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 - KiwiGriff

Pages: [1] 2 3
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: Today at 05:40:37 PM »

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: December 08, 2019, 10:52:47 PM »
Well it is a holding company so they can still call the factory Gigafabrik. I think it is the lure of the Ringel-s which all germans i know call the Eszett. Where else in the world can you use that nice letter?

Sort of looking forward to Tesla expanding to Wales already.  8)

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: December 06, 2019, 07:30:56 PM »
I think it is regulators, not the industry, we should thank.

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: December 05, 2019, 03:20:46 PM »
Well, I could make several points, such as the following:

1) GDP is obviously not a measure of happiness. But it is the closest we've got.

2) There is no research that supports the claim that happiness and life satisfaction stalls when basic material needs have been met. This sounds more like a dystopian trope of the kind common in extistentialistic literature.

3) The richer a society is (i.e. the higher it's GDP), the better off its citisens are. They have better housing, better health care, better food, better clothing, better education, safer environments, less sickness, less likelyhood of violent death, more leisure time, and are more interested in the good things in life such as red wine by candlelight, hiking, skiing and other outdoor sports, and much more interested in nature preservation. Perhaps this doesn't add up to happiness, but to me it definitely smells like it.
1) GDP was never designed to be a measure of happiness. It is designed to measure economic activity in financial terms. It does not look at the "worth" of that activity. That it is used as a measure of happiness is just one of the really dumb things in the world.

2) There is evidence to suggest that when a society moves up from poverty to a "reasonable" standard of living discontent can emerge. "Man does not live by bread alone".  In South Korea as the economy improved so did the demand for political freedoms. The link tells you all about it.

Note that the expenses of the Government to suppress the people increased GDP.

You may wish to consider the situation in China & Hong Kong. I am sure the Central Party Committee are doing so.

1) again...GDP "is the closest we've got" to a measure of happiness. Rubbish.

UN Measures
Human Development Index (HDI)

The HDI was created to emphasize that people and their capabilities should be the ultimate criteria for assessing the development of a country, not economic growth alone. The HDI can also be used to question national policy choices, asking how two countries with the same level of GNI per capita can end up with different human development outcomes. These contrasts can stimulate debate about government policy priorities.

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a summary measure of average achievement in key dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, being knowledgeable and have a decent standard of living. The HDI is the geometric mean of normalized indices for each of the three dimensions.

The health dimension is assessed by life expectancy at birth, the education dimension is measured by mean of years of schooling for adults aged 25 years and more and expected years of schooling for children of school entering age. The standard of living dimension is measured by gross national income per capita. The HDI uses the logarithm of income, to reflect the diminishing importance of income with increasing GNI. The scores for the three HDI dimension indices are then aggregated into a composite index using geometric mean.

there are others such as the UN's Gender Inequality Index, and... also from the UN....

Other Indices
Freedom / Civil Liberties
list at this link

That's me lot. Sorry about all this off-topic stuff, but I thought that the posts by Binntho needed a thorough debunking as that which he states as facts are so - wrong.

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: December 05, 2019, 02:20:01 PM »
Surveys done amongst people who have won large sums in the lottery show that they are mostly much happier than they were before, and happier than other people, even many years after winning. And the happiest countries in the world (as self-reported in surveys) are also amongst the richest countries in the world.
Why do you not quote your sources?

So we've had the "broken window fallacy" - on economic growth. That one has been debunked since 1833, but will not die. And now you come along with lottery winners - I see a large herring coloured bright red.

Next post looks at GDP

Review of Economics and Statistics
Volume 93 | Issue 3 | August 2011

This paper examines whether giving large cash transfers to financially distressed people causes them to avoid bankruptcy. A comparison of Florida Lottery winners who randomly received $50,000 to $150,000 to small winners indicates that such transfers only postpone bankruptcy rather than prevent it, a result inconsistent with the negative shock model of bankruptcy. Furthermore, the large winners who subsequently filed for bankruptcy had similar net assets and unsecured debt as small winners. Thus, our findings suggest that skepticism regarding the long-term impact of cash transfers may be warranted.
In fact, nearly one-third of lottery winners declare bankruptcy, and it doesn’t end there. It’s usually followed by depression, drug and alcohol abuse and estrangement from family and friends.

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: December 05, 2019, 01:43:52 AM »
So all in all I'm not at all convinced that we are looking at any existential threat to civilisation. I'm actually pretty optimistic that wars and famines can be avoided even in a worst-case AGW situation, and I'm absolutely convinced that humanity will not be able to do anything purposeful to avoid what is going to happen.

So, in summary, we can do nothing about AGW and everything will be just fine.

I'm not going to block you but I am certainly going to skip over anything you write from now on.

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: December 04, 2019, 09:20:14 AM »
So we are back with the more mundane things that are easier to predict. Say the chances of a 6m rise in sea levels before 2100. If it were to happen, major disruptions to low-lying areas will cost money, major construction projects to meet the threat will cost money, moving of cities will cost money. But the impact on the global economy? Might even be significantly positive, major construction efforts, building of newer and greener cities, etc etc. Money can be produced at will by governments to meet any need, and pumping it into the economy to pay for major construction work will have a positive effect on economic growth.

It is what is known as "the broken window fallacy"
What Is the Broken Window Fallacy?
The broken window fallacy is a parable that is sometimes used to illustrate the problem with the notion that going to war is good for a nation's economy. Its wider message is that an event that seems to be beneficial for those immediately involved can have negative economic consequences for many others.

The broken window fallacy was first expressed by the 19th-century French economist Frederic Bastiat.

Unintended Consequences
In Bastiat's tale, a boy breaks a window. The townspeople looking on decide that the boy has actually done the community a service because his father will have to pay the town's glazier to replace the broken pane. The glazier will then spend the extra money on something else, jump-starting the local economy. The onlookers come to believe that breaking windows stimulates the economy.

Bastiat points out that further analysis exposes the fallacy. By forcing his father to pay for a window, the boy has reduced his father's disposable income. His father will not be able to purchase new shoes or some other luxury good. Thus, the broken window might help the glazier, but at the same time, it robs other industries and reduces the amount spent on other goods.

Bastiat also noted that the townspeople should have regarded the broken window as a loss of some of the town's real value.

Moreover, replacing something that has already been purchased represents a maintenance cost, not a purchase of new goods, and maintenance doesn't stimulate production.

In short, Bastiat suggests that destruction doesn't pay in an economic sense.

The War Economy ***The broken window fallacy is often used to discredit the idea that going to war stimulates a country's economy. As with the broken window, war causes resources and capital to be redirected from producing consumer goods and services to building weapons of war.

War siphons off resources and capital used to produce consumer goods and rededicates it to producing weapons.

Moreover, post-war rebuilding will involve primarily maintenance costs and further depress production of consumer goods and services. The conclusion is that countries would be much better off not fighting at all.

The War Economy ***/b] Substitute for war any disaster, e.g. Bahamas - Hurricane Dorian.

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: December 04, 2019, 08:51:56 AM »
So we are back with the more mundane things that are easier to predict. Say the chances of a 6m rise in sea levels before 2100. If it were to happen, major disruptions to low-lying areas will cost money, major construction projects to meet the threat will cost money, moving of cities will cost money. But the impact on the global economy? Might even be significantly positive, major construction efforts, building of newer and greener cities, etc etc. Money can be produced at will by governments to meet any need, and pumping it into the economy to pay for major construction work will have a positive effect on economic growth.
Binntho I am beyond amazed by this. 6m sea level rise could be good for the economy? The USA can't even maintain its own current infrastructure, and you expect that with several major cities under the waves (NYC, Miami, Boston, DC, NOLA, parts of LA, Houston, and many more) spewing pollution into the ocean, all ports underwater, many airports underwater, coastal power plants underwater, this will be good for the economy because money printing will fix this? It's an issue of resources, not money. And globally? London, Shanghai, Karachi, Alexandria, the whole of Bangladesh, the list is endless I can't even be bothered to google it. All highly productive river deltas underwater. And this in the span of 8 decades, good luck to humanity. Not to mention the climate changing and environmental destruction - the above is just SLR. And supposedly 10 billion humans on the planet.
Luckily, 6m probably won't happen so soon but 2-3m by 2100 will still cause lots and lots of physical damage.
This whole discussion is OT in this thread, if you care to repost in a proper thread I might bother with a longer answer, but seriously please reconsider.

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: December 04, 2019, 08:04:44 AM »
Re: the impact on the global economy

what of the impact on the ecology ? Let us say that through great effort we actually ensure that there is no impact on the economy.

But there are no insects or worms or beetles or birds or fish or wild animals left  outside zoos and the entire earth is groomed to human need with robots performing ecosystem services.

I am sure some here would be cool with that.

But in larger sense it is not up to us. We will die, and our children will live with what we leave, and their choices will be circumscribed by limits we construct. So mebbe ask them ? I do, and the answers are interesting. I recommend that experiment.


Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: December 03, 2019, 11:55:38 PM »
GSY may be right or wrong. I don’t know. But his tone is so rabid that I am forced to consider his objections to Tesla to be tainted in their credibility.

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: December 03, 2019, 09:27:11 PM »
Ah, the good ol' "All or nothing!" fallacy. Their binary life must be delightfully enlightening:

Humans emit CO₂, so if you believe in AGW we demand that you stop breathing.

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: December 03, 2019, 08:09:33 PM »
There is also lithium in eastern Germany. Tesla opens a GF in eastern Germany.

Also related: Another battery company apparently coming to Brandenburg.

Link >>

The rest / Re: Cli Fi
« on: December 03, 2019, 06:30:55 AM »

The rest / Re: Unsorted
« on: December 02, 2019, 09:45:38 PM »

"It is time not only to think the unthinkable, but to speak it: that the world economy, civilisation, and maybe our very survival as a species are on the line. And it is past time to act"

But what about the REALLY important stuff

China pork crisis prompts German sausage fears

The Federal Meat Industry Association (BVDF) has sounded a "schnitzel alarm"

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: December 02, 2019, 08:36:08 PM »
There Is An Automotive Bubble Forming In The U.S.

This looks so much like the run up to the 2007/8 crisis when the US car manufacturers had to be bailed out, any kind of recession will kill Ford and GMs new business model of focusing on expensive trucks and SUVs with demand supported by greater and greater levels of consumer debt. Longer-term it puts them way behind the curve on EV's. Any significant increase in gas prices (Middle East war, fracking production starts to fall due to depletion of the sweet spots, Green New Deal carbon taxes) would also put both of them into serious crises.


US consumer preferences are shifting away from US sedans and into US trucks and SUVs. Ford and General Motors are doubling down by cutting production of sedan models.

These larger vehicles are getting increasingly expensive, and consumers are borrowing more money for longer periods of time in order to pay for them.

These trends are forming in a strong economic environment. Not only is this unsustainable, but it will also only magnify the fallout (and damage to manufacturers) when the economy reverses course.

Toyota and Honda US sedan sales are not falling, while Ford and GMs are.

Various sedan models are being retired, and the remaining trucks and SUVs are shooting higher in cost. Because of how expensive living costs have become (rent and healthcare costs continue to rise), the only way that many consumers can afford these vehicles is to utilize poor financial tools to finance them. We dive into this trend and what the downside could be for automotive companies if this continues to escalate.

The gravitation of US consumers towards larger vehicles is a very real phenomenon, but it does come with an important caveat. That being that the decline of sedan sales is not an industry-wide problem, rather a US company problem. In other words, while Ford and GM are witnessing failure in the sedan segment, foreign competitors Toyota and Honda are still seeing sales remain stable.

So GM and Ford are getting out of sedans (they already pretty much got out of the small car market) and focusing on higher priced trucks and SUVs, "that are shooting higher in cost", with demand only being kept up through declining lending standards and longer and longer car loan terms (like 7 years!).

Short term financial gain at the expense of long term viability?

The trend of lowering car sales and increasing (higher margin) SUV/truck sales has created an influx of cash for Ford and General Motors. While revenues have increased, the higher margin sales have given an outsized boost to operating cash flow.

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: December 02, 2019, 11:46:53 AM »
75% of whom are currently looking at going to the wall because their profit model revolves around the incredibly generous Chines EV subsidies for EV's manufactured in China.

Name one other EV maker which does not sell FF vehicles, sells World wide and produces circa 90,000 EV's per [correction, not month but Quarter].

The only company even close to making a decent profit on EV's, without subsidies, is Tesla and Tesla is far more interested in growing the business with positive cash flow than making profits to pay to investors.

As it should be at this stage.

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: December 01, 2019, 08:50:33 PM »
Who will be the first to manufacture and sell personal EV's at a profit?


Tesla.  And it’s not future tense — they already do.  (You may not see it on their bottom line because they spend that profit growing and improving.  But the cars bring in more money than they cost to manufacture.)

Edit:  And if the discussion is limited to OEMs, then the question is better asked as, “Which companies will survive long enough to make profitable EVs at volume?”

Most of the majors are cash-flow negative already, and they have billions of dollars of investments and asset write-downs ahead of them.  Battery suppliers are not making things easy:
Tesla New York (@TeslaNY) 11/30/19, 5:10 AM
“U.S. court filings … show the feuding suppliers [LG Chem & SKI] are trying to stop each other from importing & selling #EV batteries destined for vehicles VW will build in [Tennessee] as well as GM’s Bolt, Ford’s pickups, Jaguar’s I-Pace, Audi’s e-tron, & Kia’s Niro.”

Automotive News:  Feuding Korean battery suppliers risk disrupting EV production

Will Tesla and Google Kill the German Car?

Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: December 01, 2019, 06:17:27 AM »
The climate will need just a moment to respond to this massive and shockingly sudden insult before it stabilizes. Before that can fully happen we must first stop emitting warming gases.

We are at the beginning of a highly unstable ultra-rapid human caused climatic shift.

Those statements by Sam I bolded are not vindicated by physical facts. There is little cause for such alarmism.

Quite to the contrary. The CO2 in the atmosphere, along with several other key warming gases will take millennia to reduce to prior levels assuming current ecosystem functions. And that only happens if the climate doesn’t shift before that can occur. As the climate shifts, the ecosystems shift, and those basic functions are put at risk.

What should be amply clear (and is) even to young people, let alone to those of us with more life history behind us, is that we are already seeing an ultra rapid shift in progress.

We see that with the rapidly vanishing arctic ice. We see it with the methane boiling out of the clathrates on the arctic plains. We see it with the collapse of the tundra globally. We see it with the warming of the ocean surfaces sufficient to doom coral reefs within the next decade or two. We see it in the hyper rapid acidification of the oceans which doom most shelled creatures. We see it in the very rapid melt on both Greenland and the West Antarctic sheet. We see it in the rapid loss of mountain glaciers and ice all over the world, and with the quite soon loss of the glacial ice supporting a billion people in South Asia. We see it in the destabilization of the atmospheric circulation with massive swings in heat transport both north and south from and to the arctic resulting in climatic chaos in the northern hemisphere beginning. We see it in droughts, fires, deluges and worse. .... and in a thousand other ways ....

Hefaistos, that you apparently choose not see these and myriad indicators is only evidence of your own willful and reckless blindness.

Greta Thunberg is still a young person. Yet she sees clearly, where you do not. She sees the indicators and clearly and concisely called out the leaders of the world in Davos. She is right. You are wrong.

Yes the oceans will take time to equilibrate. And perhaps if we bend every effort, destroying civilization as we know it in the process, we might now barely be able to salvage something of the world we know. Personally, I doubt that is possible any longer. We waited too long. We were too slow to learn. We were and remain too blind to see. And the CO2 trends from Mauna Loa speak volumes to that at megaphone levels. We are not in any way doing what must be done. Instead we argue about slowing the rate of increase of the rate of increase. That is insane.

Worse leaders of major countries are already throwing out efforts to reduce emissions and are instead increasing the rate of burning of oil, coal and natural gas, while also slash burning the lungs of the world. That is beyond insane.

The CO2 already in the atmosphere is catastrophically high. Under the most optimistic business near usual trends, we don’t even slow the increase, let alone stop it, and reverse it. Under these conditions, we will release the 1,600 Gigatons of carbon in the permafrost. And we will boil out the clathrate on the arctic plains, both in the very near future. Either of those take the situation completely out of human control.

Yes the oceans will take time to equilibrate. The continued heat input caused by the warming gases will assure that there is heat enough and time enough to do that. But that is meaningless in the time scale of the catastrophe we face. The continued heating of the Earth from the gases in the atmosphere will assure it. And the changes in the surface biosphere and atmosphere will not wait for that equilibration to finish.

Our rate of change now makes the PETM look obscenely slow. And yet the PETM is the definition of rapid climate change. We are now in the early stages of an ultra rapid climate shift. And that is obvious for all to see except for the willfully blind.

In time, the Earth may shift back to this mostly precariously stable point between hot house and ice house conditions. These have been rare in Earth’s history. The orbital balances could bring us back to some stable place with ice remaining in the Antarctic. And perhaps in half a million years there may be ice in the arctic again. But it is also possible that we continue on a runaway to hot house conditions, having pushed over the climate and ruined the world we know.

I worry more about the highly unstable transition. Creatures can adapt to hundred millennia scale changes. Decade scale changes are another matter entirely. Worse, the impacts of the collapse of whole ecosystems may have dramatically more important transient impacts on O2, pressure, temperature, rainfall, circulation, CO2, methane and other parameters that may drive many species and even whole genera extinct.


Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: November 28, 2019, 07:28:30 PM »
More important even is that there is no sign at all that globally we will do anything meaningful to change this situation.

The fundamental basis of the current economic paradigm is growth.

The fundamental basis of all or nearly all religions is growth. Out populate those other heavens.

The basis so far for economies is fossil fuel based and that is proportional to population and compounded by economic output. As people everywhere demand a higher living standard and more stuff, energy use (fossil fuel use) rises per capita. Economic growth demands this.

At the same time, the major stories out now breathlessly talk about how CO2 levels now exceed any time in human history going back 3-5 million years. They utterly miss the fact that under current or even under vastly reduced growth rates, the “current” atmospheric CO2 levels will race above that short term blip in CO2 level 3 million years ago and rise to levels not seen in over 25 million years.

And still we blindly race off the cliff into an utterly changed environment, one that will catastrophically destroy the world we know.

Stories out today note that the current plans for reduction under the Paris accords need to be 5 times more aggressive. Instead the United States has decided to burn the Paris accords and slam their foot down on the accelerator instead.

Under the best of conditions, we now need to reduce fossil fuel use by 7.5% per year, year on year for a decade, to have even a mediocre chance of avoiding catastrophic climatic change. Personally, I doubt that we could stop that now even if we stopped all emissions today. But, let’s say we do try that.

No national government or economy has survived such rates of degrowth. Yes, we could convert to wind and solar. That might reach 3% a year. That isn’t enough to even fully offset the economic demands for growth, or separately population growth. So, to “succeed” under the best of circumstances requires overcoming every religion on Earth, and destroying every economy on Earth. Yeah, right. That is not going to happen.

The alternative of course is that we do not do this and we let the natural systems do it for us in a far more abrupt and vastly more catastrophic way. Or, we do it more gradually with a similar though slightly less severe rate of change, and a likely imperceptibly less catastrophic outcome.

If you are looking for magic answers, there are no answers here. We waited too long. We were and are far too slow to learn as a species

As a result, we are in for an evolutionary reset.

The chaos you see ahead is far closer than it appears. And we are racing toward it at breakneck and ever increasing speed.

All the while we are distracted by second and third order derivatives of curves, and fundamental misunderstandings of the most basic understandings of math, physics, and other fields if science.


Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: November 28, 2019, 07:47:22 AM »
No big deal, the second derivative follows from the first derivate.
Following the curve fitted in the figure, both would be negative for that part of the curve we see.
Perhaps you aren't seeing enough? I can't tell exactly what you're looking at... but here's how the math is done by

"In short, following the 'business as usual' approach without major steps to move away from fossil fuels and limit greenhouse gas emissions, we will likely reach 850 to 950 ppmv of atmospheric CO2 by the year 2100.  It will have taken approximately 200 years (from 1850 to 2050) for the first doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 280 to 560 ppmv, but it will only take another 70 years or so to double the levels again to 1120 ppmv."

I'm just looking at wolfpack's figure in Reply #279.
He has a polynomial fitted to the data, and it's first derivative is negative, as well as its second derivative.
It means, if true, that we have left the time of acceleration, and now have deceleration.
Do you Actually believe the truth hangs on this post?
Can you not see your own folly?

No you cannot.

If you're not putting forth a good-faith effort to comprehend and understand beyond the level of nit picking!  then... frankly, you've crossed over to the point of unreasonable imho.     

I agree. We are practically making no progress at all.
Emissions continue to rise.  Renewables (actually down from 2017 to 2018) are now just barely increasing, and future investment is not nearly what is needed to reach goals. 

'A report from the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) found that work to mitigate climate change through a transition to low-carbon energy is lagging behind, and must be accelerated across the board to come close to achieving the non-binding goals of the Paris Agreement.'

'The new report from the CPI found that global investment in renewables peaked at $612 billion in 2017, and dropped 11% in 2018. The 2017 peak, it said, was thanks largely to an increase in green energy spending in China, the U.S. and India, while last year’s drop could be attributed to changes in lending patterns and a global economic slowdown.

“While climate finance has reached record levels, action still falls far short of what is needed under a 1.5˚C scenario,” the report’s authors note, citing the global average temperature goal recognized by the Paris Agreement.
The authors note that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that between $1.6 trillion and $3.8 trillion will need to be spent every year until 2050 to achieve a transition to global low-carbon energy supply.

Among its conclusions, the CPI states: “There is a need for a tectonic shift beyond ‘climate finance as usual.’ Annual investment must increase many times over, and rapidly, to achieve globally agreed climate goals.” '

Yes, we need to get off of fossil fuels as soon as possible.  However [...] we're making great progress in doing so [...] Even with the additional carbon being released in the Arctic due to warming, the reduction in CO2 and methane from eliminating those two sources of anthropogenic emissions will result in emissions closer to the RCP 2.6 scenario than the RCP 8.5 scenario.

Lenton et al 2019 say:
"If current national pledges to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions are implemented — and that’s a big ‘if’ — they are likely to result in at least 3 °C of global warming. This is despite the goal of the 2015 Paris agreement to limit warming to well below 2 °C. Some economists, assuming that climate tipping points are of very low probability (even if they would be catastrophic), have suggested that 3 °C warming is optimal from a cost–benefit perspective. However, if tipping points are looking more likely, then the ‘optimal policy’ recommendation of simple cost–benefit climate-economy models aligns with those of the recent IPCC report. In other words, warming must be limited to 1.5 °C. This requires an emergency response [...] Early results from the latest climate models — run for the IPCC’s sixth assessment report, due in 2021 — indicate a much larger climate sensitivity (defined as the temperature response to doubling of atmospheric CO2) than in previous models. Many more results are pending and further investigation is required, but to us, these preliminary results hint that a global tipping point is possible [...] Some scientists counter that the possibility of global tipping remains highly speculative. It is our position that, given its huge impact and irreversible nature, any serious risk assessment must consider the evidence, however limited our understanding might still be. To err on the side of danger is not a responsible option. If damaging tipping cascades can occur and a global tipping point cannot be ruled out, then this is an existential threat to civilization. No amount of economic cost–benefit analysis is going to help us. We need to change our approach to the climate problem. In our view, the evidence from tipping points alone suggests that we are in a state of planetary emergency: both the risk and urgency of the situation are acute."

Let's take the science seriously and recognize the urgency that Lenton et al, ASLR and others describe and justly emphasize as a planetary emergency and existential threat. Downplaying this inconvenient truth may be a natural impulse, but has been done for too long and is nog helping us. Let's face reality and the risks it entails and do what we have to do to minimize those risks, while we still can.

Policy and solutions / Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« on: November 27, 2019, 08:06:03 PM »
Nine Climate Tipping Points Now 'Active,' Warn Scientists

"A decade ago we identified a suite of potential tipping points in the Earth system, now we see evidence that over half of them have been activated," said lead author Professor Tim Lenton, director of the Global Systems Institute at the University of Exeter.

This threatens the loss of the Amazon rainforest and the great ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland, which are currently undergoing measurable and unprecedented changes much earlier than expected.

This "cascade" of changes sparked by global warming could threaten the existence of human civilisations.

Evidence is mounting that these events are more likely and more interconnected than was previously thought, leading to a possible domino effect.

... we must admit that we have underestimated the risks of unleashing irreversible changes, where the planet self-amplifies global warming.

"This is what we now start seeing, already at 1°C global warming.

"The growing threat of rapid, irreversible changes means it is no longer responsible to wait and see. The situation is urgent and we need an emergency response."

Exiting the fossil fuel economy is unlikely before 2050, but with temperature already at 1.1°C above pre-industrial temperature, it is likely Earth will cross the 1.5°C guardrail by 2040. The authors conclude this alone defines an emergency.

... "The situation is an emergency if both risk and urgency are high. If reaction time is longer than the intervention time left (τ / T > 1), we have lost control."

Open Access: Timothy M. Lenton, Comment: Climate tipping points—too risky to bet against, Nature (2019)

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: November 27, 2019, 05:50:57 PM »
Cobalt shocker! :o  Guess what uses more cobalt than EV batteries?!

Tesla Cybertruck, Cobalt Myths, Ford Mustang Mach-E & the problem with SUV's | Fully Charged News
Included:  Rants, at highly appropriate levels. :)

The rest / Re: The problem of social media
« on: November 27, 2019, 04:20:32 PM »
Social media is doing a superb job in transmitting lies, falsehoods, prejudice, hate, human trafficking, sexual exploitation of children....

You know what?

The radio is doing a superb job in transmitting lies, falsehoods, prejudice, hate, racism. See Nazi Germany.

TV is doing a superb job in transmitting lies, falsehoods, prejudice, hate, and marketing for the worst people and companies on earth.

It's not the medium. It's human nature.

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: November 26, 2019, 04:28:49 PM »
Sorry sig, I don't know.  I don't watch broadcast TV and I avoid all adverts everywhere.

It is endemic on Amazon and eBay where companies are buying 5* reviews.  As for media reviews and adverts, clueless as I always ignore them.

Catastrophist bloggers like to post about ...

That NASA data looks like the makings of catastrophe.

See for example Lewandowsky et al 2018:

We review the evidence for a putative early 21st-century divergence between global mean surface temperature (GMST) and Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) projections. We provide a systematic comparison between temperatures and projections using historical versions of GMSTproducts and historical versions of model projections that existed at the times when claims about a divergence were made. The comparisons are conducted with a variety of statistical techniques that correct for problems in previous work, including using continuous trends and a Monte Carlo approach to simulate internal variability. The results show that there is no robust statistical evidence for a divergence between models and observations. The impression of a divergence early in the 21st century was caused by various biases in model interpretation and in the observations, and was unsupported by robust statistics.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: November 20, 2019, 08:16:46 PM »
And I think traditional auto makers can scale up their production faster than Tesla can.

Where do they get the batteries?

Policy and solutions / Re: Greta Thunberg's Atlantic crossing
« on: November 19, 2019, 05:01:49 PM »

120/0 One day I might even give as I receive.

I would advise you to better get this 120 likes given before you hit the 240 liked / 480 posts. ;)

Pages: [1] 2 3