Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[LongBeachSurfFreak]

5 hours ago, Bhs1975 said:

The disasters will become so catastrophic and numerous that funds will run out for recovery and folks will mass migrate to less affected areas which will collapse the system. Humans will become nomadic again.

Ummmmm k…. I’m a huge, huge climate change guy. But I think there are still solutions. My favorite being fusion technology. We could pretty much fix everything with endless lean energy.

[Typhoon Tip]

20 hours ago, LongBeachSurfFreak said:

Ummmmm k…. I’m a huge, huge climate change guy. But I think there are still solutions. My favorite being fusion technology. We could pretty much fix everything with endless lean energy.

This will never fly .. buuut, do you know that nuclear facilities in submarines generate enough power to light up a small town.  When was the last time a nuclear power station, embedded within the artifice of a submarine, catastrophically failed (melt down or radiation exposure)?  

Not prepared to say that's never happened... I don't have the statistic in front of me.

It could be an interim solution -

I agree there are solutions either way, but the incentive isn't there.  Humanity isn't yet connecting it's ingenuity to solving the problem ... We are still too much so embedded on the profligate/caustic side.   

The scope and seriousness of the climate change "holocaust" is not one that is very obvious because - as I've opined in the past - it doesn't occur to the corporeal senses - until recently, not really. Those being sight, sound, feel, taste, and smell... I've often mused in the past, these are like the UPS ports that connect our brains to reality.  We down load data through our senses, and... are evolutionarily very heavy ( almost to the point of blindness) incapable of processing outside the dimensions of reality those sense create for us. 

This is changing .. .people are seeing heat deaths, fetid carcasses, disease, species migration, sea level rise .... etc etc...  But, it's too slow, and still not pervasive enough.  There need be a much bigger ballast of population being punched in the face by, other than seeing it as dystopian news entertainment going on someplace else. 

[donsutherland1]

For those who are interested, Joe Bastardi received his very first fact check. AFP fact checked his claim that submarine volcanoes are driving climate change.

The fact check can be found here: https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.33YL6RV

 

[donsutherland1]

COP 28 concluded yesterday. Despite spin that the conference was a success, it was not. That the conference recognized what the science and public had known for at least some two decades--fossil fuels are largely responsible for ongoing climate change--is not a breakthrough. It is a long delayed acknowledgement that should have guided the annual conferences from the onset. If anything, because there were no binding commitments, much less enforcement mechanisms, to secure the Paris goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C, the conference had failed in its chief mission.

The language related to the transition away from fossil fuels, already qualified by, ‘call’ on Parties, “to contribute”…”taking into account…their different national circumstances, pathways, and approaches” is flawed even when one ignores the Trojan Horse provision “that transitional fuels can play a role in facilitating the energy transition while ensuring energy security.” "Transitional fuels" is widely understood to refer to a fossil fuel--natural gas.

A closer look at key language is in order:

Adopted Language: “Transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly, and equitable manner…”

Issues:

•    Limited to energy systems, not all areas e.g., transport, agriculture, etc.
•    Transition is linked to three conditions that must be met: “just, orderly, and equitable manner.”
•    No specific targets.

Objections that any one of the three conditions can’t be met will provide excuses for not pursuing the transition. For example, oil and gas producers will almost certainly argue that the 43% reduction in fossil fuel production/consumption needed by 2030 to put the world on a path toward limiting warming to 1.5°C will not be “orderly.” Hence, they will rationalize continuing a high production/consumption approach. Worse, they will do so claiming that they are honoring the "orderly” approach endorsed by COP 28.

The language should have been far stronger and more specific. Here's an example of what stronger language might have looked like.

Stronger Language: “Transitioning away from fossil fuels consistent with achieving net zero emissions by 2050, including a 43% reduction in fossil fuel consumption and production by 2030, keeping in mind principles of a just, orderly, and equitable transition.”

Benefits:
•    The end goal would be clear even without the more beneficial and desirable language of phasing out fossil fuels altogether.
•    There is specificity (near-term and end goal).
•    The transition would be the controlling factor and it would not be conditioned on other variables.
•    The principles of a "just, orderly, and equitable transition" would inform how the transition takes place, not whether it takes place.

All said, COP 28 placed renewed faith in weak voluntary commitments that lack credibility. In other words, it hopes for a miracle without understanding that miracles are built from effort, especially when the laws of physics are involved.

Similarly, policy is built. Sound policy requires courage, capacity, and insight from leaders. Such attributes are not unknown.

All of the leaders who adopted and ratified the Montreal Protocol and those who pursued its implementation possessed such attributes. In 1987, the Montreal Protocol was adopted. In 1989, it was ratified. Following its ratification, a COP process similar to what is ongoing regarding climate change was established. COP 1 set ground rules for how to proceed. During COP 2 in 1990, the parties announced that they "declare... their firm determination to take all appropriate measures to phase out the production and consumption of all fully halogenated chlorofluorocarbons controlled by the Montreal Protocol... as soon as possible but not later than 1997."

There were no fudge factors. There was no ambiguity. There was no weak "call" that could easily be ignored. There was a firm declaration with a specific near-term date. The leaders saw Ozone destruction as a crisis and responded with the boldness and firmness required to overcome a crisis.

COP 4 in 1992 went on to adopt enforcement mechanisms. The leaders understood the importance of compliance.

In stark contrast, COP 1 on climate change was held in 1995. COP 28 that just concluded still could not muster the leadership required to declare that fossil fuels would be phased out, or more specifically the burning of fossil fuels would be phased out, much less with a firm deadline. Their weak actions suggested that they view climate change as something more than an inconvenience but far short of a crisis.

Critics will argue that a phase-out of fossil fuels can't be done (one wonders how they would respond if they knew that fossil fuels are essentially a finite resource that will eventually be depleted once they are all consumed). Such defeatist sentiment aimed at propping up an unsustainable status quo is not new. If one goes back to the period following the ratification of the Montreal Protocol, one heard many of the same kind of arguments from many in the chemical industry. They argued that there were no good substitutes. They asserted that refrigeration of food and air conditioning of homes and businesses would be lost. The defeatists suggested that a phase-out would be unrealistic.

Their arguments did not carry the day. The leaders embraced the science, understood what was at stake, and chose to act. The Ozone layer would be protected and industry would have to innovate to comply with the new policy.

The fossil fuel industry's arguments are no better. Those arguments should not prevail. Clearly, the fossil fuel industry would prefer to maintain its destructive but highly profitable business model--a model that brings it tens of billions of dollars in annual profits and $7 trillion annually in direct and indirect subsidies as per the latest IMF reporting. Nevertheless, societal wellbeing should take precedence. No industry is so sacred that it should be given a perpetual license for destruction of the world's climate and ecosystems. 

Defeatist rejectionism that such a transition can't be accomplished is without historical or technological foundation. Innovation has solved big problems. The Apollo Project was launched by President Kennedy on May 25, 1961 when he pledged that the U.S. would send men to the Moon within a decade. Much of the necessary technology did not exist. Yet, he set an ambitious goal with a specific timeframe. On July 21, 1969, Neil Armstrong stepped onto the Moon, even earlier than President Kennedy had imagined.

The bottom line is that the transition can be achieved. With competent engineering and courageous policy choices, it can be achieved by 2050 in time to achieve the net zero emissions goal, if not earlier. Moreover, advantages exist that were not then available to NASA in 1961 or the chemical industry in 1992. There are numerous good substitutes available to supplant fossil fuels. Solar power, hydropower, wind power, nuclear power, geothermal power are all examples. Emerging technology to capture solar energy in space and beam the energy to Earth is under exploration. Storage capacity is increasing.

In short, substitutes already exist. They should be scaled up at speed while fossil fuels are phased out at speed, at least as fast as alternatives come on line. That won't occur in the aftermath of COP 28.

COP 28 demonstrated that the kind of will that allowed leaders to make concrete policy decisions to secure the Ozone layer from decimation is still lacking when it comes to addressing climate change. As a result of the failed outcome at COP 28, the remaining carbon budget to avert warming beyond 1.5°C will continue to be squandered. Global heating will proceed. Extreme outcomes will increase in frequency and magnitude in non-linear fashion. A growing societal commitment to increased sea-level rise with profound implications for coastal regions and major coastal cities will be pursued. Biodiversity will be undermined. 

Tragically, future generations who bear no responsibility for the problem and today's youth who seek to address it, will be the victims of this ongoing leadership failure. Virtually all of those leaders who refused to commit to phasing out fossil fuels, not to mention the fossil fuel industry representatives who have consistently worked to thwart meaningful efforts to address climate change, will have departed the scene long before their children, grandchildren, and future generations suffer the consequences of their shortsighted and selfish decisions. They will never experience the much harsher world they bequeathed to future generations.

 

[chubbs]

Don, yes not much positive out of COP. However, In terms of fossil fuel competitive position there is continuing change afoot. Below is a recent article on China's industrial policy which led to the development of the "new three": solar, batteries and EV which are now driving export growth. Expect competition to continue to increase among the big industrial powers as clean energy technology is increasingly seen as critical for economic growth.  Although last years IRA is a good start, not confident in our ability to play the long game. We'll see.

https://energypost.eu/china-is-still-playing-the-long-game-with-its-new-three-solar-cells-lithium-batteries-evs/

[donsutherland1]

2 hours ago, chubbs said:

Don, yes not much positive out of COP. However, In terms of fossil fuel competitive position there is continuing change afoot. Below is a recent article on China's industrial policy which led to the development of the "new three": solar, batteries and EV which are now driving export growth. Expect competition to continue to increase among the big industrial powers as clean energy technology is increasingly seen as critical for economic growth.  Although last years IRA is a good start, not confident in our ability to play the long game. We'll see.

https://energypost.eu/china-is-still-playing-the-long-game-with-its-new-three-solar-cells-lithium-batteries-evs/

I agree. I welcome the changes that are taking place albeit at a much smaller scale than what is needed to secure the 1.5°C goal. My concern is that fossil fuels remain largely stable as a share of overall energy production (around 80% worldwide). COP 28 did nothing to change that trajectory. Indeed, just days after the Conference, its President Sultan Al Jaber reaffirmed his company's plans to invest in expanding its oil and gas production capacity stating that the world will still need the "lowest-carbon barrels at the lowest cost." That oil and gas are not low carbon sources of energy was not mentioned.

This is how he interprets the COP 28 outcome. As he was its President, his interpretation is arguably the definitive one. Other fossil fuel companies and producers almost certainly will see things the way he does.

[Typhoon Tip]

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

I agree. I welcome the changes that are taking place albeit at a much smaller scale than what is needed to secure the 1.5°C goal. My concern is that fossil fuels remain largely stable as a share of overall energy production (around 80% worldwide). COP 28 did nothing to change that trajectory. Indeed, just days after the Conference, its President Sultan Al Jaber reaffirmed his company's plans to invest in expanding its oil and gas production capacity stating that the world will still need the "lowest-carbon barrels at the lowest cost." That oil and gas are not low carbon sources of energy was not mentioned.

This is how he interprets the COP 28 outcome. As he was its President, his interpretation is arguably the definitive one. Other fossil fuel companies and producers almost certainly will see things the way he does.

Meanwhile ...

https://phys.org/news/2023-12-coal-earth-hottest-year.html

[SnoSki14]

1 hour ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Meanwhile ...

https://phys.org/news/2023-12-coal-earth-hottest-year.html

Eventually we may have to look at the worst case scenario warming outcomes if this year is any indication 

[Typhoon Tip]

2 hours ago, SnoSki14 said:

Eventually we may have to look at the worst case scenario warming outcomes if this year is any indication 

20 or as little as 10 years from now ... perhaps even looking back and saying, "actually, that ship had already sailed by then"

[mclean02]

On 12/15/2023 at 1:05 PM, SnoSki14 said:

Eventually we may have to look at the worst case scenario warming outcomes if this year is any indication 

What is the worst case scenario? And where do you feel we will in 5 to 10 years based on your gut feeling ? As a late 20 year old now I feel like the ship has sailed and we just need to look at stopping  2.0 degrees of warming. In the short time I have been alive here in the southern states I have noticed I have mosquitoes at my parents house and that rain seems way heavier then I recall as a kid. I plan on moving to Detroit or Alaska in the next 5 years I really feel lost sometimes and sad when I look at my nieces  sorry for the run on sesentences 

[chubbs]

9 hours ago, mclean02 said:

What is the worst case scenario? And where do you feel we will in 5 to 10 years based on your gut feeling ? As a late 20 year old now I feel like the ship has sailed and we just need to look at stopping  2.0 degrees of warming. In the short time I have been alive here in the southern states I have noticed I have mosquitoes at my parents house and that rain seems way heavier then I recall as a kid. I plan on moving to Detroit or Alaska in the next 5 years I really feel lost sometimes and sad when I look at my nieces  sorry for the run on sesentences 

I'm not worrying about the worst case. Much more concerned about the best-case. That's what we are frittering away.

[mclean02]

That's true sometimes it really feels hopeless. Just have to keep doing everything we can calling out misinformation when you hear it and reducing your carbon emissions by biking or consolidating trips if possible.

[chubbs]

32 minutes ago, mclean02 said:

That's true sometimes it really feels hopeless. Just have to keep doing everything we can calling out misinformation when you hear it and reducing your carbon emissions by biking or consolidating trips if possible.

This is why I don't worry about the worst case anymore. Solar can dent fossil fuel demand. Solar+batteries can destroy it.

[mclean02]

7 hours ago, chubbs said:

This is why I don't worry about the worst case anymore. Solar can dent fossil fuel demand. Solar+batteries can destroy it.

Wow that's a huge increase! I heard something about the stone batteries today being useful to store heat energy for long periods of time.   

[Typhoon Tip]

12 hours ago, chubbs said:

This is why I don't worry about the worst case anymore. Solar can dent fossil fuel demand. Solar+batteries can destroy it.

The tech and know how has always been there.  Worst case scenario is a species Darwin Award game. 

[LibertyBell]

On 12/15/2023 at 6:51 AM, chubbs said:

Don, yes not much positive out of COP. However, In terms of fossil fuel competitive position there is continuing change afoot. Below is a recent article on China's industrial policy which led to the development of the "new three": solar, batteries and EV which are now driving export growth. Expect competition to continue to increase among the big industrial powers as clean energy technology is increasingly seen as critical for economic growth.  Although last years IRA is a good start, not confident in our ability to play the long game. We'll see.

https://energypost.eu/china-is-still-playing-the-long-game-with-its-new-three-solar-cells-lithium-batteries-evs/

why dont fossil fuel companies get banned from these COP fiascos? why should these companies have any rights to have a say in anything? Like the tobacco companies, you wont see any progress until you eliminate their voices in making any decisions.

 

[LibertyBell]

On 12/14/2023 at 9:25 AM, donsutherland1 said:

COP 28 concluded yesterday. Despite spin that the conference was a success, it was not. That the conference recognized what the science and public had known for at least some two decades--fossil fuels are largely responsible for ongoing climate change--is not a breakthrough. It is a long delayed acknowledgement that should have guided the annual conferences from the onset. If anything, because there were no binding commitments, much less enforcement mechanisms, to secure the Paris goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C, the conference had failed in its chief mission.

The language related to the transition away from fossil fuels, already qualified by, ‘call’ on Parties, “to contribute”…”taking into account…their different national circumstances, pathways, and approaches” is flawed even when one ignores the Trojan Horse provision “that transitional fuels can play a role in facilitating the energy transition while ensuring energy security.” "Transitional fuels" is widely understood to refer to a fossil fuel--natural gas.

A closer look at key language is in order:

Adopted Language: “Transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly, and equitable manner…”

Issues:

•    Limited to energy systems, not all areas e.g., transport, agriculture, etc.
•    Transition is linked to three conditions that must be met: “just, orderly, and equitable manner.”
•    No specific targets.

Objections that any one of the three conditions can’t be met will provide excuses for not pursuing the transition. For example, oil and gas producers will almost certainly argue that the 43% reduction in fossil fuel production/consumption needed by 2030 to put the world on a path toward limiting warming to 1.5°C will not be “orderly.” Hence, they will rationalize continuing a high production/consumption approach. Worse, they will do so claiming that they are honoring the "orderly” approach endorsed by COP 28.

The language should have been far stronger and more specific. Here's an example of what stronger language might have looked like.

Stronger Language: “Transitioning away from fossil fuels consistent with achieving net zero emissions by 2050, including a 43% reduction in fossil fuel consumption and production by 2030, keeping in mind principles of a just, orderly, and equitable transition.”

Benefits:
•    The end goal would be clear even without the more beneficial and desirable language of phasing out fossil fuels altogether.
•    There is specificity (near-term and end goal).
•    The transition would be the controlling factor and it would not be conditioned on other variables.
•    The principles of a "just, orderly, and equitable transition" would inform how the transition takes place, not whether it takes place.

All said, COP 28 placed renewed faith in weak voluntary commitments that lack credibility. In other words, it hopes for a miracle without understanding that miracles are built from effort, especially when the laws of physics are involved.

Similarly, policy is built. Sound policy requires courage, capacity, and insight from leaders. Such attributes are not unknown.

All of the leaders who adopted and ratified the Montreal Protocol and those who pursued its implementation possessed such attributes. In 1987, the Montreal Protocol was adopted. In 1989, it was ratified. Following its ratification, a COP process similar to what is ongoing regarding climate change was established. COP 1 set ground rules for how to proceed. During COP 2 in 1990, the parties announced that they "declare... their firm determination to take all appropriate measures to phase out the production and consumption of all fully halogenated chlorofluorocarbons controlled by the Montreal Protocol... as soon as possible but not later than 1997."

There were no fudge factors. There was no ambiguity. There was no weak "call" that could easily be ignored. There was a firm declaration with a specific near-term date. The leaders saw Ozone destruction as a crisis and responded with the boldness and firmness required to overcome a crisis.

COP 4 in 1992 went on to adopt enforcement mechanisms. The leaders understood the importance of compliance.

In stark contrast, COP 1 on climate change was held in 1995. COP 28 that just concluded still could not muster the leadership required to declare that fossil fuels would be phased out, or more specifically the burning of fossil fuels would be phased out, much less with a firm deadline. Their weak actions suggested that they view climate change as something more than an inconvenience but far short of a crisis.

Critics will argue that a phase-out of fossil fuels can't be done (one wonders how they would respond if they knew that fossil fuels are essentially a finite resource that will eventually be depleted once they are all consumed). Such defeatist sentiment aimed at propping up an unsustainable status quo is not new. If one goes back to the period following the ratification of the Montreal Protocol, one heard many of the same kind of arguments from many in the chemical industry. They argued that there were no good substitutes. They asserted that refrigeration of food and air conditioning of homes and businesses would be lost. The defeatists suggested that a phase-out would be unrealistic.

Their arguments did not carry the day. The leaders embraced the science, understood what was at stake, and chose to act. The Ozone layer would be protected and industry would have to innovate to comply with the new policy.

The fossil fuel industry's arguments are no better. Those arguments should not prevail. Clearly, the fossil fuel industry would prefer to maintain its destructive but highly profitable business model--a model that brings it tens of billions of dollars in annual profits and $7 trillion annually in direct and indirect subsidies as per the latest IMF reporting. Nevertheless, societal wellbeing should take precedence. No industry is so sacred that it should be given a perpetual license for destruction of the world's climate and ecosystems. 

Defeatist rejectionism that such a transition can't be accomplished is without historical or technological foundation. Innovation has solved big problems. The Apollo Project was launched by President Kennedy on May 25, 1961 when he pledged that the U.S. would send men to the Moon within a decade. Much of the necessary technology did not exist. Yet, he set an ambitious goal with a specific timeframe. On July 21, 1969, Neil Armstrong stepped onto the Moon, even earlier than President Kennedy had imagined.

The bottom line is that the transition can be achieved. With competent engineering and courageous policy choices, it can be achieved by 2050 in time to achieve the net zero emissions goal, if not earlier. Moreover, advantages exist that were not then available to NASA in 1961 or the chemical industry in 1992. There are numerous good substitutes available to supplant fossil fuels. Solar power, hydropower, wind power, nuclear power, geothermal power are all examples. Emerging technology to capture solar energy in space and beam the energy to Earth is under exploration. Storage capacity is increasing.

In short, substitutes already exist. They should be scaled up at speed while fossil fuels are phased out at speed, at least as fast as alternatives come on line. That won't occur in the aftermath of COP 28.

COP 28 demonstrated that the kind of will that allowed leaders to make concrete policy decisions to secure the Ozone layer from decimation is still lacking when it comes to addressing climate change. As a result of the failed outcome at COP 28, the remaining carbon budget to avert warming beyond 1.5°C will continue to be squandered. Global heating will proceed. Extreme outcomes will increase in frequency and magnitude in non-linear fashion. A growing societal commitment to increased sea-level rise with profound implications for coastal regions and major coastal cities will be pursued. Biodiversity will be undermined. 

Tragically, future generations who bear no responsibility for the problem and today's youth who seek to address it, will be the victims of this ongoing leadership failure. Virtually all of those leaders who refused to commit to phasing out fossil fuels, not to mention the fossil fuel industry representatives who have consistently worked to thwart meaningful efforts to address climate change, will have departed the scene long before their children, grandchildren, and future generations suffer the consequences of their shortsighted and selfish decisions. They will never experience the much harsher world they bequeathed to future generations.

 

Don I believe they will experience it though-- we are seeing accelerated changes and within the next 20 years or so, these companies will no longer be sustainable.

natural gas is a euphemism-- it is actually methane as you know

also why is it the secretary general uses much stronger language while the results of these conferences are less strong?

 

[rclab]

8 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

why dont fossil fuel companies get banned from these COP fiascos? why should these companies have any rights to have a say in anything? Like the tobacco companies, you wont see any progress until you eliminate their voices in making any decisions.

 

Good morning Liberty, happy to see your post. Perhaps keeping them close to the problem solving is a good strategy. Their interest will be governed more by a formula containing profit/$$$ rather than altruism. When alternative energy generation becomes profitable they will wave the flag strenuously. Otherwise Gaia is left crying out to the universe “ forgive them; for they know not w hat they do.” Stay well, as always …

 

 

[donsutherland1]

23 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Don I believe they will experience it though-- we are seeing accelerated changes and within the next 20 years or so, these companies will no longer be sustainable.

natural gas is a euphemism-- it is actually methane as you know

also why is it the secretary general uses much stronger language while the results of these conferences are less strong?

 

It may take some time to really supplant fossil fuel energy. There's a tremendous amount of inertia built into the political and economic systems. Moreover, the fossil fuel industry--the beneficiary of enormous subsidies and which generates large profits--has sufficient resources to skew policy making. The fight for a sustainable climate is far from over.

Unfortunately, the UN Secretary-General can't set the decisionmaking agenda for the COP conferences. Unless fossil fuel interests are barred from the conferences, they will be in a position to thwart meaningful progress.

[LibertyBell]

11 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

It may take some time to really supplant fossil fuel energy. There's a tremendous amount of inertial built into the political and economic systems. Moreover, the fossil fuel industry--the beneficiary of enormous subsidies and which generates large profits--has sufficient resources to skew policy making. The fight for a sustainable climate is far from over.

Unfortunately, the UN Secretary-General can't set the decisionmaking agenda for the COP conferences. Unless fossil fuel interests are barred from the conferences, they will be in a position to thwart meaningful progress.

Yes indeed-- and this is one instance where authoritarianism is better.  If you had a powerful UN Secy General who could completely ban these companies and set the agenda himself or herself, we would have stronger movement on these issues.

What is their logic for allowing fossil fuel companies to participate?

 

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

Yes indeed-- and this is one instance where authoritarianism is better.  If you had a powerful UN Secy General who could completely ban these companies and set the agenda himself or herself, we would have stronger movement on these issues.

What is their logic for allowing fossil fuel companies to participate?

 

Effective leadership would also be a remedy. In 1989, the Montreal Protocol was ratified. In 1990 during COP 2, it was agreed that CFCs would be completely phased out by 1997. IMO, the world's leaders were able to act decisively, because they had genuine experience with having to make tough decisions during the Cold War era. Today's leaders have not faced the degree of challenge that was inherent in the Cold War and they haven't developed the capacity to make decisive choices. The U.S. can't even bring itself to declare a climate emergency and, at the same time, is scaling up its oil and gas productive capacity. This is an unfortunate situation, because today's youth and tomorrow's generations will have to live with the consequences of the bad or weak choices being made today.

[LibertyBell]

40 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Effective leadership would also be a remedy. In 1989, the Montreal Protocol was ratified. In 1990 during COP 2, it was agreed that CFCs would be completely phased out by 1997. IMO, the world's leaders were able to act decisively, because they had genuine experience with having to make tough decisions during the Cold War era. Today's leaders have not faced the degree of challenge that was inherent in the Cold War and they haven't developed the capacity to make decisive choices. The U.S. can't even bring itself to declare a climate emergency and, at the same time, is scaling up its oil and gas productive capacity. This is an unfortunate situation, because today's youth and tomorrow's generations will have to live with the consequences of the bad or weak choices being made today.

I wonder how much our political leaders are actually reflecting the will of the people-- specifically the older people.

Having talked to so many people the last few months, it's surprising how many I find who believe in climate change but don't think it's a big problem.  They actually think the planet will be better off being warmer because it will support more biodiversity specifically more plant life.  These are some very intelligent people with some misguided views-- and they use Hawaii as the ideal for climate, saying it is the most biodiverse place on the planet and imagine if the rest of the planet had a climate like Hawaii.  They dont care so much about sea level rise, saying that people should move away from the oceans-- they call us "coastal elitists."  I've taken to using health as a bigger argument, because fossil fuels do adversely affect our health and that is a bigger concern to these people than the weather becoming warmer, which they actually seem to want.  They even use ridiculous arguments like growing produce in Greenland, Siberia and Antarctica as reasons to want the weather to get warmer (and supporting a growing population-- which we need to stabilize anyway.)

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

I wonder how much our political leaders are actually reflecting the will of the people-- specifically the older people.

Having talked to so many people the last few months, it's surprising how many I find who believe in climate change but don't think it's a big problem.  They actually think the planet will be better off being warmer because it will support more biodiversity specifically more plant life.  These are some very intelligent people with some misguided views-- and they use Hawaii as the ideal for climate, saying it is the most biodiverse place on the planet and imagine if the rest of the planet had a climate like Hawaii.  They dont care so much about sea level rise, saying that people should move away from the oceans-- they call us "coastal elitists."  I've taken to using health as a bigger argument, because fossil fuels do adversely affect our health and that is a bigger concern to these people than the weather becoming warmer, which they actually seem to want.  They even use ridiculous arguments like growing produce in Greenland, Siberia and Antarctica as reasons to want the weather to get warmer (and supporting a growing population-- which we need to stabilize anyway.)

Unfortunately, I believe a large share of political leaders tend to pay disproportionate attention to older voters who vote in high numbers and fund campaigns. This may help create policy inertia, as there is some research showing greater commitment to the status quo as one ages. This perspective can create a formidable barrier to reform, as reform risks the support of a still-coveted voting demographic.

Can anyone imagine today's collection of aged leaders boldly proclaiming that humans would set foot on the Moon in a decade as President Kennedy had done in 1961? Far more likely, they would lazily rationalize that there are more worthy and less costly endeavors. The same applies to boldly moving away from the current unsustainable and destructive energy model. They maintain a minimalist approach and will not set any binding phase-out targets for fossil fuels. Policy making rooted in the hope for a future miracle or magical assumptions about new technology that will alleviate the burden of responsibility to make decisive choices is leadership failure.

Because climate change will play out over a long timeframe that extends far beyond the human life span, policy making is mired deeply in a bias for short-term interests. Heatwaves, drought, and intense rainfall events are largely overlooked even when they occur without prior precedent. Even more ominously, the lessons of those early warning signs of catastrophe are missed altogether.

Back in April 2003, Harvard Business Review wrote of the reality where companies routinely miss early warning of future crises. HBR explained, "Despite thoughtful managers and robust planning processes, even the best run companies are frequently caught unaware by disastrous events—events that should have been anticipated and prepared for."

During 2018-2021, a long-running marine heatwave wiped out 10 billion snow crabs in the Bering Sea. In September 2021, the rains from former Hurricane Ida deluged the New York City area with more than 3" of rain in an hour, causing widespread flooding. In 2022, Europe experienced an estimated 60,000 heat-related deaths. These are hints of much worse that could lie ahead, as climate change's extremes increase in non-linear fashion to the rise in temperatures.

What if a marine heatwave wipes out an appreciable portion of zooplankton, which rapidly ripples up the food chain to krill, squid, tuna, etc.?

What if a storm similar to Ida hits NYC or some other major metropolitan area and then largely stalls like Hurricane Harvey did in 2017?

What if a super heatwave (as occurred in the Pacific Northwest in 2021 or parts of the southern U.S. in 2023) descends on a high population region and persists for a month or longer?
All of these events occurred with warming that is 1.2°C-1.3°C above the pre-industrial temperature average. The world remains locked on a trajectory toward 2.8°C-2.9°C warming by the end of the current century.

Such events could have enormous impacts on food (possible famine), health, and/or mortality. Such scenarios would not have come "out of the blue" but would be examples of the "predictable surprises" laid out by HBR. The severity of each of these events could still be mitigated were political leaders to possess the measure of political courage and foresight necessary to address climate change.

 

[LibertyBell]

Just now, donsutherland1 said:

Unfortunately, I believe a large share of political leaders tend to pay disproportionate attention to older voters who vote in high numbers and fund campaigns. This may help create policy inertia, as there is some research showing greater commitment to the status quo as one ages. This perspective can create a formidable barrier to reform, as reform risks the support of a still-coveted voting demographic.

Can anyone imagine today's collection of aged leaders boldly proclaiming that humans would set foot on the Moon in a decade as President Kennedy had done in 1961? Far more likely, they would lazily rationalize that there are more worthy and less costly endeavors. The same applies to boldly moving away from the current unsustainable and destructive energy model. They maintain a minimalist approach and will not set any binding phase-out targets for fossil fuels. Policy making rooted in the hope for a future miracle or magical assumptions about new technology that will alleviate the burden of responsibility to make decisive choices is leadership failure.

Because climate change will play out over a long timeframe that extends far beyond the human life span, policy making is mired deeply in a bias for short-term interests. Heatwaves, drought, and intense rainfall events are largely overlooked even when they occur without prior precedent. Even more ominously, the lessons of those early warning signs of catastrophe are missed altogether.

Back in April 2003, Harvard Business Review wrote of the reality where companies routinely miss early warning of future crises. HBR explained, "Despite thoughtful managers and robust planning processes, even the best run companies are frequently caught unaware by disastrous events—events that should have been anticipated and prepared for."

During 2018-2021, a long-running marine heatwave wiped out 10 billion snow crabs in the Bering Sea. In September 2021, the rains from former Hurricane Ida deluged the New York City area with more than 3" of rain in an hour, causing widespread flooding. In 2022, Europe experienced an estimated 60,000 heat-related deaths. These are hints of much worse that could lie ahead, as climate change's extremes increase in non-linear fashion to the rise in temperatures.

What if a marine heatwave wipes out an appreciable portion of zooplankton, which rapidly ripples up the food chain to krill, squid, tuna, etc.?

What if a storm similar to Ida hits NYC or some other major metropolitan area and then largely stalls like Hurricane Harvey did in 2017?

What if a super heatwave (as occurred in the Pacific Northwest in 2021 or parts of the southern U.S. in 2023) descends on a high population region and persists for a month or longer?
All of these events occurred with warming that is 1.2°C-1.3°C above the pre-industrial temperature average. The world remains locked on a trajectory toward 2.8°C-2.9°C warming by the end of the current century.

Such events could have enormous impacts on food (possible famine), health, and/or mortality. Such scenarios would not have come "out of the blue" but would be an example of the "predictable surprises" laid out by HBR. The severity of each of these events could still be mitigated were political leaders to possess the measure of political courage and foresight necessary to address climate change.

 

Don a scary number of people believe we never went to the Moon....and even more scary, that the earth is actually flat!

X/Twitter has become a bastion of such views, and recently there was a list put on there of "freemasons" who are not to be believed and on that list is:

1. Newton

2. Copernicus

3. Kepler

4. Einstein

So basically any forefather of modern science is not to be believed according to them.

[rclab]

57 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

I wonder how much our political leaders are actually reflecting the will of the people-- specifically the older people.

Having talked to so many people the last few months, it's surprising how many I find who believe in climate change but don't think it's a big problem.  They actually think the planet will be better off being warmer because it will support more biodiversity specifically more plant life.  These are some very intelligent people with some misguided views-- and they use Hawaii as the ideal for climate, saying it is the most biodiverse place on the planet and imagine if the rest of the planet had a climate like Hawaii.  They dont care so much about sea level rise, saying that people should move away from the oceans-- they call us "coastal elitists."  I've taken to using health as a bigger argument, because fossil fuels do adversely affect our health and that is a bigger concern to these people than the weather becoming warmer, which they actually seem to want.  They even use ridiculous arguments like growing produce in Greenland, Siberia and Antarctica as reasons to want the weather to get warmer (and supporting a growing population-- which we need to stabilize anyway.)

Good morning Liberty. Isn’t there a significant percentage of flora that relies on a cold cycle for survival? Unless their looking at the present cold desert like climate of Siberia/Canada as the future new bread and fruit basket. I’m closing in on 77 and to your credit misguided is a kinder word Than I  would have used. Stay well, as always ….

[LibertyBell]

4 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Unfortunately, I believe a large share of political leaders tend to pay disproportionate attention to older voters who vote in high numbers and fund campaigns. This may help create policy inertia, as there is some research showing greater commitment to the status quo as one ages. This perspective can create a formidable barrier to reform, as reform risks the support of a still-coveted voting demographic.

Can anyone imagine today's collection of aged leaders boldly proclaiming that humans would set foot on the Moon in a decade as President Kennedy had done in 1961? Far more likely, they would lazily rationalize that there are more worthy and less costly endeavors. The same applies to boldly moving away from the current unsustainable and destructive energy model. They maintain a minimalist approach and will not set any binding phase-out targets for fossil fuels. Policy making rooted in the hope for a future miracle or magical assumptions about new technology that will alleviate the burden of responsibility to make decisive choices is leadership failure.

Because climate change will play out over a long timeframe that extends far beyond the human life span, policy making is mired deeply in a bias for short-term interests. Heatwaves, drought, and intense rainfall events are largely overlooked even when they occur without prior precedent. Even more ominously, the lessons of those early warning signs of catastrophe are missed altogether.

Back in April 2003, Harvard Business Review wrote of the reality where companies routinely miss early warning of future crises. HBR explained, "Despite thoughtful managers and robust planning processes, even the best run companies are frequently caught unaware by disastrous events—events that should have been anticipated and prepared for."

During 2018-2021, a long-running marine heatwave wiped out 10 billion snow crabs in the Bering Sea. In September 2021, the rains from former Hurricane Ida deluged the New York City area with more than 3" of rain in an hour, causing widespread flooding. In 2022, Europe experienced an estimated 60,000 heat-related deaths. These are hints of much worse that could lie ahead, as climate change's extremes increase in non-linear fashion to the rise in temperatures.

What if a marine heatwave wipes out an appreciable portion of zooplankton, which rapidly ripples up the food chain to krill, squid, tuna, etc.?

What if a storm similar to Ida hits NYC or some other major metropolitan area and then largely stalls like Hurricane Harvey did in 2017?

What if a super heatwave (as occurred in the Pacific Northwest in 2021 or parts of the southern U.S. in 2023) descends on a high population region and persists for a month or longer?
All of these events occurred with warming that is 1.2°C-1.3°C above the pre-industrial temperature average. The world remains locked on a trajectory toward 2.8°C-2.9°C warming by the end of the current century.

Such events could have enormous impacts on food (possible famine), health, and/or mortality. Such scenarios would not have come "out of the blue" but would be an example of the "predictable surprises" laid out by HBR. The severity of each of these events could still be mitigated were political leaders to possess the measure of political courage and foresight necessary to address climate change.

 

Don have you read this and what do you think?

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/12/venus-was-like-earth-until-climate-change-uninhabitable/

• The planet Venus once likely had surface temperatures similar to present-day Earth, recent modelling has revealed.
• It probably also had oceans, rain, perhaps snow, maybe continents and plate tectonics.
• But Venus's climate was permanently altered when catastrophic volcanic eruptions released vast quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
• Could Venus's fate hold stark lessons for us here on Earth?

We can learn a lot about climate change from Venus, our sister planet. Venus currently has a surface temperature of 450℃ (the temperature of an oven’s self-cleaning cycle) and an atmosphere dominated by carbon dioxide (96 per cent) with a density 90 times that of Earth’s.

Venus is a very strange place, totally uninhabitable, except perhaps in the clouds some 60 kilometres up where the recent discovery of phosphine may suggest floating microbial life. But the surface is totally inhospitable.

However, Venus once likely had an Earth-like climate. According to recent climate modelling, for much of its history Venus had surface temperatures similar to present day Earth. It likely also had oceans, rain, perhaps snow, maybe continents and plate tectonics, and even more speculatively, perhaps even surface life.

Less than one billion years ago, the climate dramatically changed due to a runaway greenhouse effect. It can be speculated that an intensive period of volcanism pumped enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to cause this great climate change event that evaporated the oceans and caused the end of the water cycle.

 

[LibertyBell]

2 minutes ago, rclab said:

Good morning Liberty. Isn’t there a significant percentage of flora that relies on a cold cycle for survival? Unless their looking at the present cold desert like climate of Siberia/Canada as the future new bread and fruit basket. I’m closing in on 77 and to your credit misguided is a kinder word Than I  would have used. Stay well, as always ….

Yes exactly-- and this would cause the extinction of deciduous flora and flowering plants, we would be going back to a Mesozoic like era where tropical flora like ferns and palms would dominate and amongst the rise in biodiversity would also be a higher number of dangerous microbes and more pandemics.

 

[donsutherland1]

9 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Don have you read this and what do you think?

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/12/venus-was-like-earth-until-climate-change-uninhabitable/

• The planet Venus once likely had surface temperatures similar to present-day Earth, recent modelling has revealed.
• It probably also had oceans, rain, perhaps snow, maybe continents and plate tectonics.
• But Venus's climate was permanently altered when catastrophic volcanic eruptions released vast quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
• Could Venus's fate hold stark lessons for us here on Earth?

We can learn a lot about climate change from Venus, our sister planet. Venus currently has a surface temperature of 450℃ (the temperature of an oven’s self-cleaning cycle) and an atmosphere dominated by carbon dioxide (96 per cent) with a density 90 times that of Earth’s.

Venus is a very strange place, totally uninhabitable, except perhaps in the clouds some 60 kilometres up where the recent discovery of phosphine may suggest floating microbial life. But the surface is totally inhospitable.

However, Venus once likely had an Earth-like climate. According to recent climate modelling, for much of its history Venus had surface temperatures similar to present day Earth. It likely also had oceans, rain, perhaps snow, maybe continents and plate tectonics, and even more speculatively, perhaps even surface life.

Less than one billion years ago, the climate dramatically changed due to a runaway greenhouse effect. It can be speculated that an intensive period of volcanism pumped enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to cause this great climate change event that evaporated the oceans and caused the end of the water cycle.

 

I will read it. Thanks for sharing it.

[Great Snow 1717]

On 12/15/2023 at 1:05 PM, SnoSki14 said:

Eventually we may have to look at the worst case scenario warming outcomes if this year is any indication 

I agree..

[George001]

8 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Yes indeed-- and this is one instance where authoritarianism is better.  If you had a powerful UN Secy General who could completely ban these companies and set the agenda himself or herself, we would have stronger movement on these issues.

What is their logic for allowing fossil fuel companies to participate?

 

Absolutely, significantly more aggressive action needs to be taken to combat climate change. People bitch about “alarmists”, but the reality is that the earth is warming at a rate in line with the most aggressive climate models. People tend to be short sighted. The climate crisis is a consequence of the pursuit of instant gratification above all else. It’s easier to live in denial than to try to be part of the solution. Near-term sacrifices will have to be made to combat climate change, and people aren’t willing to accept that. I get it, instant gratification feels good. But in the long term, it’s not worth it.

It’s not going to be good for the economy at first if we take these drastic actions, and it’s going to be a major inconvenience in many of our personal lives. However, that is not a valid excuse to refuse to take action. The inconvenience we will experience in the near term due to extremely aggressive regulations is nothing compared to the damage caused by AGW in the long run.