Arguments
Recent Comments
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Comments 1 to 50:
-
Evan at 22:19 PM on 27 February 2025Is CO2 plant food? Why are we still talking about this?
People have many roles. A person may be a father, a brother, a son, an employee, a hunter, the list goes on and on. Nobody has just a single role.
It is likely that your boss cares more about your role as an employee than your role as a brother. The role that matters is situational.
CO2 is plant food, carbonator of drinks, key component of CO2 lasers, dry ice, greenhouse gas, the list goes on. The role we care about is situational. CO2 does not have a single role.
-
plincoln24 at 22:08 PM on 27 February 2025Is CO2 plant food? Why are we still talking about this?
Technically, CO_2 is plant food. But it is just a misleading truth to state it out in the open without letting people know the drawbacks associated with the other consequences of the increase in CO_2. So I sympathize with people wanting to call it a "myth" but I don't think it is a "myth" in the strict sense.
-
nigelj at 04:57 AM on 27 February 2025Electric vehicle adoption is stumbling, but still growing amid geopolitical clashes
From the BBC: "Shares in electric car maker Tesla have slumped more than 9% after EU and UK sales fell by almost half in January."
www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgd9v3r69qo
Appears to be a combination of competition form Chinese EVs and Musks political behaviour recently.
-
ubrew12 at 04:54 AM on 27 February 2025Is CO2 plant food? Why are we still talking about this?
Water is also 'plant food': no water, no plant. So... more water is good, right? Just flood that garden and you'll enjoy a bountiful harvest (or maybe not).
People can't live long without water. 'Drowning' is, nevertheless, still a thing.
-
nigelj at 04:34 AM on 27 February 2025Sabin 33 #17 - Does low-frequency noise from wind turbines cause 'wind turbine syndrome'?
RedRoseAndy @1 just made a claim about wind turbines completely lacking in credibility, detail, methodology, or evidence. He seems to have a record of implausible claims, crank science, and of presenting old ideas as if they are his own. Please refer:
www.kadir-buxton.com/climate-crisis-issues
I suppose I shouldn't really give him free advertising, but maybe, just maybe theres a useful idea buried in there somewhere.
-
sailrick at 01:07 AM on 27 February 2025Electric vehicle adoption is stumbling, but still growing amid geopolitical clashes
Europe has 632,423 electric car chargers.
The USA has 61,000Trump wants to stop the U.S. rollout of EV chargers.
The rest of the world will continue to move forward, with or without Trump.------------
BEVs percent of new car sales
----------------------------
Norway 2022: 91% - October 2024 94%
In 2024, 88.9% of new cars sold in Norway were fully electric, Well over 20% of all cars on the road are EVsSweden September 2023 42.7% - Q3 2024 44.8%
Iceland 2023: 60%
Finland 2024: 49.6%
Netherlands 2023: 42%
China 2023: 38%
Denmark 2024: 51.5%%
France August 2924: 29%
UK 2024: 19.6%
Europe: 2023: 15% (18% according to this post)
U.S. 2023: 7.6%
-
RedRoseAndy at 23:13 PM on 26 February 2025Sabin 33 #17 - Does low-frequency noise from wind turbines cause 'wind turbine syndrome'?
I invented a method that has made all wind turbines silent before Covid, I have not heard a climate skeptic complaining of lound wind turbines for some years now. The money I got for my work was spent on shares whose dividends go to XR.
-
Jim Hunt at 06:06 AM on 26 February 2025Electric vehicle adoption is stumbling, but still growing amid geopolitical clashes
Nigel @4,
"There's been a lot of misinformation and disinformation out there about EVs in our media over the last couple of years"
Here's one example from here in the UK, egregious enough to warrant action from the largely toothless "Independent Press Standards Organisation":
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/daily-mail-admits-making-up-story-about-electric-vehicles-causing-potholes/
"In yet another instance of British newspapers promoting misinformation about climate change policies, the Daily Mail has been forced to correct an inaccurate and misleading article that falsely claimed a report on the condition of Britain’s roads said potholes were mainly caused by electric vehicles.The article, originally titled ‘Heavier electric cars blamed for the £16bn cost of pothole plague’, was published on page 2 of its print edition and on its website on 19 March. It was written by the newspaper’s chief political correspondent, David Churchill, as part of the Daily Mail’s ongoing campaign to mislead its readers about electric vehicles and other technologies to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
The article misrepresented a report by the Asphalt Industry Alliance (AIA) by suggesting it singled out electric vehicles as being responsible for the current pothole ‘crisis’ in Britain...
However, the AIA’s ‘Annual Local Authority Road Maintenance Survey Report 2024’ makes no such claims. In fact, it does not discuss or refer to electric vehicles in any way."
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:49 AM on 25 February 2025How to find climate data and science the Trump administration doesn’t want you to see
prove we are smart @10
I offer these ‘additional thoughts’ for consideration:
Re: “It's like the quality of our leaders has downgraded the quality of the people, aided by a media corrupted by elites/corporations.“
There is indeed a harmful feedback system created by the potential popularity of harmful misunderstandings.
The success of harmful misleaders is a serious problem. And the lack of professional responsible restrictions of behaviour in media, especially social media.
The term ‘elites/corporations’ is open to misleading uses because it is not specific about the problematic behaviours in the population.
Re: “...a system willing to sacrifice its own future, along with ours, rather than mitigate the problem. ... those holding the reins of power figure on adaptation instead, since with the increasing chaos it may bring more wealth/power opportunities and being already wealthy that bring its own privileges, so they can't lose.”
The harmful competitors ‘allowed and encouraged in a system’ also likely do not care about adaptation because that can be thought of as being a personal problem. And they likely don’t think that they will have to adapt because they won’t be living in that worse future.
Also, they likely believe that they will benefit from not having mitigation happen. Their perceived loss of benefit because of mitigation, like having to pay more to burn fossil fuels, is more than the adaptation they expect to personally have to deal with.
This is a tragedy for the common sense interest in a sustainably improved future. Many people can tragically develop a liking for thoughtlessly and destructively competing for perceived benefits and pursuing appearances of superiority relative to Others. They want over-sized, over-powered, overly-noisy personal vehicles that they can drive everywhere rather than being less harmful, especially rather than 'using public transit - yuck'.
-
scaddenp at 08:18 AM on 25 February 2025Electric vehicle adoption is stumbling, but still growing amid geopolitical clashes
NZ didnt do much for EV uptake with the way Road User Charges were implemented. There was a wierd situation admittedly. Diesel users paid per km at rate determined by weight-class of vehicle. This is fair enough - good way to do it. Petrol users just pay it as part of tax on petrol on per litre basis - and it used to be that EVs didnt pay a thing to encourage update. Now EVs and plugin hybrids pay per kilometer. The initial rate on plugins basically had them paying more than anybody but it was reduced - a bit. However rate for EVs is ludicrous. Equivalent to petrol tax on something that uses around 15L/100km. A hybrid car, eg Corolla or Prius at <5L/100km, has by far the lowest running costs.
-
nigelj at 05:17 AM on 25 February 2025Electric vehicle adoption is stumbling, but still growing amid geopolitical clashes
I agree with Evan and Michael Sweet. Some other possible reasons for the slight decline in EV sales: The high income green leaning early adopters have probably all bought EVs and that is leaving the more cautious general market. The practical advantages of EVs are considerable with good acceleration, lower mainenance costs and running costs but its a lot for the general market to get their heads around and the default position with big expensive purchases is caution.
Theres been a lot of misinformation and disinformation out there about EVs in our media over the last couple of years, as the denialists have switched their attacks from the science onto solutions. I feel that for rapid uptake, EVs would need to be significantly cheaper than ICE cars to overcome the various barriers mentioned. Or as OPOF points out you would need a strong carbon pricing scheme, which kind of amounts to the same thing.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:08 AM on 25 February 2025Electric vehicle adoption is stumbling, but still growing amid geopolitical clashes
Evan,
Carbon pricing, massively resisted in the USA, would help.
I will get to carbon pricing. But I will start by commenting on the popular misunderstanding that “Most people are concerned more about meeting their own needs than those of others.”
A better understanding is: Many people have developed to be more concerned with misleading marketing induced ‘wants – incorrectly perceived as needs’ than they are about learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others.
The root of the problem is ‘the developed marketplace competition’. And a relate problem is the marketplace failure to identify, limit, and make amends for harms done.
Marketplace competition for popularity and profit drives the pursuit of perceptions of superiority relative to others, the ‘keeping up with the Jones-es’ nonsense, harmfully amplified by misunderstandings popularized by the science of misleading marketing. That creates ‘misunderstandings and unjustified perceptions of needs that overpower learning to be less harmful and more helpful’.
The competition not being governed by learning to be less harmful and more helpful has produced massively harmful results. The poorly governed free-for-all marketplace has developed:
- massively harmful developed ways of living, particularly climate change impacts
- massive aspirations to be more like the ‘more harmful perceived winners’
- massive resistance to the understandable need to massively and rapidly correct (transition away from) what has developed.
A massive part of that resistance is opposition to carbon pricing on fossil fuels.
The marketplace operation could help protect against the climate change harm being done if the harm of carbon emissions from fossil fuel use was properly priced (it would be a very high price per tonne of CO2e – likely more than $200 USD).
France’s leadership made a massive mistake by introducing a fairly low carbon price without clearly providing adequate additional assistance to the poor. The result was increased popularity of anti-learning populist politicians who paired the opposition to ‘climate science and the understandable need for carbon pricing’ with other harmful anti-learning actions like intolerance for immigrants (those Others).
In Germany the populist AfD opposes climate science and immigration, along with promoting other harmful misunderstandings (see my comment on a previous SkS item here).
Canada’s carbon pricing and rebate program (currently only $80 CAN - $55 USD per tonne of CO2e) benefited the poorest by providing more rebate than the carbon pricing costs they faced. Even our household in the top 10% income bracket got more rebate than we paid because of the choices we made to reduce fossil fuel use. However, the anti-learning populist political players were able to misleadingly market so successfully that all major Canadian political parties have declared they no longer support the carbon pricing program.
-
michael sweet at 02:39 AM on 25 February 2025Electric vehicle adoption is stumbling, but still growing amid geopolitical clashes
The OP references two graphics by Dana that are not present.
I thought this was a good overview of the EV situation. It appears to me that the situation is currently fluid. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next few years. Fingers crossed that the rest of the world picks up where the USA is slacking.
I drive an electric car.
-
Evan at 22:17 PM on 24 February 2025Electric vehicle adoption is stumbling, but still growing amid geopolitical clashes
I don't believe the "climate case" will ever be sufficient to drive up the sales of EVs. As demonstrated in recent elections, the economy and other sociopolitical factors will trump concern for the environment. Most people are concerned more about meeting their own needs than those of others.
But the convenience case (not having to go to the gas station every week), reduced maintenance and fueling costs, and improved driving experience (they're quick and smooth) will continue to drive up the acceptance of EVs. It will take time, but their sales should continue to increase. If for no other reason, because it will soon become obvious that the west is once again ceding leaderhip of this new, important technology to the east.
-
prove we are smart at 17:58 PM on 23 February 2025How to find climate data and science the Trump administration doesn’t want you to see
"The misleading marketing of anti-learning types competing in business or politics can significantly influence the behaviour of all political leadership competitors."
It's like the quality of our leaders has downgraded the quality of the people, aided by a media corrupted by elites/corporations. It's so frustrating to see a system willing to sacrifice its own future, along with ours, rather than mitigate the problem. I guess those holding the reins of power figure on adaptation instead, since with the increasing chaos it may bring more wealth/power opportunities and being already wealthy that bring its own privileges, so they can't lose.
My current read called :Nexus by Yuval Noah Harari, decribes how we got to where we are. Perhaps the future information technology, ie Ai and algorithms, can/will much more insidiously control the narrative and the people.
Anyway, we have our own election "soon" so I do enjoy some local " crude, but factually accurate, comedian". Often a good dose of sarcasm too..
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kYIojG707w&t=26s
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:53 AM on 23 February 2025How to find climate data and science the Trump administration doesn’t want you to see
prove we are smart @7,
Calling the person in the video "a reporter" is misleading, but not harmfully misleading.
It would have been more accurate to call them "a crude, but factually accurate, comedian".
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:49 AM on 23 February 2025How to find climate data and science the Trump administration doesn’t want you to see
Regarding my comment @5,
Tomorrow’s election in Germany will be an indication of which side is winning the ‘global war on learning to be less harmful and more helpful to others’. The Trump Republicans clearly tried to influence the German election with misleading marketing supporting the AfD (part of their global anti-learning Team effort). ‘Alt-President Musk’ and ‘Trump Republican loyal foot-soldier Vance’ blatantly delivered harmfully misleading messages in support of the AfD during the election campaign, coordinated with their anti-learning partners in Russia ‘Team Putin’.
The February 17, 2025 Clean Energy Wire article “Far-right AfD shifts debate on German climate policy, but lacks real say – researcher” opens with the following:
The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) – the second strongest polling party ahead of Germany's snap elections on 23 February – is the only major party to outright reject the scientific consensus behind human-induced climate change. The AfD will likely remain in opposition for the coming term, yet the party's growing strength has influenced the electoral campaign through agenda-setting, says political scientist Manès Weisskircher. While some of their anti-climate protection messages have found support in the wider population, their fundamental criticism of climate action relies on exaggerated claims and leaves nuance out of complicated policy decisions, the researcher who focuses on far-right politics and climate protection at TU Dresden told Clean Energy Wire. Still, a growing support base means other mainstream parties might turn quieter on their climate ambition, Weisskircher warned.
The misleading marketing of anti-learning types competing in business or politics can significantly influence the behaviour of all political leadership competitors.
Another example of harmful anti-learning political populism has happened in Canada with a likely election this spring. The Conservative Party in Canada spent years and lots of money on a massive amount of misleading marketing against the federal requirement for increasing carbon pricing and the federal backstop Carbon Fee and Rebate program that is applied in provinces that do not implement their own adequate carbon pricing program.
Like the AfD actions described above, the Conservative Party marketing made “... exaggerated claims and leaves nuance out of complicated policy decisions...”. They claimed it was a tax without mentioning the rebate. When challenged about the rebate they exaggerated how many people face more cost than the rebate they receive. And they evaded explaining that the alternative ways to reduce emissions would likely be less effective at reducing emissions and be even more expensive for the average consumer.
The Conservative Party misleading marketing has become so popular that their Liberal and NDP election opponents, who had supported the carbon pricing program, have declared that they would not continue the carbon pricing program.
-
prove we are smart at 07:29 AM on 22 February 2025How to find climate data and science the Trump administration doesn’t want you to see
It's not just climate data and science this Trump is deleting-for helping my mental health, this reporter gets it. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk0nUUqG_Ag
-
prove we are smart at 15:29 PM on 21 February 2025How to find climate data and science the Trump administration doesn’t want you to see
Trump and his administrators are the USA's Brexit moment x10. My viewing from over-seas of the USA, from its international policies to its internal chaos has progressively stunned me. I only hope my opinions are alarmist and exagerated. To elect someone with his character is a sad indictment on the country itself. www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntO04esSVJE
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:40 AM on 21 February 2025How to find climate data and science the Trump administration doesn’t want you to see
prove we are smart,
Hopefully the Americans interested in learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others will develop sustained controlling influence over American leadership actions. The results of future elections will be critical indicators of what is winning the developed conflict of interests.
Indeed, it is important to recognize that only a portion of a population are ‘opponents of learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others’. And the amount of ‘influence on leadership actions’ by that group is what differentiates ‘helpful vs harmful’ leadership action.
An example is that not all Russians embrace the harmfully incorrect beliefs created by Team Putin. However,, because of harmful control over ways of learning in Russia, it is very hard to learn and share the Truth about what is really going on. The result is harmful misunderstandings about more than climate science (Russian leadership has aggressively opposed learning about climate science) having massive influence on Russian leadership actions. And Russian leadership actions include promoting harmful misunderstandings outside of Russia.
Arguably, people who choose to engage in the Trump Republican misleading belief efforts (being harmfully misleading about more than climate science), especially by engaging in the massively misleading TrumpSocial (he gave it the misleading name Truth Social), also want or need to harmfully misunderstand things.
In matters of evidence-based understanding, competing interests develop agreement of understanding through evidence-based reasoning. And it is important for that competition to be governed by ‘interest in being less harmful and more helpful to Others’. Without being governed that way the competition could become an irreconcilable conflict with some competitors focused on interests such as personal rewards rather than learning to be less harmful and more helpful. The result can be a long-lasting. and very harmful, conflict of interests resisting learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others.
-
prove we are smart at 14:47 PM on 20 February 2025How to find climate data and science the Trump administration doesn’t want you to see
"From little things,big things grow". My correction, happy to be wrong. This is how policy can be /must be changed, thankyou some Americans. www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=nyc+protests+today#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:18b1bc33,vid:gy5pUw2S_uY,st:0
-
prove we are smart at 13:38 PM on 20 February 2025How to find climate data and science the Trump administration doesn’t want you to see
Agree, the "ugly American" is alive and well and one of the many is now president again!
All governments worldwide practise "narrowing public understanding" with their enabling corporate media cronies. Disinformation,distraction,divided and a dumbed down education system helps keep a populous from rallying.
If nearly 40% on average of eligible voters don't bother to show for the last 4 elections,I'm not holding my breath for a peoples united steet protest to force government to change to a much more social democracy and to actually govern for you.
A comment I read- "It sure feels like our Republic/Democracy has totally failed... ;-( We are spiraling down the drain with no decent candidates able to step up in a two Party System of big money and Corrupt Forces...
It was about people hurting and continuing to be hurt the last 4years. Your instinctive reaction is if you have a choice between more of the intolerable same and a roll of the dice- rationally you are going to choose a roll of the dice.This entitled country living with capitalism on steroids has voted for chaos, many threats to our fragile social order exist however greed and forever growth instead of empathy and understanding is a irresistable lure for our sociapathic leaders.
With the looming and worsening climate change disasters becoming more apparant, perhaps my naive dream of people finally living in a very different way but within a planets boundary will come true. Of course my Trumpian nightmare of fascism spreading as tipping points/collapses force the worst from us is slowly realized.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 10:13 AM on 20 February 2025How to find climate data and science the Trump administration doesn’t want you to see
Well stated nigelj.
I regularly read a magazine called AlbertaViews (link to magazine's website). The cover of the Jan/Feb 2025 issue is titled
Authoritarianism:
They say they're for freedom
but they want control
Authoritarian control involves control over any and all 'methods of learning'.
Increased awareness and improved understanding, learning, is undeniably biased against the interests of people who need 'controlling authoritarian leadership' to sustain their unjustified beliefs that excuse their desire to harmfully benefit to the detriment of Others (warriors fighting so everybody loses but Those Others lose more).
-
nigelj at 07:34 AM on 20 February 2025How to find climate data and science the Trump administration doesn’t want you to see
Lets get directly to the point. Americas current executive government is removing and hiding data and information for no defensible reason. Its no different in principle to ancient organisations who burned or banned books they didnt like. Historical example include books by Copernicus and Galileo. And its no different to the way fascist dictatorships control and limit information flows. This is not The Democrats censoring the worst types of hate speech. Its the new administration banning or hiding of of vast amounts of data, facts, theories, opinions, and other information. Its the total destruction of free speech.
-
libertador at 23:30 PM on 19 February 2025No, renewables don't need expensive backup power on today's grids
@Riduna
There are different ways to achieve enough generating capacity for times, when renewables are low.
1. simply bear the possibility of very high prices in cases of scarcity. These prices could make it profitable to have generators, which are very rarely used. The overall prices can still be low as high prices are rare.
2. Some capacity market: back-up power is paid for staying or load is paid for being able to reduce demand in case of scarcity.
-
Riduna at 12:23 PM on 19 February 2025No, renewables don't need expensive backup power on today's grids
Intersting - but what hppens when demand for electricity exceeds total generating capacity?
The article notes that as renewable capacity increases, the most expensive fossil fuelled generators are no longer used. It follows that as the capacity of cheaper renewable generators expands, more epxensive fossil fuelled generators cease to be competative and cease to operate - unless subsidised by Government.
The more reliant we become on renewable generators the more we will need to be assured of continuity of supply provided by back-up generating capacity and/or energy storage. Back-up is presently provided by gas generatorts, because they have rapid start-up but increasingly by cheaper, though more limited battery storage which also has ability to maintain grid stability.
-
jjtdmd at 07:57 AM on 19 February 2025No, renewables don't need expensive backup power on today's grids
I'm not an expert on anything but this site has expanded my knowledge base dramatically. My purpose here is to thank you for providing information such as this. Arguing about science is a lot more effective if you know the science.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:59 AM on 19 February 20252025 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #07
There are many items this week in the Climate Policy and Politics category, and in other categories, regarding anti-learning actions by Trump/Musk-led Republicans.
This new CBC News item “Scientists at U.S. weather forecasting agency ordered to get clearance before talking to Canadian counterparts” provides some additional details. The article opens with a general statement and a rather weird specific example.
Travelling for international meetings or even joining a call with Canadian counterparts has become impossible for some U.S. government scientists, under new directives since U.S. President Donald Trump took office.
Canadian ecologist Aaron Fisk says he recently tried to set up a virtual call to discuss plans with American colleagues, including a government scientist, around sampling fish.
"We tried to have a quick meeting with one of our collaborators … and they were denied access," Fisk said.
Attempts to restrict and control ‘learning’ are to be expected whenever and wherever people who like to benefit in ways that are potentially, or actually understandably, detrimental to Others become significantly powerful and influential threats that emerge and grow from inside a socioeconomic group.
There is a long history of anti-learning types becoming harmfully popular and powerful. See my comment on Weekly News #6 that includes details of anti-learning actions in Canada in the early 2000s. Note that the Trump/Musk-led Republicans can also be seen to be promoting the growth of popularity of anti-learning in Europe and elsewhere around the world.
-
Evan at 22:28 PM on 17 February 2025No, renewables don't need expensive backup power on today's grids
Very informative article with lots of good talking points to use with your cranky uncle!
-
michael sweet at 08:33 AM on 17 February 2025Sabin 33 #15 - Does EM radiation from wind turbines pose a threat to human health?
Wind turbines are mounted on towers hundreds of feet tall. If the field is background at 6 meters it would not be measurable on the ground.
-
TWFA at 03:55 AM on 17 February 2025Fact brief - Is sea level rise exaggerated?
If we
[snip]
are the only reason sea levels are rising, please explain:
![Global mean sea level anomalies (mm; blue) and carbon emitted (millions of tonnes; red) since the early 19th century. Reproduced from Fig. 4.1 of Curry (2018). [Sea level from Jevrejeva et al. (2014), carbon from Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC, 2014)].](https://oneillp.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/image.png "Sea Levels vs Emissions")
Global mean sea level anomalies (mm; blue) and carbon emitted (millions of tonnes; red) since the early 19th century. Reproduced from Fig. 4.1 of Curry (2018). [Sea level from Jevrejeva et al. (2014), carbon from Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC, 2014)].
Going back another century on sea levels with the same Jevrejeva data, instead of cutting it off at 1800 like most do for dramatic effect:
We see the sea levels were falling prior to the mid-18th century and came to a halt right about the time of the Boston Tea Party. Assuming the 46 tons of tea dumped overboard would make no difference in net displacement, and some other human forcing was required to overcome natural cycles and thermal inertia, what were we doing from, say, 1600 to 1750 to arrest the presumably naturally falling sea levels, bring them to a halt and then begin to raise them back up again by 1800, a century before our emissions amounted to anything?
Just curious, the engine of science is skepticism and this site encourages it, right?
Moderator Response:[BL] You were given a final warning on this thread, reminding you that until you went back to complete unfinished business on this thread you would not be allowed to post to any new threads.
Since you have not heeded that advice, we will now impose our own solution to your continued violations of the comments policy. No further posts from you will be allowed on any threads.
-
Doug Bostrom at 03:45 AM on 17 February 2025Sabin 33 #15 - Does EM radiation from wind turbines pose a threat to human health?
These concerns remind me of a time when a firm I worked with was dealing with a person complaining about their "electromagnetic sensitivity" being triggered by a wireless data relay site near their home.
The complaining party was communicating with us via their cellphone. Cellphones employ a range of frequencies spanning the band employed by the data network in question. Their EMF exposure from their phone was orders of magnitude higher than exposure from our network.
We didn't bother trying to explain the implications of these facts as rationality was not part of the picture we were seeing and dealing with. As with the situation of wind turbines.
-
David-acct at 11:02 AM on 16 February 2025Sabin 33 #15 - Does EM radiation from wind turbines pose a threat to human health?
Quite a few studies provide much better context of wind turbine noise than the SK rebuttal article.
[snip]
Much is made in the article of A/C's, refrigerators, etc producing higher noise levels, Two key points are omitted.A/c's and refrigerators operate at only a fraction of the time of windturbines ie 24/7/365
newer fridges operate at 32-40 dbs.
windmills dbs are inaddition to other noises, so 40-40dbs for the windmill 24/7 plus the fridge, plus the ac with run 1/3 to 1/5 the time vs all the time.
Context is important so that you are confused.
Its both the decibel level and frequency that matters, not just the decibel level.Incomplete and partial information will lead to erroneous assumptions and impresssions.
www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-97107-8
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032122006852
todayshomeowner.com/eco-friendly/guides/how-loud-are-wind-turbines/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-97107-8
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032122006852
https://todayshomeowner.com/eco-friendly/guides/how-loud-are-wind-turbines/
Moderator Response:[BL] The article you are commenting on does not refer to noise. It refers to Electromagnetic Radiation. As a result, your comment is off-topic.
You've been participating here long enough to know that there is a Comments Policy. The first bullet point in that policy is:
- All comments must be on topic. Comments are on topic if they draw attention to possible errors of fact or interpretation in the main article, of if they discuss the immediate implications of the facts discussed in the main article. However, general discussions of Global Warming not explicitly related to the details of the main article are always off topic. Moderation complaints are always off topic and will be deleted
There are blog posts here at SkS where noise from wind turbines is discussed. You can find them if you make the effort to use the Search box.
The second bullet point in the Comments Policy states (emphasis added):
- Make comments in the most appropriate thread. Some comments, while strictly on topic, may relate to issues discussed in more detail in some other thread. Extended discussion of those points should be carried out in the more appropriate thread, with link backs to reference the discussion as needed. Moderator's directions to move discussion to a more appropriate thread should always be followed.
-
John Hartz at 08:19 AM on 13 February 2025Antarctica is gaining ice
Suggested supplemental reading:
Introductory text:
"Social media posts sharing a graphic comparing sea ice levels in the Antarctic on the same date 45 years apart misrepresent the data to suggest climate change is a hoax.The graphic, opens new tab depicts two authentic maps of the continent from the University of Colorado Boulder’s National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), one labelled as 'Sea Ice Extent, 24 Dec 1979' and the other 'Sea Ice Extent, 24 Dec 2024,' with white regions indicating sea ice.
'Antarctic sea ice extent is 17% higher today than it was in 1979. Ice doesn’t lie, but climate scientists do,' the text reads."
Verdict:
"Misleading. The posts cherry-pick specific dates that misrepresent Antarctic sea ice trends and ice dynamics that are influenced by multiple factors beyond global warming."by Staff, Reuters Fact Check, Feb 11, 2025
-
nigelj at 16:16 PM on 12 February 2025Climate Adam: Is it Game Over for the 1.5 Degree Climate Limit?
From yale.edu: “The world is set to blow past its goal to limit warming to 1.5 degrees C, new research shows.
“Last year was the first to measure roughly 1.5 degrees warmer than the preindustrial era, though the world has not yet officially surpassed the 1.5-degree target set forth in the Paris Agreement, which will be judged according to the average temperature over 20 years. But with emissions hitting new highs, this target is almost certainly out of reach, according to two new papers published in Nature Climate Change.
“Scientists used modeling to show that just one year at 1.5 degrees C likely heralds a future breaching of the Paris goal. The papers suggest that last year’s record temperatures mean world will probably exceed the 1.5-degree threshold over the next 20 years.”
e360.yale.edu/digest/1.5-goal-threshold-research
www.nature.com/articles/s41558-025-02247-8
www.nature.com/articles/s41558-025-02246-9
I copied and pasted all this from a comment over at RC by SA. I don't think the author would mind.
-
nigelj at 07:13 AM on 12 February 2025Climate Adam: Is it Game Over for the 1.5 Degree Climate Limit?
Napalm doesnt look like a great idea for backing up renewables. Napalm is a mixture of petrol or diesel and a gelling agent and burns much hotter than petrol. But its not providing more energy than petrol would just by adding a gelling agent. I assume it burns hotter but not for as long as petrol (?) so has no advantage in power as a fuel source for generating electricity. And dealing with that high temperature and flammability would be a nightmare.
Its also higher carbon than gas fired backup power so its even worse for the climate. It looks like it would be higher cost than petrol or diesel, due to the manufacturing process.
Napalm might have more stable availability than gas, but this looks like it would be negated by the downsides. I just think its a classic example of a crank solution, where people see "higher temperatures" but fail to look at all the related issues.
Moderator Response:[BL] Please, let's drop the napalm stories. It's not really something that smells all that great in the morning...
-
michael sweet at 05:38 AM on 12 February 2025Climate Adam: Is it Game Over for the 1.5 Degree Climate Limit?
Red Rose:
Do you realize you are proposing to replace fossil fuels with napalm when napalm is also a fossil fuel? It is tough to lower carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning using a more refined and energy intensive fossil fuel. Good luck!
Buy solar panels instead.
-
wilddouglascounty at 01:09 AM on 12 February 2025Climate Adam: Is it Game Over for the 1.5 Degree Climate Limit?
RedRose,
Your suggestion is potentially very dangerous and risky for anyone to try, particularly in an indoor environment due to the extreme deoxygenation and carbon monoxide properties of burning napalm in an enclosed room. Why didn't you mention that in conjunction with your very dangerous experiments and when talking about it being used in warzones by people with no other alternatives? People could die playing with your fire, even if they are far enough away from the burning napalm to not get burned. For a hint of napalm's dangers, check out https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/books/NBK537127/
It might be worth considering removing your comment, or at least removing your careless experimenting with it from your comment.
Moderator Response:[BL] RedRose's comment has been edited, courtesy of your local moderator...
For all readers, please do not try burning napalm at home. Or at work. Or anywhere else, for that matter,.
-
RedRoseAndy at 19:08 PM on 11 February 2025Climate Adam: Is it Game Over for the 1.5 Degree Climate Limit?
I have recently written to the UK Prime Minister:
Dear Sir Keir Starmer
Enhanced Napalm EnergyWind and solar leave our power grids particularly vulnerable to surging energy bills due to spikes in the price of gas. We need a cheap steady source of energy that is not gas and I have just the thing.
Napalm burns at temperatures ranging from 800 to 1,200 °C (1,470 to 2,190 °F) whereas
Petrol burns at 280 °C (536 °F)[snip]
While the chemical structure of napalm is complicated it is easy to make, one part polystyrene to two parts petrol. I experimented as a school boy and found just one small sphere of polystyrene with a little petrol in an ash tray heated our sitting room to such a degree that clothes had to be taken off until the room gradually cooled. Each ash tray could only be used once, I did think to test this. I got a team to help a lady in Canada whose heating had failed during winter. She had to keep warm and not sleep for ten days, and we kept her talking and heated by napalm. Fortunately the lady had enough ash trays, or I would have had to find out how many times a saucepan could be used before failing. Another contact, from the Ukraine this time, again in an online newspaper asked about heating, and napalm in saucepans (ten times only) is now used all over war-torn Ukraine. Because napalm burns at much higher temperatures lower quantities of fuel could be used in converted fossil fuel power stations to create cleaner energy for times when renewable energy is in short supply, even with back up batteries. The Soviet Union added various chemicals to the napalm that each multiplied each others burning temperatures, to get up to the heat of a nuclear explosion, 100 million degrees Celsius, so this could replace the forever twenty years away dreams of fusion energy, and much more cheaply. Reports suggest that it has been used by Russia in the Ukraine war. Napalm was invented as a weapon, now we can use it for peace time energy, turning swords into ploughshares.
All the infrastructure is already in place to generate electricity in this way, we just need to convert are fossil and nuclear power stations, which is cheaper than building new.
It would not be possible for me to get the kind of security I need in order to produce Enhanced Napalm, but the government can form a team of chemists to let you know what the additives are.Moderator Response:[BL] While sending letters to your Prime Minister to urge action on climate change is a good idea, burning napalm at home does not seem like such a good idea.
And burning napalm at home is certainly off-topic for this thread. The video does not look at anything remotely related to the contents of your letter.
-
Jim Hunt at 16:24 PM on 11 February 2025January sets an unexpected temperature record
In related news the air temperature at the North Pole rose above zero degrees Celsius for several hours on February 2nd:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2025/02/facts-about-the-arctic-in-february-2025/
Huge waves north of Svalbard pushed back the sea ice edge on the Atlantic side of the Arctic Ocean:
Sea ice extent is only just starting to recover from the shock:
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:00 AM on 11 February 20252025 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #06
The first two articles in this week’s Climate Policy and Politics category are cause for significant concern, but should not be a surprise.
A related ‘non-surprise’ is the Feb 7, 2025, NPR item 'Unprecedented': White House moves to control science funding worry researchers. This is not really ‘unprecedented’. It is just current day actions in the endless attacks on learning by anti-progress groups.
Anti-progress, anti-learning, groups have a history of opposing ‘learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others’. They attack ‘science/learning that they dislike’ because developing and maintaining support and excuses for their desired beliefs requires reduced awareness and the promotion of misunderstandings.
Learning is understandably biased towards progressive improvements that challenge many developed beliefs and interests. Prolonging the popularity of understandably harmful misunderstandings requires control over what is learned.
Efforts to limit understanding of the harm done by desired actions (and lack of actions) include dictating what is learned. That is not a new tactic. It wasn’t even new in 2017. Earlier examples of attacks on ‘increased awareness and improved understanding that challenge harmful misunderstandings’ include the Canadian Government’s War on Science. (internet search: Harper or Canadian Government War on Science). The following ‘search find’, among many, is a detailed description of the fundamentals of that pre-2017 War on Science that is still relevant today regarding wars on learning around the world, not just Canada back Then (and it is titled with an incisive protest punchline):
-
nigelj at 05:45 AM on 7 February 2025January sets an unexpected temperature record
PericoDelosPalotes @8
Sorry I misinterpreted your reference to global climate finance flows. IMO it does look like the world may have spent very roughly 20 trillion on climate mitigation since the 1990s. However the moderators comments on the global finance flows issue certainly is a concern I also have. And none of this validates your claim that governments response to the climate issue is not weak.
-
nigelj at 05:24 AM on 7 February 2025January sets an unexpected temperature record
PericoDelosPalotes @8
You claimed @ 5 that global spending on climate mitigation was $20 trillion since the 1990s. None of the information you have provided in your comment @ 8 substantiates that.
You now claim that global spending on climate mitigation is about 2 trillion per year and global military spending per year is 2 trillion. This does not demonstrate that globally government spending on climate mitigation is strong. Many people would claim that what countries spend on the military is too weak. Its all subjective.
You have to measure the strength of the government climate response against the required goals and the required spending as I outlined previously. By that measure governments response to the climate problem is weak. Sorry if you cant see that.
Your claims about EVs not being a solution to the climate problem and that hybrids are better (paraphrasing) are simply assertions with no hard evidence or links provided.
You said @7 "Cars are getting heavier, while an EU study years ago proved that the CO2 reduction goals in transport set for 2050, could be achieved TODAY, by just reducing each vehicle weight 10%. But vehicles are getting heaver and heavier. This is a trend of more than 30 years."
No link provided. I googled this information and the only reference that came up is your own comment on this website. People wont believe the study exists unless you can provide a link. And we need to see the study for full information and context of exactly what they are assuming and measuring.
Regarding your comments on the weight of ICE cars. Reducing the weight of ICE cars by 10% might help a bit but it only reduces emissions about 10% so something better is needed such as EVs. They are zero emissions (after about 50,000 kms to allow for manufacturing emissions). Hybrids are better than ICE vehicles but they are definitely not zero emissions no matter how sophisticated the technology. And sophisticated hybrid technology costs a lot of money. So your anti EV rhetoric and promotion of hybrids as a better solution is not that persuasive to me.
-
Evan at 02:05 AM on 7 February 2025January sets an unexpected temperature record
PericoDelosPalotes&8
Thanks for providing more supporting information.
However, I am still not sure what you are trying to say. Are you saying that you don't think there is a climate emergency? Please give a clear indication of your position and a concise reason for your position. Here is the evidence that I point to indicating that we are in a climate emergency.
Currently atmospheric CO2 concentrations are increasing, on average, about 2.5 ppm/year. There are many sites that report this, such as the NOAA site.
CO2 increasing at this rate indicates a climate emergency. You don't need to look any further than this statistic.
-
PericoDelosPalotes at 00:40 AM on 7 February 2025January sets an unexpected temperature record
Afternoon,
I shall stick to replying to your questions as an assurance of following an on-topic conversation.
Glad to provide more data regarding the global cumulative expenditure and to put it into perspective
Here links for the ball park estimation:
https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/publication/global-landscape-of-climate-finance-a-decade-of-data/
https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/publication/global-landscape-of-climate-finance-2024/
https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/publication/global-landscape-of-climate-finance-2021/Sector Approx. Annual Budget
U.S. Federal Discretionary Budget ~$2 trillion
Global Energy Investments ~$2.8 trillion
Global Military Spending ~$2.2 trillion
Global R&D Spending ~$2.4 trillion
European Healthcare Spending ~$2–2.5 trillion
Global AI/IT Spending (Cloud, AI, Cybers.) ~$2 trillion (forecasted)Summary of the above and framing:
Current global Climate Change expenditure is in par with Energy investment or Military one GLOBALLY (around 2Trillion USD yearly).
Still, all the policies applied, the technologies developed and the actionables all row in the opposite direction (and I refer you to read the list of examples I provided in my previous post considered as unsupported barrage) to What I would consider aiming at the solving of an URGENT RISK.
I have been designing EV powertrains for over a decade in major Car OEMs, I know the reality of the technology from the
Horses mouth, I am not coming from watching a few denialist documentaries in YouTube.2T USD budget is big words: only met by a few global sectors, economies or entities that can operate in that scale. Any Enterprise with that budget and such poor results would need a proper investigation or enquiry.
It is not that the climate change government policies has been weak, its even worse, they have been strong but in the opposite direction.
With due respect...maybe, there is a solid reason for people to be skeptical about Climate Change and policies applied.
Moderator Response:[BL] Responding to questions that were asked as the result of an off-topic comment does not magically make the response on-topic. The topic of this blog post is recent temperature records, not climate financing.
Unfortunately, since it is still very difficult to understand what point you are trying to make, it is difficult to point you to a thread where your comments would be on-topic.
In the moderation comment on your comment #5, you were told you need to provide references when you post claims such as "20 trillion dollars". The full context of your quote was [emphasis added] " we can conservative estimate around 20trillion USD has been invested in green policies." You have now provided some links, but:
- The links point to summaries of reports, and you have not given any indication where on those web pages (or the reports) you have obtained numbers.
- By doing this, you are forcing others to try to look for something on those pages (or reports) that might coincide with the numbers you claim.
- This is unacceptable in an environment that expects genuine discussion.
- What you should be doing is giving explicit indications of which part of a web page or report you are looking at, and how you used that to derive the interpretation you are presenting. Provide information regarding the sections, figures, tables, etc. that you want people to see.
- After presenting your total in comment 5 as "investing in green policies", you are now using the term "Current global Climate Change expenditure".
- The web pages you link to use the term "Global Climate Finance".
- It is not readily apparent just exactly how that organization defines that term, and to determine this probably requires downloading the full reports and looking at their methodology.
- Using different terms at different times, without defining those terms, just adds to the confusion.
- Unless you can explain what those terms mean, quoting numbers remains meaningless.
With due respect, your closing comment that "...maybe, there is a solid reason for people to be skeptical about Climate Change and policies applied." suggests that you are not very clear in your own mind of the difference between climate science (the physics of climate and how we expect climate to change due to increasing CO2) and policy responses to that science.
Please try to do better. You need to be far more explicit with respect to what claim you are discussing, what you don't agree with, and what evidence you want people to pay attention to.
-
prove we are smart at 21:37 PM on 6 February 2025The fossil fuel industry spent $219 million to elect the new U.S. government
The Corporate States Of America are in for the best of times under their quid pro quo inhuman Trumps government. The legal lobbying and dark money influence is certainly prevalent here in Australia too and do research to remain cognitive- enjoy these aussie guys, they usually make me laugh and think.www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBqVVBUdW84
-
nigelj at 08:52 AM on 6 February 2025January sets an unexpected temperature record
PericoDelosPalotes @6
Some of your comments seem interesting and valid, but some sound wrong and some are unsupported assertions, and some are off topic. I dont have time to address them all. I will only respond to those points that were directly in response to my previous comment:
You said "Saying governments are captured by lobbies it is a really huge implication. We are talking industry, research, universities, education, investors, enterpreneurs, doctors, engineers...are they all captured by the fossil fuel lobby?"
Investors and entrepreneurs and doctors for example are not really part of government, or at least not significantly, so they dont seem relevant to my point. The government does run a public education system and fossil fuels lobby has attempted to influence public education. One example of many:
"Miseducation”: How Fossil Fuel Lobbyists Push Climate Denialism to Kids in U.S. Schools"
www.democracynow.org/2021/11/19/katie_worth_climate_education_investigative_reporting
You said: "Saying "weak government polices" it is a bit unnacurate. Since the 90s ( although the bulk came from 2010 onwards), worldwide, we can conservative estimate around 20trillion USD has been invested in green policies. Then on top of that, Industry, in any kind of field, has invested more than that figure in developing technology of any kind..precisely in the opposite direction. That is 40 years of development in the wrong direction, and the cost of opportunity is HUGE. SMOG in many large cities can be traced already to the 80s."
I reiterate that government response to the climate problem in America and most other countries has been weak. Your figure of $20 trillion looks too high and you have provided no calculations or links to back up your assertion or numbers as a reference point. However lets assume $20 trillion correct for the sake of argument. Its estimated that mitigating climate change properly would cost 3% of global gdp each year (Stern Report for example) and global gdp has been about $85 trillion on average in recent decades which is mitigation of about $2.5 trillion per year. $20 trillion spent over the last 30 years is about 0.6 trillion per year well below what is required and is mostly driven by government policies, therefore it is weak. It is certainly weaker than is required.
We also know governments climate policies have been weak because emissions are still growing robustly and atmospheric CO2 has not slowed or levelled off or fallen. This is the ultimate and undeniable reference point.
Global gdp data:
www.statista.com/statistics/268750/global-gross-domestic-product-gdp/
You say: "Saying "weak government polices" it is a bit unnacurate (implying government has taken strong actions), " followed later by saying that "You can measure reality not by words but by actions, and after 40 years of words that doesnt match actions...maybe...just maybe... something is off" which is all completely contradictory. You cant claim government is strong on climate change, and also effectively claim that government action has been weak. But thank's for your comments.
-
Evan at 21:21 PM on 5 February 2025January sets an unexpected temperature record
PericoDelosPalotes@5
Your barrage of comments is now far off topic from the article. I don't have time to respond to your comments. If you want to continue the discussion, please be more focused and pick a couple of things to discuss.
-
PericoDelosPalotes at 18:57 PM on 5 February 2025January sets an unexpected temperature record
Morning,
Saying governments are captured by lobbies it is a really huge implication. We are talking industry, research, universities, education, investors, enterpreneurs, doctors, engineers...are they all captured by the fossil fuel lobby?Saying "weak government polices" it is a bit unnacurate. Since the 90s ( although the bulk came from 2010 onwards), worldwide, we can conservative estimate around 20trillion USD has been invested in green policies. Then on top of that, Industry, in any kind of field, has invested more than that figure in developing technology of any kind..precisely in the opposite direction. That is 40 years of development in the wrong direction, and the cost of opportunity is HUGE. SMOG in many large cities can be traced already to the 80s.
Stating the patient does nothing out of doctor advices, doesnt seems like a good example.Transport:
Cars are getting heavier, while an EU study years ago proved that the CO2 reduction goals in transport set for 2050, could be achieved TODAY, by just reducing each vehicle weight 10%. But vehicles are getting heaver and heavier. This is a trend of more than 30 years.
Hybrid cars should have been of the serial-hybrid architecture since the 90s, rather than:
a) pushing for EVs ( poor decision)
b) developing micro-hybrid useless (absolute trash)
c) developing parallel hybrid (even a prius who is an example of durability has level of complexities never seen, like having 3 electric motors)
A series-hybrid would have allowed for a very small combustion engine, ultra efficient, ultra easy to repair, same engine across many many cars and platforms, with way less moving parts, way easy on emmisions, fine tuned like a race car engine. An Idling engine just sitting there like a power generator. All without the need even for the coming of Lithium batteries. The implications (differences) are HUGE. This is no joke, we are talking a decission that could have changed where we are today massively.
Electricity generation: pushing for Solar, wind etc as if they could ever be just no more than marginal actors in most of the cases. While banning and jeopardizing Nuclear power development. We could have developed for the last 40 years thorium or simialr nuclear plants. Instead we have stick with old submarine technology from the 50s while at the same time promoting an agenda of closing them off. Now we have AI technology so electrical power hungry that they are now requiring mini nuclear plants. Its ridicolous. We just shoot ourselfes in the foot over and over and over.
Logistics: We trade everyithing, produce everything from Low income countries, that they use slave labour, children, concentration camps labour...the list can go on and on and on. Rather than local manufacturing. I watched a documentary about a lorry driver that has to deliver doughnouts from up in Scotland in the UK to Koln in Germany. REALLY?? nobody in Koln can make "doughnouts". We are not talking about 4nanometer microchips... just flour with suggar.
Ukraine war result? rather than cheap gas from Russia, so we can have energy in Europe, to develop new technologies, hopefully greener. Now we have the same gas from Russia but through many more intermediaries, through longer, more expensive and more polluting routes than just receiving them through a pipeline. And more expensive. Or even worse, being broguth cross Atlantic from the USA. That is SUPER GREEN.Recylcing policies? another joke, but a joke that has costed 40 years of effort. Its got its opportunity cost lost.
And I can keep listing for hours wrong decisions, policies and the likes.
None of them points out to any short of sense of urgency. Even worse, is not that the patient doesnt take doctors advice, the patient has done A LOT, A LOT. All in the wrong direction.
You cannot be wrong in all, all the time, in all aspects for that long.
You can measure reality not by words but by actions, and after 40 years of words that doesnt match actions...maybe...just maybe... something is off.Moderator Response:[BL] As is pointed out in the comment that follows yours - most of this is off topic. Your comment violates several aspects of the Comments Policy. Please read that policy before commenting again.
More specifically:
- Your comment is simply a Gish Gallop of unrelated (and unsupported) opinions.
- It is extremely difficult to actually make sense out of what you are saying. You need to make your points succinctly if you want anyone to pay attention to you.
- When you throw out numbers such as "20 trillion USD", you need to provide supporting evidence, such as a link to your sources. Otherwise, people will think you are just making stuff up.
- There are many posts here at Skeptical Science that cover a variety of topics related to misinformation, government action, policies, etc.
- Use the search tool to find appropriate posts.
- Read those posts.
- Then make comments in a clear, on-topic manner.
Again, read the Comments Policy before continuing. There is a link to it above the comment box every time you log on and begin to prepare a comment.
Off-topic comments can and will be subject to moderation - deleting portions of comments, or the entire comment.
-
Evan at 06:49 AM on 5 February 2025January sets an unexpected temperature record
As a shoutout to nigelj's comment
"Even losing a few votes can be significant."
Isn't it interesting that political systems are often just as delicately balanced as the biosphere. Whether in politics, personal finance, or the biosphere, success or failure is often determined by seemingly small margins.
Average annual rates of increase of CO2 are 2.5 ppm/year. That is an absolutely massive push on our delicately-balanced biosphere.
