Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - dnem

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Arctic sea ice / Re: What's new in the Arctic ?
« on: January 23, 2020, 05:23:33 PM »
Sorry to clutter this thread with this stuff, but thought some that responded might find it interesting. When I got my system, the installer provided a monthly predicted output based on the orientation, angle and potential for shading of my system.  I used that to standardize the data, with monthly output expressed as a percentage of the predicted value for that month.  First I just averaged each year's monthly Actual/Predicted to look at degradation. A linear regression through the values indicates a decay of 0.29% year.

Then I plotted every month as a percentage of that month's prediction for all years 2011 through 2018.  Early 2012 stands out as a long period of high output, sunny weather.

I had some system issues in 2018 that make the second half of the year's data suspect.



2
Arctic sea ice / Re: What's new in the Arctic ?
« on: January 23, 2020, 12:36:43 PM »
No, Bintho, I'm pretty good with data and look closely at my output.  I have microinverters so I can look at per panel output in 5 minute increments.  One way I look at degradation is to look at peak panel production and I have noticed very little degradation at all.  I'll post how big this outlier was when I get a chance, but it was big.  It was VERY sunny (not very cloudy!) in Bawlmer in winter/spring 2012.  Sunny enough that I think it says something real about the winter storm track, prevailing winds and weather pattern during that time.

3
Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: January 19, 2020, 02:55:51 PM »
When using statistics to calculate sea ice trends, it is best to ignore that year, lest the data becomes skewed. 

No! An outlier can be excluded when there is a reason to question the validity of the data point. 2012's low minimum happened and will likely be exceeded before long. Obviously CHERRY PICKING 2012 in some way, like looking at a trend from 2013 so 2019 is wrong, but no long term analysis of arctic sea ice trends can just "ignore" 2012!

4
Consequences / Re: Places becoming more livable
« on: January 12, 2020, 04:29:14 PM »
...but don't count out humans just yet!

I absolutely agree. Would not be at all surprised if 1 billion humans make it through the great winnowing.

I generally agree SH. There is one wildcard out there that I can't quite wrap my head around.  (And this is probably the wrong thread for it). What is the likelihood that systems fail to the degree that we cannot maintain cooling and control at multiple (hundreds?) of nuclear reactor and waste storage sites and we have hundreds of simultaneous meltdowns? It's something I read about but don't have the expertise to assess.

5
Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: January 10, 2020, 12:55:40 PM »
For almost ALL of us, food is deeply entwined with our culture! Very disappointed in Monbiot. I get the general point that intensive ag is chewing up way too much land across the globe and that all else equal UNintensive ag has the potential to take even more land out of wild lands, but factory food paste as humanity's salvation. Yeah, no.

6
Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: January 10, 2020, 12:47:52 PM »
Watching the animation, 2016 was a real CO2 bomb, and 2019 looks like a serious contender.

2019 with no El Nino. Next EN year will not be pretty.

7
Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: January 09, 2020, 04:35:03 PM »
Lab-grown food needs a lab. A lab needs high technology. After social collapse the labs will fail. No lab-grown food. Then what?

This is just another techno-fix. To force and control living nature to do your bidding without returning anything. More supremacy. Supremacy is always destructive.

I agree nanning. I was surprised and disappointed to see Monbiot so bought in on what strikes me as a bizarre techno-fantasy.  Not only do we need to completely re-jigger the entire global energy economy and infrastructure to move from fossil fuels to "renewables" but now we need to add on completely replacing the entire global agricultural economy and infrastructure? It is absurd on its face. Perhaps the technology he describes can help on the margins to replace some intensive ag w relatively low impact calories from microbial fermentation, but I cannot imagine how we can displace a meaningful amount of humanity's caloric needs in this way.

8
Consequences / Re: Places becoming more livable
« on: January 09, 2020, 04:25:11 PM »
Comparing how a fully intact biosphere adapted to rapid climate change in the past with how the present, highly stressed, massively altered, depauperate, poisoned biosphere will respond to rapid AGW is meaningless. 

I have no doubt that enough genetic diversity will remain in the biosphere for it to recover over geologic time, but that is irrelevant to the reliance of 8+ billion humans on the biosphere over the coming decades.  Biosphere and ecosystem collapse will be a huge stressor on the ability of the earth to support the overlarge human population.

9
Consequences / Re: Decline in insect populations
« on: January 07, 2020, 12:52:02 PM »
The roadmap to insect recovery is essentially the same roadmap to avoiding environmental calamity overall.

10
Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: December 30, 2019, 11:39:24 AM »
What a great example of how differences in native tongue, use of idiom, etc. can cause misunderstandings in our little international forum! I hope we can all try and assume the best motives of each other in the New Year.

Cheers!
dnem

11
Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: December 23, 2019, 04:59:22 PM »
Not to put words in Bruce's mouth, but I think he is expressing how unbelievably sad it is that we are at this point. If I was young and contemplating starting a family today, I would absolutely, unambiguously decide not to, and I think young people should as well.  That does not negate how terrible this reality is. 

I am having dinner tonight with my nephew and his fabulous new wife.  My wife and I adore this couple and they are everything good.  I am trying to decide if I can muster the will to advise them that I think reproducing is the wrong choice.  Obviously our family would rather be looking forward to this great young couple starting a family, but that joy has been stolen from us.  That is a tragedy.

12
Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: December 21, 2019, 11:48:42 PM »
I agree Nanning. But none of it would have been possible without mining out and using millennia of densely stored solar energy in one quick century - aka fossil fuels.

13
Science / Re: 2019 CO2 emissions
« on: December 16, 2019, 01:26:09 PM »
I certainly did not mean to imply the SRM would EVER be a good idea or something I would remotely endorse.  But, given that COP25 just collapsed, I'm not feeling real confident about my fellow humans' ability to come together and do what needs to be done in time.  So, desperate times will demand desperate measures.  Obviously I have no idea if it will come to pass, but I do think geo-engineering talk will ramp up as things goes downhill.

14
Consequences / Re: Forests: An Endangered Resource
« on: December 15, 2019, 01:41:48 PM »
Nanning, understanding that pre-industrial civilizations were already imbued with the human tendency to control and manipulate their environment to help them thrive really has little to do with whether or not they are "better" than us.  They are us, just before industrial society.  No one disputes that smaller numbers of humans living in a pre-industrial manner had a lighter footprint on the planet. But they were  very smart animals looking to gain whatever advantage they could to thrive, grow and increase their numbers.  It's what animals do. 

15
Science / Re: 2019 CO2 emissions
« on: December 15, 2019, 01:32:27 PM »
There is only one way human emissions will start to come down: an economic collapse. The only slight kink in the curve occurred during the 2008/9 crisis.  Other than that it's been up, up and away. Oren, 4% per year negative deserves the most skeptical emoji there is. 

A 10 or 12 C rise is not something that any human would be alive to contemplate.  The only way to avoid even a 3 C rise is solar radiation management which I'd be surprised we don't have to try at some point.

16
Science / Re: 2019 CO2 emissions
« on: December 14, 2019, 01:38:26 PM »
Er, not sure assuming an ECS of 3 will hold through SEVEN doublings of CO2 belongs in a science thread!

17
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: December 13, 2019, 08:42:35 PM »
Right, that's EXACTLY what I'm saying!!  GDP never should have any importance.  It does not measure anything that matters, yet it is how most large scale decisions are being made.  It is moronic.  It needs to be replaced.  That's what I've been saying.  We need to manage for meaningful outcomes, not "economic growth"!

18
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: December 08, 2019, 01:53:08 PM »
If I want to know which countries are the happiest/best to live in I do not need to look at GDp or any other data, just one:

Where do people emigrate to and where do they emigrate from?

They leave places they don't like and go to places they like. That's it.

Not many emigrate to Russia or India, but many Russians an Indians emigrate to Europe and the US...wonder why

People generally emigrate to escape desperate circumstances, economic or otherwise.  They go to places that they believe they can get to, that will accept them, and where they will be safe and able to pursue a decent life.  Certainly the GDP per capita of most of the countries people flee is lower than the ones they flee to.  No one disputes that when people are in desperate straits, are not safe and cannot meet their basic needs, they would be better off with a higher per capita GDP.  But that says essentially nothing about the utility of managing almost all of our social and economic policy toward achieving ever higher GDP. It's pretty simple: Managing for GDP growth will NEVER acknowledge that enough might be enough when it comes to material consumption.

19
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: December 07, 2019, 02:22:39 PM »
Binntho, there will be no convincing you until events convince you, which IMO they will. But have you at least read or heard Bobby Kennedy's iconic GDP speech from 1968? GDP is now widely recognized as a deeply flawed measure that fails to capture much of what human beings actually value in life.  It's well worth a read. Here's an excerpt:

But even if we act to erase material poverty, there is another greater task, it is to confront the poverty of satisfaction - purpose and dignity - that afflicts us all.  Too much and for too long, we seemed to have surrendered personal excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things.  Our Gross National Product, now, is over $800 billion dollars a year, but that Gross National Product - if we judge the United States of America by that - that Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage.  It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them.  It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl.  It counts napalm and counts nuclear warheads and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our cities.  It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.  Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play.  It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials.  It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.  And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.

https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/the-kennedy-family/robert-f-kennedy/robert-f-kennedy-speeches/remarks-at-the-university-of-kansas-march-18-1968

20
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: December 04, 2019, 03:55:07 PM »
Binntho if you woke up this morning feeling different and suddenly you know that you would live for a millenium instead of a century would you still use GDP to look at these things?
I'm not sure if it would make any difference. And GDP is a truly narrow measure, far from being the best. But it's the only one. Health, happiness and environmental protection follow GDP - the higher the better.

Yeesh!  There is abundant research showing that many measures of health, happiness and life satisfaction plateau after the basic needs of good nutrition and adequate housing are met.  Life satisfaction is most definitely NOT directly correlated with GDP at higher levels of GDP.  Your views are completely distressing to me, binntho.

21
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: December 03, 2019, 05:16:38 PM »
Sorry blu, that's just a techno-optimistic, cornucopian fantasy.  Good for the economy? What does that even mean?  So we can have more "growth" and consumption, further consuming the biosphere?  But just from a practical standpoint, there ain't enough carbon budget left to build out all the solar and wind needed without starving the economy of the fossil fuels it needs to just keep everyone fed and warm and cool.

Read Rees:
https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2019/11/11/Climate-Change-Realist-Face-Facts/

22
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: December 03, 2019, 05:10:37 PM »

The remaining area is also not really sticking to Greenland for safety as we had hoped for a long time so what is left might get really floaty at some point. Or just disintegrate and die in place.

A-Team used to say "we could have a total late summer blow out any year now". (I'm paraphrasing).  I agree.  One summer, any summer, the remaining ice will be thin and fragile enough to become a completely shattered, mobile mess by season's end.

23
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: December 03, 2019, 04:59:32 PM »
Well Tom, I'm afraid to say that they are, in a sense, correct.  Humanity is deep into overshoot.  There is no viable way to support modern, high consumption lifestyles for 7.6 billion people (and growing). Read the Bill Rees pieces recently posted.  There is no viable way to build out (and maintain and replace) a "renewable" solar and wind infrastructure to replace the fossil fuel infrastructure at scale, especially when you consider that doing that will starve the economy of the energy it needs to continue functioning ("bootstrap problem", EROEI).  The coming decades will be a very bumpy ride, with global death rates beginning to outpace birth rates, and a falling human population.  Perhaps we can bump our way down to a sustainable number of humans (2 billion?) and preserve enough of a functioning biosphere to let the healing begin. And perhaps we can't.

24
Consequences / Re: The Holocene Extinction
« on: December 02, 2019, 07:26:09 PM »
The chill of reality. UBC ecological economist William E. Rees, co-creator of the ecological footprint concept, has some bad news for techno-optimists.
 I find his views very realistic, as he wants to be:

https://stanford.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=88e1f9157b8a1070712b4dd12&id=54d87b4ae2&e=abc543e6fa

https://stanford.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=88e1f9157b8a1070712b4dd12&id=15590030f3&e=abc543e6fa

I was going to post these myself.  I find Rees to be one of the most rational communicators of our human predicament. I highly recommend everyone read these pieces.

25
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: November 18, 2019, 08:36:40 PM »
lacking a plausible mechanism in no way minimizes the deductions from the data.  We cannot ignore the data, just because we do not understand why.

C'mon, you'd be the first to jump on the "correlation does not imply causation" bandwagon if the data were saying something different.

26
Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: November 18, 2019, 04:38:06 PM »
I found this a thoughtful and interesting essay about falling fertility rates and "late capitalism."  Longish but well worth the time.  Her basic point is that late capitalism is increasingly failing to create the social context within which procreation makes sense.  And people around the world are recognizing that.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/16/opinion/sunday/capitalism-children.html

27
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: November 14, 2019, 06:36:47 PM »

"This means the effects of sea-ice loss are not limited to the ice-free regions themselves, but also lead to increased heat accumulation in the interior of the Arctic Ocean that can have climate effects well beyond the summer season," Timmermans said. "Presently this heat is trapped below the surface layer. Should it be mixed up to the surface, there is enough heat to entirely melt the sea-ice pack that covers this region for most of the year." "


What they don't tell you is

i) the most likely time of year for a mixing event to happen is when there is no ice and the heat would just get lost to space. (like happens with most of the excess heat that gets into the ocean during the summer already, it comes back out in the autumn)

Do we know this is correct? Let's say that after a (hypothetical) very low extent at the end of a strong melt season there is a big storm that strongly mixes the deep heat into the surface layers.  Will all this heat be "lost to space" or might it warm the atmosphere over the next freeze season, resulting in a warm, cloudy winter that retards the freeze enough to tip the system?

28
Consequences / Re: Weird Weather and anecdotal stories about climate change
« on: November 13, 2019, 03:53:08 PM »
Again, the Twitter post was a 384 (!) hour forecast. That's 16 days out.

29
Consequences / Re: Weird Weather and anecdotal stories about climate change
« on: November 08, 2019, 03:57:31 PM »
There is a way to pull the predicted anomaly minus the realized anomaly at a given offset of days.  I don't recall how to do it, but it was posted here a few years back and the GFS has a pronounced warm bias in the long range forecasts in the arctic in the winter.  They rarely realize.

30
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: November 05, 2019, 01:11:18 PM »
I’m wondering if the very quick refreeze is actually a bad thing? I remember several people here stating there was a lot of snow on the ice pack in May. Which delayed melting (melt ponds didn’t form). I know the snow can come from other areas but the quicker the refreeze of the Arctic Ocean the less moisture would be available for snow to fall in the arctic.

Does this make sense?

While there are arguments pro and con - "sealing in heat", less venting to space, less snow vs more humidity and warmth in the lower atmosphere, more insulating snow, etc. etc. I have to defer to Occam's Razor: more and earlier freezing is good for the ice; less and later freezing is bad. This is probably overly simplistic and there are likely countervailing samples here and there across the arctic, but overall, that's my guess.

31
Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: October 27, 2019, 01:27:36 PM »
Stopping Global Warming Will Cost $50 Trillion: Morgan Stanley Report
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sergeiklebnikov/2019/10/24/stopping-global-warming-will-cost-50-trillion-morgan-stanley-report/#4293ed251e23
Quote
While estimates vary on the cost of halting global warming and reducing net carbon emissions to zero, a new report from Morgan Stanley analysts finds that to do so by 2050 the world will need to spend $50 trillion in five key areas of zero-carbon technology.
OK, this isn't even a ---- here and a ---- there...we are talking real money right now.

Real money right now? The global economy is US $84 T/yr. So this nonsense is suggesting we can "stop global warming" by spending $50 T over 30 years, or about 2% of global GDP over the period.  And the article even tosses in a few stock picks so you can make extra money along the way!  Yah, that's it, as long as the global industrial machine devotes a couple of percent of its investment to big "renewable energy" projects, everything will be fine, carry on folks, nothing to see here. Oh, and buy these stocks.

32
Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: October 23, 2019, 05:49:49 PM »
Article in today's NYT:
Climate Change Will Cost Us Even More Than We Think
Economists greatly underestimate the price tag on harsher weather and higher seas. Why is that?

For some time now it has been clear that the effects of climate change are appearing faster than scientists anticipated. Now it turns out that there is another form of underestimation as bad or worse than the scientific one: the underestimating by economists of the costs.

The result of this failure by economists is that world leaders understand neither the magnitude of the risks to lives and livelihoods, nor the urgency of action. How and why this has occurred is explained in a recent report by scientists and economists at the London School of Economics and Political Science, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and the Earth Institute at Columbia University.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/opinion/climate-change-costs.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Recently I saw an article that was supposed to be alarming that stated that climate change could reduce US GDP "by 10% by 2100" if urgent action is not taken.  How insane! The us economy is $20 T/yr.  Who honestly thinks that can peg the size it will be in 2100 within 10%, climate change or no?! A 10% reduction is the difference between a 2% growth rate and a 1.87% rate. Economists!!

33
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October 2019)
« on: October 06, 2019, 04:10:56 PM »
Last one on this. I totally agree with your last statement El Cid, including about autocorrelation. (But still, you don't just count positive and negative residuals!).

I have frequently railed here against curve fitting in such a rapidly changing environment and I will continue to do so!

34
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October 2019)
« on: October 06, 2019, 02:51:41 PM »
The trendline on this chart is obviously faulty.
The displayed linear trend was created using the Excel "TREND" function. Surely you don't want to start a "debate" with Microsoft too?

I will not debate excel functions. I debate their use (or even usefulness). I did take quite a few statistics classes and if 15 datapoints in a row are above your trendline than it is obvious that you should not use that trendline (whatever the type of the trend), because it is not that sort of trend.
With all that said, I also want to thank Wipneus for his great work. May we never see his trendlines hitting that zero point! :)

Did they teach you that linear regression minimizes the sum of the SQUARE of the residuals? The raw count of residuals above/below the line is not a factor in fit.

Very useful stuff Wipneus and thank you for all your work.

35
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: October 04, 2019, 03:45:19 PM »
Def just a joke. A-Team always disparaged the usefulness of the DMI 80N temp data.

36
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: October 04, 2019, 01:06:29 PM »
For sure. The original post that started this used the phrase "black ash" which to me sounded like soot or black carbon.

37
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: October 04, 2019, 01:04:49 PM »
One could look at that image and say "Wow, data for last 10-15 years BELOW the prediction every single year."  One year also blasts way below the uncertainty estimates for the model.

38
We had one day of measurable precipitation at my house in September for about 0.14 in (3.5 mm). Normal for the month is around 4.1" (104 mm). Absolutely parched and today we broke the all time record high for the month of October at 98 F (36.7 C).  Baltimore, MD USA.

39
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: October 03, 2019, 12:06:59 AM »
Jason Box Dark Snow Project:
https://www.darksnow.org

Wikipedia Dark Snow Project
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Snow_Project
Background
"Soot darkens snow and ice, increasing solar energy absorption, hastening the melt of the cryosphere."[1] The soot comes in part from wildfires, of which there were many in 2012. Also in 2012, almost all of the surface of Greenland was observed to be melting.[9] The increase in size of the wildfires may itself be a result of global warming.[5] Jason Box has been studying Greenland for 20 years.

40
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: October 02, 2019, 06:13:04 PM »
I'm pretty sure the standard view of this is that atmospheric deposition of dark particles on clean ice reduces albedo and increases melt.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/19042018/greenland-ice-sheet-melting-climate-change-arctic-pollution-sea-level-rise-algae-black-carbon

In areas near the edge of the ice sheet, things get even more interesting: a carpet of microbes and algae mixed with dust and soot, a short-lived climate pollutant, is darkening the ice sheet, absorbing the sun's rays and accelerating the melting of the ice.

New research shows this dark zone is growing.

41
Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: September 30, 2019, 01:38:04 PM »
Directly attributable? Of course not. Is the dramatically worsening climate situation adding to a rising sense of anxiety and unease in kids today? I think you'd have to be blind to say that it is not.

I can see quite clearly that it is not a cause of anxiety and unease.  Sorry, but the climate situation is not the cause of every ill on this planet.

Archimid is obviously correct.  Even if she is wrong, Greta stopped eating and speaking bc she was so distraught over climate change. She literally stunted her fucking growth bc of it. Do you think she is the only kid on the planet to be affected? You are a heartless person.

42
Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: September 29, 2019, 03:19:44 PM »
Directly attributable? Of course not. Is the dramatically worsening climate situation adding to a rising sense of anxiety and unease in kids today? I think you'd have to be blind to say that it is not.

43
Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: September 28, 2019, 02:25:27 PM »
Almost anything that has increased in recent decades could be “correlated” with climate change.  That does mean there is any connection.  Teen suicides are on the rise, but I doubt there are a result of global climate changes.

Jeez, KK, do you have kids?  I have one. Did you hear Greta's cri de coeur? Do you think the direction the human endeavor is heading in is making kids LESS anxious?  You may think everything's gonna be fine but the kids DON'T! Crikey.

44
The rest / Re: Systemic Isolation
« on: September 23, 2019, 05:59:19 PM »
But the butterfly effect only says that a small perturbation far away can have a large effect nearby.  It does not imply randomness.  Given enough current observations and enough computing power, (in theory!) the effect of every flap of a butterfly's wing could be predicted.

45
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: September 17, 2019, 01:12:27 PM »
There is also a disturbance off the coast of Texas that has only a 30% chance of achieving tropical storm strength before moving on shore and inland. Nonetheless, yesterday the Euro was predicting rainfall totals in the Houston area of up to 2 feet (635 mm). 

46
Consequences / Re: Prepping for Collapse
« on: September 14, 2019, 01:43:38 PM »
The essay has become an interesting litmus test. Personally, I think he will be proved right and it won't be because his little essay in an elite literature magazine made people give up when they would have won if only they had kept fighting. Also, whether intentional or not, Franzen has provoked a wide debate on the likely trajectory of climate change, and the best responses to it.  That can only be a good thing.

For me, the most salient point he makes is that fighting the good fight is a moral imperative, regardless of whether we are likely to win or lose.

47
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: September 13, 2019, 03:51:27 PM »
I too have zero faith in this sort of curve-fitting or in trying to draw conclusions from the short time series of data of questionable quality (failure of areal measures to capture ice quality; reliance on modeling to estimate volume) that we have.  The arctic environment is changing too quickly and too erratically.

48
Consequences / Re: Prepping for Collapse
« on: September 12, 2019, 12:14:30 AM »
Well, Franzen surely doesn't say we can wait 30 years to act, he says we only have 30 years to get to ZERO which is a huge task.  That would take a fat negative emissions growth rate, year after year after year.

I agree w KTB. The Paris pledges and beyond ain't worth the reams and reams of paper they're printed on.

And yes, if we all woke up tomorrow and agreed to get it done (end the war machine, for one), it is all totally possible.  Franzen simply says what he has seen of human nature makes him highly dubious we will.

49
Consequences / Re: Prepping for Collapse
« on: September 11, 2019, 09:26:06 PM »
When It Comes to the Future, Hope Is All There Is
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/09/jonathan-franzen-is-wrong-climate-change-demands-big-dreams.html
Quote
Franzen is not the first person to tell the left that its dreams are too lofty for the world. It’s a familiar enough argument, applied not just to the Green New Deal but to any left-wing bid to avert disaster in the making. Extreme wealth inequality, for example, lacks the specific timetable of ecological collapse, but it is a global problem that brings us closer to social breakdown as it worsens. There are solutions — radical ones, which would require governments to drastically reconsider their financial priorities — but the sensible classes in the U.S. and abroad dismiss them as frivolities. But rejection of the radical cures hasn’t led to bipartisan adoption of incremental policy. The notion of raising taxes on the rich to fund public services does not, in isolation, lay out the road to revolution, but that hasn’t prevented its critics from calling it an unworkable plan that would block the wealthy from creating jobs. The U.S. government hasn’t raised the federal minimum wage since 2009, but it’s taken years of organizing work for mainstream Democrats to concede that it may perhaps be time to raise it to $15 an hour. In Europe, centrists and conservatives alike sold austerity as pragmatism, and railed against welfare spending, despite clear evidence that cuts to public funding exacerbated poverty and widened inequality.

Gah, another critic who apparently didn't even read the friggin' thing!:

"In this respect, any movement toward a more just and civil society can now be considered a meaningful climate action. Securing fair elections is a climate action. Combatting extreme wealth inequality is a climate action. Shutting down the hate machines on social media is a climate action. Instituting humane immigration policy, advocating for racial and gender equality, promoting respect for laws and their enforcement, supporting a free and independent press, ridding the country of assault weapons—these are all meaningful climate actions. To survive rising temperatures, every system, whether of the natural world or of the human world, will need to be as strong and healthy as we can make it."

50
Consequences / Re: Prepping for Collapse
« on: September 11, 2019, 09:22:48 PM »
"We need to approach zero net emissions, globally, in the next three decades."

Transl.:  We have 30 more years to dick around.

Net zero by 2050 is a joke.

I don't get either of these comments.  Getting to net zero by 2050 will be a gargantuan task.  To say THAT will be "dicking around" shows a lack of understanding for the enormity of the problem facing us.  And KTB, are you saying it's a joke because we won't get there or because that isn't fast enough, or what?

Relevant anecdote.  I got an email yesterday from a friend linking to an article entitled "We Need More Startups That Don’t Prioritize Growth Above All Else," to which I replied "we need an entire economy that prioritizes degrowth above all else!"  Her response was "Then the global economy would crash!"  I would characterize her as environmentally conscious, deeply concerned about climate and generally "woke."  Definitely more so than 90 or 95% of other Americans.  That's what we're up against and what Franzen was recognizing.

Pages: [1] 2 3