Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[Bhs1975]

It’s going to take some extreme intervention to change our course. We are going to have to be forced to act.

[LibertyBell]

Yes New Zealand has one of my favorite leaders, quickly acted on gun reform and the pandemic too.

My question for you Don is that if we dont even agree on what needs to be done until 2050, wouldn't that mean that the much needed action we need right now wouldn't happen until 2100?  Meanwhile I see that sea level rise is actually occurring at the pace on the most bullish of models and at this rate, sea level rise will be around 8 feet by 2100?!

To put this into more immediate numbers, right now we average around 4 days of flooding per year, by 2050 this could be more like 50 days of flooding per year?

 

[LibertyBell]

This is some good news- most of Europe will stop making fossil fuel powered vehicles by 2030.  I couldn't find any nation which didn't have plans to stop making them between 2030 and 2040 outside of Australia, not surprising considering what kind of govt they have and who funds them.  They will likely be left behind.

 

 

[donsutherland1]

21 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

This is some good news- most of Europe will stop making fossil fuel powered vehicles by 2030.  I couldn't find any nation which didn't have plans to stop making them between 2030 and 2040 outside of Australia, not surprising considering what kind of govt they have and who funds them.  They will likely be left behind.

 

 

The status quo tends to be “sticky” for lack of a better term. When companies, countries, or societies have done well under the status quo, complacency sets in and that hardens their determination to preserve the status quo, even when developments render it unsustainable and its extension leads to worse outcomes. It’s too soon to be sure about the U.S. as a whole, but status quo thinking currently constrains U.S. policy. Efforts to move away from the status quo are subjected to defeatist “can’t be done” thinking. Had today’s thinking that thwarts effective climate change policies and a rapid shift away from fossil fuels defined the nation’s effort during World War II, the Allied countries would likely have lost the war. Had it defined things at the time the Apollo Project was launched, humans would still be looking to the future when they could set foot on the moon. Had it constrained the Ozone Hole and Acid Rain responses, both problems would have continued to grow worse. 

[LibertyBell]

4 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

The status quo tends to be “sticky” for lack of a better term. When companies, countries, or societies have done well under the status quo, complacency sets in and that hardens their determination to preserve the status quo, even when developments render it unsustainable and its extension leads to worse outcomes. It’s too soon to be sure about the U.S. as a whole, but status quo thinking currently constrains U.S. policy. Efforts to move away from the status quo are subjected to defeatist “can’t be done” thinking. Had today’s thinking that thwarts effective climate change policies and a rapid shift away from fossil fuels defined the nation’s effort during World War II, the Allied countries would likely have lost the war. Had it defined things at the time the Apollo Project was launched, humans would still be looking to the future when they could set foot on the moon. Had it constrained the Ozone Hole and Acid Rain responses, both problems would have continued to grow worse. 

Yes, I think they need to realize that "standing still" is the same as going backwards.  Time is always moving forward, so if you're not moving forward too, you're going backwards.

Shortsightedness like we're seeing today, had it been implemented in the past, wouldn't have gotten us this far.  And if the US doesn't take the lead here, we'll be left far behind China and other nations that are moving forward.  China has quite the booming EV market already.

 

[skierinvermont]

37 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

 They will likely be left behind.

 

As will we unfortunately. It wouldn’t surprise me if China had cleaner air than the u.s. in 30 years. Their air is terrible but they are improving and take the issue seriously.

[LibertyBell]

3 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

As will we unfortunately. It wouldn’t surprise me if China had cleaner air than the u.s. in 30 years. Their air is terrible but they are improving and take the issue seriously.

Yep and that would be a sad commentary on the US if China leaves them behind....it means we'd probably be wearing masks for air pollution reasons within a few decades.

Have you found any numbers on when the US is going to stop making fossil fuel powered cars?  I mean, if Europe and Asia do it, the US would probably not have a choice in the matter, the manufacturers will stop making them regardless of our laws, I think fossil fuel powered vehicles are already losing ground to EVs here?

 

[donsutherland1]

8 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

As will we unfortunately. It wouldn’t surprise me if China had cleaner air than the u.s. in 30 years. Their air is terrible but they are improving and take the issue seriously.

 On the recent policy path that was launched in 2017, that’s a plausible outcome. I suspect some of the adverse changes that were made will be reversed by new leadership in coming years. 

[skierinvermont]

53 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Yep and that would be a sad commentary on the US if China leaves them behind....it means we'd probably be wearing masks for air pollution reasons within a few decades.

Have you found any numbers on when the US is going to stop making fossil fuel powered cars?  I mean, if Europe and Asia do it, the US would probably not have a choice in the matter, the manufacturers will stop making them regardless of our laws, I think fossil fuel powered vehicles are already losing ground to EVs here?

 

I think the u.s. market is probably big enough to offer a decent range of gas gars. The range of models might come down a bit and bump in price slightly. I think the main driver of evs in the u.s. will be consumers but it will only get us to 30% by 2040.

[LibertyBell]

7 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

I think the u.s. market is probably big enough to offer a decent range of gas gars. The range of models might come down a bit and bump in price slightly. I think the main driver of evs in the u.s. will be consumers but it will only get us to 30% by 2040.

what percentage of cars driven here are actually made here though?  European and Asian policies should affect us significantly.

 

[skierinvermont]

23 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

what percentage of cars driven here are actually made here though?  European and Asian policies should affect us significantly.

 

Well most cars are made where they are sold. The best selling Camry is produced in the U.S. although some parts are imported. The car sells well internationally too so you are right we are linked to those markets. It sounds like the hybrid sells better internationally. So we could see more of that where one version is sold in the U.S. and another version internationally so they can keep their R&D costs down. Either way I see the U.S. market as big enough to support gas vehicles for a long time to come. The F-series trucks are heavily skewed towards U.S. sales already (80-90% I think), for example.

[skierinvermont]

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

 On the recent policy path that was launched in 2017, that’s a plausible outcome. I suspect some of the adverse changes that were made will be reversed by new leadership in coming years. 

Don are you referring to their last 5 year plan or their 3 year pollution plan (https://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/china-2020-air-pollution-action-plan-released/)?

[LibertyBell]

9 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

Well most cars are made where they are sold. The best selling Camry is produced in the U.S. although some parts are imported. The car sells well internationally too so you are right we are linked to those markets. It sounds like the hybrid sells better internationally. So we could see more of that where one version is sold in the U.S. and another version internationally so they can keep their R&D costs down. Either way I see the U.S. market as big enough to support gas vehicles for a long time to come. The F-series trucks are heavily skewed towards U.S. sales already (80-90% I think), for example.

That brings up another point.  I think you'll see a far quicker adoption of EV cars out west and in the northeast than you will in the deep south or the middle of the country.  Especially with new CA and NY emissions laws.

[skierinvermont]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/upshot/china-pollution-environment-longer-lives.html

Interesting article on Chinese air pollution. The authors estimate that the improvements in air quality already achieved have increased life expectancies by 2.4 years nationally and 3.3 years in Beijing where average PM2.5 concentrations have fallen 35% according to data confirmed by foreign consulates. China's air pollution is still horrific, and their government is terrifyingly totalitarian, but this is at least one positive development.

They also note the irony that communist China is adopting a market based solution to CO2 emissions (cap and trade), while 'capitalist' America has rarely used such market based solutions. Hopefully China will use a similar market based approach to other pollutants as well.

[donsutherland1]

9 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

Don are you referring to their last 5 year plan or their 3 year pollution plan (https://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/china-2020-air-pollution-action-plan-released/)?

Actually, I was referring to the counterproductive course initiated by the United States beginning in January 2017 with the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and rollback of regulations that has been occurring since then.

[skierinvermont]

5 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Actually, I was referring to the counterproductive course initiated by the United States beginning in January 2017 with the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and rollback of regulations that has been occurring since then.

Oh I completely misread your post, thanks!

[bdgwx]

People wonder why Dr. Spencer's reputation and legitimacy is being questioned. Well here you go...

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/09/climate-hustle-2-premieres-this-evening-at-8-p-m/

[skierinvermont]

4 hours ago, bdgwx said:

People wonder why Dr. Spencer's reputation and legitimacy is being questioned. Well here you go...

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/09/climate-hustle-2-premieres-this-evening-at-8-p-m/

"Not surprisingly, as Michael Moore and Jeff Gibbs demonstrate in their Planet of the Humans documentary, those real agendas are money, power, ideology and control. Especially, control over our energy, economy, industries, living standards and personal choices. "

Overtly political. He is who we always knew who he was. The self-promotion, politics, and fossil-fuel connections of Spencer, Christy, and Lindzen do not make for objectivity or good science.

[LibertyBell]

On 9/22/2020 at 2:16 PM, skierinvermont said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/upshot/china-pollution-environment-longer-lives.html

Interesting article on Chinese air pollution. The authors estimate that the improvements in air quality already achieved have increased life expectancies by 2.4 years nationally and 3.3 years in Beijing where average PM2.5 concentrations have fallen 35% according to data confirmed by foreign consulates. China's air pollution is still horrific, and their government is terrifyingly totalitarian, but this is at least one positive development.

They also note the irony that communist China is adopting a market based solution to CO2 emissions (cap and trade), while 'capitalist' America has rarely used such market based solutions. Hopefully China will use a similar market based approach to other pollutants as well.

Yes America is actually redistributing wealth- from the lower and middle classes to the rich.

[LibertyBell]

12 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

"Not surprisingly, as Michael Moore and Jeff Gibbs demonstrate in their Planet of the Humans documentary, those real agendas are money, power, ideology and control. Especially, control over our energy, economy, industries, living standards and personal choices. "

Overtly political. He is who we always knew who he was. The self-promotion, politics, and fossil-fuel connections of Spencer, Christy, and Lindzen do not make for objectivity or good science.

Yes and the ones most impacted are those who are the most vulnerable.

[donsutherland1]

Ocean temperatures have now been above the 20th century average for 532 consecutive months:

On GISS, the last year with a cool global anomaly was 1976 and the last month with a cool global anomaly was September 1992.

[donsutherland1]

In the wake of yesterday’s 60 Minutes documentary linking climate change to recent extreme weather and wildfires, all of which is supported by the literature,  climate change deniers are angered that they are no longer gaining media platforms to promote their discredited beliefs and sap the public of understanding both the magnitude and urgency of the climate change issue.

One complained over Twitter, “Love the way 60 Minutes refuses to show any challenges to the AGW dogma, or even the other side of the issue.”

First, the overwhelming body of scientific literature, not to mention the laws of physics concerning the properties of CO2, support AGW. At least when it comes to science, the debate about the primary cause of the observed ongoing warming is over.  Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities that driven an increase in the atmospheric concentration of such gases. In turn, those gases had driven a sustained energy imbalance that has led to an increase in oceanic heat and rising temperatures, with adverse effects ranging from increasingly severe heat events to extreme wildfires.

Those who reject AGW cannot provide a credible alternative backed by peer-reviewed scientific research. They have no unifying theory, no new forcing, no rational explanation. They have nothing. That’s why the debate is over and the focus is shifting to areas of uncertainty, feedbacks, etc. At the same time, that’s why public pressure, especially among the younger generations who bear much greater exposure to the increasing consequences of climate change, are leading a movement for big policy changes.

Second, if the debate concerning the cause of climate change is over and no credible scientific case can be made for the “other side of the issue,” that side does not exist as far as science is concerned. It only exists in terms of rhetoric, pseudo-science and politics. 

Therefore, as the 60 Minutes program was focused on science, it could only draw upon the knowledge that has been borne out through decades of empirical research. There is no point in promoting rhetorical or political beliefs that lack scientific foundation in a documentary concerning science. Doing so would be little different than granting an audience to the handful who reject gravity, embrace a belief that the world is flat, and/or dismiss Evolution. That would not be science. That would be confusing noise. Such noise would only further delay the kind of policy and technology changes that are needed to begin to address the challenge of climate change.

[rclab]

On 10/3/2020 at 8:32 PM, donsutherland1 said:

Ocean temperatures have now been above the 20th century average for 532 consecutive months:

On GISS, the last year with a cool global anomaly was 1976 and the last month with a cool global anomaly was September 1992.

“yes ‘n’ how many times can a man turn his head

And pretend that he just doesn’t see

The answer, my friend, is blowin’  in the wind

The answer is blowin’ in the wind”
As always .....

[donsutherland1]

From Bloomberg.com:

Exxon Mobil Corp. has been planning to increase annual carbon-dioxide emissions by as much as the output of the entire nation of Greece, an analysis of internal documents reviewed by Bloomberg shows, setting one of the largest corporate emitters against international efforts to slow the pace of warming.

The drive to expand both fossil-fuel production and planet-warming pollution comes at a time when some of Exxon’s rivals, such as BP Plc and Royal Dutch Shell Plc, are moving to curb oil and zero-out emissions. Exxon’s own assessment of its $210 billion investment strategy shows yearly emissions rising 17% by 2025, according to the internal documents.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-05/exxon-carbon-emissions-and-climate-leaked-plans-reveal-rising-co2-output

This is what happens when mega-polluters such as Exxon Mobil receive subsidies to underwrite the exploration for fossil fuels, are held immune to the costs of their pollution, and have taxpayers pay for the costs of their pollution. Incentives are skewed, pollution is maximized, and with pollution, societal harm is maximized.

[LibertyBell]

On 10/5/2020 at 9:30 PM, donsutherland1 said:

From Bloomberg.com:

Exxon Mobil Corp. has been planning to increase annual carbon-dioxide emissions by as much as the output of the entire nation of Greece, an analysis of internal documents reviewed by Bloomberg shows, setting one of the largest corporate emitters against international efforts to slow the pace of warming.

The drive to expand both fossil-fuel production and planet-warming pollution comes at a time when some of Exxon’s rivals, such as BP Plc and Royal Dutch Shell Plc, are moving to curb oil and zero-out emissions. Exxon’s own assessment of its $210 billion investment strategy shows yearly emissions rising 17% by 2025, according to the internal documents.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-05/exxon-carbon-emissions-and-climate-leaked-plans-reveal-rising-co2-output

This is what happens when mega-polluters such as Exxon Mobil receive subsidies to underwrite the exploration for fossil fuels, are held immune to the costs of their pollution, and have taxpayers pay for the costs of their pollution. Incentives are skewed, pollution is maximized, and with pollution, societal harm is maximized.

do they expect to die before they feel the negative effects of climate change?

 

[LibertyBell]

On 10/5/2020 at 1:21 PM, donsutherland1 said:

In the wake of yesterday’s 60 Minutes documentary linking climate change to recent extreme weather and wildfires, all of which is supported by the literature,  climate change deniers are angered that they are no longer gaining media platforms to promote their discredited beliefs and sap the public of understanding both the magnitude and urgency of the climate change issue.

One complained over Twitter, “Love the way 60 Minutes refuses to show any challenges to the AGW dogma, or even the other side of the issue.”

First, the overwhelming body of scientific literature, not to mention the laws of physics concerning the properties of CO2, support AGW. At least when it comes to science, the debate about the primary cause of the observed ongoing warming is over.  Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities that driven an increase in the atmospheric concentration of such gases. In turn, those gases had driven a sustained energy imbalance that has led to an increase in oceanic heat and rising temperatures, with adverse effects ranging from increasingly severe heat events to extreme wildfires.

Those who reject AGW cannot provide a credible alternative backed by peer-reviewed scientific research. They have no unifying theory, no new forcing, no rational explanation. They have nothing. That’s why the debate is over and the focus is shifting to areas of uncertainty, feedbacks, etc. At the same time, that’s why public pressure, especially among the younger generations who bear much greater exposure to the increasing consequences of climate change, are leading a movement for big policy changes.

Second, if the debate concerning the cause of climate change is over and no credible scientific case can be made for the “other side of the issue,” that side does not exist as far as science is concerned. It only exists in terms of rhetoric, pseudo-science and politics. 

Therefore, as the 60 Minutes program was focused on science, it could only draw upon the knowledge that has been borne out through decades of empirical research. There is no point in promoting rhetorical or political beliefs that lack scientific foundation in a documentary concerning science. Doing so would be little different than granting an audience to the handful who reject gravity, embrace a belief that the world is flat, and/or dismiss Evolution. That would not be science. That would be confusing noise. Such noise would only further delay the kind of policy and technology changes that are needed to begin to address the challenge of climate change.

the fossil fuel industry needs to be banned from lobbying or giving money to politicians, they need to be treated like a drug cartel

[donsutherland1]

13 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

do they expect to die before they feel the negative effects of climate change?

 

They simply don’t care. They are little better than those who have rationalized atrocities under the claim that the end justifies the means. In this case, the harm they inflict (and society pays for) is justified by their carbon-based profits.

[LibertyBell]

1 minute ago, donsutherland1 said:

They simply don’t care. They are little better than those who have rationalized atrocities under the claim that the end justifies the means. In this case, the harm they inflict (and society pays for) is justified by their carbon-based profits.

did you read the Chevron article on how they deal with class action lawsuits?  it amounts to lawyer intimidation and getting favorable judges to punish those who bring lawsuits against them

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

did you read the Chevron article on how they deal with class action lawsuits?  it amounts to lawyer intimidation and getting favorable judges to punish those who bring lawsuits against them

I did. That's why significant obstacles lie ahead of efforts to address climate change.

[LibertyBell]

6 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

I did. That's why significant obstacles lie ahead of efforts to address climate change.

Yes and until they are overcome, none of these 2035/2050 plans will work.  The Paris Climate Accord is but a hollow shell, something MUCH stronger and binding is required (with economic sanctions if necessary).