner because all our focus is on climate. Let me just close by saying that we can today say without any hesitation from climate science that we will fail to deliver on the Paris Agreement and the Green Deal’s efforts regarding 1.5°C unless we both phase out fossil fuels and protect nature”””
“””What is on real red alert? The real fundamental Red Alert is that we are in the sixth mass extinction of species … Just as Prince Husin pointed out, this is making us lose resilience; we’re losing the very fundamental stability of the life support systems on Earth. That is the fundamental threat because we know that biodiversity not only gives us all these direct services, it also regulates the stability of everything we depend on—from the marine systems, the ice sheets, the forest systems, to every function that we study in terms of risks of approaching tipping points.”””
“””I know that this might feel, for those of you who are kind of deep in the nature camp, as a bit uncomfortable, but I’m with you here. The urgency cannot allow us to wait for a new worldview or new deep philosophies. We have to act so fast. And what is the area where we’ve come furthest? Well, it is in the climate policy space. So, we have to use, I think, climate as the trampoline for action on nature, and we have to simply accept that that has become the reality in the conventional path of policymaking.”””
And so here we are – myself, a rural land stewardship practitioner, engaging with climate issues as a trampoline to promote my values. In doing so, I have reduced the complexity and merits of my field specifically to the climate observables of interest to participants here; namely, globally averaged T.
Nevertheless, I have noticed a remarkably low level in the quality of rebuttals among hostile commenters, owing in part to bad teaching, different values and cultural norms, memory lapses, and who knows what else. It must really be just be a manifestation of entrenched attitudes.
back to basix again:
As a general rule – continents have moisture limited ET and oceans are energy limited. Suppressing latent flux in space and duration amount to –> Global T up –> ocean evap increase according to the equilibrium partitioning curve.
As T increases with continental deterioration, and more latent flux is converted to sensible heat, ocean evaporation increases. Greater oceanic latent flux can only be sustained through higher Ts and increased absorption of the solar beam.
Taking a perturbed continental regime as a proportion of global LE, as done in a way to be misleading, omits the climate response to continental deterioration. It overlooks the entire premise. Ocean is always riding along the equilibrium partitioning, governed through the psychrometric/ vapor pressure saturation relations to T.
In short, terrestrial ET down (−−) results in ocean evaporation up (+), owing to the global temperature response to ecosystem destruction. Failure to understand this could result in misunderstanding how remarkable the disparity in theoretical precipitation sensitivity is compared to observational constraints. Do you see?
I reported previously that UNCCD and world food programme provided the analogy of 4 football fields equivalent area land destruction per second ongoing. This is the erosion of functional ecologies at 10 million km2 per decade. This includes, of course, erosion of existing arable lands which is curable – in line with WFP messaging.
Contrast this with the above noted example using the minimizer approach of 0.6 million km2 per decade ecological deterioration with a 0.03K per decade global temperature response.
Being extra conservative again, and dismissing WFP messaging, halve land system destruction again again to 5 million km2 per decade, and compare against 0.6 million km2 per decade at 0.03K climate response. That is a factor of 8 times still, using even more fractions of fractions. Zero point 2 K per decade compared to 0.03K per decade. Still too high I think. Divide by 2 again.
I count about 4 halvings of a maximum effect in CESM to align with observation constraints. This is a fair number of fractions of fractions. do you agree?
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) stated that human activities have significantly altered 75% of terrestrial environment.
For clarity, the values of conservation stewardship have little to do with irrigation or afforestation of arable lands. I encourage participants to familiarize themselves with the subject rather than engaging in bizarre speculation. It is a movement based in the desire to foster sustainable practices in rural livelihoods.
As a subtle form of censorship over many many threads, I’ve noticed a relentless stream of straw man arguments, selective quoting, and misrepresentation ongoing.
Censorship, in the context of public discourse, can sometimes manifest not just as direct suppression of ideas, but through distortion and misrepresentation of what someone has said. This form of censorship happens when individuals or groups mischaracterize or twist the arguments of others, making them seem less credible or more extreme than they actually are. These tactics and designed to undermine open dialogue and critical debate.
In considering the recent call for pluralism in climate modeling and a renewed consideration of traditional knowledge, the censorship attempts are disturbing to say the least. The evident bias – and what appears to be an almost hostile stance against rural stewardship perspective – is puzzling, especially considering environmental/climate deterioration disproportionately affects rural communities.
If you find yourself reduced to argument by assertion, misrepresentation, using selective memory, and fostering division, I encourage you to view this as an opportunity to return to a rational and constructive dialogue and stop the stubborn destructive performance.
If you feel that reconciliation is impossible at this stage due to entrenched differences, or that it’s too onerous to recognize aspects of the climate system outside GHG emission politics, consider redirecting your time and energy to something more productive.
I remain open to the possibility of moving forward and acknowledging we are each allies in our shared values of Earth System stabilization.
Piotrsays
JCM: It’s important to be aware of active misunderstanding and to avoid being misled. […] Be aware of misleading examples
Let’s see who of us two it applies better:
=== Misleading example 1: ====
JCM: “ 73,000 km3 annual terrestrial ET is providing 4K cooling globally accounting for one fraction of the fraction of Piotr’s fractions. This cooling is set at 1/2 of the maximum effect [8K differences between all continents being swamps instead of the desert -P] for the sake of example. ”
for typical precipitation over (non-desert) land, of say, 1000 mm/yr – we get:
– forest evaporation of ~ 800 mm/yr,
– pasture evaporation of ~ 600 mm,
– croplands somewhere in between, likely closer to the forests.
– for swampland – let’s use forest evaporation in places where there is no shortage of water – 1500 mm/yr,
– for desert land, as in Lague ~ 0 mm/yr.
If if 1500mm => 8K, then
– replacement of forest with pastureland = 200 mm/yr => Delta T= 8K*(200/1500) ~ 1K,
– replacement of forest with croplands Delta T <0.5K,
Both numbers (1K and <0.5K) are much lower than the supposedly "conservative" 4K of JCM.
“ Be aware of the misleading Greeks bearing “conservative” numbers ”, eh?
Example 2: JCM “ A slope 100km3/yr2 as proposed by Piotr
the “100km3/yr” was the (unrealistically) high UPPER range of the slope, hence introduced with the words “Even if”:
P: “EVEN IF we assumed that ALL of the 73,000 km3/yr evaporation from land comes only from the forests. this would give max. 100 km3/yr reduction in evaporation from deforestation”.
A best estimate number would be < "50km3/yr" – given that forests are about 1/3 of the non-glaciated land, and that both croplands and pasturelands have only somewhat smaller evaporation /m2 (in a given climate)
Now – let’s now combine the consequences of those two corrections.
JCM using what he claim “conservative” numbers, got a "conservative" warming rate from deforestation over 30 years of 0.06K/decade, which he then generously divided by half to be “doubly conservative”: to “0.03K/decade”,
I, using my actual numbers from pp. 1 and 2, got … a range of 2% to 4 % of the effect of GHGs.
And it is these <2%-4% that our JCM calls “ profound forcing to climates” and found it “mindboggling” the climate modellers instead will= “artificially overemphasize [the role of] a trace gas”, CO2, that has between 96-98% of the combined warming from these two.
And after this has the gall to accuse me of:
JCM: Misleading in a way to dilute the effect in global latent flux is an irrelevant distraction; a consequence of active misunderstanding.”
Says the guy who … just called GHGs – responsible for 96-98% of the combined warming ,mindbogglingly” “artificially overemphasized” in comparison with the 22-45 SMALLER effect of deforestation.
Lecturing others on the imaginary straw in their eyes, and not seeing the beam in your own, Mr. JCM?
JCMsays
Piotr,
The idealized CESM experiment provides strict relations: The difference in the moisture unlimited case and restricted case is a 1.3mm/day ET. This difference is associated with a global temperature change 8K. These are physically consistent magnitudes.
How is it possible you still don’t get it…
The model relation is 0.16 mm/day per K, or 60 mm/yr per K, or 9000 km3 annual ET per K. That’s it.
This represents the continuum of ET with temperature for an idealized surface. The spread is 1.3 mm/day, or 475 mm/yr across extreme cases in CESM using the simple land interface model SLIM. Increasing moisture availability decreases global temperature along with evaporative demand.
Your interpretation argues that “””Now: swampland- desertland (Delta ET = 1500 mm/yr- 0mm/yr) Lague gives Delta T= 8K”””.
That is a total fabrication and it’s plainly unphysical.
That does not respect at all the findings in the experiment. The idealized experiment shows the magnitude Delta ET = 475 mm/yr related to Delta T = 8K. This is taken from Figure 4 panel A which depicts the difference in extremes as 1.3 mm/day in CESM.
You’ve extended the ET range to 4.1 mm/day—three times greater than what the SLIM experiment shows. A ΔET of 1500 mm/yr is not physically consistent with Δ8K.
It’s unreasonable to fix Δ8K while tripling the ET range, just as it would be arbitrary to fix ΔET and triple the temperature range. It seems to me that it would never occur to you to make the opposite error.
Consider that CESM enforces energy budget closure so your musings disregard physical continuity. Your arbitrary amendment is leaving gaping energy balance issues and distorts the model results substantially. For what purpose?
Recognize the absolute magnitude in the idealized SLIM experimental case labelled “swamp” is not comparable to lookup values of real Earth in literature; it should be handled using the relation within the SLIM-CESM framework at 0.16 mm/day per K (for meaningful insights). Alternatively 60 mm/yr per K, or 9000 km3 annual ET per K.
Obviously the real Earth is not an idealized SLIM surface using a bucket and resistance parameter, and comparing ET lookups from literature against SLIM ΔT is not reasonable.
Instead, honor (avoid distorting) the relation 60 mm/yr per K, or 9000 km3 annual ET per K. This reflects the atmospheric response which is designed to be realistic in CESM.
Extrapolating to a ΔET of 1500 mm/yr corresponds to a ΔT of 25K from the idealized experiment. Needless to say, this seems excessive, and I’m not sure if it’s a reasonable extension. It’s so far out of SLIM model range and 1500mm/yr seems almost uniformly tropical in way to be misleading.
However, there is precedent in Shukla and Mintz 1982 in “Influence of Land-Surface Evapotranspiration on The Earth’s Climate” where it is speculated: “””Figure 2 shows the calculated landsurface temperature. North of about 20°S, the land-surface temperature is about 15° to 25°C warmer in the dry-soil case. There are two reasons for this: (i) there is no evaporative cooling of the land surface (which, in the wet-soil case, amounts to 125 W/m2 when averaged between 20°S and 60°N) and (ii) there is a large increase in the heating of the ground by solar radiation (an increase from 172 to 258 W/m2 when averaged between 20°S and 60°N).”””
While Shukla and Mintz did not have access to a modern GCM, they do find Δ15-25C case for land surfaces between wet and dry case. What’s important to emphasize in Lague (2023) is that, in addition to cloud feedbacks, the general circulation with modern continental configuration results in an increase in globally averaged water vapor by connecting to ocean. This was not considered by Shukla and Mintz. Certainly, this water vapor feedback is the main advancement in the 2023 article entitled “Reduced terrestrial evaporation increases atmospheric water vapor by generating cloud feedbacks”.
In considering previously discussed examples, such that reanalysis indicates about -0.2 mm/yr2 slope in ET, while CMIP shows +0.3mm/yr2, the difference is 0.5 mm/yr2. Recognizing this, there is a discrepancy in decadal change of 5mm/yr which translates to 0.1K per decade in a straightforward way based on SLIM-CESM framework.
This suggests that despite adjustments for albedo, irrigation, and other factors, CMIP ensemble could be mishandling ET in such a way that it’s influencing about 0.1K per decade in its calibrations. That means, in the sums of radiative forcings and feedbacks, 0.1K per decade is being reflected in model output for the wrong reason (or missing altogether).
Please avoid explaining things you clearly refuse to understand.
Indeed, the differences shown in Figure 4a of Lague 2023 seem to be consistent with differences shown in Figure 3a. After all, it appears obvious that the average change in latent heat flux over the entire land area (ocean area, globe area) cannot be as high as the change in warmest regions, because significantly smaller contributions from colder regions compensate it. I must, however, admit that I have not noted it until you made me aware.
I think that it is not excluded that Piotr might have overlooked it as well.
Thank you and greetings
Tomáš
Piotrsays
JCM: “ The idealized CESM experiment provides strict relations: The difference in the moisture unlimited case and restricted case is a 1.3mm/day ET.
How is it possible you still don’t get it…
You should have led with that – it would save you your pointless calculations based on the INAPPLICABLE numbers, and the reader wasting their time reading it.
In case if you “don’t get it” why it is inapplicable: the ENTIRE RANGE of evapotranspiration (ET) – between entire land being a swamp (unlimited supply of water for ET) and being an extreme desert (zero ET) was a 1.3 mm/day.
For a comparison, if we divide 74 000 km3/yr of ACTUAL land ET by the area of the (non-glaciated) land of 115mln km2 – we get the average ET of 2.8 mm/day.
So, the AVERAGE land ET on Earth – is more than 2 times LARGER than the MAXIMUM ET in your ESCM (extreme swamp with NO water limitation).
Therefore, either your CESM FAILED SPECTACULARLY in reproducing the Earth’s reality, so its “8K” is meaningless, or it tried to quantify the sensitivity of T to changes in ET in the DRY END of the Earth conditions. But given that the climate system so full of nonlinearities and confounding interactions – you simple CAN’T EXTRAPOLATE LINEARLY the numbers obtained for the LOW -ET end of Earth’s spectrum, into the numbers used to QUANTIFY the process at the HIGH- ET end of the Earth (replacement of forests with (often irrigated) croplands.
And you need RELIABLE numbers to defend your claims about the “ mindboggling, profound forcing to climate” from deforestation, the effect so powerful that it makes the role of human emission of GHGs in AGW – “ artificially overemphasized” in comparison. You can PROVE the “profoundness” and “overemphasis” only by comparing a reliable number of your effect against the well-know and well-quantified effect of GHGs.
Your extrapolation outside of the applicability range produces numbers that are anything but reliable, and tell me that you are a scientific dilletante and/or victim of your own confirmation bias. And an arrogant one – not allowing to yourself even the possibility of being wrong – if you did, you wouldn’t commit yourself to the language toward others that is justified ONLY if one is 100% right:
-“How is it possible you still don’t get it…”
-“That is a total fabrication and it’s plainly unphysical”
-“Your arbitrary amendment is leaving gaping issues”
– “avoid distorting”
– “Please avoid explaining things you clearly refuse to understand”
By their fruits you shall know them. JCM – everybody..
JCMsays
Piotr,
I ask that you stop cherry-picking quotes, dissecting them, and piecing together fragments in a way that distorts their meaning. It’s a dishonest and disgraceful tactic.
From my perspective, especially regarding soil conservation, my original statement was:
‘In my view, there is a mind-boggling under-recognition of the extent of human impact on the Earth system.’
what about this hurts you?
Any land steward knows that soils are degrading everywhere. There’s not a single place untouched by this decline, and the changes in my lifetime have been profound.
I’ve encountered this across continents in my work. Step on any parcel of land, can you not sense it?
I’m convinced that people don’t fully grasp this. How could they? The wilderness is far too complex for humans to completely understand. We only get small glimpses during a lifetime.
I previously provided one example from Merlin Sheldrake in just one tiny aspect of the system from his interest in fungal networks. This was to inspire curiosity for the unknown. https://youtu.be/ZRFmCXBv5R4?si=nrlCOBPtuw0Xu3oq
The scale of what has been lost is beyond our ability to imagine. How can someone be so cynical as to remain unmoved?
Look at his excitement, awe, and bewilderment. Do you not have such sensations? I recommend you to witness it.
At that time I encouraged to get involved in Sheldrake’s project to map and document the residual biosystems which remain. Most prefer instead to sit on their ass, I know this.
Beneath the surface – where most of life, where biodiversity and wildness is most rich – it’s slipping away. For every living thing above, tenfold thrives below, and for each gram of soil organic matter, ten times its mass in moisture is held. Simple and old wisdom; a reductionist view.
As for the SLIM-CESM, it’s an idealized experiment designed to isolate energetic constraints. Think of it as a flat plane, nothing like a swamp. I know this analogy can be confusing. In reality, a swamp is a treed wetland by definition with complex structures extending above and below the surface. This is distinct from bogs, marshes, and fens. The SLIM, however, has no structure at all, nor is it meant to represent biophysical reality.
It’s an idealized a way to test energetic constraints. The linear relationship explicitly stated by the authors, as Tomas referenced in Figure 3, is -3.65 W/m²/K. Interpret that as you will. You yourself previously used the experiment with confidence to assert some effect which should be a fraction of a fraction of something in a thousand years. I don’t understand how you arrived at that, but now you dismiss your own argument entirely – the same way you trashed your original arguments long ago when they too failed.
If you can’t appreciate the value of idealized experiments and instead prefer an all-or-nothing mindset, that’s your choice. But in my experience, denialist thinking often dismisses what it doesn’t understand or finds inconvenient, while being loud critics from the sidelines. I’ve seen this before, and you are a primo example. Successful people don’t resort to dishonest tactics -flailing and flip-flopping on various points. – only those who are insecure or losing do that.
take your last jab and then we can be done with this for now.
cheers
JCMsays
Hi Tomas,
contributors latched on to a proportional analysis from the onset which distorted proper interpretation;
I tried to emphasize this early on, but the insistence on a skewed perspective impeded productive dialogue. It was already locked in.
Entertaining the proportional analysis as a charitable interpretation didn’t help.
At any rate, each hectare stabilized has the same benefit regardless of its initial condition. I think this is a positive message.
I appreciate your genuine input.
cheers
JCMsays
that is, each unit ET is the same: 1 mm /m2, 1kg, ~2.5 megajoules/kg transformed from sensible heat.
Piotrsays
JCM “ I ask that you stop cherry-picking quotes, dissecting them, and piecing together
I pick only the quotes to which I am referring. Anyone yearning for pages after pages of meandering, self-involved, poorly formulated, banal generalizations and unproven claims – can read your original posts..
JCM: “ in a way that distorts their meaning.”
Put your money where your mouth is – PROVE how by quoting your words I have changed completely their meaning.
JCM: “ “:my original statement was: IIn my view, there is a mind-boggling under-recognition of the extent of human impact on the Earth system.’ What about this hurts you?”
Hurts … me??? Why YOUR spouting a banal statement, in the supposed “response” to my SPECIFIC and FALSIFIABLE arguments about your attacking the credibility of climate scientists [ Piotr 24 Jul referring to JCM Jun 5 – see below] is supposed to hurt me?
But your attempt to infantilize the opponent (by portraying my falsifiable analysis of your words as … childish lashing out – out of some imagined “hurt”) – noted. True JCM!
JCM, Jun 5 using World Environment Day as an opportunity to discredit the climate science
“ Join me in celebrating world environment day today June 5th 2024!”
and tries to pit the victims of the results of the AGW against the research into the drivers of AGW – by portraying the climate models as if they were … diverting resources from the dealing with deforestation/desertification:
: “ It’s hard to imagine denying or actively minimizing the consequences to realclimates due to an artificial fixation and overemphasis on the outputs of trace gas […] forced model estimates” at the expense of underemphasis of JCM hobby-horse evaporation.
PS. THE ENTIRETY of the JCM’s (uncharacteristically short!) Jun 5 post, and my Jun 6 response to it: here
Piotrsays
JCM 24 Oct “ Hi Tomas, contributors latched on to a proportional analysis from the onset which distorted proper interpretation”
Says the very same JCM, who have just employed … proportional assumptions of 8K global difference from Lague et al,. And who justified his coefficients of proportionalities with … assurances that he is “being doubly conservative“.
And then he EXTRAPOLOATED this proportional analysis …. OUTSIDE of the range tested in his source:
– Lague et al 8K was obtained for the ET range of 0-1.3 mm/d,
– JCM applied Lague’s results to real world in which the AVERAGE land ET is 2.8 mm/d
and max. values – much higher than that.
But this, of course, has NOT “ distorted the proper (read: JCM’s) interpretation whatsoever … Mr. JCM – everybody! ;-)
1) I admit that JCM’s objection “contributors latched on to a proportional analysis from the onset which distorted proper interpretation” may pertain to me as well.
I think, however, that the previous discussion showed at least that the direct effect of any change in water availability for evaporation from land surface strongly depends on boundaries set in the used model.
In this respect, I would like to ask if we could unite (at least) in the opinion that Lague 2023 might deserve a reproduction of their modelling experiments using another, ideally a more advanced model than CESM, to see how this direct effect will look like in it?
I suggested that a similar attention might deserve the yet untouched question if indirect effect of anthropogenic changes in terrestrial hydrology on Earth climate through possible change in climate sensitivity towards changing GHG concentration may or may not play a role in Earth climate regulation.
Do you still think that Lague 2023 basically clarified that from a practical point of view of the present climate change, water availability for evaporation from land and anthropogenic inerfetrences therewith do not play any significant role and that further studies in this direction, like comparing Lague 2023 with other models or expanding the scope thereof to climate sensitivity would be merely time and resource wasting?
Panel c demonstrates how, in the swamp scenario, the spatially averaged equilibrium terrestrial latent flux stabilizes around 45 W/m2, down from the initial boundary condition around 50 W/m2, as temperature continues to decrease through equilibration. Conversely, ET is suppressed in desertmode as intended by the authors, in spite of the saturation vapor pressure increasing even more throughout the equilibration period.
After 20 years, the disparity across these extreme scenarios stabilizes somewhat less than the initial condition, as noted in the vertical axis of panel c. I agree with Tomas plugging the SLIM into frameworks besides CESM would also be interesting.
SLIM-CESM “swamp” equilibrium 45 W/m2 land ET exceeds the real-world value which is about 38 W/m2, as seen in various sources including CMIP Earth System Models (± 5). The simulations encompass realistic values without need for extrapolation. However, as previously discussed, I concede the SLIM framework could be mishandling the extreme case as it does not resemble a treed wetland, while recognizing evaporative demand and available energy is increasingly limited with decreasing temperature.
Additionally, 38 (± 5) W/m2 estimated for reality translates to about 1.3 mm/day terrestrial ET on Earth today (± 0.17). This uncertainty (± 0.17mm/day) suggests a minimum resolution of ± 1K in modeling global average temperature (absolute T), an inference from the simulated SLIM-CESM relationship (-0.16mm day-1K-1). This checks out and I don’t think it’s particularly controversial.
I encourage contributors to reflect on which aspects of their values might be motivating a cognitive bias, and to reconsider the factors that are leading to active and ongoing confusion, misleading fabrication, and distortion of a SLIM-CESM based publication (i.e. climate science).
The most interesting bit is the different climates resulting from circulation changes. SLIM-CESM produces remarkable patterns as depicted in Figure 12 panel b including contraction of the tropical rainy zone and increase of the Indian monsoon, solely from ET meddling. This is very cool and should not be warped from obsessive ideological impairment. It’s essential to recognize the risk of cognitive biases that could be obstructing clear comprehension of straightforward results.
Piotrsays
Tomas Kalisz, “ the cumulative value of evaporation decrease caused by deforestation and further human interferences with land hydrology may be thus in the order of 10000 km3
That “1500km3 reduction of evaporation” was ALREADY a CUMULATIVE value over 30 years. And what exactly “other human interferences are supposed to increase the evaporation by …. 8500 km3 per year? The main “other interference” ~ 1000 km3/yr,. is the water used for global IRRIGATION. But it increases evaporation – thus COUNTERS that 1500 km3 CUMULATIVE effect of deforestation over last 30 years, reducing the net effect to 500 km3.
500 km3, NOT “of order of 10000 km3“, Mr. Kalisz
TK: “I think that JCM can consider as mind boggling the circumstance that such a change in evaporation”
Then your JCM’s mind – boggles easily.
TK: You will likely object that even if the cumulative value of this change during the entire anthropocene was 50000 km3
Since you are pulling numbers out your hat- i could. But don’t need to – we are discussing what can be done FEASIBLY in the next few decades – so no sane person would think we can reverse the entire anthropocene during that time.
In fact in the post to which you are “replying” I have tested a massive but at least theoretically possible action – reforestation 20% of agricultural land, assuming optimistically that we can increases productivity enough to compensate for the reduced acreage, the increasing population, and the impacts of the climate change. If we can’t, the effect would be even smaller.
Now based on the numbers from JCM own source, Lague et al. 2023, even such a MASSIVE reforestation of 1/5 of all agricultural land would cool the Earth by a mere fraction of a fraction of 0.2K.
Truly a mindboggling and “profound forcing to climates” compared to that “artificially overemphasized trace gas“, CO2. and its GHG companions..
I would like to explain the value 10000km3, as mentioned in my paragraph reading
“These changes, however, run much longer than the last 30 years, and the cumulative value of evaporation decrease caused by deforestation and further human interferences with land hydrology may be thus in the order of 10000 km3. You will likely object that even if the cumulative value of this change during the entire anthropocene was 50000 km3, it is still less than 10% change (assuming pre-anthropocene annual global water cycle intensity slightly above 50000 km3).”
I meant a value resulting from 100 km3/year decrease running continuously much longer than 30 years. Specifically, 10000 km3 would have resulted from continuous decrease by 100 km3/year for 100 years., 20000 km3 for 200 years, 30000 km3 for 300 years, etc.
Greetings
Tomáš
Piotrsays
Tomas Kalisz “ I would like to explain the value 10000km3- 10000 km3 would have resulted from continuous decrease by 100 km3/year for 100 years., 20000 km3 for 200 years, 30000 km3 for 300 years, etc.”
First, as I explained to JCM – 100 km3/yr was calculated as an extreme upper boundary (if all land evaporation was ONLY from the forest) . If you want to use a more realistic number use “< 50 km3/year”). Meaning that you have to divide your volumes by more than half.
But even then – it is a completely pointless exercise:
– scientifically questionable – as you are presuming the UNCHANGED rates of deforestation, UNCHANGED precipitation patterns supplying water for evaporation,
and UNCHANGED relationship between it and climate – OVER CENTURIES and very different climates.
– pointless – provides no actionable advice as I have shown to JCM –warming effect of deforestation over last 3 decades was between <2% – 4% of the effect of GHGs.
So much for his claims of deforestation being a “ profound forcing to climates ” and his dismissing the GHGs by lecturing climate scientists about their “ mindboggling” “artificial overemphasis” on a “trace gas”.
FURTHERMORE, this small in comparisons with GHGs warming from decreased evaporation has been COUNTERED – first by the irrigation of croplands –increasing their evaporation and further countered by the cooling effect of increased albedo (we replace forests albedo of 5-15%, with cropland albedo of 15-25%).
As a result the depending on the location and the presence or not of irrigation ,
the warming by deforestation become SMALLER than the already meagre “2% – 4% of the effect of GHGs per decade, or in fact converted into net COOLING. (if the irrigation + albedo overpower the evaporation decrease)
Thus stopping deforestation is good for MANY other reasons, but NOT as a replacement of GHG mitigation promoted by the “ anything but the GHGs” deniers.
First of all, I would like to thank you for your feedback and say that you may be right in many aspects.
I am aware that past deforestation might have been slower than the present one, that albedo changes may partially compensate the effect of a lower latent heat flux, irrigation may increase the latent heat flux, etc.
Although I noted in recent post by JCM (23 Oct 2024 at 3:17 PM, https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825829 )
that the effect of a change in terrestrial latent heat flux on global mean surface temperature derived from the model used in Lague 2023 may be in fact higher than I supposed, I think that the entire anthropogenic change in water availability for evaporation may not be as high as 10% of a hypothetical “pre-anthropocene” value. You possibly noted that I proposed these 10% as an upper limit for the cumulative anthropogenic change in terrestrial latent heat flux due to change in water availability, and I can imagine that the cumulative value of the direct effect of these changes on global mean surface temperature was small.
What makes me even more curious than the true value of this direct effect is the question whether or not all past anthropogenic changes in water availability for terrestrial evaporation might have had an effect on climate sensitivity towards other forcings, including rising concentration of greenhouse gases (GHG) in Earth atmosphere during the industrial era. While for the direct effect, we have at least Lague 2023 which can be considered as a ballpark, the indirect effect of anthropogenic changes in terrestrial hydrology on Earth climate through possible change in climate sensitivity towards changing GHG concentration seems to be still completely unexplored.
Greetings
Tomáš
Don Williamssays
1) The Global Commission on the Economics of Water says disruption of the global water cycle “threatens half the world’s food production”.
Their report was reportedly released today but I do not yet see a copy on their site.
2) However, their prior report –while acknowledging the major impact of climate change — also had this to say:
“Changes in vegetation from land use and/or its interaction with climate change affect global and regional weather patterns. At the regional scale, changing land conditions affect the intensity, frequency and duration of extreme precipitation and associated hydrological events. Vegetation change affects the global water cycle through the green-water flux. For example, changes in forest or tree cover from afforestation, reforestation and deforestation directly affect local and regional surface temperature and groundwater through water and energy exchanges. The green-water flux from large tracts of forests such as the Amazon or the Western Ghats, India, can contribute to rain in downwind regions, sometimes distant from the source (Spracklen et al., 2012) (Box 4.3).”
3) The report also note how land use/urbanization greatly increases the runoff of water (and pollution). In my area local government is imposing requirements on developers to develop large stormwater holding basins and other measures to avoid flooding based on the amount of imperious cover added by their buildings.
4) Back in 2012 I came here and asked people to petition the US government to revise the NOAA Rainfall Atlas — which defines the amount of rainfall developers must consider when sizing stormwater infrastructure. The problem was that the Atlas only looks back at rainfall records for the past 100 years, not at the rainfall projected for the next 100 years and so undersized infrastructure is being deployed. I was told this was not this site’s responsibility. Several years later the streets of Philadelphia and New York were under several feet of water and their subways were flooded. NOAA is finally beginning to look at revising the Atlas.
5) In addition to surface temperature, Land Use and the Global Water Cycle are important. And there should be no conflict between mitigation and adaptation — we need both.
I think so –unfortunately the Commission did NOT put a date on the Report but various references in the back are dated 2024 so I assume it is the new report. Have not had a chance to review it yet.
Verstappen Happenedsays
I stumbled upon this comment elsewhere and thought I’d share it to show the naysayers are still out there.
Since you plan to write an article on global warming within a few months, here are a few sources that, to me, appear worthy of consideration, regardless of whether one is going to conclude they’re deceitful, or truthful, or something else.
What an array dubious critters they are. For use by anyone suffering withdrawals :-)
Susan Andersonsays
Try DeSmog blog. Don’t waste our time and energy with material which is almost wholly dishonest. If it was your intention to debunk a comment, you should have put it in quotes so it didn’t sound like you are that out of touch.
Nigeljsays
Verstappen Happened, thank’s for the links. I can’t help but make a few comments on Willis Eschenbachs comments. He argues that global warming is not a concern, because global deaths per million caused by weather related events have fallen over the last 100 years or so. His data looks approximately correct, but I think this is superficial analysis for the following reasons:
1) The fall in the death rate related weather events so far is due to improvements in healthcare and rescue systems and infrastructure design. Impovements will continue but we cannot assume they would be robust. The negative effect of climate change are likely to intensify in coming decades making it harder to reduce the death rate.
2) He also misses the fact that it costs money and resources every time someone is injured in a weather event and with severe weather becoming worse this will become more and more of an expensive problem.
3) His graph does show global deaths from weather events fell steeply from 1920 – 1980 and fell slightly from 1980 – 2020. Deaths from events like volcanic eruptions have generally fallen at a steady rate from 1920 – 2000. He missed the fact that global deaths from weather events stopped falling nearly as steeply, approximately when the modern global warming period started in the late 1970s, – which shows that climate change is arguably already having a negative effect by stopping the steep decline in the global death rate. There may be some other factors involved, but you can guarantee climate change is a big one, because we know heatwaves and floods etc have got worse since about the late 1970’s from research studies. So Eshenback should go back to the drawing board and rethink his conclusions.
Eschenbach has a long history of simplistic and/or misleading ‘analyses’. Tamino has taken many of them down over the years.
James Charlessays
“global warming is not a concern,”?
Climate has changed before?
“ . . . it is these ocean state changes that are
1:02:28 correlated with the great disasters of the past impact can cause extinction but
1:02:35 it did so in our past only wants[once] that we can tell whereas this has happened over
1:02:40 and over and over again we have fifteen evidences times of mass extinction in the past 500 million years
1:02:48 so the implications for the implications the implications of the carbon dioxide is really dangerous if you heat your
1:02:55 planet sufficiently to cause your Arctic to melt if you cause the temperature
1:03:01 gradient between your tropics and your Arctic to be reduced you risk going back
1:03:07 to a state that produces these hydrogen sulfide pulses . . . “? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ako03Bjxv70
Darmahsays
Burn the Planet and Lock Up the Dissidents
The fossil fuel industry, and the politician class they own, have no intention of halting the ecocide. As the climate crisis worsens, so do the laws and security measures to keep us in bondage.
Chris Hedges
Oct 6 https://chrishedges.substack.com/p/burn-the-planet-and-lock-up-the-dissidents
Norfolk, U.K. — I am sitting with Roger Hallam, his gray hair pulled back in a ponytail, in the visitor’s room at HM Prison Wayland. On the walls are large photographs of families picnicking on lawns, verdant meadows and children playing. The juxtaposition of the photographs, no doubt hung to give the prison visiting room a homey feel, is jarring. There is no escaping, especially with prison guards circulating around us, where we are. Roger and I sit on squat upholstered chairs and face each other across from a low, white plastic table. Roger’s lanky frame tries to adjust to furniture designed to accommodate children.
Roger, one of the founders of Extinction Rebellion, Insulate Britain and Just Stop Oil, is serving a five-year prison sentence for “causing a public nuisance without reasonable excuse.”
He and his four co-defendants, who each received four-year sentences, were convicted for hosting a Zoom call in 2022 to organize activists to climb onto bridges over the M25, the main motorway that circles Greater London. The short-term aim was to stop traffic. The long-term aim was to force the government to stop new oil and gas licenses.
This was not a symbolic protest, exemplified by protesters hurling tomato soup at Van Gogh’s Sunflowers, preserved by protective glass, in the National Gallery in London. It was a protest designed to disrupt, as it did, commerce and the machinery of state. Although even the protestors who tossed soup at the painting, which was not damaged, received harsh prison terms of nearly three years.
Global warming is expected to exceed 1.5 degree Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) in the 2020s and 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Farenheit) before 2050, according to a 2023 study published in the Oxford Open Climate Change journal. NASA scientists warn that “a 2-degree rise in global temperatures is considered a critical threshold above which dangerous and cascading effects of human-generated climate change will occur.”
The more the planet warms, the more extreme events such as severe droughts, heat waves, intense storms, and heavy rainfall intensify. The extinction of animal and plant life — one million plant and animal species are currently threatened with extinction — accelerates.
We are on the verge of tipping points, thresholds beyond which ice sheets, ocean circulation patterns, and other components of the climate system sustain and accelerate irreversible changes. There are also tipping points in ecosystems, which can become so degraded that no effort to save them can halt the effects of runaway climate change. At that point “feedback loops” see environmental catastrophes accelerate each other. The game will be up. Nothing will save us.
Mass death from climate disasters is becoming the norm. The official death toll from Hurricane Helene is at least 227, making it the deadliest in mainland U.S. since Hurricane Katrina in 2005. In North Carolina, South Carolina and northern Georgia 1.1 million people remain without power. Mountain towns, without electricity and cell phone service, are cut off. Hundreds of people are missing with many of them feared dead. Anywhere from 5,000 to 15,000 people were killed last year in a single night by Cyclone Daniel in Libya.
These climate catastrophes, which occur routinely in the Global South, will soon characterize life for all of us.
“A billion refugees, the worst episode of suffering in human history,” Roger says of the 2 degrees Celsius mark, “and then human extinction.”
And yet with the devastation outside their doors, including the Southwest United States enduring the highest temperatures ever recorded in October — 117 degrees Fahrenheit in Palm Springs — the global oligarchs have no intention of risking their privilege and power by disrupting an economy driven by fossil fuel and animal agriculture, which is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. Livestock and their byproducts account for 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) released each year into the atmosphere and 51 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Instead of a rational response, we get more drilling and oil leases, more catastrophic storms, more wildfires, more droughts, toxic factory farms, the charade of the U.N. Conference of the Parties (COP) summits, the eradication of the rain forests and the false panacea of geoengineering, carbon capture and artificial intelligence.
Darmah,
The punishment meted-out to the Just Stop Oil protesters is no real surprise given the government-of-the-day was happily embracing climate change deniers. The M25 protest of Nov 2022 was particularly effective making more than a splash – the four-consecutive-day Just Stop Oil protest ” left the M25 “compromised” for more than 120 hours,” something government could not dismiss without making an example.
Other protests also impact the national consciousness – last year stunts at the UK’s Chelsea Flower Show and World Snooker Championship made prime-time TV – but are more likely to have sent the message that climate change mitigation policies are being driven by nut-cases than persuade folk that the government’s mitigation policies are failing.
Quite what can be done to get the UK & other countries to ramp-up their Net-Zero policies is not clear. The new UK government isn’t riven with over climate deniers but is hardily grasping the nettle.
It was last year talking about £28 billion/year in green governmental investment plans but by the time they stood for election this July, that had been converted into a commitment to “get Britain back on track to meet our climate targets” and “accelerating to net-zero” with the cash commitments reduced by 88% to just {8.3/5 +6.6/5 +0.5 =} £3.5 billion/year.
Just last week there was a mainly-anodyne announcement (maybe extra to this £3.5B/y cash commitment) of {21.7/25 =} £0.9 billion/year part-financing two CCS projects, a “gamechanging technology (which) will bring 4,000 good jobs and billions of private investment into Teesside and Merseyside – and support 50,000 jobs in the long term, while powering up the rest of the country. Its quoted annual capacity is just 2% of UK emissions. A bigger CCS project local to me which was to use saline aquifers rather than old oil wells was the wrong end of the country politically (and raising a bit of a stink with the southern natives due to the proposed CO2 pipeline) so the developer (ExxonMobil) have now cancelled it.
The Just Stop Oil protests have peaked through October in past years. Whether having a new government will lead to less protests is yet to be seen. (Post the election, there have been just a couple of recorded protests.) But the new Prime Minister has called Just Stop Oilpathetic so I would expect the protesting to continue.
jgnfldsays
Re. crypto which you mention…
I have a hard time understanding why crypto even exists except in classic Thorstein Veblen terms of conspicuous waste. It wouldn’t in a rational world. I mean burning up X dollars of FF to produce a number with zero intrinsic value except to record that you expended X dollars of energy seems more like a mere sales receipt than anything of value. At least most conspicuous waste involves spending on frivolity. and shallow entertainment.
Want to burn up 10 grand to produce a number? Fine if it floats your boat. Don’t expect anyone but a fool to buy it, though. Presently there a lot of fools. But then a lot of people feel foolish after every bubble.
Susan Andersonsays
I hope this reaches people in time, presentation by Jeff Masters tonight on Hurricane Milton (bearing down at catastrophic strength on Tampa area in eastern Florida). He is one of the world’s experts on tropical storms:
We will discuss Hurricane Milton, and have some additional speakers on a call Tuesday, October 8th at 8:30-9:30pm EDT/5:30-6:30pm PDT. Dr. Jeff Masters will give us an update on the storm, and discuss why the storm surge will be a problem, even if the storm weakens. We will also hear from Dr. Ricky Rood, and Chris Gloninger.
Here is the YouTube link for the live stream on Tuesday [will not open until near 5:30 US eastern time and will be available when it’s done]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jttg-80Q1U4
We have one more BIG ask – please invite your friends and weather enthusiasts to the call. Help us spread the word that another storm is coming!
Thank you Susan for the links. I just finished watching the 8:30 edt presentation and found it worthwhile, yet perhaps not surprisingly, not exactly welcoming for someone not a liberal. Yes, I know it was a Harris fundraiser, but anyway…
David: Jeff Masters was well organized and interesting (he always is). The rest, not so much. Sorry about that.
It is unfortunate. that rational Republicans no longer have a home. If you have access, Washington Post is doing a series on what government does and does well. Unfortunately, since Reagan greed and profit have come to dominate the private sector.
You’re right that bureaucracy is a complicated web, out of shape and proportion and often not fit for purpose. It is particularly effective when used to obstruct positive shifts to cleaner energy and affordable housing.
This is a fascinating story about a coal mining engineer who figured out how to prevent mine collapses and finally after decades of effort managed to get mines to stop putting profits over lives. Father was Princeton, but the son refused the patronage and got busy. It reads like a thriller, and it saved lives. In this case government regulation, against all odds, was the solution, not the problem. The Canary – Gift link -> https://wapo.st/4dPYZV9
[gift links with WaPo are intrusive, unfortunately]
The most recent one is about the IRS fighting corruption. NOAA, NWS and NASA are other examples of agencies which excel.
You might also enjoy some of the material posted by Peter Sinclair, though recently he’s been distracted by politics (who isn’t, hope it takes a break after November (what a hope). https://thinc.blog/
Davidsays
Susan, thank you so very much for “The Canary” link. What an amazing story it is to me on so many levels! I can’t and won’t explain here why, but the tale truly touched me. And an added bonus: I now know what mille-feuille is :-)
And you’re of course correct; there are many great people and effective components of the federal government. And that gets lost and overlooked far too often in discussion. Sometimes as easily as my comment’s clumsy implication “slog of government bureaucracies” suggests.
Thank you again Susan, that story has brightened my evening.
Susan Andersonsays
hi David, I appreciate your appreciation of this terrific article. I will be largely absent in the next few days, as our Fort Point Open Studios (artists) is this weekend, and I need to cut back on my internet participation. You are a welcome new voice in these discussions. I agree, this WaPo series on specifics is very good, and this one was especially so.
All best, susan
Susan Andersonsays
David: I am reading your E&E news article with interest.
Thank you also for the follow-up on the birds in the hurricane (Mongabay).
It is unfortunate that compromise and design by committee has led away from a fully operational shift to real clean energy (NatGas and Blue hydrogen are not ‘clean’ – but of course we need the ‘bridge’).
I believe Russell is another honest conservative without a proper ‘home’.
Milton…
Sustained winds: 95 mph increase in 24 hours currently 175 mph at 1pm Monday
Pressure drop: 77 millibars decrease in the same 24 hour period
.
Can’t wait to hear the comments from the two who campaign for the Presidency on this perfectly named hurricane as it moves towards Florida’s west coast. At least it is forecast to weaken to “just” a Cat. 3 at landfall. I just don’t understand what has happened to my fellow Americans decision making.
I can’t help but wonder whether, and how much, of the conspiracy-mongering about the response to Helene and the prospective response to Milton on display from Trump and down to the least of his minions is due not just to opportunistic smearing of the opposition, but also to distract from the catastrophe itself, and particularly the role of climate change in exacerbating it?
That was an unnecessarily wordy sentence, so let me try again:
Is Trump world lying about Helene partly so that we’ll talk about FEMA and Harris, rather than hurricanes and climate change?
Mal Adaptedsays
Kevin: Is Trump world lying about Helene partly so that we’ll talk about FEMA and Harris, rather than hurricanes and climate change?
Yes.
Davidsays
Yes! to your last question.
Because Trump has perfected the “tell the lie repeatedly, the more exaggerated and full of b.s., the better, anything to change the focus.” And my party is chock full of folks who largely fall into one of two camps gobbling his crap up:
The true believers and those who mimic the true belief to satisfy unrelated anger at the need for change in the country, and
.
Those who know better, but keep their mouths shut bidding time for Trump’s time to pass.
Susan Andersonsays
Kevin McK: You give them too much credit. They attack anything and everything sane, rational, and/or civilized because they can. Don’t sanewash Trump, or give any credit to his followers who will say or do anything to hurt and/or eliminate opposition (including violence promotion).
Federal, state, and local authorities are begging people to not listen, since they can’t get the monsters to stop being monstrous. Here’s FEMA:
Hurricane Helene: Rumor Response https://www.fema.gov/disaster/current/hurricane-helene/rumor-response
Help keep yourself, your family and your community safe after Hurricane Helene by being aware of rumors and scams and sharing official information from trusted sources.
-> https://www.fema.gov/disaster/current/hurricane-helene [<- specifics and links to get help]
Do your part to the stop the spread of rumors by doing three easy things:
– Find trusted sources of information.
– Share information from trusted sources.
– Discourage others from sharing information from unverified sources.
All local office holders, many of whom are Republican, are begging people not to listen.
Barton Paul Levensonsays
KM: Is Trump world lying about Helene partly so that we’ll talk about FEMA and Harris, rather than hurricanes and climate change?
BPL: I doubt it’s that sophisticated. Trump just wants to blame Harris and Democrats for anything he can think of.
Davidsays
Milton 17:02z Vortex Data Message… wonder how the birds will make out?
.
924
URNT12 KNHC 071727
VORTEX DATA MESSAGE AL142024
A. 07/17:02:00Z
B. 21.69 deg N 091.43 deg W
C. 700 mb 2354 m
D. 912 mb
E. 290 deg 11 kt
F. CLOSED
G. C8
H. 177 kt
I. 305 deg 5 nm 17:00:30Z
J. 036 deg 154 kt
K. 305 deg 5 nm 17:00:30Z
L. 166 kt
M. 054 deg 5 nm 17:03:30Z
N. 151 deg 155 kt
O. 054 deg 5 nm 17:03:30Z
P. 10 C / 3067 m
Q. 21 C / 3050 m
R. 3 C / NA
S. 12345 / 7
T. 0.02 / 0.5 nm
U. AF309 0814A MILTON OB 33
MAX FL WIND 158 KT 226 / 5 NM 15:40:00Z
SUSTAINED MDT, OCNL SVR TURB IN NW AND NE EYEWALLS, OBSERVED FLOCKS OF BIRDS WITHIN THE EYE
;
Piotrsays
David: “Milton 17:02z Vortex Data Message… OBSERVED FLOCKS OF BIRDS WITHIN THE EYE wonder how the birds will make out?”
Many may not … – they are observed in the eye because they couldn’t make out ?.
Probably too high to fly up above the hurricane wall. They could stay within the eye until it makes the landfall and then weakens – but this would mean constant keeping up with the moving eye – you can’t rest on the water for too long. Then again some birds are sleeping during the flight, so for some it may be doable.
Unless you used “make out” in the N.American meaning “kiss and caress amorously” – then I don’t have the foggiest ….
Davidsays
“Unless you used “make out” in the N.American meaning “kiss and caress amorously” – then I don’t have the foggiest ….”
Ha! That made me chuckle Piotr.
I came across this at the Yale CC Milton story comments section earlier today (thank you Susan Anderson for your past heads up about this site) about the matter:
. https://news.mongabay.com/short-article/2024/10/birds-caught-in-the-eye-of-hurricane-milton/
.
So it looks like at least some types of birds just turn up their beaks at my concern for them being caught in this predicament.
“Schmidt: Like I said, there’s two reasons why you could have messed up the prediction. One is you are missing some driving element. Another is you are underestimating the spread. Things are behaving in a more erratic way than we expected, and that means the future predictions may also be more off. And you could think of things being more off in multiple ways because the system is changing in a way where what happened in the past is no longer a good guide to what’s going to happen in the future. And that’s concerning. For example, we have huge industries and huge expectations based on temperature anomalies that are associated with El Niño.
So if we predict an El Niño coming, then people in Africa start planting different crops. People in Indonesia start preparing for a dry season. If the connections between the rest of the world and what’s happening in the tropical Pacific are changing, then all of those previous practices or recommendations based on the past relationships, maybe they’re no longer any good. And if that is now the new normal, there’s no new normal.
But if it’s the forcing from the volcano was a little bit larger than we thought, then all previous stuff is still fine, and the history is fine, and we can just make a correction for that one volcano, right? But we haven’t been able to pin that down yet, and that’s a little embarrassing for the community.
Kolbert: How do we resolve this?
Schmidt: We need to get updates to these input data sets.
We have got 15 or 20 modeling groups ready to look at exactly at the questions that everybody seems to be interested in. And we’re just twiddling our thumbs going, where’s the data?
Reply to Paul Pukite
Thank you for sharing that interview.
a short quote from GS goes: “And it’s still pretty much, I would say, amateur hour in terms of assessing what actually happened in 2023.
While it’s true that no (known) single potential cause accounts for the entire +0.2°C temperature anomaly, that’s no reason to dismiss any of the proposed explanations outright. In fact, it’s entirely plausible that multiple factors—perhaps shifts in various warming drivers—are acting in combination, leading to the sharp rise in temperatures we’ve seen in 2023 and continuing into 2024.
The complexity of the climate system often requires a multi-faceted approach to understanding sudden changes. Rather than searching for a singular explanation, we should be open to the possibility that several contributing causes may be interacting in unison, reinforcing one another in ways we haven’t fully anticipated.
Regarding https://e360.yale.edu/features/gavin-schmidt-interview, someone on twitter noticed that not one mention of CO2, GHG, greenhouse gas, climate change, global warming in the article. The author of the article can choose what to quote Gavin on, so perhaps he did at some point in the full interview. IPCC was mentioned, for example.
– 1.5 years is NOT “climate” (for that you need trends surviving decades)
– “CO2″, “GHG” “greenhouse gas” are important to CLIMATE change, and climatic “global warming”, but NOT important to the SHORT-TERM (1.5 year) fluctuations, for the simple reason that their concentrations do NOT change ENOUGH over such a short time-scale to alter their radiative forcing in any meaningful amount
– for that – you’d need forcings that do change significantly over such a short time-scale:
– air sea fluxes of heat (ENSO),
– water vapour and SO2 from volcanic eruptions,
– reductions in aerosol emissions from ships (less direct reflection of solar radiation by SO2 and fewer aerosol particles to function as CCNs (cloud condensation nuclei): => fewer clouds where it matters (to the albedo) most – over the low and mid latitude ocean.
Thus – the Great Twitter Mystery of Paul Pukite solved!
No need to invoke editorial dishonesty of the interviewer, nor, alternatively, imply that Gavin is retreating from his previous position that “Climate change” and “Global warming” are driven by increases in ” CO2, GHG, greenhouse gas” .
Occam’s razor, my dear Pukite!
Susan Andersonsays
@whut – Whut!!!!
Elizabeth Kolbert interview Gavin Schmidt.
Yale Environment is a broad platform, so this appears to have been a focused interview for a specific purpose, and of great value as such. Your Twitter-based complainant seems irrelevant. Reminds me of this (#15, for example):
Piotr, In the past, you have criticized my view of the importance of being able to forecast El Nino events, for the number of lives it impacts across the world
“It’s countless because (for example) if subsistence farmers knew that an El Nino was upcoming, then they would know how much seed to purchase or level of irrigation or flood control to prepare for. These are all marginal calls that futures markets would also be involved in, but the latter would be on a monetary scale and not involving one’s survival.
And you are upset that I used the American English idiom “countless” instead of “unknown” ?”
Yet here is Gavin Schmidt saying essentially the same thing in the Yale CC interview:
“So if we predict an El Niño coming, then people in Africa start planting different crops. People in Indonesia start preparing for a dry season. If the connections between the rest of the world and what’s happening in the tropical Pacific are changing, then all of those previous practices or recommendations based on the past relationships, maybe they’re no longer any good. And if that is now the new normal, there’s no new normal.”
Now you seem upset at me for pointing out that climate scientists are focusing their attention on these temperature spikes at the expense of the secular long-term trend due to GHGs. If that’s indeed the case, the discussion question can lead with either (1) Is there something else that man or nature is doing that is making these erratic cycles even more mysterious or (2) Are the models for El Nino, AMO, PDO not that great to begin with, and admit that they never have been that good beyond the year following the spring predictability barrier.
This is in the context of Gavin saying the past relationship patterns are “no longer any good”.
Davidsays
Paul Pukite, thank you for the link to the story and reference to your comment.
A couple of things, and perhaps I’m just dense, but I don’t find a lack of specific mention on Gavin’s part regarding CO2, or the terms “climate change” and “global warming” at this point curious. Perhaps it was an editorial choice, but if not, at this point of the investigation, that doesn’t strike me as particularly telling one way or the other. If there was something abruptly wayward in recent CO2 trends, then yes, but since not, excluding CO2 mention doesn’t seem exceptional. And imo regarding “climate change” and “global warming;” aren’t these terms better invoked in longer-‘range timeframes, not when discussing 2023 (at this point anyway)? Particularly since what caused the variance is still being researched. Like many, it frustrates me when many in the media automatically say “climate change” when reporting on what was observed in 2023.
.
.
Dharma, you in part wrote “While it’s true that no (known) single potential cause accounts for the entire +0.2°C temperature anomaly, that’s no reason to dismiss any of the proposed explanations… Rather than searching for a singular explanation, we should be open to the possibility that several contributing causes may be interacting in unison, reinforcing one another in ways we haven’t fully anticipated.”
Regarding interview stories in the media, whether this story or in other previous story interviews of climate scientists I’ve read in the last year, none I recall indicate a search for a singular explanation is being pursued in lieu of a combination of factors, or vice-versa, or something that is new/unexpected.
If your commentary was focused just on research itself, I defer to those of you who are far more qualified in climate research to opine.
Note how 3 climate indices representing the 3 oceans, Pacific, Atlantic, Indian all show reinforcing peaks across 2023 to 2024.
BTW, not sure what’s happening with the AMO data. The Kaplan SST AMO hasn’t been updated in a while, and the replacement for it, the NOAA ERSSTV5 AMO is currently not available so I couldn’t update the plot linked above, instead had to use data I had downloaded a few months ago (remember the days of FTP mirror sites?)
Perhaps this has something to do with western North Carolina https://psl.noaa.gov/data/gridded/data.ncep.reanalysis.html “NOTICE: NCEI in Asheville, North Carolina, has been significantly impacted by Hurricane Helene. Some products that PSL acquires from NCEI may be currently …”
Davidsays
Paul,
On the FTP Mirror Sites, yeah, sorry, that’s waaayyy outside my ballpark.. I have a hard time remembering what https stands for ;-)
Interestingly to me, I saw on Wikipedia that “Notable websites with mirrors include… the website of the Environmental Protection Agency…” Does NOAA not I wonder? If so, is that due to the amount of data they handle compared to an agency like the EPA?
I’ve seen the message you were talking about concerning Asheville. I can’t imagine what the poor folks there and in other places throughout the southeast have/are enduring. Amazing how just one town/site affected by disaster can impact someone like NOAA.to this degree.
On the indices/ocean plot you’ve produced, I don’t want to further pester you with questions without first spending time trying to somewhat correlate what I am seeing with what your saying.
Gotta tell you, some days I feel pretty dumb even sticking my mental toes in the water you and most of the folks here (not to mention our hosts!) swim in. It’s fascinating, but humbling…
Piotrsays
Paul Pukite: Piotr, In the past, you have criticized my view of the importance of being able to forecast El Nino events, for the number of lives it impacts across the world
Not exactly – I objected to two things:
====- 1. your massive exaggeration
– your claim that a better prediction of the month of the next El Nino can save “ COUNTLESS lives“, a powerful claim you failed to provide any plausible mechanisms for.
And such massive exaggeration is not an innocent folly of somebody who tries to make their field of interest sound more important – it comes at the price of diluting important words – overused, the big words lose their weight, thus no longer may mobilize the society to action:
after hearing that “ the loss of countless lives” ALREADY happens every 2-7 years (El Nino) – hearing next that long-term effects of the AGW may ALSO cause “ the loss of countless of lives”, no longer makes anyone to bat an eye. See the shepherd, who cried “Wolf! ” countless times.
Gavin’s interview does not change anything here – does not prove that prediction of the next El NIno DOES save COUNTLESS lives.
==== 2. your lacking the balls to stand by your post
– after I challenged your “countless”- you …tried to get out on semantics
– PP: “ “countless lives” == “innumerable lives” which means incapable of being counted ”
– me: That’s a cop-out – if you wanted to convey “ incapable of being counted” you would have said something like “unknown numbers “. Instead you CHOOSE the word “countless” which for everybody means : “ too numerous to be counted : MYRIAD, MANY (Webster’s dictionary).
Invoking a MASSIVE loss of life COULD shift the research money to your favourite field – ENSO. Invoking saving “unknowable number of people, may be many maybe few or none at all” – would not..
======
Furthermore, in SAME original post you used THE SAME word “countless” – second time:
PP: Einstein already received the Nobel for Brownian motion in 1905 that has been verified countless times for actual stochastic systems on a microscopic level, but not for a collective dipole ocean oscillation
What relevance being verified … “unknowable number of times” could have???
Finally – Gavin’s words, which you present as your vindication – cannot apply to “ unknowable number of lives” Why should the public care that we can’t estimate whether El Nino forecast saves many lives or not ?
Piotr complains about me exaggerating by applying countless as an adjective for extreme but indefinite, i.e. w/o specificity, but now I find a recent paper that claims that a massive El Nino could have been responsible for the past near extinction of life on Earth.
Mega El Niño May Have Led to Major Mass Extinction 252 Million Years Ago
The extreme climate conditions wrought by a decades-long ENSO pattern could be the culprit in the Great Dying, which wiped out nearly 90% of life on Earth. [1]
Is this paper also an exaggeration? If so, what should the consequences be for the authors? Eternal bullying by Piotr? :)
Paul Pukite: “Mega El Niño May Have Led to Major Mass Extinction 252 Million Years Ago.” Is this paper also an exaggeration?
Can’t say – haven’t read it, I try to not offer opinions on things I don’t know about. I do offer falsifiable arguments about articles I did read though – like your old 2021 you try to re-litigate now:
– your grandiose claims about the importance of your field of interest- that a better prediction of the month of the next El Nino could “SAVE COUNTLESS LIVES”
– your failure to defend your grandiose claim by demonstrating any plausible mechanism for saving the said “COUNTLESS LIVES”
– your lack of balls to admit of this failure – and in its stead – your pathetic attempts to walk-back your original words: claiming that by “saving countless lives” – you DIDN’T mean “saving a VERY LARGE NUMBER of lives” , but merely saving “…UNKNOWABLE number of lives”, i.e. maybe many, maybe none at all, who knows.
Anybody can use Occams razor to decide which of these two is more likely to be true.
Having no argument left in the original discussion, you retreated, never admitting your failure, and never accepting it, with the memory of it festering over the years – as witnessed by the fact that you are … bringing it up again after 3 years:
– first you took a paragraph from a radio interview with Gavin in which he suggested that “ [if we predict El Nino] people in Indonesia [might] start preparing for a dry season” which you claim is “ saying essentially the same thing as your “saving COUNTLESS LIVES”.
Unable to defend the above, you … changed the subject onto another “proof” that you must have had been right – bringing up an article that speculates that the PT extinction may have been caused by a change in ocean circulation that the authors compared to “a decades-long ENSO”.
But unfortunately for you – it does not vindicate your absurd claims from past either: when in Oct. 2021 you were claiming that a better prediction of the timing of the next El Nino “could save COUNTLESS LIVES” – you COULDN’T have meant “saving countless lives from a “ decades-long Mega-ElNino ” that WOULD BE hypothesized in article written …. 3 years AFTER your original claim.
And you can’t even say that you have had inkling of it already in 2021 – if you had – you would have used it already in your 2021 defense of your claim.
And it is not like you are would be predicting anything even remotely similar to the onset of “ a decades-long Mega-ElNino 252 mln years ago ” – for it to happen, a different configuration of continents is needed – one that won’t be in place for the brave Paul Pukite to save “countless lives” for many 10s, or 100s, of millions of years.
P. Pukite: What should the consequences be for the authors? Eternal bullying by Piotr? :)
Ouch, “eternal bullying by Piotr?”, powerful joke, take me to the burn unit.
But to answer your question – no, if they don’t make grandiose claims, or at least, if after being unable to defend these claims, they have the balls to admit being wrong – they have nothing to worry.
As for you accusation of “eternal bullying” – it seems … strangely self-inflicted – wasn’t it YOU who brought up your 2021 self-inflicted humiliation, already TWICE this month? A glutton for punishment, eh?
“you DIDN’T mean “saving a VERY LARGE NUMBER of lives” , but merely saving “…UNKNOWABLE number of lives”, i.e. maybe many, maybe none at all, who knows.”
EXACTLY! That’s the context of my use of “countless”. If I were to say that countless lives would have been saved if Trump hadn’t been president during the COVID-19 pandemic, that would have been a safe call. Instead of a million+ lives being lost it would have been markedly reduced. It could have saved 1/2 a million, but we will never know. Try counting — you can’t — thus count-less. I could have used another word : uncountable, immeasurable, innumerable, inestimable, indefinable, unquantifiable, but I selected countless, maybe because it is less typing. Yet, according to Piotr, he is able to look deep into my mind and assert that I selected countless rather than innumerable because I wanted to exaggerate rather than convey uncertainty in a single word.
Dharmasays
Paul Pukite (@whut) says
24 Oct 2024 at 11:40 AM “Yet, according to Piotr, he is able to look deep into my mind and assert that I selected countless rather than innumerable because I wanted to exaggerate rather than convey uncertainty in a single word.”
Referring back to Mr. Rodger’s earlier point that it is “unacceptable to put words into other people’s mouths here on RC,” here we have yet another countless example of Piotr doing exactly that—his go-to method of misrepresenting others and providing distorted analyses of their so-called faults.
The strawmen arguments (hello BPL) are so frequent here that I was beginning to think it’s a prerequisite for commenting on RC. That, along with an apparent inability to understand plain English. :)
Dharmasays
Dharma says
24 Oct 2024 at 6:50 PM
Apologies, I should not have neglected mentioning Nigelj as well.
Piotrsays
PIotr:: “your lack of balls to admit of this failure – and in its stead – your pathetic attempts to walk-back your original words: claiming that by “saving countless lives” – you DIDN’T mean “saving a VERY LARGE NUMBER of lives” , but merely saving “…UNKNOWABLE number of lives”, i.e. maybe many, maybe none at all, who knows.”
Paul Pukite: “EXACTLY! That’s the context of my use of “countless”.
Three years later and you still haven’t grown a pair … – you still can’t own up to your actions in the past and still try the same failed attempts to get out on a semantic technicality.
Unfortunately for you – why would we rely on your self-serving declarations about yourself –
when we have logic and Occam’s razor? Based on these- everybody can ask themselves the following questions:
1. if Paul Pukite argued for shifting the research interest and research resources – AWAY from the AGW AND INTO his interests – the research of ENSO, and justified this switch by claiming that a better prediction of the next EL Nino “could save COUNTLESS lives”,
If you were deciding whether to switch the research interest and research money from AGW to ENSO or not – which of two pitches would be more effective in convincing you to switch – that making EL Nino a priority in the climate research
a) could save “extremely LARGE number of lives”,
b) could save … “unknowable number of lives – maybe many, maybe few, maybe nobody at all.”?
If you chose b) then you should consider Paul Pukite a man of integrity, able to admit being wrong, and not looking for pathetic excuses to protect his fragile ego. If you chose a) ….then the opposite.
2. When Paul, rehashed the 3 year old discussion, by bringing up a paper that speculated something similar to “ decades-long ENSO” did cause the period “ known as the “Great Dying”, “ which wiped out nearly 90% of life on Earth.” then
which of the is more likely :
a) that studying modern El Nino is important, because something similar 252 mln years ago
wiped out VERY LARGE number of species
OR
b) that studying modern El Nino is important, because something similar 252 mln years ago
wiped out …. UNKNOWABLE number of species – maybe many, maybe few, maybe hardly any at all,?
Or in other words – which is more likely – that “nearly 90% of life on Earth” means
“VERY LARGE number” or “UNKNOWABLE number”?
And since Paul Pukite answer must be “the UNKNOWABILITY” and NOT a “GREAT NUMBER” of the killed – than why from the last 500 mln years – has he chosen the extremely short geologically period of the …. LARGEST MASS EXTINCTION EVER??? ..
Paul, if you are unable to critically analyze your own posts, and admit being wrong EVEN in such an open and shut case – what is the chance that you would do so in less obvious cases?
Barton Paul Levensonsays
D: The strawmen arguments (hello BPL) are so frequent here that I was beginning to think it’s a prerequisite for commenting on RC. That, along with an apparent inability to understand plain English. :)
BPL: Yes, this is just an awful place! You should leave it immediately and never come back. That’ll show ’em!
“I have been thinking about the 1876-78 multiyear droughts and the associated spike in global temperatures. What can this tell us about the range of variability and can warming enhance this variability?”
The El Nino and simultaneous spikes in Atlantic and Indian of 1876-7 are the closest historical antecedent to today.
Dharmasays
Barton Paul Levenson says
25 Oct 2024 at 6.57 AM
Dharma: The strawmen arguments (hello BPL) are so frequent here that I was beginning to think it’s a prerequisite for commenting on RC. That, along with an apparent inability to understand plain English. :)
BPL: Yes, this is just an awful place! You should leave it immediately and never come back. That’ll show ’em!
Dharma:
BPL, I notice a very strong tendency here for people to dismiss valid critique with sarcasm or deflection. My comment wasn’t a complaint about being here—it was about the way so many discussions quickly veer into strawman territory or selective reading, and then stall as a result. If pointing this out helps elevate the level of discourse, so be it.
I’d like to continue discussing the content of these important topics—rather than having comments dismissed with mockery. So, maybe you can set the sarcasm aside?
Piotrsays
Pukite: No one else should work on ENSO, except of course on a voluntary basis.
Nobody said or even implied it, so this line – tells only about your ability to understand posts you comment, or if you understood, but try to derail the discussion by redirecting it into a dead-end tangent – about your ability of self-reflection and owning up to your intentions.
Here is the actual subject of the post to which you supposedly “reply”:
===
Paul Pukite advocated shifting the research interest and resources – AWAY from the AGW AND INTO his area of interest – ENSO. He justified the need for this switch by claiming that a better prediction of the next EL Nino “could save COUNTLESS lives”,
When asked to prove his claim, first he tried and failed, then tried to get out on a semantic technicality – that by “countless” he meant saving …. UNKNOWABLE number of lives,
To which I proposed the test by Occam razor – asking which of the two pitches would be more likely to shift the attention of the society from researching AGW to researching EL Nino-
– saying that ENSO research “could save UNKNOWABLE [i.e. maybe large, maybe small, maybe none at all] number of lives”
OR
– saying that ENSO research “could save EXTREMELY LARGE number of lives”
And P. Pukite’s sarcastic pretense of an answer: ” No one else should work on ENSO, except of course on a voluntary basis. – won’t do, So you re still on the hook, my dear Pukite.
See also another Occam razor – after Paul Pukite revived the original discussion by bringing up a paper that speculated that P-T mass extinction, the “Great Dying, which wiped out nearly 90% of life on Earth.” may have been caused by something compared to the “decades-long El Nino”:
==== Which is more likely :
a) that studying modern El Nino is important, because something similar 252 mln years ago
wiped out VERY LARGE number of species (“nearly 90% of life on Earth.”)
OR
b) that studying modern El Nino is important, because something similar 252 mln years ago
wiped out …. UNKNOWABLE number of species – maybe many, maybe few, maybe hardly any at all?
====
Piotrsays
Paul Pukite 24 Oct “ According to Piotr, he is able to look deep into my mind
I have no necessary equipment (functional MRI?), nor an inclination (given the quality of your posts) to “look deep into your mind”.
Instead, I look into the PRODUCTS of your mind – your words – and based on FALIFIABLE ANALYSIS of these words – form opinions on the quality of the mind that produced them.
In this case, you advocated for shifting scientific research and resources from AGW and to El Nino, and supported it by saying that it “could save COUNTLESS lives”. I used the Occam razor to test the honesty of your subsequent claims on what you wanted to convey with your choice of the word “countless”: either have meant:
a) a very LARGE NUMBER of lives OR
b) an UNKNOWABLE number of lives, maybe many, maybe few, maybe none at all.
I presented several different arguments in favour of a). You … didn’t answer ANY of them, didn’t offer any arguments in favour of b), and instead of these – you offered your …. empty declarations that you meant “b)”
By the Occam razor, not the functional MRI, you shall know them.
Ubiquitous D. joins in: ” here we have yet another countless example of Piotr doing [his] go-to method of misrepresenting others and providing distorted analyses
NO, this is called cutting through the crap, calling spade a spade, and providing FALSIFIABLE analysis of the words of my opponents. An analysis that neither you nor your Paul Pukite, were not able to falsify.
But since you are trying to recruit allies/supporters – Paul may be a strange bedfellow for you – in the very same argument that we should switch research priority from studying AGW to studying EL Nino, he justified it with the fact that we know the AGW WELL ENOUGH. Which, obviously, is an anti-thesis to your questioning the credibility of AGW science, its projections and recommendations.
And to Paul – don’t take the support of Ubiquitous D. to heart – the moment he can’t use you for his purposes – he’ll turn on you like a proverbial Escobar on Tomas Kalisz (see the footnote).
—-
^* “Escobar”: “ to Tomáš Kalisz. You have zero chance of any success at being heard accurately (in context, in kind) or being treated with respect here by anyone.
After Tomas declined Escobar advances, Escobar illustrated … HIS respect to Tomas:
– Escobar: “ I have not seen any improvement in your knowledge or gaining anything since arriving and focusing on your minutia issue.”
– “What I see here daily is a frog in a blender on high speed. But again, if you enjoy this”
– ” I wish there was a block sender function so I did not need to see this depressing display.”
====
Barton Paul Levensonsays
D: I’d like to continue discussing the content of these important topics—rather than having comments dismissed with mockery. So, maybe you can set the sarcasm aside?
BPL: Sure, when you set the doomism and attacks on the web site and the people who run it, and on the scientific community in general, aside.
Please try to look on your dispute about the word “countless” from another perspective, as provided in visionary novel “Eight Voyage of Ijon Tichy” by Stanislaw Lem:
“Planets completely unsuitable for life origin can be characterized by:
– catastrophic climate changes in a rapidly alternating rhythm – the so-called four-seasons cycle of spring, summer, autumn, winter,
– by the presence of large moons, whose tidal influence is also life-threatening,
– by the frequent spotting of the mother star, because the spots are a source of deadly radiation,
– by a surface of waters prevailing over the surface of the continents,
– permanent glaciation around the poles,
– the occurrence of water precipitation in liquid or solid state.”
I apologize that I was not able to find an English translation nor the original issue and tried to translate the text from Czech opera libreto inspoired by the novel:
1 Given the hurricanes, Any survivalists out there? US News Media has suggested heading for northern US states but wildfires in Minnesota/Canada and huge flooding in mountainous Vermont indicates reporters not best sources of advice. Plus –Duluth?
2) Various actions by our billionaires suggest they are morons—spending hundreds of $millions for mansions on Miami’s fortified Indian Creek island – about 6 feet? above sea level. https://blog.augurisk.com/indian-creek-risk/
3) I had heard Jem Bendell (Deep Adaptation) left England and wondered what bolthole he might be heading to. Recently found out he bought a farm in Indonesia’s Bali. Which seemed very strange given how close it is to equator – until I saw this: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/7079/historic-tropical-cyclone-tracks
4) Bali is in the narrow channel where typhoons don’t occur. Plus its temps hover around 85 deg F – perhaps due to being an island surrounded by deep ocean. Bali checks a few other boxes – very fertile soil, lots of rainfall and drinking water, mountains to give elevation for lower temps. Plus one needs a plan B exit –and in an apocalypse sailboats are the only way to carry heavy food/supplies long distances. Indonesia island chain gives access to Asia or to Australia.
5) However, there are those 4 billion people just to the north –but Bendell may think Bali’s peaceful Hinduism will be a shield. Be a shame to tell him about Our Man in Jakarta — Suharto.
6) Several billionaires have bought land (or entire islands) in Hawaii (4th largest collection of US military personnel in US) and Peter Thiel picked up New Zealand land/citizenship in the duty free shop. Pierre Omidyar seems to take the hedge fund approach — mansions in Hawaii, Nevada and on island off France — with a long range jet to let him play whack-a mole with climate change.
Geoff Miellsays
Don Williams: – “2) Various actions by our billionaires suggest they are morons—spending hundreds of $millions for mansions on Miami’s fortified Indian Creek island – about 6 feet? above sea level.>/i>
I’d suggest a slightly different track of Hurricane Milton (or another Cat 5 hurricane inbound from the Atlantic) passing over or near Indian Creek Island would likely inundate these ‘billionaire havens’. I’d suggest it’s only a matter of time as the Earth System continues to warm further and SLR accelerates.
Per the US National Hurricane Center & Central Pacific Hurricane Centre, re Hurricane Milton Advisory Number 15, as at 04 PM CDT Tuesday October 08, 2024, the Peak Storm Surge Forecast shows a range of expected storm surges along most of the Florida and South Carolina coastlines and all of the Georgia coastline. The Tampa Bay area, between Anclote River and Englewood are expected to see storm surges of 10-15 feet. https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at4+shtml/213144.shtml?peakSurge#contents
Per NOAA’s Feb 2022 report titled Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States: Updated Mean Projections and Extreme Water Level Probabilities Along U.S. Coastlines, Table 2.2 shows observation-based extrapolation and regionalized global mean sea level scenario–based estimates, in meters, of relative sea level in 2050 relative to a baseline of 2000 for eight coastal regions of the United States. For the Southeast region of the US, for the Intermediate-High scenario (closest to the observation-based extrapolation) the projected SLR is 0.43 [0.32, 0.58] m (relative to year-2000 baseline). https://sealevel.globalchange.gov/resources/2022-sea-level-rise-technical-report/
In the YouTube video titled sea level rise – is Greenland beyond its tipping point?, published 29 Jul 2024, duration 04:19, glaciologist Professor Dr Jason Box, from the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, said from time interval 0:01:50:
“Now if climate continues warming, which is more than likely, then the loss commitment grows. My best guess, if I had to put out numbers; so by 2050, 40 centimetres above 2000 levels; and then by the year 2100, 150 centimetres, or 1.5 metres above the 2000 level, which is something like four feet. Those numbers follow the dashed-red curve on the IPCC’s 6th Assessment, which represents the upper 5-percentile of the model calculations, because the model calculations don’t deliver ice as quickly as is observed. If you take the last two decades of observations, the models don’t even reproduce that until 40 years from now.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jpPXcqNXpE&t=110s
SLR is relentless and accelerating. I would not be at all surprised to see the global mean rate of SLR accelerate from about 5 mm/year observed now (i.e. in year-2024), to about 10 mm/year sometime in the 2030s, and accelerate further to 20 mm/year perhaps by the late 2040s.
Secular Animistsays
Any comments from our climate scientist hosts on this?
“Global emission reduction efforts continue to be insufficient to meet the temperature goal of the Paris Agreement. This makes the systematic exploration of so-called overshoot pathways that temporarily exceed a targeted global warming limit before drawing temperatures back down to safer levels a priority for science and policy. Here we show that global and regional climate change and associated risks after an overshoot are different from a world that avoids it … we cannot be confident that temperature decline after overshoot is achievable within the timescales expected today. Only rapid near-term emission reductions are effective in reducing climate risks.”
Thanks for the links, SA. To be sure, all decarbonization-dependent optimism must be qualified with the caveat that as bad as global warming gets, it will get worse as long as there’s any fossil carbon left to burn, unless we leave it in the ground. My fellow Americans, please vote Democratic next month!
Nigeljsays
America has experienced two huge Atlantic Ocean hurricanes in a matter of weeks after a mostly quiet hurricane season. I notice some experts saying its all unusual. But haven’t the climate experts generally being telling us global warming would cause a decease in the numbers of moderately sized hurricanes, and an increase in the numbers of category 4 and 5 hurricanes? So isnt this at least a possible validation of their models?
Adam Leasays
Nigelj: I never like trying to attribute any single event directly to climate change. A single event is deterministic, climate is probabilistic, so climate change effectively changes the probability of weather-related events happening. Explosive intensification as with hurricane Milton always has a chance of happening with or without climate change, it needs warm SSTs combined with near perfect atmospheric conditions, but climate change is likely making these explosive intensification events more likely. Thinking logically, a warmer ocean rasies the maximum potential intensity, so when perfect atmospheric conditions come along – boom, you get a hurricane that is more intense than it would have been if the ocean underneath it was half a degree cooler.
As far as the Atlantic hurricane season as a whole is concerned, it has been an oddball. We started off with a record breaking hurricane in July followed by an extended quiet period during the peak season, a period which should have been very active given the cool-neutral ENSO and very warm SSTs across the tropical Atlantic. This hiatus is why the seasonal forecasts (including mine) have been way over what has been observed even if the impacts have been consistent with a hyper-active season (>=160 ACE). There is a chance we might get to the huperactive threshold with several weeks of the season left, but we are not getting to the 200+ ACE seasonal forecasts. The suggested reasons for this unexpected quiet period is a combination of factors: 1. A northerly displaced ITCZ resulting in easterly waves departing Africa further north into less favourable conditions. 2. A persistent strongly positive NAO, which aside from bringing wet conditions to the northern half of the UK, resulted in pressure patterns that advected dry stable mid-latitude air into the sub-tropics, which was ingested into these easterly waves, killing further development. Once we got past peak season, the ITCZ moved back south and MDR activity was kick-started with Kirk and Leslie. La Nina or cool-neutral ENSO tends to reduce vertical wind shear across the Caribbean Sea and Gulf late season, and with the near record warm SSTs in the Gulf, this aided in the formation and intensification of Helene and Milton. In contrast to the Atlantic, both sides of the Pacific ocean have been very quiet for tropical cyclone activity, reminds me of the strong La Nina year of 2010.
I’m not convinced this year alone is sufficient as a validation of the prediction of a reduction in hurricanes and an increase in intense hurricanes. This year seems to be heavily influenced by ENSO combined with intra-seasonal factors. Whether those intra-seasonal factors amongst others are likely to be influenced by climate change in a way that is compatible with a reduction in hurricane numbers I don’t know.
Nigelj,
The “mostly quiet season” was not what was forecast back pre-season. The forecasts were for a particularly busy season and as Adam Lea says, the early season activity was followed by an unexpected ‘entirely quiet period’. The ultra-activity was very late in arriving.
October 2024 has clocked up ACE=62 so-far, which means it is already the 2nd-most active October (since 2000, the active Octobers now exceeded by 2024 running 2005 ACE=52, 2018 =41, 2020 =38, 2012 =33.)
The still-record-holding October 2016 achieved ACE=66 and did this with just two storms, both strong & long-lasting, Matthew which struck the US East coast a glancing blow (a path not dissimilar to the 2019 Hurricane Dorian that Trump famously forecast would make a proper landfall & go on to impact Alabama) & the mid-Atlantic Nadine.
The climatology suggests 2024 could still top October 2016’s ACE=66, perhaps adding significantly to the ACE=140 of the 2024-season-so-far. (The 1991-2020 average ACE increase Oct 11th-31st adds 12, & adds 18 by end-of-year, this for an average year.) The last couple of decades shows that big storms can still appear late in the season post mid-October, the likes of Wilma of 2005 (ACE=39) or Gonzalo 2014 (ACE=25) or the handful of short-sharp storms of 2020 (totaling ACE=55).
But with the 2024 season-so-far at ACE=140, reaching the ACE=220+ of the pre-season forecasts will require a really powerful end to the season.
Summary
A radical new history of energy and humanity’s insatiable need for resources that will change the way we talk about climate change
It has become habitual to think of our relationship with energy as one of transition: with wood superseded by coal, coal by oil, oil by nuclear and then at some future point all replaced by green sources. Jean-Baptiste Fressoz’s devastating but unnervingly entertaining book shows what an extraordinary delusion this is. Far from the industrial era passing through a series of transformations, each new phase has in practice remained almost wholly entangled with the previous one. Indeed the very idea of transition turns out to be untrue.
The author shares the same acute anxiety about the need for a green transition as the rest of us, but shows how, disastrously, our industrial history has in fact been based on symbiosis, with each major energy source feeding off the others. Using a fascinating array of examples, Fressoz describes how we have gorged on all forms of energy – with whole forests needed to prop up coal mines, coal remaining central to the creation of innumerable new products and oil still central to our lives. The world now burns more wood and coal than ever before.
This book reveals an uncomfortable truth: ‘transition’ was originally itself promoted by energy companies, not as a genuine plan, but as a means to put off any meaningful change. More and More and More forces its readers to understand the modern world in all its voracious reality, and the true nature of the challenges heading our way.
Reviews
This is truly is a radically and very necessary new history of energy. A rich, unnerving, funny and utterly compelling account, it destabilises our understanding again and again. With uncanny examples, he makes the invisible obvious, and shows how the obvious was made invisible by forms of understanding in which even climate activists operate. This remarkable material and intellectual history will change our minds about one of the most important challenges humanity currently faces, indeed it gives us a new way of thinking about the profound challenge decarbonisation represents
David Edgerton, author of The Shock of the Old and The Rise and Fall of the British Nation
Don Williamssays
Oh, it’s much worse than that. We in the USA have $36 Trillion in federal debt, our total debt is much larger and the derivatives casino is about $6333 Trillion. If the growth in energy consumption slows (e.g, the AI and crypto bubbles pop) then the music slows and begins heading to a stop. Remember 2008?
Someone remind me — what’s the budget for the energy transition?
Don Williamssays
Correction: Derivatives casino is around $633 point 3. Trillion. Dropped a decimal point.
Darmasays
Don, you raise a valid concern about debt and financial instability, but Fressoz’s point is focused on the myth of smooth energy transitions. Instead of cleanly moving from one energy source to another, we’ve simply added layers—burning more coal, wood, and oil than ever, even as we talk about renewables.
Your point on financial fragility does connect to this: how do we move toward true sustainability without triggering economic collapse? That’s the challenge. The question isn’t just about the budget for the energy transition—it’s whether our current system can handle the shift at all.
Nigeljsays
In my view energy companies have done some things wrong, for example toxic waste, and promoting climate change denial, but blaming them for our high levels energy use and societies wider sustainability problems doesnt make a lot of sense to me. Neither does suggesting the energy companies have deliberately put off considering meaningful change to a more restrained, sustainable use of energy. This is because in capitalist systems companies exist to make a profit and promoting low levels of energy use would directly conflict with the profit goal. I doubt that energy companies hundreds of years ago even had decent information on availablity of resources and whether there could be a scarcity problem.
.
If we want a “plan” for societies levels of energy use and general lifestyle it would probably have to come from government. Most people would probably find that too intrusive, so it probbaly isnt going to happen. Personally I expect governmnets to have strong health and safety and envionmental laws, but I wouldnt want them telling me how much energy, food, or clothing etc,etc we can consume.
Darmasays
Nigelj, thanks for your comment, but I think you may have misunderstood the main argument of Fressoz’s book and my point in sharing it. The central issue here is not about blaming energy companies for all of society’s sustainability problems or suggesting they deliberately avoided sustainable practices for centuries. Instead, Fressoz’s work highlights how the narrative of “energy transition”—the idea that one energy source will fully replace the previous one—has been misleading and historically untrue. Each energy source has continued to exist and grow alongside the others, and the concept of transition was, in many ways, promoted by the energy industry to defer any true, systemic change in how we approach resource use.
The idea isn’t that energy companies should have promoted lower energy use for profit’s sake but that the narrative of transition has allowed us to avoid addressing the reality that every new energy phase has been built on top of the last, not as a replacement. The world still burns more coal and wood today than ever before, despite the rhetoric of “transitioning” to oil or cleaner energy.
So, this isn’t an issue of whether companies knew about scarcity hundreds of years ago or whether governments should regulate individual consumption. It’s about understanding that the concept of “transition” itself has been used to justify expanding our energy appetites while delaying meaningful shifts to sustainability. Fressoz challenges us to see that this pattern has deep historical roots, which makes the current conversation around green energy transitions more complex than it first appears.
Nigeljsays
Dharma.
You said “the idea that one energy source will fully replace the previous one—has been misleading and historically untrue. Each energy source has continued to exist and grow alongside the others, and the concept of transition was, in many ways, promoted by the energy industry to defer any true, systemic change in how we approach resource use.”
Yes new energy sources didnt completely replace the older energy sources. Coal use continued alongside the newer use of oil, although the reasons were obvious: coal happened to suit electricity generation while oil suited conversion into petrol for automobiles .
However I’m not aware that there was some sort of consensus that experts or even the public really thought that every new energy source would completely replace the old source. I would be interested if you have evidence otherwise, without me having to buy the book right now. I might eventually buy it becaus eit does look thought provoking.
And of course the past trend of nwe energy sources not completely replacing older sources can’t be extrapolated into the future. Renewables such as wind, solar, hydro and geothermal might replace all other sources. Although even if they didn’t IMHO it’s not necessarily a problem, if the other energy sources are low carbon, like nuclear power.
The idea of a concept of transition was to defer systemic change doesnt sound plausible. It seems implausiblee that energy companies deliberately developed new energy sources to avoid confronting the fact that there would be global warming. This was not seriously on anyones radar hundreds of years ago.
It also seems unlikely the companies promoted new energy sources to avoid confronting the need for systemic change, whatever this means. I assumed the writer might have meant lower levels of energy use. Its hard to know what ELSE the writer would have meant. But its certainly not clear why energy companies or governments would worry about a possible need for lower levels of energy use, because back then resources seems near infinite, population was much lower and also because society dealt with pollution issues as they arose in pragmatic ways, sometimes well, sometimes badly.
Putting it simply its not clear why anyone back then would have considered the need for systemic change given the circumstances and knowledge at that time.
Its far more likely energy companies ( and perhaps society at large) were just being practical. For example Europe started to run short of timber so naturally energy companies developed coal and oil to meet energy demands and to make a proft. Occams Razor. Im not saying this was necessarily wise. Just that the author is reading too much into things.
This is what I was trying to say previously, but maybe not very clearly.
But of course we have 8 billion people now, and much greater environmental impacts, and a much better understanding of resource issues and limits, environmental impacts, and how we are pushing planetary boundaries, so some sort of transition to a more sustainable lower environmental impacts system is more on peoples radar, and seems entirely desirable.
The question is how we achieve that transition to a more sustainable world, and without totally destabilsing the economy (as you mention elsewhere, and its been a concern of mine also). I would suggest it might have to be a bit slow or gradual, so the human systems can adapt, and will have to make practical compromises, other than to say the climate problem needs urgent attention. And right now the only useful approach to the climate issue that looks plausible overall to me is renewables. There are other possibilities, but they look problematic and very unlikely to get any significant traction with people.
Ron Rsays
Wildlife numbers fall by 73% in 50 years, global stocktake finds
“Tom Oliver, professor of ecology at the University of Reading, who is unconnected with the report, said when this information was combined with other datasets, insect declines for example, “we can piece together a robust – and worrying – picture of global biodiversity collapse”.
….
“Please don’t just feel sad about the loss of nature,” Mr Barrett said.
“Be aware that this is now a fundamental threat to humanity and we’ve really got to do something now.”
Valentina Marconi, from the Zoological Society of London’s Institute of Zoology, told BBC News the natural world was in a “precarious position” but with urgent, collective action from world leaders “we still have the chance to reverse this”.
Tales from the Carbon Energy Pulse
How Ancient Sunlight Fuels Our Own Destruction
Does the topic of climate change, energy use, and hand-waving environmentalists drive you over the edge? Do you find it impossible to pinpoint or understand the core issues that actually matter? Are you frustrated with being bombarded by confusing scientific jargon, endless streams of data, and unprovable claims that make your head spin and eventually bore you to tears?
One of the biggest issues for the West, but also for the East when we pillage their resources is the stock market. I should have pointed that out in the article and would have if I thought about it. :-( It’s rather obvious. It’s based on continual growth. People are dependent on its continually rising. The whole structure of the first world is based on it! Development is dependent on it. Without the money invested in stocks they can’t do business. The idea of inflation is too, isn’t it?
We desperately need to come up with an alternative to Wall Street.
Mal Adaptedsays
Ron R: Behind it all are our growing numbers.
I read the Ehrlichs’ book The Population Bomb shortly after it was published in 1968. I was in High School then. The global Total Fertility Rate was about 5.0 children per average woman at that time. I saw clearly how open-ended human population growth would result in ever-worsening environmental impacts, eventually leading to a global “war of all against all” (T. Hobbes) on an ecologically ruined planet. As all those babies born in the 60s and 70s grew up and had children of their own, I watched the pressure on global natural resources and biodiversity explode. That sense of doom dominated my thinking about the future for several decades.
Then, in the early 2000s, I learned that global TFR had fallen by half from its 1963 peak of 5.3. IOW, the problem of open-ended population growth was resolving itself. While the rate of TFR decline has slowed since then, it’s now at 2.3, barely above the replacement value of 2.1, and still declining. It looks right now like our numbers will peak at around 10 – 12 billion before 2100, then start to fall.
Of course, many of the pejorative trends underway in 1970 have intensified as our numbers have grown past 8 billion. Without several significant technological breakthroughs, we’d have hit Malthusian limits already. Sadly, pretty much everything done for “the benefit of all humanity” carries a cost to multiple other species we evolved with. We can expect more erosion of ecological carrying capacity and biodiversity in the decades and centuries ahead. Population growth won’t be a forcing factor in the process, however: if anything, population decline will constrain future economic growth.
My sense of inexorable doom is thus ameliorated by the falling global TFR, and by the “green vortex” of energy market responses to collective decarbonization measures taken around the world. That leaves the impact of growing per capita income, and of markets that will always socialize every transaction cost they can get away with, as globally controlling forces. Incremental market intervention is where we’ll get the biggest bang for our collective buck, as I live out my medically-assisted, “natural” but childless life (gotta love Medicare). Count me out of storming the Capitol.
My fellow US citizens, please vote Democratic, the party of collective action against climate change, next month. If you live in a swing state, remember that a vote for anyone but Harris and the Democrats, or no vote at all, is equivalent to a vote for Trump and the Republicans, the party of plutocracy in our country. However distasteful you may otherwise feel voting Democratic is, please just hold your nose and do it. Your country, all the other countries, and the biosphere will thank you!
Don Williamssays
@ MalAdapted
1) I’m not sure a group of men knows what affects the fertility rate but I will take a shot. Sorry to state the obvious but:
2) The primary effect is driven both by population growth and level of consumption per person. Africa and central Asia have a very high fertility rate but people in rich countries emit far more carbon/consume more natural resources/create more pollution per person than someone in Africa. We would need 3-4 more planet Earths to give everyone the US/EU living standard that allegedly leads to low fertility.
3) In the aggregate, world GDP(consumption) has continued to climb, world Primary Energy consumption continues to climb and world population continues to climb. US native fertility rate is low but our high consumption population has continued to climb because of emigration and a high birth rate for some groups. Rich investors/political donors push for high emigration/population growth to sustain continued GDP growth because without GDP growth their investments crash and burn (debt service,etc.)
4) It may be an error to conclude that high incomes will always lead to low fertility rates. US fertility rate soared in the high income 1950s , possibly because (a) Government policy gave job priority to WWII returning soldiers leaving few good jobs for women (b) there was more competition for providing husbands due to fewer men (war deaths) and children was a way to commit a marriage (c) conditions ensured there would be food for the children. Similarly, population soared in Asia when the Green Revolution made child starvation unlikely and it is likely to climb with China’s revoking of the one-child policy.
5) Multiple factors –War/economic depression/AI etc — could encourage high fertility conditions (e.g loss of jobs for women) and War would also result in high consumption with indifference to environmental effects. Male infantry deaths might also lessen support for feminism. Another factor is religion – e.g, Catholicism’s encouragement of high birth rates.
6) Bottom Line: Projections of flat/declining world population and declining consumption in 2060 are guesses. At some point Mother Nature may opt for a brisk nuclear war to thin the human herd (and the remaining wildlife—which do not have fallout shelters. )
zebrasays
Don, what causes decline in fertility rates is well established… it is rational self-interest.
For women in third-world countries, in particular where agriculture is small-scale, children are an economic benefit. And the family structure works to support the individuals as much as possible, pooling diverse sources of income.
You need to do a little research, since your comment on China is contradicted by reality. The Chinese government is desperately trying to encourage an increase in TFR, but with little success, even though China is nowhere near as “wealthy” as the USA.
When women achieve a certain reasonable level of economic security, and are empowered to make their own decisions, the logic is obvious… every additional child is an economic and personal burden, which is detrimental to the “previous” child as well as the woman. And of course there are the physical consequences and risks with each pregnancy.
We see this playing out in a variety of cultures, at different levels of prosperity, and even where women are still less socially and politically empowered.
Nigeljsays
Don Williams,
You mention that it may not be possible for high fertility countries like Africa to achieve the high incomes of the western world needed for a demographic transition to low fertility rate, because the world has limited resources. Its possible, but we just dont really know what will happen because theres not enough certainty on levels of resources. Parts of Asia achieved low fertility rates with modest incomes growth, so there may be enough resources for that in Africa.
Also there is evidence that high incomes are not the main factor in low fertility. A poor African country (I can’t recall the name) did an experiment where the government gave away free contraceptives to a couple of regions, and the fertility rate plumetted. So countries do not have to have to have high average incomes to reduce fertilty.They just need to liberalise contraception.
You mention examples of high incomes leading to low fertility. However these are exceptions and for reasons understood, and the point is they havent lead to higher global fetility rates. Higher incomes and the demographic transition have lead to lower fertilty rates through much of the world.
You mention wars and economic depressions could cause higher fertility rates. But the world has had many wars and depressions and this hasnt stopped a decline in the global fertility rate. Probably because they are mostly local and of limited duration and not enough people defer having families. It would probably take a massive global war lasting a very long time of many decades to change the global fertility trend such a thing is unlikely.
You mention Chinas one child policy being cancelled could lead to high fertility rates. But people have continued to choose to have very small families! Google it.
As a result of the demographic transition the global population growth rate did start reducing around 1970. The experts project that global population growth rate will continue to slow down, and that while population growth will will increase it will peak at about 10 million late this century. Some believe it will then stabilise while others believe global population will start to shrink. Personally I think the demograpic transition will cause population growth to stop and global population will shrink, provided incomes continue to rise a bit and contraception is liberalised in Africa.
Davidsays
Mal wrote “My fellow US citizens, please vote Democratic, the party of collective action against climate change, next month. If you live in a swing state, remember that a vote for anyone but Harris and the Democrats, or no vote at all, is equivalent to a vote for Trump… However distasteful you may otherwise feel voting Democratic is, please just hold your nose and do it.”
Yes on Trump for a hundred reasons. I’ve never before actively encouraged some of my family and friends who rarely vote to do so. But not this year.
Mal, btw, I wanted to thank you for your generous words in last month’s U.V. By the time I saw the comment the month was over, so I waited till I could reply to you now. :-)
Davidsays
Ugh! Just to clarify, I 100% agree that a vote for Trump is a vote against science and a vote against desperately needed action on climate change. And there are a hundred other reasons not to vote for this man if you care about our children and grandchildren besides the enormous issue of the climate.
So as a lifelong Republican, I say please vote for Kamala Harris.
Ron R.says
Mal Adapted, we may hit a total fertility or replacement rate of 2.0 as you say. Maybe we’ll level out at 10,000,000,000 as others say. They think that’d be great! But our numbers now are already spelling biocide. You know, that sixth extinction thing? They have been for awhile now.
What is that number? I’ve said before that 1 or 2 billion is it and that I think the whole world, not just 30%, should be designated a nature preserve with everything else conditioned on that, not be the piecemeal charity after thought that it is now. How do we do it? We can start by taking it seriously, acknowledge it and start at least talking about it (and no, I’m not talking about genocide – oh brother). If we are concerned about climate change for the world’s sake it makes zero sense if we are willing to ignore something else which has such dire consequences does it? It’s like a mass blind spot.
We are very close to the 50% – 90% of earth alteration that Barnosky warned of before a mass extinction event becomes irreversible, if we’re not already there.
Ehrlich stumbled upon this issue as far as I’m concerned. If not for him someone else would have had to say something, it’s so obvious. Ehrlich doesn’t own the issue.
“someone else would have had to say something, it’s so obvious.”
Yes
Mal Adaptedsays
Ron R. and Don Williams: we need to greatly REDUCE our current numbers to a global carrying capacity, not hold them steady.
If this is TL;DR, please just skip it. Otherwise, please read at least as far as my questions for both of you before responding, as they aren’t purely rhetorical. I promise there’s a point!
First, let’s explicitly take any proposals to reduce our current numbers by deliberately raising the global mortality rate, off the table. That said, I think the three of us are in moral agreement with Ron’s assertion, at least from a biodiversity protection perspective. The Sixth Great Extinction has been a source of grief for me since age eight. I was convinced by fourteen that humanity’s population growth was unsustainable for most other species. My childhood preoccupation with “natural history” extended to two years in a doctoral problem in Ecology and Evolution, before I decided not to work that hard for a living. My pseudonym reflects my voluntary (though not primarily for unselfish reasons) self-selection out of the species’ gene pool!
So, What is to Be Done? A rhetorical question, as none of us is King of the World, and every one of our 8+ billion conspecifics acts primarily for their own inclusive fitness, without regard for the personal fears of three westerners on a blog. Consider: with some prominent exceptions like China’s top-down, coercive one-child policy, the global decline in TFR hasn’t been the result of targeted collective intervention in women’s reproductive choices. For example, Brazil’s internal TFR has fallen more or less steadily from 6.1 in 1960 to 1.6 in 2022, primarily attributed to rising economic expectations:
Demographers say the fertility rate is declining because the country is richer and more urban, but they also point to Brazil’s hugely popular soap operas and their portrayal of small, glamorous families.
My first point is that it may be possible to drive TFR lower, faster, by collective action, so that our global population peaks a couple of decades sooner than it otherwise would, then starts to decline, as birth rate falls below the global “natural” death rate. But at what collective cost? Must we live under a Chinese-style authoritarian government that’s able to disregard individual women’s wishes for more children? Or should wealthy countries simply assist poor, high-fertility ones to improve family health, social security, female education and empowerment, and even didactic telenovelas? Again, bearing in mind that all collective action is driven by politics, the art of the possible, I’d appreciate seeing your plans for collectively bringing global population down more quickly. Should we (i.e. US voters) expand our ostensibly benevolent “economic development assistance” to other countries, explicitly to reduce their population growth? Should we (i.e. voters in any nominal democracy) give the UN the power to enforce a global one-child policy, and back it up with our police at home and our military abroad? These aren’t rhetorical questions, because while I have opinions, I don’t have definitive answers. All I’ve got is a vote in US elections.
My other point, which I’m always belaboring, is that targeted collective intervention in national energy markets, to neutralize the price advantage fossil fuels currently have over carbon-neutral alternatives, is already driving a global green vortex of rapidly expanding renewable energy supply combined with precitipitously falling LCOE. In the US, the “Inflation Reduction” Act of 2022 was the first federal legislation aimed at decarbonizing our economy in 34 largely wasted years. The IRA was a bare Democratic victory. At this moment, US voters are choosing between securing and extending our national decarbonization policy incrementally, or taking a giant step backward into denial. Note: those are our only choices! I know how I’m voting. How about you (rhetorical question: I don’t even know if either of you live in the US)?
Mal Adaptedsays
Uh:
the “Inflation Reduction” Act of 2022 was the first federal legislation aimed at decarbonizing our economy in 34 largely wasted years.
should be read as
the “Inflation Reduction” Act of 2022 was the first federal legislation in 34 largely wasted years, aimed at decarbonizing our economy.
Beware of copypasta.
Nigeljsays
Mal Adapted, I generally share your views on the human populaton issue. Ironically when I was around 12 yrs old I read about the the huge growth in human population and thought this was one of humanities biggest problems, and it certainly convinced me of the merits of small familiy size. I have never seen a reason to change my views.
Fortunately the demographic transition process based around increasing levels of income has reduced the global fertility rate, and it looks like this will generally continue, although whether it causes global population to shrink is less certain. Piotr raised some good counter arguments against global population shrinking, mainly that if gdp growth slows down due to resource scarcity and / or climate change, Africa might remain poor and high fertility thus offsetting low fertility in other countries..But obviously we cant say for sure this will happen. Too many unknowns.
You ask whether we can somehow speed up the reduction in the global fertility rate. One thing I read was that a poor African country (I cant remember which) did an experiment where the government gave away free contraception in one region and the fertility rate dropped quite a bit. So it appears easy access to contraception is really important and only very modest increases in income are required. So if countries encouraged easier availability of contraception and made it free, or subsidised the costs this would help speed up the drop in fedrtility rate.. Unfortunately moral and religious dogma get in the way of this a bit but it does remain a very low cost, simple way of speeding up the decline in global fertility and it doesnt require coercive, intrusive, government programmes.
Ron R.says
Not all all to long MA. I’ve seen lots longer here. Your second paragraph is humorous, btw.
But yeah, around that age I also figured just from extrapolation that our numbers were unsustainable. Especially from a wildlife pov. It has bothered me ever since. I’m absolutely mystified that people in general, especially those which should know better, seem to be nonplussed by this avoidable emergency.
Mal Adapted, your handle. Well you know what happens to species that aren’t well adapted :-) ? I have one child, a daughter. Two became one.
Must we live under a Chinese-style authoritarian government that’s able to disregard individual women’s wishes for more children? Or should wealthy countries simply assist poor, high-fertility ones to improve family health, social security, female education and empowerment, and even didactic telenovelas”?
No and yes (imo). Keep in mind that helping them preserve their environment is actually helping ourselves. It’s all one planet. We need to recognize that.
”I’d appreciate seeing your plans for collectively bringing global population down more quickly.”
I’m not too creative. This is what I see. We do what we did with climate change, we start making hay out of this issue. No, not just NGOs. Nobody really cares what they say. One opinion as good as another to most people. They are simply too busy with all the other distractions to listen to another. But if people notable, actually everybody notable, like presidents, actors and actresses etc, start to speak up then people will perk up. As the article I originally posted said,
”Valentina Marconi, from the Zoological Society of London’s Institute of Zoology, told BBC News the natural world was in a “precarious position” but with urgent, collective action from world leaders “we still have the chance to reverse this”.
World leaders, especially, then the rest of us can chime in. Like Attenborough said, this issue for some bizarre reason is “taboo”. My suspicion is that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is behind it, and some environmental organizations, trying to be politically correct, have bought into their line about it being raciest. I haven’t researched that former suspicion though. Just my guess. After that, though, your guess is as good as mine.
” Should we (i.e. US voters) expand our ostensibly benevolent “economic development assistance” to other countries, explicitly to reduce their population growth?”
I think we already do that by funding the U.N. Population Programs don’t we? Planned Parenthood? Course soon as the republicans get power they defund it, so..
Backing things up with police always backfires. People hate coercion.. This should be voluntary. By telling us what is obvious to most people (The Elephant in the Room, that thing that’s nagging us all but which we are avoiding, preferring to kick the can down the road – that there’s simply too many of us) and why we should stop this train wreck while we still can (not just to save all the other species but thereby to save ourselves as well) people have shown that they can get behind things. Look at how we got being the defeat of Hitler in WWII for example with Victory Gardens, etc. etc. Look how a determined anti-smoking campaign has curbed smoking in this nation.
I’m in the US and have already voted.
Ron R.says
I forgot to include this link. It shows the damage that we were already responsible for at a much lower population than the 10 out 12 billion people are willing to settle for.
Democracy in Boulder has declined to 20% of what it was 50 years ago
and the second example has to do with
1:04:29
the year 2000 national census this showed that in the decade of the 90s the
1:04:34
US population increased by about 13 percent now this means every house seat
1:04:41
in the House of Representatives now has 13 percent more constituents on the
1:04:47
average than they did 10 years ago and in the last one hour the world population is increased by about 10,000
1:04:54
people and the population of the United States in this one hour has increased by about 280 people and we have to ask why
1:05:04
don’t more US environmentalists and environmental organizations speak out about the problem of population growth?
1:05:09 here in the United States the simple arithmetic makes it absolutely clear
that long term preservation of the environment in the U.S. is impossible in
the face of continued U.Ss. population growth
but you hear all sorts of political leaders say all we can have our growth
we’ll call it smart growth and smart growth will save the environment well we need to know about
1:05:31
smart growth smart growth destroys the environment dumb growth destroys the environment
now smart growth just destroys the environment with good taste so it’s a little like buying a ticket on
1:05:44
the Titanic if you’re smart you go first class if you’re dumb you go steerage but
1:05:49
the results the same
so central to the things that we must do is to recognize
1:05:55
the population growth is the immediate cause of all of our resource and environmental crises and of all the
1:06:02
crises I think this one global warming looms larger and more threatening than
1:06:08
anything in all of human history now because of our enormous per-capita
1:06:13
consumption of resources we can say with confidence the world’s worst population
growth problem is right here in the United States but you hear all sorts of well-meaning people pointing to distant
1:06:26
underdeveloped nations and saying they’re the problem with overpopulation the average person in the United States
1:06:32
and a lifetime will consume something like maybe 30 times the amount of resources that’ll be consumed by a
1:06:39
person in a lifetime in an underdeveloped nation we are the problem we have the responsibility and we have
1:06:46
the authority to deal with the problem here as a domestic problem in the United
1:06:51
States and some years ago speaking here on the campus of the University of Colorado our United States Senator Tim
1:06:58
Wirth said that the best thing we can do to help other countries stop their population growth is for us
1:07:04
to set an example and stop our own population growth here in the u.s. we
1:07:09
have sent representatives to international conferences to tell the underdeveloped nations you’re the problem you’ve got to stop your
1:07:16
population growth and they just laugh and say look you’re the problem with all of your high per capita consumption
“maybe you’re wondering what sort of options are available if we wanted to address the problem – in the left-hand column I’ve listed some of those things that we should encourage if we want to raise the rate of growth of population and in so doing make the problem worse
just look at the list everything in the list is as sacred is motherhood — there’s immigration medicine public health sanitation these are all devoted to the humane goals of lowering the death rate and that’s very important to me if it’s my death they’re lowering — but then I have to realize that anything that just lowers the death rate makes the population problem worse ”
—
My response is: The global population must be reduced significantly, and this will either happen through conscious, rational, and mature policies or by the inevitable forces of the unchecked (exponential) growth trajectory we are currently on.
Without coordinated global action, we face decimation through international wars, nuclear conflict, civil unrest, armed revolutions, social violence, disease, crop failures, total depletion of fish stocks, crop failures, famine, climate disasters like wildfires, heatwaves, and floods, along with industrial-scale accidents and widespread pollution as a result of civil society breakdown.
A comprehensive global policy under an emergency legally binding United Nations direction would include:
A legally binding, global one-child-per-family policy.
Prioritizing universal women’s rights, with education programs focusing on smaller families and the importance of choosing not to have children.
Universal access to contraception and safe abortions for all.
Halting immigration to wealthy nations with high per capita energy and resource consumption, particularly in the Western world.
This is a global crisis that requires a universal response rooted in science and mathematics, not emotional or power-driven ideologies or nationalist exceptionalism.
Given that this is extremely unlikely to happen in the future the natural logical outcome is that the ongoing growth will lead to extreme resource and food water shortages and the resulting impacts will rapidly drive the population down to a sustainable level eventually.
My only hope is that this occurs before all the biosphere and biodiversity is almost totally annihilated by our insidious human actions.
Could you explain how you would in parallel secure “A legally binding, global one-child-per-family policy” and “universal women’s rights”?
Does the choice of the own family size not count among women’s rights anymore?
Best regards
T
Davidsays
Dharma: “A comprehensive global policy under an emergency legally binding United Nations direction (sic) would include:
A legally binding, global one-child-per-family policy.
Prioritizing universal women’s rights, with education programs focusing on smaller families and the importance of choosing not to have children.
Universal access to contraception and safe abortions for all.
Halting immigration to wealthy nations with high per capita energy and resource consumption, particularly in the Western world.”
Stunning lack of understanding of the UN Charter. The UN has no legal enforcement mechanisms to use to enforce such a plan. Hell, the UN struggles to even get member states to pay their dues.
There are so many obvious holes in this flaccid line of reasoning Dharma offers via this proposal it almost goes without saying. As Tomáš has already observed, advocating for universal women’s rights is in absolute conflict with then telling women what they can or can not do with their bodies. Telling people as individuals and nations as a whole that the UN will control who gets to immigrate where is a laughter-inducing proposal. Ditto the UN telling nations that “western nations” get one set of rules and the rest of world another set to play by.
Why? Again it is because the UN does not, has not, and will not ever be given the power of enforcement. Dharama, read the UN charter, particularly the portions that deal with enforcement and how changes can get made to the charter.
Your proposal is yet another example of those who shout no one understands the problem except them and those who already espouse such reasoning.
JCMsays
to David,
The UN’s role is develop international frameworks, which provide guidelines, principles, and targets which are governed by conventions/protocols under international law. Conventions, when ratified by member states, become legally binding treaties.
A sample of current major treaties include:
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFCCC
United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity UNCBD
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification UNCCD
each has a governing body called the Conference of the Parties COP.
Civil society plays a crucial role in upholding accountability (enforcement) – including communities, associations, media, and social movements. Even RealClimate itself and its commentariat plays a role in holding governments accountable by providing a platform for diverse voices and fostering civic engagement and participation.
The showcase initiative at this time is UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021-2030) which aims to restore at least 1 billion hectares of degraded ecosystems globally by 2030, leveraging various treaties and protocols. However, there has been a notable failure of civil society in upholding accountability for this initiative.
In Western democracies, the issue is entirely overlooked in political campaigns, disregarded by corporate news media, undervalued by research foundations, and undermined by certain techno-ideological associations and NGOs. As a result, this initiative is at significant risk of catastrophic failure. Many people seem unaware of its existence, and I suspect that most have never heard of a COP outside the GHG emission framework embraced by the investment class and showcased in glossy brochures.
Moreover, it seems that contemporary environmental activists are often more knowledgeable about obscure topics such as advances in EROI and the capital investments of foreign nations than about simple ecological indicators and trends within a 1 km radius of their own homes. This situation underscores a growing disconnect from tangible reality, a failure in public education, and the weakening of the essential Civil instruments envisioned to support & enforce global UN initiatives.
Dharmasays
David says
22 Oct 2024 at 6:08 AM
David, your reactionary, hyperbolic, and factually incorrect comments are disingenuous and distorted. They’re not worth engaging with, so I won’t be reading them again.
Davidsays
JCM,
Thank you for the reply. Perhaps I didn’t clearly make my point. Yes, the UN can create and does have many worthwhile programs that member states can vote to accept and participate in, including acceptance of enforcement provisions (such as they are). I’m familiar with the UN Charter as amended having read it front to back several times through the years.
But first, you have to have member state acceptance. And in regards to Dharma’s plan, there is no way in hell my country or a number of ‘western style’ democracies will ever cede the level of control of internal affairs to the UN (no matter how lofty and worthy the program goals) Dharma proposes may be. That should be obvious. And I didn’t even take time to discuss how countries like Russia, China, India, etc would be handled under such a proposal.
Thus Dharma’s proposal is dismissible as pie-in-the-sky fantasy.
Regarding the disconnect between local ecology awareness and education,
I heartily agree. As a former ‘disconnected,’ I’m trying to make a change, using my little plot of yard and gardens as a springboard to discussion with neighbors and the occasional passerby who stops to comment. The information needed to make such a change was already available, I just needed to read it and begin, starting from the soil on up. But again, you’re 100% on the mark, there is a unacceptable lack of education. I’m trying to do more at the local level and will keep up the effort.
Cheers & thank you for your thoughts,
Davidsays
And JCM,
Sorry, hit the post button and then saw I didn’t comment on an very important issue you highlighted:
You said: “The showcase initiative at this time is UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021-2030) which aims to restore at least 1 billion hectares of degraded ecosystems globally by 2030, leveraging various treaties and protocols. However, there has been a notable failure of civil society in upholding accountability for this initiative.
In Western democracies, the issue is entirely overlooked in political campaigns, disregarded by corporate news media, undervalued by research foundations, and undermined by certain techno-ideological associations and NGOs. As a result, this initiative is at significant risk of catastrophic failure. Many people seem unaware of its existence, and I suspect that most have never heard of a COP outside the GHG emission framework embraced by the investment class and showcased in glossy brochures.“
Whether it is this critically important initiative or a host of others focused on preservation and restoration of the biosphere, again I’m in agreement with you. Speaking only about my country, yes, the matter you outline gets almost zero attention. Even from the “glossy brochure” class you rightly skewer.
But what to do? Again, like my yard/garden, I can learn more and try to educate locally. And what you highlight above? The UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021-2030)? Have I spoke specifically about it to anyone locally? No. So that is my failing. A failing I would rectify, but how? Enhancement of education of the young seems almost a trifle of a challenge compared to change on the scale required to affect the arenas you highlight. Trying to open minds of local adults already focused on so many things but yet not the climate, the biodiversity extinction crisis, or land use seems to my old tired eyes a destination out of reach these days. If you have an idea, I’ll listen though… I’m tired, but not dead ;-)
Barton Paul Levensonsays
D: David, your reactionary, hyperbolic, and factually incorrect comments are disingenuous and distorted. They’re not worth engaging with, so I won’t be reading them again.
BPL: Who wants to bet we’ll see this comment again soon?
Don Williamssays
1) The primary problem is Overconsumption – which is caused by multiple factors: overpopulation, high consumption per capita, war or interstate competition etc.
2) US Overconsumption could be greatly reduced without lowering living standards but powerful interests/propaganda will oppose that. People make money encouraging overconsumption – there is no profit (monetary or political) from reducing it. Well, aside from Ebay (encourage reuse of products) and early Amazon (reuse books).
3) Since we don’t have a global government, any population policy will have to be handled at the national level. Here in the USA it will be blocked by powerful financial interests. Re biodiversity, I doubt that we here in the USA will protect wildlife since we tolerate the hideous practices of factory farming – in part because prostitutes in our legislatures made it illegal to tell Americans the truth about how our food is produced. The primary advocates for wildlife seem to be the hunters and fishermen but the vast majority of voters are urban dwellers largely isolated from/indifferent to Nature.
4) High consumption per capita is caused by multiple factors: advertising encouraging people to buy a bunch of worthless crap, items which require high amounts of resources (e.g, automobiles, electronics, etc ) being designed with short life spans and designed to be difficult to maintain/repair. The New York fashion industry has a very big carbon footprint due to its culture of clothing having a short period of “fashion”. The purpose of this stupidity being to force the consumer to make frequent purchases in order to drive up sales volume/profits.
5) USA energy consumption would be reduced enormously if our cities/housing/job centers were designed to provide everyone with a 10 minute commute via walking, biking or public transport. ( How many people want to go back to the office after working at home during the Covid lockdowns? ) Similarly, homes with geothermal HVAC and solar roofs could be energy independent – the obstacle is large capital investment up front which takes a while to pay for itself and so we have the slow arterial bleeding of eternal power bills.
6) Our suburbs — which consume enormous amounts of land, oil and commuting time — were the result of President Eisenhower’s Project East River – the plan to use Interstates and federal highway money to disperse the US population and industry so it would be less vulnerable to nuclear attack. (Blast pressure diminishes rapidly with distance – radius cubed.) An early Cold War policy which is gaining renewed interest Unlike you, not everyone will take
“deliberately raising the global mortality rate, off the table.”
My version has +/- 0.06 uncertainty for each year in average, which I think is more secure than the +/- 0.02 uncertainty as communicated by individual institutes.
Friends from Princeton have been in touch about Hopfield Hinton Nobel. Hopfield on AI; he also made a reference to More is Different, for which I found an open link: “I worry about anything which says, I’m big, I’m fast, I’m bigger than you, I’m faster than you, and I can also run you.” https://www.tkm.kit.edu/downloads/TKM1_2011_more_is_different_PWA.pdf
The 17 November 2023 New Yorker focused on AI. Some extracts if anyone is interested, particularly if they subscribe but some meat on the bones for those who don’t. I worry about supercomputing’s vast use of energy, and still think of computers as machines we can pull the plug on. Lots about Hinton!
More recent. Are We Doomed? Here’s How to Think About It:Climate change, artificial intelligence, nuclear annihilation, biological warfare—the field of existential risk is a way to reason through the dizzying, terrifying headlines. Rivka Galchen – https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/06/10/are-we-doomed-heres-how-to-think-about-it — About a course so it doesn’t really focus as this next does (Joshua Rothman is a personal favorite). Geoffrey Hinton: “It’s Far Too Late” to Stop Artificial Intelligence: The so-called godfather of A.I. believes we need to put constraints on the technology so it won’t free itself from human control. But he’s not sure whether that’s possible. – https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/11/20/geoffrey-hinton-profile-ai
near the end:
thinking about the story of A.I. To some, it’s a Copernican tale, in which our intuitions about the specialness of the human mind are being dislodged by thinking machines. To others, it’s Promethean—having stolen fire, we risk getting burned. Some people think we’re fooling ourselves, getting taken in by our own machines and the companies that hope to profit from them. In a strange way, it could also be a story about human limitation. If we were gods, we might make a different kind of A.I.; in reality, this version was what we could manage. Meanwhile, I couldn’t help but consider the story in an Edenic light. By seeking to re-create the knowledge systems in our heads, we had seized the forbidden apple; we now risked exile from our charmed world. But who would choose not to know how knowing works?
Susan said: “I worry about supercomputing’s vast use of energy”
It’s a fact of life now. Even for the use of supercomputers for solving climate/MET models it’s a fact. It’s also sad that there’s a Green(!!!) 500 list of energy efficient supercomputers –https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green500 . The most efficient ones on the list around 1 Exaflops are still comparable to the power consumption of a Boeing 737 flying at altitude, and that’s considering the extrinsic factor of cooling the systems with water while running non-stop for maximum utilization. Hopefully they use the waste heat for the buildings. Just think about the number of electrons traveling through all those chips with nothing accomplished but colliding with lattice defects, phonons, etc to dissipate that kind of energy through heat!
That’s why I have adopted as my recent crusade to advertise working smart and not hard in solving climate models. There’s absolutely no excuse for researchers to not cross-check model results that can potentially capture ocean cycles by computations running on a laptop. https://geoenergymath.com/2024/09/23/amo-and-the-mt-tide/
OK, so what if this model doesn’t pan out? How much energy is wasted? Is it the equivalent of fleets of 737’s running around the clock while not making any progress in explaining what caused the 2023 temperature or being unable to predict an El Nino beyond a year?
Face it. If nothing else, these natural climate patterns will be found out by a machine learning experiment run by Google or NVIDIA. And like what happened with the most recent physics and chemistry Nobel prizes, it won’t go to a traditional physicist or chemist but to someone applying AI.
Just think if someone the equivalent of Susan’s father https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_W._Anderson will no longer receive Nobel physics awards at the expense of machines? Let’s get the recognition before that plays out ;)
Nigeljsays
Dharma
“Your point on financial fragility does connect to this: how do we move toward true sustainability without triggering economic collapse?”
I would suggest slowly and gradually. IMHO a rapid transition maybe on timeframe of decades would likely create mass unemployment, and a collapse of the transport grid and provision of basic goods and services. A slower transition gives us time to adapt.
However we do have to solve the climate issue quite rapidly but I’ve seen enough to believe this is possible without wrecking the ecnomy – if we want.
It also depends what is meant by true sustainability? What is your understanding? Personally I think such concepts are nebulous, and some interpretations and plans I have seen are so incredibly stringent and demanding, with such ambitious reductions in consumption of modern goods, services and energy, that they are quite onerous and unlikely to gain significant traction with people.
We are going to have to come up with a definition that significantly reduces environmental damage, and solves the serious problems like the decline in insect population, and accepts we are best to reduce our use of energy and materials to at least a moderate degree. Its going to require practical commonsense and compromise on what seems the best way forwards. The world has experimented with purist, massively ambitious doctrinaire idealism with communism, and that went horribly wrong.
Fortunately population growth has slowed in many places and it seems likely this will continue. This will help to some extent, given population gowth is the main driver of environmental impacts, along with high levels of per capita consumption.
Don Williamssays
@Nigelj : “The world has experimented with purist, massively ambitious doctrinaire idealism with communism, and that went horribly wrong.”
Hopefully not too wrong — since the Master Plan to Save the World seems to depend upon massive imports of cheap solar panels and electric cars components produced by the Commies in China.
Don Williamssays
PS And if we’re defining “horribly wrong” lets not forget that the Capitalist Demigods of Europe and the USA caused this disaster by burning huge amounts of coal/ oil and dumping 1 trillion tons of CO2 into the air. This AFTER woman scientist Eunice Foote warned in 1856 that increased CO2 in the air would raise the Earth’s temperature.
The context of having best-laid climate change mitigation plans go “horribly wrong” falls under the long-standing strategy known as the No Regrets policy. In theory, this policy takes into consideration that weaning off of fossil fuels has benefits besides CC mitigation, which includes addressing the more important** problem of peak oil and that of reducing pollution in general..It’s actually described in historical IPCC documents and has advocates such as the conservative pollster Frank Luntz. A carbon dividends group made a short video describing the policy here: https://youtu.be/l6dKyoHgvFA
It even has a quote of Luntz saying: “and that’s if the scientists are wrong”
** more important in the context of a suburban BAU existential crisis
Ron Rsays
I know that calling for a reduction in global population will sound rather unrealistic to a lot of people here, can almost hear the words, “good luck with that! Maybe so. Good thing, though, we didn’t take such a defeatist attitude towards climate change. But maybe that’s all some people can fit on their plate.
My feeling is that we don’t fully appreciate what a sixth extinction will do to the planet and to people if we choose to look the other way. To treat concern for their loss as a “quaint” issue that we are above. They are still here, most of them anyway. Other species. We still have time. It’s simply unacceptable that we calmly allow them to go away before our eyes. We should all be raising the roof.
If we care, if we are going to say something, its time.
Davidsays
Gotta love the catchy cheerful headline phys.org chose for this Oct. 10 story:
“Catastrophically warm predictions are more plausible than previously thought, say climate scientists”
. https://phys.org/news/2024-10-catastrophically-plausible-previously-thought-climate.html
.
Nature Communications link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-50813-z
.
.
Closing paragraph in the phys.org story (I wonder how many climate scientists share this feeling?):
.
“Sometimes I feel that climate scientists are a bit like Cassandra of Greek mythology,” concludes Nenes. “She was granted the power of prophecy, but was cursed so that no one would listen to her. But this inertia or lack of action should motivate not discourage us. We have to collectively wake up and really address climate change, because it may be accelerating much more than what we thought.”
Dharmasays
David says
13 Oct 2024 at 12:30 AM
What I stated earlier is quite clear and straightforward. I cannot provide further clarification beyond that.
However, I would recommend exploring the interview articles with Gavin on this specific topic, reviewing the relevant page on RealClimate where studies and information are provided, and engaging with other literature or video interviews from climate scientists to gain a deeper understanding.
Dharmasays
When the Paris Climate Agreement was signed, I predicted that there was no realistic chance of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 or 2.0°C above pre-industrial levels. I still stand by that assessment. Global anomalies are running near +1.65 C already.
About 10 years ago, climatologist Kevin Anderson stated that global CO2 emissions needed to decline by 10% per year from that point onward to avoid catastrophic climate impacts. I argued at the time that such a target was unrealistic. That no global reductions would occur. Since then, CO2 emissions have continued to increase every year, except for the temporary dip during the pandemic.
I see first hand that virtually no one here is willing to sacrifice comfort, convenience, or personal desires to meaningfully reduce CO2 emissions. I don’t believe this region is unique in that regard; this attitude likely mirrors much of the U.S., and the world as a whole. At this point, any actions taken in the U.S. to reduce emissions seem like little more than window dressing.
Extensive historical evidence does suggest that hierarchical societies often struggle, or outright fail, to avoid existential threats arising from ecological contradictions. The reason is that these contradictions—such as unsustainable resource use, environmental degradation, or social inequities—are frequently embedded in the structure of such societies. The elite class, which holds the majority of power, tends to benefit from maintaining the status quo, even if it exacerbates long-term risks.
In many cases, elites are shielded from the immediate effects of ecological degradation, as they have access to resources and means of protection that the general population does not. This often leads to a disconnection from the consequences of environmental crises and a resistance to meaningful reform, especially when that reform would threaten their privileges.
Know that if you vote for the pro-climate action / IRA Democrats this election cycle you are voting for this very same elite class. Hierarchical societies in the U.S. everywhere are often incapable of addressing their ecological contradictions because the power structures within them prioritize maintaining the privileges of the elite, even at the cost of long-term survival.
I recommend the interview “How Net Zero Killed 1.5°C” with Earth Systems Scientist Dr. James Dyke.
In this interview, Dyke explains how the Paris Climate Agreement is essentially dead, as the focus on technocratic solutions like “Net Zero” has derailed efforts for real, systemic change. Signed in 2016, the Agreement’s 1.5°C target was undermined by reliance on carbon accounting tricks, rather than addressing the root causes of emissions. Dyke and many other scientists warned that this approach would lead to failure—and just a few years later, we’re now racing toward a 2°C rise in global temperatures.
Dyke also argues that this new 2°C target, which is being quietly pushed as “acceptable” by some, including the fossil fuel industry, cannot be allowed to stand. He outlines how current climate policies are not only ineffective, but they are also perpetuating structural inequalities and resource waste. In the interview, Dyke explains how we got to this point, what went wrong, and what must be done to avoid catastrophic outcomes.
This is Dyke’s second appearance on Planet: Critical, and his insights are vital for understanding the dangers of Net Zero policies and the urgent need for rapid systemic change.
“The large majority of Americans would prefer government action on climate change, but that doesn’t mean that they prioritize the issue when they’re going into their polling place and voting,”
Nathaniel Stinnett, executive director of the Environmental Voter Project
Pew research — Of the Top 20 issues voters think should be policy priorities. “Dealing with Climate Change” is ranked 18th.
Most Americans accept the “Mainstream Climate Science” narrative that “Global Warming” and “Climate Change” are growing concerns but ones that we are taking steps to deal with. They hear the message from people like Hannah Ritchie and Michael Mann. Who tell them that they are right to worry, but that disaster can be diverted by a rapid transition to renewables and a phasing out of fossil fuels.
Stinnett referred to the general public’s concern over environmental issues as “a mile wide and an inch deep,” meaning there is general awareness, but it’s not pushing the needle one way or the other politically.
The majority believe that “Climate Change” is a threat to the environment and health of the planet. BUT, they also believe these threats are still comfortably far off enough in the future that expensive actions or sacrifices are not required today.
If you tell people that a Climate Apocalypse has ALREADY started happening and that civilization is probably going to Collapse as a consequence of that fact. Well, that makes you a “Doomer” because you are telling people that it’s “too late” and so “we might as well do nothing”.
At least, that’s how “Doomers” are being talked about in the mainstream media. Hannah has stated that “Doomers are WORSE than deniers” and Dr. Mann has stated that he regards “Doomism” as a form of mental illness.
Personally I believe these matters will be much clearer after Nov 6th comes around – however I also expect the denial to continue. Not the science denial, the other denial. It’s just the way it is.
Nigeljsays
Dharmas copy and paste quotes:
“The majority believe that “Climate Change” is a threat to the environment and health of the planet. BUT, they also believe these threats are still comfortably far off enough in the future that expensive actions or sacrifices are not required today.”
They do unfortunately. Although the required actions to prevent the worst are arguably not hugely expensive at around 4% of global gdp per year. Its also important to look at costs and benefits of mitigation:
“If you tell people that a Climate Apocalypse has ALREADY started happening and that civilization is probably going to Collapse as a consequence of that fact. Well, that makes you a “Doomer” because you are telling people that it’s “too late” and so “we might as well do nothing…At least, that’s how “Doomers” are being talked about in the mainstream media. Hannah has stated that “Doomers are WORSE than deniers” and Dr. Mann has stated that he regards “Doomism” as a form of mental illness.”
It does make the writer sound like a doomer. While it’s clear that climate change could certainly have severe consequences if left unmitigated (IPCC reports), some people go further and claim that climate change will cause the human race to go extinct, or billions will die in the next 20 years, and / or that mitigation efforts are doomed to failure, and that we cant possibly make renewables work and that nothing will work. Their claims are implausible, and very light on evidence. They dont have a crystal ball and sufficient knowledge of all the factors involved to be certain we are doomed. There is still hope we are not doomed.
They cause people to panic and abandon hope, and they cause young people severe anxiety, and they provide people reasons to do nothing to contribute to solutions, because we are allegedly already doomed. They play into the hands of the climate deniers wishes. They are Lenins useful idiots but dont realise it.
So M Mann sounds right to me overall when he complains about doomerism. But the danger is in going further and minimising the climate problem, to make it sound easy to deal with. So if credible evidence emerges that climate change is worse than thought, for example in the IPCC reports, this has to also be acknowledged, even if it is “doomy news.” IMHO of course.
Dharmasays
Nigelj says
17 Oct 2024 at 4:38 PM
you claim that – “They play into the hands of the climate [science/CAGW] deniers wishes. ”
So you are saying that Climate science deniers, which must include oil companies and Trump Mr Know it all and Victor WUWT etc I assume, want people to believe that billions of people will die in the next 20 years from climate impacts and that nothing can be done to fix it or stop it – and we’re all going to die and civilization is about to collapse – and they want people to believe that renewables can’t work? So that everyone gives up and doesn’t give a damn anymore – because we are already done for – yes?
That is what you and Mann and others believe the “climate deniers” want?
Why do you believe that nonsense? You believe Mann? Why? There is no logic to it at all. It’s an internet ‘meme’.
Nigeljsays
Dharma. No. I never said that. I will explain things a bit more. The doomers play into the denialists hands because when the doomers say mitigation cant or wont work it reinforces the denialists anti renewables message. . But surely that was fairly obvious / self evident in my comments?
And in what way wouldnt it be logical? How could an anti renewables message NOT reinforce the denialists end game?
Of course this doesnt mean we should never criticise renewables or other mitigation proposals. Everything needs some healthy scepticism. But there are obvious ways of doing this without coming across as anti renewables and anti climate action and some sort of denialist or troll..
Dharmasays
Nigelj, I believe you’re conflating several nuanced, independent lines of thought, evidence, and argument into one singular position—namely “anti-renewables.”
This is incorrect and illogical in my opinion and experience. Your assumption that those you disparagingly label as all being ‘doomers’ believe renewables won’t work or that mitigation is impossible is fundamentally wrong and doesn’t align with the facts.
That said, I’ll leave it there. You can have the last word, as I see you’re deeply entrenched in your existing views and judgments, making it difficult to hear or consider anything new or different. This is reinforced by your and others automatic rejection of even experts in their fields and a lack of interest in exploring their work further. Though to assert the rightness of our existing beliefs is very natural and hard to overcome. Climate science deniers have the very same difficulties in my experience.
Nigeljsays
Dharma
“Your assumption that those you disparagingly label as all being ‘doomers’ believe renewables won’t work or that mitigation is impossible is fundamentally wrong and doesn’t align with the facts.”
Several characters on this website have specifically argued renewables wont work or cant work including characters like CJ, Escobar, Ned kelly, Reality Check, and others. And they all sound rather doomy in outlook. They all have remarkably similar views just saying. Its all there in this websites records.
That said I can understand their doomy outlook and their concerns about that renewables. I dont think they are crazy or anything. I just think they are rather too sure of themselves given that we dont have 100% definitive information on the planets recoverable resources, and a crystal ball into the future. Personally I think the best evidence we have is that renewables can work and we have enough resources. I’ve posted relevant links several times.
And we have to try something. It would be foolish to just do nothing on the basis that we cannot 100% guarantee it will work, a truism in all facets of life. Not that you have suggested we should do nothing.
I didnt mean to say that the doomers believe all mitigation is impossible. My bad and a bit of a typo I was really just meaning they argue renewables cant or wornt work.
“That said, I’ll leave it there. You can have the last word, as I see you’re deeply entrenched in your existing views and judgments, making it difficult to hear or consider anything new or different. This is reinforced by your and others automatic rejection of even experts in their fields and a lack of interest in exploring their work further.”
I dont recall that I have automatically rejected anyone. You dont provide any evidence that I have. I read many links that people post on all sorts of viewpoints. It doesn’t mean I have to agree with them.
Your post has a lot of rhetoric and PR speak, and not a lot of substance.
Nigeljsays
Dharma. I said I I believe the evidence shows renewables can work. I just want to add I do accept we cant be 100% sure they will work, as with almost any new venture. I just think they have a very good probability of success.
Dharmasays
Reply to Nigelj
I’d like to clarify that I am not the same person as CJ, Escobar, Ned Kelly, or Reality Check. There’s an entire world beyond this website, where hundreds to thousands of qualified energy experts, scientists, academics, and researchers—many outside the confines of forums like this—are raising similar questions and concerns. These are not ideas I made up. In fact, Professor Hall, the creator of the Energy Return on Investment (EROI) concept, has also discussed similar issues. How exactly are renewables expected to replace over 200 trillion TWh of energy per year?
The question is not “does solar work” the question is can it and the others replace the combined energy provided by GHG generating energy sources and maintain a growing economy – which is what they promise, M Mann, Jacobson and many many others.
These are serious and complex questions that deserve proper attention, not dismissals based on perceived associations with others on this site. However I do acknowledge what you and others say here definitely confirms the severe limitations to genuine open minded evidence based high level discourse. My efforts to share good information are wasted here.
Piotrsays
NIgel to the Ubiquitous D: “ I said I I believe the evidence shows renewables can work. I just want to add I do accept we cant be 100% sure they will work, as with almost any new venture. ”
Nigel you may have given the UD a chance to reframe the problem – you accepted his premise of all or nothing</b? "namely that:
– EITHER renewables can displace 100% of GHG emissions and become problem-less solution to AGW,
– OR they are useless, or in fact harmful – by offering a false hope, and thus detracting from the "real" solutions a given manipulator has in mind.
The manipulation lies in the fact that they DON'T have displace 100% of GHG emissions to be effective.
1. To stabilize CO2 wed don't need to displace ALL fossil fuel emissions – only those that are not subject by natural uptake of fossil fuel CO2 by natural carbon sink – like increased by Co2-fertilization biomass growth and soil sequestration (particularly in boreal forests)
2. Of this portion of CO2 emissions that the natural system cannot take up – renewbale don't have to do all the work by themselves – they can be complemented by the reduction in the demand via increased energy efficiency, smart grid, higher % of the generated electricity being used (as opposed to being wasted when supply exceeds demands) by having mix of sources with different temporal characteristics (when the sun does not shine, the wind may be blowing, and when does not – you run the water on the hydro turbines + energy storage, and adding some nuclear to help with the baseload.
3. Even if despite p.1 and p.2 – the Co2 levels still were rising – renewables still should be pursued for they ability to LIMIT their amount and the RATE of CO2 rise: a world
– with 500ppm would be a very different place than the world with 800 ppm,
– and slower the RATE of AGW – the higher chance of species and ecosystems to adapt to changing T.
So beware of accepting of the deniers and the doomers framing the problem on their "all or nothing" and "if you can' be perfect you may stop trying to be good" fallacies.
And the final question to both the deniers and the doomers – what's your BETTER alternative? Let's enjoy our consumption while it lasts and "After us, the Deluge!"
Barton Paul Levensonsays
D: How exactly are renewables expected to replace over 200 trillion TWh of energy per year?
BPL: Build more of them and stop building the other types.
D: My efforts to share good information are wasted here.
BPL: Yeah, they are just so unappreciative here. If I were you, I’d never post here again. That’ll show ’em!
Piotrsays
Nigelj 17 Oct “They play into the hands of the climate [science/CAGW] deniers wishes. ”
Darma: “ So you are saying that Climate science deniers,[…] want people to believe that billions of people will die in the next 20 years from climate impacts
No, the climate change deniers want people to believe that either there is nothing to worry about, and/or that climate change is caused by “anything but GHGs”, hence no need to move away from fossil fuels.
It is the Darmas. Dharmas, Ned Kellys, Sabines, CJs, Escobars, Compliciuses, and whatever other handles you might have, who want people to believe that “renewables can’t work” and “billions of people will die in the next 20 years from climate impacts” – so the attempts to reduce of GHGs are pointless.
And you both attack the climate science for undermining your message: that there is no problem hence no point in doing anything about GHGs, or that it is hopeless, so there is no point in doing anything about GHGs.
So while you may have started at the opposite ends, you end up in the same bed. Les extrèmes se touchent.
And in doing so- both the deniers and the doomers are, in turn, “useful idiots” of oil multinationals, Russia and Saudi Arabia, “Useful” because they help them extend the worlds dependence on oil and gas, without which the profits of oil&gas multinationals would evaporate, and the authoritarian petro-economies, and therefore the rule of their regimes, wealth of their oligarchs, and ability to wage war on other countries and/or support extremism – – would collapse.
And “idiots” because you do it for free – for you own ideological or psychological needs, being “skeptical” to everybody, but themselves.
By their fruits, not the declarations of the interested parties about themselves, you shall know them.
Barton Paul Levensonsays
D: You believe Mann? Why?
BPL: Because he is a professional with a long list of studies published in peer-reviewed science journals?
Dharmasays
Reply to Barton Paul Levenson; and everyone else:
Climatologist Michael Mann is not an expert in several crucial areas relevant to the energy debate. He is not trained in understanding the nuances of what others mean by what they say. Nor has he even asked them. Nor have you.
Specifically, Mann lacks expertise in energy systems, renewable energy technology, Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE), Energy Return on Investment (EROI), systems analysis, engineering, mining, transportation, metallurgy, psychology, social sciences, mass communications, finance, business, geopolitics, everyday politics, or the media.
The broader discussion about our energy future requires input from a wide range of specialists—energy experts, engineers, economists, geologists, metallurgists, and professionals in psychology, social science, and communication, among others. These disciplines are crucial to understanding the complexities of transitioning to renewable energy and its feasibility in replacing over 200 trillion TWh of energy from fossil fuels per year.
Mann’s expertise is in climatology, not the multifaceted aspects that underpin these critical energy and societal issues. Mann is not the only person who is lacking in this expertise. It is not a shortcoming. But it is a fact.
jgnfldsays
To follow up with BPL…I–and I highly suspect BPL–don’t “believe” Mann so much as I note that his work stands up to any current objections that anyone has been able to make.
That’s how science works and that’s what non-scientists find so hard to understand. Many people want to know “what to believe”. Given the actual way Nature works a better perspective is to try to understand better and worse explanations and models.
Certainly when you get to the quantum level, nothing is absolutely knowable in a causal sense
Barton Paul Levensonsays
D: Mann lacks expertise in energy systems, renewable energy technology, Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE), Energy Return on Investment (EROI), systems analysis, engineering, mining, transportation, metallurgy, psychology, social sciences, mass communications, finance, business, geopolitics, everyday politics, or the media.
BPL: And your qualifications in those fields are what, again?
Dharmasays
Objectivity? No Confirmation Bias? Science? Data? Evidence? Experts? I seriously question if these notions are as important as many people claim they are. So when I say “the same difficulties,” I’m referring to this closed, rigid mindset—whether on climate science or renewables or energy or economics or geopolitics—that makes it hard to engage with new information or even consider other perspectives. Both climate deniers and people in this renewable energy climate change debate tend to fall into these same patterns, rejecting evidence or experts that challenge their pre-existing views.
One or two references leaning one way is insufficient evidence to make a qualified judgement either way. There are, for example, many more experts who have criticized Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) for underestimating the true costs of mitigation and failing to adequately address the limitations and complexities of climate mitigation and energy transitions.
Professional Expert Critics of IAMs
Charles Hall: As a systems ecologist and founder of Energy Return on Investment (EROI) analysis, Hall has critiqued IAMs for ignoring the biophysical limits of energy systems. He argues that the models fail to account for the decreasing EROI of renewable energy and the broader economic impacts of declining fossil fuel availability. Hall emphasizes that IAMs do not include sufficient ecological and energy constraints, leading to flawed assumptions about economic growth and energy transitions.
William Rees: Co-creator of the Ecological Footprint concept, Rees has criticized IAMs for ignoring fundamental biophysical realities, such as resource depletion and ecological overshoot. He argues that IAMs fail to consider the full ecological costs of energy transitions and that their assumptions about indefinite economic growth are disconnected from the material limits of the planet. Rees sees IAMs as overly optimistic about the capacity of renewable energy to maintain current economic structures.
Herman Daly: A founder of ecological economics, Daly has critiqued IAMs for their reliance on neoclassical economic growth models, which ignore the environmental and social costs of growth. He argues that IAMs fail to reflect the true economic and ecological costs of transitioning to a renewable energy system and that their focus on GDP growth leads to an underestimation of the scale of change required.
Tim Jackson: Author of Prosperity without Growth, Jackson has pointed out that IAMs tend to assume that economic growth will continue alongside climate mitigation, but this is fundamentally flawed. He argues that transitioning to a sustainable energy system may require an entirely new approach to economic growth, and IAMs do not adequately account for the potential economic restructuring that would be necessary.
David Spratt: Co-author of Climate Code Red, Spratt has criticized IAMs for underestimating the costs of climate inaction while also misjudging the complexity and speed required for decarbonization. He highlights that IAMs typically underestimate non-linear tipping points and catastrophic outcomes, which skew cost estimates in favor of continued fossil fuel use rather than aggressive renewable energy adoption.
Robert Pindyck: A professor of economics at MIT, Pindyck has criticized IAMs for being highly subjective, especially in the way they incorporate parameters like discount rates, damage functions, and climate sensitivity. He points out that the assumptions behind IAMs make their estimates of the economic costs of climate action unreliable. Pindyck has suggested that IAMs provide an illusion of precision and that simpler models or approaches might be more transparent and useful for policymaking.
Criticisms of the Economic Assumptions in IAMs
GDP and Economic Growth: Many IAMs are criticized for assuming that GDP growth will continue as a result of climate mitigation measures, even suggesting that some actions (like renewable energy transitions) could lead to negative costs or economic gains. Critics argue that these models are built on unrealistic assumptions about perpetual economic growth, without acknowledging biophysical limits like resource depletion, diminishing returns on energy investment, or the socio-economic costs of large-scale infrastructure transitions. In reality, the switch to renewable energy could involve significant upfront costs, societal adjustments, and potential economic contraction in certain sectors, which IAMs often underplay.
Negative Costs: Some IAMs incorporate the notion of “negative costs” by claiming that the economic benefits of renewable energy (like job creation or health improvements) will outweigh the costs of transitioning, thereby leading to net economic gains. Critics, including those mentioned above, argue that this is overly optimistic and ignores the complex, often hidden costs of such transitions. This kind of analysis fails to factor in the massive subsidies needed, the energy required for building renewable infrastructure, or the disruption of existing energy systems.
Key Papers and References to Explore
Steve Keen: An Australian economist, Keen has been sharply critical of the neoclassical economics that underpins many IAMs. He has called out IAMs for relying on outdated economic theories that underestimate the complexity of the climate system and overestimate the economy’s resilience to climate shocks. He has also critiqued their assumptions about infinite economic growth on a finite planet, a key point in the debate about economic costs of climate mitigation.
Charles Hall’s work on Energy Return on Investment (EROI) is foundational in understanding the limitations of renewables in IAMs and the flawed assumptions regarding infinite energy availability.
You can find deeper critiques of IAMs in ecological economics literature, which often focuses on the importance of biophysical limits and the inherent uncertainties that IAMs gloss over when it comes to climate and energy transitions. These critiques offer a counter-narrative to the idea that renewable energy transitions will automatically drive GDP growth and negative mitigation costs.
Kevin Anderson: Anderson contends that IAMs dramatically underestimate the costs of inaction while overestimating the economic burden of mitigation. He argues that IAMs do not adequately incorporate the economic benefits of transitioning to renewables or the avoided costs of extreme climate events. Anderson has pointed out that IAMs frequently assume a gradual, incremental shift rather than the urgent, systemic change that is required to avoid catastrophic climate outcomes, thus skewing cost estimates.
James Hansen: Although not primarily an economist, the renowned climate scientist has criticized the reliance on economic models that fail to incorporate the physical realities of climate change adequately. Hansen has argued that economic modeling of climate costs should take into account the potential for catastrophic, nonlinear changes in the Earth system, which IAMs often fail to do.
There are many others casting serious doubts on the many ‘peer reviewed’ published statistical analysis of transition costs to 100% Renewable energy without significant degrowth through major decreases in consumption especially in the high GDP per capita western world:
Nicholas Stern: Stern, a prominent British economist known for the Stern Review on the economics of climate change, has criticized IAMs for underestimating the risks and damages associated with climate change. He argued that many IAMs use overly conservative discount rates and do not account for potential tipping points or catastrophic damages from climate change. Stern has advocated for more dynamic models that reflect the true costs of inaction and the economic opportunities of climate action.
Kevin Anderson: Anderson, a professor of energy and climate change at the University of Manchester, has been vocal in his criticism of IAMs. He argues that these models often assume unrealistic future technological breakthroughs, ignore equity issues, and fail to account for the urgent and radical changes needed to keep global warming below 1.5°C or 2°C. Anderson believes IAMs downplay the scale of societal transformation required and create a false sense of security about gradual transitions.
Steve Keen: An Australian economist, Keen has been sharply critical of the neoclassical economics that underpins many IAMs. He has called out IAMs for relying on outdated economic theories that underestimate the complexity of the climate system and overestimate the economy’s resilience to climate shocks. He has also critiqued their assumptions about infinite economic growth on a finite planet, a key point in the debate about economic costs of climate mitigation.
Robert Pindyck: A professor of economics at MIT, Pindyck has criticized IAMs for being highly subjective, especially in the way they incorporate parameters like discount rates, damage functions, and climate sensitivity. He points out that the assumptions behind IAMs make their estimates of the economic costs of climate action unreliable. Pindyck has suggested that IAMs provide an illusion of precision and that simpler models or approaches might be more transparent and useful for policymaking.
These critiques highlight both the lack of scientific and economic consensus plus several recurring issues with IAMs: the use of unrealistic assumptions, the failure to account for catastrophic climate risks, the reliance on conservative economic theories, and the lack of emphasis on co-benefits such as technological innovation, health improvements, and social equity from transitioning to renewable energy. Many of these critics advocate for more robust, realistic models that better reflect the complexity of both the climate system and the global economy.
Barton Paul Levensonsays
D: Science? Data? Evidence? Experts? I seriously question if these notions are as important as many people claim they are.
BPL: Then what are you doing on a science web site? Try astrology or ancient astronauts, instead.
For me, you lost any credibility by citing Mr. Jason Hickle, a “marxistic ecologist”.
Although others may not be as sensitive to promoting propaganda of totalitarian regimes as me, I do not think that present gish-galloping with the flood of other seemingly more serious sources will improve your credibility substantially.
Best regards
Tomáš
Nigeljsays
Thomas Kalisz, I don’t agree with several of Dharmas views but Marx writings on economics and society are a valid recognised viewpoint in sociology. He didn’t promote totalitarianism or design the USSR system of communism both of which are awful.
Davidsays
NigelJ, I don’t know obviously, but I suspect Tomáš knows that. Given what he and his countrymen endured, I cut him a large measure of slack on his comments about the matter. I mean I would not want to go through what his and other countries experienced under USSR goverance.
I do not disprove that Karl Marx brought some new views into political economy. I am afraid, however, that he completely devaluated his science by transforming it into an ideology.
In my opinion, marxism has hardly anything common with science. It remarkably resembles religion prevailing in Europe at the time of its origin, e.g. by claiming an inevitable world revolution (Apocalypse) which brings communism (paradies).
Greetings
Tomáš
Secular Animistsays
Any thoughts on this news from our climate scientist hosts?
“Together, the planet’s oceans, forests, soils and other natural carbon sinks absorb about half of all human emissions. But as the Earth heats up, scientists are increasingly concerned that those crucial processes are breaking down. In 2023, the hottest year ever recorded, preliminary findings by an international team of researchers show the amount of carbon absorbed by land has temporarily collapsed. The final result was that forest, plants and soil – as a net category – absorbed almost no carbon.”
“forest, plants and soil – as a net category – absorbed almost no carbon.”
God help us all.
Tomáš Kaliszsays
in Re to Barton Paul Levenson,
Hallo Barton Paul,
Thank you for the links. The authors write:
“The entire year (2023) was marked by low water storage on land observed by the GRACE satellites over most of the Northern hemisphere [12], which can cause plant water stress if soil moisture drops below a critical threshold [13].”
Does it deserve a check if our previous “land use” might have contributed, at least regionally, to this development, or is it better to just rely on the mantra that “moisture/rain is a GHG feedback” and suppose that cutting GHG emissions will cure everything?
Greetings
Tomáš
Barry E Finchsays
A “Tom Shula” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtvRVNIEOMM assesses the photons at 15 microns being manufactured by CO2 in the atmosphere at about 156,000 times as many photons as the Sun’s photons that Earth absorbs (his CO2 emitting being 104 times as many photons as my estimate a few months back based on liquid H2O (“water”)). So “Tom Shula” has CO2 104 times as powerful as mine but I’m sure “Shula” has overestimated. His calculation (1 photon per CO2 molecule per 0.65 seconds) is at 16:37 to 16:44
So from recollecti0n (too lazy to check) we have:
BPL: 2 or 3 times as many photons as absorbed Solar SWR
Barry: 1500 times as many photons as absorbed Solar SWR (but just a temporary placeholder)
“Tom Shula”: 156,000 times as many photons as absorbed Solar SWR
So by taking cautious middle ground on The Price Is Right I’ll win the stunning lounge suite.
I ***very roughly*** estimated ∫ τ dν = ~(50,000 ± 20,000+??) cm¯¹ m²/m² for CO2 near 667 cm¯¹ (~627.9 cm¯¹ – ~710 cm¯¹ ) ( https://eodg.atm.ox.ac.uk/ATLAS/zenith-absorption – turned off logarithmic scale for this purpose** (from memory, about ~28,000 (+/-) cm¯¹ m²/m² was from the central peak (~Q band));
Using ~0.3 W/( cm¯¹ m²) (https://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/ “Intensity” seems to refer to spectral flux density, which = Planck function * π sr ), I get gross radiant cooling (CO2 ~627.9 cm¯¹ – ~710 cm¯¹ ):
Using https://spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php , once I figured out “mol” was not referring to mole but rather to molecule, I did a quick estimate of ∫ τ dν from outside the central peak; I didn’t write it down but from what I remember it gave me confidence in my first estimate, in particular that the correct value *may* be just a bit above 50,000 (maybe?? ~55,000?? – 60,000??).
patrick o twentysevensays
“central peak (~Q band)” – Branch! – it’s the Q-branch. “~” because I wasn’t sure if any other lines might be within that.
“correct value *may* be just a bit above 50,000 (maybe?? ~55,000?? – 60,000??).” – ∫ τ dν including central peak
patrick o twentysevensays
““Tom Shula”: 156,000 times as many photons as absorbed Solar SWR ”
my ~ 250 ± 100+?? (or maybe 250-300) refers to energy flux ratio;
photon flux ratio would, I’d guesstimate, be ~20? or maybe ~30? times larger (5000?? – 9000??)
– there’re often more than one way to describe something eg. 5 apples, 3 apples and 2 apples, 4 apples and 1 apple, half of 10 apples, 6 apples and the square of an imaginary apple (because when you think about an imaginary apple while thinking about an imaginary apple, you miss out on picking an apple so it is a negative apple :), etc…
In this case, he’s basically just taken out 3 apples and I’m not sure if he’ll get around to putting them back. Ie., maybe he’s not wrong but the part I saw seems wrong.
PS E₂₁ /(kT) ≈ 3.1973 @ 15μm (E₂₁ ≈ 0.082656 eV ; ν ≈ 19.986 THz) and T = 300 K; e^(− E₂₁/kT) ≈ 4.0873 % is the ratio of the population of particles in state 2 to that of state 1 where E₂ – E₁ = E₂₁ ; given LTE or LEDNLIE (“lead/lede-‘n-lie/ly”) (Local Equilibrium Distribution of Non-Latent Internal Energy) and T = 300 K; for distinguishable particles. It’s easier to discuss states rather than energy levels because we don’t need to discuss degeneracy (g) of energy levels; I’m assuming the Einstein coefficients can be defined for pairs of states, not just pairs of energy levels.
(PS for indistinguishable fermions, if I remember correctly, you can get the same ratio e^(− E₂₁/kT) If you take the product of the probability that one state is occupied and the probability the other state is not occupied, and the produce of the reverse, and then the ratio of those products.)
(The molecules in a sufficiently low-density gas can be approximated as distinguishable; **AIUI** the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution approximates the Fermi-Dirac given a large negative fermi level)
… Long story short, the direct absorption by transitions between a pair of states is (for distinguishable particles) proportional to the population N₁ of the lower-E state and the stimulated emission is proportional to the population N₂ of the higher state, and both are proportional to the radiation (ie for photons in a given direction, the radiance). The ‘net’ absorption is thus proportional to the radiance and to
N₁− N₂ = N₁ [1 − e^(− E₂₁/kT)]
Or per average particle (of the type considered)
(N₁÷N) [1 − e^(− E₂₁/kT)]
Which is thus proportional to the average intensity absorbed per particle,
and to the effective absorption cross section per particle;
on average the intensity absorbed per particle is that area multiplied by the radiance it intercepts
(radiance is intensity per unit area facing that direction)
And spontaneously emitted intensity (average per particle) is proportional to
(N₂÷N) = (N₁÷N) [e^(− E₂₁/kT)]
Which, divided by the absorption cross section, gives the Planck function
So given LTE/LEDNLIE, the effect is equivalent to perfect opaque blackbodies absorbing all incident intensity and emitting a radiance = Planck function.
So of course there is ‘back radiation’. PS I don’t really like the term ‘back radiation’ because it makes it sound as if there’s something special about it. It’s just photons that are going toward a direction below horizontal. Assuming isotropic absorption cross sections, each molecule on average absorbs and emits the same amount of photons in the same directions as an opaque blackbody sphere, ie., equally in all directions (from a given location). There is a difference between radiances and fluxes in opposite directions because the temperature varies over space, but packing more absorption cross sectional area into a given volume …
patrick o twentysevensays
Clarification: Re
“ And spontaneously emitted intensity (average per particle) is proportional to
(N₂÷N) = (N₁÷N) [e^(− E₂₁/kT)]
”[ spontaneously emitted intensity (average per particle) ] “ divided by the absorption cross section, gives the Planck function ”
Planck function is proportional to
(N₁÷N) [e^(− E₂₁/kT)]
÷
(N₁÷N) [1 − e^(− E₂₁/kT)]
= e^(− E₂₁/kT)
÷ [1 − e^(− E₂₁/kT)]
= 1 ÷ [e^(+ E₂₁/kT) − 1 ]
patrick o twentysevensays
(Including the Einstein coefficients (and E₂₁ to convert photon count to energy) as factors allows conversion of proportionalities to equalities.)
And of course, there’s line broadening…
Dharmasays
The Paris Agreement is Dead – What now?
Promises of 1.5°C, Net Zero 2050 and Zero Emissions Commitment (ZEC) Are Gone
One of my biggest frustrations is the unwillingness to acknowledge that the Paris Agreement is dead. 1.5°C is no longer achievable, and frankly, Net Zero by 2050 is a fantasy. Despite some early momentum – Extinction Rebellion, Fridays for Future, and the declaration of climate emergencies – it seems clear now that the Paris Agreement has failed for multiple reasons. I understand why some may resist accepting this, especially given the coalition of governments, industries, and climate movements that came together in the past. But it’s time to face reality: we’re not where we thought we’d be, and the framework we relied on is unravelling.
Professor Jason Hickle: The “Colonialist” Global North—the “Imperial Core”—is responsible for the excess emissions and resource extraction driving the climate breakdown
It’s interesting how often I’m asked to speak about ecology when what I really want to talk about is capitalist imperialism. These two issues are interconnected, forming parts of the same systemic problem. The ecological crisis is playing out along colonial lines. It’s clear that the countries in the Imperial core—specifically their ruling classes who control production, energy systems, and investment—are overwhelmingly responsible for the excess emissions driving climate breakdown. That’s a fact.
D: It’s interesting how often I’m asked to speak about ecology when what I really want to talk about is capitalist imperialism. These two issues are interconnected, forming parts of the same systemic problem. The ecological crisis is playing out along colonial lines. It’s clear that the countries in the Imperial core—specifically their ruling classes who control production, energy systems, and investment—are overwhelmingly responsible for the excess emissions driving climate breakdown. That’s a fact.
BPL: No, that’s political propaganda. The #1 emitter of CO2 right now is China. It may be described as both capitalist and imperialist by an objective observer, but I’ll bet anything you give a spirited defense of China. It’s the west you have a problem with, not capitalism per se.
Nigeljsays
Professor Jason Hickle (an anthropologist) says : “It’s clear that the countries in the Imperial core—specifically their ruling classes who control production, energy systems, and investment—are overwhelmingly responsible for the excess emissions driving climate breakdown. That’s a fact.”
Its not a fact. There are billions of ordinary people who willingly buy fossil fuels. They are equally responsible for the excess emissions, because without them there wouldnt be a problem. And they have options now with electric vehicles, cycling, low meat diets, cutting their air travel, and voteing for governments with strong climate friendly policies (eg: that subsidise EV’s ). Given most of them dont do these things, they are equally responsible for the emissions.
Blaming groups of people or countries is just scapegoating anyway and won’t help.
Dharmasays
Nigelj says
17 Oct 2024 at 2:47 PM
“There are billions of ordinary people who willingly buy fossil fuels. and
Given most of them don’t do these things, they are equally responsible for the emissions.”
So now you are saying it is not the fault nor the responsibility of Fossil fuels companies after all – it’s every body who bought the energy products and used it? This sounds like a major shift in thinking. But to say he’s an “anthropologist” displays a degree of “fear” and “rejection” and intentional “disinformation.” I’m not sure.
NIgelj – “Blaming groups of people or countries is just scapegoating anyway and won’t help.”
Oh. Another major shift in thinking and approach. This is encouraging. But sadly BPL sees it very differently.
“BPL: No, that’s political propaganda. ”
No that’s called denial and it’s called “cherry picking and avoiding the historical factual evidence of the cumulative drivers to for todays global warming.
The CO2 emitted in 1750 plays the exact same role as CO2 emitted today. CO2 lasts for tens of thousands of years in the atmosphere etc. There is no scientific distinction. It is not politics. Major studies have long been written on the topic showing all the facts of GHG contributions by nations and per capita while not focusing only “who is the big baddy today”.
About – BPL – “It’s the west you have a problem with, not capitalism per se. ”
I have no problem. I shared a really good article plus scientific academic supporting references on the topic. You should check it out, you may learn something really useful and expand your horizons of possibilities by applying some scientific rigor to the issues and the causes and solutions.
Much like climate science deniers, not everyone is ready to embrace the confronting facts about our shared reality. So good luck.
Nigeljsays
Dharma
You said: “So now you are saying it is not the fault nor the responsibility of Fossil fuels companies after all – it’s every body who bought the energy products and used it? This sounds like a major shift in thinking.”
No. I said that that the ruling classes who own the fossil fuels companies and determine their energy policy, and the billions of ordinary people who choose to buy their products are EQUALLY responsible for the high emissions. Which means both the fossil fuels companies and the general public are BOTH responsible. Go back and read what I said. Its like an issue of supply and demand, or two sides of an equation, or the well known quote “It takes two to tango”.
Of course the ruling classes do also have higher per capita emissions but that is a separate issue to the point you raised about ruling classes controlling the energy system ( and they essentially do)
I think you may have misinterpreted my previous comments where I was critical of fossil fuels companies but this was for spreading disinformation and being reluctant to change their ways. I have always thought its a bit silly blaming them for the climate problem per se. And I draw a distinction between the words holding people rersponsible and blaming them. Its a fact the fossil fules companies and the general public are both responsible for high emissions but blaming them is a different sort of thing, and doesnt seem helpful to me.
“But to say he’s an “anthropologist” displays a degree of “fear” and “rejection” and intentional “disinformation.” I’m not sure.”
No. It just states his qualifications so we get an idea of where hes coming from. I think his qualification is relevant to the issues he raises. I do admit I chekced his qualifications to see if they were relevant. I have quite a bit of respect for anthropologists having read textbooks on the subject. I’m completely mystified how calling him an anthropologist is intentional disinformation. Are you claiming he is not an anthropologist?
I said “Blaming groups of people or countries is just scapegoating anyway and won’t help” and you responded “Oh. Another major shift in thinking and approach. This is encouraging. But sadly BPL sees it very differently.”
Please remember this is in the context of who is causing emissions. Blaming them does seem pointless and a form of scapegoating, and Ive always thought that. And it is frequently scapegoating eg: “Its all Chinas fault” or “its all Americas fault” “its all the developed countries fault”, “its all high income peoples fault” or its “the fault of people breeding like rabbits in the developing world”. All quite pointless or wrong or stupid or misleading or all three.
I certainly think people who spread missinformation and obstruct progess on the climate issue and useless governments deserve to be criticised and held to account. Sometimes they are in fact to blame for these things.
BPL said “It’s the west you have a problem with, not capitalism per se. ” You responded “I have no problem”
Several people who sound remarkably like you have been very critical of the west and quite supportive of China. Maybe thats what BPL is getting at. Whether he is right or wrong I could not possibly say.
However as a general comment, I would suggest per capita emissions are more useful than comparing countries, and blocks of countries. Comparing countries is fairly crude. For example, China is a high emitter but mainly because of its very high population. Its per capita emissions are lower than in America. But china is certainly workinh hard to improve its incomes and is on a trajectory to be a high per capita emitter, if it doesnt mitigate the problem. The point is neither China or America can take the moral high ground.
Either way while I get frustrated with the western world sometimes, I think criticising the west in the sense of portraying the west as internally corrupt or rotten or incompetent and as an evil empire gets a bit tiresome when you look at the history of other countries, particularly China and Russia / Soviet Union who aren’t any better.
Everyone apart from the few remaining hunter gatherer societies and a few very primitive farming communities has contributed to some extent to the climate problem. We are all in this together and I feel we all have to play our part to solve the problem. The blame game doesnt help.
Its clear that high income earners have higher emissions, but vast numbers of other people are trying hard to be high income earners or win lotto and spend up large on air travel. So I just feel nobody can take the moral high ground.. However high income earners can help by buying things like EVs, and make significant reductions in their energy use, while we cant expect low income earners to do that yet. That however is just logic and commonsense.
Dharmasays
Thanks for the detailed explanations Nigelj. I think I understand what you said before much better now.
Ron R.says
Nigel: No. I said that that the ruling classes who own the fossil fuels companies and determine their energy policy, and the billions of ordinary people who choose to buy their products are EQUALLY responsible for the high emissions
This doesn’t seem accurate to me. I wrote about this in Opalescence,
Karstens paused here, took a drink, then said, “I should qualify that. While there’s plenty of blame to go around, it’s not the average Joe and Jane who are the culprits, in my estimation. They didn’t ask for this. Most were just trying to survive and feed their families. No, it’s those in power, corporate and political, who conspired to deceive, to maintain the status quo, just so they could keep their gravy trains running as long as possible, who I hold responsible.” Another sip. “In any case, here we are.
“There’s a wise old Italian saying,” Karstens added, “‘Feather by feather, the goose is plucked.’”
History shows that the oil and coal companies have strenuously tried to curb the growth of renewables. The average person has no say in it (aside from some scattered general choices they can make, as you point out). They have to buy the gasoline that is available because they have lives to live. They have to buy the cheapest cars that are available because they’re not made of money. They can vote but they are coming up against a behemoth with lots and lots of money to bribe politicians, fake advertise, and just generally keep things BAU. The average person would gladly switch to renewables if they can, and if they can afford it. I don’t hold them equally responsible.
But you’re right that there are others who simply do not give a damn and buy things with anything other then the environment in mind. “Drill baby Drill” Trump types.
Nigeljsays
Ron R
I agree about the power wielded by the fossil fuels companies, and that the average person sometimes has little practical choice but to own an ICE car, but I disagree about the political issue. For example The New Zealand Green Party promotes good environmental policies, subsidising EVs to make them affordable, strong carbon taxes to help wean us off fossil fuels, bicycle lanes, walkable cities, etcetera. It is not significantly reliant on the fossil fules lobby for its campaign financing, but the Green Party only get about 10% of the vote at best. The vast majority of people CHOOSE the main parties with their weak climate policies and reliance on fossils fuels money. I know other factors would be involved but I think Im right overall.
So I just feel the public is equally responsible for the high emissions as the oil companies and so on. Or perhaps if not equally responisible they have a very significant responsibility. But thanks for the constructive polite comments.
Mal Adaptedsays
“Capitalist imperialism” is an economic and political force that’s contributed to just about every pejorative “environmental” trend one might name. It’s also contributed to the enhancement of material sufficiency and security for billions of people, most of whom probably wouldn’t have been born if not for capitalist imperialism. IOW, it’s complicated. One thing we know is that our species evolved markets by the Middle Paleolithic, whereas Capitalism in its present form arose only within the last few hundred years. Occam’s Razor suggests that “free” markets have always socialized every transaction cost their embedded societies let them get away with. We can be sure that modern globalized (i.e. imperialist) Capital, with its drive to concentrate economic and political power into increasingly fewer hands, stands in the way of collective intervention by societies to correct “market failures”: costs imposed on involuntary 3rd parties by private transactions between producer and consumer on the “free” (of targeted collective intervention) market. OTOH, we can also be sure that we consumers, by and large, socialize our private marginal environmental costs (e.g. incremental global warming) just as eagerly as producers do theirs. Small, independent bands of pre-technological humans evidently had a permanent impact on biodiversity in every new territory they entered, just because they could.
Well, so it’s clear the tragedy of the unmanaged commons can only be mitigated by collective intervention to correct the underlying market failures. It’s unregulated markets, powerfully defended against collective intervention by modern global Capitalism, that have caused every “environmental” tragedy to date. While eliminating Capitalism, and even markets, from some national economies has not halted common-pool resource degradation and biodiversity erosion in those countries, it has been possible for particular tragedies to be averted, or at least mitigated, by collective action. That has usually (though not always) meant government.
Climate change due to anthropogenic global warming, of course, is the largest and potentially most costly common-pool resource tragedy in human history. While not the sole cause of biodiversity erosion by the ongoing Sixth Great Extinction event, global warming strongly accelerates it. The tragedy might seem overwhelming and inevitable, but in nominally democratic countries, all it will take to cap the cumulative social (including environmental) cost of global warming is a bare majority of voters, for politicians who will challenge the power of concentrated carbon capital. Since that much money buys a lot of votes, taking the profit out of selling fossil carbon won’t be easy. Biden was the first POTUS to do so successfully, in cooperation with Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress. The current Republican Party is owned lock stock and barrel by carbon capital. The Democratic Party has its own history to account for, but only if Democrats retain power can incremental decarbonization of the US economy progress. I know who I’ll be voting for next month.
Although I am not a US citizen, I dare to add a remark to the penultimate sentence in your post:
If economy decarbonization by replacement of energy generated from fossil fuels with renewable sources was profitable, I believe that in the USA, the transition from fossil fuel to renewables would be very quick under any administration, irrespective whether lead by a Republican or a Democratic Party president.
My personal advice to those who want this transition happen as quickly as possible: Seek ways how to make it economically beneficial in comparison with continuation with fosil fuel use. Do not blame markets, exploit them.
Greetings
Tomáš
Nigeljsays
Thomas Kalisz
“If economy decarbonization by replacement of energy generated from fossil fuels with renewable sources was profitable, I believe that in the USA, the transition from fossil fuel to renewables would be very quick under any administration, irrespective whether lead by a Republican or a Democratic Party president.”
Yes although with respect you are stating the obvious. Right now renewables provide lower cost generation than fossil fuels but storage is required and is still expensive such that renewable system overall appears not more profitable overall than fossil fuels,.The good news is renewable costs and costs of storage have fallen considerably and are likely to continue to fall and it looks like we are getting close to some sort of price parity for the system as a whole..
Remember its always been acknowledged that renewables cost more than fossil fuels would need a help along with various incentive mechanisms, such as subsidies or cap and trade or carbon taxes at least for a while.. They probably still need some help.
“My personal advice to those who want this transition happen as quickly as possible: Seek ways how to make it economically beneficial in comparison with continuation with fosil fuel use. Do not blame markets, exploit them.”
Stronger subsidies or carbon taxes for example would also make the transition happen quicker. So would making renewables more economically viable which mainly means cheaper storage. If governments want to subsidise anything, maybe it should be research into energy storage, and some startup support for new companies, but time limited support. While subsidies can be abused and lead to dependence, I feel that in something like a climate emergency they have their place.
You know my position. Although I admit that I can be wrong and you can be right, I still think that pouring money into building an excess of renewable sources to compensate their intermittency is an ineffective brute-force approach wasting limited resources available, and that subsidizing existing storage technologies like batteries or hydrogen that are incapable to make renewable energy sources competitive with fossil fuels is an analogously flawed approach, too.
Personally, I think that a daring approach, supporting only social acceptability of introduction of energy-saving technologies (like improved thermal insulation of older buildings and/or switch to heating with heat pumps) and development and commercialization of emerging electricity storage technologies with a significantly better technical potential, can be much more efficient and finally also quicker way towards the desired economy transition than the brute-force approach.
Greetings
Tomáš
Davidsays
With the multiple discussions ongoing here on the world’s energy needs & the transition in mind…
“We’re now moving at speed into the Age of Electricity,” IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said in a press statement marking the release of the annual World Energy Outlook. Energy worldwide will “increasingly be based on clean sources of electricity,” he said.
But the report also notes that the world’s pace away from fossil fuels is still way off what’s needed to cap warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial times — the limit set in the Paris Agreement — because emissions would decline too slowly.
It puts the world on pace to hit 2.4 degrees (4.3 Fahrenheit) of warming.
Davidsays
Dharma, your links to what I assume is your substack home show nothing besides a header and a download link. Why is that?
Your links to other folks substack homes appear to work as intended without the need to download anything.
To Our Hosts: is everything copacetic regarding the above issue? I have never had this happen before when I visit other folks’ substack homes (which I do daily). If everything is fine, please forgive a dumb old man and delete this comment.
Dharmasays
David says
17 Oct 2024 at 9:47 PM
1) I have no idea
2) never assume
3 I’m not bill gates
4) I really do not like your consistent ‘unsavoury tone’
It appears that you like to teach others about everything but do not like questions directed to you.
Nevertheless, in case you just were too busy with writing new posts and missed my question of 16 Oct 2024 at 2:05 PM,
Dear Sir or Madam,
Could you explain how you would in parallel secure “A legally binding, global one-child-per-family policy” and “universal women’s rights”?
Does the choice of the own family size not count among women’s rights anymore?
Best regards
T
Dharmasays
I will not engage with Tomáš Kalisz or read their comments from this point forward. This is my second post to make that clear.
Barton Paul Levensonsays
D: I will not engage with Tomáš Kalisz or read their comments from this point forward. This is my second post to make that clear.
BPL: Standing by to read your third post on that subject, and subsequent posts.
Tomáš Kaliszsays
In re to Barton Paul Levenson, 22 Oct 2024 at 8:48 AM,
Dear Dharma or Ned Kelly or Sabine or Escobar or whatever name you just use for your continuous political propaganda on this website,
I grew up in Czechoslovakia occupied by Soviet troops and ruled by local communists instructed from Kremlin. I know marxism-leninism, not only from textbooks, but also from its practical side. Soviet Union was one of the last colonial empires on this planet and marxism-leninism was its state ideology.
Karl Marx should not be taught in schools as a scientist but as a warning example how easily can science mutate into an inhuman ideology that motivated countless crimes and destroyed countless human lives.
I wish you and your gurus like Jason Hickel to experience the life in a society organized on the “scientific principles” which you admire.
Nevertheless, please be so kind and do not involve others in your experiments. Venezuela was and is not being ruined by any colonial power but by native gangsters ruling this country. Gaza would not have been destroyed in present war if Hamas gangsters ruling this country would not have had started this war.
Please be so kind and stay with your propaganda on Substack.
“I grew up in Czechoslovakia occupied by Soviet troops and ruled by local communists instructed from Kremlin. I know marxism-leninism, not only from textbooks, but also from its practical side. Soviet Union was one of the last colonial empires on this planet and marxism-leninism was its state ideology.
Karl Marx should not be taught in schools as a scientist but as a warning example how easily can science mutate into an inhuman ideology that motivated countless crimes and destroyed countless human lives.”
Be careful, Piotr is on the look-out for the thought crime of using the modifier “countless”
If Trump gets elected, Latvia, Poland are the next Ukraine, and then Czechia and Slovakia are considered border countries by Putin, and so on and so on.
Piotrsays
Pukite: “Be careful, Piotr is on the look-out for the thought crime of using the modifier “countless”
ONLY if Tomas “ pulled a Pukite” -> unable to defend his claims – tried to wiggle out on semantics: claiming that when he wrote that Communism was evil because it motivated countless crimes and destroyed countless human lives” HE DIDN’T mean that COMMUNISM destroyed “HUGE number” of human lives, but that the Communism was evil because it destroyed …. an “unknowable number” of human lives – maybe many, maybe few, maybe none at al, who knows.
And if he portrayed my falsifiable critique of his claims – as my accusing him of “ the thought crime“, the accusation for which in a totalitarian system they would send you to Gulag, to concentration camps, or the bullet to your head.
But this portraying me as an agent of totalitarian repression and himself as victim of it – comes at the price of TRIVILIAZING the suffering of the real victims of totalitarianism:
Paul Pukite implies that the fate of the real victims of accusations of “the thought crime” in Third Reich or Soviet Union couldn’t possibly be too bad since it is comparable to that of Paul Pukite being asked on a public discussion forum to … defend his claims.
What a price to protect your ego.
I do not think that Dr. Pukite intended to portray you as an agent of totalitarianism and me as a victim thereof. I read the sentence referring to the word “countless” simply as a joke.
Oppositely, I think that in his last sentence, Dr. Pukite was very serious and that despite you bitterly fight each other in your dispute if studying physical cause of natural variations like ENSO is (or is not) substantial for climate science progress, you have practically identical views on Russia and its role in modern history.
If both of my parents and all 4 of my grandparents hadn’t escaped from Stalin’s clutches and being sent to Siberia, I wouldn’t be here today, fortunate to receive an education and then going on to be able to solve the equations describing ENSO behavior. Piotr, grow a pair, and if you think my physics models are wrong, then go to PubPeer.com and make your case. Trying to marginalize my character (!?!) by taking potshots at grammar is laughably weak.
Piotrsays
Tomas Kalisz: “Hallo Piotr, I do not think that Dr. Pukite intended to portray you as an agent of totalitarianism
Let’s see. Your “Dr. Pukite”
– in the discussion about TOTALITARIANISM
– replies to your criticism of TOTALITARISM
– by warning you that I am enforcing TOTALITARIAN repression,
– of the the thought crime“, a phrase made known by the novel “1984”, written by a classic antagonist of TOTALITARIANISM, George Orwell
So WHAT ELSE can your Dr. Pukite be accusing me of ?
TK: I read the sentence referring to the word “countless” simply as a joke.
it’s not about “ countless ” it’s about: “ Be careful, Piotr is on the look-out for the thought crime“.
So if I warned somebody on RC: “ Be careful, Tomas is on the look out for the traitors to be sent to the Gulag” – would you buy the explanation that I WASN’T trying to discredit you as an agent of totalitarian oppression, but that it was merely … an innocent “joke”?
TK …” and me as a victim thereof
Your Dr. Pukite is not that into you – he is concerned about you ONLY as a far as can use you as a tool to attack me, in his pathetic attempt get back at me for his self-inflicted humiliation in the original discussion.
Davidsays
Roy Spencer is out with a new piece of uhm… writing 10/16/2024:
“Climate Change: The Science Doesn’t Support the Heated Rhetoric”
The closing paragraph tells us how lucky humanity is for continuous anthropogenic GHG release:
“The Good News”
“As a climate scientist, I agree that our greenhouse gas emissions produce some warming. But is this necessarily a bad thing? Ten times as many people die from cold weather than from hot weather. Agricultural yields of corn, soybeans, wheat, and rice continue to break records nearly every year. Growing seasons at high latitudes have been lengthened. It has been estimated that the agricultural benefits of more CO2 (which is necessary for life on Earth) has totaled trillions of dollars.
The oppressive heat and record high temperatures some urban areas experience in the summer is dominated by the urban heat island effect (UHI) due to paved surfaces and buildings, an effect that has increased with population, and would exist in the absence of global climate change.
Stop believing everything you read about climate change. You’ve been misled. There is no climate crisis.”
.
.
You betcha. There’s no problem living like that is there? So turn up the music and let’s keep the party going!
Mal Adaptedsays
One may, without being accused of the argumentum ad hominem, dismiss Spencer’s “commentary” for the Heritage Foundation as motivated lukewarmism, informed by his theology. The consensus of his professional peers is powerless to overcome Spencer’s faith in his God’s anthropocentric beneficence. Spencer has put his signature to the Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which states:
We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history….
We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming…
IOW, there’s no admissible evidence that our massive transfer of fossil carbon to the atmosphere to power our pursuit of happiness has hidden or deferred costs to our society, that fall most heavily on the world’s poorest individuals, who bear the least responsibility for their climate-change-related losses. Spencer’s God wouldn’t allow that!
Science is a way of trying not to fool ourselves. Spencer has clearly chosen to fool himself.
Davidsays
Mal,
I’m reluctant to talk much about by beliefs in any setting. But I’ll say that I too find hypocritical those who would use belief as an excuse or a shield from responsibility, or to minimize and sow confusion on climate change action. Allowing things to proceed as usual, where those with the least, will bare the most of unjust burdens inflicted in large part by the very society I am a part of.
But, (and it is a big but), I didn’t think like I do now for far too much of my adult life. My pleasures, their burden to bear. Didn’t think about it. I am every bit as guilty as those your comment highlighted. All I can do now is try to do what I can.
Barry E Finchsays
“Spencer’s “commentary” for the Heritage Foundation”, Thanks, I hadn’t seen that before. “”minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry””. As opposed to the comparatively-vast ~20 microns surface depth, or less, that only emits a minuscule 1.65 times as much radiation as all the Sun’s energy here. So 20 microns about 0.0006% of atmospheric chemistry. It’s interesting how a person can have documents proving they are a physical scientist, do that professionally for a living and have not even the slightest interest in physical science. I had one career that interested me greatly and another that not so much. Spencer is clearly in his “not so much” phase.
David,
I think you’ll find Roy was not writing 16th October but a week earlier, the piece having been posted online elsewhere on the 10th.
Based in northern Alabama and likely still surrounded by the post-Hurricane Helene clean-up, Roy had penned an earlier piece for his own blog-site, a denialist screed on the “huge amount of natural … variability in hurricane activity” and that, for example, the Florida experience is no more than “luck of the draw.” There’s nothing to do with anthropogenic CO2 emissions here. (His parting message was that he is a wise old man and these days a lot of folk are so dumb many believe there’s government involvement in hurricane activity. Any evidence-based argument will fail to register with them.)
But having posted, he then must have awoken to the formation of Hurricane Milton forming off Mexico and saw it would soon be making a big hit on Florida. Presumably he felt a stronger message denying any global warming link to hurricanes was now required. If you’re a deluded climate change denier like Roy, you can’t be letting folks think that hurricane activity shows the need for a ‘Green New Scam’ ‘Specially with the elections an’ all.
Davidsays
MA Rodger, I regret any confusion I caused with the 10/16 date I used. That date was on The Heritage Foundation release in the link I provided. You are right, I didn’t think to also check if Spencer had already released his spiel prior to Heritage’s release of this piece of myopic propaganda.
Here’s an interesting–and more than interesting–long-form article on some of the roots of eco-fascism in America, and beyond. Consider Patrick Crusius, the El Paso mass murderer; Payton Gendron, the shooter who killed 10 Black shoppers in Buffalo, New York; and Brenton Tarrant, the Christchurch mosque killer. What did they all have in common, besides xenophobic nationalism and a fondness for inflicting lethal violence?
Hint:
Crusius: Wrote that “…water sheds around the country, especially in agricultural areas, are being depleted… Urban sprawl creates inefficient cities which unnecessarily destroys millions of acres of land… If we can get rid of enough people, then our way of life can become more sustainable.”
Gendron: Is/was a “self-declared “eco-fascist” who described his crime as a pursuit of “green nationalism.”
Tarrant: Decried “…rampant urbanization and industrialization, ever expanding cities and shrinking forests, a complete removal of man from nature…”
One thing was an intellectual inheritance from a Petoskey, Michigan, opthalmologist named John Tanton–also an environmental activist with a particular bent:
“Tanton’s belief that mass immigration would supplant white America had one particular focus: He saw it as a threat to the country’s ecology and ultimately to the consensus among environmentalists about preserving the purity of that ecology.”
Of course, Tanton’s influence went beyond just mass murderers: Richard Spencer, of Unite the Right infamy, wrote “If we bring everyone on the planet into an American lifestyle, there first off might not be much planet left, and at the very least, the kind of degradation that might entail would be tremendous and horrifying.” (It seems likely that Spencer served as a prime conduit of Tanton’s ideas to Tarrant, since the latter frequently cited Spencer, but never Tanton himself.)
Tucker Carlson opined that “The left used to care about the environment, the land, the water, the animals. They understood that America is beautiful because it is open and uncrowded. Not so long ago, environmentalists opposed mass immigration. They knew what the costs were. They still know. But they don’t care.”
Ann Coulter, lamenting the Sierra Club’s rejection of immigration issues, wrote an article headlined “Your Choice — A Green America Or A Brown America”… in advance of Earth Day in 2017 and then tweeted that “I’m fine with pretending to believe in global warming if we can save our language, culture & borders.”
Some eco-fascists, of course, like Tanton himself, seem to be, or to have been, completely sincere. But la Coulter is hardly alone. At the 2010 CPAC, longtime Center for Immigration Studies’ executive director Mark Krikorian was asked why the center was publishing reports about climate change if it was a hoax? The simple yet telling answer: The climate issue was a potent opportunity–a wedge that could divide the American left on immigration, giving liberals reason to support hard-line immigration controls, and perhaps also offering conservatives an avenue to fold global warming into their narratives of a country under assault.
We’ve had some of these ideas put forward by commenters on this very site, with, I am glad to say, little takeup on the whole. But it’s enlightening to see ecofascism’s intellectual family tree traced over the last several decades, and to see how it connects with today’s debates on immigration. Modern “blood libels” such as the Trumpian Haitians-eating-pets story may be crude by comparison with the productions of a John Tanton or a Jared Taylor, but they share a common emotional grounding with the Euro-supremacist musings of some.
Dharmasays
Kevin,
your attempt to conflate legitimate environmental and energy use concerns with eco-fascist extremism is not only absurd, but deeply manipulative. Associating reasonable discourse on sustainability, population dynamics, and resource use contributed by reputable scientists and leading academics with heinous acts of violence and xenophobia is an egregious obscene smear tactic that stifles any serious debate. Painting all criticism of unchecked growth as a path to extremism is the exact kind of paranoia you attribute to “eco-fascists.”
Ironically, and sadly, this fearmongering approach mirrors the very extremism you claim to decry.
It seems that rational, good faith discussions on environmental, energy use, and climate impact issues have become impossible on this forum, given the constant resort to outrageous distortions like the one we just witnessed. Instead of addressing the pressing facts and real-world challenges, we’re subjected to wild comparisons and inflammatory rhetoric that derail any hope of meaningful dialogue. It’s frustrating that serious issues are being reduced to this kind of fearmongering and character assassination.
Your attempt to conflate legitimate environmental and energy use concerns with eco-fascist extremism is not only absurd, but deeply manipulative.
No, that supposed ‘attempt’ is quite simply nonexistent.
I said that some on this site have, in the past, made some of the identical arguments as those the article described, and that is objectively true–I am thinking especially of a fellow with the handle “Engineer Poet”, whom we have not heard from in some time. I did not in any way associate eco-fascism with “reasonable discourse on sustainability, etc.” Go back to the OP and this time check your sensitivities at the door, so that you can read for comprehension.
Davidsays
Kevin, your comment is, as they tend to be, pretty darn interesting. I guess I hadn’t ever thought to consider the immigration issue looking through an ecological prism where some are using the environment as a means to sanitize, and thus advance, pernicious intolerance.
Thanks for your appreciation. It’s unfortunate that Dharma apparently thought I was try to paint some of his heroes with a tarry brush, rather than sharing what I perceive as a valuable taxonomy of a very troubling strain in American conservatism–or perhaps I should say, faux conservatism.
And I think that strain of thought is useful to bear in mind–we’ll certainly have the Ann Coulters and Tucker Carlsons of this world around for a while, spewing their vitriol. And we don’t want to be conflated with them, I trust.
Dharma aka Ned Kelly aka Complicius aka cj can be definitely recognized as an “eco-marxist”.
Marxism and fascism, however, are two sides of the same coin – both hate ideologies responsible for uncouted human victims.
Greetings
Tom
Dharmasays
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could all quickly and easily reference only one published peer reviewed paper that had all the answers we needed on a topic? And was accepted by the whole scientific and economics worlds the preeminent go to truth on the matter. Life would be grand wouldn’t it?
The references I provided were not presented as nor intended to be looked upon as unquestionably definitive, nor the final word on anything.
Kevin McKinney says
19 Oct 2024 at 10:55 AM
Quote- ” Dharma brings up Charles Hall’s video and links a paper about the EROI (Energy Return On Investment) of solar PV. However, the linked commentary is from 2016, and the original study giving an estimated EROI of ~2.45:1 was from 2008. Since then, solar module costs have dropped by well in excess of a factor of ten, which at first approximation would lead one to think that the EROI of solar PV might then be more like 25:1.”
Thanks for your comment, Kevin. It’s important to clarify that the discussion centered on Energy Return On Investment (EROI), which is about energy, not financial costs. While solar module costs have dropped, EROI is concerned with the energy inputs and outputs. The dates of these studies don’t diminish their relevance or accuracy—they actually highlight how long these findings have been available yet remain underappreciated in public discourse.
Kevin, you may also want to keep in mind that current costs are based on fossil fuel prices, such as oil at around $60 per barrel. These prices are set to rise significantly in the coming years and decades, impacting supply chains across the economy, including the resources needed to build renewable energy infrastructure. There’s nothing to prevent PV panel costs from increasing by a factor of ten or more in the near future.
I encourage you and others to delve deeper into the issue and not be misled by disinformation, overhyped promotional biases, or incomplete science and economics research and theories.
Ref for original content with links to sources was – Dharma @ 17 Oct 2024 at 11:35 PMhttps://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825533
Addendum – Even assuming zero growth in energy demand (in population or gdp) can anyone show how solar PV and Wind are capable of relacing the global fossil fuel energy supply to the tune of at least 200 Trillion kwh per year going forward in time?
(as shown in Professor Hall’s lecture slides here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DABEN4slmo&t=1320s )
Charles Halls comments and published research work from both 2008 and 2016 are not out of date:
Quoting the professor again in 2018 – ” My perspective is summarized in my 2017 book “Energy Return on Investment: A unifying principle for Biology, Economics, and Sustainability” although my approach is consistent throughout my published work with occasional small additions as our understanding expands, changes in available data occur or new questions arise. For example my methods going as far back as Cleveland et al. 1984 and Hall, Cleveland and Kaufmann (1986) are available for anyone to see and virtually the same as those in Murphy et al. 2011 and Hall 2017. The field is rich and very active today, with an entire well-funded and attended four day meeting at the French Institute of Physics at Les Houches dedicated to EROI last year, a two day session on petroleum (including many papers on EROI) at the American Chemical Society in New Orleans a month ago, and many very interesting publications by, for example, Carey King, Marco Raugui, Adam Brandt, Mohammed Masnadi, Victor Court and Florian Fizaine among many others.
As others increasingly used EROI there became increasingly different approaches used, so, in order to generate a consistent nomenclature and basis for comparison (EROI standard) while allowing flexibility and creativity in use we published a protocol for performing EROI analysis (Murphy et al. 2011; Carey King has also addressed making the nomenclature and methods more explicit).”
and “EROI is not some flawed tool of the past, but a consistent yet evolving and improving tool becoming more and more important everyday as the depletion of our primary fuels continues and as replacement with renewables is increasingly considered. While EROI analysis is hardly precision science, mostly due to data limitations, nevertheless as I reviewed my older publications for this response I was impressed by the general consistency of our results (corrected for e.g. depletion over time) from 1979 and especially 1984 to present. A large problem is the erosion of the Federal support for, and hence quality of, the data of e.g. the U.S. Bureau of Census and the increasing use of EROI (and scientific analysis more generally) for advocacy rather than objective analysis and hypothesis testing.”
( I hope the formatting comes out right, apologies if it does not )
Nigeljsays
Dharma,
“Thanks for your comment, Kevin. It’s important to clarify that the discussion centered on Energy Return On Investment (EROI), which is about energy, not financial costs. While solar module costs have dropped, EROI is concerned with the energy inputs and outputs. The dates of these studies don’t diminish their relevance or accuracy—they actually highlight how long these findings have been available yet remain underappreciated in public discourse.”
Agree about the definitions, but the time of the studies is very relevant because EROI can change and go up, for example if the efficiency of solar panels increases meaning less investment is now required for a given return on energy. So Kevin may be essentially on the right track. Presumably EROI for solar panels was low in the early days when you had huge start up costs, ( which would also have applied to the early fossil fuels generation) and panels lacked efficiency. But start up costs are in the past and panel efficiency has improved and you have economies of scale.
If EROI of solar panels was still low you would expect renewables to be very expensive generation per kwhr, to recoup the costs of all that investment. But solar panels are now a SIMILAR COST generation per mwhr to coal fired power. This suggests to me renewables must now have a HIGH EROI or at least a moderate EROI .Can anyone explain why I would be wrong? Please dont refer me to a one hour video. Actually address my point please, with a specific explanation in your own words.
One thing to consider in EROI is government subsidies used in the development phase of solar power especially as this was free money not requiring pay back so this potentially creating a misleading EROI number. However fossil fuels have ALSO received plenty of subsidies, so Im assuming they would approximately cancel each other out. Also the subsidies for solar power do not look like they come anywhere near explaining claims that solar power has low EROI.
I’ve read Professor Halls article on EROI and he has obvious expertise and some wisdom, but it didnt provide much information relevant to my point. It just talked about the difficulties of measuring EROI and something about the potentially high costs of fixing solar farms that were abandoned during the 2008 financial crash, however that seems like a one off unusual problem, and so using it to determine EROI on solar panels would be misleading.
I repeat – EROI is about Energy not start up Costs nor the cost or price of “generation per kwhr,”
“I’ve read Professor Halls article on EROI” – perhaps you need to read more?
Nigeljsays
Dharma, EROI is about energy out for a given FINANCIAL investment and that includes all conceivable cost inputs including startup costs, mining costs, and manufacturing costs, etc,etc. So again given solar power is now cheap generation per mwhr, this suggests the financial investment is not much different to fossil fuels, so solar power has a high or moderately high EROI. As you mention the cost of the generation is not part of EROI formula, but its INDIRECTLY telling us EROI may be quite high as just explained.
I hope I’ve explained this clearly. I admit I dont always explain things clearly or get everything right. Life is a work in progress.
One thing that might push solar power to just a moderate EROI is the panels need replacing earlier than you would replace a coal fired power station. But the numbers dont appear to make it low EROI.
MA Rodgersays
Nigelj,
The “investment” considered in the calculation of EROI is the invested energy, not the cash. The definition is presented within the cited reference Aramendia et al (2024) ‘Estimation of useful-stage energy returns on investment for fossil fuels and implications for renewable energy systems’ which says “energy return on investment (EROI), defined as the ratio of the energy delivered divided by the energy invested in the considered energy system,” while the paper attempts to provide a proper end-user comparison of FF & renewable EROI.
Myself, the EROI is only an issue in that there will be a shortage of power as FF-use is phased out and a low EROI for renewables would exacerbate that situation while a low FF EROI wiuld be helpful. Other than that consideration, EROI is a measure denialists are likely to wield as excuses for continuing with FF,
Dharmasays
Repeat it all you wish Nigelj. It is still wrong.
While some questions are too much to face head on:
Addendum – Even assuming zero growth in energy demand (in population or gdp) can anyone show how solar PV and Wind are capable of relacing the global fossil fuel energy supply to the tune of at least 200 Trillion kwh per year going forward in time?
(as shown in Professor Hall’s lecture slides here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DABEN4slmo&t=1320s )
Enjoy yourselves.
Dharmasays
MA Rodger says
22 Oct 2024 at 2:40 AM
“Other than that consideration, EROI is a measure denialists are likely to wield as excuses for continuing with FF,”
That is not my consideration or intention, and nor am I a climate science denier. Nothing I say is a promotion to continue FF energy use. My contention is that we are fast running out of Oil and liquid fuels, and Gas is next. The first place this will occur in a serious way is in the United States itself. Which will soon cease to be an exporter of oil and gas as it’s reserves become rapidly depleted once again.
Declared climate related actions to switch from fossil fuels is not reducing fossil fuel use globally, which continues to increase. Credible questions remain of RE capacity to replace any other form of energy under present conditions and global systems absent massive economic-political reforms with subsequent rapid reductions of population growth and consumption.
Irrespective of climate change, fossil fuels are finite and the fact that conventional Oil has already passed it’s peak production capacity, and total fluids is about to cross that Peak Oil point if it has not already. While new Oil reserves are not being found as fast as consumption of all fossil fuels is rising so the issue of EROI among other matters comes into play as to what and how fast alternative energy options can be deployed — especially on the irrational assumption that global economic growth and consumption can continue to increase into the future.
Why? Because all exponential growth eventually ‘Kills’ whatever it touches. And then collapses in upon itself. Poetically speaking.
The references I’ve provided are but a very small indication of the legitimate serious science and research analysis already done (and buried, denied or memory holed as extreme alternative lunacy) of the serious dilemma humanity faces. Catastrophic climate impacts only makes everything far worse.
As one scientist Dr Chris Tucker said, paraphrasing, the problems caused by GHG warming is possibly twice as bad as we think it is, but only accounts for about a tenth of the combined dire problems we face. https://substack.com/home/post/p-150553681
Nigeljsays
MAR. thanks for the correct definition of EROI. I must have misinterpreted the commentary I was reading. I should have checked and googled the definition.
But Im assuming the energy invested in renewables would be at least roughly proportional to the financial input costs for renewables. Given renewable generation costs about the same per mwhr as fossil fuels generation this suggests the financial inputs are not dissimilar to fossil fules, and thus the energy inputs would be similar also. Hence why I suspect solar panels have a similar EROI to fossil fuels generation. Where am I wrong?
But I do agree with your comments on the EROI issue and what it means in practice..
Barton Paul Levensonsays
D: ) can anyone show how solar PV and Wind are capable of relacing the global fossil fuel energy supply to the tune of at least 200 Trillion kwh per year going forward in time?
Dear Dharma,
I see you’ve provided multiple references for EROI, and I understand your frustration. However, I disagree with your interpretation, and I believe I’ve backed up my position with evidence, just as you have.
It’s concerning that your comments have been deleted rather than allowing a full discussion. I could have easily researched definitions further at any point, but I stand by my original understanding.
As for Mr. Rodger’s involvement, it doesn’t change my view. I don’t feel an apology or retraction is necessary because my conclusions were not false—they’re just different from yours. It’s frustrating, but this kind of back-and-forth is part of any debate.
Respectfully, your response feels more like an attempt to dismiss my reasoning rather than engage with it.
Nigeljsays
Dharma
“Nigelj really says this: Dear Dharma, I see you’ve provided multiple references for EROI, and I understand your frustration. However, I disagree……”
Honestly you have that very wrong and you are reading quite bizarre things into things. Obviously I implicitly admit I got the definition wrong, or why would I have said “I must have misinterpreted the commentary I was reading. I should have checked and googled the definition. ”
Which comes back to the point I made. It seems to me that the costs inputs for renewables would be roughly proportional to energy inputs, or a rough proxy for energy inputs. Why wouldnt they be?
Piotrsays
Nigel 22 Oct “Where am I wrong?
Since you ask ;-) first, trivial – in trying to rescue your original
(mis)understanding of EROI, second, more important – in not matching the metric to the question you want answered.
.
After MAR explained – EROI is Energy Returned on Energy Invested (ERoEI) – you try to rescue your original arguments by ASSUMING that Energy RETURNED is proportional to Money Invested – thus since the prices of electricity from different sources, reflecting the money invested, are similar – so should be their EROIs. But there is no reason to assume that they are proportional – there are many different confounding factors that make this approach highly unreliable.
Instead, you should start with the question you want answered, and then look for a metric relevant to that question.
If you wanted to have engineering comparison of energetic efficiency of technologies that use the SAME energy source – then go for EROI, i.e. ERoEI. Say – if one gas turbine has ERoEI =x kWh/amount of energy in a ton of gas, while another one has 2x kWh/amount … , then the 2nd one is twice more energetically efficient.
Comparing ERoEIs of different energy sources become less and less useful the more different the energy sources – you are starting to compare apples with oranges, then apples with watermelons. Say, a gas turbine has ERoEIs= 4x %, and wind has x % – what’s the RELEVANCE of this information, if the supply of gas is finite and contributes to AGW, while wind is inexhaustible, and contribute very little to AGW?
Now if you want to compare the climate change impacts of different energy generation – use something appropriate to it, for instance – Life-cycle Greenhouse Gasses Emissions of Energy Sources – LCGGEoES (?)
(admittedly not as catchy as EROI – which sacrificed clarity (what “I” means) to be more “cute” – modelled on “ROI” routinely used on Wall Street…)
It looks at life-cycle effects, and uses CO2(eq) – GHGs emissions, corrected for their GWP(otential), AND albedo effects – see, for instance`, the table:
“ Life cycle CO2 equivalent (including albedo effect) from selected electricity supply technologies according to IPCC 2014” on the same Wikipedia page.
And these are the data that MEAN something – how much one source is better than the other in GWeffects – or you can show the fallacy of the standard deniers “all or nothing” argument, according to which since no energy source is “perfect” (i.e. having 0 GHG emissions) – then …. everything is equally bad, so let’s keep using fossil fuels.
And for the record, within my comment above and specifically my mention of “denialists”: this was not directed at you. However, your reply defending yourself and refuting any allegation that branded you ‘denialist’ was so odd that it did more to reinforce any view held of you as a ‘denialist’.
Introducing geologist Dr Chris Tucker and his YouTube presentation at the 2021 SWE event, this the end-point of you defence, raises the question in my mind of what level of impact Tucker’s proposed policies could have on humanities carbon emissions. Even a significant level of impact on his wider “Human Footprint” would be questionable in the short term, that is prior to world population peaking and beginning to decline which is projected for later this century.
(For those not having sixteen minutes of life to expend watching a Dr Chris Tucker presentation, he does suggest (@6:35) that AGW is twice as bad as we imagine {without any consideration of what our imagination may be seeing} but that ‘twice-as-bad’ is but one tenth the manmade damage he is considering.
A lot of us here are talking about climate change therefore we’re talking about our carbon footprint. And indeed our carbon footprint matters. I would argue that our carbon footprint is twice as bad as you think but only one tenth of the problem and I think this is something that Prof [William} Rees talked about.
The presentation then presents nine additional logos representing the full “Human Footprint,” all of them non-climate stuff. @8:35 he mentions AGW again as providing valuable geographical data in terms of GHG emissions but says this is “only one small piece of our larger footprint.”
Tucker calls for measures that will rapidly reduce global fertility levels to 1.5 by 2030 but without any mention of the resulting population globally or geographically. Despite having written a book about it, Tucker’s policy proposals appear to me more back-of-fag-packet argument than anything serious. Births, which is what he wants to see decreasing, peaked globally in 2016 with those global fertility levels currently averaging 2.1, below a modern ‘sustainable’ 2.3. Thus from 2016, the continuing global population growth is entirely driven by increasing life-expectancy.)
Nigeljsays
Piotr, thanks for the information. Finally someone has addressed my question / main point. Im in shock. I better have a lie down. I was just reading EROI on wikipedia. This was interesting as it appears to be suggestiong fracking is rather low EROI:
Oil Shale. Due to the process heat input requirements for oil shale harvesting, the EROI is low. Typically natural gas is used, either directly combusted for process heat or used to power an electricity generating turbine, which then uses electrical heating elements to heat the underground layers of shale to produce oil from the kerogen. Resulting EROI is typically around 1.4-1.5.[17] Economically, oil shale might be viable due to the effectively free natural gas on site used for heating the kerogen, but opponents have debated that the natural gas could be extracted directly and used for relatively inexpensive transportation fuel rather than heating shale for a lower EROI and higher carbon emissions.
Nigelj seems shocked by the low EROI. My co-author maintains a blog** where the arc of shale production is monitored monthly, with lots of good non-moderated discussion in the comments.
** I defer from linking or naming the blog since this is the 3rd time I have tried to add a comment.
Dharmasays
Sometimes people think that conversations need to be manipulated right down to the psychology behind them, and they make it into a game, a battle. *Why* can’t they just *talk* and pose questions like normal people, and not make it into a game of strategy??? It can be enough to drive you crazy! I call it strategical criticism.
Davidsays
phys.org story (10/17/2024): “Global warming is happening, but not statistically ‘surging,’ new study finds”
.
“The new study, published on October 14 in the journal Communications Earth & Environment, and led by scientists at UC Santa Cruz in the U.S., confirms the broad consensus that the planet is getting warmer, but at a statistically steady rate—not at a sufficiently accelerated rate that could be statistically defined as a surge.”
.
.
Links to the phys.org story & the study:
. https://phys.org/news/2024-10-global-statistically-surging.html
. https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01711-1
zebrasays
David, very useful reference.
I’ll just point out that once again, words matter, especially in what is being communicated to the public.
-“Global Warming is not accelerating.”
-“Climate Change is not accelerating.” (?)
See the difference? This is why I suggest it is past time to question the primacy of GMST in how this subject is covered. We have lots of other data now, and I am reminded of Simpson’s Paradox. Maybe, given all the marvelous tools we have for presenting information, a more comprehensive discussion might be in order.
Davidsays
Zebra, I think I see the difference (fingers crossing):
Difference is the former evokes solely the delta to the rate of change of only one climate system variable, and the later describes the delta to the change rate of the climate itself.
One ingredient of the pie vs the pie itself.
Am I close? Yes? No? Time to put David out on the ice floe?
zebrasays
David, remember, we’re running out of ice floes, so you are safe (unless you get much worse!)
The point is that there is no way to define “the change rate of the climate itself”, if you think about it. That’s why I thought the “need for pluralism” post made sense, and why I’ve been suggesting change along the lines in my last two sentences for a while now.
It may be pointless to try to communicate with “the public”, but from my experience it is possible if you do it right.
Dharmasays
Nigelj says
19 Oct 2024 at 1:33 PM
Nigelj, it is indisputable that you are wrong. You combined a quote from Hall with a completely separate sentence I wrote, then “edited” it, presenting it as a single quote. This act misrepresented both my post and Professor Hall. I did not accuse you of lying, but I did ask—why did you do that? This is my second post on the matter.
Nigeljsays
Dharma, thank’s for clarifying your concerns. Definitely my bad. I shouldn’t have put two different peoples statements in the same paragraph and quote marks. However I wasnt deliberately mixing things together: I just thought your statement was just another quote by Hall.
Dharmasays
Mistakes happen.
The above was actually my third post, not my second. The second never appeared.
Dharmasays
Science? Data? Evidence? Experts? I seriously question if they are as important to the people who claim they are. To me actions always speak louder than words.
Published 14 Jul 2021
World Population Day Presentation and Panel Discussion – What is a sustainable population? Why, when and what should we do about it?
The concept of Overshoot — The Population-Consumption Conundrum
Dr William Rees was the lead speaker at this high level discussion involving top scientists discussing what is a ‘scientifically defensible, sustainable human population size for the long term’ as called for in the World Scientists Warning to Humanity – A Second Notice issued in 2017 by over 15,000 scientists.
Once we know the sustainable population size then how should we get there and when? The 2017 warning also called for ‘rallying nations and leaders to support that vital goal’ in terms of population size.
July 11th is World Population Day. Population is also included as one of the 6 stressors in the World Scientists Warning of Climate Emergency issued on 5 November 2019. Connected with this Scientists Warning Europe believe the United Nations should include a scientifically determined population goal into its SDGs. This would seem to be currently a worrying weakness in the current list of SDGs as so many of them are, in any case, dependent on or effected by global population levels and connected consumption.
The event was chaired by Ed Gemmell, Managing Director of Scientists Warning Europe. The panellists included the following eminent scientists, who each gave a short talk on the subject before the Panel Discussion:
Dr Bill Rees
Prof Phoebe Barnard
Dr Christopher Tucker
Dr Jane O’Sullivan
A video of the whole event, a video of each of their talks and a video of the the Panel Discussion are also available on this channel.
Keynote Speaker Bio: Dr William Rees is a population ecologist, ecological economist, Professor Emeritus and former Director of the University of British Columbia’s School of Community and Regional Planning.
Prof Rees is a founding member and former President of the Canadian Society for Ecological Economics;
a Fellow of the Post-Carbon Institute;
a founding Director of the OneEarth Initiative; and
a Director of The Real Green New Deal.
Prof Rees’ research focuses on the biophysical prerequisites for sustainability. He is best known as the originator and co-developer (with his graduate students) of ‘ecological footprint analysis,’ a quantitative tool that shows definitively that the human enterprise is in dysfunctional overshoot—we would need five Earth-like planets to support just the present world population sustainably with existing technologies at North American material standards.
Such findings led to a special interest in cities as inherently unsustainable and particularly vulnerable components of the human ecosystem. Concerned about societal unresponsiveness to worsening indicators, Dr Rees also studies the biological and psycho-cognitive barriers to rational political behavior.
He has authored hundreds of peer reviewed articles on the above topics. Dr Rees was elected to Royal Society of Canada in 2006; his international awards include the Boulding Memorial Award in Ecological Economics, the Herman Daly Award in Ecological Economics and a Blue Planet Prize (jointly with his former student Dr Mathis Wackernagel).
Dr Rees is what most people would define as a recognized Expert in his multiple fields of research.
Short commentaries with several people in a row videos following
Dharmasays
Science is Not Value Free
A short extract from a comment there:-
So when I say “the same difficulties,” I’m referring to this closed, rigid mindset—whether on climate science or renewables or energy or economics—that makes it hard to engage with new information or even consider other perspectives. Both climate deniers and people in this renewable energy debate tend to fall into these same patterns, rejecting evidence or experts that challenge their pre-existing views.
Barton Paul Levensonsays
D, quoting a kindred spirit: Both climate deniers and people in this renewable energy debate tend to fall into these same patterns, rejecting evidence or experts that challenge their pre-existing views.
BPL: So obviously both sides’ positions must be equally valid.
Piotrsays
“ Both climate deniers and people in this renewable energy debate tend to fall into these same patterns, rejecting evidence or experts that challenge their pre-existing views.
says Ubiquitous D., to divert attention from the much more fundamental similarity between the deniers and the doomers:
1. methods – cherry-picking of data to question the validity and integrity of climate science,
framing the problem as “all or nothing” , and dismissing the good in favour of the perfect.
2. motivation – (except paid trolls) – doomers (and deniers) like to think of themselves as “fiercely independent minds”, as unappreciated prophets (“I have been telling you this for 10 years, but you never listen”), so their dominant motive is to prop up one’s ego: the science is wrong (or dishonest), so if most of the people got fooled by it, BUT NOT ME! – then I must be really really smart!
3. fruits: “( to fuel apathy, giving people an excuse to do nothin: if catastrophe is inevitable, why bother?“) => let’s use as much fossil fuels as we want
And as a result of. p.2 – gaining their ego boost from imaging themselves so brilliant, that without having any expertise in the area – they still KNOW BETTER than the experts in that field:
4. “ rejecting evidence or experts that challenge their pre-existing views ” ^*
—
^* see, for instance, D. starting his presence on this forum with lecturing the top climate modelers in the world that they should change their “culture” and START checking whether the agreement between their models and observations is real or not
Seeing a straw in the eye of the other and not a beam in your own, Mr. D?
Dharmasays
Defining “Doomist” and “Doomers”?
Climate doomism, at its core to those who deploy the pejorative, is the belief that it’s too late—not just to prevent some climate change (a consensus among experts) but to stop catastrophic outcomes. Critics argue that doomism fuels apathy, giving people an excuse to do nothing—after all, if catastrophe is inevitable, why bother? Doomists often frustrate climate scientists and activists, dismissing efforts as futile. In climate discourse, they’re treated like a new form of denialism, which carries serious weight.
However, “doomist” is more of a label than a self-identity. There isn’t a unified group or ideology behind it. Many labeled as doomists would likely reject the term or be confused by it. In fact, merely by engaging in climate discussions, doomists disprove claims that they’ve given up. True apathy leads to disengagement—not impassioned debate.
A more accurate definition might be anyone who voices a view just a little bleaker than what’s acceptable in mainstream climate discourse. It’s fine to express anger, grief, or urgency, but despair crosses a line. You can say we’re running out of time, but saying we won’t act in time is off-limits. These boundaries shift with the mood of the movement, but doomists provide a convenient foil. They allow others to say, “Yes, things are bad, but I’m not one of those who think it’s hopeless!”
In reality, doomists serve as a strawman—a contrasting perspective that makes the broader climate movement seem more reasonable. If they didn’t exist, the movement might need to invent them.
And so they did!
Nigeljsays
Dharma, yeah I think thats mostly fair comment. But a couple of things annoy me about doomers:
1) Some of them say things “cant or wont work” when they cannot possibly have that level of certainty, as Ive explained. It comes across as intellectual arrogance.
2)They accuse people of cherry picking positive studies about renewables, when they do the same themselves by cherry picking negative studies. They accuse people of not being open to new information when they display the same tendency themselves.
3) they accuse people of dismissing experts who are sceptical of renewables, yet you yourself have dismissed Jacobson as not being a real expert, despite the fact he has equal or better credentials than many of the doomy experts.
Piotor’s comments above the page are relevant, where he mentioned that even if we can’t completely scale up renewables, even partly scaling them up helps reduce the climate problem, so is worthwhile (paraphrasing) . I have made that point myself before, and Gavin or Rasmus wrote an article several years ago suggesting renewables have already reduced likely growth in fossil fuels enough to stop the worst outcomes of 4 – 5 degrees this century. I’ve mentioned this to several doomers on this website who get very dismissive, perhaps because they have been drawn so very deeply into the doomer mindset, or because they cant admit to themselves that they hadn’t considered this. Perhaps the moderator could post a link to the article if he has time. I cant find it.
I get that society or genetics or whatever generates some people with a particularly doomy mindset and it may be a good way of making the rest of us consider possibilities, but ultimately the very strong doomery needs to be substantiated with compelling evidence and this seems a bit lacking.
Piotrsays
Ubiquitous D.: “ However, “doomist” is more of a label than a self-identity. There isn’t a unified group or ideology behind it.
So what? For being a useful category you don’t need it – it’s enough that they share their methods, their motivation, and their fruits:
– methods – cherry-picking of data to question the validity and integrity of climate science,
framing the problem as “all or nothing” ,and dismissing the good in favour of the perfect.
– motivation – (except paid trolls) – doomers (and deniers) like to think of themselves as “fiercely independent minds”, as unappreciated prophets (“I have been telling you this for 10 years, but you never listen”), so their dominant motive is to prop up one’s ego: the science is wrong (or dishonest), so if most of the people got fooled by it, BUT NOT ME! – then I must be really really smart!
– fruits: “( to fuel apathy, giving people an excuse to do nothin: if catastrophe is inevitable, why bother?“) => let’s use as much fossil fuels as we want
With those three pillars in common – the differences are just details.
In the public discourse -doomers are a sister species to classical climate deniers: sister species because they share the methods, the motivation, and the fruits. The only difference is which path they choose to arrive at the same conclusion:
doomers: (“ catastrophe is inevitable, so why bother?“) => let’s use as much fossil fuels as we want ”
deniers: (“climate is not changing/ or we are not responsible”) => let’s use as much fossil fuels as we want.
And since their opinions are so tied to their self-esteem (see “motivation”) both groups are utterly incapable of introspection, self-reflection, or self-criticism. Life unexamined IS worth living ?
Geoff Miell says
30 Sep 2024 at 9:50 PM
Looks like we’re on the same intelligent evidence data based team, and abhor disinformation and wild unsubstantiated claims and seriously flawed published studies by people here and elsewhere, but it would help your case and mine if you read more closely what I say (or anyone was saying) before replying. Thanks.
Nigelj says
1 Oct 2024 at 3:46 PM
I note your commentary with Don Williams late last month which I completely reject as factually wrong and unsupportable, along with your reply and questions to me as well. I cannot see there is anything I can do to help you out of your misguided dilemma. Honestly you are completely lost. I don’t want to say any more. It is clear sharing genuine factual material here, including peer reviewed detailed studies by experts and scientists is a waste of time and space if it says what you refuse to accept by default and then with you continually dismissing these experts and research studies data and conclusions out of hand. You and almost all here are living a world of extremely motivated denial and hurt. I nor anyone else I could imagine could help you with this no matter material you were shown. Or rather asked to look at and understand it. Die happy with your foolhardy beliefs in tact.
Piotr? Have a great day. lol
Complicius
I’m absolutely mortifed (sarc). The problem is your comments October 1st are just empty, evidence free rhetoric. You haven’t quoted what I said and provided any specific evidence of relevance. You havent listed the studies you claim I have dismissed out of hand. The following applies to your comments “That which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence” (Hitchens Razor )
And no a peer reviewed study that you or someone else may have quoted months back doesn’t help. I have no idea what you are referring to. Nobody should be expected to trawl back to see if its relevant or has merit (it probably doesn’t anyway). Your comments need to be reasonably self contained.
You say on last months UV thread: “Emotionally driven self-deluded hopism entrenched with fraudulent claims like SA’s above and the RE myths by Sylvia is all they have left now.” “They are like children”, (referring to people on this website) “The great reckoning is upon us. The US empire and the west are going to be wrecked.Good riddance. ” It all sounds like trolling by any normal dictionary definition.
It’s simply called “an opinion,” Nigelj.
noun:
A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
Example: “That, in my opinion, is right.”
PS for nigelj
Dr. James Hansen, former NASA scientist and prominent climate expert, is also critical of the current, overly conservative approach to assessing how severe the situation is and what needs to be done. Many, like myself, feel that the underlying issue is our long-term reliance on cheap, abundant energy, which has fueled unsustainable economic activity and consumption. This has, in turn, driven rapid population growth, soon expected to reach 9 billion by 2040.
Unfortunately, it seems the solution may come from the consequences of inaction: catastrophic climate impacts combined with widespread economic collapse. Humanity will likely endure, but in a very different form from the unsustainable reality we face today.
I am in possession of hundreds of peer-reviewed climate science and technology papers I could share but would not be so presumptuous nor wish to drown you in onerous data. These many many other aspects to life inform my thinking and conclusions on what are challenging and emotionally confronting matters of life and death.
Complicius, I also believe the IPCC are underestimating the severity of climate change and I have said so before.
I agree that cheap energy has indisputably caused negative environmental impacts. However if we were to choose to reduce our energy use, this would cause considerable problems for our society. Our society has become kind of addicted to energy use.
We probably just have to try to reduce as many negative environmental impacts as we can within the framework of moderately high energy use, preferably renewables. Sure we might run out of materials one day. We will just have to adapt.
patrick o twentyseven says
28 Sep 2024 at 6:37 PM
On EROEI and
Silvia Leahu-Aluas says
1 Oct 2024 at 11:42 AM
On electric vehicles are viable now and will replace ICE within years.
Problem solved then. We all live happily ever after.
Feel free to believe whatever you wish. Terrific. Be at peace then.
cont. from https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/09/unforced-variations-sep-2024/comment-page-2/#comment-824958
“ (2024) Systemwide energy return on investment in a sustainable transition towards net zero power systems ”
I’ve still only read/skimmed quickly through some of this; it seems to be just about the electricity supply, and I haven’t found the extent to which the scenarios grow/expand electricity supply, eg, if it is sufficient to replace all or most direct fuel use. I read ahead a bit and … how much do the results depend on EROI learning curves for PV systems going into the future? … But I noticed a slight error in my original numbers so I decided to discuss a bit more now, and provide a few quotes; hopefully I didn’t miss any important context for them:
“Fig. 1: Energy mix of all scenarios.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-44232-9/figures/1
emphasis added/mine:
me: “(Fig. 2 (p.6): EROEI values stay above 16, some scenarios stay above 18; 2015 value is just above 19some scenarios go up before coming back down)”
Once again, the text contradicts the graph (“18.8” (see below) vs. “just above 19”) (my “some scenarios go up before coming back down” applies post-2020. See https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-44232-9/figures/2
2nd paragraph after Table 1:
From last paragraph before section “Impacts of the energy transition on global EROI”
Immediately following:
See also: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-44232-9/figures/3
———–
Clarification about my discussion of https://iea-pvps.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Task-12-Fact-Sheet-v2-1.pdf 1
My description of above:
My math here https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821049 … (correction in https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821251 ) was based on exponential decay of performance.
Questions: are 976 kWh AC the annual output per kWp AC (ie inverter output capacity) or DC (panel/module capacity)? If the later, the 11.1% CF may give an inflated impression of variability. There are wiring and inverter losses, including clipping losses, etc. Related: what is the ILR? ( https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=35372# ). And is this 976 kWh/kWp for the average of 30 years or for the as-new performance? (So the EROEI might be 30 rather than ≈27 for the mono-Si.) Does the EPBT (energy payback time) account for some fossil fuel inputs having same or larger electrical equivalents rather than smaller (as they would for input to engines and power plants to produce mechanical work and/or electricity (aside from CHP plants** https://www.energy.gov/eere/iedo/combined-heat-and-power-basics )).
in Re to patrick o twentyseven, 5 Oct 2024 at 6:59 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825119
Hallo Patrick,
To your question regarding the annual output per kWp, I know from a few talks with photovoltaic dealers / businessman in Czech Republic that for this central European country, they simply count with 1000 kWh average annual output per kWp. I therefore suppose that it is a net value which can serve for economic calculations.
As regards the decay, I think that it pertains also to the kWp output. So if you have an older facility with lower kWp than ten years ago, you obtain commensurately less kWh per year.
By the way, I noted somewhere that in Sicily, the average annual output per kWp is 2000 kWh.
Greetings
Tomáš
Thank you for reminding me about a very important factor in ERO(E)I: the solar resource. https://iea-pvps.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Task-12-Fact-Sheet-v2-1.pdf does not describe a particularly sunny location (
1331 kWh/m²yr ≈ 3.644 kWh/m²d ≈ 151.8 W/m² (for the area tilted as the solar panels)
Compare to kWh/m²yr “GTI opta” – okay maybe not apples to apples since this is optimal tilt for fixed tilt panels:
Alberta 1773.7
Iowa 1720.9
Kansas 2003.2
Colorado” 2245.9
Camino a Mina Avaroa, Municipio Colcha K, Potosí, Bolivia” (ignore the box in SW US, zoom out and go to the Altiplano) 2889.6
See also:
Compare to (most of) Sicily , “Western USA , USA: Southern Rockies/SW Plains , US Midwest , Atacama-Altiplano , W. Australia , E. Australia , N-NW China , W China (~Tibet) , North Africa / Middle East , and other parts of Africa (PS you can’t select more than 1 M km² at a time), …
… more later…
Using 365 d/yr:
kWh/m²yr ; kWh/m²d ; implied CF (%) (see below****)
1460 ; 4 ; 16.67
1576.8 ; 4.32 ; 18.00
“Iowa
1720.9 ; 4.71 ; 19.6
Alberta
1773.7 ; 4.86 ; 20.2
1825 ; 5 ; 20.83
Kansas
2003.2 ; 5.49 ; 22.9
“Colorado”
2245.9 ; 6.15 ; 25.6
2500 ; 6.849 ; 28.54
“ Camino a Mina Avaroa, Municipio Colcha K, Potosí, Bolivia” (ignore the box in SW US, zoom out and go to the Altiplano)
2889.6 ; 7.92 ; 33.0 (PS based on the DNI of that location, a 2-axis tracking CPV system could have a CF of 40.0 % !! (40.02 %, or 39.99 % if based on 365.25 d/yr)
————- ———-
The DC capacity (nameplate) of a panel/module is AIUI based on performance under standard conditions: 1000 W/m² irradiance (flux density), with a standard spectral distribution (via “airmass”, right?), at a reference temperature (what about directional distribution? ie. direct beam vs diffuse light (impacts antireflection capability etc.?))
https://solardesignguide.com/stc-and-noct-solar-panel-test-conditions-explained/#:~:text=The%20conditions%20%28from%20IEC%2061538%29%3A%20Cell%20temperature%3A%2025%C2%B0C,within%20the%20panel.%20Not%20the%20ambient%20air%20temperature.
Given a simplifying assumption of constant conversion efficiency of the panel, the DC output CF (capacity factor) would ideally (no shading or soiling, etc.) be the GTI in kWh/m²*(time unit) ÷ (hours in time unit). If the panel to AC output efficiency were constant then you’d get the same CF in AC relative to the effective AC capacity. This is how I calculated the CF values above.
In reality the temperature varies, as does the spectrum (humidity, zenith angle…) (might be a small impact?), etc. AIUI there is a general tendency for performance to drop off as the irradiance gets low. Shading (which can disproportionately impact the output***) by trees (when not too close), buildings, other panels (eg. in an array) would tend to increase as the Sun gets closer to the horizon …
PS ideas:
1 for tracking arrays, as the Sun’s elevation decreases, try tilting every other panel/row 90° from the Sun (or from the orientation of the other panels, which would tilt to just avoid casting shadows on each other (non-concentrating (and luminescent concentrating) panels don’t lose much output from being a few ° off)) to minimize shading on the other panels, then 3 out of 4 tilted as such, etc., to catch most of the Sunlight on a subset of panels with minimal shadows.
2 internal wiring of cells in panel: tiny automatic switches and MPPTs to reroute currents around shaded regions, matching currents and voltages to reduce shading/soiling (bird/insect poop) impacts (too hard?)
I noticed that the default setting for residential, commercial, and utility PV seems to use optimal tilt, with azimuth angle 180° (I’m guessing due South (or North))…
The optimal orientation of a fixed panel may not be due equatorward at some tilt from vertical, because in addition to local topography, buildings, etc., there could be diurnal cycles in cloudiness, and temperature (obviously), which are asymmetric across solar noon. Eg. cool mornings and afternoon thunderstorms would make an eastward adjustment beneficial, whereas morning fog or stratus breaking up later in the day … etc. (This is for total energy production.) (Of course, with climate changing, one may not want to get to precise with such optimization.)
…I wonder if that’s why the GTI on panel surfaces is slightly different from GTI_opta. (Strangely, I found one location where it was slightly larger than GTI_opta: https://globalsolaratlas.info/map?c=49.660517,6.357422,7&s=49.59647,8.444824&m=site ) Or maybe it’s a rounding error (eg. 37° vs 37.376…° or whatever).
For PVOUT, residential, commercial, and utility kWh/kWp values, (“Specific photovoltaic power output”=“PVOUT”=?? “Theoretical (Site Data)” (see table here: https://globalsolaratlas.info/support/methodology ))
kWh/kWp divided by the GTI_opt CF for 7 locations: = 74% – 85%, with averages over locations for each of the categories (PVOUT, residential, commercial, utility) ranging from 77.6% to 82.0%.
The 976 kWh/kWp, given 1331 kWh/m²yr (GTI) , gives a ratio of 73.3% (includes aging?) ( https://iea-pvps.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Task-12-Fact-Sheet-v2-1.pdf ). I believe the results for “globalsolaratlas” are as new; and that they, along with https://iea-pvps.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Task-12-Fact-Sheet-v2-1.pdf , use the DC nameplate capacity of the panels/modules for kWp – this would make sense for evaluating EROEI.
Long story short, if the EROEI in that location (1331 kWh/m²yr (GTI)) is ~ 30, then EROEIs globally may tend to be ~ 40 or even higher.
And then there’s tracking.
(replaces prior comment from ~2 minutes ago)
Using 365 d/yr:
kWh/m²yr ; kWh/m²d ; implied CF (%) (see below****)
1460 ; 4 ; 16.67
1576.8 ; 4.32 ; 18.00
“Iowa
1720.9 ; 4.71 ; 19.6
Alberta
1773.7 ; 4.86 ; 20.2
1825 ; 5 ; 20.83
Kansas
2003.2 ; 5.49 ; 22.9
“Colorado”
2245.9 ; 6.15 ; 25.6
2500 ; 6.849 ; 28.54
“ Camino a Mina Avaroa, Municipio Colcha K, Potosí, Bolivia” (ignore the box in SW US, zoom out and go to the Altiplano)
2889.6 ; 7.92 ; 33.0
(PS based on the DNI of that location, a 2-axis tracking CPV system could have a CF of 40.0 % !! (40.02 %, or 39.99 % if based on 365.25 d/yr)
————- ———-
The DC capacity (nameplate) of a panel/module is AIUI based on performance under standard conditions: 1000 W/m² irradiance (flux density), with a standard spectral distribution (via “airmass”, right?), at a reference temperature (what about directional distribution? ie. direct beam vs diffuse light (impacts antireflection capability etc.?))
https://solardesignguide.com/stc-and-noct-solar-panel-test-conditions-explained/#:~:text=The%20conditions%20%28from%20IEC%2061538%29%3A%20Cell%20temperature%3A%2025%C2%B0C,within%20the%20panel.%20Not%20the%20ambient%20air%20temperature.
Given a simplifying assumption of constant conversion efficiency of the panel, the DC output CF (capacity factor) would ideally (no shading or soiling, etc.) be the GTI in kWh/m²*(time unit) ÷ (hours in time unit). If the panel to AC output efficiency were constant then you’d get the same CF in AC relative to the effective AC capacity. This is how I calculated the CF values above.
In reality the temperature varies, as does the spectrum (humidity, zenith angle…) (might be a small impact?), etc. AIUI there is a general tendency for performance to drop off as the irradiance gets low. Shading (which can disproportionately impact the output***) by trees (when not too close), buildings, other panels (eg. in an array) would tend to increase as the Sun gets closer to the horizon …
PS ideas:
1 for tracking arrays, as the Sun’s elevation decreases, try tilting every other panel/row 90° from the Sun (or from the orientation of the other panels, which would tilt to just avoid casting shadows on each other (non-concentrating (and luminescent concentrating) panels don’t lose much output from being a few ° off)) to minimize shading on the other panels, then 3 out of 4 tilted as such, etc., to catch most of the Sunlight on a subset of panels with minimal shadows.
2 internal wiring of cells in panel: tiny automatic switches and MPPTs to reroute currents around shaded regions, matching currents and voltages to reduce shading/soiling (bird/insect poop) impacts (too hard?)
I noticed that the default setting for residential, commercial, and utility PV seems to use optimal tilt, with azimuth angle 180° (I’m guessing due South (or North))…
The optimal orientation of a fixed panel may not be due equatorward at some tilt from vertical, because in addition to local topography, buildings, etc., there could be diurnal cycles in cloudiness, and temperature (obviously), which are asymmetric across solar noon. Eg. cool mornings and afternoon thunderstorms would make an eastward adjustment beneficial, whereas morning fog or stratus breaking up later in the day … etc. (This is for total energy production.) (Of course, with climate changing, one may not want to get to precise with such optimization.)
…I wonder if that’s why the GTI on panel surfaces is slightly different from GTI_opta. (Strangely, I found one location where it was slightly larger than GTI_opta: https://globalsolaratlas.info/map?c=49.660517,6.357422,7&s=49.59647,8.444824&m=site ) Or maybe it’s a rounding error (eg. 37° vs 37.376…° or whatever).
For PVOUT, residential, commercial, and utility kWh/kWp values, (“Specific photovoltaic power output”=“PVOUT”=?? “Theoretical (Site Data)” (see table here: https://globalsolaratlas.info/support/methodology ))
kWh/kWp divided by the GTI_opt CF for 7 locations: = 74% – 85%, with averages over locations for each of the categories (PVOUT, residential, commercial, utility) ranging from 77.6% to 82.0%.
The 976 kWh/kWp, given 1331 kWh/m²yr (GTI) , gives a ratio of 73.3% (includes aging?) ( https://iea-pvps.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Task-12-Fact-Sheet-v2-1.pdf ). I believe the results for “globalsolaratlas” are as new; and that they, along with https://iea-pvps.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Task-12-Fact-Sheet-v2-1.pdf , use the DC nameplate capacity of the panels/modules for kWp – this would make sense for evaluating EROEI.
Long story short, if the EROEI in that location (1331 kWh/m²yr (GTI)) is ~ 30, then EROEIs globally may tend to be ~ 40 or even higher.
And then there’s tracking.
re
CF based on 1000 W/m² peak. I suspect peak at this location is (regularly) above that, because a panel facing radially out from Earth’s axis, on an equinox, with no shading and no atmosphere, would have a CF = 1/π ≈ 31.831 % (relative to full Sun in Space). So the CFs I gave probably understate the variability at this location, but are a fair description of the energy density.
“I suspect peak at this location is (regularly) above that”
Yep. (DNI) (See bottom right here (after switch from “PV POWER OUTPUT” to “DNI DATA”) )
…
https://www.thisoldhouse.com/roofing/reviews/common-roof-pitches
https://www.architecturaldigest.com/reviews/roofing/common-roof-pitches
Of course, rooftop installations will often not be at optimal tilt (or azimuth).
I tried residential w/ tilt = 26° (rounded down from 26.6°) for 4 locations ( Iowa, Alberta, Kansas, Colorado
) with (if I kept track of what I did) optimal tilts 37°,38° and 45°; the results were a drop of 1.52 % to 1.66 % in kWh/kWp except in the 45° case (4.42 % drop). GTI drops were mostly/roughly-ish similar (Iowa was a bit of an exception).
PS those values above were for specific locations in those states/province (see links).
PS of course, ground-mounted installations (or any where the panels are significantly above or tilted relative to underlying sfc.) will tend to have some additional ‘EI’ in the EROEI, lowering the EROEI.
Patrick – here is a graphic of the carbon energy pulse – from the steam engine to ?
https://youtu.be/6DABEN4slmo?si=Hc9pV15DkVK2Wwas&t=1320
Assuming zero growth in energy demand (population or gdp) can you show how solar PV and Wind are capable of relacing producing fossil fuel energy supply to the tune of at least 200 Trillion kwh per year? Knowing recoverable Oil likely to run out by 2040 and Gas by 2100.
Before crunching any more numbers you may like to watch the video. It’s by Dr Charlie Hall the man who invented the term EROI. He’s, well, kind of what you an expert on the subject of energy and ecology.
Here is a ref to the published research paper by Hall the video discusses.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666049022000524#s0010
And here is an earlier article by him discussing solar PV EROI
“The EROI of our various energy options, and its associated issues, may be the most important issues that will face future civilizations. The present discussion tends to vacillate between people who accept (or advocate) very high EROIs for solar vs people who accept (or advocate) very low such EROIs. I trust only one study, the one I did with Pedro Prieto, who has a great deal of real world experience and data. This study attempted to (conservatively) estimate all the energy used to generate PV electricity in Spain by following all the money spent (per GW) and using physical analysis where possible, and energy intensity of money where necessary. We found that the panels and inverters, which are the only parts measured in most studies, were only about a third of the energy cost of the system. As noted in the responses to Ugo’s last post we estimated an EROI of 2.45:1 in 2008 assuming a lifetime of 25 years and at the juncture with the distribution system. Studies that we think used more or less appropriate boundaries (Palmer, Weissbach) got similar results.”
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-05-27/the-real-eroi-of-photovoltaic-systems-professor-hall-weighs-in/
other old articles
https://www.resilience.org/resilience-author/charles-hall/
When Oil was producing huge gushers in the early mid 20th century, the EROI on US Oil was around 100:1
Dharma
“Assuming zero growth in energy demand (population or gdp) can you show how solar PV and Wind are capable of relacing producing fossil fuel energy supply to the tune of at least 200 Trillion kwh per year? Knowing recoverable Oil likely to run out by 2040 and Gas by 2100.”
The numbers on recoverable oil don’t sound right. The only source Dharma gave said: “We then use our estimated URR values, combined with the observation that oil production in a region usually reaches one or more maxima when roughly half its URR has been produced, to forecast the expected dates of global resource-limited production maxima of these classes of oil. These dates range from 2019 (i.e., already past) for conventional oil to around 2040 for ‘all-liquids’….”
This is referring to production maxima not when oil will run out.The following sources from Live Science and Worldometer say there are about 50 years of usable oil reserves left at current consumption levels and excluding unproven reserves.
https://www.worldometers.info/oil/#:~:text=World%20Oil%20Reserves&text=The%20world%20has%20proven%20reserves,levels%20and%20excluding%20unproven%20reserves).
https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/how-much-oil-is-left-and-will-we-ever-run-out
Dharmas quote also omitted when recoverable coal would run out which is generally more like 100 years minimum.
Of course I acknoweldge the underlying issue of whether we have enough fossil fuels left to build out a new wind and soalr energy grid. There is also the question of whether we would have enough fossil fuels left to build out new gas or coal fired plant to replace old plant. The point being we really need to look at what is the best system to build not agonise over remaining reserves of fossil fuels.
“As noted in the responses to Ugo’s last post we estimated an EROI of 2.45:1 in 2008 assuming a lifetime of 25 years and at the juncture with the distribution system. Studies that we think used more or less appropriate boundaries (Palmer, Weissbach) got similar results. When Oil was producing huge gushers in the early mid 20th century, the EROI on US Oil was around 100:1”
I haven’t investigated the EROI issue very much, but its extremely difficult to reconcile very low estimates of EROI for solar power given its now cheaper generation per mwhr than coal. Something doesnt make sense or add up. Would be interested in Patricks views. Whatever troubles solar power might have in terms of EROI, the alternative of just continuing to burn fossil fuels is VERY high risk from a climate perspective.
Nigelj says
18 Oct 2024 at 8:15 PM
“Knowing recoverable Oil likely to run out by 2040 ” yes, I misspoke. That is not what I meant to say. It is incorrect and needs qualification.
Nigelj, did you watch the video, read any of the articles in this comment or any others? I acknowledge your important point that: “I haven’t investigated the EROI issue very much”.
About this quote (sic):
“As noted in the responses to Ugo’s last post we estimated an EROI of 2.45:1 in 2008 assuming a lifetime of 25 years and at the juncture with the distribution system. Studies that we think used more or less appropriate boundaries (Palmer, Weissbach) got similar results. When Oil was producing huge gushers in the early mid 20th century, the EROI on US Oil was around 100:1”
Nigelj, why are you making up your own fabricated ‘quotes’ that are not true or correct – and thus misrepresent the facts in my comment?
Dharma brings up Charles Hall’s video and links a paper about the EROI (Energy Return On Investment) of solar PV. However, the linked commentary is from 2016, and the original study giving an estimated EROI of ~2.45:1 was from 2008. Since then, solar module costs have dropped by well in excess of a factor of ten, which at first approximation would lead one to think that the EROI of solar PV might then be more like 25:1.
But perhaps more to the point, a recent paper in Nature Energy–unfortunately paywalled–says that:
If that is correct–and I’ve seen similar results elsewhere, including papers previously linked here on RC–then any EROI problem we face isn’t a matter of fossil vs. renewables.
Dharma
“Nigelj, why are you making up your own fabricated ‘quotes’ that are not true or correct – and thus misrepresent the facts in my comment?”
I havent made up any fabricated quotes. I copied and pasted the quotes exactly as they were and from YOUR commentary and put them within quote marks. I did combine two separate quotes together in one paragraph for the sake of simplicity. Is that what you are worried about? If so you are being paranoid and you are nit picking and have gone crazy.
Your insinuations of dishonesty and evil intent on my part are not backed up with any explanation or evidence. Killian does the same. Why this website tolerates this is beyond me.
“PS of course, ground-mounted installations (or any where the panels are significantly above or tilted relative to underlying sfc.) will tend to have some additional ‘EI’ in the EROEI, lowering the EROEI.” – OTOH, there may be efficiencies of scale which counteract this. (Eg. https://seia.org/research-resources/solar-market-insight-report-q3-2024/ – see fig. of component pricing – how inverter and electrical BOS price/W gets smaller going from residential to utility; I imagine the EI may follow a similar trend – also I just realized this is discussed in an old 2004 link I just posted farther down: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar//pdfs/37322.pdf (see my addendum to https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825502 )
Re Dharma – I’ll get back to this … in the meantime, was this helpful: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/cold-extremes-do-in-fact-decrease-under-global-warming/#comment-825545 )
(2016) “The Energy and Environmental Performance of Ground-Mounted Photovoltaic Systems—A Timely Update”
Enrica Leccisi, Marco Raugei, Vasilis Fthenakis
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/9/8/622#:~:text=Energy%20pay-back%20time%20%28EPBT%29%20results%20for%20fixed-tilt%20ground,%28EROIPE-eq%29%20values%20ranging%20from%20over%2060%20to%20~10.
(2024) “Energy and Carbon Payback Times for Modern U.S. Utility Photovoltaic Systems”
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy24osti/88653.pdf
(2024) “ Energy and Carbon Payback Times for Modern U.S. Utility Photovoltaic Systems ”
(EPBT = 1.2 to 0.5 years, depending on solar resource, among other things) emph. mine:
(compare to 20 years ago: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar//pdfs/37322.pdf – ground-mounted or roof?)
OTOH, I found another study about a ground-mounted system in China … well it’s not in front of me right now, I remember: EPBT 2.3 years? – maybe (skimmed very quickly, saw a number) irradiance ~2000 kWh/m² ?? – Is it a more remote location?
I think the most immediate question is to ask why do you accept or believe in these kinds of lightweight presumptuous superficial reports from the NREL? I ask because I find them wanting.
These documents and their oversimplified summaries, skim over nuanced data, leading to assumptions and broad hypotheticals instead of relying on thorough, accurate information and solid evidence.
In my experience my conclusion is it’s because that is all they have to work with. But their reason for being and their MO is to push positive narratives at every opportunity into the market place of ideas.
This is the type of material I was referring to in an earlier comment where I warned –
“…. and not be misled by disinformation, overhyped promotional biases, or incomplete science and economics research and theories.”
So nothing should be done because it’s never enough. Solutions not welcome. Progress and trying to overcome opposition don’t matter.
The world is a messy place. We can act or give up. The latter is lazy and stupid.
Most of us can see we’re headed for disaster, but that’s not an excuse to carp at anyone who won’t do the woe is us dance.
Well… At least the two gents running to become the next V.P. of the good old United States gave two minute long answers plus followup comments tonight when asked about climate change policy by CBS moderator Norah O’Donnell:
.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-L6W9dJEqko
.
.
The following pieces are initial reactions to varying degrees on what was said by Ohio Senator JD Vance and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz on climate change and hurricane Helene:
.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2024-10-01/vance-and-walz-spar-on-climate-change
.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/10/01/jd-vance-climate-change-weird-science-vp-debate/75471987007/
.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/01/walz-vance-debate-fact-check-updates
.
.
Vance is whip-smart and it’s personally disappointing to see how his comments regarding anthropogenic influences has devolved over the last 3-4 years. When he straightforwardly lied by saying the U.S. is one of the cleanest economies carbon-wise in the world, I was tempted to throw my tablet at the damn tv. From the USA Today article linked above: “The United States emitted .26 kilograms of carbon dioxide per dollar of economic activity in 2022 and is the third dirtiest economy behind India and China, according to the Global Carbon Budget.”
Tim Walz did fair, though he missed several easy slam dunks in his statement and followup:
>failed to make it crystal clear that it is Republicans who repeatedly have hamstrung FEMA’s budget for response to the increasing cost of natural disasters (climate and other),
>failed to mention that Republicans want to ditch the current Federal Insurance Programs and dump it back into the state’s lap,
>tell people that Trump’s supporters have plans (and Trump will fully embrace come the day he knows he has won) to:
>>dismantle NOAA,
>>privatize The National Weather Service so folks will have to pay twice; once to get the weather forecast and while still paying tax dollars to continue providing the infrastructure from the ground to space,
>>God knows what would happen to entities like the National Hurricane Center, the Storm Prediction Center, the Space Weather Prediction Service, and on and on!,
>>pullback every unspent dollar he can from the I.R.A.,
>>pull us out of The Paris Agreement yet again,
>>throw up every roadblock he can to slow/stop further development of wind farms in particular,
>>remove climate change data/information throughout the federal government (remember how climate change info disappeared from the EPA site while he was President…now they will try implementing that everywhere in the government, and
>>will severely restrict and silence federal scientists (those who aren’t shown the door in the purge)
>While he did say that Trump is completely dismissive of anthropogenic climate change (and did remind people that Trump thinks climate change is a “hoax” and rising sea level will yield more beachfront property). He missed an opportunity to remind folks that Trump failed when he was President for four years and that is a major contributor to why we are still importing so much in the way of solar components because Trump’s term as cheeto-in-chief almost nothing was done to help develop a domestic renewable energy supply chains.
I’m not optimistic that Harris will win the Electoral College. I wish to hell I was. She is still underperforming (compared to Biden 2020) with older white voters in the Rust Belt trio, with Latinos and segments of the under 35 crowd everywhere. I hope she is putting her best supporters that can truly appeal in particular to the under 35 and college crowds as climate change matters to them across party lines. And get them to actually translate concern into massive action and vote (not an act that comes naturally to these groups compared to us old folks). Particularly every college in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
Remembering of course a Vote for Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party is a Vote for the Dick Cheney’s of this world the Neocon Zionist Warmongers and Genocidal maniacs in Israel and Washington DC.
But so does Voting for Trump and the Republicans, so you can’t lose either way. It’s a Win-Win!
And for those chasing a little slice of the truth out there’s this: Professor Marandi effectively silenced this Journalist @SkyNews https://xcancel.com/Powerfulmindx/status/1841517396093215003#m
small snippet ….
“Unlike you, we don’t believe in chosen people, and the Palestinian people on that land who have been displaced and pushed into Gaza and slaughtered regularly over 76 years, we will not stand for that… The Israeli regime, if they strike Iran, we will hit them much harder next time, and they can pretend that they got away, but we hit very hard last time; we hit their bases. And, unlike the Israeli regime, which always carries out slaughter and genocide, carrying out a holocaust in Gaza, we strike their military targets, because, unlike you, we actually care about human rights. Not you.”
In a BBC Interview similarly: https://www.channel4.com/news/israel-will-be-hammered-into-submission-if-it-strikes-iran-says-iranian-academic
How soon before the Cold War v2.0 explodes into world war III? Given Israel just attacked Russia naval air base in Syria. And Iran seriously smashed up Israel despite the news black out across the west.
-Missile Barrage Overwhelms Israeli Defenses-video evidence
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/operation-true-promise-2-iran-strikes
Arabs in the Negev film Iranian missiles impacting Israeli airbases
Israeli air defenses have completely failed
https://t.me/Middle_East_Spectator/10460
https://t.me/Middle_East_Spectator/10458
https://t.me/Middle_East_Spectator/10456
They (western MSM/politicians/govts) are all lying to you 24/7.
No one is forcing you to believe the lies. It’s your own choice.
Vote for Sanity and Truth – at least Vote Jill Stein – but please do not vote for the current Psychopaths.
Complicius says: “Remembering of course a Vote for Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party is a Vote for the Dick Cheney’s of this world the Neocon Zionist Warmongers and Genocidal maniacs in Israel and Washington DC.But so does Voting for Trump and the Republicans, so you can’t lose either way. It’s a Win-Win!”
False claims. Huge lack of evidence. Lots of trolling. Way too much false equivalence between democrats and republicans. Democrats lean liberal so equating them to “neoconservatives” is ludicrous. Democrat governmnets have obviously not been perfect, but they have rightly defended many other countries (WW1, WW2, Korean War, Ukraine, Israel), and not plotted the invasion of Iraq like Bush and Cheney did. And now the Republicans are backing away from supporting Ukraine.
Cheney promoted torture while Biden has opposed torture of suspects and has moved to close down Guantanamo bay. The Democrats promote a proper palestinian state on the west bank and many support a permanent ceasefire in Gaza while the Republicans are less supportive of these things. Multiple polls and commentaries support this.
Regarding the video of Israel allegedly being hit by multiple missles. Theres no way of knowing whether the video is genuine. Its totally gullible to take it at face value. These days its easy to fake videos. Although its likely both sides of the conflict have been hit by more missles than they admit. Famous quote “the first casualty of war is the truth”. Of course the authorities sometimes lie, – as if we didnt know this, and needed your pearls of wisdom (sarc).
1) Dealing with climate change requires the united effort of the entire world — we are all on this lifeboat with no other place to live. Uninhabitable space for tens of trillions of miles in all directions. How does inciting hatred and corrupt, hugely expensive continuous wars help humanity?
2) In 2002 the Democratic Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Robert Graham, said he saw no evidence that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to the USA — the only justification under UN law for invading Iraq. Nevertheless, 29 Democratic Senators voted for the war — including John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden. You might want to look at the $14 Million Israeli billionaire Haim Saban dumped into the Democratic Party in 2002 — and at that 2007 interview Haim gave to Haaretz boasting of how he dumps money into US politics to buy US military protection of Israel. Of how the Clintons sucked up to him whenever he visited the White House..
3) Dick Cheney had not shown his face in public since 2008. In contrast, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden have since all received the Democratic nominations for President with Biden succeeding in winning.
4) If Democrats are promoting a Palestinian state on the West Bank then why have they said nothing as Bibi Nethanyahu and the Likud have engaged in slow motion genocide there — slowly taking more and more land year after year for at least the past 30 years. In case you wonder how the terrorists recruit new members.
Why did Joe Biden give Bibi that big hug? Which did nothing to aid Israel but encouraged millions of Muslims to consider killing a few thousand American tourists in the next decade. Well, it did announce the White House was open for business. Does no one remember Bibi coming here in 2002 and helping Cheney lie us into invading Iraq?
Don Williams
“1) Dealing with climate change requires the united effort of the entire world — we are all on this lifeboat with no other place to live….How does inciting hatred and corrupt, hugely expensive continuous wars help humanity?”
I agree with your points but you are lecturing me, and I didn’t suggest otherwise. I said that the Democrats have come to the aid or defence of allies under attack. This doesnt mean I LIKE wars.
“2) . Nevertheless, 29 Democratic Senators voted for the (Iraq) war — including John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden. ”
Apparently its because they believed George Bushes claims / lies that there were weapons of mass destruction despite what Robert Graham said. Thats what the written record apparently shows. Maybe they were gullible to do that, but the Democats didn’t do the lying. The Democrats didn’t plan and start the war. So I just feel its false equivalence to say The Democrats are as equally culpable for Iraq as the Republicans (if you are impluyng that). Just my opinion of course.
“You might want to look at the $14 Million Israeli billionaire Haim Saban dumped into the Democratic Party in 2002….”
Both Democrats and Republicans have accepted donations form Israel. So its a moot point.
“4) If Democrats are promoting a Palestinian state on the West Bank then why have they said nothing as Bibi Nethanyahu and the Likud have engaged in slow motion genocide there — slowly taking more and more land…”
The polling I have read suggests the Democrats Party leadership have only recently changed their position and favoured an independent palestinian state. But they now have a different position to the GOP.
“Why did Joe Biden give Bibi that big hug? Which did nothing to aid Israel but encouraged millions of Muslims to consider killing a few thousand American tourists….”
Because Biden is a hugging sort of guy apparently and America does support Isreal. Whats he supposed to do, be really cold towards Bibi? It might be tempting but it would only encourage Israels enemies.
Israelis occupation of the west bank is totally illegal and unjustified. But its beside the point. The point is the Democrats do not have identicial views on the issue to Republicans. Complicius made the claim that Biden and Trump are essentially the same and that The Democrats and Republicans Parties are all the same and as bad as each other. It is not true and its FALSE EQUIVALENCE all things considered. I’ve pointed out some foreign policy differences. They are not huge but there are differences. There are also more substantial differences in social and environmental policy and views, and some significant economic differences. Then there is Agenda 25 which is dramatically different to anything the Democrats propose. Its also a steaming pile of rubbish and very bad environmentally. I think its very unwise to vote for Republican politicians right now. But thanks for your comments.
To Nigelj:
I agree wholeheartedly that free speech is important, and so is maintaining respectful, constructive discourse. However, I’d like to clarify my stance on the comment you mentioned. It’s true that I may have expressed strong frustration with the current geopolitical climate, especially the destructive nature of certain foreign policies, but this wasn’t meant to “gloat” over anyone’s suffering or destruction.
When I said, “The great reckoning is upon us… good riddance,” I was referring to a broader critique of systems and structures that, in my view, have contributed to global instability and environmental degradation. This wasn’t aimed at people or designed to incite hate, but rather to express frustration with the policies that I believe are unsustainable in the long term.
I understand how such comments can be misinterpreted, and I will take care in the future to ensure my words are not taken as incitement or wishful thinking for anyone’s harm. My ultimate aim is to discuss solutions and challenges in a way that moves the conversation forward, not to derail it or antagonize others.
Compliqius. Ok fair comment. I do think you should choose your words more wisely. As we all should at times. I thought you might have been broadly critiquing the system – but I wasnt 100% sure either. When people wish my destruction, I have to assume they might be serious and react accordingly.
Aaand the socially stunted Complicius sock puppet has officially succeeded in derailing a climate thread.
Who/what does that remind you of? The stuff of grifts.
Climate Change can not be treated in isolation from the other social forces and powers of the world. Environmental concerns are the first thing that gets discarded in a war.
There are many things that can derail the energy transition — high debt/ lack of money for one thing. Economic depression. Corruption.
Another is Lack of cooperation among nations because no one wants to accept the sacrifices if others will freeload or take economic/military advantage. Rising mistrust and competition — due to a leader’s actions in a different area — can make it impossible to gain the necessary agreements.
But, hey, Exxon was able recently to sell Iraq’s oil back to the Iraqis –reportedly for $350 million — who in turn are handing it over to China’s PetroChina. So I suppose we should all just jump up and shout “Yay”. Well, maybe not the paraplegics in our VA hospitals.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/petrochina-replace-exxon-lead-contractor-iraqs-west-qurna-1-oilfield-oil-2023-11-11/
Complicius said they knew CJ. Either the same entity, or work together in the same troll farm.
Seriously, take your political opinions elsewhere and knock it off. You’re not contributing anything to this site.
Complicius: Jill Stein supports antivaxx and other fringe ideas. Putin supports her (to help Trump). Please get some wisdom and objectivity.
[The US could use a proper Green party, but she ain’t it. She’s a bundle of ego.]
https://www.thirdway.org/memo/jill-stein-a-russian-asset-and-a-hypocrite
re https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825060
“Professor Marandi effectively silenced this Journalistv […] “Unlike you, we don’t believe in chosen people, […] because, unlike you, we actually care about human rights. Not you.”” – Well I don’t know about the “you” being addressed but it’s obviously not me. And – the gov. of Iran, or some part of it, supports terrorists, so, … there’s that.
“They (western MSM/politicians/govts) are all lying to you 24/7. ” Please differentiate between Fox News et al. and MSNBC, PBS, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Vox, Propublica, etc. and official government vs individual members (MTJ) etc., and between blue-type state and red-type state governments and societies/churches/etc. Seeing all as one is part of the problem, here.
“Vote for Sanity and Truth – at least Vote Jill Stein – but please do not vote for the current Psychopaths.”
Ideally, we would have instant runoff/ranked choice ballots (potentially computationally involved in the electoral college system (nested loops) – but doable – also Ideally we’d modify or ditch the electoral college). That way you could have your protest vote and still exert your full voting power to stop Trump. But see Susan Anderson @ https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825276 – be careful what you wish for (remember Brexit). I will vote for Kamala Harris, and do so with enthusiasm – not because she’s perfect but because she’s basically a good person, a capable person, and from electing Kamala, we have a better path forward. (You can’t always expect your first next step to get you directly to your final preferred destination).
PS Note that as Vice President, I believe it would look bad if she differed too much from Biden’s positions.
Also, if she were perfect, could she win? Would a perfect person even run for the leader of a nation? Seems to me that positions at the U.N. or various N.G.O.s or grassroots organizer might be a better fit. Perhaps it is a basic problem with representative democracy that leaders must be trusted by the people and so may feel pressure to express loyalty, or maybe we’re just so used to that kind of campaigning (…
…“ she’s basically a good person, a capable person”… → … she’s a good, capable person …
The qualifier “basically” was unnecessary, in retrospect.
And compare to her opponent, Satan*, aka. Biffigula (Biff Tannen + Caligula), aka. ‘He who must have his name on buildings’, aka. “Cinnamon Hitler” (quoting Trevor Noah several years ago) – and his group of Death Eaters, Nazis, the Christian Taliban (deciding what types of health care women and children and … etc. can have, regardless of the complexities of biology and mind, … etc.), and the Lex Luthor League (Peter Theil, Elon Musk, Rupert Murdoch, Koch Bros). Too many steps backwards!
(While the West as it is now still deserves criticism (which I, a Westerner, realize), IMO there has been a great moral awakening over the last 200 years, the last 100 years, the last 50 years, etc. I was wondering if CJ was observing a decrease in the entropy of the Universe based on a comment about recent moral decline a month ago: …““ the social imperatives of genuine human nature and the common good principles of life that have been abandoned in recent decades.” ” Remember Jim Crow, brutal slavery, genocide, witch hunts, inquisitions, the Crusades, societally-accepted wife beating, … )
(*Actually, the Devil would be much smarter – and more detail oriented!)
And remember the down-ballot races! Congress, State governments … your school boards!
— If I would vote for someone who most likely can’t win, my go-to choice is AOC. And who do you think AOC is voting for? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WP0RzBkab2w&t=1s
PS https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2023622 (FWIW, 184 Democrats (incl. AOC) voted Nay.)
Patrick o twentyseven,
Well said sir. As an ‘R’, I voted today casting my vote for Harris/Walz and for the ballot opponents of my other fellow Republicans who continue to deny climate/environmental reality and the need for even more action on the associated fronts.
… complexities of biology and mind ? – sorry, my “mind” reference could be misinterpreted – “complexities of biology” is sufficient.
re David @
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825569 and https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825439
Thank You! Thank You! Thank You!
Another set of thoughts I had:
(“(You can’t always expect your first next step to get you directly to your final preferred destination)”- referring to issues in general.)
Bear in mind some steps may be taken in parallel. Ie. don’t just pull on one lever of power – pull too hard it may snap. Try multiple levers. Eg. vote in more than one race – for the best person who can win, but also, if you are able, persuade, encourage, pressure, and offer support for them to be their best – or even better (and if you know any persuadable voters in other countries…) – Because POTUS is not God, not even an emperor or king, and even emperors must strategize (eg. Marcus Aurelius) – steer the ship of state too sharply and the rudder could break. To some extent, leaders must get their people to follow. Politicians and candidates for office have to make strategic choices, just as we do. (Not intended as a defense for mistakes Joe Biden made (IMO), but something to keep in mind going forward. )
Patrick o 27,
Solid outlook by you. I’ve thought about what you outline in your comment for awhile now given the risen of anti-science thinking/action on the climate, land use, and the biodiversity crisis amongst fellow conservatives here in the U.S.
You’re correct, it’s not just who the next POTUS is. What happened with the IRA legislation (not a single R vote even from those R’s who haven’t been infected) showed me something. Something not healthy about my party. Kind of a last straw so-to-speak. So yeah, engagement is required at all levels.
So, what to do? I’m too old, too dumb, and too poor to effectively confront these huge issues at any level outside the ballot box and locally in conversations and local action. I’ve already found that using the term ‘climate change’ straight out of the gate when discussing politics locally too often meets with almost immediate wall raising. Not always, but often in line with expectations given the political makeup of where I live (it’s quite conservative) even with good friends. Interesting though, land use and the biodiversity crisis are much easier to have discussions about.
If you or anyone here have suggestions regarding beginning climate change discussions and taking political action starting at the local level, Id be tickled to hear them. The excellent Skeptical Science site is already a place I’ve begun to mine, but I welcome more suggestions.
A comment on Complicius, 3 Oct 2024 at 4:38 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825060
“Complicius” is a further embodiment of persons approaching Real Climate discussion fora with the sole aim – to spread anti-western / anti-American propaganda.
For more details, see further stuff published on the website he refers to:
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/last-dance-at-the-vampire-ball-west
I would like to propose again that if the moderators wish that people with such an agenda have also a chance to publish on Real Climate, it is enabled only in a separate part of RC forum, clearly assigned as “unmoderated”.
Best regards
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz, I feel free speech is important and criticism of western society is ok, but there are limits. Nobody has to provide a platform for comments that are massively off topic, that incite hate or violence, or gloat over our alleged destruction for example Complicius on last months UV thread: “The great reckoning is upon us. The US empire and the west are going to be wrecked. Good riddance. ” His / her whole post belongs in the borehole.
To Tomáš:
I understand that you’re concerned about the nature of some posts, and I fully support having a healthy, respectful discussion space. However, I want to clarify that my intention has never been to spread “anti-western” or “anti-American” propaganda. Rather, I strive to bring up valid geopolitical and environmental concerns that are critical to understanding the broader context of climate change and energy policy.
The link to Simplicius’ work is provided as a resource for those interested in deeper analyses of global political dynamics. While it may be critical of certain Western policies, critique is not synonymous with propaganda. Constructive criticism of any nation, including Western countries, is a vital part of informed discourse, especially when it comes to the global challenges we face today, like climate change.
The issues I raise relate directly to how global political conflicts hinder collective action on climate change, which is why I see them as on-topic. That said, I am fully open to feedback on tone or approach if it seems my posts are being interpreted differently than intended.
I also believe moderation should be fair and transparent, but I don’t think creating separate “unmoderated” sections is the best solution. Instead, discussions can benefit from clear, consistently applied guidelines about what is considered on-topic and civil in a forum like this. If we stick to the facts, remain respectful, and avoid inflammatory rhetoric, I think we can all benefit from a diverse range of perspectives.
in Re to Compliciated aka Complicius, 6 Oct 2024 at 12:10 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825125
Sir,
Simplicius site has nothing to do with “analyses”, it is clearly fed by Russian propaganda. Ukrainian nazis, decadent West, and stuff like this. You can assert an opposite to people who do not know this, not to me.
If you really would like to bring a constructive criticism, you must avoid such sources.
Best regards
Tomáš
Vance is a slick snake. here’s DeSmog on his lies and evasions.
https://www.desmog.com/2024/10/02/jd-vance-peter-thiel-alex-epstein-joe-rogan-weird-science-debate-remark-echoes-billionaire-who-powered-his-political-rise/
From yesterday at ProPublica; guess what one of the issues being targeted using FOIA’s requests is?
“Heritage Foundation Staffers Flood Federal Agencies With Thousands of Information Requests
The conservative think tank’s requests are clogging the pipeline at federal agencies in an apparent attempt to find employees a potential Trump administration would want to purge.”
.
https://www.propublica.org/article/have-government-employees-mentioned-climate-change-voting-or-gender-identity-the-heritage-foundation-wants-to-know
.
.
No matter how many times Trump, Vance & the campaign publicly deny any connections or plans; this doesn’t change the truth. They are going to do every single thing they can to thwart federal action/protection where the climate and environment are concerned. If Trump wins, combined with the near-certain loss of Democratic Party control of the U.S. Senate, better hope the D’s somehow can swim against the tide and gain control of the U.S. House to slow the nose cutting.
Ummm… the extreme temps of ’23 were driven by an El Nino that started well after the extremes did? I don’t claim to be a climate scientist, just an excellent, accurate analyst. Also, are we now claiming that the Pacific-located El Nino stretches into other oceans? It would have to to explain the ocean heat content across more than just the Pacific.
This is a reach from people scrambling to understand something that doesn’t fit what they previously knew. But it’s Occam’s Razor-simple: The oceans can’t hold as much heat as was believed, likely due to the speed of build-up, so we’re getting exchange with the atmosphere at overall levels that had been more stable in the past. But there are two issues: Magnitude of change and rate of change. You can go from 0 to 130 mph in a supercar safely over as little as 20 or 30 seconds, but punch the pedal to the floor and you’re likely going to lose control if you are not a skilled driver. Perhaps a bit oversimplified, but that’s the gist.
And I guess the issue of changes to ship fuels is being dismissed?
Three years from now, remember I said this.
To Killian:
“And I guess the issue of changes to ship fuels is being dismissed?”
It’s not just the reductions in IMO shipping aerosols that we should consider—there have also been significant, ongoing reductions in man-made aerosols like SO₂ worldwide. This includes reductions in the U.S., China, India, and Europe in recent years, all of which are accumulating and leading to atmospheric changes.
I kept checking the new satellite info on the website PACE Ocean Sciences, which Gavin previously championed as a crucial source of global data on this topic, including albedo changes. https://pace.oceansciences.org/data_table.htm
But eventually, I stopped waiting for updates, as it seems to have gone quiet. No updates from the RealClimate website either, which makes me wonder how significant this data was after all.
Here are some relevant references, though it seems like the discussion around this issue has largely disappeared from climate circles:
Spiegel: Aerosol Reduction in China Leading to North Pacific Heat
URL: https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/weniger-ausstoss-von-aerosolen-in-china-fuehrt-zu-hitze-im-nordpazifik-a-52949ec6-37c6-46f6-8664-ab4b5bd64b3d
ECS Symposium: Event 33
URL: https://sites.google.com/tamu.edu/ecs-symposium/event33?authuser=0
Geeta Persad UT Austin Seminar: UTIG Seminar Series
URL: https://ig.utexas.edu/utig-seminar-series/2024/utig-seminar-series-geeta-persad-ut-austin/
Nature Communication: Aerosols and Climate
URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-42891-2?fromPaywallRec=false
Twitter – Dan Miller: Tweet Link
URL: https://xcancel.com/danmiller999/status/1791387737859498204#m
Spiegel: Aerosol Reduction in China
URL: https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/weniger-ausstoss-von-aerosolen-in-china-fuehrt-zu-hitze-im-nordpazifik-a-52949ec6-37c6-46f6-8664-ab4b5bd64b3d
Copernicus: Aerosol Reductions and Global Warming
URL: https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/aerosols-are-so2-emissions-reductions-contributing-global-warming
Uhm.. there is:
.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/05/new-journal-nature-2023/
.
Latest update to the above post here at Real Climate was last week (10/01/2024). So not sure what is driving comments implying the opposite.
A question to our hosts: Is it possible or considered worthwhile to modify the main page that would add a “last updated” to a post’s title block for those posts still being occasionally updated with new info?
[Response: This is only the 2023 post. I have added a ‘last updated’ to the lede, which could help, and I’ve reduced the number of other ‘featured stories’ so that it stays on the top two on the main page. Thanks. – gavin]
Killian said:
Something like that. The Atlantic had a large spike concurrent with El Nino
Notably, this happened in 1878 as well — a huge El Nino in the Pacific and a large temperature spike in the Atlantic
https://figshare.com/articles/figure/AMO_spikes/27159060?file=49579239
I’m of the train of thought that there are common-mode mechanisms across the set of ocean basins. This is in contrast to teleconnections, which are argued more as one behavior is impacting another.
Common-mode:A correlation is due to a shared influence, not a direct interaction between the regions themselves. Both are responding to a common underlying driver.
Teleconnection: Regions are linked by a mechanism that transfers information, energy, or momentum over long distances. The influence is not due to a shared cause, but rather an active interaction between different parts of the system.
I think the common underlying driver is tidal orbital dynamics interacting with the seasonal cycle. Sunspot activity is way down the list of strong drivers.
Paul Pukite, I do think the idea tidal forcings causes el ninos sounds intuitively appealing. But why would a common mode driver related to tidal forcings cause regular and frequent el ninos in the pacific but only very occasional temperature spikes in the Atlantic? I would logically expect it to effect both oceans equally.
NigelJ, The model of fluid dynamics in an ocean basin involves the boundary conditions of the basin itself. This is what contains and sets the standing waves of the oceanic dipoles/tripoles such as ENSO and AMO. But since the individual ocean basins have different dimensions, the characteristic wavelengths of the standing waves will differ. No different in principal than the other kind of waves (acoustic, E-M) generated in cavities and waveguides. The outcome of this is that the generated non-linear responses will be incommensurate across the basins, but which also means that they can go in and out of synch over the years.
This is still a common-mode response, but like conventional tides, they can be out-of-phase or respond distinctly to various tidal factors across spatially separated regions.
What I have found is that a common global tidal forcing can be used to model individual responses to AMO, PDO, ENSO, IOD and others simultaneously. The modulation responses only differ, with cross-validation approaches used to avoid over-fitting. It’s a model that deserves investigation since — let’s face it — nothing else seems to be working.
There are many temperature spikes in the Atlantic, and just like the Pacific the spikes can have different magnitude. As with conventional tides, the time between the biggest will vary geographically. For AMO, the model will fit ALL the details.
https://geoenergymath.com/2024/09/23/amo-and-the-mt-tide/
I’ve got no problem with a sort of antipode view of ocean changes, but I’d like to see something about the mechanism before signing on whole-hog.
“antipode view of ocean changes,”
As in why there are 2 tidal bulges per day? Newton explained it.
Do better. We aren’t talking about tides, for f#@&sakes. Or are you still not clear on the collapse of the biome we need to be alive? The time for silly nonsense is well past.
Nonsensical to assume what “antipode” refers to on an Earth sciences blog? If it’s not used to describe points on the Earth that are diametrically opposite, I guess it’s used as a pretense indicator for the ordinary word “opposite”, much like the word “elide” instead of “delete”.
I honestly thought you understood where I was going with the explanation, which is amusing.
Tomas Kalisz: Another possible explanation is that the strange Tomas Kalisz tirelessly promoting Sahara irrigation scheme with annual operational costs in trillions USD in hope that he helps saving Saudi Arabia and Russia as fossil fuel sources for the world economy […] does in fact exist in your posts only”
– “TENS of trillions” annually to achieve a fraction of 0.3K cooling.
– I don’t consider you “strange” – this word has at least possibility of being brilliant but misunderstood by others. You are NEITHER.
– Instead I consider you … not the sharpest knife in a drawer, who has proven times and times again that he doesn’t understand what he reads, nor does he understand (the logical implications of) what he writes.
And one who tries to boost his ego by coming up with his absurd and unsupported by facts opinions, theories and proposals, for the typical conspiracy theorist/contrarian psychological payout: “ if 1000s of climate scientists haven’t thought of this, but I Tomáš Kalisz, without any climate knowledge, had – then I must be really, really, smart .
I have never said that you “hope” to support the regime of Russia and Saudi Arabia – the very definition of Lenin’s “useful idiots of Russia” is that they either have NO IDEA that they play straight into Russia’s hands, OR they don’t allow a thought of this, when others point it to them.
And no – all the above does not “only you exist in my posts. I merely put a dot over i – all the proof is on YOUR posts. By the fruits, not their declarations about themselves, you shall know them.
With comments from Michael Mann and several others:
.
https://www.eenews.net/articles/how-project-2025-would-treat-helene-survivors/
.
.
It is sadly ironic that there are many folks who will vote for Trump that will suffer the most by what he will try to do.
A new infilled global temperature dataset is now available: DCENT_MLE_v1. This dataset estimates more #globalwarming than other datasets: an increase of 1.59 °C from the late 19th century to 2023, with an uncertainty range of [1.48,1.72] °C.
https://www.wdc-climate.de/ui/entry?acronym=DCENT_MLE_v1_0
DCENT_MLE_v1 is based on the non-infilled DCENT dataset. DCENT incorporates improvements developed by the DCENT scientists over many years, such as using deck metadata (e.g., country of origin of a ship) to improve sea surface temperature estimates.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-03742-x
DCENT_MLE_v1 follows the methodology of HadCRU_MLE_v1 to infill unobserved regions of the planet. HadCRU_MLE_v1 was developed to better account for nonuniform warming across the planet, such as the high rate of warming in regions of sea ice loss.
https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.4791
Since DCENT does not yet have estimates of measurement and sampling uncertainties, I used the HadSST4 measurement and sampling uncertainties for sea surface temperatures. DCENT and HadSST4 use the same underlying sea surface temperature observations.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD029867
For measurement and sampling uncertainties of land observations, these were calculated using the standard approach described by Brohan et al. (2006) and using data from GHCNv4 to better account for the distribution of weather observations in DCENT.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006548
It is only one data point sure, but long since the El Nino ended the Global Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly has reached record daily highs again
see https://cdn.xcancel.com/pic/orig/media%2FGYvz3PIWQAAyVSg.jpg
Significantly and constantly elevated for 18 months now.
ECMWF uses a depth of 10 meters for their Sea Surface Temperature product, while NOAA uses the top surface layer. Which makes this increase even more significant than the spike in the NOAA dataset.
Absolute temperature graph: 60N-60S 2023-2024 vs Average 1991-2020
https://cdn.xcancel.com/pic/orig/media%2FGY4h2ZXXQAAhBdv.jpg
The Daily Surface Air Temperature and Anomaly still remains elevated as well.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/?dm_id=world
In case anyone missed this, NCEI @NOAANCEI has been impacted by Hurricane Helene, as their data center is located in Asheville and as such their data are unavailable online
Breaking News!
ERA5 September Global Temperature Anomaly was +1.53°C above the 1850-1900 baseline, making it the 16th straight month above pre-2023 records.
https://cdn.xcancel.com/pic/orig/media%2FGY4Yz62asAASGjk.jpg
On the plus side, at least September wasn’t as totally f&%king nuts as last year 2023?
James Hansen in early July said – “In September, global temperature surely will fall well below the unusually-high September record (Fig. 1); with that, the 12-month running-mean global temperature (Fig. 2) will decline noticeably.”
Reflections:- http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/Reflections.2024.07.12.pdf
Dr Hansen also said:
“Global SST is now at about the level that it was 12 months ago (Fig. 5), but still far from the
pre-El Nino level. Global SST will soon be falling below the elevated late-2023 levels, but
we should not expect SSTs to fall back to the pre-2023 level as the aerosol effect continues
and greenhouse gas forcing continues to grow. The moderate size of the El Nino suggests that
global temperature will probably fall to only about +1.4°C relative to the preindustrial level.
Zonal-mean SST anomalies (Fig. 6) provide an informative summary. In our interpretation,
the strong midlatitude warming in the Northern Hemisphere will not disappear. However, the
ocean has natural variability on the time scale of years and decades, so others may interpret
the warm anomalies in the North Pacific and North Atlantic differently. Given the absence of
observations of the global aerosol forcing, a little patience will provide data allowing a more
persuasive interpretation of ongoing climate change. ”
UAH TLT has reported for September with the global TLT anomaly still running at full “bananas”, (unlike the SAT anomalies which has sen some cooling). The Sept UAH TLT anomaly is +0.96ºC, up on August’s +0.88ºC and continuing within the range seen since Sept 2023 of +0.80ºC to +1.05ºC.
The Aug-to-Sept increase was a NH thing, with the NH warming (Aug +0.96ºC, Sept +1.21ºC – this the largest up-tick in UAH’s NH TLT anomalies thro’ the “bananas” period), and the SH cooling (Aug +0.81ºC, Sept +0.71ºC).
(To put these “bananas” anomalies in context, the warmest pre-“bananas” year in the UAH TLT record was 2020 +0.37ºC global, +0.41ºC NH, +0.32ºC SH.)
(The TLT “bananas” saw last year Jan-Dec 2023 average a ‘scorchisimo!!!’ +0.51ºC globally. With Jan-Sept 2024 now averaging a mega-toasty +0.91ºC, a ‘scorchisimo!!!’ 2024 can only be prevented if Oct-Dec 2024 averages below -0.68ºC which would be a new record 3-month low, that ‘frostyisimo!!’ record being currently -0.56ºC set Jan-Mar 1985.)
And a proper nerdy look at the NH & SH UAH TLT numbers through these “bananas” months, the NH have been ‘sort-of’ on the rise through the period (OLS yields +0.1ºC/year) while the SH has been cooling at roughly he same rate.
And an ultra-nerdy look, the NH Land & NH Ocean TLT numbers (which are not posted for Sept yet) show that sort-of’ rising NH trend comprises a Land component with peak “bananas” in Sept23 {+1.34ºC}, cooled thro’ to Jan24 {+0.89ºC} but since has warmed again with a new peak “bananas” set in Aug24 {+1.35ºC}. The NH Ocean component hit its peak “bananas” in April24 {+0.97ºC} and has been cooling since {to Aug24 +0.70ºC}.
Given the large Aug-to-Sept uptick in the TLT NH anomaly, the Sept NH Land & Ocean numbers will be interesting when the arrive.
To me, it seems like the latest data is once again pointing to a message that isn’t directly related to ENSO dynamics.
Complicius,
You say “once again” which would seemingly imply you are involving more than just “the latest data” in your considerations of data “pointing.”
Your comment is presumably saying that you would expect the ‘effects’ of the 2023-24 El Niño (the “ENSO dynamics”) to have been seen ended by now in the “the latest data.” Such a comment would be helpfully accompanied by an indication of what “the latest data” is being pointed at.
The SOI shows the 2023-24 El Niño kicked-off Jan 2023 and peaked in Sept-Oct 2023 and NINO3.4 shows that it peaked Nov-Dec 2023. But its impacts around the globe go on far longer. The NOAA global surface temperature data (currently the data-provision from NCEI Asheville NC is down while recovering post-Helene) shows quite a solid El Niño signal through 1997-98. 2009-10 & 2015-16 for the Northern Hemisphere Oceans with a very broad peak July-year-1 to Sept-year-2, a broad peak that perhaps is becoming more a double-peak Sept-year-1 & Sept-year-2.
(I am maintaining a graphic showing 5-month rolling averages of global, SH, NH Ocean & NH Land temperatures here – first posted 14 Feb 2024.)
Given the global temperature rise from AGW is causing such things as an increase in the stratification of ocean temperature, should we be at all surprised if the “ENSO dynamics” are changing?
So I would not be in a rush to dismiss the 2023-24 El Niño as responsible for the on-going “bananas”.
The enduring issue is that GHG models to first-order find only a monotonic change of intrinsic factors (such as temperature) with atmospheric concentration. Any other changes, such as the rapid temperature spike, are not accounted in what’s considered a mean-valued model. The effort may indeed need to be placed on how GHG modulates natural process such as ENSO, but the problem there is that there is no accepted consensus model for ENSO. That’s a general rule of science — if you can’t model the fundamentals, you have no chance of predicting a perturbation. There is also the concept of a tipping-point but that still has to follow thermodynamics relationships such as the Arrhenius rate activation law, which is not that explosive for typical reactions or changes in state. And of course, there are always the impulse functions, such as the Hunga-Tonga volcano or the sudden change in aerosols due the pandemic, which lead to impulse responses (or Green’s function responses that you can search for in recent papers).
It all reminds me of a trouble-shooting exercise that one goes through when some piece of equipment goes haywire. Except there are no systematic controls or duplicate apparatus one can use to isolate the problem.
The above was fed to ChatGPT 4 o1-preview, with a couple of insights that might be useful: https://chatgpt.com/share/67050068-4310-8005-bd20-4f7c070a9907
“What’s to be done? None of us likes turbines, or hydro, and obviously not nuclear either. So how do we get out of this mess?”
“I don’t know — how do we?”
“Whatever the answer is, it absolutely must involve stopping thinking about science as though it were a religion. Once upon a time, the Church would solve the big problems of the day with rogations and novenas and so on. People now trust science [and the latest hypothetical scenario papers like 100% WWS] in the exact same way. And that’s because we aren’t prepared to give anything up. We need to stop flying, stop consuming such ridiculous quantities of energy. But no, no, people say, anything but that. The solution has to be magical, somehow, and it’s science that’s got to give it to us. There’s no way for us just to face the problems in a realistic way.”
From “Death as told by a sapiens to a neanderthal”, Juan José Millás and Juan Luis Arsuaga
Complicious, people are addicted to energy use. Its a hard habit to break. Especially when all our jobs are dependent on it, and it provides basic goods needed to survive, and flying is such a nice thing. Thats why I promote renewables. Its a compromise solution.
No ‘green’ solution?
“The problem with both visions of the future – and the spectrum of views between them – is a fundamental misunderstanding of the collapse which has begun to break over us. This is that each assumes the continuation of that part of industrial civilisation which is required to make their version of the future possible, even as the coming collapse wipes away ALL aspects of industrial civilisation. Most obviously, nobody had developed even an embryonic version of the renewable energy supply chain which is the essential first step to turning non-renewable renewable energy-harvesting technologies (NRREHTs) into the envisioned “renewables” upon which the promised techno-psychotic future is to be built. That is, until it is possible to mine the minerals, build the components, manufacture and transport the technologies without the use of fossil fuels at any stage in the process, then there is no such thing as “renewable energy” in the sense which the term is currently promoted. “
https://consciousnessofsheep.co.uk/2023/07/19/our-predicament-re-stated/?fbclid=IwAR3VlY4z4EV1kM6nTSv2FjmBAmvCEGjqqhiwuc1zQtSn3sIcGDGdqiNaN0Q
James Charles, thanks for the link. Renewables are clearly not fully renewables until they are the dominant energy source and no longer need fossil fuels in the manufacture or supply chain. This doesnt diminish their value in reducing emissions as they gradually reduce the need for fossil fuels, and particularly because they are a step towards a fully renewable system. If the writer doesnt understand this, I feel he should pack up his computer and try another occupation. Maybe brick laying or something.
“ . . . remember that people have been developing technology for the last two
1:00:44 million years and for the last two million years each new technology was supposed to solve humanity’s problem and
1:00:50 yet over the last two million years each new technology created its own new problems which were then solved with yet
1:00:58 again new technologies so the belief that technology will be the savior is
1:01:04 complete delusion but it’s a very human delusion so people who think that are
1:01:09 deeply delusional. . . “?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsbtt-6Dpww&t=2002s
James Charles, you have raised a completly separate issue. Its interesting material, but I dont accept that technology was deveoped to “solve societies problems’ per se. It was developed to make things better and reduce manual labour. Subtle but important difference.
People certainly believe technology makes things better or people would live quite differently.
Of course technology makes some things worse – the obvious one being environmental degradation to the point we really have to confront this and figure out a solution that mitigates the problem, but I suggest without expecting people to go back to the stone age.
Killian essentially proposes mostly go back to much older simpler forms of technology and less of it, apart from modern communications and one or two other things. Nice in theory but difficult to define how much simpler we should go, and how to get there and persuade people its of real benefit to them. One can point at benefits to future generations but humans are not psychologically wired up for such long term thinking.
But commonsense does suggest to me that many people could get by with a bit less consumption, and still have a good life. But a lot less consumption, and the picture is less pleasant.
“As for green energy subsidies spurring the development of new, lower-cost clean technologies, there is nothing new about wind and solar generation that receives the lion’s share of subsidies. After almost half a century, neither are cost-competitive, especially when the additional costs of addressing their inherent intermittency are included—costs that others must pay. And new technologies, such as direct air capture of carbon, will only be commercially viable if the U.S. imposes carbon taxes of several hundred dollars per ton, which few politicians will be willing to do.
The overwhelming majority of green energy subsidies reward politically powerful constituencies and businesses whose primary purpose is not to build better energy mousetraps but to build only ones that qualify for the largest subsidies.”
https://realclearwire.com/articles/2024/09/03/do_green_energy_subsidies_work_1055865.html
complete delusion but it’s a very human delusion so people who think that are
1:01:09 deeply delusional. . . “?
Killian essentially proposes mostly go back to much older simpler forms of technology and less of it, apart from modern communications and one or two other things.
Liar.
Admins: Why is this allowed? Been going on since 2016. If you don’t want me to handle it, shouldn’t you?
James Charles says
11 Oct 2024 at 1:59 AM
Thanks for the lecture ref. I’d not seen him before. It’s a very good lecture and did like how he addressed the closing question, part of which you quoted. It led to a few other potentially good ideas, we’ll see.
I was so impressed with Professor Tadeusz Patzek I created a new info page with this lecture the centre piece of much more to come.
No matter how we frame it—there are undeniable hard limits to growth!
https://substack.com/home/post/p-150134168
thanks for the unexpected tip off.
Killan
Nigelj: “Killian essentially proposes mostly go back to much older simpler forms of technology and less of it, apart from modern communications and one or two other things.:.
Killian: “Liar. Admins: Why is this allowed? Been going on since 2016. If you don’t want me to handle it, shouldn’t you?
NigelJ: Im not a liar. You have provided exactly zero evidence Im a liar. My comments are a fair summation of what you have been proposing here for years. You have talked frequently about the downsides of modern technology, and you have called EV’s “useless pieces of crap” and you have opposed the use of ICE cars. You have talked about the need to use bicycles, horses and carts, and basic public transport and you have promoted “walkable cities”.
You have promoted “simplification”, which is generally defined to mean living with less modern technology and being frugal with quantities of technology used amongst other things. Its certainly what simple living communities do You gave me a link to permaculture weekly that talked about acceptable types of technology.
You have argued that we should focus on basic needs for food shelter and clothing, not wants. This can ONLY realistically mean using less modern technology. You have specifically advocated that the world should cut its energy use by 80-90% within the next two decades. Its not realistically possible to do this WITHOUT reducing the use of modern technology and also going back to some extent to older forms of technology using manual labour. Perhaps you dont understand even the most basic the implications of what you say.
You have talked about maintaining a “technology bridge” of certain types of modern technology (modedrn communications, recycling plant, healthcare and another that I have forgotten). This means by definition we have to live with much less modern technology!
Its all there in this website records.
Dharma (at 13 Oct 2024 at 12:46 AM): – “No matter how we frame it—there are undeniable hard limits to growth!”
The Limits to Growth are not limits of quantity, but of energy.
Club of Rome member Ugo Bardi presented a report/book to the Club of Rome titled EXTRACTED – How the Quest for Mineral Wealth is Plundering the Planet. A YouTube video was produced & published on 10 Jun 2024 to promote it The Voiceover from time interval 0:03:48 says (bold text my emphasis):
“We will never run out of minerals, but we will run out of cheap fossil fuels and high-grade ores.
The limits to mineral extraction are not limits of quantity, but of energy.
Extracting minerals takes energy, and the more dispersed the minerals are, the more energy is needed.
Technology can mitigate the depletion problem, but cannot solve it.
The depletion of fossil fuels is already becoming a serious problem. The peak of conventional oil production may have passed between 2005 and 2008, while all other oil and gas resources could peak within the next ten years. Coal production could increase for several years, but at a tremendous cost to the environment.
Production from uranium mines is likely to decline during this decade.
Metals such as copper, zinc, nickel, gold, silver and others, are expected to reach their productive peak within less than two decades.
As cheap minerals start to disappear, the mineral industry will begin extracting ever costlier and dirtier minerals, such as shale gas and shale oil.”
https://youtu.be/u_Y29DqzWkc?t=228
Meanwhile, the climate crisis gets worse as we/humanity delay rapidly reducing GHG emissions.
Last year’s El Niño showed us what +1.5 °C global warming is like, but a medium strength one within the next ten years will likely show us what +2 °C global warming will be like.
There is very little time and a +2 °C set of impacts are reported to be twice as bad as +1.5 °C – worse fires, worse floods, worse droughts and crop failures, worse heatwaves, worse hurricanes, cyclones and typhoons.
An assessment was published in the journal BioScience on 8 Oct 2024, titled The 2024 state of the climate report: Perilous times on planet Earth, by William J Ripple, Christopher Wolf, Jillian W Gregg, Johan Rockström, Michael E Mann, Naomi Oreskes, Timothy M Lenton, Stefan Rahmstorf, Thomas M Newsome, Chi Xu, Jens-Christian Svenning, Cássio Cardoso Pereira, Beverly E Law, & Thomas W Crowther. It begins with:
James Charles copy and pasted material:
“As for green energy subsidies spurring the development of new, lower-cost clean technologies, there is nothing new about wind and solar generation that receives the lion’s share of subsidies. After almost half a century, neither are cost-competitive, especially when the additional costs of addressing their inherent intermittency are included—costs that others must pay. And new technologies, such as direct air capture of carbon, will only be commercially viable if the U.S. imposes carbon taxes of several hundred dollars per ton, which few politicians will be willing to do.The overwhelming majority of green energy subsidies reward politically powerful constituencies and businesses whose primary purpose is not to build better energy mousetraps but to build only ones that qualify for the largest subsidies.”
That entire comment is wrong or misleading on so many levels, and its pretty much free of evidence to back the writers assertions.
The writer confuses invention of wind and solar power with the ‘development’ of wind and soalr power – enabling it to be scaled up in the modern world.
His comments about costs are not accurate either. Wind and solar power do provide lower cost generation than established sources (refer to the Lazard International Enery Analysis). Electricity storage costs are however still expensive. But nobody has claimed we can solve the climate problem with renewables for free: It is going to cost us some money at least in the short term, but longer term by 2050 it helps solve the climate problem and saves us a lot of money. Refer:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62892013
https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/raising-ambition/renewable-energy
https://www.mindspace.me/magazine/the-long-term-cost-savings-when-using-renewable-energy/
Regarding the comments about green energy subsidies benefiiting business etcetera… Sure they benefit businesses. Somebody has to build the generation. It doesnt matter if subsidies benefit businesses as long as generation gets built and subsidies are used properly. No evidence is provided that businesses are improperly using the subsidies. Clearly plenty of generation is being built.
The government has strict conditions on how subsidies are used and audits the contracts or monitors results. The writer literally doesn’t seem to understand this, and sounds like he has anti capitalist or anti corporate motives or he is a conspiracy theorist.. Hes entilted to his views, and we mostly all have some healthy scepticism of the corporates, but the writers anti corporate dogma is getting in the way of fixing the climate problem. And thats extremely unfortunate foir us all.
In Re to Nigelj, 30 Sep 2024 at 2:42 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/09/unforced-variations-sep-2024/#comment-825008
Hallo Nigel,
I would hardly assign my post as an “analysis”. I just expressed my feeling that it appears that there is still no global study clearly showing, e.g. on the basis of the same method of soil moisture evaluation as in the Chinese study
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/13/3239/2021/essd-13-3239-2021.html
cited by Kevin, that there is no general trend towards “continent desiccation” (or an opposite thereof).
In this respect, I further expressed my feeling that there is no benchmark yet for evaluation of validity of model projections of future precipitation as they were summarized in the Carbon Brief article
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-what-climate-models-tell-us-about-future-rainfall/
cited by you, and a hope that extension of studies like the Chinese analysis of soil humidity on the entire globe perhaps helps.
I agree that cutting GHG emissions is reasonable, because lot of expected consequences of global warming raise justified concerns.
Greetings
Tomáš
P.S.
Apologies for a delayed response.
Kalisz: I just expressed my feeling
Please express your feeling in a appropriate forum (a Hallmark discussion group?).
RC is a scientific discussion group, so we don’t share our “feelings”, but falsifiable arguments.
TK: “there is still no global study clearly showing, e.g. on the basis of the same method of soil moisture evaluation as in the Chinese study
Your Chinese study uses DIRECT measurements of soil moisture “in China in 2002–2018” – ergo is IRRELAVANT to your “feelings” that “the same method” can be recreate GLOBAL precipitation patterns.C
How do you propose to MEASURE global soil moisture in “centuries / millennia” BEFORE we were started to obtain direct measurements.
Nigel has told you so – but you as ALWAYS – ignore the facts and arguments that conflict with your “feelings” that you must be very very special, to have thought of something that 1000s of scientists over decades have failed to.
in Re to Piotr, 5 Oct 2024 at 5:22 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825118
Hallo Piotr,
With respect to Chinese study cited by Kevin McKinney, I expressed the hope that the satellite measurements of soil moisture might be perhaps available also for other regions than China, and thus serve as a basis for the desired global reconstruction of soil moisture during the last two decades.
Greetings
Tomáš
Re Tomas Kalisz: I expressed the hope that the satellite measurements of soil moisture might be perhaps available also for other regions than China,
And what relevance it has to:
a) your opening “hope” that we can reconstruct global patterns of precipitation during the “centuries or millennia” BEFORE the satellites – and
b) to my direct question to that:
How do you propose to MEASURE global precipitation during “centuries/millennia” before present ?
And we can add a third:
c) Why T.Kalisz brain always drifts off on a tangent the moment his original “beliefs” and “hopes” are questioned?
Hint: As zebra says about the deniers: “they never answer the question”.
In Re to Piotr, 11 Oct 2024 at 12:25 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825329
Dear Piotr,
a) There was recently a discussion between zebra and many others what is hope, faith, belief etc. Unfortunately, too high level for me.
I would say that hope may be a kind of an optimistic approach to human life.
My hope regarding precipitation reconstructions has multiple layers. The hope that
(i) the available satellite data might perhaps enable also soil humidity evaluation beyond China is, for example, a bit stronger than the hope that
(ii) there might be proxy records for past precipitation that may amend historical precipitation records and enable a reliable precipitation reconstruction for the industrial era, and this hope is still stronger than the hope that
(iii) an even longer global precipitation reconstruction, based mostly on proxy records and thus, perhaps, covering entire holocene, could be possible as well.
b) In absence of any hint from Real Climate audience with respect to existence or non-existence of a global past precipitation reconstruction., I tried to search myself.
In an article “Assimilating monthly precipitation data in a paleoclimate
data assimilation framework”, Clim. Past, 16, 1309–1323, 2020
https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-16-1309-2020,
https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/16/1309/2020/
the authors write in the paragraph bridging pages 1309-1310:
“To reconstruct local millennia-long hydroclimate variability, tree-ring series were used, for example, in southern–central England (Wilson et al., 2013) and in southern Scandinavia (Seftigen et al.,2017). Pauling et al. (2006) reconstructed a 500-year-long seasonal precipitation field over Europe back to the 16th century by using instrumental measurements, documentary data, and proxy records. A reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere hydroclimate variability from multi-proxy records and documentary data is available between the 9th and 20th century
(Ljungqvist et al., 2016). A similar reconstruction was also produced for southern South America for the last 500 years (Neukom et al., 2010). Centuries-long tree-ring drought atlases are available for North America (Cook et al., 2010b), Asia (Cook et al., 2010a), Europe (Cook et al., 2015), and eastern Australia and New Zealand (Palmer et al., 2015) to study long-term hydroclimate variability. Steiger et al. (2018) produced the first global hydroclimatic reconstructions at annual and seasonal resolutions by combining multi-proxy data with the Community Earth System Model Last Millennium Ensemble model simulations (Otto-Bliesner et al., 2016) over the last 2 millennia. A multi-century global reconstruction making use of observational precipitation datais still missing.”
The Steiger et al (2018) reference “A reconstruction of global hydroclimate and dynamical variables over the Common Era” is also an open access article,
https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201886
It appears that the proxy data the authors used include tree rings, sediments, speleothem (stalactites and stalagmites from karst caves), glacial ice, and even coral reefs and marine sponges.
c) As a proper troll, I leave your question unanswered.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz, regarding the sources you quote on paleo climate reconstricions of regional precipitation. This seems relevant, but why didnt you initially do a simple google search for paleloclimate studies like this? Why waste everyones time with endless conjecture about it all?
The studies do seem to show reconstructions are possible, so maybe I was a bit too sceptical, but I note the abstract mentions that such studies are not very accurate, and I note they only address precipitation, not changes in humidity etcetera that Piotr mentioned.
Could you please scan the studies and provide some data on the quantum of changes in past precipitation trends and the causes so we can see how past warming rates have affected precipitation, at least regionally? Since you seem to be arguing that land use change is very important to precipitation and more so than warming, and that modern global warming might not cause significant changes in precipitation (?).
Im still not convinced precipitation changes are equally or more important issue than the rate of warming, which affects so many different things.
in Re to Nigelj, 13 Oct 2024 at 4:04 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825408
Hallo Nigel,
Thank you for your feedback.
1) As regards my searches, I have to admit that in my initial search, I have not found anything particularly relevant and therefore tried to ask the RC audience for a help. Then I tried harder and found better search terms that provided the clue.
2) Meanwhile, I found a NCAR website beautifully summarizing pros and cons of five paleoclimate proxies:
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/tree-ring-width-overview-as-climate-proxies-and-open-databases
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/drought-atlases-tree-rings
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/coral-geochemical-records-overview-their-use-climate-proxies-and-available-databases
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/overview-paleoclimate-information-high-resolution-lake-sediment-records-strengths
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/speleothems-and-sisal-database-overview-use-speleothems-archives-climate-proxies
On one hand, it appears that all these proxies comprise a complex information about past climate, which is not easy to decode properly.
On the other hand, it appears, to my surprise, that the comprised information about (hydro)climate does not include temperature and/or precipitation only, but in some cases may be indeed suitable also for evaluation of the parameters mentioned by Piotr, like soil humidity / water availability for evaporation. According to expert comments provided on the respective webpage, just the drought atlases derived from tree rings might be perhaps indeed useful as a proxy for soil humidity.
3) I think that evaluation of possible causes for past changes of a regional or global climate is hardly possible without a comparison of the respective past climate, reconstructed from available observations and from available proxies for the observable climate data, with a model or a set of models of the same past climate. I am afraid that my amateur “scanning” of a few randomly selected publications cannot replace systematic professional work needed for accomplishing such a task properly.
Greetings
Tomáš
To Tomas,
Regarding precipitation analysis, it’s interesting to consider global precipitation sensitivity alongside the so-called climate sensitivity (the temperature sensitivity to radiative forcing). CMIP6 indicates a precipitation sensitivity (PS) of 2 – 2.5% per K.
Model Name PS(% per K) ECS
CESM2 ~2.3% per K 5.1°C Meehl et al. (2020)
GFDL-CM4 ~2.0% per K 3.9°C Held et al. (2019)
UKESM1-0-LL ~2.1% per K 5.4°C Sellar et al. (2019)
EC-Earth3 ~2.2% per K 4.3°C Döscher et al. (2021)
IPSL-CM6A-LR ~1.8% per K 4.6°C Boucher et al. (2020)
MIROC6 ~2.0% per K 2.6°C Tatebe et al. (2019)
MRI-ESM2-0 ~1.9% per K 3.1°C Yukimoto et al. (2019)
CNRM-CM6-1 ~2.1% per K 4.8°C Voldoire et al. (2019)
MPI-ESM1-2-HR ~2.4% per K 3.0°C Mauritsen et al. (2019)
HadGEM3-GC31-LL~2.5% per K 5.5°C Williams et al. (2020)
NorESM2-LM ~2.0% per K 2.5°C Seland et al. (2020)
CanESM5 ~2.1% per K 5.6°C Swart et al. (2019)
Observations:
Adler et al. (2017) analyzed precipitation trends using the Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) dataset, reporting an increase in global precipitation of about 1.1% per K: “Global Precipitation: Means, Variations, and Trends During the Satellite Era (1979–2014).” Surveys in Geophysics 38(4): 679-699.
Wentz et al. (2007) used the Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) to estimate global precipitation trends, reporting that the global precipitation rate increased by 1.3 ± 0.3% per K over the period 1987–2006: “How much more rain will global warming bring?” Science 317(5835): 233-235.
These findings suggest some discrepancies between observations and model means.
Modeled Land Connections to Global Precipitation:
When comparing to Lague’s idealized CESM experiment, a suppressed evapotranspiration (ET) of -1.3 mm/day is associated with a global precipitation change of -0.17 mm/day.
This equates to a decline of -0.13 mm/day (approximately -50 mm/year) in global precipitation for each 1 mm/day of ET suppression, resulting in about a 6% reduction from a baseline of 2.5 mm/day (approximately 900 mm/year). Alternatively, this corresponds to a decline of -0.14 mm/year in global precipitation per 1 mm/year ET suppression.
Reanalysis:
For the period from 1980 to 2014, reanalysis shows a decreasing ET slope of -0.20 mm/year2, while the CMIP6 mean indicates an increase of +0.37 mm/yr2. Multi-source ensemble products such as REA, DOLCE V3.0, and CAMELE report a decline of -0.28 mm/yr2 during the same period. In contrast, land surface models (LSMs) show an increase of +0.32 mm/yr2.
Excluding outliers, reanalysis products yield a historical slope of -0.2 mm/yr2 in recent decades, which is a significant departure from model expectations of approximately +0.3 mm/yr2.
Quantification:
Reanalysis suggests a decadal change of -2 mm/year in ET, translating to a 10-year suppression of -0.3 mm in global precipitation. Over 50 years, this accumulates to an annual precipitation suppression of -1.5 mm, or about 0.17% of a baseline of 900 mm.
The 50-year period was chosen as it represents approximately the time for a 1K temperature change in the recent historical record at a rate of 0.2K/decade.
Relative to the CMIP model’s decadal change in ET (+3 mm/year), this results in a difference of -5 mm/year, leading to a 50-year suppression of precipitation of -3.5 mm (0.4% of a baseline of 900 mm/year).
Comparing the CMIP6 model precipitation sensitivity of around 2% per K with SSM/I observational data of around 1.3 ± 0.3% per K yields a model overestimation of precipitation change of about 0.4% to 0.7% per K.
This is in the ballpark of the discrepancy between reanalysis and CMIP class models for the change in terrestrial ET.
From where else could the “missing” precipitation sensitivity originate when a 2-3% change per K is consistent with theory (all else being equal).
Summary:
Allow for a theoretical precipitation sensitivity of 2-3% per K as an upper bound, as depicted in models, and subtract the underappreciated effect of direct ET suppression to align more closely with GPCP or SSM/I datasets. This demonstrates how biophysical effects can be deduced from climate observables.
Additionally, the discrepancy suggests a potential misattribution of global mean temperature change of about 0.04K – 0.1K per decade since the 1980s related to ET, as discussed previously on another thread. This appears consistent with a global precipitation sensitivity that’s lower than theoretical expectation i.e. impeded moisture cycling -> higher temps.
The IPCC AR6 WGI acknowledges that precipitation sensitivity could be as low as 1% per K in its statement: “For every degree of global warming, the global mean precipitation is projected to increase by about 1-3%.” This is despite CMIP class models never reaching such low values.
cheers
PS
as an additional note, and in line with the comment policy for this site, I encourage others to avoid explicitly or implicitly impugning the motives of others, or to personalize matters in discussion.
We each bring unique personal values, assumptions, perspective, and cultural norms to the discussion. I understand that some “believe” humanity is too insignificant to impact global climate variables in this way. Nevertheless, it is evident how such impacts can be reflected in climate observables and trends at any scale.
I understand that these dynamics may be difficult to grasp within the current forcing-feedback paradigm, and the concept of biophysical stabilization may seem daunting. However, the challenges of quantifying historical effects and the perceived inconvenience of stabilization must not result in denial.
JCM I understand that some “believe” humanity is too insignificant to impact global climate variables in this way.
Projections, my dear JCM, projections. It has been YOU, who DECLARED the effect of humans on evaporation to be “profound forcing to climates“, decried the “mind-boggling under-recognition of the extent of human impact” and blamed the degradation of environment
on climate science’s “artificial overemphasis” on a “trace gas”.
And yet despite such strong claims, you didn’t provide …. ANY NUMBERS to support them. In the absence of such numbers – the only alternative is that you have based your pronouncements on your … “beliefs” . Was it: humanity is TOO significant NOT TO DRIVE global climate in this “mindboggling” and “profound way.” ?
In contrast to your belief-based pronouncements, I came to this discussion open-minded, without any preconceived, belief-based, opinions – ready to be led by facts. To this end, I looked up some data for an elementary scale analysis. I found: that the global evaporation (Trenberth et al 2007): was 486,000 km3/yr .
Then I estimated the effect of deforestation:
Assuming 40.5 mln km2 of forests in 2021 vs 42.4 mln km2 in 1990, gives us the deforestation rate of 0.06 mln km2/yr . Even if we assumed that ALL of the 73,000 km3/yr evaporation from land comes only from the forests. this would give max. 100 km3/yr reduction in evaporation from deforestation. Which means that – deforestation reduces global evaporation by … -0.02 %/yr, less if we allow for non-forested land to have some evaporation.
A truly “ profound” and “mindboggling” result, eh?
But wait maybe reforestation could have somehow an outsized effect on AGW? I have checked this one too, ironically, using Lague et al. 2023, the only paper relevant to this issue that JCM brought up. Based on that – EVEN IF we converted ENTIRE CROPLANDS on Earth to a swampy forests – the effect on global GMST would a cooling by … a fraction of a fraction of 1K.
Of course we need the croplands to provide food for the 8 billion of people, so we can’t convert 100% of the croplands to swampy forests – say we have a very ambitious plan of shrinking the global agricultural land by 1/5 and reforesting it – the resulting cooling would have been: “a fraction of a fraction of 0.2K“.
MIND-BOGGLING, I am telling ya, MIND-BOGGLING!
in Re to Piotr, 11 Oct 2024 at 11:06 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825352
Dear Piotr,
The 100 km3/yr reduction in evaporation from deforestation (or let us assume a half thereof, provided that forest is replaced with cropland which also enables evaporation, only at a smaller rate) may look small, indeed. Over 30 years since 1990, it is, however, already 3000 km3 (or a half thereof).
I agree that 1500 km3 less evaporation is still a fraction of one per cent (ca 0.3%) of the base value which is about 500 000 km3. I agree that it may be too little to make a significant DIRECT contribution to the warming observed during these three decades.
These changes, however, run much longer than the last 30 years, and the cumulative value of evaporation decrease caused by deforestation and further human interferences with land hydrology may be thus in the order of 10000 km3. You will likely object that even if the cumulative value of this change during the entire anthropocene was 50000 km3, it is still less than 10% change (assuming pre-anthropocene annual global water cycle intensity slightly above 50000 km3).
I think that JCM can consider as mind boggling the circumstance that such a change in evaporation, and its possible consequences on global hydrology (please note that I assume a negligible DIRECT effect on global mean surface temperature) may be still considered as unimportant.
Can present climate science exclude with certainty that we have not prepared, during the millenia-long continental deforestation and further changes in terrestrial hydrology, the stage for present anthropogenic global warming (which seems to be indeed DIRECTLY caused by the sharp increase in atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases during industrial era)? Are there studies convincingly excluding that the deforestation and further human interferences with terrestrial hydrology have not significantly increased climate sensitivity towards changes in atmospheric GHG concentration?
I do not think so, because it appears that the single study dealing with the relationship between land hydrology on one hand and global climate on the other hand seems to be still Lague 2023, which deals solely with the DIRECT effect of a change in land hydrology on global mean surface temperature, and is absolutely silent about possible effects on climate sensitivity.
You may, of course, object that it may be, from a practical point of view, irrelevant if we prepared the stage for the GHG-caused AGW by the suspected changes in terrestrial hydrology or not, because we need the cropland anyway and cannot change it back into forest. If you think so, I admit that you may be right, I do not know. I am, however, afraid that you might be also wrong. I cannot bring a clear reason why. I just think that arbitrarily assuming that certain aspect of an unexplored phenomenon is unimportant and therefore does not deserve any attention may be misleading and potentially lead the discipline into a dead end.
Greetings
Tomáš
Hallo,
As a general remark to the thread: It’s important to be aware of active misunderstanding and to avoid being misled.
I don’t know what is the intent in these responses, but it disregards the entire dialogue and teachings over quite some time now. Be aware of misleading examples.
For the sake of simplicity and using the assumed quantities provided, while also being careful to account for the fractions of fractions to appease minimizers:
73,000 km3 annual terrestrial ET is providing 4K cooling globally accounting for one fraction of the fraction of Piotr’s fractions. This cooling is set at 1/2 of the maximum effect from CESM for the sake of example.
A slope 100km3/yr2 as proposed by Piotr is accumulating 3,000 km3 during a 30 year period, or 4% of a baseline 73,000.
4% of 4K cooling is 0.2K globally after 30 years.
Taking another fraction of a fraction for the sake of being doubly conservative (half max effect divided by 2 again) is 0.1K effect over 30 years in such a scenario. 0.03K per decade.
This is not so far off from the lower end 0.04K per decade in my contributions, being super careful to maximize the minimization of the issue, and using Piotr’s misinformed opinion of the rate of ecological destruction 0.6 million square km per decade.
Misleading in a way to dilute the effect in global latent flux is an irrelevant distraction; a consequence of active misunderstanding.
I will continue to provide occasional clarifications in response to Piotr’s mission to attack, censor, mislead, and create division.
Many numerical examples have been provided and I have no shame in the belief that humanity profoundly impacts directly terrestrial biosystems and hydroclimates.
My chosen profession is conservation stewardship based on this belief, supported by experience. Under my own cultural norms and values, I perceive the active distortion of arguments concerning the scope of human impact on the Earth System to be nothing short of harmful and damaging.
Johan Rockstrom, from a conventional carbon centric perspective, articulates remarkably well how my values align with those expressed on platforms like RealClimate. He offers advanced wisdom in a way that might be palatable for trace gas enthusiasts.
https://youtu.be/Aq9bfYWVrgw?si=Mlf1vQB3aSN88apK and companion lecture https://youtu.be/5d-UqYrCcgo?si=cbYjhRKCcqgfMiTj
“””Six of the nine planetary boundaries that regulate the stability of the whole system are in the red, and the reddest of them all, I’m afraid to say, is biodiversity loss. So that is the number one concern we have today, and it’s the one that we’ve put on the back burner because all our focus is on climate. Let me just close by saying that we can today say without any hesitation from climate science that we will fail to deliver on the Paris Agreement and the Green Deal’s efforts regarding 1.5°C unless we both phase out fossil fuels and protect nature”””
“””What is on real red alert? The real fundamental Red Alert is that we are in the sixth mass extinction of species … Just as Prince Husin pointed out, this is making us lose resilience; we’re losing the very fundamental stability of the life support systems on Earth. That is the fundamental threat because we know that biodiversity not only gives us all these direct services, it also regulates the stability of everything we depend on—from the marine systems, the ice sheets, the forest systems, to every function that we study in terms of risks of approaching tipping points.”””
“””I know that this might feel, for those of you who are kind of deep in the nature camp, as a bit uncomfortable, but I’m with you here. The urgency cannot allow us to wait for a new worldview or new deep philosophies. We have to act so fast. And what is the area where we’ve come furthest? Well, it is in the climate policy space. So, we have to use, I think, climate as the trampoline for action on nature, and we have to simply accept that that has become the reality in the conventional path of policymaking.”””
And so here we are – myself, a rural land stewardship practitioner, engaging with climate issues as a trampoline to promote my values. In doing so, I have reduced the complexity and merits of my field specifically to the climate observables of interest to participants here; namely, globally averaged T.
Nevertheless, I have noticed a remarkably low level in the quality of rebuttals among hostile commenters, owing in part to bad teaching, different values and cultural norms, memory lapses, and who knows what else. It must really be just be a manifestation of entrenched attitudes.
back to basix again:
As a general rule – continents have moisture limited ET and oceans are energy limited. Suppressing latent flux in space and duration amount to –> Global T up –> ocean evap increase according to the equilibrium partitioning curve.
As T increases with continental deterioration, and more latent flux is converted to sensible heat, ocean evaporation increases. Greater oceanic latent flux can only be sustained through higher Ts and increased absorption of the solar beam.
Taking a perturbed continental regime as a proportion of global LE, as done in a way to be misleading, omits the climate response to continental deterioration. It overlooks the entire premise. Ocean is always riding along the equilibrium partitioning, governed through the psychrometric/ vapor pressure saturation relations to T.
In short, terrestrial ET down (−−) results in ocean evaporation up (+), owing to the global temperature response to ecosystem destruction. Failure to understand this could result in misunderstanding how remarkable the disparity in theoretical precipitation sensitivity is compared to observational constraints. Do you see?
I reported previously that UNCCD and world food programme provided the analogy of 4 football fields equivalent area land destruction per second ongoing. This is the erosion of functional ecologies at 10 million km2 per decade. This includes, of course, erosion of existing arable lands which is curable – in line with WFP messaging.
Contrast this with the above noted example using the minimizer approach of 0.6 million km2 per decade ecological deterioration with a 0.03K per decade global temperature response.
Being extra conservative again, and dismissing WFP messaging, halve land system destruction again again to 5 million km2 per decade, and compare against 0.6 million km2 per decade at 0.03K climate response. That is a factor of 8 times still, using even more fractions of fractions. Zero point 2 K per decade compared to 0.03K per decade. Still too high I think. Divide by 2 again.
I count about 4 halvings of a maximum effect in CESM to align with observation constraints. This is a fair number of fractions of fractions. do you agree?
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) stated that human activities have significantly altered 75% of terrestrial environment.
For clarity, the values of conservation stewardship have little to do with irrigation or afforestation of arable lands. I encourage participants to familiarize themselves with the subject rather than engaging in bizarre speculation. It is a movement based in the desire to foster sustainable practices in rural livelihoods.
As a subtle form of censorship over many many threads, I’ve noticed a relentless stream of straw man arguments, selective quoting, and misrepresentation ongoing.
Censorship, in the context of public discourse, can sometimes manifest not just as direct suppression of ideas, but through distortion and misrepresentation of what someone has said. This form of censorship happens when individuals or groups mischaracterize or twist the arguments of others, making them seem less credible or more extreme than they actually are. These tactics and designed to undermine open dialogue and critical debate.
In considering the recent call for pluralism in climate modeling and a renewed consideration of traditional knowledge, the censorship attempts are disturbing to say the least. The evident bias – and what appears to be an almost hostile stance against rural stewardship perspective – is puzzling, especially considering environmental/climate deterioration disproportionately affects rural communities.
If you find yourself reduced to argument by assertion, misrepresentation, using selective memory, and fostering division, I encourage you to view this as an opportunity to return to a rational and constructive dialogue and stop the stubborn destructive performance.
If you feel that reconciliation is impossible at this stage due to entrenched differences, or that it’s too onerous to recognize aspects of the climate system outside GHG emission politics, consider redirecting your time and energy to something more productive.
I remain open to the possibility of moving forward and acknowledging we are each allies in our shared values of Earth System stabilization.
JCM: It’s important to be aware of active misunderstanding and to avoid being misled. […] Be aware of misleading examples
Let’s see who of us two it applies better:
=== Misleading example 1: ====
JCM: “ 73,000 km3 annual terrestrial ET is providing 4K cooling globally accounting for one fraction of the fraction of Piotr’s fractions. This cooling is set at 1/2 of the maximum effect [8K differences between all continents being swamps instead of the desert -P] for the sake of example. ”
That’s indeed misleading:
“The maximum effect” from Lague et al. 2023, = 8K – was the difference in global GMST between unlimited for evapotranspiration (ET) (swampland) and ET set to ~0 (desert land ). The replacement of the forest with cropland is but a small part of this RANGE: most forests evaporate less than swamps, most croplands evaporate more than extreme deserts. To quantify it – the I found on Google this: <a href = "https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Comparison-of-Evapotranspiration-Rates-from-Forest-and-Other-Vegetation-Types-Source_fig2_324685224" https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Comparison-of-Evapotranspiration-Rates-from-Forest-and-Other-Vegetation-Types-Source_fig2_324685224
for typical precipitation over (non-desert) land, of say, 1000 mm/yr – we get:
– forest evaporation of ~ 800 mm/yr,
– pasture evaporation of ~ 600 mm,
– croplands somewhere in between, likely closer to the forests.
– for swampland – let’s use forest evaporation in places where there is no shortage of water – 1500 mm/yr,
– for desert land, as in Lague ~ 0 mm/yr.
Now: swampland- desertland (Delta ET = 1500 mm/yr- 0mm/yr) Lague gives Delta T= 8K
If if 1500mm => 8K, then
– replacement of forest with pastureland = 200 mm/yr => Delta T= 8K*(200/1500) ~ 1K,
– replacement of forest with croplands Delta T <0.5K,
Both numbers (1K and <0.5K) are much lower than the supposedly "conservative" 4K of JCM.
“ Be aware of the misleading Greeks bearing “conservative” numbers ”, eh?
Example 2: JCM “ A slope 100km3/yr2 as proposed by Piotr
the “100km3/yr” was the (unrealistically) high UPPER range of the slope, hence introduced with the words “Even if”:
P: “EVEN IF we assumed that ALL of the 73,000 km3/yr evaporation from land comes only from the forests. this would give max. 100 km3/yr reduction in evaporation from deforestation”.
A best estimate number would be < "50km3/yr" – given that forests are about 1/3 of the non-glaciated land, and that both croplands and pasturelands have only somewhat smaller evaporation /m2 (in a given climate)
Now – let’s now combine the consequences of those two corrections.
JCM using what he claim “conservative” numbers, got a "conservative" warming rate from deforestation over 30 years of 0.06K/decade, which he then generously divided by half to be “doubly conservative”: to “0.03K/decade”,
I, using my actual numbers from pp. 1 and 2, got … a range of 2% to 4 % of the effect of GHGs.
And it is these <2%-4% that our JCM calls “ profound forcing to climates” and found it “mindboggling” the climate modellers instead will= “artificially overemphasize [the role of] a trace gas”, CO2, that has between 96-98% of the combined warming from these two.
And after this has the gall to accuse me of:
JCM: Misleading in a way to dilute the effect in global latent flux is an irrelevant distraction; a consequence of active misunderstanding.”
Says the guy who … just called GHGs – responsible for 96-98% of the combined warming ,mindbogglingly” “artificially overemphasized” in comparison with the 22-45 SMALLER effect of deforestation.
Lecturing others on the imaginary straw in their eyes, and not seeing the beam in your own, Mr. JCM?
Piotr,
The idealized CESM experiment provides strict relations: The difference in the moisture unlimited case and restricted case is a 1.3mm/day ET. This difference is associated with a global temperature change 8K. These are physically consistent magnitudes.
How is it possible you still don’t get it…
The model relation is 0.16 mm/day per K, or 60 mm/yr per K, or 9000 km3 annual ET per K. That’s it.
This represents the continuum of ET with temperature for an idealized surface. The spread is 1.3 mm/day, or 475 mm/yr across extreme cases in CESM using the simple land interface model SLIM. Increasing moisture availability decreases global temperature along with evaporative demand.
Your interpretation argues that “””Now: swampland- desertland (Delta ET = 1500 mm/yr- 0mm/yr) Lague gives Delta T= 8K”””.
That is a total fabrication and it’s plainly unphysical.
That does not respect at all the findings in the experiment. The idealized experiment shows the magnitude Delta ET = 475 mm/yr related to Delta T = 8K. This is taken from Figure 4 panel A which depicts the difference in extremes as 1.3 mm/day in CESM.
You’ve extended the ET range to 4.1 mm/day—three times greater than what the SLIM experiment shows. A ΔET of 1500 mm/yr is not physically consistent with Δ8K.
It’s unreasonable to fix Δ8K while tripling the ET range, just as it would be arbitrary to fix ΔET and triple the temperature range. It seems to me that it would never occur to you to make the opposite error.
Consider that CESM enforces energy budget closure so your musings disregard physical continuity. Your arbitrary amendment is leaving gaping energy balance issues and distorts the model results substantially. For what purpose?
Recognize the absolute magnitude in the idealized SLIM experimental case labelled “swamp” is not comparable to lookup values of real Earth in literature; it should be handled using the relation within the SLIM-CESM framework at 0.16 mm/day per K (for meaningful insights). Alternatively 60 mm/yr per K, or 9000 km3 annual ET per K.
Obviously the real Earth is not an idealized SLIM surface using a bucket and resistance parameter, and comparing ET lookups from literature against SLIM ΔT is not reasonable.
Instead, honor (avoid distorting) the relation 60 mm/yr per K, or 9000 km3 annual ET per K. This reflects the atmospheric response which is designed to be realistic in CESM.
Extrapolating to a ΔET of 1500 mm/yr corresponds to a ΔT of 25K from the idealized experiment. Needless to say, this seems excessive, and I’m not sure if it’s a reasonable extension. It’s so far out of SLIM model range and 1500mm/yr seems almost uniformly tropical in way to be misleading.
However, there is precedent in Shukla and Mintz 1982 in “Influence of Land-Surface Evapotranspiration on The Earth’s Climate” where it is speculated: “””Figure 2 shows the calculated landsurface temperature. North of about 20°S, the land-surface temperature is about 15° to 25°C warmer in the dry-soil case. There are two reasons for this: (i) there is no evaporative cooling of the land surface (which, in the wet-soil case, amounts to 125 W/m2 when averaged between 20°S and 60°N) and (ii) there is a large increase in the heating of the ground by solar radiation (an increase from 172 to 258 W/m2 when averaged between 20°S and 60°N).”””
While Shukla and Mintz did not have access to a modern GCM, they do find Δ15-25C case for land surfaces between wet and dry case. What’s important to emphasize in Lague (2023) is that, in addition to cloud feedbacks, the general circulation with modern continental configuration results in an increase in globally averaged water vapor by connecting to ocean. This was not considered by Shukla and Mintz. Certainly, this water vapor feedback is the main advancement in the 2023 article entitled “Reduced terrestrial evaporation increases atmospheric water vapor by generating cloud feedbacks”.
In considering previously discussed examples, such that reanalysis indicates about -0.2 mm/yr2 slope in ET, while CMIP shows +0.3mm/yr2, the difference is 0.5 mm/yr2. Recognizing this, there is a discrepancy in decadal change of 5mm/yr which translates to 0.1K per decade in a straightforward way based on SLIM-CESM framework.
This suggests that despite adjustments for albedo, irrigation, and other factors, CMIP ensemble could be mishandling ET in such a way that it’s influencing about 0.1K per decade in its calibrations. That means, in the sums of radiative forcings and feedbacks, 0.1K per decade is being reflected in model output for the wrong reason (or missing altogether).
Please avoid explaining things you clearly refuse to understand.
in Re to JCM, 23 Oct 2024 at 3:17 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825829
Dear JCM,
Indeed, the differences shown in Figure 4a of Lague 2023 seem to be consistent with differences shown in Figure 3a. After all, it appears obvious that the average change in latent heat flux over the entire land area (ocean area, globe area) cannot be as high as the change in warmest regions, because significantly smaller contributions from colder regions compensate it. I must, however, admit that I have not noted it until you made me aware.
I think that it is not excluded that Piotr might have overlooked it as well.
Thank you and greetings
Tomáš
JCM: “ The idealized CESM experiment provides strict relations: The difference in the moisture unlimited case and restricted case is a 1.3mm/day ET.
How is it possible you still don’t get it…
You should have led with that – it would save you your pointless calculations based on the INAPPLICABLE numbers, and the reader wasting their time reading it.
In case if you “don’t get it” why it is inapplicable: the ENTIRE RANGE of evapotranspiration (ET) – between entire land being a swamp (unlimited supply of water for ET) and being an extreme desert (zero ET) was a 1.3 mm/day.
For a comparison, if we divide 74 000 km3/yr of ACTUAL land ET by the area of the (non-glaciated) land of 115mln km2 – we get the average ET of 2.8 mm/day.
So, the AVERAGE land ET on Earth – is more than 2 times LARGER than the MAXIMUM ET in your ESCM (extreme swamp with NO water limitation).
Therefore, either your CESM FAILED SPECTACULARLY in reproducing the Earth’s reality, so its “8K” is meaningless, or it tried to quantify the sensitivity of T to changes in ET in the DRY END of the Earth conditions. But given that the climate system so full of nonlinearities and confounding interactions – you simple CAN’T EXTRAPOLATE LINEARLY the numbers obtained for the LOW -ET end of Earth’s spectrum, into the numbers used to QUANTIFY the process at the HIGH- ET end of the Earth (replacement of forests with (often irrigated) croplands.
And you need RELIABLE numbers to defend your claims about the “ mindboggling, profound forcing to climate” from deforestation, the effect so powerful that it makes the role of human emission of GHGs in AGW – “ artificially overemphasized” in comparison. You can PROVE the “profoundness” and “overemphasis” only by comparing a reliable number of your effect against the well-know and well-quantified effect of GHGs.
Your extrapolation outside of the applicability range produces numbers that are anything but reliable, and tell me that you are a scientific dilletante and/or victim of your own confirmation bias. And an arrogant one – not allowing to yourself even the possibility of being wrong – if you did, you wouldn’t commit yourself to the language toward others that is justified ONLY if one is 100% right:
-“How is it possible you still don’t get it…”
-“That is a total fabrication and it’s plainly unphysical”
-“Your arbitrary amendment is leaving gaping issues”
– “avoid distorting”
– “Please avoid explaining things you clearly refuse to understand”
By their fruits you shall know them. JCM – everybody..
Piotr,
I ask that you stop cherry-picking quotes, dissecting them, and piecing together fragments in a way that distorts their meaning. It’s a dishonest and disgraceful tactic.
From my perspective, especially regarding soil conservation, my original statement was:
‘In my view, there is a mind-boggling under-recognition of the extent of human impact on the Earth system.’
what about this hurts you?
Any land steward knows that soils are degrading everywhere. There’s not a single place untouched by this decline, and the changes in my lifetime have been profound.
I’ve encountered this across continents in my work. Step on any parcel of land, can you not sense it?
I’m convinced that people don’t fully grasp this. How could they? The wilderness is far too complex for humans to completely understand. We only get small glimpses during a lifetime.
I previously provided one example from Merlin Sheldrake in just one tiny aspect of the system from his interest in fungal networks. This was to inspire curiosity for the unknown.
https://youtu.be/ZRFmCXBv5R4?si=nrlCOBPtuw0Xu3oq
The scale of what has been lost is beyond our ability to imagine. How can someone be so cynical as to remain unmoved?
Look at his excitement, awe, and bewilderment. Do you not have such sensations? I recommend you to witness it.
At that time I encouraged to get involved in Sheldrake’s project to map and document the residual biosystems which remain. Most prefer instead to sit on their ass, I know this.
Beneath the surface – where most of life, where biodiversity and wildness is most rich – it’s slipping away. For every living thing above, tenfold thrives below, and for each gram of soil organic matter, ten times its mass in moisture is held. Simple and old wisdom; a reductionist view.
As for the SLIM-CESM, it’s an idealized experiment designed to isolate energetic constraints. Think of it as a flat plane, nothing like a swamp. I know this analogy can be confusing. In reality, a swamp is a treed wetland by definition with complex structures extending above and below the surface. This is distinct from bogs, marshes, and fens. The SLIM, however, has no structure at all, nor is it meant to represent biophysical reality.
It’s an idealized a way to test energetic constraints. The linear relationship explicitly stated by the authors, as Tomas referenced in Figure 3, is -3.65 W/m²/K. Interpret that as you will. You yourself previously used the experiment with confidence to assert some effect which should be a fraction of a fraction of something in a thousand years. I don’t understand how you arrived at that, but now you dismiss your own argument entirely – the same way you trashed your original arguments long ago when they too failed.
If you can’t appreciate the value of idealized experiments and instead prefer an all-or-nothing mindset, that’s your choice. But in my experience, denialist thinking often dismisses what it doesn’t understand or finds inconvenient, while being loud critics from the sidelines. I’ve seen this before, and you are a primo example. Successful people don’t resort to dishonest tactics -flailing and flip-flopping on various points. – only those who are insecure or losing do that.
take your last jab and then we can be done with this for now.
cheers
Hi Tomas,
contributors latched on to a proportional analysis from the onset which distorted proper interpretation;
I tried to emphasize this early on, but the insistence on a skewed perspective impeded productive dialogue. It was already locked in.
Entertaining the proportional analysis as a charitable interpretation didn’t help.
At any rate, each hectare stabilized has the same benefit regardless of its initial condition. I think this is a positive message.
I appreciate your genuine input.
cheers
that is, each unit ET is the same: 1 mm /m2, 1kg, ~2.5 megajoules/kg transformed from sensible heat.
JCM “ I ask that you stop cherry-picking quotes, dissecting them, and piecing together
I pick only the quotes to which I am referring. Anyone yearning for pages after pages of meandering, self-involved, poorly formulated, banal generalizations and unproven claims – can read your original posts..
JCM: “ in a way that distorts their meaning.”
Put your money where your mouth is – PROVE how by quoting your words I have changed completely their meaning.
JCM: “ “:my original statement was: IIn my view, there is a mind-boggling under-recognition of the extent of human impact on the Earth system.’ What about this hurts you?”
Hurts … me??? Why YOUR spouting a banal statement, in the supposed “response” to my SPECIFIC and FALSIFIABLE arguments about your attacking the credibility of climate scientists [ Piotr 24 Jul referring to JCM Jun 5 – see below] is supposed to hurt me?
But your attempt to infantilize the opponent (by portraying my falsifiable analysis of your words as … childish lashing out – out of some imagined “hurt”) – noted. True JCM!
JCM, Jun 5 using World Environment Day as an opportunity to discredit the climate science
“ Join me in celebrating world environment day today June 5th 2024!”
and tries to pit the victims of the results of the AGW against the research into the drivers of AGW – by portraying the climate models as if they were … diverting resources from the dealing with deforestation/desertification:
: “ It’s hard to imagine denying or actively minimizing the consequences to realclimates due to an artificial fixation and overemphasis on the outputs of trace gas […] forced model estimates” at the expense of underemphasis of JCM hobby-horse evaporation.
PS. THE ENTIRETY of the JCM’s (uncharacteristically short!) Jun 5 post, and my Jun 6 response to it: here
JCM 24 Oct “ Hi Tomas, contributors latched on to a proportional analysis from the onset which distorted proper interpretation”
Says the very same JCM, who have just employed … proportional assumptions of 8K global difference from Lague et al,. And who justified his coefficients of proportionalities with … assurances that he is “being doubly conservative“.
And then he EXTRAPOLOATED this proportional analysis …. OUTSIDE of the range tested in his source:
– Lague et al 8K was obtained for the ET range of 0-1.3 mm/d,
– JCM applied Lague’s results to real world in which the AVERAGE land ET is 2.8 mm/d
and max. values – much higher than that.
But this, of course, has NOT “ distorted the proper (read: JCM’s) interpretation whatsoever … Mr. JCM – everybody! ;-)
In re to Piotr, 26 Oct 2024 at 6:49 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-826077
Hallo Piotr,
1) I admit that JCM’s objection “contributors latched on to a proportional analysis from the onset which distorted proper interpretation” may pertain to me as well.
I think, however, that the previous discussion showed at least that the direct effect of any change in water availability for evaporation from land surface strongly depends on boundaries set in the used model.
In this respect, I would like to ask if we could unite (at least) in the opinion that Lague 2023 might deserve a reproduction of their modelling experiments using another, ideally a more advanced model than CESM, to see how this direct effect will look like in it?
2) In my post of 24 Oct 2024 at 4:41 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825924 ,
I suggested that a similar attention might deserve the yet untouched question if indirect effect of anthropogenic changes in terrestrial hydrology on Earth climate through possible change in climate sensitivity towards changing GHG concentration may or may not play a role in Earth climate regulation.
Do you still think that Lague 2023 basically clarified that from a practical point of view of the present climate change, water availability for evaporation from land and anthropogenic inerfetrences therewith do not play any significant role and that further studies in this direction, like comparing Lague 2023 with other models or expanding the scope thereof to climate sensitivity would be merely time and resource wasting?
Greetings
Tomáš
I recommend again to review the model results for clarity. The simulation is depicted plainly in showpiece Figure 1. https://content.cld.iop.org/journals/1748-9326/18/7/074021/revision2/erlacdbe1f1_hr.jpg.
Panel c demonstrates how, in the swamp scenario, the spatially averaged equilibrium terrestrial latent flux stabilizes around 45 W/m2, down from the initial boundary condition around 50 W/m2, as temperature continues to decrease through equilibration. Conversely, ET is suppressed in desertmode as intended by the authors, in spite of the saturation vapor pressure increasing even more throughout the equilibration period.
After 20 years, the disparity across these extreme scenarios stabilizes somewhat less than the initial condition, as noted in the vertical axis of panel c. I agree with Tomas plugging the SLIM into frameworks besides CESM would also be interesting.
SLIM-CESM “swamp” equilibrium 45 W/m2 land ET exceeds the real-world value which is about 38 W/m2, as seen in various sources including CMIP Earth System Models (± 5). The simulations encompass realistic values without need for extrapolation. However, as previously discussed, I concede the SLIM framework could be mishandling the extreme case as it does not resemble a treed wetland, while recognizing evaporative demand and available energy is increasingly limited with decreasing temperature.
Additionally, 38 (± 5) W/m2 estimated for reality translates to about 1.3 mm/day terrestrial ET on Earth today (± 0.17). This uncertainty (± 0.17mm/day) suggests a minimum resolution of ± 1K in modeling global average temperature (absolute T), an inference from the simulated SLIM-CESM relationship (-0.16mm day-1K-1). This checks out and I don’t think it’s particularly controversial.
I encourage contributors to reflect on which aspects of their values might be motivating a cognitive bias, and to reconsider the factors that are leading to active and ongoing confusion, misleading fabrication, and distortion of a SLIM-CESM based publication (i.e. climate science).
The most interesting bit is the different climates resulting from circulation changes. SLIM-CESM produces remarkable patterns as depicted in Figure 12 panel b including contraction of the tropical rainy zone and increase of the Indian monsoon, solely from ET meddling. This is very cool and should not be warped from obsessive ideological impairment. It’s essential to recognize the risk of cognitive biases that could be obstructing clear comprehension of straightforward results.
Tomas Kalisz, “ the cumulative value of evaporation decrease caused by deforestation and further human interferences with land hydrology may be thus in the order of 10000 km3
That “1500km3 reduction of evaporation” was ALREADY a CUMULATIVE value over 30 years. And what exactly “other human interferences are supposed to increase the evaporation by …. 8500 km3 per year? The main “other interference” ~ 1000 km3/yr,. is the water used for global IRRIGATION. But it increases evaporation – thus COUNTERS that 1500 km3 CUMULATIVE effect of deforestation over last 30 years, reducing the net effect to 500 km3.
500 km3, NOT “of order of 10000 km3“, Mr. Kalisz
TK: “I think that JCM can consider as mind boggling the circumstance that such a change in evaporation”
Then your JCM’s mind – boggles easily.
TK: You will likely object that even if the cumulative value of this change during the entire anthropocene was 50000 km3
Since you are pulling numbers out your hat- i could. But don’t need to – we are discussing what can be done FEASIBLY in the next few decades – so no sane person would think we can reverse the entire anthropocene during that time.
In fact in the post to which you are “replying” I have tested a massive but at least theoretically possible action – reforestation 20% of agricultural land, assuming optimistically that we can increases productivity enough to compensate for the reduced acreage, the increasing population, and the impacts of the climate change. If we can’t, the effect would be even smaller.
Now based on the numbers from JCM own source, Lague et al. 2023, even such a MASSIVE reforestation of 1/5 of all agricultural land would cool the Earth by a mere fraction of a fraction of 0.2K.
Truly a mindboggling and “profound forcing to climates” compared to that “artificially overemphasized trace gas“, CO2. and its GHG companions..
In Re to Piotr, 13 Oct 2024 at 9:23 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825415
Hallo Piotr,
I would like to explain the value 10000km3, as mentioned in my paragraph reading
“These changes, however, run much longer than the last 30 years, and the cumulative value of evaporation decrease caused by deforestation and further human interferences with land hydrology may be thus in the order of 10000 km3. You will likely object that even if the cumulative value of this change during the entire anthropocene was 50000 km3, it is still less than 10% change (assuming pre-anthropocene annual global water cycle intensity slightly above 50000 km3).”
I meant a value resulting from 100 km3/year decrease running continuously much longer than 30 years. Specifically, 10000 km3 would have resulted from continuous decrease by 100 km3/year for 100 years., 20000 km3 for 200 years, 30000 km3 for 300 years, etc.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz “ I would like to explain the value 10000km3- 10000 km3 would have resulted from continuous decrease by 100 km3/year for 100 years., 20000 km3 for 200 years, 30000 km3 for 300 years, etc.”
First, as I explained to JCM – 100 km3/yr was calculated as an extreme upper boundary (if all land evaporation was ONLY from the forest) . If you want to use a more realistic number use “< 50 km3/year”). Meaning that you have to divide your volumes by more than half.
But even then – it is a completely pointless exercise:
– scientifically questionable – as you are presuming the UNCHANGED rates of deforestation, UNCHANGED precipitation patterns supplying water for evaporation,
and UNCHANGED relationship between it and climate – OVER CENTURIES and very different climates.
– pointless – provides no actionable advice as I have shown to JCM –warming effect of deforestation over last 3 decades was between <2% – 4% of the effect of GHGs.
So much for his claims of deforestation being a “ profound forcing to climates ” and his dismissing the GHGs by lecturing climate scientists about their “ mindboggling” “artificial overemphasis” on a “trace gas”.
FURTHERMORE, this small in comparisons with GHGs warming from decreased evaporation has been COUNTERED – first by the irrigation of croplands –increasing their evaporation and further countered by the cooling effect of increased albedo (we replace forests albedo of 5-15%, with cropland albedo of 15-25%).
As a result the depending on the location and the presence or not of irrigation ,
the warming by deforestation become SMALLER than the already meagre “2% – 4% of the effect of GHGs per decade, or in fact converted into net COOLING. (if the irrigation + albedo overpower the evaporation decrease)
Thus stopping deforestation is good for MANY other reasons, but NOT as a replacement of GHG mitigation promoted by the “ anything but the GHGs” deniers.
in Re to Piotr, 22 Oct 2024 at 7:51 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825795
Hallo Piotr,
First of all, I would like to thank you for your feedback and say that you may be right in many aspects.
I am aware that past deforestation might have been slower than the present one, that albedo changes may partially compensate the effect of a lower latent heat flux, irrigation may increase the latent heat flux, etc.
Although I noted in recent post by JCM (23 Oct 2024 at 3:17 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825829 )
that the effect of a change in terrestrial latent heat flux on global mean surface temperature derived from the model used in Lague 2023 may be in fact higher than I supposed, I think that the entire anthropogenic change in water availability for evaporation may not be as high as 10% of a hypothetical “pre-anthropocene” value. You possibly noted that I proposed these 10% as an upper limit for the cumulative anthropogenic change in terrestrial latent heat flux due to change in water availability, and I can imagine that the cumulative value of the direct effect of these changes on global mean surface temperature was small.
What makes me even more curious than the true value of this direct effect is the question whether or not all past anthropogenic changes in water availability for terrestrial evaporation might have had an effect on climate sensitivity towards other forcings, including rising concentration of greenhouse gases (GHG) in Earth atmosphere during the industrial era. While for the direct effect, we have at least Lague 2023 which can be considered as a ballpark, the indirect effect of anthropogenic changes in terrestrial hydrology on Earth climate through possible change in climate sensitivity towards changing GHG concentration seems to be still completely unexplored.
Greetings
Tomáš
1) The Global Commission on the Economics of Water says disruption of the global water cycle “threatens half the world’s food production”.
https://www.aol.com/global-water-cycle-off-balance-220047174.html
Their report was reportedly released today but I do not yet see a copy on their site.
2) However, their prior report –while acknowledging the major impact of climate change — also had this to say:
“Changes in vegetation from land use and/or its interaction with climate change affect global and regional weather patterns. At the regional scale, changing land conditions affect the intensity, frequency and duration of extreme precipitation and associated hydrological events. Vegetation change affects the global water cycle through the green-water flux. For example, changes in forest or tree cover from afforestation, reforestation and deforestation directly affect local and regional surface temperature and groundwater through water and energy exchanges. The green-water flux from large tracts of forests such as the Amazon or the Western Ghats, India, can contribute to rain in downwind regions, sometimes distant from the source (Spracklen et al., 2012) (Box 4.3).”
https://watercommission.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Why-What-How-of-Water-Crisis-Web.pdf p.58
3) The report also note how land use/urbanization greatly increases the runoff of water (and pollution). In my area local government is imposing requirements on developers to develop large stormwater holding basins and other measures to avoid flooding based on the amount of imperious cover added by their buildings.
4) Back in 2012 I came here and asked people to petition the US government to revise the NOAA Rainfall Atlas — which defines the amount of rainfall developers must consider when sizing stormwater infrastructure. The problem was that the Atlas only looks back at rainfall records for the past 100 years, not at the rainfall projected for the next 100 years and so undersized infrastructure is being deployed. I was told this was not this site’s responsibility. Several years later the streets of Philadelphia and New York were under several feet of water and their subways were flooded. NOAA is finally beginning to look at revising the Atlas.
5) In addition to surface temperature, Land Use and the Global Water Cycle are important. And there should be no conflict between mitigation and adaptation — we need both.
Don Williams, is this the new report you’re talking about?
.
https://economicsofwater.watercommission.org/
.
https://economicsofwater.watercommission.org/report/executive-summary-economics-of-water.pdf
.
.
The hydrology discussion ongoing here is really interesting.
I think so –unfortunately the Commission did NOT put a date on the Report but various references in the back are dated 2024 so I assume it is the new report. Have not had a chance to review it yet.
I stumbled upon this comment elsewhere and thought I’d share it to show the naysayers are still out there.
Since you plan to write an article on global warming within a few months, here are a few sources that, to me, appear worthy of consideration, regardless of whether one is going to conclude they’re deceitful, or truthful, or something else.
https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1131412883669129355
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/11/fake-data-the-basis-of-climate-science/
https://notrickszone.com/2022/02/14/hundreds-more-papers-published-in-2021-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/
What an array dubious critters they are. For use by anyone suffering withdrawals :-)
Try DeSmog blog. Don’t waste our time and energy with material which is almost wholly dishonest. If it was your intention to debunk a comment, you should have put it in quotes so it didn’t sound like you are that out of touch.
Verstappen Happened, thank’s for the links. I can’t help but make a few comments on Willis Eschenbachs comments. He argues that global warming is not a concern, because global deaths per million caused by weather related events have fallen over the last 100 years or so. His data looks approximately correct, but I think this is superficial analysis for the following reasons:
1) The fall in the death rate related weather events so far is due to improvements in healthcare and rescue systems and infrastructure design. Impovements will continue but we cannot assume they would be robust. The negative effect of climate change are likely to intensify in coming decades making it harder to reduce the death rate.
2) He also misses the fact that it costs money and resources every time someone is injured in a weather event and with severe weather becoming worse this will become more and more of an expensive problem.
3) His graph does show global deaths from weather events fell steeply from 1920 – 1980 and fell slightly from 1980 – 2020. Deaths from events like volcanic eruptions have generally fallen at a steady rate from 1920 – 2000. He missed the fact that global deaths from weather events stopped falling nearly as steeply, approximately when the modern global warming period started in the late 1970s, – which shows that climate change is arguably already having a negative effect by stopping the steep decline in the global death rate. There may be some other factors involved, but you can guarantee climate change is a big one, because we know heatwaves and floods etc have got worse since about the late 1970’s from research studies. So Eshenback should go back to the drawing board and rethink his conclusions.
Eschenbach has a long history of simplistic and/or misleading ‘analyses’. Tamino has taken many of them down over the years.
“global warming is not a concern,”?
Climate has changed before?
“ . . . it is these ocean state changes that are
1:02:28 correlated with the great disasters of the past impact can cause extinction but
1:02:35 it did so in our past only wants[once] that we can tell whereas this has happened over
1:02:40 and over and over again we have fifteen evidences times of mass extinction in the past 500 million years
1:02:48 so the implications for the implications the implications of the carbon dioxide is really dangerous if you heat your
1:02:55 planet sufficiently to cause your Arctic to melt if you cause the temperature
1:03:01 gradient between your tropics and your Arctic to be reduced you risk going back
1:03:07 to a state that produces these hydrogen sulfide pulses . . . “?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ako03Bjxv70
Burn the Planet and Lock Up the Dissidents
The fossil fuel industry, and the politician class they own, have no intention of halting the ecocide. As the climate crisis worsens, so do the laws and security measures to keep us in bondage.
Chris Hedges
Oct 6
https://chrishedges.substack.com/p/burn-the-planet-and-lock-up-the-dissidents
Norfolk, U.K. — I am sitting with Roger Hallam, his gray hair pulled back in a ponytail, in the visitor’s room at HM Prison Wayland. On the walls are large photographs of families picnicking on lawns, verdant meadows and children playing. The juxtaposition of the photographs, no doubt hung to give the prison visiting room a homey feel, is jarring. There is no escaping, especially with prison guards circulating around us, where we are. Roger and I sit on squat upholstered chairs and face each other across from a low, white plastic table. Roger’s lanky frame tries to adjust to furniture designed to accommodate children.
Roger, one of the founders of Extinction Rebellion, Insulate Britain and Just Stop Oil, is serving a five-year prison sentence for “causing a public nuisance without reasonable excuse.”
He and his four co-defendants, who each received four-year sentences, were convicted for hosting a Zoom call in 2022 to organize activists to climb onto bridges over the M25, the main motorway that circles Greater London. The short-term aim was to stop traffic. The long-term aim was to force the government to stop new oil and gas licenses.
This was not a symbolic protest, exemplified by protesters hurling tomato soup at Van Gogh’s Sunflowers, preserved by protective glass, in the National Gallery in London. It was a protest designed to disrupt, as it did, commerce and the machinery of state. Although even the protestors who tossed soup at the painting, which was not damaged, received harsh prison terms of nearly three years.
Global warming is expected to exceed 1.5 degree Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) in the 2020s and 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Farenheit) before 2050, according to a 2023 study published in the Oxford Open Climate Change journal. NASA scientists warn that “a 2-degree rise in global temperatures is considered a critical threshold above which dangerous and cascading effects of human-generated climate change will occur.”
The more the planet warms, the more extreme events such as severe droughts, heat waves, intense storms, and heavy rainfall intensify. The extinction of animal and plant life — one million plant and animal species are currently threatened with extinction — accelerates.
We are on the verge of tipping points, thresholds beyond which ice sheets, ocean circulation patterns, and other components of the climate system sustain and accelerate irreversible changes. There are also tipping points in ecosystems, which can become so degraded that no effort to save them can halt the effects of runaway climate change. At that point “feedback loops” see environmental catastrophes accelerate each other. The game will be up. Nothing will save us.
Mass death from climate disasters is becoming the norm. The official death toll from Hurricane Helene is at least 227, making it the deadliest in mainland U.S. since Hurricane Katrina in 2005. In North Carolina, South Carolina and northern Georgia 1.1 million people remain without power. Mountain towns, without electricity and cell phone service, are cut off. Hundreds of people are missing with many of them feared dead. Anywhere from 5,000 to 15,000 people were killed last year in a single night by Cyclone Daniel in Libya.
These climate catastrophes, which occur routinely in the Global South, will soon characterize life for all of us.
“A billion refugees, the worst episode of suffering in human history,” Roger says of the 2 degrees Celsius mark, “and then human extinction.”
And yet with the devastation outside their doors, including the Southwest United States enduring the highest temperatures ever recorded in October — 117 degrees Fahrenheit in Palm Springs — the global oligarchs have no intention of risking their privilege and power by disrupting an economy driven by fossil fuel and animal agriculture, which is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. Livestock and their byproducts account for 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) released each year into the atmosphere and 51 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Instead of a rational response, we get more drilling and oil leases, more catastrophic storms, more wildfires, more droughts, toxic factory farms, the charade of the U.N. Conference of the Parties (COP) summits, the eradication of the rain forests and the false panacea of geoengineering, carbon capture and artificial intelligence.
Darmah,
The punishment meted-out to the Just Stop Oil protesters is no real surprise given the government-of-the-day was happily embracing climate change deniers. The M25 protest of Nov 2022 was particularly effective making more than a splash – the four-consecutive-day Just Stop Oil protest ” left the M25 “compromised” for more than 120 hours,” something government could not dismiss without making an example.
Other protests also impact the national consciousness – last year stunts at the UK’s Chelsea Flower Show and World Snooker Championship made prime-time TV – but are more likely to have sent the message that climate change mitigation policies are being driven by nut-cases than persuade folk that the government’s mitigation policies are failing.
Quite what can be done to get the UK & other countries to ramp-up their Net-Zero policies is not clear. The new UK government isn’t riven with over climate deniers but is hardily grasping the nettle.
It was last year talking about £28 billion/year in green governmental investment plans but by the time they stood for election this July, that had been converted into a commitment to “get Britain back on track to meet our climate targets” and “accelerating to net-zero” with the cash commitments reduced by 88% to just {8.3/5 +6.6/5 +0.5 =} £3.5 billion/year.
Just last week there was a mainly-anodyne announcement (maybe extra to this £3.5B/y cash commitment) of {21.7/25 =} £0.9 billion/year part-financing two CCS projects, a “gamechanging technology (which) will bring 4,000 good jobs and billions of private investment into Teesside and Merseyside – and support 50,000 jobs in the long term, while powering up the rest of the country. Its quoted annual capacity is just 2% of UK emissions. A bigger CCS project local to me which was to use saline aquifers rather than old oil wells was the wrong end of the country politically (and raising a bit of a stink with the southern natives due to the proposed CO2 pipeline) so the developer (ExxonMobil) have now cancelled it.
The Just Stop Oil protests have peaked through October in past years. Whether having a new government will lead to less protests is yet to be seen. (Post the election, there have been just a couple of recorded protests.) But the new Prime Minister has called Just Stop Oil pathetic so I would expect the protesting to continue.
Re. crypto which you mention…
I have a hard time understanding why crypto even exists except in classic Thorstein Veblen terms of conspicuous waste. It wouldn’t in a rational world. I mean burning up X dollars of FF to produce a number with zero intrinsic value except to record that you expended X dollars of energy seems more like a mere sales receipt than anything of value. At least most conspicuous waste involves spending on frivolity. and shallow entertainment.
Want to burn up 10 grand to produce a number? Fine if it floats your boat. Don’t expect anyone but a fool to buy it, though. Presently there a lot of fools. But then a lot of people feel foolish after every bubble.
I hope this reaches people in time, presentation by Jeff Masters tonight on Hurricane Milton (bearing down at catastrophic strength on Tampa area in eastern Florida). He is one of the world’s experts on tropical storms:
There are other presentations at the main YouTube channel, including one by Mike Mann. https://https://www.youtube.com/@HarrisBlueSkiesBlueWaters [though fundraising is a part, it’s mostly informative]
Thank you Susan for the links. I just finished watching the 8:30 edt presentation and found it worthwhile, yet perhaps not surprisingly, not exactly welcoming for someone not a liberal. Yes, I know it was a Harris fundraiser, but anyway…
Not looking for sympathy or anything of the like, but these are lonely days for me, a conservative who respects science, sees the need for rapid action, and advocates for efficient use of tax dollars targeted at change free of the slog of government bureaucracies:
.
https://www.eenews.net/articles/why-is-the-feds-ev-charger-rollout-so-slow-these-people-know/
.
David: Jeff Masters was well organized and interesting (he always is). The rest, not so much. Sorry about that.
It is unfortunate. that rational Republicans no longer have a home. If you have access, Washington Post is doing a series on what government does and does well. Unfortunately, since Reagan greed and profit have come to dominate the private sector.
You’re right that bureaucracy is a complicated web, out of shape and proportion and often not fit for purpose. It is particularly effective when used to obstruct positive shifts to cleaner energy and affordable housing.
This is a fascinating story about a coal mining engineer who figured out how to prevent mine collapses and finally after decades of effort managed to get mines to stop putting profits over lives. Father was Princeton, but the son refused the patronage and got busy. It reads like a thriller, and it saved lives. In this case government regulation, against all odds, was the solution, not the problem.
The Canary – Gift link -> https://wapo.st/4dPYZV9
[gift links with WaPo are intrusive, unfortunately]
The most recent one is about the IRS fighting corruption. NOAA, NWS and NASA are other examples of agencies which excel.
You might also enjoy some of the material posted by Peter Sinclair, though recently he’s been distracted by politics (who isn’t, hope it takes a break after November (what a hope).
https://thinc.blog/
Susan, thank you so very much for “The Canary” link. What an amazing story it is to me on so many levels! I can’t and won’t explain here why, but the tale truly touched me. And an added bonus: I now know what mille-feuille is :-)
And you’re of course correct; there are many great people and effective components of the federal government. And that gets lost and overlooked far too often in discussion. Sometimes as easily as my comment’s clumsy implication “slog of government bureaucracies” suggests.
Thank you again Susan, that story has brightened my evening.
hi David, I appreciate your appreciation of this terrific article. I will be largely absent in the next few days, as our Fort Point Open Studios (artists) is this weekend, and I need to cut back on my internet participation. You are a welcome new voice in these discussions. I agree, this WaPo series on specifics is very good, and this one was especially so.
All best, susan
David: I am reading your E&E news article with interest.
Thank you also for the follow-up on the birds in the hurricane (Mongabay).
It is unfortunate that compromise and design by committee has led away from a fully operational shift to real clean energy (NatGas and Blue hydrogen are not ‘clean’ – but of course we need the ‘bridge’).
I believe Russell is another honest conservative without a proper ‘home’.
Error in previous comment, here’s the correct link for the main video channel
https://www.youtube.com/@HarrisBlueSkiesBlueWaters
Milton…
Sustained winds: 95 mph increase in 24 hours currently 175 mph at 1pm Monday
Pressure drop: 77 millibars decrease in the same 24 hour period
.
Can’t wait to hear the comments from the two who campaign for the Presidency on this perfectly named hurricane as it moves towards Florida’s west coast. At least it is forecast to weaken to “just” a Cat. 3 at landfall. I just don’t understand what has happened to my fellow Americans decision making.
Indeed!
I can’t help but wonder whether, and how much, of the conspiracy-mongering about the response to Helene and the prospective response to Milton on display from Trump and down to the least of his minions is due not just to opportunistic smearing of the opposition, but also to distract from the catastrophe itself, and particularly the role of climate change in exacerbating it?
That was an unnecessarily wordy sentence, so let me try again:
Is Trump world lying about Helene partly so that we’ll talk about FEMA and Harris, rather than hurricanes and climate change?
Kevin: Is Trump world lying about Helene partly so that we’ll talk about FEMA and Harris, rather than hurricanes and climate change?
Yes.
Yes! to your last question.
Because Trump has perfected the “tell the lie repeatedly, the more exaggerated and full of b.s., the better, anything to change the focus.” And my party is chock full of folks who largely fall into one of two camps gobbling his crap up:
The true believers and those who mimic the true belief to satisfy unrelated anger at the need for change in the country, and
.
Those who know better, but keep their mouths shut bidding time for Trump’s time to pass.
Kevin McK: You give them too much credit. They attack anything and everything sane, rational, and/or civilized because they can. Don’t sanewash Trump, or give any credit to his followers who will say or do anything to hurt and/or eliminate opposition (including violence promotion).
Federal, state, and local authorities are begging people to not listen, since they can’t get the monsters to stop being monstrous. Here’s FEMA:
All local office holders, many of whom are Republican, are begging people not to listen.
KM: Is Trump world lying about Helene partly so that we’ll talk about FEMA and Harris, rather than hurricanes and climate change?
BPL: I doubt it’s that sophisticated. Trump just wants to blame Harris and Democrats for anything he can think of.
Milton 17:02z Vortex Data Message… wonder how the birds will make out?
.
924
URNT12 KNHC 071727
VORTEX DATA MESSAGE AL142024
A. 07/17:02:00Z
B. 21.69 deg N 091.43 deg W
C. 700 mb 2354 m
D. 912 mb
E. 290 deg 11 kt
F. CLOSED
G. C8
H. 177 kt
I. 305 deg 5 nm 17:00:30Z
J. 036 deg 154 kt
K. 305 deg 5 nm 17:00:30Z
L. 166 kt
M. 054 deg 5 nm 17:03:30Z
N. 151 deg 155 kt
O. 054 deg 5 nm 17:03:30Z
P. 10 C / 3067 m
Q. 21 C / 3050 m
R. 3 C / NA
S. 12345 / 7
T. 0.02 / 0.5 nm
U. AF309 0814A MILTON OB 33
MAX FL WIND 158 KT 226 / 5 NM 15:40:00Z
SUSTAINED MDT, OCNL SVR TURB IN NW AND NE EYEWALLS, OBSERVED FLOCKS OF BIRDS WITHIN THE EYE
;
David: “Milton 17:02z Vortex Data Message… OBSERVED FLOCKS OF BIRDS WITHIN THE EYE wonder how the birds will make out?”
Many may not … – they are observed in the eye because they couldn’t make out ?.
Probably too high to fly up above the hurricane wall. They could stay within the eye until it makes the landfall and then weakens – but this would mean constant keeping up with the moving eye – you can’t rest on the water for too long. Then again some birds are sleeping during the flight, so for some it may be doable.
Unless you used “make out” in the N.American meaning “kiss and caress amorously” – then I don’t have the foggiest ….
“Unless you used “make out” in the N.American meaning “kiss and caress amorously” – then I don’t have the foggiest ….”
Ha! That made me chuckle Piotr.
I came across this at the Yale CC Milton story comments section earlier today (thank you Susan Anderson for your past heads up about this site) about the matter:
.
https://news.mongabay.com/short-article/2024/10/birds-caught-in-the-eye-of-hurricane-milton/
.
So it looks like at least some types of birds just turn up their beaks at my concern for them being caught in this predicament.
Another from Yale CC, interview with Gavin
https://e360.yale.edu/features/gavin-schmidt-interview
Very good interview and honest responses
I added my Disqus comment to the article at the end.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/gavin-schmidt-interview#comment-6567932855
Reply to Paul Pukite
Thank you for sharing that interview.
a short quote from GS goes:
“And it’s still pretty much, I would say, amateur hour in terms of assessing what actually happened in 2023.
While it’s true that no (known) single potential cause accounts for the entire +0.2°C temperature anomaly, that’s no reason to dismiss any of the proposed explanations outright. In fact, it’s entirely plausible that multiple factors—perhaps shifts in various warming drivers—are acting in combination, leading to the sharp rise in temperatures we’ve seen in 2023 and continuing into 2024.
The complexity of the climate system often requires a multi-faceted approach to understanding sudden changes. Rather than searching for a singular explanation, we should be open to the possibility that several contributing causes may be interacting in unison, reinforcing one another in ways we haven’t fully anticipated.
Regarding https://e360.yale.edu/features/gavin-schmidt-interview, someone on twitter noticed that not one mention of CO2, GHG, greenhouse gas, climate change, global warming in the article. The author of the article can choose what to quote Gavin on, so perhaps he did at some point in the full interview. IPCC was mentioned, for example.
Paul Pukite: “ Regarding https://e360.yale.edu/features/gavin-schmidt-interview, someone on twitter noticed that not one mention of CO2, GHG, greenhouse gas, climate change, global warming in the article.”
Maybe that Someone on twitter doesn’t know that:
– 1.5 years is NOT “climate” (for that you need trends surviving decades)
– “CO2″, “GHG” “greenhouse gas” are important to CLIMATE change, and climatic “global warming”, but NOT important to the SHORT-TERM (1.5 year) fluctuations, for the simple reason that their concentrations do NOT change ENOUGH over such a short time-scale to alter their radiative forcing in any meaningful amount
– for that – you’d need forcings that do change significantly over such a short time-scale:
– air sea fluxes of heat (ENSO),
– water vapour and SO2 from volcanic eruptions,
– reductions in aerosol emissions from ships (less direct reflection of solar radiation by SO2 and fewer aerosol particles to function as CCNs (cloud condensation nuclei): => fewer clouds where it matters (to the albedo) most – over the low and mid latitude ocean.
Thus – the Great Twitter Mystery of Paul Pukite solved!
No need to invoke editorial dishonesty of the interviewer, nor, alternatively, imply that Gavin is retreating from his previous position that “Climate change” and “Global warming” are driven by increases in ” CO2, GHG, greenhouse gas” .
Occam’s razor, my dear Pukite!
@whut – Whut!!!!
Elizabeth Kolbert interview Gavin Schmidt.
Yale Environment is a broad platform, so this appears to have been a focused interview for a specific purpose, and of great value as such. Your Twitter-based complainant seems irrelevant. Reminds me of this (#15, for example):
https://www.mnei.nl/schopenhauer/38-stratagems.htm
Piotr, In the past, you have criticized my view of the importance of being able to forecast El Nino events, for the number of lives it impacts across the world
e.g. https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/10/a-nobel-pursuit/#comment-796871 , I said:
Yet here is Gavin Schmidt saying essentially the same thing in the Yale CC interview:
https://e360.yale.edu/features/gavin-schmidt-interview
Now you seem upset at me for pointing out that climate scientists are focusing their attention on these temperature spikes at the expense of the secular long-term trend due to GHGs. If that’s indeed the case, the discussion question can lead with either (1) Is there something else that man or nature is doing that is making these erratic cycles even more mysterious or (2) Are the models for El Nino, AMO, PDO not that great to begin with, and admit that they never have been that good beyond the year following the spring predictability barrier.
This is in the context of Gavin saying the past relationship patterns are “no longer any good”.
Paul Pukite, thank you for the link to the story and reference to your comment.
A couple of things, and perhaps I’m just dense, but I don’t find a lack of specific mention on Gavin’s part regarding CO2, or the terms “climate change” and “global warming” at this point curious. Perhaps it was an editorial choice, but if not, at this point of the investigation, that doesn’t strike me as particularly telling one way or the other. If there was something abruptly wayward in recent CO2 trends, then yes, but since not, excluding CO2 mention doesn’t seem exceptional. And imo regarding “climate change” and “global warming;” aren’t these terms better invoked in longer-‘range timeframes, not when discussing 2023 (at this point anyway)? Particularly since what caused the variance is still being researched. Like many, it frustrates me when many in the media automatically say “climate change” when reporting on what was observed in 2023.
.
.
Dharma, you in part wrote “While it’s true that no (known) single potential cause accounts for the entire +0.2°C temperature anomaly, that’s no reason to dismiss any of the proposed explanations… Rather than searching for a singular explanation, we should be open to the possibility that several contributing causes may be interacting in unison, reinforcing one another in ways we haven’t fully anticipated.”
Regarding interview stories in the media, whether this story or in other previous story interviews of climate scientists I’ve read in the last year, none I recall indicate a search for a singular explanation is being pursued in lieu of a combination of factors, or vice-versa, or something that is new/unexpected.
If your commentary was focused just on research itself, I defer to those of you who are far more qualified in climate research to opine.
David,
This kind of plot needs to be shown regarding the 2023-2024 spike
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/2686/iB4szQ.jpg
Note how 3 climate indices representing the 3 oceans, Pacific, Atlantic, Indian all show reinforcing peaks across 2023 to 2024.
BTW, not sure what’s happening with the AMO data. The Kaplan SST AMO hasn’t been updated in a while, and the replacement for it, the NOAA ERSSTV5 AMO is currently not available so I couldn’t update the plot linked above, instead had to use data I had downloaded a few months ago (remember the days of FTP mirror sites?)
https://psl.noaa.gov/data/timeseries/AMO/
Perhaps this has something to do with western North Carolina
https://psl.noaa.gov/data/gridded/data.ncep.reanalysis.html
“NOTICE: NCEI in Asheville, North Carolina, has been significantly impacted by Hurricane Helene. Some products that PSL acquires from NCEI may be currently …”
Paul,
On the FTP Mirror Sites, yeah, sorry, that’s waaayyy outside my ballpark.. I have a hard time remembering what https stands for ;-)
Interestingly to me, I saw on Wikipedia that “Notable websites with mirrors include… the website of the Environmental Protection Agency…” Does NOAA not I wonder? If so, is that due to the amount of data they handle compared to an agency like the EPA?
I’ve seen the message you were talking about concerning Asheville. I can’t imagine what the poor folks there and in other places throughout the southeast have/are enduring. Amazing how just one town/site affected by disaster can impact someone like NOAA.to this degree.
On the indices/ocean plot you’ve produced, I don’t want to further pester you with questions without first spending time trying to somewhat correlate what I am seeing with what your saying.
Gotta tell you, some days I feel pretty dumb even sticking my mental toes in the water you and most of the folks here (not to mention our hosts!) swim in. It’s fascinating, but humbling…
Paul Pukite: Piotr, In the past, you have criticized my view of the importance of being able to forecast El Nino events, for the number of lives it impacts across the world
Not exactly – I objected to two things:
====- 1. your massive exaggeration
– your claim that a better prediction of the month of the next El Nino can save “ COUNTLESS lives“, a powerful claim you failed to provide any plausible mechanisms for.
And such massive exaggeration is not an innocent folly of somebody who tries to make their field of interest sound more important – it comes at the price of diluting important words – overused, the big words lose their weight, thus no longer may mobilize the society to action:
after hearing that “ the loss of countless lives” ALREADY happens every 2-7 years (El Nino) – hearing next that long-term effects of the AGW may ALSO cause “ the loss of countless of lives”, no longer makes anyone to bat an eye. See the shepherd, who cried “Wolf! ” countless times.
Gavin’s interview does not change anything here – does not prove that prediction of the next El NIno DOES save COUNTLESS lives.
==== 2. your lacking the balls to stand by your post
– after I challenged your “countless”- you …tried to get out on semantics
– PP: “ “countless lives” == “innumerable lives” which means incapable of being counted ”
– me: That’s a cop-out – if you wanted to convey “ incapable of being counted” you would have said something like “unknown numbers “. Instead you CHOOSE the word “countless” which for everybody means : “ too numerous to be counted : MYRIAD, MANY (Webster’s dictionary).
Invoking a MASSIVE loss of life COULD shift the research money to your favourite field – ENSO. Invoking saving “unknowable number of people, may be many maybe few or none at all” – would not..
======
Furthermore, in SAME original post you used THE SAME word “countless” – second time:
PP: Einstein already received the Nobel for Brownian motion in 1905 that has been verified countless times for actual stochastic systems on a microscopic level, but not for a collective dipole ocean oscillation
What relevance being verified … “unknowable number of times” could have???
Finally – Gavin’s words, which you present as your vindication – cannot apply to “ unknowable number of lives” Why should the public care that we can’t estimate whether El Nino forecast saves many lives or not ?
Piotr complains about me exaggerating by applying countless as an adjective for extreme but indefinite, i.e. w/o specificity, but now I find a recent paper that claims that a massive El Nino could have been responsible for the past near extinction of life on Earth.
Mega El Niño May Have Led to Major Mass Extinction 252 Million Years Ago
The extreme climate conditions wrought by a decades-long ENSO pattern could be the culprit in the Great Dying, which wiped out nearly 90% of life on Earth. [1]
Is this paper also an exaggeration? If so, what should the consequences be for the authors? Eternal bullying by Piotr? :)
[1] Sun, Yadong, Alexander Farnsworth, Michael M. Joachimski, Paul B. Wignall, Leopold Krystyn, David PG Bond, Domenico CG Ravidà, and Paul J. Valdes. “Mega El Niño instigated the end-Permian mass extinction.” Science 385, no. 6714 (2024): 1189-1195.
Explainer: https://eos.org/articles/mega-el-nino-may-have-led-to-major-mass-extinction-252-million-years-ago
Paul Pukite: “Mega El Niño May Have Led to Major Mass Extinction 252 Million Years Ago.” Is this paper also an exaggeration?
Can’t say – haven’t read it, I try to not offer opinions on things I don’t know about. I do offer falsifiable arguments about articles I did read though – like your old 2021 you try to re-litigate now:
– your grandiose claims about the importance of your field of interest- that a better prediction of the month of the next El Nino could “SAVE COUNTLESS LIVES”
– your failure to defend your grandiose claim by demonstrating any plausible mechanism for saving the said “COUNTLESS LIVES”
– your lack of balls to admit of this failure – and in its stead – your pathetic attempts to walk-back your original words: claiming that by “saving countless lives” – you DIDN’T mean “saving a VERY LARGE NUMBER of lives” , but merely saving “…UNKNOWABLE number of lives”, i.e. maybe many, maybe none at all, who knows.
Anybody can use Occams razor to decide which of these two is more likely to be true.
Having no argument left in the original discussion, you retreated, never admitting your failure, and never accepting it, with the memory of it festering over the years – as witnessed by the fact that you are … bringing it up again after 3 years:
– first you took a paragraph from a radio interview with Gavin in which he suggested that “ [if we predict El Nino] people in Indonesia [might] start preparing for a dry season” which you claim is “ saying essentially the same thing as your “saving COUNTLESS LIVES”.
Unable to defend the above, you … changed the subject onto another “proof” that you must have had been right – bringing up an article that speculates that the PT extinction may have been caused by a change in ocean circulation that the authors compared to “a decades-long ENSO”.
But unfortunately for you – it does not vindicate your absurd claims from past either: when in Oct. 2021 you were claiming that a better prediction of the timing of the next El Nino “could save COUNTLESS LIVES” – you COULDN’T have meant “saving countless lives from a “ decades-long Mega-ElNino ” that WOULD BE hypothesized in article written …. 3 years AFTER your original claim.
And you can’t even say that you have had inkling of it already in 2021 – if you had – you would have used it already in your 2021 defense of your claim.
And it is not like you are would be predicting anything even remotely similar to the onset of “ a decades-long Mega-ElNino 252 mln years ago ” – for it to happen, a different configuration of continents is needed – one that won’t be in place for the brave Paul Pukite to save “countless lives” for many 10s, or 100s, of millions of years.
P. Pukite: What should the consequences be for the authors? Eternal bullying by Piotr? :)
Ouch, “eternal bullying by Piotr?”, powerful joke, take me to the burn unit.
But to answer your question – no, if they don’t make grandiose claims, or at least, if after being unable to defend these claims, they have the balls to admit being wrong – they have nothing to worry.
As for you accusation of “eternal bullying” – it seems … strangely self-inflicted – wasn’t it YOU who brought up your 2021 self-inflicted humiliation, already TWICE this month? A glutton for punishment, eh?
Piotr said:
EXACTLY! That’s the context of my use of “countless”. If I were to say that countless lives would have been saved if Trump hadn’t been president during the COVID-19 pandemic, that would have been a safe call. Instead of a million+ lives being lost it would have been markedly reduced. It could have saved 1/2 a million, but we will never know. Try counting — you can’t — thus count-less. I could have used another word : uncountable, immeasurable, innumerable, inestimable, indefinable, unquantifiable, but I selected countless, maybe because it is less typing. Yet, according to Piotr, he is able to look deep into my mind and assert that I selected countless rather than innumerable because I wanted to exaggerate rather than convey uncertainty in a single word.
Paul Pukite (@whut) says
24 Oct 2024 at 11:40 AM
“Yet, according to Piotr, he is able to look deep into my mind and assert that I selected countless rather than innumerable because I wanted to exaggerate rather than convey uncertainty in a single word.”
Referring back to Mr. Rodger’s earlier point that it is “unacceptable to put words into other people’s mouths here on RC,” here we have yet another countless example of Piotr doing exactly that—his go-to method of misrepresenting others and providing distorted analyses of their so-called faults.
The strawmen arguments (hello BPL) are so frequent here that I was beginning to think it’s a prerequisite for commenting on RC. That, along with an apparent inability to understand plain English. :)
Dharma says
24 Oct 2024 at 6:50 PM
Apologies, I should not have neglected mentioning Nigelj as well.
PIotr:: “your lack of balls to admit of this failure – and in its stead – your pathetic attempts to walk-back your original words: claiming that by “saving countless lives” – you DIDN’T mean “saving a VERY LARGE NUMBER of lives” , but merely saving “…UNKNOWABLE number of lives”, i.e. maybe many, maybe none at all, who knows.”
Paul Pukite: “EXACTLY! That’s the context of my use of “countless”.
Three years later and you still haven’t grown a pair … – you still can’t own up to your actions in the past and still try the same failed attempts to get out on a semantic technicality.
Unfortunately for you – why would we rely on your self-serving declarations about yourself –
when we have logic and Occam’s razor? Based on these- everybody can ask themselves the following questions:
1. if Paul Pukite argued for shifting the research interest and research resources – AWAY from the AGW AND INTO his interests – the research of ENSO, and justified this switch by claiming that a better prediction of the next EL Nino “could save COUNTLESS lives”,
If you were deciding whether to switch the research interest and research money from AGW to ENSO or not – which of two pitches would be more effective in convincing you to switch – that making EL Nino a priority in the climate research
a) could save “extremely LARGE number of lives”,
b) could save … “unknowable number of lives – maybe many, maybe few, maybe nobody at all.”?
If you chose b) then you should consider Paul Pukite a man of integrity, able to admit being wrong, and not looking for pathetic excuses to protect his fragile ego. If you chose a) ….then the opposite.
2. When Paul, rehashed the 3 year old discussion, by bringing up a paper that speculated something similar to “ decades-long ENSO” did cause the period “ known as the “Great Dying”, “ which wiped out nearly 90% of life on Earth.” then
which of the is more likely :
a) that studying modern El Nino is important, because something similar 252 mln years ago
wiped out VERY LARGE number of species
OR
b) that studying modern El Nino is important, because something similar 252 mln years ago
wiped out …. UNKNOWABLE number of species – maybe many, maybe few, maybe hardly any at all,?
Or in other words – which is more likely – that “nearly 90% of life on Earth” means
“VERY LARGE number” or “UNKNOWABLE number”?
And since Paul Pukite answer must be “the UNKNOWABILITY” and NOT a “GREAT NUMBER” of the killed – than why from the last 500 mln years – has he chosen the extremely short geologically period of the …. LARGEST MASS EXTINCTION EVER??? ..
Paul, if you are unable to critically analyze your own posts, and admit being wrong EVEN in such an open and shut case – what is the chance that you would do so in less obvious cases?
D: The strawmen arguments (hello BPL) are so frequent here that I was beginning to think it’s a prerequisite for commenting on RC. That, along with an apparent inability to understand plain English. :)
BPL: Yes, this is just an awful place! You should leave it immediately and never come back. That’ll show ’em!
No one else should work on ENSO, except of course on a voluntary basis.
“Climate and the Global Famine of 1876–78”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/31/23/jcli-d-18-0159.1.xml
On a BlueSky discussion the other day, the above paper is referenced
https://bsky.app/profile/chrisjparker.bsky.social/post/3l76ahgf5662d
The El Nino and simultaneous spikes in Atlantic and Indian of 1876-7 are the closest historical antecedent to today.
Barton Paul Levenson says
25 Oct 2024 at 6.57 AM
Dharma: The strawmen arguments (hello BPL) are so frequent here that I was beginning to think it’s a prerequisite for commenting on RC. That, along with an apparent inability to understand plain English. :)
BPL: Yes, this is just an awful place! You should leave it immediately and never come back. That’ll show ’em!
Dharma:
BPL, I notice a very strong tendency here for people to dismiss valid critique with sarcasm or deflection. My comment wasn’t a complaint about being here—it was about the way so many discussions quickly veer into strawman territory or selective reading, and then stall as a result. If pointing this out helps elevate the level of discourse, so be it.
I’d like to continue discussing the content of these important topics—rather than having comments dismissed with mockery. So, maybe you can set the sarcasm aside?
Pukite: No one else should work on ENSO, except of course on a voluntary basis.
Nobody said or even implied it, so this line – tells only about your ability to understand posts you comment, or if you understood, but try to derail the discussion by redirecting it into a dead-end tangent – about your ability of self-reflection and owning up to your intentions.
Here is the actual subject of the post to which you supposedly “reply”:
===
Paul Pukite advocated shifting the research interest and resources – AWAY from the AGW AND INTO his area of interest – ENSO. He justified the need for this switch by claiming that a better prediction of the next EL Nino “could save COUNTLESS lives”,
When asked to prove his claim, first he tried and failed, then tried to get out on a semantic technicality – that by “countless” he meant saving …. UNKNOWABLE number of lives,
To which I proposed the test by Occam razor – asking which of the two pitches would be more likely to shift the attention of the society from researching AGW to researching EL Nino-
– saying that ENSO research “could save UNKNOWABLE [i.e. maybe large, maybe small, maybe none at all] number of lives”
OR
– saying that ENSO research “could save EXTREMELY LARGE number of lives”
And P. Pukite’s sarcastic pretense of an answer: ” No one else should work on ENSO, except of course on a voluntary basis. – won’t do, So you re still on the hook, my dear Pukite.
See also another Occam razor – after Paul Pukite revived the original discussion by bringing up a paper that speculated that P-T mass extinction, the “Great Dying, which wiped out nearly 90% of life on Earth.” may have been caused by something compared to the “decades-long El Nino”:
==== Which is more likely :
a) that studying modern El Nino is important, because something similar 252 mln years ago
wiped out VERY LARGE number of species (“nearly 90% of life on Earth.”)
OR
b) that studying modern El Nino is important, because something similar 252 mln years ago
wiped out …. UNKNOWABLE number of species – maybe many, maybe few, maybe hardly any at all?
====
Paul Pukite 24 Oct “ According to Piotr, he is able to look deep into my mind
I have no necessary equipment (functional MRI?), nor an inclination (given the quality of your posts) to “look deep into your mind”.
Instead, I look into the PRODUCTS of your mind – your words – and based on FALIFIABLE ANALYSIS of these words – form opinions on the quality of the mind that produced them.
In this case, you advocated for shifting scientific research and resources from AGW and to El Nino, and supported it by saying that it “could save COUNTLESS lives”. I used the Occam razor to test the honesty of your subsequent claims on what you wanted to convey with your choice of the word “countless”: either have meant:
a) a very LARGE NUMBER of lives OR
b) an UNKNOWABLE number of lives, maybe many, maybe few, maybe none at all.
I presented several different arguments in favour of a). You … didn’t answer ANY of them, didn’t offer any arguments in favour of b), and instead of these – you offered your …. empty declarations that you meant “b)”
By the Occam razor, not the functional MRI, you shall know them.
Ubiquitous D. joins in: ” here we have yet another countless example of Piotr doing [his] go-to method of misrepresenting others and providing distorted analyses
NO, this is called cutting through the crap, calling spade a spade, and providing FALSIFIABLE analysis of the words of my opponents. An analysis that neither you nor your Paul Pukite, were not able to falsify.
But since you are trying to recruit allies/supporters – Paul may be a strange bedfellow for you – in the very same argument that we should switch research priority from studying AGW to studying EL Nino, he justified it with the fact that we know the AGW WELL ENOUGH. Which, obviously, is an anti-thesis to your questioning the credibility of AGW science, its projections and recommendations.
And to Paul – don’t take the support of Ubiquitous D. to heart – the moment he can’t use you for his purposes – he’ll turn on you like a proverbial Escobar on Tomas Kalisz (see the footnote).
—-
^* “Escobar”: “ to Tomáš Kalisz. You have zero chance of any success at being heard accurately (in context, in kind) or being treated with respect here by anyone.
After Tomas declined Escobar advances, Escobar illustrated … HIS respect to Tomas:
– Escobar: “ I have not seen any improvement in your knowledge or gaining anything since arriving and focusing on your minutia issue.”
– “What I see here daily is a frog in a blender on high speed. But again, if you enjoy this”
– ” I wish there was a block sender function so I did not need to see this depressing display.”
====
D: I’d like to continue discussing the content of these important topics—rather than having comments dismissed with mockery. So, maybe you can set the sarcasm aside?
BPL: Sure, when you set the doomism and attacks on the web site and the people who run it, and on the scientific community in general, aside.
In Re to Paul Pukite, 24 Oct 2024 at 11:40 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825907
and Piotr, 26 Oct 2024 at 10:59 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-826050
and 26 Oct 2024 at 12:12 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-826053
Dear Piotr, dear Dr. Pukite,
Please try to look on your dispute about the word “countless” from another perspective, as provided in visionary novel “Eight Voyage of Ijon Tichy” by Stanislaw Lem:
“Planets completely unsuitable for life origin can be characterized by:
– catastrophic climate changes in a rapidly alternating rhythm – the so-called four-seasons cycle of spring, summer, autumn, winter,
– by the presence of large moons, whose tidal influence is also life-threatening,
– by the frequent spotting of the mother star, because the spots are a source of deadly radiation,
– by a surface of waters prevailing over the surface of the continents,
– permanent glaciation around the poles,
– the occurrence of water precipitation in liquid or solid state.”
I apologize that I was not able to find an English translation nor the original issue and tried to translate the text from Czech opera libreto inspoired by the novel:
https://www.shakuhachi.cz/108Hz/my_opera/Opera_8_str_014.htm
Greetings
Tomáš
1 Given the hurricanes, Any survivalists out there? US News Media has suggested heading for northern US states but wildfires in Minnesota/Canada and huge flooding in mountainous Vermont indicates reporters not best sources of advice. Plus –Duluth?
2) Various actions by our billionaires suggest they are morons—spending hundreds of $millions for mansions on Miami’s fortified Indian Creek island – about 6 feet? above sea level.
https://blog.augurisk.com/indian-creek-risk/
3) I had heard Jem Bendell (Deep Adaptation) left England and wondered what bolthole he might be heading to. Recently found out he bought a farm in Indonesia’s Bali. Which seemed very strange given how close it is to equator – until I saw this:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/7079/historic-tropical-cyclone-tracks
4) Bali is in the narrow channel where typhoons don’t occur. Plus its temps hover around 85 deg F – perhaps due to being an island surrounded by deep ocean. Bali checks a few other boxes – very fertile soil, lots of rainfall and drinking water, mountains to give elevation for lower temps. Plus one needs a plan B exit –and in an apocalypse sailboats are the only way to carry heavy food/supplies long distances. Indonesia island chain gives access to Asia or to Australia.
5) However, there are those 4 billion people just to the north –but Bendell may think Bali’s peaceful Hinduism will be a shield. Be a shame to tell him about Our Man in Jakarta — Suharto.
6) Several billionaires have bought land (or entire islands) in Hawaii (4th largest collection of US military personnel in US) and Peter Thiel picked up New Zealand land/citizenship in the duty free shop. Pierre Omidyar seems to take the hedge fund approach — mansions in Hawaii, Nevada and on island off France — with a long range jet to let him play whack-a mole with climate change.
Don Williams: – “2) Various actions by our billionaires suggest they are morons—spending hundreds of $millions for mansions on Miami’s fortified Indian Creek island – about 6 feet? above sea level.>/i>
I’d suggest a slightly different track of Hurricane Milton (or another Cat 5 hurricane inbound from the Atlantic) passing over or near Indian Creek Island would likely inundate these ‘billionaire havens’. I’d suggest it’s only a matter of time as the Earth System continues to warm further and SLR accelerates.
Per the US National Hurricane Center & Central Pacific Hurricane Centre, re Hurricane Milton Advisory Number 15, as at 04 PM CDT Tuesday October 08, 2024, the Peak Storm Surge Forecast shows a range of expected storm surges along most of the Florida and South Carolina coastlines and all of the Georgia coastline. The Tampa Bay area, between Anclote River and Englewood are expected to see storm surges of 10-15 feet.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at4+shtml/213144.shtml?peakSurge#contents
Per NOAA’s Feb 2022 report titled Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States: Updated Mean Projections and Extreme Water Level Probabilities Along U.S. Coastlines, Table 2.2 shows observation-based extrapolation and regionalized global mean sea level scenario–based estimates, in meters, of relative sea level in 2050 relative to a baseline of 2000 for eight coastal regions of the United States. For the Southeast region of the US, for the Intermediate-High scenario (closest to the observation-based extrapolation) the projected SLR is 0.43 [0.32, 0.58] m (relative to year-2000 baseline).
https://sealevel.globalchange.gov/resources/2022-sea-level-rise-technical-report/
In the YouTube video titled sea level rise – is Greenland beyond its tipping point?, published 29 Jul 2024, duration 04:19, glaciologist Professor Dr Jason Box, from the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, said from time interval 0:01:50:
“Now if climate continues warming, which is more than likely, then the loss commitment grows. My best guess, if I had to put out numbers; so by 2050, 40 centimetres above 2000 levels; and then by the year 2100, 150 centimetres, or 1.5 metres above the 2000 level, which is something like four feet. Those numbers follow the dashed-red curve on the IPCC’s 6th Assessment, which represents the upper 5-percentile of the model calculations, because the model calculations don’t deliver ice as quickly as is observed. If you take the last two decades of observations, the models don’t even reproduce that until 40 years from now.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jpPXcqNXpE&t=110s
SLR is relentless and accelerating. I would not be at all surprised to see the global mean rate of SLR accelerate from about 5 mm/year observed now (i.e. in year-2024), to about 10 mm/year sometime in the 2030s, and accelerate further to 20 mm/year perhaps by the late 2040s.
Any comments from our climate scientist hosts on this?
“Global emission reduction efforts continue to be insufficient to meet the temperature goal of the Paris Agreement. This makes the systematic exploration of so-called overshoot pathways that temporarily exceed a targeted global warming limit before drawing temperatures back down to safer levels a priority for science and policy. Here we show that global and regional climate change and associated risks after an overshoot are different from a world that avoids it … we cannot be confident that temperature decline after overshoot is achievable within the timescales expected today. Only rapid near-term emission reductions are effective in reducing climate risks.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08020-9
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/10/09/overshoot-climate-targets-one-point-five/
Thanks for the links, SA. To be sure, all decarbonization-dependent optimism must be qualified with the caveat that as bad as global warming gets, it will get worse as long as there’s any fossil carbon left to burn, unless we leave it in the ground. My fellow Americans, please vote Democratic next month!
America has experienced two huge Atlantic Ocean hurricanes in a matter of weeks after a mostly quiet hurricane season. I notice some experts saying its all unusual. But haven’t the climate experts generally being telling us global warming would cause a decease in the numbers of moderately sized hurricanes, and an increase in the numbers of category 4 and 5 hurricanes? So isnt this at least a possible validation of their models?
Nigelj: I never like trying to attribute any single event directly to climate change. A single event is deterministic, climate is probabilistic, so climate change effectively changes the probability of weather-related events happening. Explosive intensification as with hurricane Milton always has a chance of happening with or without climate change, it needs warm SSTs combined with near perfect atmospheric conditions, but climate change is likely making these explosive intensification events more likely. Thinking logically, a warmer ocean rasies the maximum potential intensity, so when perfect atmospheric conditions come along – boom, you get a hurricane that is more intense than it would have been if the ocean underneath it was half a degree cooler.
As far as the Atlantic hurricane season as a whole is concerned, it has been an oddball. We started off with a record breaking hurricane in July followed by an extended quiet period during the peak season, a period which should have been very active given the cool-neutral ENSO and very warm SSTs across the tropical Atlantic. This hiatus is why the seasonal forecasts (including mine) have been way over what has been observed even if the impacts have been consistent with a hyper-active season (>=160 ACE). There is a chance we might get to the huperactive threshold with several weeks of the season left, but we are not getting to the 200+ ACE seasonal forecasts. The suggested reasons for this unexpected quiet period is a combination of factors: 1. A northerly displaced ITCZ resulting in easterly waves departing Africa further north into less favourable conditions. 2. A persistent strongly positive NAO, which aside from bringing wet conditions to the northern half of the UK, resulted in pressure patterns that advected dry stable mid-latitude air into the sub-tropics, which was ingested into these easterly waves, killing further development. Once we got past peak season, the ITCZ moved back south and MDR activity was kick-started with Kirk and Leslie. La Nina or cool-neutral ENSO tends to reduce vertical wind shear across the Caribbean Sea and Gulf late season, and with the near record warm SSTs in the Gulf, this aided in the formation and intensification of Helene and Milton. In contrast to the Atlantic, both sides of the Pacific ocean have been very quiet for tropical cyclone activity, reminds me of the strong La Nina year of 2010.
I’m not convinced this year alone is sufficient as a validation of the prediction of a reduction in hurricanes and an increase in intense hurricanes. This year seems to be heavily influenced by ENSO combined with intra-seasonal factors. Whether those intra-seasonal factors amongst others are likely to be influenced by climate change in a way that is compatible with a reduction in hurricane numbers I don’t know.
1. (specific) https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2024/10/without-climate-change-hurricane-milton-would-have-hit-as-a-cat-2-not-a-cat-3/ [and many others]
2. (general) https://climateattribution.org/
also, an easier read on developing science:
https://www.climatecentral.org/attribution-science
Adam Lea (and MAR and SA), thank’s for the constructive replies!
Nigelj,
The “mostly quiet season” was not what was forecast back pre-season. The forecasts were for a particularly busy season and as Adam Lea says, the early season activity was followed by an unexpected ‘entirely quiet period’. The ultra-activity was very late in arriving.
October 2024 has clocked up ACE=62 so-far, which means it is already the 2nd-most active October (since 2000, the active Octobers now exceeded by 2024 running 2005 ACE=52, 2018 =41, 2020 =38, 2012 =33.)
The still-record-holding October 2016 achieved ACE=66 and did this with just two storms, both strong & long-lasting, Matthew which struck the US East coast a glancing blow (a path not dissimilar to the 2019 Hurricane Dorian that Trump famously forecast would make a proper landfall & go on to impact Alabama) & the mid-Atlantic Nadine.
The climatology suggests 2024 could still top October 2016’s ACE=66, perhaps adding significantly to the ACE=140 of the 2024-season-so-far. (The 1991-2020 average ACE increase Oct 11th-31st adds 12, & adds 18 by end-of-year, this for an average year.) The last couple of decades shows that big storms can still appear late in the season post mid-October, the likes of Wilma of 2005 (ACE=39) or Gonzalo 2014 (ACE=25) or the handful of short-sharp storms of 2020 (totaling ACE=55).
But with the 2024 season-so-far at ACE=140, reaching the ACE=220+ of the pre-season forecasts will require a really powerful end to the season.
While Kristy is a Eastern North Pacific storm, she is, as of 5 PM PDT 10/24/2024, Cat 5 & gorgeous:
.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCDEP2+shtml/242033.shtml
.
.
Also, CPC’s latest Week 2-3 Global Tropical Hazards Outlook fairly bullish on something spinning up in the Caribbean (possibly as early as Oct. 29):
.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/ghaz/index.php
.
.
Stating the obvious, but that could end up being poor timing given voting in the U.S if development occurs and heads poleward…
NEW book to put under the christmas tree this December:
Jean-Baptiste Fressoz
More and More and More
An All-Consuming History of Energy
https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/464145/more-and-more-and-more-by-fressoz-jean-baptiste/9780241718896
Summary
A radical new history of energy and humanity’s insatiable need for resources that will change the way we talk about climate change
It has become habitual to think of our relationship with energy as one of transition: with wood superseded by coal, coal by oil, oil by nuclear and then at some future point all replaced by green sources. Jean-Baptiste Fressoz’s devastating but unnervingly entertaining book shows what an extraordinary delusion this is. Far from the industrial era passing through a series of transformations, each new phase has in practice remained almost wholly entangled with the previous one. Indeed the very idea of transition turns out to be untrue.
The author shares the same acute anxiety about the need for a green transition as the rest of us, but shows how, disastrously, our industrial history has in fact been based on symbiosis, with each major energy source feeding off the others. Using a fascinating array of examples, Fressoz describes how we have gorged on all forms of energy – with whole forests needed to prop up coal mines, coal remaining central to the creation of innumerable new products and oil still central to our lives. The world now burns more wood and coal than ever before.
This book reveals an uncomfortable truth: ‘transition’ was originally itself promoted by energy companies, not as a genuine plan, but as a means to put off any meaningful change. More and More and More forces its readers to understand the modern world in all its voracious reality, and the true nature of the challenges heading our way.
Reviews
This is truly is a radically and very necessary new history of energy. A rich, unnerving, funny and utterly compelling account, it destabilises our understanding again and again. With uncanny examples, he makes the invisible obvious, and shows how the obvious was made invisible by forms of understanding in which even climate activists operate. This remarkable material and intellectual history will change our minds about one of the most important challenges humanity currently faces, indeed it gives us a new way of thinking about the profound challenge decarbonisation represents
David Edgerton, author of The Shock of the Old and The Rise and Fall of the British Nation
Oh, it’s much worse than that. We in the USA have $36 Trillion in federal debt, our total debt is much larger and the derivatives casino is about $6333 Trillion. If the growth in energy consumption slows (e.g, the AI and crypto bubbles pop) then the music slows and begins heading to a stop. Remember 2008?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7prnY2FOxns
Someone remind me — what’s the budget for the energy transition?
Correction: Derivatives casino is around $633 point 3. Trillion. Dropped a decimal point.
Don, you raise a valid concern about debt and financial instability, but Fressoz’s point is focused on the myth of smooth energy transitions. Instead of cleanly moving from one energy source to another, we’ve simply added layers—burning more coal, wood, and oil than ever, even as we talk about renewables.
Your point on financial fragility does connect to this: how do we move toward true sustainability without triggering economic collapse? That’s the challenge. The question isn’t just about the budget for the energy transition—it’s whether our current system can handle the shift at all.
In my view energy companies have done some things wrong, for example toxic waste, and promoting climate change denial, but blaming them for our high levels energy use and societies wider sustainability problems doesnt make a lot of sense to me. Neither does suggesting the energy companies have deliberately put off considering meaningful change to a more restrained, sustainable use of energy. This is because in capitalist systems companies exist to make a profit and promoting low levels of energy use would directly conflict with the profit goal. I doubt that energy companies hundreds of years ago even had decent information on availablity of resources and whether there could be a scarcity problem.
.
If we want a “plan” for societies levels of energy use and general lifestyle it would probably have to come from government. Most people would probably find that too intrusive, so it probbaly isnt going to happen. Personally I expect governmnets to have strong health and safety and envionmental laws, but I wouldnt want them telling me how much energy, food, or clothing etc,etc we can consume.
Nigelj, thanks for your comment, but I think you may have misunderstood the main argument of Fressoz’s book and my point in sharing it. The central issue here is not about blaming energy companies for all of society’s sustainability problems or suggesting they deliberately avoided sustainable practices for centuries. Instead, Fressoz’s work highlights how the narrative of “energy transition”—the idea that one energy source will fully replace the previous one—has been misleading and historically untrue. Each energy source has continued to exist and grow alongside the others, and the concept of transition was, in many ways, promoted by the energy industry to defer any true, systemic change in how we approach resource use.
The idea isn’t that energy companies should have promoted lower energy use for profit’s sake but that the narrative of transition has allowed us to avoid addressing the reality that every new energy phase has been built on top of the last, not as a replacement. The world still burns more coal and wood today than ever before, despite the rhetoric of “transitioning” to oil or cleaner energy.
So, this isn’t an issue of whether companies knew about scarcity hundreds of years ago or whether governments should regulate individual consumption. It’s about understanding that the concept of “transition” itself has been used to justify expanding our energy appetites while delaying meaningful shifts to sustainability. Fressoz challenges us to see that this pattern has deep historical roots, which makes the current conversation around green energy transitions more complex than it first appears.
Dharma.
You said “the idea that one energy source will fully replace the previous one—has been misleading and historically untrue. Each energy source has continued to exist and grow alongside the others, and the concept of transition was, in many ways, promoted by the energy industry to defer any true, systemic change in how we approach resource use.”
Yes new energy sources didnt completely replace the older energy sources. Coal use continued alongside the newer use of oil, although the reasons were obvious: coal happened to suit electricity generation while oil suited conversion into petrol for automobiles .
However I’m not aware that there was some sort of consensus that experts or even the public really thought that every new energy source would completely replace the old source. I would be interested if you have evidence otherwise, without me having to buy the book right now. I might eventually buy it becaus eit does look thought provoking.
And of course the past trend of nwe energy sources not completely replacing older sources can’t be extrapolated into the future. Renewables such as wind, solar, hydro and geothermal might replace all other sources. Although even if they didn’t IMHO it’s not necessarily a problem, if the other energy sources are low carbon, like nuclear power.
The idea of a concept of transition was to defer systemic change doesnt sound plausible. It seems implausiblee that energy companies deliberately developed new energy sources to avoid confronting the fact that there would be global warming. This was not seriously on anyones radar hundreds of years ago.
It also seems unlikely the companies promoted new energy sources to avoid confronting the need for systemic change, whatever this means. I assumed the writer might have meant lower levels of energy use. Its hard to know what ELSE the writer would have meant. But its certainly not clear why energy companies or governments would worry about a possible need for lower levels of energy use, because back then resources seems near infinite, population was much lower and also because society dealt with pollution issues as they arose in pragmatic ways, sometimes well, sometimes badly.
Putting it simply its not clear why anyone back then would have considered the need for systemic change given the circumstances and knowledge at that time.
Its far more likely energy companies ( and perhaps society at large) were just being practical. For example Europe started to run short of timber so naturally energy companies developed coal and oil to meet energy demands and to make a proft. Occams Razor. Im not saying this was necessarily wise. Just that the author is reading too much into things.
This is what I was trying to say previously, but maybe not very clearly.
But of course we have 8 billion people now, and much greater environmental impacts, and a much better understanding of resource issues and limits, environmental impacts, and how we are pushing planetary boundaries, so some sort of transition to a more sustainable lower environmental impacts system is more on peoples radar, and seems entirely desirable.
The question is how we achieve that transition to a more sustainable world, and without totally destabilsing the economy (as you mention elsewhere, and its been a concern of mine also). I would suggest it might have to be a bit slow or gradual, so the human systems can adapt, and will have to make practical compromises, other than to say the climate problem needs urgent attention. And right now the only useful approach to the climate issue that looks plausible overall to me is renewables. There are other possibilities, but they look problematic and very unlikely to get any significant traction with people.
Wildlife numbers fall by 73% in 50 years, global stocktake finds
https://www.yahoo.com/news/wildlife-numbers-fall-73-50-002705402.html
Snippets:
“Tom Oliver, professor of ecology at the University of Reading, who is unconnected with the report, said when this information was combined with other datasets, insect declines for example, “we can piece together a robust – and worrying – picture of global biodiversity collapse”.
….
“Please don’t just feel sad about the loss of nature,” Mr Barrett said.
“Be aware that this is now a fundamental threat to humanity and we’ve really got to do something now.”
Valentina Marconi, from the Zoological Society of London’s Institute of Zoology, told BBC News the natural world was in a “precarious position” but with urgent, collective action from world leaders “we still have the chance to reverse this”.
Behind it all are our growing numbers.
https://midmiocene.wordpress.com/the-elephant-in-the-room/
Tales from the Carbon Energy Pulse
How Ancient Sunlight Fuels Our Own Destruction
Does the topic of climate change, energy use, and hand-waving environmentalists drive you over the edge? Do you find it impossible to pinpoint or understand the core issues that actually matter? Are you frustrated with being bombarded by confusing scientific jargon, endless streams of data, and unprovable claims that make your head spin and eventually bore you to tears?
If so, this article might be exactly what you’ve been waiting for.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-149955421
Good article, Dharma.
Thanks Ron.
One of the biggest issues for the West, but also for the East when we pillage their resources is the stock market. I should have pointed that out in the article and would have if I thought about it. :-( It’s rather obvious. It’s based on continual growth. People are dependent on its continually rising. The whole structure of the first world is based on it! Development is dependent on it. Without the money invested in stocks they can’t do business. The idea of inflation is too, isn’t it?
We desperately need to come up with an alternative to Wall Street.
Ron R: Behind it all are our growing numbers.
I read the Ehrlichs’ book The Population Bomb shortly after it was published in 1968. I was in High School then. The global Total Fertility Rate was about 5.0 children per average woman at that time. I saw clearly how open-ended human population growth would result in ever-worsening environmental impacts, eventually leading to a global “war of all against all” (T. Hobbes) on an ecologically ruined planet. As all those babies born in the 60s and 70s grew up and had children of their own, I watched the pressure on global natural resources and biodiversity explode. That sense of doom dominated my thinking about the future for several decades.
Then, in the early 2000s, I learned that global TFR had fallen by half from its 1963 peak of 5.3. IOW, the problem of open-ended population growth was resolving itself. While the rate of TFR decline has slowed since then, it’s now at 2.3, barely above the replacement value of 2.1, and still declining. It looks right now like our numbers will peak at around 10 – 12 billion before 2100, then start to fall.
Of course, many of the pejorative trends underway in 1970 have intensified as our numbers have grown past 8 billion. Without several significant technological breakthroughs, we’d have hit Malthusian limits already. Sadly, pretty much everything done for “the benefit of all humanity” carries a cost to multiple other species we evolved with. We can expect more erosion of ecological carrying capacity and biodiversity in the decades and centuries ahead. Population growth won’t be a forcing factor in the process, however: if anything, population decline will constrain future economic growth.
My sense of inexorable doom is thus ameliorated by the falling global TFR, and by the “green vortex” of energy market responses to collective decarbonization measures taken around the world. That leaves the impact of growing per capita income, and of markets that will always socialize every transaction cost they can get away with, as globally controlling forces. Incremental market intervention is where we’ll get the biggest bang for our collective buck, as I live out my medically-assisted, “natural” but childless life (gotta love Medicare). Count me out of storming the Capitol.
My fellow US citizens, please vote Democratic, the party of collective action against climate change, next month. If you live in a swing state, remember that a vote for anyone but Harris and the Democrats, or no vote at all, is equivalent to a vote for Trump and the Republicans, the party of plutocracy in our country. However distasteful you may otherwise feel voting Democratic is, please just hold your nose and do it. Your country, all the other countries, and the biosphere will thank you!
@ MalAdapted
1) I’m not sure a group of men knows what affects the fertility rate but I will take a shot. Sorry to state the obvious but:
2) The primary effect is driven both by population growth and level of consumption per person. Africa and central Asia have a very high fertility rate but people in rich countries emit far more carbon/consume more natural resources/create more pollution per person than someone in Africa. We would need 3-4 more planet Earths to give everyone the US/EU living standard that allegedly leads to low fertility.
3) In the aggregate, world GDP(consumption) has continued to climb, world Primary Energy consumption continues to climb and world population continues to climb. US native fertility rate is low but our high consumption population has continued to climb because of emigration and a high birth rate for some groups. Rich investors/political donors push for high emigration/population growth to sustain continued GDP growth because without GDP growth their investments crash and burn (debt service,etc.)
4) It may be an error to conclude that high incomes will always lead to low fertility rates. US fertility rate soared in the high income 1950s , possibly because (a) Government policy gave job priority to WWII returning soldiers leaving few good jobs for women (b) there was more competition for providing husbands due to fewer men (war deaths) and children was a way to commit a marriage (c) conditions ensured there would be food for the children. Similarly, population soared in Asia when the Green Revolution made child starvation unlikely and it is likely to climb with China’s revoking of the one-child policy.
5) Multiple factors –War/economic depression/AI etc — could encourage high fertility conditions (e.g loss of jobs for women) and War would also result in high consumption with indifference to environmental effects. Male infantry deaths might also lessen support for feminism. Another factor is religion – e.g, Catholicism’s encouragement of high birth rates.
6) Bottom Line: Projections of flat/declining world population and declining consumption in 2060 are guesses. At some point Mother Nature may opt for a brisk nuclear war to thin the human herd (and the remaining wildlife—which do not have fallout shelters. )
Don, what causes decline in fertility rates is well established… it is rational self-interest.
For women in third-world countries, in particular where agriculture is small-scale, children are an economic benefit. And the family structure works to support the individuals as much as possible, pooling diverse sources of income.
You need to do a little research, since your comment on China is contradicted by reality. The Chinese government is desperately trying to encourage an increase in TFR, but with little success, even though China is nowhere near as “wealthy” as the USA.
When women achieve a certain reasonable level of economic security, and are empowered to make their own decisions, the logic is obvious… every additional child is an economic and personal burden, which is detrimental to the “previous” child as well as the woman. And of course there are the physical consequences and risks with each pregnancy.
We see this playing out in a variety of cultures, at different levels of prosperity, and even where women are still less socially and politically empowered.
Don Williams,
You mention that it may not be possible for high fertility countries like Africa to achieve the high incomes of the western world needed for a demographic transition to low fertility rate, because the world has limited resources. Its possible, but we just dont really know what will happen because theres not enough certainty on levels of resources. Parts of Asia achieved low fertility rates with modest incomes growth, so there may be enough resources for that in Africa.
Also there is evidence that high incomes are not the main factor in low fertility. A poor African country (I can’t recall the name) did an experiment where the government gave away free contraceptives to a couple of regions, and the fertility rate plumetted. So countries do not have to have to have high average incomes to reduce fertilty.They just need to liberalise contraception.
You mention examples of high incomes leading to low fertility. However these are exceptions and for reasons understood, and the point is they havent lead to higher global fetility rates. Higher incomes and the demographic transition have lead to lower fertilty rates through much of the world.
You mention wars and economic depressions could cause higher fertility rates. But the world has had many wars and depressions and this hasnt stopped a decline in the global fertility rate. Probably because they are mostly local and of limited duration and not enough people defer having families. It would probably take a massive global war lasting a very long time of many decades to change the global fertility trend such a thing is unlikely.
You mention Chinas one child policy being cancelled could lead to high fertility rates. But people have continued to choose to have very small families! Google it.
As a result of the demographic transition the global population growth rate did start reducing around 1970. The experts project that global population growth rate will continue to slow down, and that while population growth will will increase it will peak at about 10 million late this century. Some believe it will then stabilise while others believe global population will start to shrink. Personally I think the demograpic transition will cause population growth to stop and global population will shrink, provided incomes continue to rise a bit and contraception is liberalised in Africa.
Mal wrote “My fellow US citizens, please vote Democratic, the party of collective action against climate change, next month. If you live in a swing state, remember that a vote for anyone but Harris and the Democrats, or no vote at all, is equivalent to a vote for Trump… However distasteful you may otherwise feel voting Democratic is, please just hold your nose and do it.”
Yes on Trump for a hundred reasons. I’ve never before actively encouraged some of my family and friends who rarely vote to do so. But not this year.
Mal, btw, I wanted to thank you for your generous words in last month’s U.V. By the time I saw the comment the month was over, so I waited till I could reply to you now. :-)
Ugh! Just to clarify, I 100% agree that a vote for Trump is a vote against science and a vote against desperately needed action on climate change. And there are a hundred other reasons not to vote for this man if you care about our children and grandchildren besides the enormous issue of the climate.
So as a lifelong Republican, I say please vote for Kamala Harris.
Mal Adapted, we may hit a total fertility or replacement rate of 2.0 as you say. Maybe we’ll level out at 10,000,000,000 as others say. They think that’d be great! But our numbers now are already spelling biocide. You know, that sixth extinction thing? They have been for awhile now.
http://www.mysterium.com/extinction.html
If we are content to level out at 8 or 10 billion then say goodbye to the majority of other species.
IOW, we need to greatly REDUCE our current numbers to a global carrying capacity, not hold them steady.
https://www.overshootday.org/how-many-earths-or-countries-do-we-need/
What is that number? I’ve said before that 1 or 2 billion is it and that I think the whole world, not just 30%, should be designated a nature preserve with everything else conditioned on that, not be the piecemeal charity after thought that it is now. How do we do it? We can start by taking it seriously, acknowledge it and start at least talking about it (and no, I’m not talking about genocide – oh brother). If we are concerned about climate change for the world’s sake it makes zero sense if we are willing to ignore something else which has such dire consequences does it? It’s like a mass blind spot.
We are very close to the 50% – 90% of earth alteration that Barnosky warned of before a mass extinction event becomes irreversible, if we’re not already there.
https://midmiocene.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/knowing-the-score/
Ehrlich stumbled upon this issue as far as I’m concerned. If not for him someone else would have had to say something, it’s so obvious. Ehrlich doesn’t own the issue.
You might be interested in Barnosky’s book.
https://www.amazon.com/Tipping-Point-Planet-Earth-Close/dp/1250051150
“someone else would have had to say something, it’s so obvious.”
Yes
Ron R. and Don Williams: we need to greatly REDUCE our current numbers to a global carrying capacity, not hold them steady.
If this is TL;DR, please just skip it. Otherwise, please read at least as far as my questions for both of you before responding, as they aren’t purely rhetorical. I promise there’s a point!
First, let’s explicitly take any proposals to reduce our current numbers by deliberately raising the global mortality rate, off the table. That said, I think the three of us are in moral agreement with Ron’s assertion, at least from a biodiversity protection perspective. The Sixth Great Extinction has been a source of grief for me since age eight. I was convinced by fourteen that humanity’s population growth was unsustainable for most other species. My childhood preoccupation with “natural history” extended to two years in a doctoral problem in Ecology and Evolution, before I decided not to work that hard for a living. My pseudonym reflects my voluntary (though not primarily for unselfish reasons) self-selection out of the species’ gene pool!
So, What is to Be Done? A rhetorical question, as none of us is King of the World, and every one of our 8+ billion conspecifics acts primarily for their own inclusive fitness, without regard for the personal fears of three westerners on a blog. Consider: with some prominent exceptions like China’s top-down, coercive one-child policy, the global decline in TFR hasn’t been the result of targeted collective intervention in women’s reproductive choices. For example, Brazil’s internal TFR has fallen more or less steadily from 6.1 in 1960 to 1.6 in 2022, primarily attributed to rising economic expectations:
Demographers say the fertility rate is declining because the country is richer and more urban, but they also point to Brazil’s hugely popular soap operas and their portrayal of small, glamorous families.
My first point is that it may be possible to drive TFR lower, faster, by collective action, so that our global population peaks a couple of decades sooner than it otherwise would, then starts to decline, as birth rate falls below the global “natural” death rate. But at what collective cost? Must we live under a Chinese-style authoritarian government that’s able to disregard individual women’s wishes for more children? Or should wealthy countries simply assist poor, high-fertility ones to improve family health, social security, female education and empowerment, and even didactic telenovelas? Again, bearing in mind that all collective action is driven by politics, the art of the possible, I’d appreciate seeing your plans for collectively bringing global population down more quickly. Should we (i.e. US voters) expand our ostensibly benevolent “economic development assistance” to other countries, explicitly to reduce their population growth? Should we (i.e. voters in any nominal democracy) give the UN the power to enforce a global one-child policy, and back it up with our police at home and our military abroad? These aren’t rhetorical questions, because while I have opinions, I don’t have definitive answers. All I’ve got is a vote in US elections.
My other point, which I’m always belaboring, is that targeted collective intervention in national energy markets, to neutralize the price advantage fossil fuels currently have over carbon-neutral alternatives, is already driving a global green vortex of rapidly expanding renewable energy supply combined with precitipitously falling LCOE. In the US, the “Inflation Reduction” Act of 2022 was the first federal legislation aimed at decarbonizing our economy in 34 largely wasted years. The IRA was a bare Democratic victory. At this moment, US voters are choosing between securing and extending our national decarbonization policy incrementally, or taking a giant step backward into denial. Note: those are our only choices! I know how I’m voting. How about you (rhetorical question: I don’t even know if either of you live in the US)?
Uh:
the “Inflation Reduction” Act of 2022 was the first federal legislation aimed at decarbonizing our economy in 34 largely wasted years.
should be read as
the “Inflation Reduction” Act of 2022 was the first federal legislation in 34 largely wasted years, aimed at decarbonizing our economy.
Beware of copypasta.
Mal Adapted, I generally share your views on the human populaton issue. Ironically when I was around 12 yrs old I read about the the huge growth in human population and thought this was one of humanities biggest problems, and it certainly convinced me of the merits of small familiy size. I have never seen a reason to change my views.
Fortunately the demographic transition process based around increasing levels of income has reduced the global fertility rate, and it looks like this will generally continue, although whether it causes global population to shrink is less certain. Piotr raised some good counter arguments against global population shrinking, mainly that if gdp growth slows down due to resource scarcity and / or climate change, Africa might remain poor and high fertility thus offsetting low fertility in other countries..But obviously we cant say for sure this will happen. Too many unknowns.
You ask whether we can somehow speed up the reduction in the global fertility rate. One thing I read was that a poor African country (I cant remember which) did an experiment where the government gave away free contraception in one region and the fertility rate dropped quite a bit. So it appears easy access to contraception is really important and only very modest increases in income are required. So if countries encouraged easier availability of contraception and made it free, or subsidised the costs this would help speed up the drop in fedrtility rate.. Unfortunately moral and religious dogma get in the way of this a bit but it does remain a very low cost, simple way of speeding up the decline in global fertility and it doesnt require coercive, intrusive, government programmes.
Not all all to long MA. I’ve seen lots longer here. Your second paragraph is humorous, btw.
But yeah, around that age I also figured just from extrapolation that our numbers were unsustainable. Especially from a wildlife pov. It has bothered me ever since. I’m absolutely mystified that people in general, especially those which should know better, seem to be nonplussed by this avoidable emergency.
Mal Adapted, your handle. Well you know what happens to species that aren’t well adapted :-) ? I have one child, a daughter. Two became one.
Must we live under a Chinese-style authoritarian government that’s able to disregard individual women’s wishes for more children? Or should wealthy countries simply assist poor, high-fertility ones to improve family health, social security, female education and empowerment, and even didactic telenovelas”?
No and yes (imo). Keep in mind that helping them preserve their environment is actually helping ourselves. It’s all one planet. We need to recognize that.
”I’d appreciate seeing your plans for collectively bringing global population down more quickly.”
I’m not too creative. This is what I see. We do what we did with climate change, we start making hay out of this issue. No, not just NGOs. Nobody really cares what they say. One opinion as good as another to most people. They are simply too busy with all the other distractions to listen to another. But if people notable, actually everybody notable, like presidents, actors and actresses etc, start to speak up then people will perk up. As the article I originally posted said,
”Valentina Marconi, from the Zoological Society of London’s Institute of Zoology, told BBC News the natural world was in a “precarious position” but with urgent, collective action from world leaders “we still have the chance to reverse this”.
World leaders, especially, then the rest of us can chime in. Like Attenborough said, this issue for some bizarre reason is “taboo”. My suspicion is that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is behind it, and some environmental organizations, trying to be politically correct, have bought into their line about it being raciest. I haven’t researched that former suspicion though. Just my guess. After that, though, your guess is as good as mine.
” Should we (i.e. US voters) expand our ostensibly benevolent “economic development assistance” to other countries, explicitly to reduce their population growth?”
I think we already do that by funding the U.N. Population Programs don’t we? Planned Parenthood? Course soon as the republicans get power they defund it, so..
Backing things up with police always backfires. People hate coercion.. This should be voluntary. By telling us what is obvious to most people (The Elephant in the Room, that thing that’s nagging us all but which we are avoiding, preferring to kick the can down the road – that there’s simply too many of us) and why we should stop this train wreck while we still can (not just to save all the other species but thereby to save ourselves as well) people have shown that they can get behind things. Look at how we got being the defeat of Hitler in WWII for example with Victory Gardens, etc. etc. Look how a determined anti-smoking campaign has curbed smoking in this nation.
I’m in the US and have already voted.
I forgot to include this link. It shows the damage that we were already responsible for at a much lower population than the 10 out 12 billion people are willing to settle for.
https://academic.oup.com/view-large/figure/105092264/bix125fig1.jpg
I think it was made in 1992 when the population was 5,456,136,278 or so. Half that amount.
2007 Exponential Growth Arithmetic, Population and Energy, Dr. Albert A. Bartlett (deceased)
https://youtu.be/kZA9Hnp3aV4?si=B0LyA7Kt6Q9CnlSP&t=3840
Democracy in Boulder has declined to 20% of what it was 50 years ago
and the second example has to do with
1:04:29
the year 2000 national census this showed that in the decade of the 90s the
1:04:34
US population increased by about 13 percent now this means every house seat
1:04:41
in the House of Representatives now has 13 percent more constituents on the
1:04:47
average than they did 10 years ago and in the last one hour the world population is increased by about 10,000
1:04:54
people and the population of the United States in this one hour has increased by about 280 people and we have to ask why
1:05:04
don’t more US environmentalists and environmental organizations speak out about the problem of population growth?
1:05:09
here in the United States the simple arithmetic makes it absolutely clear
that long term preservation of the environment in the U.S. is impossible in
the face of continued U.Ss. population growth
but you hear all sorts of political leaders say all we can have our growth
we’ll call it smart growth and smart growth will save the environment well we need to know about
1:05:31
smart growth smart growth destroys the environment dumb growth destroys the environment
now smart growth just destroys the environment with good taste so it’s a little like buying a ticket on
1:05:44
the Titanic if you’re smart you go first class if you’re dumb you go steerage but
1:05:49
the results the same
so central to the things that we must do is to recognize
1:05:55
the population growth is the immediate cause of all of our resource and environmental crises and of all the
1:06:02
crises I think this one global warming looms larger and more threatening than
1:06:08
anything in all of human history now because of our enormous per-capita
1:06:13
consumption of resources we can say with confidence the world’s worst population
growth problem is right here in the United States but you hear all sorts of well-meaning people pointing to distant
1:06:26
underdeveloped nations and saying they’re the problem with overpopulation the average person in the United States
1:06:32
and a lifetime will consume something like maybe 30 times the amount of resources that’ll be consumed by a
1:06:39
person in a lifetime in an underdeveloped nation we are the problem we have the responsibility and we have
1:06:46
the authority to deal with the problem here as a domestic problem in the United
1:06:51
States and some years ago speaking here on the campus of the University of Colorado our United States Senator Tim
1:06:58
Wirth said that the best thing we can do to help other countries stop their population growth is for us
1:07:04
to set an example and stop our own population growth here in the u.s. we
1:07:09
have sent representatives to international conferences to tell the underdeveloped nations you’re the problem you’ve got to stop your
1:07:16
population growth and they just laugh and say look you’re the problem with all of your high per capita consumption
AND – https://youtu.be/kZA9Hnp3aV4?si=A6ADrTALWcrPHTH6&t=886
“maybe you’re wondering what sort of options are available if we wanted to address the problem – in the left-hand column I’ve listed some of those things that we should encourage if we want to raise the rate of growth of population and in so doing make the problem worse
just look at the list everything in the list is as sacred is motherhood — there’s immigration medicine public health sanitation these are all devoted to the humane goals of lowering the death rate and that’s very important to me if it’s my death they’re lowering — but then I have to realize that anything that just lowers the death rate makes the population problem worse ”
—
My response is: The global population must be reduced significantly, and this will either happen through conscious, rational, and mature policies or by the inevitable forces of the unchecked (exponential) growth trajectory we are currently on.
Without coordinated global action, we face decimation through international wars, nuclear conflict, civil unrest, armed revolutions, social violence, disease, crop failures, total depletion of fish stocks, crop failures, famine, climate disasters like wildfires, heatwaves, and floods, along with industrial-scale accidents and widespread pollution as a result of civil society breakdown.
A comprehensive global policy under an emergency legally binding United Nations direction would include:
A legally binding, global one-child-per-family policy.
Prioritizing universal women’s rights, with education programs focusing on smaller families and the importance of choosing not to have children.
Universal access to contraception and safe abortions for all.
Halting immigration to wealthy nations with high per capita energy and resource consumption, particularly in the Western world.
This is a global crisis that requires a universal response rooted in science and mathematics, not emotional or power-driven ideologies or nationalist exceptionalism.
Given that this is extremely unlikely to happen in the future the natural logical outcome is that the ongoing growth will lead to extreme resource and food water shortages and the resulting impacts will rapidly drive the population down to a sustainable level eventually.
My only hope is that this occurs before all the biosphere and biodiversity is almost totally annihilated by our insidious human actions.
in re to Dharma, 14 Oct 2024 at 12:31 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825421
Dear Sir or Madam,
Could you explain how you would in parallel secure “A legally binding, global one-child-per-family policy” and “universal women’s rights”?
Does the choice of the own family size not count among women’s rights anymore?
Best regards
T
Dharma: “A comprehensive global policy under an emergency legally binding United Nations direction (sic) would include:
A legally binding, global one-child-per-family policy.
Prioritizing universal women’s rights, with education programs focusing on smaller families and the importance of choosing not to have children.
Universal access to contraception and safe abortions for all.
Halting immigration to wealthy nations with high per capita energy and resource consumption, particularly in the Western world.”
Stunning lack of understanding of the UN Charter. The UN has no legal enforcement mechanisms to use to enforce such a plan. Hell, the UN struggles to even get member states to pay their dues.
There are so many obvious holes in this flaccid line of reasoning Dharma offers via this proposal it almost goes without saying. As Tomáš has already observed, advocating for universal women’s rights is in absolute conflict with then telling women what they can or can not do with their bodies. Telling people as individuals and nations as a whole that the UN will control who gets to immigrate where is a laughter-inducing proposal. Ditto the UN telling nations that “western nations” get one set of rules and the rest of world another set to play by.
Why? Again it is because the UN does not, has not, and will not ever be given the power of enforcement. Dharama, read the UN charter, particularly the portions that deal with enforcement and how changes can get made to the charter.
Your proposal is yet another example of those who shout no one understands the problem except them and those who already espouse such reasoning.
to David,
The UN’s role is develop international frameworks, which provide guidelines, principles, and targets which are governed by conventions/protocols under international law. Conventions, when ratified by member states, become legally binding treaties.
A sample of current major treaties include:
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFCCC
United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity UNCBD
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification UNCCD
each has a governing body called the Conference of the Parties COP.
Civil society plays a crucial role in upholding accountability (enforcement) – including communities, associations, media, and social movements. Even RealClimate itself and its commentariat plays a role in holding governments accountable by providing a platform for diverse voices and fostering civic engagement and participation.
The showcase initiative at this time is UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021-2030) which aims to restore at least 1 billion hectares of degraded ecosystems globally by 2030, leveraging various treaties and protocols. However, there has been a notable failure of civil society in upholding accountability for this initiative.
In Western democracies, the issue is entirely overlooked in political campaigns, disregarded by corporate news media, undervalued by research foundations, and undermined by certain techno-ideological associations and NGOs. As a result, this initiative is at significant risk of catastrophic failure. Many people seem unaware of its existence, and I suspect that most have never heard of a COP outside the GHG emission framework embraced by the investment class and showcased in glossy brochures.
Moreover, it seems that contemporary environmental activists are often more knowledgeable about obscure topics such as advances in EROI and the capital investments of foreign nations than about simple ecological indicators and trends within a 1 km radius of their own homes. This situation underscores a growing disconnect from tangible reality, a failure in public education, and the weakening of the essential Civil instruments envisioned to support & enforce global UN initiatives.
David says
22 Oct 2024 at 6:08 AM
David, your reactionary, hyperbolic, and factually incorrect comments are disingenuous and distorted. They’re not worth engaging with, so I won’t be reading them again.
JCM,
Thank you for the reply. Perhaps I didn’t clearly make my point. Yes, the UN can create and does have many worthwhile programs that member states can vote to accept and participate in, including acceptance of enforcement provisions (such as they are). I’m familiar with the UN Charter as amended having read it front to back several times through the years.
But first, you have to have member state acceptance. And in regards to Dharma’s plan, there is no way in hell my country or a number of ‘western style’ democracies will ever cede the level of control of internal affairs to the UN (no matter how lofty and worthy the program goals) Dharma proposes may be. That should be obvious. And I didn’t even take time to discuss how countries like Russia, China, India, etc would be handled under such a proposal.
Thus Dharma’s proposal is dismissible as pie-in-the-sky fantasy.
Regarding the disconnect between local ecology awareness and education,
I heartily agree. As a former ‘disconnected,’ I’m trying to make a change, using my little plot of yard and gardens as a springboard to discussion with neighbors and the occasional passerby who stops to comment. The information needed to make such a change was already available, I just needed to read it and begin, starting from the soil on up. But again, you’re 100% on the mark, there is a unacceptable lack of education. I’m trying to do more at the local level and will keep up the effort.
Cheers & thank you for your thoughts,
And JCM,
Sorry, hit the post button and then saw I didn’t comment on an very important issue you highlighted:
You said: “The showcase initiative at this time is UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021-2030) which aims to restore at least 1 billion hectares of degraded ecosystems globally by 2030, leveraging various treaties and protocols. However, there has been a notable failure of civil society in upholding accountability for this initiative.
In Western democracies, the issue is entirely overlooked in political campaigns, disregarded by corporate news media, undervalued by research foundations, and undermined by certain techno-ideological associations and NGOs. As a result, this initiative is at significant risk of catastrophic failure. Many people seem unaware of its existence, and I suspect that most have never heard of a COP outside the GHG emission framework embraced by the investment class and showcased in glossy brochures.“
Whether it is this critically important initiative or a host of others focused on preservation and restoration of the biosphere, again I’m in agreement with you. Speaking only about my country, yes, the matter you outline gets almost zero attention. Even from the “glossy brochure” class you rightly skewer.
But what to do? Again, like my yard/garden, I can learn more and try to educate locally. And what you highlight above? The UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021-2030)? Have I spoke specifically about it to anyone locally? No. So that is my failing. A failing I would rectify, but how? Enhancement of education of the young seems almost a trifle of a challenge compared to change on the scale required to affect the arenas you highlight. Trying to open minds of local adults already focused on so many things but yet not the climate, the biodiversity extinction crisis, or land use seems to my old tired eyes a destination out of reach these days. If you have an idea, I’ll listen though… I’m tired, but not dead ;-)
D: David, your reactionary, hyperbolic, and factually incorrect comments are disingenuous and distorted. They’re not worth engaging with, so I won’t be reading them again.
BPL: Who wants to bet we’ll see this comment again soon?
1) The primary problem is Overconsumption – which is caused by multiple factors: overpopulation, high consumption per capita, war or interstate competition etc.
2) US Overconsumption could be greatly reduced without lowering living standards but powerful interests/propaganda will oppose that. People make money encouraging overconsumption – there is no profit (monetary or political) from reducing it. Well, aside from Ebay (encourage reuse of products) and early Amazon (reuse books).
3) Since we don’t have a global government, any population policy will have to be handled at the national level. Here in the USA it will be blocked by powerful financial interests. Re biodiversity, I doubt that we here in the USA will protect wildlife since we tolerate the hideous practices of factory farming – in part because prostitutes in our legislatures made it illegal to tell Americans the truth about how our food is produced. The primary advocates for wildlife seem to be the hunters and fishermen but the vast majority of voters are urban dwellers largely isolated from/indifferent to Nature.
4) High consumption per capita is caused by multiple factors: advertising encouraging people to buy a bunch of worthless crap, items which require high amounts of resources (e.g, automobiles, electronics, etc ) being designed with short life spans and designed to be difficult to maintain/repair. The New York fashion industry has a very big carbon footprint due to its culture of clothing having a short period of “fashion”. The purpose of this stupidity being to force the consumer to make frequent purchases in order to drive up sales volume/profits.
5) USA energy consumption would be reduced enormously if our cities/housing/job centers were designed to provide everyone with a 10 minute commute via walking, biking or public transport. ( How many people want to go back to the office after working at home during the Covid lockdowns? ) Similarly, homes with geothermal HVAC and solar roofs could be energy independent – the obstacle is large capital investment up front which takes a while to pay for itself and so we have the slow arterial bleeding of eternal power bills.
6) Our suburbs — which consume enormous amounts of land, oil and commuting time — were the result of President Eisenhower’s Project East River – the plan to use Interstates and federal highway money to disperse the US population and industry so it would be less vulnerable to nuclear attack. (Blast pressure diminishes rapidly with distance – radius cubed.) An early Cold War policy which is gaining renewed interest Unlike you, not everyone will take
“deliberately raising the global mortality rate, off the table.”
My version has +/- 0.06 uncertainty for each year in average, which I think is more secure than the +/- 0.02 uncertainty as communicated by individual institutes.
https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=122178699254086116&set=a.122095851482086116
Friends from Princeton have been in touch about Hopfield Hinton Nobel. Hopfield on AI; he also made a reference to More is Different, for which I found an open link: “I worry about anything which says, I’m big, I’m fast, I’m bigger than you, I’m faster than you, and I can also run you.”
https://www.tkm.kit.edu/downloads/TKM1_2011_more_is_different_PWA.pdf
The 17 November 2023 New Yorker focused on AI. Some extracts if anyone is interested, particularly if they subscribe but some meat on the bones for those who don’t. I worry about supercomputing’s vast use of energy, and still think of computers as machines we can pull the plug on. Lots about Hinton!
David Remnick interview includes conversations with Hinton about AI: Geoffrey Hinton: “It’s Far Too Late” to Stop Artificial Intelligence: The so-called godfather of A.I. believes we need to put constraints on the technology so it won’t free itself from human control. But he’s not sure whether that’s possible. – https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/political-scene/geoffrey-hinton-its-far-too-late-to-stop-artificial-intelligence
More recent. Are We Doomed? Here’s How to Think About It:Climate change, artificial intelligence, nuclear annihilation, biological warfare—the field of existential risk is a way to reason through the dizzying, terrifying headlines. Rivka Galchen – https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/06/10/are-we-doomed-heres-how-to-think-about-it — About a course so it doesn’t really focus as this next does (Joshua Rothman is a personal favorite).
Geoffrey Hinton: “It’s Far Too Late” to Stop Artificial Intelligence: The so-called godfather of A.I. believes we need to put constraints on the technology so it won’t free itself from human control. But he’s not sure whether that’s possible. – https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/11/20/geoffrey-hinton-profile-ai
near the end:
Susan said:
“I worry about supercomputing’s vast use of energy”
It’s a fact of life now. Even for the use of supercomputers for solving climate/MET models it’s a fact. It’s also sad that there’s a Green(!!!) 500 list of energy efficient supercomputers –https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green500 . The most efficient ones on the list around 1 Exaflops are still comparable to the power consumption of a Boeing 737 flying at altitude, and that’s considering the extrinsic factor of cooling the systems with water while running non-stop for maximum utilization. Hopefully they use the waste heat for the buildings. Just think about the number of electrons traveling through all those chips with nothing accomplished but colliding with lattice defects, phonons, etc to dissipate that kind of energy through heat!
That’s why I have adopted as my recent crusade to advertise working smart and not hard in solving climate models. There’s absolutely no excuse for researchers to not cross-check model results that can potentially capture ocean cycles by computations running on a laptop. https://geoenergymath.com/2024/09/23/amo-and-the-mt-tide/
OK, so what if this model doesn’t pan out? How much energy is wasted? Is it the equivalent of fleets of 737’s running around the clock while not making any progress in explaining what caused the 2023 temperature or being unable to predict an El Nino beyond a year?
Face it. If nothing else, these natural climate patterns will be found out by a machine learning experiment run by Google or NVIDIA. And like what happened with the most recent physics and chemistry Nobel prizes, it won’t go to a traditional physicist or chemist but to someone applying AI.
Just think if someone the equivalent of Susan’s father https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_W._Anderson will no longer receive Nobel physics awards at the expense of machines? Let’s get the recognition before that plays out ;)
Dharma
“Your point on financial fragility does connect to this: how do we move toward true sustainability without triggering economic collapse?”
I would suggest slowly and gradually. IMHO a rapid transition maybe on timeframe of decades would likely create mass unemployment, and a collapse of the transport grid and provision of basic goods and services. A slower transition gives us time to adapt.
However we do have to solve the climate issue quite rapidly but I’ve seen enough to believe this is possible without wrecking the ecnomy – if we want.
It also depends what is meant by true sustainability? What is your understanding? Personally I think such concepts are nebulous, and some interpretations and plans I have seen are so incredibly stringent and demanding, with such ambitious reductions in consumption of modern goods, services and energy, that they are quite onerous and unlikely to gain significant traction with people.
We are going to have to come up with a definition that significantly reduces environmental damage, and solves the serious problems like the decline in insect population, and accepts we are best to reduce our use of energy and materials to at least a moderate degree. Its going to require practical commonsense and compromise on what seems the best way forwards. The world has experimented with purist, massively ambitious doctrinaire idealism with communism, and that went horribly wrong.
Fortunately population growth has slowed in many places and it seems likely this will continue. This will help to some extent, given population gowth is the main driver of environmental impacts, along with high levels of per capita consumption.
@Nigelj : “The world has experimented with purist, massively ambitious doctrinaire idealism with communism, and that went horribly wrong.”
Hopefully not too wrong — since the Master Plan to Save the World seems to depend upon massive imports of cheap solar panels and electric cars components produced by the Commies in China.
PS And if we’re defining “horribly wrong” lets not forget that the Capitalist Demigods of Europe and the USA caused this disaster by burning huge amounts of coal/ oil and dumping 1 trillion tons of CO2 into the air. This AFTER woman scientist Eunice Foote warned in 1856 that increased CO2 in the air would raise the Earth’s temperature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunice_Newton_Foote#“Circumstances_Affecting_the_Heat_of_the_Sun’s_Rays”
The context of having best-laid climate change mitigation plans go “horribly wrong” falls under the long-standing strategy known as the No Regrets policy. In theory, this policy takes into consideration that weaning off of fossil fuels has benefits besides CC mitigation, which includes addressing the more important** problem of peak oil and that of reducing pollution in general..It’s actually described in historical IPCC documents and has advocates such as the conservative pollster Frank Luntz. A carbon dividends group made a short video describing the policy here: https://youtu.be/l6dKyoHgvFA
It even has a quote of Luntz saying: “and that’s if the scientists are wrong”
** more important in the context of a suburban BAU existential crisis
I know that calling for a reduction in global population will sound rather unrealistic to a lot of people here, can almost hear the words, “good luck with that! Maybe so. Good thing, though, we didn’t take such a defeatist attitude towards climate change. But maybe that’s all some people can fit on their plate.
My feeling is that we don’t fully appreciate what a sixth extinction will do to the planet and to people if we choose to look the other way. To treat concern for their loss as a “quaint” issue that we are above. They are still here, most of them anyway. Other species. We still have time. It’s simply unacceptable that we calmly allow them to go away before our eyes. We should all be raising the roof.
If we care, if we are going to say something, its time.
Gotta love the catchy cheerful headline phys.org chose for this Oct. 10 story:
“Catastrophically warm predictions are more plausible than previously thought, say climate scientists”
.
https://phys.org/news/2024-10-catastrophically-plausible-previously-thought-climate.html
.
Nature Communications link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-50813-z
.
.
Closing paragraph in the phys.org story (I wonder how many climate scientists share this feeling?):
.
“Sometimes I feel that climate scientists are a bit like Cassandra of Greek mythology,” concludes Nenes. “She was granted the power of prophecy, but was cursed so that no one would listen to her. But this inertia or lack of action should motivate not discourage us. We have to collectively wake up and really address climate change, because it may be accelerating much more than what we thought.”
David says
13 Oct 2024 at 12:30 AM
What I stated earlier is quite clear and straightforward. I cannot provide further clarification beyond that.
However, I would recommend exploring the interview articles with Gavin on this specific topic, reviewing the relevant page on RealClimate where studies and information are provided, and engaging with other literature or video interviews from climate scientists to gain a deeper understanding.
When the Paris Climate Agreement was signed, I predicted that there was no realistic chance of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 or 2.0°C above pre-industrial levels. I still stand by that assessment. Global anomalies are running near +1.65 C already.
About 10 years ago, climatologist Kevin Anderson stated that global CO2 emissions needed to decline by 10% per year from that point onward to avoid catastrophic climate impacts. I argued at the time that such a target was unrealistic. That no global reductions would occur. Since then, CO2 emissions have continued to increase every year, except for the temporary dip during the pandemic.
I see first hand that virtually no one here is willing to sacrifice comfort, convenience, or personal desires to meaningfully reduce CO2 emissions. I don’t believe this region is unique in that regard; this attitude likely mirrors much of the U.S., and the world as a whole. At this point, any actions taken in the U.S. to reduce emissions seem like little more than window dressing.
Extensive historical evidence does suggest that hierarchical societies often struggle, or outright fail, to avoid existential threats arising from ecological contradictions. The reason is that these contradictions—such as unsustainable resource use, environmental degradation, or social inequities—are frequently embedded in the structure of such societies. The elite class, which holds the majority of power, tends to benefit from maintaining the status quo, even if it exacerbates long-term risks.
In many cases, elites are shielded from the immediate effects of ecological degradation, as they have access to resources and means of protection that the general population does not. This often leads to a disconnection from the consequences of environmental crises and a resistance to meaningful reform, especially when that reform would threaten their privileges.
Know that if you vote for the pro-climate action / IRA Democrats this election cycle you are voting for this very same elite class. Hierarchical societies in the U.S. everywhere are often incapable of addressing their ecological contradictions because the power structures within them prioritize maintaining the privileges of the elite, even at the cost of long-term survival.
I recommend the interview “How Net Zero Killed 1.5°C” with Earth Systems Scientist Dr. James Dyke.
In this interview, Dyke explains how the Paris Climate Agreement is essentially dead, as the focus on technocratic solutions like “Net Zero” has derailed efforts for real, systemic change. Signed in 2016, the Agreement’s 1.5°C target was undermined by reliance on carbon accounting tricks, rather than addressing the root causes of emissions. Dyke and many other scientists warned that this approach would lead to failure—and just a few years later, we’re now racing toward a 2°C rise in global temperatures.
Dyke also argues that this new 2°C target, which is being quietly pushed as “acceptable” by some, including the fossil fuel industry, cannot be allowed to stand. He outlines how current climate policies are not only ineffective, but they are also perpetuating structural inequalities and resource waste. In the interview, Dyke explains how we got to this point, what went wrong, and what must be done to avoid catastrophic outcomes.
This is Dyke’s second appearance on Planet: Critical, and his insights are vital for understanding the dangers of Net Zero policies and the urgent need for rapid systemic change.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52TWH2bSQ0A
https://www.planetcritical.com/p/how-net-zero-killed-15
“The large majority of Americans would prefer government action on climate change, but that doesn’t mean that they prioritize the issue when they’re going into their polling place and voting,”
Nathaniel Stinnett, executive director of the Environmental Voter Project
Pew research — Of the Top 20 issues voters think should be policy priorities. “Dealing with Climate Change” is ranked 18th.
Most Americans accept the “Mainstream Climate Science” narrative that “Global Warming” and “Climate Change” are growing concerns but ones that we are taking steps to deal with. They hear the message from people like Hannah Ritchie and Michael Mann. Who tell them that they are right to worry, but that disaster can be diverted by a rapid transition to renewables and a phasing out of fossil fuels.
Stinnett referred to the general public’s concern over environmental issues as “a mile wide and an inch deep,” meaning there is general awareness, but it’s not pushing the needle one way or the other politically.
The majority believe that “Climate Change” is a threat to the environment and health of the planet. BUT, they also believe these threats are still comfortably far off enough in the future that expensive actions or sacrifices are not required today.
If you tell people that a Climate Apocalypse has ALREADY started happening and that civilization is probably going to Collapse as a consequence of that fact. Well, that makes you a “Doomer” because you are telling people that it’s “too late” and so “we might as well do nothing”.
At least, that’s how “Doomers” are being talked about in the mainstream media. Hannah has stated that “Doomers are WORSE than deniers” and Dr. Mann has stated that he regards “Doomism” as a form of mental illness.
you can review the article here
https://richardcrim.substack.com/p/the-crisis-report-93
Personally I believe these matters will be much clearer after Nov 6th comes around – however I also expect the denial to continue. Not the science denial, the other denial. It’s just the way it is.
Dharmas copy and paste quotes:
“The majority believe that “Climate Change” is a threat to the environment and health of the planet. BUT, they also believe these threats are still comfortably far off enough in the future that expensive actions or sacrifices are not required today.”
They do unfortunately. Although the required actions to prevent the worst are arguably not hugely expensive at around 4% of global gdp per year. Its also important to look at costs and benefits of mitigation:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-estimates-cost-climate-action-are-overly-pessimistic-mitigation-expensive/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s44168-023-00041-w
“If you tell people that a Climate Apocalypse has ALREADY started happening and that civilization is probably going to Collapse as a consequence of that fact. Well, that makes you a “Doomer” because you are telling people that it’s “too late” and so “we might as well do nothing…At least, that’s how “Doomers” are being talked about in the mainstream media. Hannah has stated that “Doomers are WORSE than deniers” and Dr. Mann has stated that he regards “Doomism” as a form of mental illness.”
It does make the writer sound like a doomer. While it’s clear that climate change could certainly have severe consequences if left unmitigated (IPCC reports), some people go further and claim that climate change will cause the human race to go extinct, or billions will die in the next 20 years, and / or that mitigation efforts are doomed to failure, and that we cant possibly make renewables work and that nothing will work. Their claims are implausible, and very light on evidence. They dont have a crystal ball and sufficient knowledge of all the factors involved to be certain we are doomed. There is still hope we are not doomed.
They cause people to panic and abandon hope, and they cause young people severe anxiety, and they provide people reasons to do nothing to contribute to solutions, because we are allegedly already doomed. They play into the hands of the climate deniers wishes. They are Lenins useful idiots but dont realise it.
So M Mann sounds right to me overall when he complains about doomerism. But the danger is in going further and minimising the climate problem, to make it sound easy to deal with. So if credible evidence emerges that climate change is worse than thought, for example in the IPCC reports, this has to also be acknowledged, even if it is “doomy news.” IMHO of course.
Nigelj says
17 Oct 2024 at 4:38 PM
you claim that – “They play into the hands of the climate [science/CAGW] deniers wishes. ”
So you are saying that Climate science deniers, which must include oil companies and Trump Mr Know it all and Victor WUWT etc I assume, want people to believe that billions of people will die in the next 20 years from climate impacts and that nothing can be done to fix it or stop it – and we’re all going to die and civilization is about to collapse – and they want people to believe that renewables can’t work? So that everyone gives up and doesn’t give a damn anymore – because we are already done for – yes?
That is what you and Mann and others believe the “climate deniers” want?
Why do you believe that nonsense? You believe Mann? Why? There is no logic to it at all. It’s an internet ‘meme’.
Dharma. No. I never said that. I will explain things a bit more. The doomers play into the denialists hands because when the doomers say mitigation cant or wont work it reinforces the denialists anti renewables message. . But surely that was fairly obvious / self evident in my comments?
And in what way wouldnt it be logical? How could an anti renewables message NOT reinforce the denialists end game?
Of course this doesnt mean we should never criticise renewables or other mitigation proposals. Everything needs some healthy scepticism. But there are obvious ways of doing this without coming across as anti renewables and anti climate action and some sort of denialist or troll..
Nigelj, I believe you’re conflating several nuanced, independent lines of thought, evidence, and argument into one singular position—namely “anti-renewables.”
This is incorrect and illogical in my opinion and experience. Your assumption that those you disparagingly label as all being ‘doomers’ believe renewables won’t work or that mitigation is impossible is fundamentally wrong and doesn’t align with the facts.
That said, I’ll leave it there. You can have the last word, as I see you’re deeply entrenched in your existing views and judgments, making it difficult to hear or consider anything new or different. This is reinforced by your and others automatic rejection of even experts in their fields and a lack of interest in exploring their work further. Though to assert the rightness of our existing beliefs is very natural and hard to overcome. Climate science deniers have the very same difficulties in my experience.
Dharma
“Your assumption that those you disparagingly label as all being ‘doomers’ believe renewables won’t work or that mitigation is impossible is fundamentally wrong and doesn’t align with the facts.”
Several characters on this website have specifically argued renewables wont work or cant work including characters like CJ, Escobar, Ned kelly, Reality Check, and others. And they all sound rather doomy in outlook. They all have remarkably similar views just saying. Its all there in this websites records.
That said I can understand their doomy outlook and their concerns about that renewables. I dont think they are crazy or anything. I just think they are rather too sure of themselves given that we dont have 100% definitive information on the planets recoverable resources, and a crystal ball into the future. Personally I think the best evidence we have is that renewables can work and we have enough resources. I’ve posted relevant links several times.
And we have to try something. It would be foolish to just do nothing on the basis that we cannot 100% guarantee it will work, a truism in all facets of life. Not that you have suggested we should do nothing.
I didnt mean to say that the doomers believe all mitigation is impossible. My bad and a bit of a typo I was really just meaning they argue renewables cant or wornt work.
“That said, I’ll leave it there. You can have the last word, as I see you’re deeply entrenched in your existing views and judgments, making it difficult to hear or consider anything new or different. This is reinforced by your and others automatic rejection of even experts in their fields and a lack of interest in exploring their work further.”
I dont recall that I have automatically rejected anyone. You dont provide any evidence that I have. I read many links that people post on all sorts of viewpoints. It doesn’t mean I have to agree with them.
Your post has a lot of rhetoric and PR speak, and not a lot of substance.
Dharma. I said I I believe the evidence shows renewables can work. I just want to add I do accept we cant be 100% sure they will work, as with almost any new venture. I just think they have a very good probability of success.
Reply to Nigelj
I’d like to clarify that I am not the same person as CJ, Escobar, Ned Kelly, or Reality Check. There’s an entire world beyond this website, where hundreds to thousands of qualified energy experts, scientists, academics, and researchers—many outside the confines of forums like this—are raising similar questions and concerns. These are not ideas I made up. In fact, Professor Hall, the creator of the Energy Return on Investment (EROI) concept, has also discussed similar issues. How exactly are renewables expected to replace over 200 trillion TWh of energy per year?
The question is not “does solar work” the question is can it and the others replace the combined energy provided by GHG generating energy sources and maintain a growing economy – which is what they promise, M Mann, Jacobson and many many others.
These are serious and complex questions that deserve proper attention, not dismissals based on perceived associations with others on this site. However I do acknowledge what you and others say here definitely confirms the severe limitations to genuine open minded evidence based high level discourse. My efforts to share good information are wasted here.
NIgel to the Ubiquitous D: “ I said I I believe the evidence shows renewables can work. I just want to add I do accept we cant be 100% sure they will work, as with almost any new venture. ”
Nigel you may have given the UD a chance to reframe the problem – you accepted his premise of all or nothing</b? "namely that:
– EITHER renewables can displace 100% of GHG emissions and become problem-less solution to AGW,
– OR they are useless, or in fact harmful – by offering a false hope, and thus detracting from the "real" solutions a given manipulator has in mind.
The manipulation lies in the fact that they DON'T have displace 100% of GHG emissions to be effective.
1. To stabilize CO2 wed don't need to displace ALL fossil fuel emissions – only those that are not subject by natural uptake of fossil fuel CO2 by natural carbon sink – like increased by Co2-fertilization biomass growth and soil sequestration (particularly in boreal forests)
2. Of this portion of CO2 emissions that the natural system cannot take up – renewbale don't have to do all the work by themselves – they can be complemented by the reduction in the demand via increased energy efficiency, smart grid, higher % of the generated electricity being used (as opposed to being wasted when supply exceeds demands) by having mix of sources with different temporal characteristics (when the sun does not shine, the wind may be blowing, and when does not – you run the water on the hydro turbines + energy storage, and adding some nuclear to help with the baseload.
3. Even if despite p.1 and p.2 – the Co2 levels still were rising – renewables still should be pursued for they ability to LIMIT their amount and the RATE of CO2 rise: a world
– with 500ppm would be a very different place than the world with 800 ppm,
– and slower the RATE of AGW – the higher chance of species and ecosystems to adapt to changing T.
So beware of accepting of the deniers and the doomers framing the problem on their "all or nothing" and "if you can' be perfect you may stop trying to be good" fallacies.
And the final question to both the deniers and the doomers – what's your BETTER alternative? Let's enjoy our consumption while it lasts and "After us, the Deluge!"
D: How exactly are renewables expected to replace over 200 trillion TWh of energy per year?
BPL: Build more of them and stop building the other types.
D: My efforts to share good information are wasted here.
BPL: Yeah, they are just so unappreciative here. If I were you, I’d never post here again. That’ll show ’em!
Nigelj 17 Oct “They play into the hands of the climate [science/CAGW] deniers wishes. ”
Darma: “ So you are saying that Climate science deniers,[…] want people to believe that billions of people will die in the next 20 years from climate impacts
No, the climate change deniers want people to believe that either there is nothing to worry about, and/or that climate change is caused by “anything but GHGs”, hence no need to move away from fossil fuels.
It is the Darmas. Dharmas, Ned Kellys, Sabines, CJs, Escobars, Compliciuses, and whatever other handles you might have, who want people to believe that “renewables can’t work” and “billions of people will die in the next 20 years from climate impacts” – so the attempts to reduce of GHGs are pointless.
And you both attack the climate science for undermining your message: that there is no problem hence no point in doing anything about GHGs, or that it is hopeless, so there is no point in doing anything about GHGs.
So while you may have started at the opposite ends, you end up in the same bed. Les extrèmes se touchent.
And in doing so- both the deniers and the doomers are, in turn, “useful idiots” of oil multinationals, Russia and Saudi Arabia, “Useful” because they help them extend the worlds dependence on oil and gas, without which the profits of oil&gas multinationals would evaporate, and the authoritarian petro-economies, and therefore the rule of their regimes, wealth of their oligarchs, and ability to wage war on other countries and/or support extremism – – would collapse.
And “idiots” because you do it for free – for you own ideological or psychological needs, being “skeptical” to everybody, but themselves.
By their fruits, not the declarations of the interested parties about themselves, you shall know them.
D: You believe Mann? Why?
BPL: Because he is a professional with a long list of studies published in peer-reviewed science journals?
Reply to Barton Paul Levenson; and everyone else:
Climatologist Michael Mann is not an expert in several crucial areas relevant to the energy debate. He is not trained in understanding the nuances of what others mean by what they say. Nor has he even asked them. Nor have you.
Specifically, Mann lacks expertise in energy systems, renewable energy technology, Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE), Energy Return on Investment (EROI), systems analysis, engineering, mining, transportation, metallurgy, psychology, social sciences, mass communications, finance, business, geopolitics, everyday politics, or the media.
The broader discussion about our energy future requires input from a wide range of specialists—energy experts, engineers, economists, geologists, metallurgists, and professionals in psychology, social science, and communication, among others. These disciplines are crucial to understanding the complexities of transitioning to renewable energy and its feasibility in replacing over 200 trillion TWh of energy from fossil fuels per year.
Mann’s expertise is in climatology, not the multifaceted aspects that underpin these critical energy and societal issues. Mann is not the only person who is lacking in this expertise. It is not a shortcoming. But it is a fact.
To follow up with BPL…I–and I highly suspect BPL–don’t “believe” Mann so much as I note that his work stands up to any current objections that anyone has been able to make.
That’s how science works and that’s what non-scientists find so hard to understand. Many people want to know “what to believe”. Given the actual way Nature works a better perspective is to try to understand better and worse explanations and models.
Certainly when you get to the quantum level, nothing is absolutely knowable in a causal sense
D: Mann lacks expertise in energy systems, renewable energy technology, Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE), Energy Return on Investment (EROI), systems analysis, engineering, mining, transportation, metallurgy, psychology, social sciences, mass communications, finance, business, geopolitics, everyday politics, or the media.
BPL: And your qualifications in those fields are what, again?
Objectivity? No Confirmation Bias? Science? Data? Evidence? Experts? I seriously question if these notions are as important as many people claim they are. So when I say “the same difficulties,” I’m referring to this closed, rigid mindset—whether on climate science or renewables or energy or economics or geopolitics—that makes it hard to engage with new information or even consider other perspectives. Both climate deniers and people in this renewable energy climate change debate tend to fall into these same patterns, rejecting evidence or experts that challenge their pre-existing views.
One or two references leaning one way is insufficient evidence to make a qualified judgement either way. There are, for example, many more experts who have criticized Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) for underestimating the true costs of mitigation and failing to adequately address the limitations and complexities of climate mitigation and energy transitions.
Professional Expert Critics of IAMs
Charles Hall: As a systems ecologist and founder of Energy Return on Investment (EROI) analysis, Hall has critiqued IAMs for ignoring the biophysical limits of energy systems. He argues that the models fail to account for the decreasing EROI of renewable energy and the broader economic impacts of declining fossil fuel availability. Hall emphasizes that IAMs do not include sufficient ecological and energy constraints, leading to flawed assumptions about economic growth and energy transitions.
William Rees: Co-creator of the Ecological Footprint concept, Rees has criticized IAMs for ignoring fundamental biophysical realities, such as resource depletion and ecological overshoot. He argues that IAMs fail to consider the full ecological costs of energy transitions and that their assumptions about indefinite economic growth are disconnected from the material limits of the planet. Rees sees IAMs as overly optimistic about the capacity of renewable energy to maintain current economic structures.
Herman Daly: A founder of ecological economics, Daly has critiqued IAMs for their reliance on neoclassical economic growth models, which ignore the environmental and social costs of growth. He argues that IAMs fail to reflect the true economic and ecological costs of transitioning to a renewable energy system and that their focus on GDP growth leads to an underestimation of the scale of change required.
Tim Jackson: Author of Prosperity without Growth, Jackson has pointed out that IAMs tend to assume that economic growth will continue alongside climate mitigation, but this is fundamentally flawed. He argues that transitioning to a sustainable energy system may require an entirely new approach to economic growth, and IAMs do not adequately account for the potential economic restructuring that would be necessary.
David Spratt: Co-author of Climate Code Red, Spratt has criticized IAMs for underestimating the costs of climate inaction while also misjudging the complexity and speed required for decarbonization. He highlights that IAMs typically underestimate non-linear tipping points and catastrophic outcomes, which skew cost estimates in favor of continued fossil fuel use rather than aggressive renewable energy adoption.
Robert Pindyck: A professor of economics at MIT, Pindyck has criticized IAMs for being highly subjective, especially in the way they incorporate parameters like discount rates, damage functions, and climate sensitivity. He points out that the assumptions behind IAMs make their estimates of the economic costs of climate action unreliable. Pindyck has suggested that IAMs provide an illusion of precision and that simpler models or approaches might be more transparent and useful for policymaking.
Criticisms of the Economic Assumptions in IAMs
GDP and Economic Growth: Many IAMs are criticized for assuming that GDP growth will continue as a result of climate mitigation measures, even suggesting that some actions (like renewable energy transitions) could lead to negative costs or economic gains. Critics argue that these models are built on unrealistic assumptions about perpetual economic growth, without acknowledging biophysical limits like resource depletion, diminishing returns on energy investment, or the socio-economic costs of large-scale infrastructure transitions. In reality, the switch to renewable energy could involve significant upfront costs, societal adjustments, and potential economic contraction in certain sectors, which IAMs often underplay.
Negative Costs: Some IAMs incorporate the notion of “negative costs” by claiming that the economic benefits of renewable energy (like job creation or health improvements) will outweigh the costs of transitioning, thereby leading to net economic gains. Critics, including those mentioned above, argue that this is overly optimistic and ignores the complex, often hidden costs of such transitions. This kind of analysis fails to factor in the massive subsidies needed, the energy required for building renewable infrastructure, or the disruption of existing energy systems.
Key Papers and References to Explore
Steve Keen: An Australian economist, Keen has been sharply critical of the neoclassical economics that underpins many IAMs. He has called out IAMs for relying on outdated economic theories that underestimate the complexity of the climate system and overestimate the economy’s resilience to climate shocks. He has also critiqued their assumptions about infinite economic growth on a finite planet, a key point in the debate about economic costs of climate mitigation.
Charles Hall’s work on Energy Return on Investment (EROI) is foundational in understanding the limitations of renewables in IAMs and the flawed assumptions regarding infinite energy availability.
You can find deeper critiques of IAMs in ecological economics literature, which often focuses on the importance of biophysical limits and the inherent uncertainties that IAMs gloss over when it comes to climate and energy transitions. These critiques offer a counter-narrative to the idea that renewable energy transitions will automatically drive GDP growth and negative mitigation costs.
Kevin Anderson: Anderson contends that IAMs dramatically underestimate the costs of inaction while overestimating the economic burden of mitigation. He argues that IAMs do not adequately incorporate the economic benefits of transitioning to renewables or the avoided costs of extreme climate events. Anderson has pointed out that IAMs frequently assume a gradual, incremental shift rather than the urgent, systemic change that is required to avoid catastrophic climate outcomes, thus skewing cost estimates.
James Hansen: Although not primarily an economist, the renowned climate scientist has criticized the reliance on economic models that fail to incorporate the physical realities of climate change adequately. Hansen has argued that economic modeling of climate costs should take into account the potential for catastrophic, nonlinear changes in the Earth system, which IAMs often fail to do.
There are many others casting serious doubts on the many ‘peer reviewed’ published statistical analysis of transition costs to 100% Renewable energy without significant degrowth through major decreases in consumption especially in the high GDP per capita western world:
Nicholas Stern: Stern, a prominent British economist known for the Stern Review on the economics of climate change, has criticized IAMs for underestimating the risks and damages associated with climate change. He argued that many IAMs use overly conservative discount rates and do not account for potential tipping points or catastrophic damages from climate change. Stern has advocated for more dynamic models that reflect the true costs of inaction and the economic opportunities of climate action.
Kevin Anderson: Anderson, a professor of energy and climate change at the University of Manchester, has been vocal in his criticism of IAMs. He argues that these models often assume unrealistic future technological breakthroughs, ignore equity issues, and fail to account for the urgent and radical changes needed to keep global warming below 1.5°C or 2°C. Anderson believes IAMs downplay the scale of societal transformation required and create a false sense of security about gradual transitions.
Steve Keen: An Australian economist, Keen has been sharply critical of the neoclassical economics that underpins many IAMs. He has called out IAMs for relying on outdated economic theories that underestimate the complexity of the climate system and overestimate the economy’s resilience to climate shocks. He has also critiqued their assumptions about infinite economic growth on a finite planet, a key point in the debate about economic costs of climate mitigation.
Robert Pindyck: A professor of economics at MIT, Pindyck has criticized IAMs for being highly subjective, especially in the way they incorporate parameters like discount rates, damage functions, and climate sensitivity. He points out that the assumptions behind IAMs make their estimates of the economic costs of climate action unreliable. Pindyck has suggested that IAMs provide an illusion of precision and that simpler models or approaches might be more transparent and useful for policymaking.
These critiques highlight both the lack of scientific and economic consensus plus several recurring issues with IAMs: the use of unrealistic assumptions, the failure to account for catastrophic climate risks, the reliance on conservative economic theories, and the lack of emphasis on co-benefits such as technological innovation, health improvements, and social equity from transitioning to renewable energy. Many of these critics advocate for more robust, realistic models that better reflect the complexity of both the climate system and the global economy.
D: Science? Data? Evidence? Experts? I seriously question if these notions are as important as many people claim they are.
BPL: Then what are you doing on a science web site? Try astrology or ancient astronauts, instead.
In Re to Dharma, 21 Oct 2024 at 7:04 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825718
Dear Sir or Madam,
For me, you lost any credibility by citing Mr. Jason Hickle, a “marxistic ecologist”.
Although others may not be as sensitive to promoting propaganda of totalitarian regimes as me, I do not think that present gish-galloping with the flood of other seemingly more serious sources will improve your credibility substantially.
Best regards
Tomáš
Thomas Kalisz, I don’t agree with several of Dharmas views but Marx writings on economics and society are a valid recognised viewpoint in sociology. He didn’t promote totalitarianism or design the USSR system of communism both of which are awful.
NigelJ, I don’t know obviously, but I suspect Tomáš knows that. Given what he and his countrymen endured, I cut him a large measure of slack on his comments about the matter. I mean I would not want to go through what his and other countries experienced under USSR goverance.
In Re to Nigelj, 22 Oct 2024 at 6:01 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825788
Hallo Nigel,
I do not disprove that Karl Marx brought some new views into political economy. I am afraid, however, that he completely devaluated his science by transforming it into an ideology.
In my opinion, marxism has hardly anything common with science. It remarkably resembles religion prevailing in Europe at the time of its origin, e.g. by claiming an inevitable world revolution (Apocalypse) which brings communism (paradies).
Greetings
Tomáš
Any thoughts on this news from our climate scientist hosts?
“Together, the planet’s oceans, forests, soils and other natural carbon sinks absorb about half of all human emissions. But as the Earth heats up, scientists are increasingly concerned that those crucial processes are breaking down. In 2023, the hottest year ever recorded, preliminary findings by an international team of researchers show the amount of carbon absorbed by land has temporarily collapsed. The final result was that forest, plants and soil – as a net category – absorbed almost no carbon.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/14/nature-carbon-sink-collapse-global-heating-models-emissions-targets-evidence-aoe
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2407.12447
“forest, plants and soil – as a net category – absorbed almost no carbon.”
God help us all.
in Re to Barton Paul Levenson,
Hallo Barton Paul,
Thank you for the links. The authors write:
“The entire year (2023) was marked by low water storage on land observed by the GRACE satellites over most of the Northern hemisphere [12], which can cause plant water stress if soil moisture drops below a critical threshold [13].”
Does it deserve a check if our previous “land use” might have contributed, at least regionally, to this development, or is it better to just rely on the mantra that “moisture/rain is a GHG feedback” and suppose that cutting GHG emissions will cure everything?
Greetings
Tomáš
A “Tom Shula” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtvRVNIEOMM assesses the photons at 15 microns being manufactured by CO2 in the atmosphere at about 156,000 times as many photons as the Sun’s photons that Earth absorbs (his CO2 emitting being 104 times as many photons as my estimate a few months back based on liquid H2O (“water”)). So “Tom Shula” has CO2 104 times as powerful as mine but I’m sure “Shula” has overestimated. His calculation (1 photon per CO2 molecule per 0.65 seconds) is at 16:37 to 16:44
So from recollecti0n (too lazy to check) we have:
BPL: 2 or 3 times as many photons as absorbed Solar SWR
Barry: 1500 times as many photons as absorbed Solar SWR (but just a temporary placeholder)
“Tom Shula”: 156,000 times as many photons as absorbed Solar SWR
So by taking cautious middle ground on The Price Is Right I’ll win the stunning lounge suite.
(Cont. from https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/08/unforced-variations-aug-2024/#comment-823665 )
I ***very roughly*** estimated ∫ τ dν = ~(50,000 ± 20,000+??) cm¯¹ m²/m² for CO2 near 667 cm¯¹ (~627.9 cm¯¹ – ~710 cm¯¹ ) ( https://eodg.atm.ox.ac.uk/ATLAS/zenith-absorption – turned off logarithmic scale for this purpose** (from memory, about ~28,000 (+/-) cm¯¹ m²/m² was from the central peak (~Q band));
Using ~0.3 W/( cm¯¹ m²) (https://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/ “Intensity” seems to refer to spectral flux density, which = Planck function * π sr ), I get gross radiant cooling (CO2 ~627.9 cm¯¹ – ~710 cm¯¹ ):
~(50,000 ± 20,000+??) cm¯¹ m²/m²
* 4 * ~0.3 W/( cm¯¹ m²)
= ~(60,000 ± 24,000+??) W/m²
And
~(60,000 ± 24,000+??) W/m² ÷ (240? W/m²) =~ 250 ± 100+??
Using https://spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php , once I figured out “mol” was not referring to mole but rather to molecule, I did a quick estimate of ∫ τ dν from outside the central peak; I didn’t write it down but from what I remember it gave me confidence in my first estimate, in particular that the correct value *may* be just a bit above 50,000 (maybe?? ~55,000?? – 60,000??).
“central peak (~Q band)” – Branch! – it’s the Q-branch. “~” because I wasn’t sure if any other lines might be within that.
“correct value *may* be just a bit above 50,000 (maybe?? ~55,000?? – 60,000??).” – ∫ τ dν including central peak
““Tom Shula”: 156,000 times as many photons as absorbed Solar SWR ”
my ~ 250 ± 100+?? (or maybe 250-300) refers to energy flux ratio;
photon flux ratio would, I’d guesstimate, be ~20? or maybe ~30? times larger (5000?? – 9000??)
Okay, I finally actually watched some of that video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtvRVNIEOMM from somewhere around 15:00? to 16:00? , past 24:00) and, well –
– there’re often more than one way to describe something eg. 5 apples, 3 apples and 2 apples, 4 apples and 1 apple, half of 10 apples, 6 apples and the square of an imaginary apple (because when you think about an imaginary apple while thinking about an imaginary apple, you miss out on picking an apple so it is a negative apple :), etc…
In this case, he’s basically just taken out 3 apples and I’m not sure if he’ll get around to putting them back. Ie., maybe he’s not wrong but the part I saw seems wrong.
PS E₂₁ /(kT) ≈ 3.1973 @ 15μm (E₂₁ ≈ 0.082656 eV ; ν ≈ 19.986 THz) and T = 300 K; e^(− E₂₁/kT) ≈ 4.0873 % is the ratio of the population of particles in state 2 to that of state 1 where E₂ – E₁ = E₂₁ ; given LTE or LEDNLIE (“lead/lede-‘n-lie/ly”) (Local Equilibrium Distribution of Non-Latent Internal Energy) and T = 300 K; for distinguishable particles. It’s easier to discuss states rather than energy levels because we don’t need to discuss degeneracy (g) of energy levels; I’m assuming the Einstein coefficients can be defined for pairs of states, not just pairs of energy levels.
(PS for indistinguishable fermions, if I remember correctly, you can get the same ratio e^(− E₂₁/kT) If you take the product of the probability that one state is occupied and the probability the other state is not occupied, and the produce of the reverse, and then the ratio of those products.)
(The molecules in a sufficiently low-density gas can be approximated as distinguishable; **AIUI** the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution approximates the Fermi-Dirac given a large negative fermi level)
… Long story short, the direct absorption by transitions between a pair of states is (for distinguishable particles) proportional to the population N₁ of the lower-E state and the stimulated emission is proportional to the population N₂ of the higher state, and both are proportional to the radiation (ie for photons in a given direction, the radiance). The ‘net’ absorption is thus proportional to the radiance and to
N₁− N₂ = N₁ [1 − e^(− E₂₁/kT)]
Or per average particle (of the type considered)
(N₁÷N) [1 − e^(− E₂₁/kT)]
Which is thus proportional to the average intensity absorbed per particle,
and to the effective absorption cross section per particle;
on average the intensity absorbed per particle is that area multiplied by the radiance it intercepts
(radiance is intensity per unit area facing that direction)
And spontaneously emitted intensity (average per particle) is proportional to
(N₂÷N) = (N₁÷N) [e^(− E₂₁/kT)]
Which, divided by the absorption cross section, gives the Planck function
So given LTE/LEDNLIE, the effect is equivalent to perfect opaque blackbodies absorbing all incident intensity and emitting a radiance = Planck function.
So of course there is ‘back radiation’. PS I don’t really like the term ‘back radiation’ because it makes it sound as if there’s something special about it. It’s just photons that are going toward a direction below horizontal. Assuming isotropic absorption cross sections, each molecule on average absorbs and emits the same amount of photons in the same directions as an opaque blackbody sphere, ie., equally in all directions (from a given location). There is a difference between radiances and fluxes in opposite directions because the temperature varies over space, but packing more absorption cross sectional area into a given volume …
Clarification: Re
“ And spontaneously emitted intensity (average per particle) is proportional to
(N₂÷N) = (N₁÷N) [e^(− E₂₁/kT)]
”[ spontaneously emitted intensity (average per particle) ] “ divided by the absorption cross section, gives the Planck function ”
Planck function is proportional to
(N₁÷N) [e^(− E₂₁/kT)]
÷
(N₁÷N) [1 − e^(− E₂₁/kT)]
= e^(− E₂₁/kT)
÷ [1 − e^(− E₂₁/kT)]
= 1 ÷ [e^(+ E₂₁/kT) − 1 ]
(Including the Einstein coefficients (and E₂₁ to convert photon count to energy) as factors allows conversion of proportionalities to equalities.)
And of course, there’s line broadening…
The Paris Agreement is Dead – What now?
Promises of 1.5°C, Net Zero 2050 and Zero Emissions Commitment (ZEC) Are Gone
One of my biggest frustrations is the unwillingness to acknowledge that the Paris Agreement is dead. 1.5°C is no longer achievable, and frankly, Net Zero by 2050 is a fantasy. Despite some early momentum – Extinction Rebellion, Fridays for Future, and the declaration of climate emergencies – it seems clear now that the Paris Agreement has failed for multiple reasons. I understand why some may resist accepting this, especially given the coalition of governments, industries, and climate movements that came together in the past. But it’s time to face reality: we’re not where we thought we’d be, and the framework we relied on is unravelling.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-150290839
Professor Jason Hickle: The “Colonialist” Global North—the “Imperial Core”—is responsible for the excess emissions and resource extraction driving the climate breakdown
It’s interesting how often I’m asked to speak about ecology when what I really want to talk about is capitalist imperialism. These two issues are interconnected, forming parts of the same systemic problem. The ecological crisis is playing out along colonial lines. It’s clear that the countries in the Imperial core—specifically their ruling classes who control production, energy systems, and investment—are overwhelmingly responsible for the excess emissions driving climate breakdown. That’s a fact.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-150293334
D: It’s interesting how often I’m asked to speak about ecology when what I really want to talk about is capitalist imperialism. These two issues are interconnected, forming parts of the same systemic problem. The ecological crisis is playing out along colonial lines. It’s clear that the countries in the Imperial core—specifically their ruling classes who control production, energy systems, and investment—are overwhelmingly responsible for the excess emissions driving climate breakdown. That’s a fact.
BPL: No, that’s political propaganda. The #1 emitter of CO2 right now is China. It may be described as both capitalist and imperialist by an objective observer, but I’ll bet anything you give a spirited defense of China. It’s the west you have a problem with, not capitalism per se.
Professor Jason Hickle (an anthropologist) says : “It’s clear that the countries in the Imperial core—specifically their ruling classes who control production, energy systems, and investment—are overwhelmingly responsible for the excess emissions driving climate breakdown. That’s a fact.”
Its not a fact. There are billions of ordinary people who willingly buy fossil fuels. They are equally responsible for the excess emissions, because without them there wouldnt be a problem. And they have options now with electric vehicles, cycling, low meat diets, cutting their air travel, and voteing for governments with strong climate friendly policies (eg: that subsidise EV’s ). Given most of them dont do these things, they are equally responsible for the emissions.
Blaming groups of people or countries is just scapegoating anyway and won’t help.
Nigelj says
17 Oct 2024 at 2:47 PM
“There are billions of ordinary people who willingly buy fossil fuels. and
Given most of them don’t do these things, they are equally responsible for the emissions.”
So now you are saying it is not the fault nor the responsibility of Fossil fuels companies after all – it’s every body who bought the energy products and used it? This sounds like a major shift in thinking. But to say he’s an “anthropologist” displays a degree of “fear” and “rejection” and intentional “disinformation.” I’m not sure.
NIgelj – “Blaming groups of people or countries is just scapegoating anyway and won’t help.”
Oh. Another major shift in thinking and approach. This is encouraging. But sadly BPL sees it very differently.
“BPL: No, that’s political propaganda. ”
No that’s called denial and it’s called “cherry picking and avoiding the historical factual evidence of the cumulative drivers to for todays global warming.
The CO2 emitted in 1750 plays the exact same role as CO2 emitted today. CO2 lasts for tens of thousands of years in the atmosphere etc. There is no scientific distinction. It is not politics. Major studies have long been written on the topic showing all the facts of GHG contributions by nations and per capita while not focusing only “who is the big baddy today”.
About – BPL – “It’s the west you have a problem with, not capitalism per se. ”
I have no problem. I shared a really good article plus scientific academic supporting references on the topic. You should check it out, you may learn something really useful and expand your horizons of possibilities by applying some scientific rigor to the issues and the causes and solutions.
Much like climate science deniers, not everyone is ready to embrace the confronting facts about our shared reality. So good luck.
Dharma
You said: “So now you are saying it is not the fault nor the responsibility of Fossil fuels companies after all – it’s every body who bought the energy products and used it? This sounds like a major shift in thinking.”
No. I said that that the ruling classes who own the fossil fuels companies and determine their energy policy, and the billions of ordinary people who choose to buy their products are EQUALLY responsible for the high emissions. Which means both the fossil fuels companies and the general public are BOTH responsible. Go back and read what I said. Its like an issue of supply and demand, or two sides of an equation, or the well known quote “It takes two to tango”.
Of course the ruling classes do also have higher per capita emissions but that is a separate issue to the point you raised about ruling classes controlling the energy system ( and they essentially do)
I think you may have misinterpreted my previous comments where I was critical of fossil fuels companies but this was for spreading disinformation and being reluctant to change their ways. I have always thought its a bit silly blaming them for the climate problem per se. And I draw a distinction between the words holding people rersponsible and blaming them. Its a fact the fossil fules companies and the general public are both responsible for high emissions but blaming them is a different sort of thing, and doesnt seem helpful to me.
“But to say he’s an “anthropologist” displays a degree of “fear” and “rejection” and intentional “disinformation.” I’m not sure.”
No. It just states his qualifications so we get an idea of where hes coming from. I think his qualification is relevant to the issues he raises. I do admit I chekced his qualifications to see if they were relevant. I have quite a bit of respect for anthropologists having read textbooks on the subject. I’m completely mystified how calling him an anthropologist is intentional disinformation. Are you claiming he is not an anthropologist?
I said “Blaming groups of people or countries is just scapegoating anyway and won’t help” and you responded “Oh. Another major shift in thinking and approach. This is encouraging. But sadly BPL sees it very differently.”
Please remember this is in the context of who is causing emissions. Blaming them does seem pointless and a form of scapegoating, and Ive always thought that. And it is frequently scapegoating eg: “Its all Chinas fault” or “its all Americas fault” “its all the developed countries fault”, “its all high income peoples fault” or its “the fault of people breeding like rabbits in the developing world”. All quite pointless or wrong or stupid or misleading or all three.
I certainly think people who spread missinformation and obstruct progess on the climate issue and useless governments deserve to be criticised and held to account. Sometimes they are in fact to blame for these things.
BPL said “It’s the west you have a problem with, not capitalism per se. ” You responded “I have no problem”
Several people who sound remarkably like you have been very critical of the west and quite supportive of China. Maybe thats what BPL is getting at. Whether he is right or wrong I could not possibly say.
However as a general comment, I would suggest per capita emissions are more useful than comparing countries, and blocks of countries. Comparing countries is fairly crude. For example, China is a high emitter but mainly because of its very high population. Its per capita emissions are lower than in America. But china is certainly workinh hard to improve its incomes and is on a trajectory to be a high per capita emitter, if it doesnt mitigate the problem. The point is neither China or America can take the moral high ground.
Either way while I get frustrated with the western world sometimes, I think criticising the west in the sense of portraying the west as internally corrupt or rotten or incompetent and as an evil empire gets a bit tiresome when you look at the history of other countries, particularly China and Russia / Soviet Union who aren’t any better.
Everyone apart from the few remaining hunter gatherer societies and a few very primitive farming communities has contributed to some extent to the climate problem. We are all in this together and I feel we all have to play our part to solve the problem. The blame game doesnt help.
Its clear that high income earners have higher emissions, but vast numbers of other people are trying hard to be high income earners or win lotto and spend up large on air travel. So I just feel nobody can take the moral high ground.. However high income earners can help by buying things like EVs, and make significant reductions in their energy use, while we cant expect low income earners to do that yet. That however is just logic and commonsense.
Thanks for the detailed explanations Nigelj. I think I understand what you said before much better now.
Nigel: No. I said that that the ruling classes who own the fossil fuels companies and determine their energy policy, and the billions of ordinary people who choose to buy their products are EQUALLY responsible for the high emissions
This doesn’t seem accurate to me. I wrote about this in Opalescence,
Karstens paused here, took a drink, then said, “I should qualify that. While there’s plenty of blame to go around, it’s not the average Joe and Jane who are the culprits, in my estimation. They didn’t ask for this. Most were just trying to survive and feed their families. No, it’s those in power, corporate and political, who conspired to deceive, to maintain the status quo, just so they could keep their gravy trains running as long as possible, who I hold responsible.” Another sip. “In any case, here we are.
“There’s a wise old Italian saying,” Karstens added, “‘Feather by feather, the goose is plucked.’”
History shows that the oil and coal companies have strenuously tried to curb the growth of renewables. The average person has no say in it (aside from some scattered general choices they can make, as you point out). They have to buy the gasoline that is available because they have lives to live. They have to buy the cheapest cars that are available because they’re not made of money. They can vote but they are coming up against a behemoth with lots and lots of money to bribe politicians, fake advertise, and just generally keep things BAU. The average person would gladly switch to renewables if they can, and if they can afford it. I don’t hold them equally responsible.
https://energyandpolicy.org/attacks-renewable-energy/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/08/oil-industry-has-sought-to-block-state-backing-for-green-tech-since-1960s
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/01/opinion/clean-energy-solar-wind.html Paywalled
But you’re right that there are others who simply do not give a damn and buy things with anything other then the environment in mind. “Drill baby Drill” Trump types.
Ron R
I agree about the power wielded by the fossil fuels companies, and that the average person sometimes has little practical choice but to own an ICE car, but I disagree about the political issue. For example The New Zealand Green Party promotes good environmental policies, subsidising EVs to make them affordable, strong carbon taxes to help wean us off fossil fuels, bicycle lanes, walkable cities, etcetera. It is not significantly reliant on the fossil fules lobby for its campaign financing, but the Green Party only get about 10% of the vote at best. The vast majority of people CHOOSE the main parties with their weak climate policies and reliance on fossils fuels money. I know other factors would be involved but I think Im right overall.
So I just feel the public is equally responsible for the high emissions as the oil companies and so on. Or perhaps if not equally responisible they have a very significant responsibility. But thanks for the constructive polite comments.
“Capitalist imperialism” is an economic and political force that’s contributed to just about every pejorative “environmental” trend one might name. It’s also contributed to the enhancement of material sufficiency and security for billions of people, most of whom probably wouldn’t have been born if not for capitalist imperialism. IOW, it’s complicated. One thing we know is that our species evolved markets by the Middle Paleolithic, whereas Capitalism in its present form arose only within the last few hundred years. Occam’s Razor suggests that “free” markets have always socialized every transaction cost their embedded societies let them get away with. We can be sure that modern globalized (i.e. imperialist) Capital, with its drive to concentrate economic and political power into increasingly fewer hands, stands in the way of collective intervention by societies to correct “market failures”: costs imposed on involuntary 3rd parties by private transactions between producer and consumer on the “free” (of targeted collective intervention) market. OTOH, we can also be sure that we consumers, by and large, socialize our private marginal environmental costs (e.g. incremental global warming) just as eagerly as producers do theirs. Small, independent bands of pre-technological humans evidently had a permanent impact on biodiversity in every new territory they entered, just because they could.
Well, so it’s clear the tragedy of the unmanaged commons can only be mitigated by collective intervention to correct the underlying market failures. It’s unregulated markets, powerfully defended against collective intervention by modern global Capitalism, that have caused every “environmental” tragedy to date. While eliminating Capitalism, and even markets, from some national economies has not halted common-pool resource degradation and biodiversity erosion in those countries, it has been possible for particular tragedies to be averted, or at least mitigated, by collective action. That has usually (though not always) meant government.
Climate change due to anthropogenic global warming, of course, is the largest and potentially most costly common-pool resource tragedy in human history. While not the sole cause of biodiversity erosion by the ongoing Sixth Great Extinction event, global warming strongly accelerates it. The tragedy might seem overwhelming and inevitable, but in nominally democratic countries, all it will take to cap the cumulative social (including environmental) cost of global warming is a bare majority of voters, for politicians who will challenge the power of concentrated carbon capital. Since that much money buys a lot of votes, taking the profit out of selling fossil carbon won’t be easy. Biden was the first POTUS to do so successfully, in cooperation with Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress. The current Republican Party is owned lock stock and barrel by carbon capital. The Democratic Party has its own history to account for, but only if Democrats retain power can incremental decarbonization of the US economy progress. I know who I’ll be voting for next month.
in Re to Mal Adapted, 18 Oct 2024 at 12:12 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825544
Dear Sir,
Although I am not a US citizen, I dare to add a remark to the penultimate sentence in your post:
If economy decarbonization by replacement of energy generated from fossil fuels with renewable sources was profitable, I believe that in the USA, the transition from fossil fuel to renewables would be very quick under any administration, irrespective whether lead by a Republican or a Democratic Party president.
My personal advice to those who want this transition happen as quickly as possible: Seek ways how to make it economically beneficial in comparison with continuation with fosil fuel use. Do not blame markets, exploit them.
Greetings
Tomáš
Thomas Kalisz
“If economy decarbonization by replacement of energy generated from fossil fuels with renewable sources was profitable, I believe that in the USA, the transition from fossil fuel to renewables would be very quick under any administration, irrespective whether lead by a Republican or a Democratic Party president.”
Yes although with respect you are stating the obvious. Right now renewables provide lower cost generation than fossil fuels but storage is required and is still expensive such that renewable system overall appears not more profitable overall than fossil fuels,.The good news is renewable costs and costs of storage have fallen considerably and are likely to continue to fall and it looks like we are getting close to some sort of price parity for the system as a whole..
Remember its always been acknowledged that renewables cost more than fossil fuels would need a help along with various incentive mechanisms, such as subsidies or cap and trade or carbon taxes at least for a while.. They probably still need some help.
“My personal advice to those who want this transition happen as quickly as possible: Seek ways how to make it economically beneficial in comparison with continuation with fosil fuel use. Do not blame markets, exploit them.”
Stronger subsidies or carbon taxes for example would also make the transition happen quicker. So would making renewables more economically viable which mainly means cheaper storage. If governments want to subsidise anything, maybe it should be research into energy storage, and some startup support for new companies, but time limited support. While subsidies can be abused and lead to dependence, I feel that in something like a climate emergency they have their place.
In re to Nigelj, 19 Oct 2024 at 4:27 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825624
Hallo Nigel,
You know my position. Although I admit that I can be wrong and you can be right, I still think that pouring money into building an excess of renewable sources to compensate their intermittency is an ineffective brute-force approach wasting limited resources available, and that subsidizing existing storage technologies like batteries or hydrogen that are incapable to make renewable energy sources competitive with fossil fuels is an analogously flawed approach, too.
Personally, I think that a daring approach, supporting only social acceptability of introduction of energy-saving technologies (like improved thermal insulation of older buildings and/or switch to heating with heat pumps) and development and commercialization of emerging electricity storage technologies with a significantly better technical potential, can be much more efficient and finally also quicker way towards the desired economy transition than the brute-force approach.
Greetings
Tomáš
With the multiple discussions ongoing here on the world’s energy needs & the transition in mind…
The International Energy Agency is out today with the 2024 version of the annual World Energy Outlook. Links to the report and to the A.P. News story on the release with comments on impacts to climate change:
.
https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/47a9a222-78e4-4c43-9bab-977b4ad5326b/WorldEnergyOutlook2024.pdf
.
https://apnews.com/article/global-clean-energy-transition-df50c39865f3d24cf78ac9d58f0ad07c
.
.
From the A.P. Story:
“We’re now moving at speed into the Age of Electricity,” IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said in a press statement marking the release of the annual World Energy Outlook. Energy worldwide will “increasingly be based on clean sources of electricity,” he said.
But the report also notes that the world’s pace away from fossil fuels is still way off what’s needed to cap warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial times — the limit set in the Paris Agreement — because emissions would decline too slowly.
It puts the world on pace to hit 2.4 degrees (4.3 Fahrenheit) of warming.
Dharma, your links to what I assume is your substack home show nothing besides a header and a download link. Why is that?
Your links to other folks substack homes appear to work as intended without the need to download anything.
To Our Hosts: is everything copacetic regarding the above issue? I have never had this happen before when I visit other folks’ substack homes (which I do daily). If everything is fine, please forgive a dumb old man and delete this comment.
David says
17 Oct 2024 at 9:47 PM
1) I have no idea
2) never assume
3 I’m not bill gates
4) I really do not like your consistent ‘unsavoury tone’
If I could help you it is very unlikely I would.
In Re to Dharma, 19 Oct 2024 at 7:02 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825591
Dear Dharma,
It appears that you like to teach others about everything but do not like questions directed to you.
Nevertheless, in case you just were too busy with writing new posts and missed my question of 16 Oct 2024 at 2:05 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825494 ,
I will repeat it for your convenience herein:
in re to Dharma, 14 Oct 2024 at 12:31 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825421
Dear Sir or Madam,
Could you explain how you would in parallel secure “A legally binding, global one-child-per-family policy” and “universal women’s rights”?
Does the choice of the own family size not count among women’s rights anymore?
Best regards
T
I will not engage with Tomáš Kalisz or read their comments from this point forward. This is my second post to make that clear.
D: I will not engage with Tomáš Kalisz or read their comments from this point forward. This is my second post to make that clear.
BPL: Standing by to read your third post on that subject, and subsequent posts.
In re to Barton Paul Levenson, 22 Oct 2024 at 8:48 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825762
Hallo Barton Paul,
I do not regret much this decision by D.
As an explanation, I would like to repeat my post
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825494
of 16 Oct 2024 at 3:47 PM that, interestingly, somehow disappeared from this website (at least I am not capable to find it anymore):
in Re to Dharma, 16 Oct 2024 at 2:15 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825481
Dear Dharma or Ned Kelly or Sabine or Escobar or whatever name you just use for your continuous political propaganda on this website,
I grew up in Czechoslovakia occupied by Soviet troops and ruled by local communists instructed from Kremlin. I know marxism-leninism, not only from textbooks, but also from its practical side. Soviet Union was one of the last colonial empires on this planet and marxism-leninism was its state ideology.
Karl Marx should not be taught in schools as a scientist but as a warning example how easily can science mutate into an inhuman ideology that motivated countless crimes and destroyed countless human lives.
I wish you and your gurus like Jason Hickel to experience the life in a society organized on the “scientific principles” which you admire.
Nevertheless, please be so kind and do not involve others in your experiments. Venezuela was and is not being ruined by any colonial power but by native gangsters ruling this country. Gaza would not have been destroyed in present war if Hamas gangsters ruling this country would not have had started this war.
Please be so kind and stay with your propaganda on Substack.
Best regards
Tomáš
Tomas said:
Be careful, Piotr is on the look-out for the thought crime of using the modifier “countless”
If Trump gets elected, Latvia, Poland are the next Ukraine, and then Czechia and Slovakia are considered border countries by Putin, and so on and so on.
Pukite: “Be careful, Piotr is on the look-out for the thought crime of using the modifier “countless”
ONLY if Tomas “ pulled a Pukite” -> unable to defend his claims – tried to wiggle out on semantics: claiming that when he wrote that Communism was evil because it motivated countless crimes and destroyed countless human lives” HE DIDN’T mean that COMMUNISM destroyed “HUGE number” of human lives, but that the Communism was evil because it destroyed …. an “unknowable number” of human lives – maybe many, maybe few, maybe none at al, who knows.
And if he portrayed my falsifiable critique of his claims – as my accusing him of “ the thought crime“, the accusation for which in a totalitarian system they would send you to Gulag, to concentration camps, or the bullet to your head.
But this portraying me as an agent of totalitarian repression and himself as victim of it – comes at the price of TRIVILIAZING the suffering of the real victims of totalitarianism:
Paul Pukite implies that the fate of the real victims of accusations of “the thought crime” in Third Reich or Soviet Union couldn’t possibly be too bad since it is comparable to that of Paul Pukite being asked on a public discussion forum to … defend his claims.
What a price to protect your ego.
In re to Piotr, 29 OCT 2024 AT 9:06 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-826273
Hallo Piotr,
I do not think that Dr. Pukite intended to portray you as an agent of totalitarianism and me as a victim thereof. I read the sentence referring to the word “countless” simply as a joke.
Oppositely, I think that in his last sentence, Dr. Pukite was very serious and that despite you bitterly fight each other in your dispute if studying physical cause of natural variations like ENSO is (or is not) substantial for climate science progress, you have practically identical views on Russia and its role in modern history.
Greetings to both of you
Tomáš
If both of my parents and all 4 of my grandparents hadn’t escaped from Stalin’s clutches and being sent to Siberia, I wouldn’t be here today, fortunate to receive an education and then going on to be able to solve the equations describing ENSO behavior. Piotr, grow a pair, and if you think my physics models are wrong, then go to PubPeer.com and make your case. Trying to marginalize my character (!?!) by taking potshots at grammar is laughably weak.
Tomas Kalisz: “Hallo Piotr, I do not think that Dr. Pukite intended to portray you as an agent of totalitarianism
Let’s see. Your “Dr. Pukite”
– in the discussion about TOTALITARIANISM
– replies to your criticism of TOTALITARISM
– by warning you that I am enforcing TOTALITARIAN repression,
– of the the thought crime“, a phrase made known by the novel “1984”, written by a classic antagonist of TOTALITARIANISM, George Orwell
So WHAT ELSE can your Dr. Pukite be accusing me of ?
TK: I read the sentence referring to the word “countless” simply as a joke.
it’s not about “ countless ” it’s about: “ Be careful, Piotr is on the look-out for the thought crime“.
So if I warned somebody on RC: “ Be careful, Tomas is on the look out for the traitors to be sent to the Gulag” – would you buy the explanation that I WASN’T trying to discredit you as an agent of totalitarian oppression, but that it was merely … an innocent “joke”?
TK …” and me as a victim thereof
Your Dr. Pukite is not that into you – he is concerned about you ONLY as a far as can use you as a tool to attack me, in his pathetic attempt get back at me for his self-inflicted humiliation in the original discussion.
Roy Spencer is out with a new piece of uhm… writing 10/16/2024:
“Climate Change: The Science Doesn’t Support the Heated Rhetoric”
https://www.heritage.org/climate/commentary/climate-change-the-science-doesnt-support-the-heated-rhetoric
The closing paragraph tells us how lucky humanity is for continuous anthropogenic GHG release:
“The Good News”
“As a climate scientist, I agree that our greenhouse gas emissions produce some warming. But is this necessarily a bad thing? Ten times as many people die from cold weather than from hot weather. Agricultural yields of corn, soybeans, wheat, and rice continue to break records nearly every year. Growing seasons at high latitudes have been lengthened. It has been estimated that the agricultural benefits of more CO2 (which is necessary for life on Earth) has totaled trillions of dollars.
The oppressive heat and record high temperatures some urban areas experience in the summer is dominated by the urban heat island effect (UHI) due to paved surfaces and buildings, an effect that has increased with population, and would exist in the absence of global climate change.
Stop believing everything you read about climate change. You’ve been misled. There is no climate crisis.”
.
.
You betcha. There’s no problem living like that is there? So turn up the music and let’s keep the party going!
One may, without being accused of the argumentum ad hominem, dismiss Spencer’s “commentary” for the Heritage Foundation as motivated lukewarmism, informed by his theology. The consensus of his professional peers is powerless to overcome Spencer’s faith in his God’s anthropocentric beneficence. Spencer has put his signature to the Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which states:
We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history….
We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming…
IOW, there’s no admissible evidence that our massive transfer of fossil carbon to the atmosphere to power our pursuit of happiness has hidden or deferred costs to our society, that fall most heavily on the world’s poorest individuals, who bear the least responsibility for their climate-change-related losses. Spencer’s God wouldn’t allow that!
Science is a way of trying not to fool ourselves. Spencer has clearly chosen to fool himself.
Mal,
I’m reluctant to talk much about by beliefs in any setting. But I’ll say that I too find hypocritical those who would use belief as an excuse or a shield from responsibility, or to minimize and sow confusion on climate change action. Allowing things to proceed as usual, where those with the least, will bare the most of unjust burdens inflicted in large part by the very society I am a part of.
But, (and it is a big but), I didn’t think like I do now for far too much of my adult life. My pleasures, their burden to bear. Didn’t think about it. I am every bit as guilty as those your comment highlighted. All I can do now is try to do what I can.
“Spencer’s “commentary” for the Heritage Foundation”, Thanks, I hadn’t seen that before. “”minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry””. As opposed to the comparatively-vast ~20 microns surface depth, or less, that only emits a minuscule 1.65 times as much radiation as all the Sun’s energy here. So 20 microns about 0.0006% of atmospheric chemistry. It’s interesting how a person can have documents proving they are a physical scientist, do that professionally for a living and have not even the slightest interest in physical science. I had one career that interested me greatly and another that not so much. Spencer is clearly in his “not so much” phase.
David,
I think you’ll find Roy was not writing 16th October but a week earlier, the piece having been posted online elsewhere on the 10th.
Based in northern Alabama and likely still surrounded by the post-Hurricane Helene clean-up, Roy had penned an earlier piece for his own blog-site, a denialist screed on the “huge amount of natural … variability in hurricane activity” and that, for example, the Florida experience is no more than “luck of the draw.” There’s nothing to do with anthropogenic CO2 emissions here. (His parting message was that he is a wise old man and these days a lot of folk are so dumb many believe there’s government involvement in hurricane activity. Any evidence-based argument will fail to register with them.)
But having posted, he then must have awoken to the formation of Hurricane Milton forming off Mexico and saw it would soon be making a big hit on Florida. Presumably he felt a stronger message denying any global warming link to hurricanes was now required. If you’re a deluded climate change denier like Roy, you can’t be letting folks think that hurricane activity shows the need for a ‘Green New Scam’ ‘Specially with the elections an’ all.
MA Rodger, I regret any confusion I caused with the 10/16 date I used. That date was on The Heritage Foundation release in the link I provided. You are right, I didn’t think to also check if Spencer had already released his spiel prior to Heritage’s release of this piece of myopic propaganda.
Here’s an interesting–and more than interesting–long-form article on some of the roots of eco-fascism in America, and beyond. Consider Patrick Crusius, the El Paso mass murderer; Payton Gendron, the shooter who killed 10 Black shoppers in Buffalo, New York; and Brenton Tarrant, the Christchurch mosque killer. What did they all have in common, besides xenophobic nationalism and a fondness for inflicting lethal violence?
Hint:
Crusius: Wrote that “…water sheds around the country, especially in agricultural areas, are being depleted… Urban sprawl creates inefficient cities which unnecessarily destroys millions of acres of land… If we can get rid of enough people, then our way of life can become more sustainable.”
Gendron: Is/was a “self-declared “eco-fascist” who described his crime as a pursuit of “green nationalism.”
Tarrant: Decried “…rampant urbanization and industrialization, ever expanding cities and shrinking forests, a complete removal of man from nature…”
One thing was an intellectual inheritance from a Petoskey, Michigan, opthalmologist named John Tanton–also an environmental activist with a particular bent:
“Tanton’s belief that mass immigration would supplant white America had one particular focus: He saw it as a threat to the country’s ecology and ultimately to the consensus among environmentalists about preserving the purity of that ecology.”
Of course, Tanton’s influence went beyond just mass murderers: Richard Spencer, of Unite the Right infamy, wrote “If we bring everyone on the planet into an American lifestyle, there first off might not be much planet left, and at the very least, the kind of degradation that might entail would be tremendous and horrifying.” (It seems likely that Spencer served as a prime conduit of Tanton’s ideas to Tarrant, since the latter frequently cited Spencer, but never Tanton himself.)
Tucker Carlson opined that “The left used to care about the environment, the land, the water, the animals. They understood that America is beautiful because it is open and uncrowded. Not so long ago, environmentalists opposed mass immigration. They knew what the costs were. They still know. But they don’t care.”
Ann Coulter, lamenting the Sierra Club’s rejection of immigration issues, wrote an article headlined “Your Choice — A Green America Or A Brown America”… in advance of Earth Day in 2017 and then tweeted that “I’m fine with pretending to believe in global warming if we can save our language, culture & borders.”
Some eco-fascists, of course, like Tanton himself, seem to be, or to have been, completely sincere. But la Coulter is hardly alone. At the 2010 CPAC, longtime Center for Immigration Studies’ executive director Mark Krikorian was asked why the center was publishing reports about climate change if it was a hoax? The simple yet telling answer: The climate issue was a potent opportunity–a wedge that could divide the American left on immigration, giving liberals reason to support hard-line immigration controls, and perhaps also offering conservatives an avenue to fold global warming into their narratives of a country under assault.
We’ve had some of these ideas put forward by commenters on this very site, with, I am glad to say, little takeup on the whole. But it’s enlightening to see ecofascism’s intellectual family tree traced over the last several decades, and to see how it connects with today’s debates on immigration. Modern “blood libels” such as the Trumpian Haitians-eating-pets story may be crude by comparison with the productions of a John Tanton or a Jared Taylor, but they share a common emotional grounding with the Euro-supremacist musings of some.
Kevin,
your attempt to conflate legitimate environmental and energy use concerns with eco-fascist extremism is not only absurd, but deeply manipulative. Associating reasonable discourse on sustainability, population dynamics, and resource use contributed by reputable scientists and leading academics with heinous acts of violence and xenophobia is an egregious obscene smear tactic that stifles any serious debate. Painting all criticism of unchecked growth as a path to extremism is the exact kind of paranoia you attribute to “eco-fascists.”
Ironically, and sadly, this fearmongering approach mirrors the very extremism you claim to decry.
It seems that rational, good faith discussions on environmental, energy use, and climate impact issues have become impossible on this forum, given the constant resort to outrageous distortions like the one we just witnessed. Instead of addressing the pressing facts and real-world challenges, we’re subjected to wild comparisons and inflammatory rhetoric that derail any hope of meaningful dialogue. It’s frustrating that serious issues are being reduced to this kind of fearmongering and character assassination.
Dharma wrote:
No, that supposed ‘attempt’ is quite simply nonexistent.
I said that some on this site have, in the past, made some of the identical arguments as those the article described, and that is objectively true–I am thinking especially of a fellow with the handle “Engineer Poet”, whom we have not heard from in some time. I did not in any way associate eco-fascism with “reasonable discourse on sustainability, etc.” Go back to the OP and this time check your sensitivities at the door, so that you can read for comprehension.
Kevin, your comment is, as they tend to be, pretty darn interesting. I guess I hadn’t ever thought to consider the immigration issue looking through an ecological prism where some are using the environment as a means to sanitize, and thus advance, pernicious intolerance.
Thank you for that.
Thanks for your appreciation. It’s unfortunate that Dharma apparently thought I was try to paint some of his heroes with a tarry brush, rather than sharing what I perceive as a valuable taxonomy of a very troubling strain in American conservatism–or perhaps I should say, faux conservatism.
And I think that strain of thought is useful to bear in mind–we’ll certainly have the Ann Coulters and Tucker Carlsons of this world around for a while, spewing their vitriol. And we don’t want to be conflated with them, I trust.
in Re to Kevin McKinney, 19 Oct 2024 at 3:14 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825617
Dear Kevin,
Thank you very much for your contribution.
As I just wrote in another post,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/cold-extremes-do-in-fact-decrease-under-global-warming/#comment-825665
Dharma aka Ned Kelly aka Complicius aka cj can be definitely recognized as an “eco-marxist”.
Marxism and fascism, however, are two sides of the same coin – both hate ideologies responsible for uncouted human victims.
Greetings
Tom
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could all quickly and easily reference only one published peer reviewed paper that had all the answers we needed on a topic? And was accepted by the whole scientific and economics worlds the preeminent go to truth on the matter. Life would be grand wouldn’t it?
The references I provided were not presented as nor intended to be looked upon as unquestionably definitive, nor the final word on anything.
Kevin McKinney says
19 Oct 2024 at 10:55 AM
Quote- ” Dharma brings up Charles Hall’s video and links a paper about the EROI (Energy Return On Investment) of solar PV. However, the linked commentary is from 2016, and the original study giving an estimated EROI of ~2.45:1 was from 2008. Since then, solar module costs have dropped by well in excess of a factor of ten, which at first approximation would lead one to think that the EROI of solar PV might then be more like 25:1.”
Thanks for your comment, Kevin. It’s important to clarify that the discussion centered on Energy Return On Investment (EROI), which is about energy, not financial costs. While solar module costs have dropped, EROI is concerned with the energy inputs and outputs. The dates of these studies don’t diminish their relevance or accuracy—they actually highlight how long these findings have been available yet remain underappreciated in public discourse.
Kevin, you may also want to keep in mind that current costs are based on fossil fuel prices, such as oil at around $60 per barrel. These prices are set to rise significantly in the coming years and decades, impacting supply chains across the economy, including the resources needed to build renewable energy infrastructure. There’s nothing to prevent PV panel costs from increasing by a factor of ten or more in the near future.
I encourage you and others to delve deeper into the issue and not be misled by disinformation, overhyped promotional biases, or incomplete science and economics research and theories.
Ref for original content with links to sources was – Dharma @ 17 Oct 2024 at 11:35 PMhttps://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-825533
Addendum – Even assuming zero growth in energy demand (in population or gdp) can anyone show how solar PV and Wind are capable of relacing the global fossil fuel energy supply to the tune of at least 200 Trillion kwh per year going forward in time?
(as shown in Professor Hall’s lecture slides here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DABEN4slmo&t=1320s )
Related –
https://www.youtube.com/@canadianassociationforthec7885
https://www.resilience.org/resilience-author/charles-hall/
Dr. Charles Hall on sustainable energy sources Dec 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRSKt-HtY6U
Limits to Growth at 50 years Brief history and present implications Charlie Hall with other experts
in Q&A section
“we’re asking the wrong damn questions how do we get the population to decline
and how do we get per capita affluence to decline those are the real questions”
and “… our objective is very simple as it says in the web pages to bring
science into economics and economic decision making ”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8jUyQz5Onk
Charles Halls comments and published research work from both 2008 and 2016 are not out of date:
Quoting the professor again in 2018 –
” My perspective is summarized in my 2017 book “Energy Return on Investment: A unifying principle for Biology, Economics, and Sustainability” although my approach is consistent throughout my published work with occasional small additions as our understanding expands, changes in available data occur or new questions arise. For example my methods going as far back as Cleveland et al. 1984 and Hall, Cleveland and Kaufmann (1986) are available for anyone to see and virtually the same as those in Murphy et al. 2011 and Hall 2017. The field is rich and very active today, with an entire well-funded and attended four day meeting at the French Institute of Physics at Les Houches dedicated to EROI last year, a two day session on petroleum (including many papers on EROI) at the American Chemical Society in New Orleans a month ago, and many very interesting publications by, for example, Carey King, Marco Raugui, Adam Brandt, Mohammed Masnadi, Victor Court and Florian Fizaine among many others.
As others increasingly used EROI there became increasingly different approaches used, so, in order to generate a consistent nomenclature and basis for comparison (EROI standard) while allowing flexibility and creativity in use we published a protocol for performing EROI analysis (Murphy et al. 2011; Carey King has also addressed making the nomenclature and methods more explicit).”
and
“EROI is not some flawed tool of the past, but a consistent yet evolving and improving tool becoming more and more important everyday as the depletion of our primary fuels continues and as replacement with renewables is increasingly considered. While EROI analysis is hardly precision science, mostly due to data limitations, nevertheless as I reviewed my older publications for this response I was impressed by the general consistency of our results (corrected for e.g. depletion over time) from 1979 and especially 1984 to present. A large problem is the erosion of the Federal support for, and hence quality of, the data of e.g. the U.S. Bureau of Census and the increasing use of EROI (and scientific analysis more generally) for advocacy rather than objective analysis and hypothesis testing.”
https://ourfiniteworld.com/2018/04/12/energy-return-on-energy-invested-prof-charles-halls-comments/
( I hope the formatting comes out right, apologies if it does not )
Dharma,
“Thanks for your comment, Kevin. It’s important to clarify that the discussion centered on Energy Return On Investment (EROI), which is about energy, not financial costs. While solar module costs have dropped, EROI is concerned with the energy inputs and outputs. The dates of these studies don’t diminish their relevance or accuracy—they actually highlight how long these findings have been available yet remain underappreciated in public discourse.”
Agree about the definitions, but the time of the studies is very relevant because EROI can change and go up, for example if the efficiency of solar panels increases meaning less investment is now required for a given return on energy. So Kevin may be essentially on the right track. Presumably EROI for solar panels was low in the early days when you had huge start up costs, ( which would also have applied to the early fossil fuels generation) and panels lacked efficiency. But start up costs are in the past and panel efficiency has improved and you have economies of scale.
If EROI of solar panels was still low you would expect renewables to be very expensive generation per kwhr, to recoup the costs of all that investment. But solar panels are now a SIMILAR COST generation per mwhr to coal fired power. This suggests to me renewables must now have a HIGH EROI or at least a moderate EROI .Can anyone explain why I would be wrong? Please dont refer me to a one hour video. Actually address my point please, with a specific explanation in your own words.
One thing to consider in EROI is government subsidies used in the development phase of solar power especially as this was free money not requiring pay back so this potentially creating a misleading EROI number. However fossil fuels have ALSO received plenty of subsidies, so Im assuming they would approximately cancel each other out. Also the subsidies for solar power do not look like they come anywhere near explaining claims that solar power has low EROI.
I’ve read Professor Halls article on EROI and he has obvious expertise and some wisdom, but it didnt provide much information relevant to my point. It just talked about the difficulties of measuring EROI and something about the potentially high costs of fixing solar farms that were abandoned during the 2008 financial crash, however that seems like a one off unusual problem, and so using it to determine EROI on solar panels would be misleading.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-05-27/the-real-eroi-of-photovoltaic-systems-professor-hall-weighs-in/
Nigelj says
20 Oct 2024 at 2:58 PM
“Can anyone explain why I would be wrong?”
I repeat – EROI is about Energy not start up Costs nor the cost or price of “generation per kwhr,”
“I’ve read Professor Halls article on EROI” – perhaps you need to read more?
Dharma, EROI is about energy out for a given FINANCIAL investment and that includes all conceivable cost inputs including startup costs, mining costs, and manufacturing costs, etc,etc. So again given solar power is now cheap generation per mwhr, this suggests the financial investment is not much different to fossil fuels, so solar power has a high or moderately high EROI. As you mention the cost of the generation is not part of EROI formula, but its INDIRECTLY telling us EROI may be quite high as just explained.
I hope I’ve explained this clearly. I admit I dont always explain things clearly or get everything right. Life is a work in progress.
One thing that might push solar power to just a moderate EROI is the panels need replacing earlier than you would replace a coal fired power station. But the numbers dont appear to make it low EROI.
Nigelj,
The “investment” considered in the calculation of EROI is the invested energy, not the cash. The definition is presented within the cited reference Aramendia et al (2024) ‘Estimation of useful-stage energy returns on investment for fossil fuels and implications for renewable energy systems’ which says “energy return on investment (EROI), defined as the ratio of the energy delivered divided by the energy invested in the considered energy system,” while the paper attempts to provide a proper end-user comparison of FF & renewable EROI.
Myself, the EROI is only an issue in that there will be a shortage of power as FF-use is phased out and a low EROI for renewables would exacerbate that situation while a low FF EROI wiuld be helpful. Other than that consideration, EROI is a measure denialists are likely to wield as excuses for continuing with FF,
Repeat it all you wish Nigelj. It is still wrong.
While some questions are too much to face head on:
Addendum – Even assuming zero growth in energy demand (in population or gdp) can anyone show how solar PV and Wind are capable of relacing the global fossil fuel energy supply to the tune of at least 200 Trillion kwh per year going forward in time?
(as shown in Professor Hall’s lecture slides here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DABEN4slmo&t=1320s )
Enjoy yourselves.
MA Rodger says
22 Oct 2024 at 2:40 AM
“Other than that consideration, EROI is a measure denialists are likely to wield as excuses for continuing with FF,”
That is not my consideration or intention, and nor am I a climate science denier. Nothing I say is a promotion to continue FF energy use. My contention is that we are fast running out of Oil and liquid fuels, and Gas is next. The first place this will occur in a serious way is in the United States itself. Which will soon cease to be an exporter of oil and gas as it’s reserves become rapidly depleted once again.
Declared climate related actions to switch from fossil fuels is not reducing fossil fuel use globally, which continues to increase. Credible questions remain of RE capacity to replace any other form of energy under present conditions and global systems absent massive economic-political reforms with subsequent rapid reductions of population growth and consumption.
Irrespective of climate change, fossil fuels are finite and the fact that conventional Oil has already passed it’s peak production capacity, and total fluids is about to cross that Peak Oil point if it has not already. While new Oil reserves are not being found as fast as consumption of all fossil fuels is rising so the issue of EROI among other matters comes into play as to what and how fast alternative energy options can be deployed — especially on the irrational assumption that global economic growth and consumption can continue to increase into the future.
Why? Because all exponential growth eventually ‘Kills’ whatever it touches. And then collapses in upon itself. Poetically speaking.
The references I’ve provided are but a very small indication of the legitimate serious science and research analysis already done (and buried, denied or memory holed as extreme alternative lunacy) of the serious dilemma humanity faces. Catastrophic climate impacts only makes everything far worse.
As one scientist Dr Chris Tucker said, paraphrasing, the problems caused by GHG warming is possibly twice as bad as we think it is, but only accounts for about a tenth of the combined dire problems we face.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-150553681
MAR. thanks for the correct definition of EROI. I must have misinterpreted the commentary I was reading. I should have checked and googled the definition.
But Im assuming the energy invested in renewables would be at least roughly proportional to the financial input costs for renewables. Given renewable generation costs about the same per mwhr as fossil fuels generation this suggests the financial inputs are not dissimilar to fossil fules, and thus the energy inputs would be similar also. Hence why I suspect solar panels have a similar EROI to fossil fuels generation. Where am I wrong?
But I do agree with your comments on the EROI issue and what it means in practice..
D: ) can anyone show how solar PV and Wind are capable of relacing the global fossil fuel energy supply to the tune of at least 200 Trillion kwh per year going forward in time?
BPL: Try here:
https://bartonlevenson.com/IsSolarEnough.html
Nigelj says
22 Oct 2024 at 9:11 PM
Nigelj really says this:
Dear Dharma,
I see you’ve provided multiple references for EROI, and I understand your frustration. However, I disagree with your interpretation, and I believe I’ve backed up my position with evidence, just as you have.
It’s concerning that your comments have been deleted rather than allowing a full discussion. I could have easily researched definitions further at any point, but I stand by my original understanding.
As for Mr. Rodger’s involvement, it doesn’t change my view. I don’t feel an apology or retraction is necessary because my conclusions were not false—they’re just different from yours. It’s frustrating, but this kind of back-and-forth is part of any debate.
Respectfully, your response feels more like an attempt to dismiss my reasoning rather than engage with it.
Dharma
“Nigelj really says this: Dear Dharma, I see you’ve provided multiple references for EROI, and I understand your frustration. However, I disagree……”
Honestly you have that very wrong and you are reading quite bizarre things into things. Obviously I implicitly admit I got the definition wrong, or why would I have said “I must have misinterpreted the commentary I was reading. I should have checked and googled the definition. ”
Which comes back to the point I made. It seems to me that the costs inputs for renewables would be roughly proportional to energy inputs, or a rough proxy for energy inputs. Why wouldnt they be?
Nigel 22 Oct “Where am I wrong?
Since you ask ;-) first, trivial – in trying to rescue your original
(mis)understanding of EROI, second, more important – in not matching the metric to the question you want answered.
.
After MAR explained – EROI is Energy Returned on Energy Invested (ERoEI) – you try to rescue your original arguments by ASSUMING that Energy RETURNED is proportional to Money Invested – thus since the prices of electricity from different sources, reflecting the money invested, are similar – so should be their EROIs. But there is no reason to assume that they are proportional – there are many different confounding factors that make this approach highly unreliable.
Instead, you should start with the question you want answered, and then look for a metric relevant to that question.
If you wanted to have engineering comparison of energetic efficiency of technologies that use the SAME energy source – then go for EROI, i.e. ERoEI. Say – if one gas turbine has ERoEI =x kWh/amount of energy in a ton of gas, while another one has 2x kWh/amount … , then the 2nd one is twice more energetically efficient.
Comparing ERoEIs of different energy sources become less and less useful the more different the energy sources – you are starting to compare apples with oranges, then apples with watermelons. Say, a gas turbine has ERoEIs= 4x %, and wind has x % – what’s the RELEVANCE of this information, if the supply of gas is finite and contributes to AGW, while wind is inexhaustible, and contribute very little to AGW?
Now if you want to compare the climate change impacts of different energy generation – use something appropriate to it, for instance – Life-cycle Greenhouse Gasses Emissions of Energy Sources – LCGGEoES (?)
(admittedly not as catchy as EROI – which sacrificed clarity (what “I” means) to be more “cute” – modelled on “ROI” routinely used on Wall Street…)
See for instance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources
It looks at life-cycle effects, and uses CO2(eq) – GHGs emissions, corrected for their GWP(otential), AND albedo effects – see, for instance`, the table:
“ Life cycle CO2 equivalent (including albedo effect) from selected electricity supply technologies according to IPCC 2014” on the same Wikipedia page.
And these are the data that MEAN something – how much one source is better than the other in GWeffects – or you can show the fallacy of the standard deniers “all or nothing” argument, according to which since no energy source is “perfect” (i.e. having 0 GHG emissions) – then …. everything is equally bad, so let’s keep using fossil fuels.
Dharma,
I would suggest that your putting words in the mouths of others is unacceptable here at RC.
And for the record, within my comment above and specifically my mention of “denialists”: this was not directed at you. However, your reply defending yourself and refuting any allegation that branded you ‘denialist’ was so odd that it did more to reinforce any view held of you as a ‘denialist’.
Introducing geologist Dr Chris Tucker and his YouTube presentation at the 2021 SWE event, this the end-point of you defence, raises the question in my mind of what level of impact Tucker’s proposed policies could have on humanities carbon emissions. Even a significant level of impact on his wider “Human Footprint” would be questionable in the short term, that is prior to world population peaking and beginning to decline which is projected for later this century.
(For those not having sixteen minutes of life to expend watching a Dr Chris Tucker presentation, he does suggest (@6:35) that AGW is twice as bad as we imagine {without any consideration of what our imagination may be seeing} but that ‘twice-as-bad’ is but one tenth the manmade damage he is considering.
The presentation then presents nine additional logos representing the full “Human Footprint,” all of them non-climate stuff. @8:35 he mentions AGW again as providing valuable geographical data in terms of GHG emissions but says this is “only one small piece of our larger footprint.”
Tucker calls for measures that will rapidly reduce global fertility levels to 1.5 by 2030 but without any mention of the resulting population globally or geographically. Despite having written a book about it, Tucker’s policy proposals appear to me more back-of-fag-packet argument than anything serious. Births, which is what he wants to see decreasing, peaked globally in 2016 with those global fertility levels currently averaging 2.1, below a modern ‘sustainable’ 2.3. Thus from 2016, the continuing global population growth is entirely driven by increasing life-expectancy.)
Piotr, thanks for the information. Finally someone has addressed my question / main point. Im in shock. I better have a lie down. I was just reading EROI on wikipedia. This was interesting as it appears to be suggestiong fracking is rather low EROI:
Oil Shale. Due to the process heat input requirements for oil shale harvesting, the EROI is low. Typically natural gas is used, either directly combusted for process heat or used to power an electricity generating turbine, which then uses electrical heating elements to heat the underground layers of shale to produce oil from the kerogen. Resulting EROI is typically around 1.4-1.5.[17] Economically, oil shale might be viable due to the effectively free natural gas on site used for heating the kerogen, but opponents have debated that the natural gas could be extracted directly and used for relatively inexpensive transportation fuel rather than heating shale for a lower EROI and higher carbon emissions.
re: “Oil Shale”
Nigelj seems shocked by the low EROI. My co-author maintains a blog** where the arc of shale production is monitored monthly, with lots of good non-moderated discussion in the comments.
** I defer from linking or naming the blog since this is the 3rd time I have tried to add a comment.
Sometimes people think that conversations need to be manipulated right down to the psychology behind them, and they make it into a game, a battle. *Why* can’t they just *talk* and pose questions like normal people, and not make it into a game of strategy??? It can be enough to drive you crazy! I call it strategical criticism.
phys.org story (10/17/2024): “Global warming is happening, but not statistically ‘surging,’ new study finds”
.
“The new study, published on October 14 in the journal Communications Earth & Environment, and led by scientists at UC Santa Cruz in the U.S., confirms the broad consensus that the planet is getting warmer, but at a statistically steady rate—not at a sufficiently accelerated rate that could be statistically defined as a surge.”
.
.
Links to the phys.org story & the study:
.
https://phys.org/news/2024-10-global-statistically-surging.html
.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01711-1
David, very useful reference.
I’ll just point out that once again, words matter, especially in what is being communicated to the public.
-“Global Warming is not accelerating.”
-“Climate Change is not accelerating.” (?)
See the difference? This is why I suggest it is past time to question the primacy of GMST in how this subject is covered. We have lots of other data now, and I am reminded of Simpson’s Paradox. Maybe, given all the marvelous tools we have for presenting information, a more comprehensive discussion might be in order.
Zebra, I think I see the difference (fingers crossing):
Difference is the former evokes solely the delta to the rate of change of only one climate system variable, and the later describes the delta to the change rate of the climate itself.
One ingredient of the pie vs the pie itself.
Am I close? Yes? No? Time to put David out on the ice floe?
David, remember, we’re running out of ice floes, so you are safe (unless you get much worse!)
The point is that there is no way to define “the change rate of the climate itself”, if you think about it. That’s why I thought the “need for pluralism” post made sense, and why I’ve been suggesting change along the lines in my last two sentences for a while now.
It may be pointless to try to communicate with “the public”, but from my experience it is possible if you do it right.
Nigelj says
19 Oct 2024 at 1:33 PM
Nigelj, it is indisputable that you are wrong. You combined a quote from Hall with a completely separate sentence I wrote, then “edited” it, presenting it as a single quote. This act misrepresented both my post and Professor Hall. I did not accuse you of lying, but I did ask—why did you do that? This is my second post on the matter.
Dharma, thank’s for clarifying your concerns. Definitely my bad. I shouldn’t have put two different peoples statements in the same paragraph and quote marks. However I wasnt deliberately mixing things together: I just thought your statement was just another quote by Hall.
Mistakes happen.
The above was actually my third post, not my second. The second never appeared.
Science? Data? Evidence? Experts? I seriously question if they are as important to the people who claim they are. To me actions always speak louder than words.
Published 14 Jul 2021
World Population Day Presentation and Panel Discussion – What is a sustainable population? Why, when and what should we do about it?
The concept of Overshoot — The Population-Consumption Conundrum
Dr William Rees was the lead speaker at this high level discussion involving top scientists discussing what is a ‘scientifically defensible, sustainable human population size for the long term’ as called for in the World Scientists Warning to Humanity – A Second Notice issued in 2017 by over 15,000 scientists.
Once we know the sustainable population size then how should we get there and when? The 2017 warning also called for ‘rallying nations and leaders to support that vital goal’ in terms of population size.
July 11th is World Population Day. Population is also included as one of the 6 stressors in the World Scientists Warning of Climate Emergency issued on 5 November 2019. Connected with this Scientists Warning Europe believe the United Nations should include a scientifically determined population goal into its SDGs. This would seem to be currently a worrying weakness in the current list of SDGs as so many of them are, in any case, dependent on or effected by global population levels and connected consumption.
The event was chaired by Ed Gemmell, Managing Director of Scientists Warning Europe. The panellists included the following eminent scientists, who each gave a short talk on the subject before the Panel Discussion:
Dr Bill Rees
Prof Phoebe Barnard
Dr Christopher Tucker
Dr Jane O’Sullivan
A video of the whole event, a video of each of their talks and a video of the the Panel Discussion are also available on this channel.
Keynote Speaker Bio:
Dr William Rees is a population ecologist, ecological economist, Professor Emeritus and former Director of the University of British Columbia’s School of Community and Regional Planning.
Prof Rees is a founding member and former President of the Canadian Society for Ecological Economics;
a Fellow of the Post-Carbon Institute;
a founding Director of the OneEarth Initiative; and
a Director of The Real Green New Deal.
Prof Rees’ research focuses on the biophysical prerequisites for sustainability. He is best known as the originator and co-developer (with his graduate students) of ‘ecological footprint analysis,’ a quantitative tool that shows definitively that the human enterprise is in dysfunctional overshoot—we would need five Earth-like planets to support just the present world population sustainably with existing technologies at North American material standards.
Such findings led to a special interest in cities as inherently unsustainable and particularly vulnerable components of the human ecosystem. Concerned about societal unresponsiveness to worsening indicators, Dr Rees also studies the biological and psycho-cognitive barriers to rational political behavior.
He has authored hundreds of peer reviewed articles on the above topics. Dr Rees was elected to Royal Society of Canada in 2006; his international awards include the Boulding Memorial Award in Ecological Economics, the Herman Daly Award in Ecological Economics and a Blue Planet Prize (jointly with his former student Dr Mathis Wackernagel).
Dr Rees is what most people would define as a recognized Expert in his multiple fields of research.
World Population Day Presentation by Dr. William Rees is only 22 minutes long
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3nCFwhV
D: Science? Data? Evidence? Experts? I seriously question if they are as important to the people who claim they are.
BPL: Yeah, don’t bother with any of those things. Try divine revelation instead. Or existential choice.
Good reference, Dharma. The link isn’t working for me though. But yeah.
Sorry, here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3nCFwhV-9E
Short commentaries with several people in a row videos following
Science is Not Value Free
A short extract from a comment there:-
So when I say “the same difficulties,” I’m referring to this closed, rigid mindset—whether on climate science or renewables or energy or economics—that makes it hard to engage with new information or even consider other perspectives. Both climate deniers and people in this renewable energy debate tend to fall into these same patterns, rejecting evidence or experts that challenge their pre-existing views.
D, quoting a kindred spirit: Both climate deniers and people in this renewable energy debate tend to fall into these same patterns, rejecting evidence or experts that challenge their pre-existing views.
BPL: So obviously both sides’ positions must be equally valid.
“ Both climate deniers and people in this renewable energy debate tend to fall into these same patterns, rejecting evidence or experts that challenge their pre-existing views.
says Ubiquitous D., to divert attention from the much more fundamental similarity between the deniers and the doomers:
1. methods – cherry-picking of data to question the validity and integrity of climate science,
framing the problem as “all or nothing” , and dismissing the good in favour of the perfect.
2. motivation – (except paid trolls) – doomers (and deniers) like to think of themselves as “fiercely independent minds”, as unappreciated prophets (“I have been telling you this for 10 years, but you never listen”), so their dominant motive is to prop up one’s ego: the science is wrong (or dishonest), so if most of the people got fooled by it, BUT NOT ME! – then I must be really really smart!
3. fruits: “( to fuel apathy, giving people an excuse to do nothin: if catastrophe is inevitable, why bother?“) => let’s use as much fossil fuels as we want
And as a result of. p.2 – gaining their ego boost from imaging themselves so brilliant, that without having any expertise in the area – they still KNOW BETTER than the experts in that field:
4. “ rejecting evidence or experts that challenge their pre-existing views ” ^*
—
^* see, for instance, D. starting his presence on this forum with lecturing the top climate modelers in the world that they should change their “culture” and START checking whether the agreement between their models and observations is real or not
Seeing a straw in the eye of the other and not a beam in your own, Mr. D?
Defining “Doomist” and “Doomers”?
Climate doomism, at its core to those who deploy the pejorative, is the belief that it’s too late—not just to prevent some climate change (a consensus among experts) but to stop catastrophic outcomes. Critics argue that doomism fuels apathy, giving people an excuse to do nothing—after all, if catastrophe is inevitable, why bother? Doomists often frustrate climate scientists and activists, dismissing efforts as futile. In climate discourse, they’re treated like a new form of denialism, which carries serious weight.
However, “doomist” is more of a label than a self-identity. There isn’t a unified group or ideology behind it. Many labeled as doomists would likely reject the term or be confused by it. In fact, merely by engaging in climate discussions, doomists disprove claims that they’ve given up. True apathy leads to disengagement—not impassioned debate.
A more accurate definition might be anyone who voices a view just a little bleaker than what’s acceptable in mainstream climate discourse. It’s fine to express anger, grief, or urgency, but despair crosses a line. You can say we’re running out of time, but saying we won’t act in time is off-limits. These boundaries shift with the mood of the movement, but doomists provide a convenient foil. They allow others to say, “Yes, things are bad, but I’m not one of those who think it’s hopeless!”
In reality, doomists serve as a strawman—a contrasting perspective that makes the broader climate movement seem more reasonable. If they didn’t exist, the movement might need to invent them.
And so they did!
Dharma, yeah I think thats mostly fair comment. But a couple of things annoy me about doomers:
1) Some of them say things “cant or wont work” when they cannot possibly have that level of certainty, as Ive explained. It comes across as intellectual arrogance.
2)They accuse people of cherry picking positive studies about renewables, when they do the same themselves by cherry picking negative studies. They accuse people of not being open to new information when they display the same tendency themselves.
3) they accuse people of dismissing experts who are sceptical of renewables, yet you yourself have dismissed Jacobson as not being a real expert, despite the fact he has equal or better credentials than many of the doomy experts.
Piotor’s comments above the page are relevant, where he mentioned that even if we can’t completely scale up renewables, even partly scaling them up helps reduce the climate problem, so is worthwhile (paraphrasing) . I have made that point myself before, and Gavin or Rasmus wrote an article several years ago suggesting renewables have already reduced likely growth in fossil fuels enough to stop the worst outcomes of 4 – 5 degrees this century. I’ve mentioned this to several doomers on this website who get very dismissive, perhaps because they have been drawn so very deeply into the doomer mindset, or because they cant admit to themselves that they hadn’t considered this. Perhaps the moderator could post a link to the article if he has time. I cant find it.
I get that society or genetics or whatever generates some people with a particularly doomy mindset and it may be a good way of making the rest of us consider possibilities, but ultimately the very strong doomery needs to be substantiated with compelling evidence and this seems a bit lacking.
Ubiquitous D.: “ However, “doomist” is more of a label than a self-identity. There isn’t a unified group or ideology behind it.
So what? For being a useful category you don’t need it – it’s enough that they share their methods, their motivation, and their fruits:
– methods – cherry-picking of data to question the validity and integrity of climate science,
framing the problem as “all or nothing” ,and dismissing the good in favour of the perfect.
– motivation – (except paid trolls) – doomers (and deniers) like to think of themselves as “fiercely independent minds”, as unappreciated prophets (“I have been telling you this for 10 years, but you never listen”), so their dominant motive is to prop up one’s ego:
the science is wrong (or dishonest), so if most of the people got fooled by it, BUT NOT ME! – then I must be really really smart!
– fruits: “( to fuel apathy, giving people an excuse to do nothin: if catastrophe is inevitable, why bother?“) => let’s use as much fossil fuels as we want
With those three pillars in common – the differences are just details.
In the public discourse -doomers are a sister species to classical climate deniers: sister species because they share the methods, the motivation, and the fruits. The only difference is which path they choose to arrive at the same conclusion:
doomers: (“ catastrophe is inevitable, so why bother?“) => let’s use as much fossil fuels as we want ”
deniers: (“climate is not changing/ or we are not responsible”) => let’s use as much fossil fuels as we want.
And since their opinions are so tied to their self-esteem (see “motivation”) both groups are utterly incapable of introspection, self-reflection, or self-criticism. Life unexamined IS worth living ?