Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 Next
Comments 8201 to 8250:
-
michael sweet at 09:30 AM on 29 January 2020Sea level fell in 2010
RitchieB,
I do not think that there was ever a "discrepancy" to be corrected in the comments above. The first commentor says they are a "layman" who eyeballs a graph and does some rudimentary calculations. The responding posters cite Llovel et al 2010 which states in the abstract:
"We show that whatever the period considered, interannual variability of the mean sea level is essentially explained by interannual fluctuations in land water storage, with the largest contributions arising from tropical river basins"
Obviously the laymans eyeball is not as accurate as professional scientists calculations. If you want more information Google Scholar says Llovel has been cited 84 times. If you read the titles of the papers you can find one that answers your questions. Here is one I looked at. In the abstract it says all the fall in sea level in 2010-2011 is caused by land storage.
If you look at the intermediate level of the explaination of this myth here at SkS, there is a graph that shows the yearly seasonal variation of sea level in the Northern Hemisphere varies by about 60 mm and the Southern Hemisphere varies by about 30 mm. It seems reasonable to me that a change in rainfall could cause 10 mm yearly change for a short time when seasonal variation is so much larger.
-
Eclectic at 22:21 PM on 28 January 2020Sea level fell in 2010
Richieb @21 , I am not clear about the nature of your inquiry. Australia (the part that gets rained upon!) is about 3% of the world's land area . . . so presumably it was the other 140-ish million square kilometers receiving the bulk of the "missing" ocean water. Spread kinda thin, even allowing for local concentrations (see chart in OP).
Water runs off quickly and returns to the ocean, or soaks into the soil for a year or two ~ and eventually trickles back to the ocean, or evaporates and rains into the ocean. All part of the normal variation of things.
There doesn't seem to be any discrepancy requiring special explanation. There are always small ups and downs imposed on top of the continuing rise in sea level.
-
richieb1234 at 20:50 PM on 28 January 2020Sea level fell in 2010
Why did sea level fall in 2010?
This exchange in the Fall of 2011 presents a fascinating discussion of the relationship between global mean sea level and water transfer to land masses. Specifically, the apparent temporary downtrend in sea level around 2010 was purported to be explained at least partially by torrential rainfall in Australia and elsewhere. BUT the accumulation of rain on land was not nearly enough to account for the sea level drop. The discussion trails off in December 2011 without a resolution of the discrepancy. And the anthropogenic increase in sea level resumed its upward trend in 2012.
Was this discrepancy ever resolved? Does the discrepancy have implications regarding the accuracy annd relliability of satellite measurements? Is this related to the later downturn in sea level in the 2016 timeframe?
VR, richieb1234
Moderator Response:[DB] NASA has continued to track water motions across the planet, from alpine and ice sheet mass losses to the ocean and land impoundment changes over time, including torrential rains in the Amazon and Australia lowering global sea levels for a time. The overall trend is upward with the net effect that global sea level rise is accelerating in lockstep with accelerating ice sheet mass losses. NASA has a video on GRACE's 15-year mission tracking that, here.
-
John Hartz at 10:55 AM on 28 January 2020It's El Niño
Recommended supplemental reading:
A new study finds a possible link between Arctic warming and more frequent El Niños in the Central Pacific.
Dwindling Arctic Sea Ice May Affect Tropical Weather Patterns by Bob Berwyn, InsideClimate News, Jan 27, 2020
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:14 AM on 28 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
Hank,
Engineers I know share the understanding that any structure that does not meet code minimum design requirements is an unsafe structure based on the new code requirements.
The fact that increased levels of minimum requirements in a code update are not required to be applied to already built items, because of the cost, does not change the reality that the structure just meeting the older lower design standard is unacceptable based on the updated code. And in Canada any modification of an existing structure must include all modifications required to meet the current code requirements. And if the updated code requirements become significant enough then older buildings will be declared unable to continue to be used without upgrades.
So as I have tried to consistently say, increased risk of failure is the reality being created by rapid climate change. And any attempt to establish a design requirement in anticipation of rapid climate change faces the challenge of establishing certainty regarding how severe the future design requirements will become.
-
John Hartz at 01:44 AM on 28 January 2020It's the sun
Recommended supplemental reading:
Four graphs that suggest we can’t blame climate change on solar activity by Gareth Dorrian & Ian Whittaker, The Conversation UK, Jan 24, 2020
-
Eclectic at 13:08 PM on 27 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #4
Bob @12 , you are superbly optimistic.
But the past 30 years are almost certainly going to be very different to the coming 30 years. Past and future changes in technology & social attitudes (and consequent economics) . . . ensure that the past cannot be extrapolated linearly into the future. Which makes it pointless to attempt to model a "re-run of history" from 1990.
If the Byzantine Empire had not fallen to the Turks . . . if Kaiser Wilhelm's father had not died prematurely . . . if Adolf Schicklgruber had died in childhood . . . if . . . if. So many broadbrush and "narrowbrush" events which might have been, and could have disrupted the course of history. And nowadays, the course of history is mutating ever faster.
No, the provision of data has no beneficial effect on the climate pseudo-skeptics. They do not "refute" ~ they have had decades of experience in unrelenting denial of reality. It is rare for any of them to change, short of death. They will continue to pervert (in their own minds) the logical scientific analysis of evidence. And when backed into a corner, they resort to playing the "political conspiracy" card. Really, Bob, it's all just a form of intellectual insanity.
And unless you can discover a cure for intellectual insanity . . . well then, your time would be better spent on more practical aims.
-
Bob dde V at 11:38 AM on 27 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #4
It seems we have the modelling capacity to predict the impact of what the current usuage of fossil fuel will have on CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and subsequent effect on global temperature. That being the case, it should not be too difficult to predict the impact that would have occurred if fossil fuel use was halved in 1990. We could then compare any positive outcomes (e.g. temperature reduction) that would have resulted if we took that course of action versus what is in place today. Maybe we could also get a handle on any negative outcomes, e.g. reduced development in poorer countries or inconveniences in richer countries. Thus we could better determine how important it is to pursue reduction of fossil fuels use into the future. Surely that would provide "hard" data that any skeptics could not refute. It would also provide firm targets for emission reduction that would make a real difference as we go forward.
-
nigelj at 10:14 AM on 27 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #4
John Hartz @10 fair enough and good on you. I always appreciate your list of articles. I'm probably just argumentative. Should have been a lawyer.
-
John Hartz at 08:16 AM on 27 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #4
nigelj@7: For better or for worse, I don't have much time these days to debate with anyone. Sifting and winnowing trhough the myriad of Climate related articles being written and published to find the best ones for posting on the SkS Facebook page is labor intensive. In my spare time, I'm attempting to honcho the creation of a South Carolina Chapter of Elders Climate Action.
-
nigelj at 08:05 AM on 27 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #4
Bob Loblaw @8 now you are talking. That is exactly the problem.
In many places globally electricity generation is effectively a government run or privately run local monopoly, often with fossil fuels. Because its a monopoly they will try to lock out new alternatives that upset the prevailing comfortable arrangements. Customers have no choice.
In my country (and I believe in Texas) we have a different system, an electricty market system effectively run by the transmission lines company (which is a natural monopoly you can't change that). But the system is structured to prevent generating companies joining together to create a big monopoly, especially one that excludes any particular form of generation.
So the system is designed to provide customer choice between mutiple generating companies and to to ensure all generating options get a fair go including renewables. So we have generating companies with different mixes of types of generation, and customers can pick and choose.
A cap and trade scheme pushes up the prices of fossil fuels to encourages clean energy.
-
Bob Loblaw at 07:22 AM on 27 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #4
Doug:
THe thing that particularly galls me is how the fossil fuel industry (particularly in the U.S.) actively lobbies to place regulatory and financial hurdles in front of competitors via government intervention.
I wish that, as a consumer, I had freer access to alternatives, so that I could make more individual choices to avoid fossil fuels. The fossil fuel industry keeps its "competitive" advantage when it succeeds in reducing the availability of alternatives. Free market, my @$$.
-
nigelj at 05:16 AM on 27 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #4
John Hartz @4, ok, but I was looking forward to a bit of a debate with you on the issue! I dont care if people attack what I say, as long as it doesn't become personal, which is clearly not your style anyway.
-
John Hartz at 00:41 AM on 27 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #4
Doug Bostrom: Well said. I would add that the fossil fuel industry is going full bore with BAU for the foreseeable future. It simple must be prevented from doing so using every tool available.
-
Doug Bostrom at 15:08 PM on 26 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #4
Further to Nigel's remarks, a couple of nights ago this matter of producer vs. consumer culpability came up in conversation over dinner over in these here parts. My initial sour remark was that 90% of people blaming oil companies for our problems would be begging them to resume production after a week of cessation, were "they should just stop" actually to happen.
Remembering that I was in a dark mood, I amended my estimate to 60%.
What does distinguish oil majors is their concerted attempt to gaslight us— to reach into our heads and twist our grasp of reality— so as to preserve the money vector they enjoy. That's an offense against society unique to a select group. It's an act of calculated harm with effects similar to antisocial behavior covered in statutory law, even if no actual criminal code encompasses the transgression.
-
John Hartz at 14:59 PM on 26 January 2020Waking up to climate change | Australia's Bushfires
A long read, but well worth it...
These scientists think we're in a 'bushfire spiral'. They have a plan, Analysis by Liam Mannix, Sydney Morning Herald, Jan 26, 2020
-
John Hartz at 13:16 PM on 26 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #4
nigelj: I did not say your comments were wrong. I also withdraw my claim they are "wishy washy". My bad.
-
nigelj at 12:53 PM on 26 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #4
John Hartz, by stupidity I mean trying to find scapegoats to blame for the climate crisis, and this includes oil companies. It just looks like it would be counter productive. We need to be a whole lot more solutions focussed.
Of course its good to remind people of how oil companies have contributed to the denail campaign. This is a bit different.
I don't see where my comments are wishy washy. Calling my comments wishy washy actually sounds wishy washy. You need to show me specifically where you think I'm wrong and why.
-
John Hartz at 12:11 PM on 26 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #4
nigelJ: I find your comment to be a tad wishy-washy. Re its final sentence, what "stupidity" are you talking about?
-
Jim Eager at 08:22 AM on 26 January 2020Waking up to climate change | Australia's Bushfires
It is a fact that some people can and will be careless with fire, I myself have helped put out a bush fire caused by someone’s careless disposal of a cigarette. And it is a fact that some warped individuals do start fires intentionally, but as Nigel asked, so what? This is nothing new. If the NSW and Victoria forests hadn’t been so tinder dry from prolonged drought and sustained elevated temperatures the fires would not have been so wide spread, **regardless** of ignition source, a point conceded in the very opinion piece that Aleks linked to.
Nor would the fires have grown so quickly and widely from flying embers:
“Fire officials in New South Wales reported that embers were landing 30km (18 miles) ahead of the front on Tuesday – three times more than the usual distance.” https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-50383800And as for Aleks’ insinuation that the absence of thunderstorms precludes lightning strikes, as has been observed in previous fires, this year’s bushfires were so intense that they created their own weather which included dry lightning strikes.
By digging in Aleks shows again that he is incapable of grasping the difference between proximate and ultimate causation, which Phiippe just illustrated quite nicely.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 08:12 AM on 26 January 2020Waking up to climate change | Australia's Bushfires
A few months ago, someone had the same argument as Aleks. I pointed to the poster that the logic was flawed by comparing it to the following situation: when I get home in the evening I turn the light on flipping a switch and create a minor spark; if one day there has been a gas leak and the air/gas mixture has reached the right proportions in the house, my ordinary gesture will cause a devastating explosion. By that poster's logic, turning the light on would be the cause of the explosion.
-
nigelj at 06:41 AM on 26 January 2020Waking up to climate change | Australia's Bushfires
aleks @8, so what? What I mean is we all know fires are started for different reasons, basically lightening strikes, arson and accidents like discarded cigarettes. There is no evidence presented that these problems have grown significantly in recent years, and in this fire season. The fire services has said arson isn't looking like a significant factor this season.
What we know is hot dry conditions mean fires catch hold very easily and spread quickly and can burn large areas. Climate change is certainly causing hotter conditions. You need to explain how hotter conditions would not make bushfires worse, and I think it would defy all logic. Granted drought plays a huge part as well.
There's also evidence that climate change is increasing the length of the fire season.
Here is a relevant article: How climate change is making Australia's bushfires worse:
-
RedBaron at 06:23 AM on 26 January 2020New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change'
As more and more people ignore denialists and actually begin doing what Seb V claims is impossible:
-
aleks at 06:22 AM on 26 January 2020Waking up to climate change | Australia's Bushfires
According to The Sidney Morning Gerald: "A 2015 satellite analysis of 113,000 fires from 1997-2009 confirmed what we had known for some time – 40 per cent of fires are deliberately lit, another 47 per cent accidental." https://www.smh.com.au/national/arson-mischief-and-recklessness-87-per-cent-of-fires-are-man-made-20191117-p53bcl.html
-
nigelj at 05:45 AM on 26 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #4
"The companies that have contributed most to climate change"
These sorts of scapegoating views don't help much. The trouble with this is leads to finger pointing, where people will say "governments should do something about oil companies then". "The climate problem is nothing to do with me". Now this totally distracts attention from pushing for clean electricity grids and lifestyle changes.
And what can governmnets practically do about fossil fuel companies? They are legal entities so attempts to shut them down, or cap how much oil they are allowed to produce would require massively draconian policies and people would rightly be concerned about government abuse of power. And simply shutting the companies down would cause massive economic dislocations. Although I have to say its tempting.....
Concentrate on the things that could work and are compatible with a reasonably free society. Carbon taxes, cap and trade, subsidies, fuel efficiency rules etc but set at robust levels that make a real difference. its going to hurt a bit, but there will be multiple benefits.
Shame the oil companies if you want, and executives that put personal self interest above all other things.
No doubt I will be called a denier. However Im not going to go along with stupidity.
-
nigelj at 05:14 AM on 26 January 2020How did climate change get so controversial?
UncleJeff @19
Ouch!
"Bad science reporting"
Yes sometimes, but its not the fault of warmists and scientists. Talk to the media about that one.
The media manage to sometimes get facts wrong, but are reasonably ok on the whole. They exaggerate parts of the climate problem sometimes, yet they also miss the genuinely serious aspects of the climate problem and this is actually a bigger reporting problem. They have false equivalency between both sides of the climate debate, because they are driven by trying to get people to turn the page.
"clean energy crony-capitalism"
Not sure what you mean, but I don't think you can include subsidies for clean energy in this category of crony capitalism. Crony capitalism is favours for industry that simply don't make sense in terms of the public good. Renewables are a public good. Fossil fuel subsidies would fit that definition of crony capitalism better.
"outdated stats in the political arena"
What outdated stats? The stats for 2019s temperatures have just been released and they are the third warmest on record, or something close to that.
"It also doesn't help that certain political factions have hitched their freight to the climate issue, arousing unneeded opposition."
Agree this is a problem. But we are a free society.
"Therefore, the alarmist camp would do well to .... actively discourage the overzealous etc from discrediting climate science via sloppy reporting, opportunism etc. "
Agreed. I do this including when people hugely exaggerate. But then I get labelled a denier for my efforts.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:57 AM on 26 January 2020How did climate change get so controversial?
UncleJeff, that's wishful thinking. Deniers have shown over and over their willingness to argue in the most blatant bad faith, against scientific realities that they often don't even understand. I have lived through the "carbonic snow in Antarctica" days, or the averaging of percentages without weighing made by prominent deniers at WUWT. I have seen the Soon & Baliunas fiasco, McIntyre&McKitrick junk. I found the standards of the deniers camp to be essentially non existent.
What you are saying is that there has to be a double standard: deniers can be completely full of it, deliberately lie, misrepresent, cherry pick, harass, misleadingly quote stolen e-mails, threaten opponents, but advocates of a livable future must be perfect, because even honest mistakes will be exploited by deniers. Unfortunately, you're right; that is the current state of this non-debate.
-
nigelj at 04:46 AM on 26 January 2020Waking up to climate change | Australia's Bushfires
Aleks @5, you should read your own wikipedia reference. The huge areas burned in 1974 - 1975 were unused grasslands in central australia. No attempts were made to put them out. This is all very different from the current situation so its a meaningless comparison.
The area burned currently in NSW comprises forests, and totals 18,000 hectares, and this is higher than total areas burned in that state in the past (something aound 12,000 hectares), so this fire season is unprecedented in area burned for NSW.
-
Jim Eager at 04:25 AM on 26 January 2020Waking up to climate change | Australia's Bushfires
Aleks seems unable to discern the difference between ignition, the proximate cause of the fire, and the drying out of the bush by prolonged drought and elevated temperatures, without which ignition would not have been been so readily possible, making it the ultimate cause, regardless of the source of ignition. He is also quick to assign ignition to the random or deliberate actions of individuals, when in fact ignition in this case has overwhelmingly been the spreading of embers from one fire to cause many more fires.
-
aleks at 03:53 AM on 26 January 2020Waking up to climate change | Australia's Bushfires
High air temperature itself cannot be the cause of a fire, since the self-ignition temperature of dry wood is hardly lower than for paper (451оF). In the absence of thunderstorms at this time, it can be assumed that the fires were initiated by random or deliberate actions of individuals.
As for the "unprecedented" nature of the current fires, their history since 1851 is reflected in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushfires_in_Australia -
UncleJeff at 03:34 AM on 26 January 2020How did climate change get so controversial?
The article's thesis would be better supported if it included missteps made by the pro-crisis camp. Bad science reporting, clean energy crony-capitalism, outdated stats in the political arena etc all create paper targets for critics to aim at. It also doesn't help that certain political factions have hitched their freight to the climate issue, arousing unneeded opposition.
When well-meaning people with incomplete information see reporters, businesses and politicians slammed by newer or better facts, then the truth baby can get tossed out with the inaccuracy water. When they see historically unpalatable politics tied to all of the proposed solutions, even neutrals will get their hackles up.
Therefore, the alarmist camp would do well to first admit that not all arguments on its side are correct or helpful, and then actively discourage the overzealous etc from discrediting climate science via sloppy reporting, opportunism etc. The climate cause also isn't helped by political factions who exploit the climate crisis to advance side-causes not necessary to solve climate.
-
BillyJoe at 07:29 AM on 25 January 2020Waking up to climate change | Australia's Bushfires
Nigel,
My thought as well except I was thinking "critical mass". The number of people frustrated with political inaction has reached a "critical mass" for getting out on the streets and protesting. But, of course, natural disasters, politicians coming out and voicing their ongoing denial of climate change in the face of these natural disasters, and the Greta Thunberg phenomenon are probably all factors behind the numbers reaching "critical mass".
I still have my reservations about Climate Adam's style, but horses for courses and whatever helps, but I can't help recommending Potholer again. His latest video is in response to the misinformation spread by the climate denying media about Australian bush fires. You might not want to watch 36 minutes of low key sarcasm though :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0x46-enxsA
Whatever you may think of his style, he puts a great deal of work into those videos. In this latest video, he lists the 45 references. And it's had nearly 120,000 views, so it actually gets watched despite its length.
Moderator Response:[JH] Link activated.
-
nigelj at 07:25 AM on 25 January 2020How did climate change get so controversial?
Ive read Hayeks book "A Road to Serfdom. Its really just a short treatise (thank god for that) arguing central planning of the soviet sort doesn't work because the planners can't possibly have enough information and computing power to process it (the book was back in the 1950s I think) and so free markets with decentralised private ownership work best. I've read quite good arguments that with our better knowledge today centrally planned economies could work as well as private markets, although I think it just goes too much against our natural instinct for private ownership. It would put a lot of trust in a very powerful government.
But I don't recall Hayek arguing that goverment had no role in economic affairs such as environmental regulation. Laissez faire economics like this has a poor record, eg early Victorian England. Economic growth was good but human suffering was terrible, until they slowly introduced child protection laws etcetera.
Scandinavia has a nice model that combines the best of free market capitalism and state control and ownership where this makes sense. There's a reasonable balance between freedom and control. I doubt we will do much better. Their economic and social data is good, and climate mitigation is quite good, and this is the ultimate test of the model. But I phlosophise too much...
-
John Hartz at 06:43 AM on 25 January 2020Australia's heat and bushfires are signs of fundamental shifts in its climate
Is the Australian federal government singing out of the same hymnal as detailed in this article?
‘Blatant manipulation’: Trump administration exploited wildfire science to promote logging by Emily Holden & Jimmy Tobias, Environment, Guardian, Jan 24, 2020
-
nigelj at 06:40 AM on 25 January 2020Australia's heat and bushfires are signs of fundamental shifts in its climate
Put it this way I assume Australia's temperatures at 1.52 deg c are land temperatures, but Im not absolutely 100% sure. Do they include the oceans to the extent of their economic zone?
-
nigelj at 06:27 AM on 25 January 2020Australia's heat and bushfires are signs of fundamental shifts in its climate
"Globally, 2020 was 1.2°C above pre-industrial." Yes, but of course this is just an average. Australia was 1.52 degs c above even the 1960 - 1990 baseline in 2019. Canada was 1.7 degs c above this baseline.
www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/
But I believe these numbers are combined land / ocean data, (?) which would make Australia's land temperatures more than 1.52 degress above the baseline. Obviously this is where people live so its the more relevant number. But I'm not sure of what the 1.52 deg c number is, combined land and oceans, or just land.
-
SirCharles at 06:10 AM on 25 January 2020Australia's heat and bushfires are signs of fundamental shifts in its climate
I mean 2019, not 2020. Sorry.
-
SirCharles at 06:08 AM on 25 January 2020Australia's heat and bushfires are signs of fundamental shifts in its climate
This "new colour" can now be seen more often and longer. We have to act BEFORE all becomes irreversible!
Globally, 2020 was 1.2°C above pre-industrial.
Global Temperature Jazz - Paris Climate Accord Into the Twenties
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_dySw3kP_Q -
Steven Sullivan at 06:04 AM on 25 January 2020How did climate change get so controversial?
Nic Palmer @ 4: " It does tend to be US types who most have that particularly extreme notion of 'freedom' though."
Yet is was Europeans like von Mises and Hayek who were its founding fathers.
-
SirCharles at 05:57 AM on 25 January 2020Australia's heat and bushfires are signs of fundamental shifts in its climate
This was 7 years ago: "Australia adds new colour to temperature maps as heat soars"
-
Eclectic at 20:42 PM on 24 January 2020Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
Paul @131 ,
if you consult Wikipedia more closely, you will see that you have forgotten to add in a vastly greater living mass ~ plants , fungi, and various types of mono-cellular microbes.
They all respire CO2. And even though their metabolic rate is slower than warm-blooded humans, the sheer enormous size of their biomass means that they exude CO2 at a total rate enormously higher than humans.
So there's that.
Worth consideration !
I wonder why the expert scientists are not the slightest concerned about that?
-
PaulRittmann at 19:05 PM on 24 January 2020Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
I believe breathing is a good thing and should not be interrupted for very long.
Let me summarize what seems to be relevant to people adding CO2 to the atmosphere. First, an adult produces about 1 kg CO2 each day, or 365 kg CO2 each year. Second, there are about 8 billion adults & children doing this. So how much CO2 does human respiration add each year? Here comes the math:
(8 billion people)*(50 kg/person average) = 0.4 GT live biomass
(365 kg CO2 per year)/(62 kg person) = 6 kg CO2 per year per kg live biomass
(0.4 GT)*(6 GT CO2/yr per GT live biomass) = 2.4 GT CO2 per year
For comparison, motor vehicles generate about 3 GT CO2 per year. All fossil fuels (& cement making) generate maybe 40 GT CO2 per year. It looks to me like respiration should not be discounted or ignored. Especially when livestock, earthworms, and marine critters are added.
From what I saw in Wikipedia on Biomass, the total livestock mass is about 0.7 GT. Also, the total for ants, worms, and termites is maybe 7 GT. Marine adds 2 GT. All these are rough estimates, so the total is roughly 10 GT living biomass.
If all the living things generate CO2 at the same rate we do, then the total respiration rate is 60 GT CO2 per year. This exceeds all the fossil fuels & cement production.
In conclusion, I'd say respiration is a significant source of CO2.
Moderator Response:[DB] Scientists know through due diligence that the rise in atmospheric concentration of CO2 is from the human combustion of fossil fuels due to the unique and characteristic isotopic nature of that rise and because it occurs in lockstep with the decline in atmospheric oxygen levels. Because they've done the research demonstrating both.
-
Markoh at 18:55 PM on 24 January 2020Australia's heat and bushfires are signs of fundamental shifts in its climate
PS @16. Here is how the Victorian Government has ignored the Black Saturday Royal Commission recommendation of 5% control burned each year up from the then current 2%.
www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-07/black-saturday-fire-fuel-threat-planned-burns-needed/10787050
"In the past three seasons, the number of hectares burned nosedived from 185,000 down to 65,000."
-
nigelj at 17:30 PM on 24 January 2020How did climate change get so controversial?
Nick Palmer says " If the world had perfect information about the actual rigidly defined results and timescales of climate policies and the definite results if such policies were not employed, I think it would be very easy for the people of the world to decide what to do"
Yes, but I'm inclined to think plenty of people would still kick the can down the road and have a big party and to hell with the climate problem. There is nothing to suggest market economics and the invisible hand will lead to sensible environmental outcomes. The market works reasonably well to allocate resources, and encourage innovation and as a mechanism to avoid the problem of dictatorships and communism. That's all it really does. It can't replace sensible government functions. It can't fix every problem. And I'm a fan of free markets in a general sense, but I'm not blinkered about their limitations.
Imho looking after the environment is a complicated value judgement sort of thing that requires a set of laws, or more informal agreements and a lot of complicated trade offs, and analysis, although a lot of its commonsense as well. Personally I like the Obama doctrine "dont do stupid stuff" :)
-
Eclectic at 15:59 PM on 24 January 2020How did climate change get so controversial?
JohnMashey @14 , thanks for that. The picture has been bleak for a long time.
Nick Palmer @13 , it would become a can of worms, to properly define economics (just as it would, to properly define democracy ).
The modern "science" of economics (think Friedman . . . and worse) tends to dismiss externalities and the bigger picture in general. As you are well aware, I'm sure. To a large degree it is divorced from evolutionary darwinism (except social-darwinism !!) and from human neurology . . . and from human compassion.
I am too cynical to accept your "perfect information" hypothesis. The basic problem is that the selfishness aspect of our human nature does override our altruistic tendencies, when we live in the anonymous conglomerates of mega-cities and mega-towns. The healthy sense of community gets diminished.
The old "Invisible Hand" concept worked well at the village level of long ago, but - as history shows us - works poorly in more modern circumstances. Today, the real Invisible Hand is cartels and Facebook and the likes of Cambridge Analytica . . . and insider-trading . . . and the newer forms of the Tragedy of the Commons.
Yet it is the standard economist "religion" that the bus will follow the best road if we push down on the accelerator and take our hands off the steering wheel.
That's a crazy religion. Realistically, we should take a giant lesson from the control systems within the biological creatures that have survived & flourished over millions of years. ~But that would go against the entrenched religious dogma of capitalism & communism & and other -isms.
Ah, getting too philosophical. Sorry.
-
JohnMashey at 15:20 PM on 24 January 2020How did climate change get so controversial?
nigelj@11
Dark Money: Excellent suggestion for all! Jane is one of the very best investigative journalists in US, honest, fearless and a relentless digger and teller of truth.
As it happens, I've been looking at Kochs for a long time: search for Koch in Crescendo to Climategate Cacophony(2010)
or look especially at p.47 and then pp.93-95, that shows which funders give money to which organizations that do climate denial. p.96 has summaries: the 3 main Koch-related foundations (there's a 4th, but small) gave much more than Exxon. Of course, at that point I didn't know about the Kochs+allies' money anonymizer DONORS TRUST/CAPITAL FUND, which I only figured out in early 2012, updated later in Fakery 2. See pp.68-76. See also Robert Brulle's more extensive research, summarized in Study Details Dark Money Flowing to Climate Science Denial(2013). Over time, Koch direct funding down, DONORS way up as seen in graph there. Charles Koch always hated having to report recipients of money from his private foundations. Lately, Donor Advised Funds are increasingly used by some to obscure what they're doing, i.e., N donors give money to a DAF, which then writes the checks, but without identifying the sources. Occasionally one can figure that out, but only with luck.
-
Eclectic at 14:01 PM on 24 January 2020Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming
Barb @46 , please don't feel any heat (metaphorically speaking). You are most welcome to post.
My principal objection to your initial comments was that you urged climate scientists to expand their advocacy into the simultaneous advocacy of veganism. IMO, such action by them (or by anyone linking climate matters and veganism) would be wrong because counterproductive (to the point of self-sabotage) in the urgent tackling of AGW.
Your economic arguments are good ~ their main weakness being because based on the assumption that the current methods of "meat production" would continue at present levels (or higher, worldwide). For all sorts of reasons - some touched on, earlier - it is likely that "farm meat" consumption per capita will decline in the latter half of this century. But it need not go down to zero, to be ecologically sound.
Your health/medical arguments are weak in their science ~ but they are a "Motivated Reasoning" consequence of your veganism . . . and there would be little point in me firing torpedoes at them. Plus, it would be off-topic.
I shall submerge to 20 fathoms, and switch to electric motors.
-
Markoh at 13:23 PM on 24 January 2020Australia's heat and bushfires are signs of fundamental shifts in its climate
John @15 my understanding is that bushfires do not count towards a country's emission commitments, only controlled burns add to the Paris commitment. Hence the reluctance by states to do controlled burns.
Moderator Response:[PS] what is your evidence reluctance by states to do back controlled burns? Seems to be contradicted in this factcheck.
A reminder yet again to back assertions with references.
-
John Hartz at 11:27 AM on 24 January 2020Australia's heat and bushfires are signs of fundamental shifts in its climate
Recommended supplemental reading:
'It's heart-wrenching': 80% of Blue Mountains and 50% of Gondwana rainforests burn in bushfires by Lisa Cox & Nick Evershed, Environment, Guardian, Jan 16, 2020
Australia's bushfires to push global emissions to new high: Met Office by Peter Hannam, Environment, Sydney Morning Herald, Jan 24, 2020
-
BarbNoon1 at 11:23 AM on 24 January 2020Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming
I made the decision take the heat for returning when I said I was done, because facts matter to me, and “winning” in a discussion is not why I wrote in the comments section in the first place. I was not happy with the continuous “regenerative farming” fallacies that are here in the comments, so I am copying some of my source’s article (that I posted earlier and below).
“On the smallest scale, one cow requires a minimum of 2 acres of pasture land and 20–30 gallons of water daily. That is, assuming the two acres are fully covered with good grazing land (in some places, cows require more acreage because the pasture isn’t filled out with healthy grass for grazing). Additionally, in the winter months, grain will often have to be purchased. But for the sake of argument, let’s assume optimal efficiency, or 2 acres per cow, assuming no change in the total number of cattle and swine currently consumed in the United States, we would need more than 2.5 billion acres of land. The problem, as it happens, is that there are fewer than 2.3 billion acres in the entire United States, including all the mountains, swamps, deserts, and otherwise unsuitable land areas you can imagine. Alaska alone accounts for 17% percent of the United States’ total acreage. And remember, that 2.5 billion required acreage is only for cattle and swine. Would you like to include the 250 million grass raised turkeys, 7 million sheep, and 8 billion chickens currently consumed each year?
On the farm neighboring me [author], here in the Dominican Republic, there are 82 head of cattle on 200 acres. The farmer has told me that these 200 acres have reached maximum capacity. That’s about 2.44 acres per cow. It takes two years for a grass-fed cow to reach full maturity, at which point it can be slaughtered for about 450 pounds of flesh. That means my neighbor can expect to produce approximately 36,900 pounds of meat, every two years (82 x 450 = 36,900). He projects that we will have at least 100,000 pounds of organic produce, from our two acres of land, after two years. On two acres of land, over a two year period, one can produce 450 pounds of animal flesh or 100,000 pounds of plant produce, using almost no water, compared to the 20–30 gallons required for each cow, every day.
Can something be sustainable when it isn’t even feasible?
https://nutritionstudies.org/grass-fed-beef-a-sustainable-alternative/Eclectic, you are skilled at debating and at casting doubt on evidence. When I said you “mansplained,” I was aware you might not be male, but in my fatigue, it was the only word to describe how you treat sincere people.
I originally said I felt environmentalists should be vegan. I stand by my opinion, and all of you concerned only with CO2 can still be vegan and just talk about CO2. When animal agriculture poisons our waterways, land and air and is not an efficient way to feed the world. It’s not time for a “distribution” excuse - meat is terribly inefficient, and as many as 25,000 people lose their lives every day due to hunger; we need a better system and only veganism will feed the world and allow us to re-wild many areas.You claimed that the fertilizer spray of pig waste would be taken care of with regenerative farming, but pig waste (and all animal waste) on the ground also causes environmental issues. https://mission-blue.org/2015/02/whats-the-role-of-mass-animal-agriculture-in-ocean-degradation/
Here is a video and transcript about heart disease in children. This talks about fatty streaks in arteries. https://nutritionfacts.org/video/heart-disease-starts-in-childhood/ This next video talks about how heart disease may start in the womb. They looked at the arteries of fetuses from mothers with normal cholesterol levels and from pregnant moms with high cholesterol, and fetal arteries from mothers with high cholesterol contained dramatically greater lesions. https://nutritionfacts.org/video/heart-disease-may-start-in-the-womb/
Last, this article, from the BMJ, tells the harm of dietary cholesterol. 395 ward feeding studies. This is “not too new” or “too small.” And I did post the Framington Study earlier which was large. This study shows that whether you are genetically inclined to have low cholesterol or high cholesterol, the cholesterol you avoid in your diet is important for your health. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2125600/
I am sure you will find everything unworthy. However, I showed why every environmentalist should be vegan (unless you live with no access to grocery stores, or are some rare exception), because eating vegan is the healthy diet that helps the environment the most and I definitely showed why “grass fed, grazing or regenerative farming will not work to feed the population and will still greatly pollute.
Moderator Response:[DB] In the absence of confounding factors like associated fat intake, there's no clear relationship solely between dietary cholesterol intake and cardiovascular risk:
"Evidence from observational studies conducted in several countries generally does not indicate a significant association with cardiovascular disease risk"
Even interventional studies, while showing mild improvements in some markers, showed no significant outcomes benefit:
"the findings were not significant for the stronger predictor of CVD risk, LDL cholesterol, or HDL cholesterol concentration"Should people make healthier eating choices? Yes.
In the scheme of things, is that action bigger than switching global energy usage from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources? Not even close.
Let's keep this closer to the topic of this post, please.
Prev 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 Next
