Global warming will be solved by technology removing greenhouse gases from the upper atmosphere. At some point in the near future some bright spark is going to discover a new and very useful thing to do with carbon dioxide and someone else is going to come up with a novel way to capture it easily from the atmosphere at a conversion rate much higher than photosynthesis.
There's no other way around it and Boris/Dom should be pushing billions in the direction of this scientific research rather than wasting time trying to get the US and China to agree to something they will never stick to.
Or, we suck all the greenhouse gases out of the upper atmosphere and it makes no ruddy difference, and the climate continues to go its own sweet way.
On a very simple, "this is gsce science", level removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere wil make a difference as it will halt the rise in global temperatures, the difficult part is how we go about reducing the effects of the last 20 years. I don't really know if that's possible, but it's not an area of expertise for me.
Those on the right do tend to reject suggestions which involve any curtailment of humans` "right" to do what we like with the planet, firstly because these suggestions are perceived as left-wing and secondly because it is part of conservative ideology that humans are special (the root being religion). But we mustn`t forget that collectivist ideology also holds that humans are special (but from a humanist standpoint).
Leaving the planet`s fate, and with it all non-human animals and plants, to either the left or to the right is doomed to failure. I`m very pessimistic, I have to say. How can we allow primary rainforest to be destroyed? Drastic and urgent action is needed, but there is no mechanism for this.
Totally. You are not (atm) one of the SIX. Enormous (!) sigh of relief, I'm sure.
I'm drawing a distinction between (i) accepting the consensus that there is a big problem but rejecting leftist solutions and (ii) rejecting the consensus that there is a big problem because so many of the proposed solutions are leftist.
A surpassingly odd post. I have reviewed it very thoroughly. Are you pretending you know enough about the science to assert its validity? No doubt the question makes you feel a little sheepish.
The problem is this: Big Science has collectively decided that climate change is a lethal threat. It has also decided that if it stated the case in a proper scientific manner people, and presidents, would say Oooh, look at all these reservations and counterarguments, it's all very complicated, no need to do a thing. So it has decided to misrepresent, exaggerate and lie about findings which may be absolutely valid in themselves. For starters, no scientific proposition starts with "the consensus among scientists is..." and no scientist would say such a thing except in pursuit of a strategy of misleading the public. And those guys at UEA were faking evidence. Again, they may in practice be doing the thing most likely to save the planet; that doesn't prevent it from being unscientific and dishonest. So don't pretend you can validate the science in what are not actually scientific statements at all. As some guy said, it is always possible to come up with a scientific explanation which is coherent, simple, elegant, persuasive, and wrong.
Correction - SIX posters.
Six - and this on a portal which attracts posters of higher than average intelligence. It shows what we are up against.
At root, the vast majority of individuals don`t really care about nature (even though many say they do) and backs up my point that the only chance of solving or even mitigating this global problem is some form of global governance run on non-democratic lines. Scientists and naturalists need to be in charge somehow. XR realises this.
Why is global warming and climate change located only in the arctic sea and nowhere else ?
If you look at satellite temperatures and ice loss, rapid changes have occurred only in the arctic mostly during the summer and areas bordering it.
My guess is pollution in the northern hemisphere is much greater and all that smog drifts over the arctic darkening the snow, melting the ice when it's sunny.
Without the ice and snow, temperatures rise.
There is indeed "polar amplification", i.e. warming is faster at high latitude, although the warming is almost everywhere (there are very small-scale exceptions such as one in the Labrador Sea). And you've identified two important mechanisms for this.
So first of all, even without the "dark snow" effect, the warming causes ice loss. Ice is highly reflective (high albedo), so it reflects more energy back to space than the underlying ocean or land. So losing the ice causes more warming. This is well understood, and generally regarded as the most important mechanism.
And then there is the dark snow effect. Particles have a greater effect on ice albedo than on other surfaces, so it amplifies warming more there than elsewhere. The importance of this is much less well understood, partly because it's really hard to observe, and partly because particles have other effects (e.g. on cloud formation).
Because the temperature rises outside of the arctic are so small, I think global warming is just the albedo decrease from the arctic sea ice melting in the summer caused by smog from the northern hemisphere darkening the snow so it melts under the sun.
If so then the solution is simply to impose the Clear Air Act or something on China and India, or a technology that absorbs smog from cars and factories.
Just curious what would the theoretical effect on global temperatures be if the arctic didn't melt during the summer ?
Elon Musk - a very bright guy - rejects the current scientific consensus that the world is real. His view is that we are components of a virtual reality game developed by a life form vastly more intelligent than we can even conceive of. He uses logic and probability theory to arrive at this conclusion. It's no idle fantasy. And this is Elon Musk. Tesla, space flight, all of that. A genuine visionary. So he may be right. Perhaps one day it will become clear that he is.
But in the meantime.
It's not just Musk who thinks that (or has considered the possibility). The argument is that if it is possible, it is also highly probable because computer simulations are so easy to copy, so there will be many more of them than of real worlds.
A corollary is that we should all behave as wackily as possible, because the more boring the sim the more likely someone will wipe it.
Simulation Theory is spirituality for the atheist tech class. It’s nothing much new. Brain in the vat. Descarte’s Evil Demon. It’s an old thought experiment dressed up in Silicon Valley clothing. The logic is consistent in that on the assumption it’s physically possible to make a convincing self aware sim, then there is only one true reality and innumerable sims. Therefore mathematically it tends towards a probability of 1 that we live in a sim.
Circumstantial evidence to support this would be the indivisibility of the Planck length (pixel size) and Planck Time (refresh rate), and the insurmountable distances to the nearest stars (allows low poly generation of their detail for graphics engine efficiency).
All good fun. Of course Descartes unstranded himself from the deceptive evil demon’s island of despair with his “cogito”. He ignored it basically. Because after all, it doesnt matter whether we are in a simulation of reality or reality itself, so long as our experience is internally consistent. No obvious glitches in the matrix and all that.
Which is why Musk still thinks it worthwhile to try and crack global warming and explore the cosmos, rather than smoke weed all day and think about things that don’t have an answer.
Meanwhile, sat in Singapore I am beginning to get quite nervous about Coronavirus. Am repatriating imminently but if the wave crashes, it’s too late now to avoid it.
A surpassingly odd post. I have reviewed it very thoroughly. Are you pretending you know enough about the science to assert its validity? No doubt the question makes you feel a little sheepish.
The problem is this: Big Science has collectively decided that climate change is a lethal threat. It has also decided that if it stated the case in a proper scientific manner people, and presidents, would say Oooh, look at all these reservations and counterarguments, it's all very complicated, no need to do a thing. So it has decided to misrepresent, exaggerate and lie about findings which may be absolutely valid in themselves. For starters, no scientific proposition starts with "the consensus among scientists is..." and no scientist would say such a thing except in pursuit of a strategy of misleading the public. And those guys at UEA were faking evidence. Again, they may in practice be doing the thing most likely to save the planet; that doesn't prevent it from being unscientific and dishonest. So don't pretend you can validate the science in what are not actually scientific statements at all. As some guy said, it is always possible to come up with a scientific explanation which is coherent, simple, elegant, persuasive, and wrong.
Correction - SIX posters.
Six - and this on a portal which attracts posters of higher than average intelligence. It shows what we are up against.
At root, the vast majority of individuals don`t really care about nature (even though many say they do) and backs up my point that the only chance of solving or even mitigating this global problem is some form of global governance run on non-democratic lines. Scientists and naturalists need to be in charge somehow. XR realises this.
'some form of global governance run on non-democratic lines. Scientists and naturalists need to be in charge somehow. XR realise this.'
Jesus. Thanks for illustrating precisely my concerns about the anti-democratic attitudes of climate activists in my previous post.
p.s. I don't know why having naked people in charge would be better for the planet ... fewer resources used on clothing? But what about the increased need for indoor heating?
p.p.s. Oh. You said 'naturalists', not 'naturists'. Never mind.
Global warming will be solved by technology removing greenhouse gases from the upper atmosphere. At some point in the near future some bright spark is going to discover a new and very useful thing to do with carbon dioxide and someone else is going to come up with a novel way to capture it easily from the atmosphere at a conversion rate much higher than photosynthesis.
There's no other way around it and Boris/Dom should be pushing billions in the direction of this scientific research rather than wasting time trying to get the US and China to agree to something they will never stick to.
Ah, the carbon-sucking unicorns, as I've seen them described. Not much sign of them skipping to the rescue yet.....
As per my much earlier post, I thought this a bonkers idea a few years ago, but I suspect it is going to be needed as part of the solution now. And is it a unicorn? I don't know, but it is certainly in operation now. Whether viable I don't know.
Carbon capture direct from the atmosphere would cost about $100 per ton of CO2 removed. IIRC total human CO2 emissions are 36 gigatons. So for $3.6T per year you could stop global warming as quick as you could build the facilities.
How far that cost could drop is a matter of debate - one scientist I spoke to though that $10 per ton could be possible.
A surpassingly odd post. I have reviewed it very thoroughly. Are you pretending you know enough about the science to assert its validity? No doubt the question makes you feel a little sheepish.
The problem is this: Big Science has collectively decided that climate change is a lethal threat. It has also decided that if it stated the case in a proper scientific manner people, and presidents, would say Oooh, look at all these reservations and counterarguments, it's all very complicated, no need to do a thing. So it has decided to misrepresent, exaggerate and lie about findings which may be absolutely valid in themselves. For starters, no scientific proposition starts with "the consensus among scientists is..." and no scientist would say such a thing except in pursuit of a strategy of misleading the public. And those guys at UEA were faking evidence. Again, they may in practice be doing the thing most likely to save the planet; that doesn't prevent it from being unscientific and dishonest. So don't pretend you can validate the science in what are not actually scientific statements at all. As some guy said, it is always possible to come up with a scientific explanation which is coherent, simple, elegant, persuasive, and wrong.
Correction - SIX posters.
"findings which may be absolutely valid in themselves".
I`ve come to believe that some form of global governance is the only answer, run on non-democratic lines.
Over-population isn't the elephant in the room or particularly relevant; Humans don't need fundamentally need to burn fossil fuels to live much better lives than they do now - it's just tended to be cheaper to do it that way, much of it for legacy reasons. And the additional new CO2 usage isn't caused by growing population, it's caused by industrializing population.
The main issue here is just the coordination problem, that changing to low carbon is expensive, and the world is governed by lots of separate feuding countries, and they each have an interest to let the others do the work and get a free ride off them; That and predatory delay by people with a vested interest in doing things the old way.
But I do think it's funny that David Herdson's written an entire piece complaining Attenborough is missing the politics of the situation, but written entirely from the point of view of a British person, and totally ignores how the comments could be received in China.
Yes, Africa is where the world population is growing, but in places like Malawi the carbon footprint is around one twentieth of that of a UK citizen.
One increasing concern for me is the rise of aircondioning in middle income countries, a positive feedback loop accelerating warming, and creating the desire for more AC.
Modern prosperity has been made possible by the advent of cheap reliable fossil fuels..something which other countries would like to replicate. Any form of energy policy predicated on renewables will be ruinously expensive and lead to poverty and lack of economic growth. With mild warming the only justification for such transformation is ideological.
It is worth considering that the cost of wind and solar power are dropping continuously in each generation. Coal and gas are not. This means that in many countries the cheaper option is already renewables.
So, my pointing out that there are many on the right who reject the science of GW because they dislike the leftist flavour of many of the proposed solutions but pretend they know enough about the science to have spotted fatal flaws in it -
I have reviewed the thread very thoroughly and can report that there are FIVE of such posters on here today.
I will not name them since that would be needlessly adversarial and would not help in saving the planet.
But THEY know who they are and are no doubt feeling a little sheepish.
A surpassingly odd post. I have reviewed it very thoroughly. Are you pretending you know enough about the science to assert its validity? No doubt the question makes you feel a little sheepish.
The problem is this: Big Science has collectively decided that climate change is a lethal threat. It has also decided that if it stated the case in a proper scientific manner people, and presidents, would say Oooh, look at all these reservations and counterarguments, it's all very complicated, no need to do a thing. So it has decided to misrepresent, exaggerate and lie about findings which may be absolutely valid in themselves. For starters, no scientific proposition starts with "the consensus among scientists is..." and no scientist would say such a thing except in pursuit of a strategy of misleading the public. And those guys at UEA were faking evidence. Again, they may in practice be doing the thing most likely to save the planet; that doesn't prevent it from being unscientific and dishonest. So don't pretend you can validate the science in what are not actually scientific statements at all. As some guy said, it is always possible to come up with a scientific explanation which is coherent, simple, elegant, persuasive, and wrong.
Global temperatures have risen by one degree celsius over the last century. Are you arguing with thermometers?
That tests to the limits my policy of not calling people morons on the internet. Does it not occur to you that there are very many alternative scientific explanations for that fact....
Which would be, for example, .... ?
How do you account for the melting of arctic permafrost ?
Why is global warming and climate change located only in the arctic sea and nowhere else ?
If you look at satellite temperatures and ice loss, rapid changes have occurred only in the arctic mostly during the summer and areas bordering it.
My guess is pollution in the northern hemisphere is much greater and all that smog drifts over the arctic darkening the snow, melting the ice when it's sunny.
No no. Warming is amplified in the polar regions, but it is very much global.
In winter in the Arctic, the air is cold enough for sea-ice to form further south than it does. The main control on ice extent is the seawater temperature, which is why the boundary between warm water from the Atlantic and cold water from the Arctic marks the limit of sea-ice, and it has only decreased slowly.
In summer, the sea-ice melts even over the cold Arctic waters, and these is amplified by the albedo feedback we talked about below (which only acts when there is sunlight).
And there has been sea-ice loss around Antarctica, albeit nothing like as dramatic as summer sea-ice loss in the Arctic, and complicated by changes in the polar vortex (associated with CFCs and the "ozone hole").
I don't consider myself of the "left" (or the "right" either) so I see no need to politicise the issue just because I don't like the responses or the people making the accusation.
As we close in on 8 billion people, the fact is even small climatic changes can impact thousands if not millions and especially so given the numbers living on or near the coast. The defence of coastal cities such as New York, Shanghai, Tokyo and London from not only rising sea levels but more severe weather is going to be a huge infrastructure issue.
The rate of increase in ocean temperature and carbon dioxide concentration in such a short time concerns me. Warmer oceans mean stronger storms and yes we've had a warmer world before but never with 8 billion people on it.
Like others, I believe in human ingenuity and there will be technological advances (which all Governments should be actively supporting) which will hopefully allow us to mitigate the worst consequences of what we have already done and what we are doing. Unfortunately, the economic model based on resource consumption is no longer sustainable but that leaves a challenge to come up with new models for economic growth and prosperity.
As I've said before, the UK has a good story to tell in terms of power generation but in terms of air quality and recycling there's much more to be done. I don't support the draconian changes to lifestyle proposed by some but equally we do have an undeniable challenge to ensure we do our best to make sure the planet we pass on to future generations is in as good a shape as possible.
For all those who witter on about inheritance, that's the one that really matters.
IshmaelZ said: "That tests to the limits my policy of not calling people morons on the internet. Does it not occur to you that there are very many alternative scientific explanations for that fact, and very many more explanations which are not scientific?"
Apologies, I`m never rude and allowed my frustration to come out on this occasion - it`s frustrating to be confronted by folk (not you I now realise) who deny that climate change is happening.
I agree there are alternative explanations for the rise in global temperature. My main frustration that I`m trying to get across is that climate change, whether human caused or not, is not the primary concern environmentally, but has been elevated to this status by the left for political reasons. The left cannot bear to admit that post agricultural revolution humans (i.e. not the few hunter/gatherers that are left) are the problem because the left loves humans as a species so much. They would prefer to blame a cohort of humans (i.e. capitalists) instead of confronting the truth that there are nine billion humans in the world and the plants resources and non-human life is being systematically destroyed.
So, my pointing out that there are many on the right who reject the science of GW because they dislike the leftist flavour of many of the proposed solutions but pretend they know enough about the science to have spotted fatal flaws in it -
I have reviewed the thread very thoroughly and can report that there are FIVE of such posters on here today.
I will not name them since that would be needlessly adversarial and would not help in saving the planet.
But THEY know who they are and are no doubt feeling a little sheepish.
A surpassingly odd post. I have reviewed it very thoroughly. Are you pretending you know enough about the science to assert its validity? No doubt the question makes you feel a little sheepish.
The problem is this: Big Science has collectively decided that climate change is a lethal threat. It has also decided that if it stated the case in a proper scientific manner people, and presidents, would say Oooh, look at all these reservations and counterarguments, it's all very complicated, no need to do a thing. So it has decided to misrepresent, exaggerate and lie about findings which may be absolutely valid in themselves. For starters, no scientific proposition starts with "the consensus among scientists is..." and no scientist would say such a thing except in pursuit of a strategy of misleading the public. And those guys at UEA were faking evidence. Again, they may in practice be doing the thing most likely to save the planet; that doesn't prevent it from being unscientific and dishonest. So don't pretend you can validate the science in what are not actually scientific statements at all. As some guy said, it is always possible to come up with a scientific explanation which is coherent, simple, elegant, persuasive, and wrong.
Global temperatures have risen by one degree celsius over the last century. Are you arguing with thermometers?
That tests to the limits my policy of not calling people morons on the internet. Does it not occur to you that there are very many alternative scientific explanations for that fact....
Which would be, for example, .... ?
How do you account for the melting of arctic permafrost ?
Jesus. I don't. I am not a scientist. For what very little it is worth, I think AGW is the most likely explanation. You really, really don't understand the point i was making, do you?
Six - and this on a portal which attracts posters of higher than average intelligence. It shows what we are up against.
At root, the vast majority of individuals don`t really care about nature (even though many say they do) and backs up my point that the only chance of solving or even mitigating this global problem is some form of global governance run on non-democratic lines. Scientists and naturalists need to be in charge somehow. XR realises this.
No, there is no correlation with lack of intelligence. Indeed amongst the (now) SEVEN are a couple who IMO are top quartile PBers in the grey matter stakes.
I also agree that GW is an issue that on the whole people care about less than they say they do. It's the opposite to something like immigration in this regard.
As to solutions, I just have no clue. I don't even have a good sense of whether to be optimistic or pessimistic. Therefore let's say the former since (i) I am on most things and (ii) if you don't have a strong view, pick the sunnier side of the debate.
Global warming will be solved by technology removing greenhouse gases from the upper atmosphere. At some point in the near future some bright spark is going to discover a new and very useful thing to do with carbon dioxide and someone else is going to come up with a novel way to capture it easily from the atmosphere at a conversion rate much higher than photosynthesis.
There's no other way around it and Boris/Dom should be pushing billions in the direction of this scientific research rather than wasting time trying to get the US and China to agree to something they will never stick to.
Ah, the carbon-sucking unicorns, as I've seen them described. Not much sign of them skipping to the rescue yet.....
As per my much earlier post, I thought this a bonkers idea a few years ago, but I suspect it is going to be needed as part of the solution now. And is it a unicorn? I don't know, but it is certainly in operation now. Whether viable I don't know.
Carbon capture direct from the atmosphere would cost about $100 per ton of CO2 removed. IIRC total human CO2 emissions are 36 gigatons. So for $3.6T per year you could stop global warming as quick as you could build the facilities.
How far that cost could drop is a matter of debate - one scientist I spoke to though that $10 per ton could be possible.
Which, in of itself, is more or less true (though I think the current cost rather more than that, and it’s only practicable for now on a relatively small scale) - but don’t forget you’d still have to build sufficient renewable energy generation to power the process. So on that scale, a fairly pointless and expensive exercise.
But it’s certainly true that techniques and catalysts for the efficient cracking of both water and CO2 via electrolysis as a base for bulk chemicals production is a very active area of research.
Six - and this on a portal which attracts posters of higher than average intelligence. It shows what we are up against.
At root, the vast majority of individuals don`t really care about nature (even though many say they do) and backs up my point that the only chance of solving or even mitigating this global problem is some form of global governance run on non-democratic lines. Scientists and naturalists need to be in charge somehow. XR realises this.
No, there is no correlation with lack of intelligence. Indeed amongst the (now) SEVEN are a couple who IMO are top quartile PBers in the grey matter stakes.
I also agree that GW is an issue that on the whole people care about less than they say they do. It's the opposite to something like immigration in this regard.
As to solutions, I just have no clue. I don't even have a good sense of whether to be optimistic or pessimistic. Therefore let's say the former since (i) I am on most things and (ii) if you don't have a strong view, pick the sunnier side of the debate.
Mark Carwardine said a few years ago that when he attends environmental conventions he notices how ecologists have pretty much "given up". I`m struggling to see where the optimism can come from. Species are being obliterated.
Got to go now - I`ll leave you to it. Play nicely.
I am saying that it is not rational to refuse to accept the scientific consensus on GW unless one both disagrees with it and is an expert oneself in the field.
Forget all the other stuff, what is your problem with that?
Because the temperature rises outside of the arctic are so small, I think global warming is just the albedo decrease from the arctic sea ice melting in the summer caused by smog from the northern hemisphere darkening the snow so it melts under the sun.
If so then the solution is simply to impose the Clear Air Act or something on China and India, or a technology that absorbs smog from cars and factories.
Just curious what would the theoretical effect on global temperatures be if the arctic didn't melt during the summer ?
First of all, temperature rises outside the Arctic are only small in relation to temperature rises in the Arctic. Most of the climate effects that are of greatest interest to humans are outside the Arctic. It's unfortunate that this is sometimes seen as a problem for cold places - e.g. people in India mentioning polar bears first when asked think of effects of climate change.
Particulates in smog are one factor contributing to increased warming in the Arctic, and probably not the most important one. Getting rid of them would not prevent climate change. Globally, they actually have a slight net cooling effect because they increase atmospheric albedo (more sunlight is reflected back to space in the atmosphere) and they also increase cloud albedo (condensation in the atmosphere occurs around small particles, and in general, more particles favours more white cloud, though this is complicated).
"Just curious what would the theoretical effect on global temperatures be if the arctic didn't melt during the summer ?" - That's an interesting question, and I don't know the answer off-hand. With a few minutes, I can come up with a very rough estimate, one that would certainly not make it through peer review!
So, my pointing out that there are many on the right who reject the science of GW because they dislike the leftist flavour of many of the proposed solutions but pretend they know enough about the science to have spotted fatal flaws in it -
I have reviewed the thread very thoroughly and can report that there are FIVE of such posters on here today.
I will not name them since that would be needlessly adversarial and would not help in saving the planet.
But THEY know who they are and are no doubt feeling a little sheepish.
A surpassingly odd post. I have reviewed it very thoroughly. Are you pretending you know enough about the science to assert its validity? No doubt the question makes you feel a little sheepish.
The problem is this: Big Science has collectively decided that climate change is a lethal threat. It has also decided that if it stated the case in a proper scientific manner people, and presidents, would say Oooh, look at all these reservations and counterarguments, it's all very complicated, no need to do a thing. So it has decided to misrepresent, exaggerate and lie about findings which may be absolutely valid in themselves. For starters, no scientific proposition starts with "the consensus among scientists is..." and no scientist would say such a thing except in pursuit of a strategy of misleading the public. And those guys at UEA were faking evidence. Again, they may in practice be doing the thing most likely to save the planet; that doesn't prevent it from being unscientific and dishonest. So don't pretend you can validate the science in what are not actually scientific statements at all. As some guy said, it is always possible to come up with a scientific explanation which is coherent, simple, elegant, persuasive, and wrong.
Global temperatures have risen by one degree celsius over the last century. Are you arguing with thermometers?
That tests to the limits my policy of not calling people morons on the internet. Does it not occur to you that there are very many alternative scientific explanations for that fact....
Which would be, for example, .... ?
How do you account for the melting of arctic permafrost ?
Jesus. I don't. I am not a scientist. For what very little it is worth, I think AGW is the most likely explanation. You really, really don't understand the point i was making, do you?
No, as there aren’t “very many alternative scientific explanations” for what we’re observing.
The point that there are very large uncertainties about climate science is, of course, entirely fair. But it doesn’t change the substance of the argument.
Yes, that shows a fascinatingly well balanced race, with the Left (Sanders + Warren) being almost exactly equal with the Moderates (Biden + Buttigieg).
Two things that I draw out of this:
1. Warren does less well with transfers than I would have expected. I would have thought she would get a decent number of Klobuchar switchers, but but of the big four, she adds the fewest votes as you go from 10+ candidates to four.
2. This is pretty much the perfect result for Sanders. He wants Buttigieg to beat Biden (to keep him in the race until at least Super Tuesday), but he wants to avoid a situation where Buttigieg becomes the default moderate candidate (which would be the risk if he were to win IA and NH).
That being said, the one thing that gives me a little pause is just how high the Sanders + Warren total is. It's five points above any other
Global warming will be solved by technology removing greenhouse gases from the upper atmosphere. At some point in the near future some bright spark is going to discover a new and very useful thing to do with carbon dioxide and someone else is going to come up with a novel way to capture it easily from the atmosphere at a conversion rate much higher than photosynthesis.
There's no other way around it and Boris/Dom should be pushing billions in the direction of this scientific research rather than wasting time trying to get the US and China to agree to something they will never stick to.
Or, we suck all the greenhouse gases out of the upper atmosphere and it makes no ruddy difference, and the climate continues to go its own sweet way.
On a very simple, "this is gsce science", level removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere wil make a difference as it will halt the rise in global temperatures, the difficult part is how we go about reducing the effects of the last 20 years. I don't really know if that's possible, but it's not an area of expertise for me.
You can't say that with any certainty, GCSE science or otherwise. If the warming hasn't been caused by the greenhouse effect, reducing the greenhouse effect won't stop the warming.
Global warming will be solved by technology removing greenhouse gases from the upper atmosphere. At some point in the near future some bright spark is going to discover a new and very useful thing to do with carbon dioxide and someone else is going to come up with a novel way to capture it easily from the atmosphere at a conversion rate much higher than photosynthesis.
There's no other way around it and Boris/Dom should be pushing billions in the direction of this scientific research rather than wasting time trying to get the US and China to agree to something they will never stick to.
Ah, the carbon-sucking unicorns, as I've seen them described. Not much sign of them skipping to the rescue yet.....
As per my much earlier post, I thought this a bonkers idea a few years ago, but I suspect it is going to be needed as part of the solution now. And is it a unicorn? I don't know, but it is certainly in operation now. Whether viable I don't know.
Carbon capture direct from the atmosphere would cost about $100 per ton of CO2 removed. IIRC total human CO2 emissions are 36 gigatons. So for $3.6T per year you could stop global warming as quick as you could build the facilities.
How far that cost could drop is a matter of debate - one scientist I spoke to though that $10 per ton could be possible.
Which, in of itself, is more or less true (though I think the current cost rather more than that, and it’s only practicable for now on a relatively small scale) - but don’t forget you’d still have to build sufficient renewable energy generation to power the process. So on that scale, a fairly pointless and expensive exercise.
But it’s certainly true that techniques and catalysts for the efficient cracking of both water and CO2 via electrolysis as a base for bulk chemicals production is a very active area of research.
$100 a ton was from a couple of years ago. Since the process needs only to average over time, you can run from solar during the day, put the plants in the middle of deserts etc - so the energy generation bit isn't an issue.
Electrolysis will always suck as a method of cracking chemicals - basic thermodynamics. Catalytic approaches are far better.
Global warming will be solved by technology removing greenhouse gases from the upper atmosphere. At some point in the near future some bright spark is going to discover a new and very useful thing to do with carbon dioxide and someone else is going to come up with a novel way to capture it easily from the atmosphere at a conversion rate much higher than photosynthesis.
There's no other way around it and Boris/Dom should be pushing billions in the direction of this scientific research rather than wasting time trying to get the US and China to agree to something they will never stick to.
Or, we suck all the greenhouse gases out of the upper atmosphere and it makes no ruddy difference, and the climate continues to go its own sweet way.
On a very simple, "this is gsce science", level removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere wil make a difference as it will halt the rise in global temperatures, the difficult part is how we go about reducing the effects of the last 20 years. I don't really know if that's possible, but it's not an area of expertise for me.
You can't say that with any certainty, GCSE science or otherwise. If the warming hasn't been caused by the greenhouse effect, reducing the greenhouse effect won't stop the warming.
Step 1) Go and look up how much further away Venus is from the sun than Mercury. Step 2) Observe the temperature differential between them (hint: Venus is somewhat hotter). Step 3) Note which colourless odourless gas makes up basically all of Venus’s atmosphere. Step 4) Consider the implications of these findings Step 5) Come back to pb.com and apologise for spreading your half arsed ignorance on this matter.
Yes, that shows a fascinatingly well balanced race, with the Left (Sanders + Warren) being almost exactly equal with the Moderates (Biden + Buttigieg).
Two things that I draw out of this:
1. Warren does less well with transfers than I would have expected. I would have thought she would get a decent number of Klobuchar switchers, but but of the big four, she adds the fewest votes as you go from 10+ candidates to four.
2. This is pretty much the perfect result for Sanders. He wants Buttigieg to beat Biden (to keep him in the race until at least Super Tuesday), but he wants to avoid a situation where Buttigieg becomes the default moderate candidate (which would be the risk if he were to win IA and NH).
That being said, the one thing that gives me a little pause is just how high the Sanders + Warren total is. It's five points above any other
Shoot me now. Four more years of Trump, if your final point turns out to sustain.
Because the temperature rises outside of the arctic are so small, I think global warming is just the albedo decrease from the arctic sea ice melting in the summer caused by smog from the northern hemisphere darkening the snow so it melts under the sun.
If so then the solution is simply to impose the Clear Air Act or something on China and India, or a technology that absorbs smog from cars and factories.
Just curious what would the theoretical effect on global temperatures be if the arctic didn't melt during the summer ?
First of all, temperature rises outside the Arctic are only small in relation to temperature rises in the Arctic. Most of the climate effects that are of greatest interest to humans are outside the Arctic. It's unfortunate that this is sometimes seen as a problem for cold places - e.g. people in India mentioning polar bears first when asked think of effects of climate change.
Particulates in smog are one factor contributing to increased warming in the Arctic, and probably not the most important one. Getting rid of them would not prevent climate change. Globally, they actually have a slight net cooling effect because they increase atmospheric albedo (more sunlight is reflected back to space in the atmosphere) and they also increase cloud albedo (condensation in the atmosphere occurs around small particles, and in general, more particles favours more white cloud, though this is complicated).
"Just curious what would the theoretical effect on global temperatures be if the arctic didn't melt during the summer ?" - That's an interesting question, and I don't know the answer off-hand. With a few minutes, I can come up with a very rough estimate, one that would certainly not make it through peer review!
Wiki:
"According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "warming in the Arctic, as indicated by daily maximum and minimum temperatures, has been as great as in any other part of the world."[14] The period of 1995–2005 was the warmest decade in the Arctic since at least the 17th century, with temperatures 2 °C (3.6 °F) above the 1951–1990 average.[15] Some regions within the Arctic have warmed even more rapidly, with Alaska and western Canada's temperature rising by 3 to 4 °C (5.40 to 7.20 °F)."
Yes, that shows a fascinatingly well balanced race, with the Left (Sanders + Warren) being almost exactly equal with the Moderates (Biden + Buttigieg).
Two things that I draw out of this:
1. Warren does less well with transfers than I would have expected. I would have thought she would get a decent number of Klobuchar switchers, but but of the big four, she adds the fewest votes as you go from 10+ candidates to four.
2. This is pretty much the perfect result for Sanders. He wants Buttigieg to beat Biden (to keep him in the race until at least Super Tuesday), but he wants to avoid a situation where Buttigieg becomes the default moderate candidate (which would be the risk if he were to win IA and NH).
That being said, the one thing that gives me a little pause is just how high the Sanders + Warren total is. It's five points above any other
Shoot me now. Four more years of Trump, if your final point turns out to sustain.
The only positive, and it's but a crumb of comfort, is that it'll be the last four years. Can't see the 22nd Amendment being revoked.
I have always thought that experimental evidence for AGW would be relatively easy to gather.
Take three very high glass tubes (without lids). Have one with an air mix with no co2. Have one with a moderate amount of co2. And have a third with a lot of co2. Place the tubes somewhere sunny for a while. Use IR cameras to measure the temperature of the air in the tubes.
Do this in 100 places around the world.
If there is a relationship between co2 concentration and air temperature in the tubes, then there is pretty clear evidence that increased levels of co2 lead to heat being trapped.
Just curious what would the theoretical effect on global temperatures be if the arctic didn't melt during the summer ?
That's an interesting question, and I don't know the answer off-hand. With a few minutes, I can come up with a very rough estimate, one that would certainly not make it through peer review!
Okay, so I've done a back-of-the-envelope calculation. Huge caveat - I've done this in 10 minutes based on my off-the-top-of-my-head estimates of numbers which could be determined more accurately:
Seasonal change in sea-ice extent: 6 million km^2 Albedo change with/without sea-ice: 0.4 Solar constant (radiation at top of atmosphere): 1360 W/m^2 Sin of mean summer insolation angle: 1/6 Fraction of year with changed ice cover: 1/4 Fraction of solar radiation reaching surface in Arctic summer (it's very cloudy there): 0.5
Surface area of Earth: 500 million km^2
Based on those numbers, the annually averaged (i.e. including winter) local radiative effect would be >10 W/m^2, but the Arctic is a tiny fraction of the planet, so the global effect would be little more than 0.1 W/m^2. Typically 1 W/m^2 translates to a little less than 1 deg C temperature change.
So I would guess that the planet, on average, is 0.1 degrees C cooler than it would be if sea-ice did not grow from its summer minimum.
Again, huge caveat: this is not how science is done. It's just an attempt to answer an interesting question in a reasonable amount of time.
Because the temperature rises outside of the arctic are so small, I think global warming is just the albedo decrease from the arctic sea ice melting in the summer caused by smog from the northern hemisphere darkening the snow so it melts under the sun.
If so then the solution is simply to impose the Clear Air Act or something on China and India, or a technology that absorbs smog from cars and factories.
Just curious what would the theoretical effect on global temperatures be if the arctic didn't melt during the summer ?
First of all, temperature rises outside the Arctic are only small in relation to temperature rises in the Arctic. Most of the climate effects that are of greatest interest to humans are outside the Arctic. It's unfortunate that this is sometimes seen as a problem for cold places - e.g. people in India mentioning polar bears first when asked think of effects of climate change.
Particulates in smog are one factor contributing to increased warming in the Arctic, and probably not the most important one. Getting rid of them would not prevent climate change. Globally, they actually have a slight net cooling effect because they increase atmospheric albedo (more sunlight is reflected back to space in the atmosphere) and they also increase cloud albedo (condensation in the atmosphere occurs around small particles, and in general, more particles favours more white cloud, though this is complicated).
"Just curious what would the theoretical effect on global temperatures be if the arctic didn't melt during the summer ?" - That's an interesting question, and I don't know the answer off-hand. With a few minutes, I can come up with a very rough estimate, one that would certainly not make it through peer review!
Wiki:
"According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "warming in the Arctic, as indicated by daily maximum and minimum temperatures, has been as great as in any other part of the world."[14] The period of 1995–2005 was the warmest decade in the Arctic since at least the 17th century, with temperatures 2 °C (3.6 °F) above the 1951–1990 average.[15] Some regions within the Arctic have warmed even more rapidly, with Alaska and western Canada's temperature rising by 3 to 4 °C (5.40 to 7.20 °F)."
3 to 4 °C is not small.
Eh? Not sure what your point is?
I was just correcting the misconception that, because there is polar amplification of warming, warming outside the Arctic is small.
Global warming will be solved by technology removing greenhouse gases from the upper atmosphere. At some point in the near future some bright spark is going to discover a new and very useful thing to do with carbon dioxide and someone else is going to come up with a novel way to capture it easily from the atmosphere at a conversion rate much higher than photosynthesis.
There's no other way around it and Boris/Dom should be pushing billions in the direction of this scientific research rather than wasting time trying to get the US and China to agree to something they will never stick to.
Or, we suck all the greenhouse gases out of the upper atmosphere and it makes no ruddy difference, and the climate continues to go its own sweet way.
On a very simple, "this is gsce science", level removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere wil make a difference as it will halt the rise in global temperatures, the difficult part is how we go about reducing the effects of the last 20 years. I don't really know if that's possible, but it's not an area of expertise for me.
You can't say that with any certainty, GCSE science or otherwise. If the warming hasn't been caused by the greenhouse effect, reducing the greenhouse effect won't stop the warming.
Step 1) Go and look up how much further away Venus is from the sun than Mercury. Step 2) Observe the temperature differential between them (hint: Venus is somewhat hotter). Step 3) Note which colourless odourless gas makes up basically all of Venus’s atmosphere. Step 4) Consider the implications of these findings Step 5) Come back to pb.com and apologise for spreading your half arsed ignorance on this matter.
I'm aware of the principle upon which the theory of man made global warming is based thank you. Knowing the principle, and what happens on Venus, is not the same as knowing that the same phenomenon is driving warming here, and how much of it is being affected by the activity of humans.
Even with your crudely simplistic catechism, you've failed to offer a basic calculation of what the warming affect of Venus is and how it can be applied to earth. As it happens, I'm in favour of using less fossil fuels in favour of good renewable energy, I can think of few people who would not be.
Where I do have a slight objection is to simple minded keyboard warriors such as yourself offering patronising diatribes and demanding apologies from people you don't know, for having the nerve to say we don't know something that clearly we don't know.
I have always thought that experimental evidence for AGW would be relatively easy to gather.
Take three very high glass tubes (without lids). Have one with an air mix with no co2. Have one with a moderate amount of co2. And have a third with a lot of co2. Place the tubes somewhere sunny for a while. Use IR cameras to measure the temperature of the air in the tubes.
Do this in 100 places around the world.
If there is a relationship between co2 concentration and air temperature in the tubes, then there is pretty clear evidence that increased levels of co2 lead to heat being trapped.
Politico: "Joe Biden is locking down support from powerful New York donors who have spent the past year flirting with multiple candidates, setting him up for a major cash boost just as 2020 voting begins."
I have always thought that experimental evidence for AGW would be relatively easy to gather.
Take three very high glass tubes (without lids). Have one with an air mix with no co2. Have one with a moderate amount of co2. And have a third with a lot of co2. Place the tubes somewhere sunny for a while. Use IR cameras to measure the temperature of the air in the tubes.
Do this in 100 places around the world.
If there is a relationship between co2 concentration and air temperature in the tubes, then there is pretty clear evidence that increased levels of co2 lead to heat being trapped.
Yes, and indeed this has been done many times. Though he used different language, Joseph Fourier discovered the greenhouse effect based on very similar experiments by Horace de Saussure (they don't need to be in different places around the world) nearly 200 years ago.
Global warming will be solved by technology removing greenhouse gases from the upper atmosphere. At some point in the near future some bright spark is going to discover a new and very useful thing to do with carbon dioxide and someone else is going to come up with a novel way to capture it easily from the atmosphere at a conversion rate much higher than photosynthesis. .
Or, we suck all the greenhouse gases out of the upper atmosphere and it makes no ruddy difference, and the climate continues to go its own sweet way.
On a very simple, "this is gsce science", level removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere wil make a difference as it will halt the rise in global temperatures, the difficult part is how we go about reducing the effects of the last 20 years. I don't really know if that's possible, but it's not an area of expertise for me.
You can't say that with any certainty, GCSE science or otherwise. If the warming hasn't been caused by the greenhouse effect, reducing the greenhouse effect won't stop the warming.
Step 1) Go and look up how much further away Venus is from the sun than Mercury. Step 2) Observe the temperature differential between them (hint: Venus is somewhat hotter). Step 3) Note which colourless odourless gas makes up basically all of Venus’s atmosphere. Step 4) Consider the implications of these findings Step 5) Come back to pb.com and apologise for spreading your half arsed ignorance on this matter.
I'm aware of the principle upon which the theory of man made global warming is based thank you. Knowing the principle, and what happens on Venus, is not the same as knowing that the same phenomenon is driving warming here, and how much of it is being affected by the activity of humans.
Even with your crudely simplistic catechism, you've failed to offer a basic calculation of what the warming affect of Venus is and how it can be applied to earth. As it happens, I'm in favour of using less fossil fuels in favour of good renewable energy, I can think of few people who would not be.
Where I do have a slight objection is to simple minded keyboard warriors such as yourself offering patronising diatribes and demanding apologies from people you don't know, for having the nerve to say we don't know something that clearly we don't know.
“Or, we suck all the greenhouse gases out of the upper atmosphere and it makes no ruddy difference”.
Global warming will be solved by technology removing greenhouse gases from the upper atmosphere. At some point in the near future some bright spark is going to discover a new and very useful thing to do with carbon dioxide and someone else is going to come up with a novel way to capture it easily from the atmosphere at a conversion rate much higher than photosynthesis. .
Or, we suck all the greenhouse gases out of the upper atmosphere and it makes no ruddy difference, and the climate continues to go its own sweet way.
On a very simple, "this is gsce science", level removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere wil make a difference as it will halt the rise in global temperatures, the difficult part is how we go about reducing the effects of the last 20 years. I don't really know if that's possible, but it's not an area of expertise for me.
You can't say that with any certainty, GCSE science or otherwise. If the warming hasn't been caused by the greenhouse effect, reducing the greenhouse effect won't stop the warming.
Step 1) Go and look up how much further away Venus is from the sun than Mercury. Step 2) Observe the temperature differential between them (hint: Venus is somewhat hotter). Step 3) Note which colourless odourless gas makes up basically all of Venus’s atmosphere. Step 4) Consider the implications of these findings Step 5) Come back to pb.com and apologise for spreading your half arsed ignorance on this matter.
I'm aware of the principle upon which the theory of man made global warming is based thank you. Knowing the principle, and what happens on Venus, is not the same as knowing that the same phenomenon is driving warming here, and how much of it is being affected by the activity of humans.
Even with your crudely simplistic catechism, you've failed to offer a basic calculation of what the warming affect of Venus is and how it can be applied to earth. As it happens, I'm in favour of using less fossil fuels in favour of good renewable energy, I can think of few people who would not be.
Where I do have a slight objection is to simple minded keyboard warriors such as yourself offering patronising diatribes and demanding apologies from people you don't know, for having the nerve to say we don't know something that clearly we don't know.
“Or, we suck all the greenhouse gases out of the upper atmosphere and it makes no ruddy difference”.
I am saying that it is not rational to refuse to accept the scientific consensus on GW unless one both disagrees with it and is an expert oneself in the field.
Forget all the other stuff, what is your problem with that?
Depends what you mean by "refuse to accept." I think AGW is a thing and something should be done about it. That doesn't stop me thinking that there is nothing scientific about a "scientific consensus" argument and that the departure from proper scientific principles imports a huge danger of catastrophic error. If you think this can't happen consider the great vitamin D debate in which scientists lost jobs for questioning the scientific consensus that sun exposure was an unqualified evil, and then it turned out that actually you can more than lose from vitamin D deficiency what you gain in skin cancer prevention.
But it is pointless having this argument with people who genuinely (I think) cannot distinguish between skeptical agreement, agnosticism and disagreement, or who don't see that the distinction matters.
Or, we suck all the greenhouse gases out of the upper atmosphere and it makes no ruddy difference, and the climate continues to go its own sweet way.
On a very simple, "this is gsce science", level removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere wil make a difference as it will halt the rise in global temperatures, the difficult part is how we go about reducing the effects of the last 20 years. I don't really know if that's possible, but it's not an area of expertise for me.
You can't say that with any certainty, GCSE science or otherwise. If the warming hasn't been caused by the greenhouse effect, reducing the greenhouse effect won't stop the warming.
Step 1) Go and look up how much further away Venus is from the sun than Mercury. Step 2) Observe the temperature differential between them (hint: Venus is somewhat hotter). Step 3) Note which colourless odourless gas makes up basically all of Venus’s atmosphere. Step 4) Consider the implications of these findings Step 5) Come back to pb.com and apologise for spreading your half arsed ignorance on this matter.
I'm aware of the principle upon which the theory of man made global warming is based thank you. Knowing the principle, and what happens on Venus, is not the same as knowing that the same phenomenon is driving warming here, and how much of it is being affected by the activity of humans.
Even with your crudely simplistic catechism, you've failed to offer a basic calculation of what the warming affect of Venus is and how it can be applied to earth. As it happens, I'm in favour of using less fossil fuels in favour of good renewable energy, I can think of few people who would not be.
Where I do have a slight objection is to simple minded keyboard warriors such as yourself offering patronising diatribes and demanding apologies from people you don't know, for having the nerve to say we don't know something that clearly we don't know.
“Or, we suck all the greenhouse gases out of the upper atmosphere and it makes no ruddy difference”.
I’ll let that quote be my final contribution.
Is that a promise?
Yes. It’s both tiresome and boring arguing with your quaint views. At least get with the programme: yes we now accept the earth is warming. Yes we now accept it’s because of human greenhouse gas emissions. But... it’s cracking news because we can grow Pinot in Kent and plants generally thrive with higher co2 and who doesn’t like plants?
Depends what you mean by "refuse to accept." I think AGW is a thing and something should be done about it. That doesn't stop me thinking that there is nothing scientific about a "scientific consensus" argument and that the departure from proper scientific principles imports a huge danger of catastrophic error. If you think this can't happen consider the great vitamin D debate in which scientists lost jobs for questioning the scientific consensus that sun exposure was an unqualified evil, and then it turned out that actually you can more than lose from vitamin D deficiency what you gain in skin cancer prevention.
But it is pointless having this argument with people who genuinely (I think) cannot distinguish between skeptical agreement, agnosticism and disagreement, or who don't see that the distinction matters.
Got you. Thanks. Barely a cigarette paper between us. I sense you were reacting to my smug and hectoring tone rather than my core point.
Summary -
Neither of us are experts on this matter. Neither of us are irrational. Thus we do not reject the consensus of climate scientists about the climate. We agree with it but it is (your term and I like it) 'skeptical agreement' - and perhaps in your case even deeply skeptical agreement - on account of the inherent uncertainties in this branch of science and the undoubted distortions due to agendas and politics.
You are hereby dropped from the SEVEN. We are back to SIX.
Global warming will be solved by technology removing greenhouse gases from the upper atmosphere. At some point in the near future some bright spark is going to discover a new and very useful thing to do with carbon dioxide and someone else is going to come up with a novel way to capture it easily from the atmosphere at a conversion rate much higher than photosynthesis.
There's no other way around it and Boris/Dom should be pushing billions in the direction of this scientific research rather than wasting time trying to get the US and China to agree to something they will never stick to.
Ah, the carbon-sucking unicorns, as I've seen them described. Not much sign of them skipping to the rescue yet.....
As per my much earlier post, I thought this a bonkers idea a few years ago, but I suspect it is going to be needed as part of the solution now. And is it a unicorn? I don't know, but it is certainly in operation now. Whether viable I don't know.
Carbon capture direct from the atmosphere would cost about $100 per ton of CO2 removed. IIRC total human CO2 emissions are 36 gigatons. So for $3.6T per year you could stop global warming as quick as you could build the facilities.
How far that cost could drop is a matter of debate - one scientist I spoke to though that $10 per ton could be possible.
By the way it's still not certain that Sanders will win Iowa.
It's a caucus not a primary, so the polling error is greater than usual, and it's Iowa which decides only at the very last moment.
But if he is leading by close to 10 points I say he wins, but I'll wait until the Selzer poll next Sunday morning to be sure which way the wind is blowing.
One thing stays the same, if Sanders or Biden win Iowa they win the nomination.
I think that is true for Biden but not necessarily for Bernie.
Air capture of CO2 is bollocks. Leave it to the trees.
CCS is definitely part of the solution, but from concentrated point sources (power stations, cement plants, 'blue' hydrogen production facilities, etc.) , not from the atmosphere.
Yes, Sanders now surging to the lead in Iowa and New Hampshire in new polls this week as the Democratic establishment starts to panic as they face their Corbyn moment
Air capture of CO2 is bollocks. Leave it to the trees.
CCS is definitely part of the solution, but from concentrated point sources (power stations, cement plants, 'blue' hydrogen production facilities, etc.) , not from the atmosphere.
That doesn't do anything to remove what's already in the atmosphere. As I said earlier, the solution will come when someone discovers a way to do it, that isn't going to happen tomorrow though, and I think the government needs to put this country on the bleeding edge of this science rather than just say "what's done is done" and not bother with researching a way to undo the damage of the last 20 years.
Air capture of CO2 is bollocks. Leave it to the trees.
CCS is definitely part of the solution, but from concentrated point sources (power stations, cement plants, 'blue' hydrogen production facilities, etc.) , not from the atmosphere.
That doesn't do anything to remove what's already in the atmosphere. As I said earlier, the solution will come when someone discovers a way to do it, that isn't going to happen tomorrow though, and I think the government needs to put this country on the bleeding edge of this science rather than just say "what's done is done" and not bother with researching a way to undo the damage of the last 20 years.
There are plenty of ways to do it. Hell, right now at BOC, they are liquifying air, and separating out the nitrogen, oxygen and CO2 for sale... The question is cost.
Yes, Sanders now surging to the lead in Iowa and New Hampshire in new polls this week as the Democratic establishment starts to panic as they face their Corbyn moment
I think the direct comparisons from Corbyn to Sanders are really overdone. As are the ones comparing Trump to Boris.
Sanders is a much better politician than Corbyn and Boris is ten times better than Trump.
The big difference between Trump and Boris is that Trump doubled down on his base once in office, while Boris is going left economically. Sanders and Corbyn are on the same spectrum but Sanders is nowhere near as extreme.
How many more coronaviruses will China subject the world to before it changes its attitude and stops allowing food markets there to do what they like .
Once again peoples lives are put at risk because of archaic practices .
Air capture of CO2 is bollocks. Leave it to the trees.
CCS is definitely part of the solution, but from concentrated point sources (power stations, cement plants, 'blue' hydrogen production facilities, etc.) , not from the atmosphere.
That doesn't do anything to remove what's already in the atmosphere. As I said earlier, the solution will come when someone discovers a way to do it, that isn't going to happen tomorrow though, and I think the government needs to put this country on the bleeding edge of this science rather than just say "what's done is done" and not bother with researching a way to undo the damage of the last 20 years.
A good header as usual by David Herdson. And I suppose the idea of calling it "global heating" is to give us all the willies. The trouble with coining a new phrase to emphasis the danger is that it leaves the reader feeling manipulated.
Global warming is a public bad. In fact it is difficult to think of a more extreme version of a public bad, though @IshmaelX mentions the possible corona virus epidemic as a contender. Solving the optimal provision of public goods (or bads) within a country is difficult enough when there is no argument about what generates the public good (or bad). Here we have general agreement about the facts, i.e. global temperatures, and also about the consequences e.g. rising sea levels. But only "scientific consensus" about the cause, putatively atmospheric carbon dioxide. Be that as it may, if we assume that CO2 is the cause of global warming then the carbon price would seem to be a suitable economic mechanism. But ignoring the distributional issues (e.g. poor people in Africa), the big obstacle of putting an effective carbon price into effect is the absence of a global enforcement mechanism. Moral suasion is not adequate, but what more can be done?
Air capture of CO2 is bollocks. Leave it to the trees.
CCS is definitely part of the solution, but from concentrated point sources (power stations, cement plants, 'blue' hydrogen production facilities, etc.) , not from the atmosphere.
That doesn't do anything to remove what's already in the atmosphere. As I said earlier, the solution will come when someone discovers a way to do it, that isn't going to happen tomorrow though, and I think the government needs to put this country on the bleeding edge of this science rather than just say "what's done is done" and not bother with researching a way to undo the damage of the last 20 years.
There are plenty of ways to do it. Hell, right now at BOC, they are liquifying air, and separating out the nitrogen, oxygen and CO2 for sale... The question is cost.
Oh for goodness sake, an ASU has got nothing to do with CCS.
Not really. 2016 nominations are the proper base for comparison. In 2015 Corbyn only received 39% of all nominations, I think because many recently joining weren't eligible to vote. So if you want to see how opinion within the Labour Party constituency meetings is changing, you look at 2016.
There are 27 CLPs which backed Corbyn in 2016 and which have so far made nominations. RLB has been nominated by only 5 of these.
There are also 5 CLPs which backed Smith in 2016 and which have so far made nominations. RLB has been nominated by 0 of these.
RLB has also picked up only 11 nominations from the 35 CLPs which made no nominations at all in 2016, including the one from the CLP you highlighted.
Air capture of CO2 is bollocks. Leave it to the trees.
CCS is definitely part of the solution, but from concentrated point sources (power stations, cement plants, 'blue' hydrogen production facilities, etc.) , not from the atmosphere.
That doesn't do anything to remove what's already in the atmosphere. As I said earlier, the solution will come when someone discovers a way to do it, that isn't going to happen tomorrow though, and I think the government needs to put this country on the bleeding edge of this science rather than just say "what's done is done" and not bother with researching a way to undo the damage of the last 20 years.
Just buy a lot of carbon-fibre and graphene type stuff. There is only so much carbon on the planet. We just need to tie it up in good ways.
There is too a slight solar energy soak issue - just make stuff white.
Yes, Sanders now surging to the lead in Iowa and New Hampshire in new polls this week as the Democratic establishment starts to panic as they face their Corbyn moment
Yes, Sanders now surging to the lead in Iowa and New Hampshire in new polls this week as the Democratic establishment starts to panic as they face their Corbyn moment
I think the direct comparisons from Corbyn to Sanders are really overdone. As are the ones comparing Trump to Boris.
Sanders is a much better politician than Corbyn and Boris is ten times better than Trump.
The big difference between Trump and Boris is that Trump doubled down on his base once in office, while Boris is going left economically. Sanders and Corbyn are on the same spectrum but Sanders is nowhere near as extreme.
White working class voters tend to be socially conservative, concerned about immigration but economically centrist or even left, Boris knew what he had to do to be re elected, Trump may well have to do the same, especially as Sanders will run a similar populist campaign to the one Corbyn did ie bashing corporations, promising free stuff etc.
Air capture of CO2 is bollocks. Leave it to the trees.
CCS is definitely part of the solution, but from concentrated point sources (power stations, cement plants, 'blue' hydrogen production facilities, etc.) , not from the atmosphere.
That doesn't do anything to remove what's already in the atmosphere. As I said earlier, the solution will come when someone discovers a way to do it, that isn't going to happen tomorrow though, and I think the government needs to put this country on the bleeding edge of this science rather than just say "what's done is done" and not bother with researching a way to undo the damage of the last 20 years.
Just buy a lot of carbon-fibre and graphene type stuff. There is only so much carbon on the planet. We just need to tie it up in good ways.
There is too a slight solar energy soak issue - just make stuff white.
Building a lot more with timber would seem (from a carbon trapping perspective) to be the most sensible thing to do. Burning wood in the form of biofuel is completely stupid. If well built, a building will be around for a few hundred years.
Yes, Sanders now surging to the lead in Iowa and New Hampshire in new polls this week as the Democratic establishment starts to panic as they face their Corbyn moment
Air capture of CO2 is bollocks. Leave it to the trees.
CCS is definitely part of the solution, but from concentrated point sources (power stations, cement plants, 'blue' hydrogen production facilities, etc.) , not from the atmosphere.
That doesn't do anything to remove what's already in the atmosphere. As I said earlier, the solution will come when someone discovers a way to do it, that isn't going to happen tomorrow though, and I think the government needs to put this country on the bleeding edge of this science rather than just say "what's done is done" and not bother with researching a way to undo the damage of the last 20 years.
There are plenty of ways to do it. Hell, right now at BOC, they are liquifying air, and separating out the nitrogen, oxygen and CO2 for sale... The question is cost.
Oh for goodness sake, an ASU has got nothing to do with CCS.
The point is that it is perfectly possible to extract CO2 from the atmosphere - the question is merely cost per ton.
Air capture of CO2 is bollocks. Leave it to the trees.
CCS is definitely part of the solution, but from concentrated point sources (power stations, cement plants, 'blue' hydrogen production facilities, etc.) , not from the atmosphere.
That doesn't do anything to remove what's already in the atmosphere. As I said earlier, the solution will come when someone discovers a way to do it, that isn't going to happen tomorrow though, and I think the government needs to put this country on the bleeding edge of this science rather than just say "what's done is done" and not bother with researching a way to undo the damage of the last 20 years.
There are plenty of ways to do it. Hell, right now at BOC, they are liquifying air, and separating out the nitrogen, oxygen and CO2 for sale... The question is cost.
Oh for goodness sake, an ASU has got nothing to do with CCS.
The point is that it is perfectly possible to extract CO2 from the atmosphere - the question is merely cost per ton.
No, the question is what is the most cost effective way to reduce net CO2 emissions. And it certainly isn't air capture.
Air capture of CO2 is bollocks. Leave it to the trees.
CCS is definitely part of the solution, but from concentrated point sources (power stations, cement plants, 'blue' hydrogen production facilities, etc.) , not from the atmosphere.
That doesn't do anything to remove what's already in the atmosphere. As I said earlier, the solution will come when someone discovers a way to do it, that isn't going to happen tomorrow though, and I think the government needs to put this country on the bleeding edge of this science rather than just say "what's done is done" and not bother with researching a way to undo the damage of the last 20 years.
There are plenty of ways to do it. Hell, right now at BOC, they are liquifying air, and separating out the nitrogen, oxygen and CO2 for sale... The question is cost.
Oh for goodness sake, an ASU has got nothing to do with CCS.
The point is that it is perfectly possible to extract CO2 from the atmosphere - the question is merely cost per ton.
Air capture of CO2 is bollocks. Leave it to the trees.
CCS is definitely part of the solution, but from concentrated point sources (power stations, cement plants, 'blue' hydrogen production facilities, etc.) , not from the atmosphere.
That doesn't do anything to remove what's already in the atmosphere. As I said earlier, the solution will come when someone discovers a way to do it, that isn't going to happen tomorrow though, and I think the government needs to put this country on the bleeding edge of this science rather than just say "what's done is done" and not bother with researching a way to undo the damage of the last 20 years.
Just buy a lot of carbon-fibre and graphene type stuff. There is only so much carbon on the planet. We just need to tie it up in good ways.
There is too a slight solar energy soak issue - just make stuff white.
Building a lot more with timber would seem (from a carbon trapping perspective) to be the most sensible thing to do. Burning wood in the form of biofuel is completely stupid. If well built, a building will be around for a few hundred years.
If you apply BECCS to the combustion of timber then, providing it comes from a sustainable source, the overall cycle becomes carbon negative. And a better idea than air capture.
Air capture of CO2 is bollocks. Leave it to the trees.
CCS is definitely part of the solution, but from concentrated point sources (power stations, cement plants, 'blue' hydrogen production facilities, etc.) , not from the atmosphere.
That doesn't do anything to remove what's already in the atmosphere. As I said earlier, the solution will come when someone discovers a way to do it, that isn't going to happen tomorrow though, and I think the government needs to put this country on the bleeding edge of this science rather than just say "what's done is done" and not bother with researching a way to undo the damage of the last 20 years.
Just buy a lot of carbon-fibre and graphene type stuff. There is only so much carbon on the planet. We just need to tie it up in good ways.
There is too a slight solar energy soak issue - just make stuff white.
Building a lot more with timber would seem (from a carbon trapping perspective) to be the most sensible thing to do. Burning wood in the form of biofuel is completely stupid. If well built, a building will be around for a few hundred years.
Yep, although that timber will allow the return of the carbon over time. Make stuff of diamond and it'll take much longer. I think, but I don't know, that the man-made carbon compounds are in the middle.
The whole 'man made crisis' thing though may not be right. It may be that other and bigger factors are at play. We actually need to think about them too. We need to manage our planet.
Air capture of CO2 is bollocks. Leave it to the trees.
CCS is definitely part of the solution, but from concentrated point sources (power stations, cement plants, 'blue' hydrogen production facilities, etc.) , not from the atmosphere.
That doesn't do anything to remove what's already in the atmosphere. As I said earlier, the solution will come when someone discovers a way to do it, that isn't going to happen tomorrow though, and I think the government needs to put this country on the bleeding edge of this science rather than just say "what's done is done" and not bother with researching a way to undo the damage of the last 20 years.
There are plenty of ways to do it. Hell, right now at BOC, they are liquifying air, and separating out the nitrogen, oxygen and CO2 for sale... The question is cost.
Oh for goodness sake, an ASU has got nothing to do with CCS.
The point is that it is perfectly possible to extract CO2 from the atmosphere - the question is merely cost per ton.
No, the question is what is the most cost effective way to reduce net CO2 emissions. And it certainly isn't air capture.
Trees seem a pretty cutting-edge technology for doing this.....
Or perhaps algae, if you want an industrial process.
Air capture of CO2 is bollocks. Leave it to the trees.
CCS is definitely part of the solution, but from concentrated point sources (power stations, cement plants, 'blue' hydrogen production facilities, etc.) , not from the atmosphere.
That doesn't do anything to remove what's already in the atmosphere. As I said earlier, the solution will come when someone discovers a way to do it, that isn't going to happen tomorrow though, and I think the government needs to put this country on the bleeding edge of this science rather than just say "what's done is done" and not bother with researching a way to undo the damage of the last 20 years.
There are plenty of ways to do it. Hell, right now at BOC, they are liquifying air, and separating out the nitrogen, oxygen and CO2 for sale... The question is cost.
Oh for goodness sake, an ASU has got nothing to do with CCS.
The point is that it is perfectly possible to extract CO2 from the atmosphere - the question is merely cost per ton.
No, the question is what is the most cost effective way to reduce net CO2 emissions. And it certainly isn't air capture.
Trees seem a pretty cutting-edge technology for doing this.....
Or perhaps algae, if you want an industrial process.
As above - trees hang on to carbon for a good while, algae less so.
Diamonds are the world's best friend - they really do hang on to their atoms.
We also lose some carbon over time from atmospheric boil off. (There's perhaps a better term) Maybe we gain some from meteorites.
Air capture of CO2 is bollocks. Leave it to the trees.
CCS is definitely part of the solution, but from concentrated point sources (power stations, cement plants, 'blue' hydrogen production facilities, etc.) , not from the atmosphere.
That doesn't do anything to remove what's already in the atmosphere. As I said earlier, the solution will come when someone discovers a way to do it, that isn't going to happen tomorrow though, and I think the government needs to put this country on the bleeding edge of this science rather than just say "what's done is done" and not bother with researching a way to undo the damage of the last 20 years.
There are plenty of ways to do it. Hell, right now at BOC, they are liquifying air, and separating out the nitrogen, oxygen and CO2 for sale... The question is cost.
Oh for goodness sake, an ASU has got nothing to do with CCS.
The point is that it is perfectly possible to extract CO2 from the atmosphere - the question is merely cost per ton.
No, the question is what is the most cost effective way to reduce net CO2 emissions. And it certainly isn't air capture.
Currently, renewables such as wind and solar are the cheap option - until you hit limits on grid stability. It is fairly probable that battery storage (can deal with the stability issue) will get cheaper at an extreme rate - currently $1m for 4MWH.
The idea behind carbon capture is that it can be used to offset emissions where the emitters can't/wont reduce. Currently it is too pricey... but prices for all technologies are falling. The only question is how far and how fast.
Air capture of CO2 is bollocks. Leave it to the trees.
CCS is definitely part of the solution, but from concentrated point sources (power stations, cement plants, 'blue' hydrogen production facilities, etc.) , not from the atmosphere.
That doesn't do anything to remove what's already in the atmosphere. As I said earlier, the solution will come when someone discovers a way to do it, that isn't going to happen tomorrow though, and I think the government needs to put this country on the bleeding edge of this science rather than just say "what's done is done" and not bother with researching a way to undo the damage of the last 20 years.
Just buy a lot of carbon-fibre and graphene type stuff. There is only so much carbon on the planet. We just need to tie it up in good ways.
There is too a slight solar energy soak issue - just make stuff white.
Building a lot more with timber would seem (from a carbon trapping perspective) to be the most sensible thing to do. Burning wood in the form of biofuel is completely stupid. If well built, a building will be around for a few hundred years.
Yep, although that timber will allow the return of the carbon over time. Make stuff of diamond and it'll take much longer. I think, but I don't know, that the man-made carbon compounds are in the middle.
The whole 'man made crisis' thing though may not be right. It may be that other and bigger factors are at play. We actually need to think about them too. We need to manage our planet.
Methane is apparently a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Livestock are not the main cause though they are a significant one. The agenda that is being heavily pushed is that we should all go dairy and meat free (and no doubt feed ourselves on soy and almonds produced by US agribusiness). But the reality is that cows are producing so much methane due to changing their diet away from mixed natural pastures to bulk crops or feed. We should be cautious of big companies offering solutions to the problems they themselves have caused, all of which involve them making more money.
Air capture of CO2 is bollocks. Leave it to the trees.
CCS is definitely part of the solution, but from concentrated point sources (power stations, cement plants, 'blue' hydrogen production facilities, etc.) , not from the atmosphere.
That doesn't do anything to remove what's already in the atmosphere. As I said earlier, the solution will come when someone discovers a way to do it, that isn't going to happen tomorrow though, and I think the government needs to put this country on the bleeding edge of this science rather than just say "what's done is done" and not bother with researching a way to undo the damage of the last 20 years.
Just buy a lot of carbon-fibre and graphene type stuff. There is only so much carbon on the planet. We just need to tie it up in good ways.
There is too a slight solar energy soak issue - just make stuff white.
Building a lot more with timber would seem (from a carbon trapping perspective) to be the most sensible thing to do. Burning wood in the form of biofuel is completely stupid. If well built, a building will be around for a few hundred years.
If you apply BECCS to the combustion of timber then, providing it comes from a sustainable source, the overall cycle becomes carbon negative. And a better idea than air capture.
If I knew what that stood for I could form a response.
Air capture of CO2 is bollocks. Leave it to the trees.
CCS is definitely part of the solution, but from concentrated point sources (power stations, cement plants, 'blue' hydrogen production facilities, etc.) , not from the atmosphere.
That doesn't do anything to remove what's already in the atmosphere. As I said earlier, the solution will come when someone discovers a way to do it, that isn't going to happen tomorrow though, and I think the government needs to put this country on the bleeding edge of this science rather than just say "what's done is done" and not bother with researching a way to undo the damage of the last 20 years.
Just buy a lot of carbon-fibre and graphene type stuff. There is only so much carbon on the planet. We just need to tie it up in good ways.
There is too a slight solar energy soak issue - just make stuff white.
Building a lot more with timber would seem (from a carbon trapping perspective) to be the most sensible thing to do. Burning wood in the form of biofuel is completely stupid. If well built, a building will be around for a few hundred years.
Yep, although that timber will allow the return of the carbon over time. Make stuff of diamond and it'll take much longer. I think, but I don't know, that the man-made carbon compounds are in the middle.
The whole 'man made crisis' thing though may not be right. It may be that other and bigger factors are at play. We actually need to think about them too. We need to manage our planet.
Methane is apparently a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Livestock are not the main cause though they are a significant one. The agenda that is being heavily pushed is that we should all go dairy and meat free (and no doubt feed ourselves on soy and almonds produced by US agribusiness). But the reality is that cows are producing so much methane due to changing their diet away from mixed natural pastures to bulk crops or feed. We should be cautious of big companies offering solutions to the problems they themselves have caused, all of which involve them making more money.
Quite right - methane is a very bad thing. The atmosphere contains only trace methane though because is breaks down.
All the animals on the planet produce a lot of methane. (edit; thinking about this there may be animals that don't. Farmyard animals and us certainly do so)
Air capture of CO2 is bollocks. Leave it to the trees.
CCS is definitely part of the solution, but from concentrated point sources (power stations, cement plants, 'blue' hydrogen production facilities, etc.) , not from the atmosphere.
Bulk CCS at source technology currently requires far too big an energy input to make it any kind of useful mitigation for fossil fuel power stations. You’re better off shutting them down and replacing with renewables.
Long term (ie a couple of decades) there probably a future for the technology as a means of producing synthetic fuels. It’s a long way off as the efficiencies/costs need to improve by an order of magnitude.
How many more coronaviruses will China subject the world to before it changes its attitude and stops allowing food markets there to do what they like .
Once again peoples lives are put at risk because of archaic practices .
The world far too often looks the other way to increasingly dictatorial autocratic regimes because they want to do business with them. Then they get rich and powerful enough to start an incredibly costly war and the net economics is negative for the West.
Air capture of CO2 is bollocks. Leave it to the trees.
CCS is definitely part of the solution, but from concentrated point sources (power stations, cement plants, 'blue' hydrogen production facilities, etc.) , not from the atmosphere.
That doesn't do anything to remove what's already in the atmosphere. As I said earlier, the solution will come when someone discovers a way to do it, that isn't going to happen tomorrow though, and I think the government needs to put this country on the bleeding edge of this science rather than just say "what's done is done" and not bother with researching a way to undo the damage of the last 20 years.
Just buy a lot of carbon-fibre and graphene type stuff. There is only so much carbon on the planet. We just need to tie it up in good ways.
There is too a slight solar energy soak issue - just make stuff white.
Building a lot more with timber would seem (from a carbon trapping perspective) to be the most sensible thing to do. Burning wood in the form of biofuel is completely stupid. If well built, a building will be around for a few hundred years.
Yep, although that timber will allow the return of the carbon over time. Make stuff of diamond and it'll take much longer. I think, but I don't know, that the man-made carbon compounds are in the middle.
The whole 'man made crisis' thing though may not be right. It may be that other and bigger factors are at play. We actually need to think about them too. We need to manage our planet.
Methane is apparently a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Livestock are not the main cause though they are a significant one. The agenda that is being heavily pushed is that we should all go dairy and meat free (and no doubt feed ourselves on soy and almonds produced by US agribusiness). But the reality is that cows are producing so much methane due to changing their diet away from mixed natural pastures to bulk crops or feed. We should be cautious of big companies offering solutions to the problems they themselves have caused, all of which involve them making more money.
Quite right - methane is a very bad thing. The atmosphere contains only trace methane though because is breaks down.
All the animals on the planet produce a lot of methane.
As will the biomass locked in to the permafrost, as it melts. A process which has already begun.
On the contrary. I am not from the left. Nor do I think this is a matter of belief. It is a matter of science and there are very good reasons why genuine (small “c”) conservatives should have a care for our planet and what we leave behind for our children and grand-children.
You claim not to be left but your attitude is progressive, not liberal.
So the implicit assumption is if I fundamentally don't agree with some of the claims being made, or the re-distributive "solutions" to said claims, then I "don't care for our planet and what we leave behind for our children and grand-children".
The partisanship is precisely because of the leftist tendency to catastrophize to further their agenda.
I have not made claims on the science because I am not a scientist. I have said - in my article - that there need to be a range of solutions, not simply “leftist” ones. You have chosen not to understand my central point: caring for our planet and the humans living in it should not be seen as an exclusively leftist issue, not least because plenty of people who are not leftist care just as much about the world they live in and the future for their children.
Yes, but you are missing my point. That if the measure of caring for the planet is whether you believe the left-consensus or agree with its solutions then you aren't being serious. I'm being serious, what to you would show the right caring is caring? (Again the implicit assumption here is they don't, and leftists do simply because they are currently using it as a wedge issue)
"Lets all meet in the middle. Oh btw my views are the middle-ground."
To be honest I think you are seeing disagreement where there really is none. I do think conservatives care about the planet. There are some on the right who don’t and some on the left who don’t (see Putin for instance and past Soviet governments). And I would like the conservative voice on this topic to be heard and to be in the forefront of coming up with solutions (as to be fair, some have) rather than cede the ground to those on the left and their solutions.
Air capture of CO2 is bollocks. Leave it to the trees.
CCS is definitely part of the solution, but from concentrated point sources (power stations, cement plants, 'blue' hydrogen production facilities, etc.) , not from the atmosphere.
That doesn't do anything to remove what's already in the atmosphere. As I said earlier, the solution will come when someone discovers a way to do it, that isn't going to happen tomorrow though, and I think the government needs to put this country on the bleeding edge of this science rather than just say "what's done is done" and not bother with researching a way to undo the damage of the last 20 years.
Just buy a lot of carbon-fibre and graphene type stuff. There is only so much carbon on the planet. We just need to tie it up in good ways.
There is too a slight solar energy soak issue - just make stuff white.
Building a lot more with timber would seem (from a carbon trapping perspective) to be the most sensible thing to do. Burning wood in the form of biofuel is completely stupid. If well built, a building will be around for a few hundred years.
Yep, although that timber will allow the return of the carbon over time. Make stuff of diamond and it'll take much longer. I think, but I don't know, that the man-made carbon compounds are in the middle.
The whole 'man made crisis' thing though may not be right. It may be that other and bigger factors are at play. We actually need to think about them too. We need to manage our planet.
Methane is apparently a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Livestock are not the main cause though they are a significant one. The agenda that is being heavily pushed is that we should all go dairy and meat free (and no doubt feed ourselves on soy and almonds produced by US agribusiness). But the reality is that cows are producing so much methane due to changing their diet away from mixed natural pastures to bulk crops or feed. We should be cautious of big companies offering solutions to the problems they themselves have caused, all of which involve them making more money.
Quite right - methane is a very bad thing. The atmosphere contains only trace methane though because is breaks down.
All the animals on the planet produce a lot of methane. (edit; thinking about this there may be animals that don't. Farmyard animals and us certainly do so)
A lot of it leaked out by the oil and gas industry apparently.
Comments
I'm drawing a distinction between (i) accepting the consensus that there is a big problem but rejecting leftist solutions and (ii) rejecting the consensus that there is a big problem because so many of the proposed solutions are leftist.
(i) Fine. (ii) Not so much.
At root, the vast majority of individuals don`t really care about nature (even though many say they do) and backs up my point that the only chance of solving or even mitigating this global problem is some form of global governance run on non-democratic lines. Scientists and naturalists need to be in charge somehow. XR realises this.
If so then the solution is simply to impose the Clear Air Act or something on China and India, or a technology that absorbs smog from cars and factories.
Just curious what would the theoretical effect on global temperatures be if the arctic didn't melt during the summer ?
Which also applies to Syrian war, Trump impeachment, hyperinflation in Venezuela, our trade deal with the EU etc etc.
So I was just interested.
Circumstantial evidence to support this would be the indivisibility of the Planck length (pixel size) and Planck Time (refresh rate), and the insurmountable distances to the nearest stars (allows low poly generation of their detail for graphics engine efficiency).
All good fun. Of course Descartes unstranded himself from the deceptive evil demon’s island of despair with his “cogito”. He ignored it basically. Because after all, it doesnt matter whether we are in a simulation of reality or reality itself, so long as our experience is internally consistent. No obvious glitches in the matrix and all that.
Which is why Musk still thinks it worthwhile to try and crack global warming and explore the cosmos, rather than smoke weed all day and think about things that don’t have an answer.
Meanwhile, sat in Singapore I am beginning to get quite nervous about Coronavirus. Am repatriating imminently but if the wave crashes, it’s too late now to avoid it.
Jesus. Thanks for illustrating precisely my concerns about the anti-democratic attitudes of climate activists in my previous post.
p.s. I don't know why having naked people in charge would be better for the planet ... fewer resources used on clothing? But what about the increased need for indoor heating?
p.p.s. Oh. You said 'naturalists', not 'naturists'. Never mind.
How far that cost could drop is a matter of debate - one scientist I spoke to though that $10 per ton could be possible.
The main issue here is just the coordination problem, that changing to low carbon is expensive, and the world is governed by lots of separate feuding countries, and they each have an interest to let the others do the work and get a free ride off them; That and predatory delay by people with a vested interest in doing things the old way.
But I do think it's funny that David Herdson's written an entire piece complaining Attenborough is missing the politics of the situation, but written entirely from the point of view of a British person, and totally ignores how the comments could be received in China.
Yes, Africa is where the world population is growing, but in places like Malawi the carbon footprint is around one twentieth of that of a UK citizen.
One increasing concern for me is the rise of aircondioning in middle income countries, a positive feedback loop accelerating warming, and creating the desire for more AC.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-28/air-conditioning-is-the-world-s-next-big-threat
Modern prosperity has been made possible by the advent of cheap reliable fossil fuels..something which other countries would like to replicate. Any form of energy policy predicated on renewables will be ruinously expensive and lead to poverty and lack of economic growth. With mild warming the only justification for such transformation is ideological.
It is worth considering that the cost of wind and solar power are dropping continuously in each generation. Coal and gas are not. This means that in many countries the cheaper option is already renewables.
How do you account for the melting of arctic permafrost ?
In winter in the Arctic, the air is cold enough for sea-ice to form further south than it does. The main control on ice extent is the seawater temperature, which is why the boundary between warm water from the Atlantic and cold water from the Arctic marks the limit of sea-ice, and it has only decreased slowly.
In summer, the sea-ice melts even over the cold Arctic waters, and these is amplified by the albedo feedback we talked about below (which only acts when there is sunlight).
And there has been sea-ice loss around Antarctica, albeit nothing like as dramatic as summer sea-ice loss in the Arctic, and complicated by changes in the polar vortex (associated with CFCs and the "ozone hole").
I don't consider myself of the "left" (or the "right" either) so I see no need to politicise the issue just because I don't like the responses or the people making the accusation.
As we close in on 8 billion people, the fact is even small climatic changes can impact thousands if not millions and especially so given the numbers living on or near the coast. The defence of coastal cities such as New York, Shanghai, Tokyo and London from not only rising sea levels but more severe weather is going to be a huge infrastructure issue.
The rate of increase in ocean temperature and carbon dioxide concentration in such a short time concerns me. Warmer oceans mean stronger storms and yes we've had a warmer world before but never with 8 billion people on it.
Like others, I believe in human ingenuity and there will be technological advances (which all Governments should be actively supporting) which will hopefully allow us to mitigate the worst consequences of what we have already done and what we are doing. Unfortunately, the economic model based on resource consumption is no longer sustainable but that leaves a challenge to come up with new models for economic growth and prosperity.
As I've said before, the UK has a good story to tell in terms of power generation but in terms of air quality and recycling there's much more to be done. I don't support the draconian changes to lifestyle proposed by some but equally we do have an undeniable challenge to ensure we do our best to make sure the planet we pass on to future generations is in as good a shape as possible.
For all those who witter on about inheritance, that's the one that really matters.
Apologies, I`m never rude and allowed my frustration to come out on this occasion - it`s frustrating to be confronted by folk (not you I now realise) who deny that climate change is happening.
I agree there are alternative explanations for the rise in global temperature. My main frustration that I`m trying to get across is that climate change, whether human caused or not, is not the primary concern environmentally, but has been elevated to this status by the left for political reasons. The left cannot bear to admit that post agricultural revolution humans (i.e. not the few hunter/gatherers that are left) are the problem because the left loves humans as a species so much. They would prefer to blame a cohort of humans (i.e. capitalists) instead of confronting the truth that there are nine billion humans in the world and the plants resources and non-human life is being systematically destroyed.
I also agree that GW is an issue that on the whole people care about less than they say they do. It's the opposite to something like immigration in this regard.
As to solutions, I just have no clue. I don't even have a good sense of whether to be optimistic or pessimistic. Therefore let's say the former since (i) I am on most things and (ii) if you don't have a strong view, pick the sunnier side of the debate.
So on that scale, a fairly pointless and expensive exercise.
But it’s certainly true that techniques and catalysts for the efficient cracking of both water and CO2 via electrolysis as a base for bulk chemicals production is a very active area of research.
Got to go now - I`ll leave you to it. Play nicely.
Let me check if we are at cross purposes -
I am saying that it is not rational to refuse to accept the scientific consensus on GW unless one both disagrees with it and is an expert oneself in the field.
Forget all the other stuff, what is your problem with that?
Particulates in smog are one factor contributing to increased warming in the Arctic, and probably not the most important one. Getting rid of them would not prevent climate change. Globally, they actually have a slight net cooling effect because they increase atmospheric albedo (more sunlight is reflected back to space in the atmosphere) and they also increase cloud albedo (condensation in the atmosphere occurs around small particles, and in general, more particles favours more white cloud, though this is complicated).
"Just curious what would the theoretical effect on global temperatures be if the arctic didn't melt during the summer ?" - That's an interesting question, and I don't know the answer off-hand. With a few minutes, I can come up with a very rough estimate, one that would certainly not make it through peer review!
The point that there are very large uncertainties about climate science is, of course, entirely fair. But it doesn’t change the substance of the argument.
Two things that I draw out of this:
1. Warren does less well with transfers than I would have expected. I would have thought she would get a decent number of Klobuchar switchers, but but of the big four, she adds the fewest votes as you go from 10+ candidates to four.
2. This is pretty much the perfect result for Sanders. He wants Buttigieg to beat Biden (to keep him in the race until at least Super Tuesday), but he wants to avoid a situation where Buttigieg becomes the default moderate candidate (which would be the risk if he were to win IA and NH).
That being said, the one thing that gives me a little pause is just how high the Sanders + Warren total is. It's five points above any other
Electrolysis will always suck as a method of cracking chemicals - basic thermodynamics. Catalytic approaches are far better.
Step 2) Observe the temperature differential between them (hint: Venus is somewhat hotter).
Step 3) Note which colourless odourless gas makes up basically all of Venus’s atmosphere.
Step 4) Consider the implications of these findings
Step 5) Come back to pb.com and apologise for spreading your half arsed ignorance on this matter.
"According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "warming in the Arctic, as indicated by daily maximum and minimum temperatures, has been as great as in any other part of the world."[14] The period of 1995–2005 was the warmest decade in the Arctic since at least the 17th century, with temperatures 2 °C (3.6 °F) above the 1951–1990 average.[15] Some regions within the Arctic have warmed even more rapidly, with Alaska and western Canada's temperature rising by 3 to 4 °C (5.40 to 7.20 °F)."
3 to 4 °C is not small.
Take three very high glass tubes (without lids). Have one with an air mix with no co2. Have one with a moderate amount of co2. And have a third with a lot of co2. Place the tubes somewhere sunny for a while. Use IR cameras to measure the temperature of the air in the tubes.
Do this in 100 places around the world.
If there is a relationship between co2 concentration and air temperature in the tubes, then there is pretty clear evidence that increased levels of co2 lead to heat being trapped.
Seasonal change in sea-ice extent: 6 million km^2
Albedo change with/without sea-ice: 0.4
Solar constant (radiation at top of atmosphere): 1360 W/m^2
Sin of mean summer insolation angle: 1/6
Fraction of year with changed ice cover: 1/4
Fraction of solar radiation reaching surface in Arctic summer (it's very cloudy there): 0.5
Surface area of Earth: 500 million km^2
Based on those numbers, the annually averaged (i.e. including winter) local radiative effect would be >10 W/m^2, but the Arctic is a tiny fraction of the planet, so the global effect would be little more than 0.1 W/m^2. Typically 1 W/m^2 translates to a little less than 1 deg C temperature change.
So I would guess that the planet, on average, is 0.1 degrees C cooler than it would be if sea-ice did not grow from its summer minimum.
Again, huge caveat: this is not how science is done. It's just an attempt to answer an interesting question in a reasonable amount of time.
https://twitter.com/CLPNominations/status/1221097166049103880
I was just correcting the misconception that, because there is polar amplification of warming, warming outside the Arctic is small.
Of course warming within the Arctic is large!
Even with your crudely simplistic catechism, you've failed to offer a basic calculation of what the warming affect of Venus is and how it can be applied to earth. As it happens, I'm in favour of using less fossil fuels in favour of good renewable energy, I can think of few people who would not be.
Where I do have a slight objection is to simple minded keyboard warriors such as yourself offering patronising diatribes and demanding apologies from people you don't know, for having the nerve to say we don't know something that clearly we don't know.
(then vote for someone else!)
I’ll let that quote be my final contribution.
But it is pointless having this argument with people who genuinely (I think) cannot distinguish between skeptical agreement, agnosticism and disagreement, or who don't see that the distinction matters.
Summary -
Neither of us are experts on this matter. Neither of us are irrational. Thus we do not reject the consensus of climate scientists about the climate. We agree with it but it is (your term and I like it) 'skeptical agreement' - and perhaps in your case even deeply skeptical agreement - on account of the inherent uncertainties in this branch of science and the undoubted distortions due to agendas and politics.
You are hereby dropped from the SEVEN. We are back to SIX.
CCS is definitely part of the solution, but from concentrated point sources (power stations, cement plants, 'blue' hydrogen production facilities, etc.) , not from the atmosphere.
Sanders is a much better politician than Corbyn and Boris is ten times better than Trump.
Once again peoples lives are put at risk because of archaic practices .
Global warming is a public bad. In fact it is difficult to think of a more extreme version of a public bad, though @IshmaelX mentions the possible corona virus epidemic as a contender. Solving the optimal provision of public goods (or bads) within a country is difficult enough when there is no argument about what generates the public good (or bad). Here we have general agreement about the facts, i.e. global temperatures, and also about the consequences e.g. rising sea levels. But only "scientific consensus" about the cause, putatively atmospheric carbon dioxide. Be that as it may, if we assume that CO2 is the cause of global warming then the carbon price would seem to be a suitable economic mechanism. But ignoring the distributional issues (e.g. poor people in Africa), the big obstacle of putting an effective carbon price into effect is the absence of a global enforcement mechanism. Moral suasion is not adequate, but what more can be done?
There are 27 CLPs which backed Corbyn in 2016 and which have so far made nominations. RLB has been nominated by only 5 of these.
There are also 5 CLPs which backed Smith in 2016 and which have so far made nominations. RLB has been nominated by 0 of these.
RLB has also picked up only 11 nominations from the 35 CLPs which made no nominations at all in 2016, including the one from the CLP you highlighted.
There is too a slight solar energy soak issue - just make stuff white.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1221079753760833536?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1220815024605798401?s=20
Sanders doesn't wish to undermine the state in the way Corbyn did, and Boris doesn't wish to overrule the state in the way that Trump does.
It seems that Boris is quite right wing, but he's not. It also seems that Sanders is quite left wing, but he's not.
I hope we see fewer Trumps, and I hope we see fewer Corbyns. Bernie and Boris are fine with me though.
The whole 'man made crisis' thing though may not be right. It may be that other and bigger factors are at play. We actually need to think about them too. We need to manage our planet.
Or perhaps algae, if you want an industrial process.
Diamonds are the world's best friend - they really do hang on to their atoms.
We also lose some carbon over time from atmospheric boil off. (There's perhaps a better term) Maybe we gain some from meteorites.
The idea behind carbon capture is that it can be used to offset emissions where the emitters can't/wont reduce. Currently it is too pricey... but prices for all technologies are falling. The only question is how far and how fast.
All the animals on the planet produce a lot of methane. (edit; thinking about this there may be animals that don't. Farmyard animals and us certainly do so)
Long term (ie a couple of decades) there probably a future for the technology as a means of producing synthetic fuels. It’s a long way off as the efficiencies/costs need to improve by an order of magnitude.
exceeded its parameters of carbon dioxide