[url=https://permanentsettlement.wordpress.com/2016/12/18/to-hell-with-neoliberal-environmentalism/]To Hell with Neoliberal Environmentalism[/url] | Permanent Settlement

[QUOTE=David John Hill Jr;105339]Wan't to argue against global warming?
Won't convince me.
[/QUOTE]
Humans may or may not be significantly contributing to global warming. In either case, it's pretty much useless for individuals to reduce their carbon emissions.

[b]Possibility 1:[/b] There is no global warming, or there is some warming that's almost entirely caused by nature, not humans.

[b]Case for possibility 1:[/b] There is approximately 1.4 billion (1.4x10^9) cubic kilometers of water on the Earth. The world's population is approximately 7 billion. Do the math, and it's approximately 5 people per km^3 of water. Do you think that 5 random people doing ordinary things have the power to raise the temperature of a cubic kilometer of water by a degree or more? 3 of those 5 people will probably be children and/or poor people in developing countries, and this assumes that all of the heat goes into the oceans, with no heating on the land. For reference, a cubic kilometer of water is approximately the volume of a lake that's about ten miles long, two miles wide, and 63 feet deep. So, are a few random people that powerful, or are natural forces responsible for the rise in temperatures, assuming there is a rise?

Also, is the world warming? Many modern surface temperature readings are affected by the urban heat island effect, and many older surface temperature readings are unreliable (google "hottest temperature on earth" as an example for some controversial readings many decades ago). Satellite temperature readings don't go back very far, and anecdotal evidence is spotty and unreliable. The world may be warming after all, but at this time, we may not have enough data to prove it beyond any reasonable doubt.

[b]Individual action to take if possibility 1 is true:[/b] Nothing. Why change your lifestyle for a problem that doesn't exist?

[b]Possibility 2:[/b] Global warming is real and almost entirely caused by humans.

[b]Case for possibility 2:[/b] The vast majority of climate scientists agree that the world is warming. They may have access to data that the public doesn't have, and/or the analysis that they do with the data is too difficult or complex for the average person to process. In any case, they've spent more time on that issue than anyone else. They don't really have a motive to lie, unlike the big energy companies. It's also virtually impossible for so many of the world's climate scientists to successfully pull off a conspiracy that has lasted this long. We seem to value expertise in all fields except climate science. If you have a fever, like the Earth is, who would you trust, a doctor or some random guy on the Internet?

Even the skeptics acknowledge that co2 is a greenhouse gas. They only differ on the magnitude of that effect. Again, who would you trust, scientists who've spent their entire careers on this, or some blogger or talk radio host who spent little time on the actual science and lots of time on other political issues?

[b]Individual action to take if possibility 2 is true:[/b] If possible, move out of areas that will be hit hard by a changing climate. Fortify your house to better withstand natural disasters. Be prepared for emergencies and keep a stockpile of dried food, bottled water, and basic medical supplies (and maybe guns, depending on how bad things can be in your area. Just look at what happened with Hurricane Katrina). Avoid purchasing or investing in property near sea level or in companies that will take a big hit once the world further warms. Re-evaluate the insurance you have and consider increasing it. See the glaciers, the polar ice caps, and the endangered arctic species before they disappear.

Humans emit 1000 tons of co2 every second. Cutting your emissions to zero for the rest of your life will only postpone the world's day of reckoning by a tiny fraction of a second. Instead, appreciate the conveniences of a carbon-intense lifestyle and do the things in the above paragraph as soon as you can, while you still can.

[url=www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/02/greenland-ice-sheet-melting-600-percent-faster-predicted-current-models.html]Greenland Ice Sheet Melting 600 Percent Faster Than Predicted by Current Models[/url] | naked capitalism

Excellent layperson-level discussion of the very different feedback mechanisms at the 2 poles:
[quote]

DIMITRI LASCARIS: I’d like to begin by asking you to describe for us, in general terms, the effect that the planet’s warming is having now on Arctic sea ice.

DAVID BARBER: Well, a good way to think about it is the planet, as a whole, as it changes temperature, as it increases in temperature, it has a disproportionate effect as a function of latitude of the planet. We’ve increased by about 1 degree Celsius globally across the entire planet. But in the Arctic, we’ve increased, on average, two to three times that, relative to the rest of the planet.

And the reason for that is, the Arctic is an ocean covered by sea ice, and that sea ice is white. So, when you have solar insulation on the surface, it reflects that energy from the sun back to space when the white cover is there; when there is no white cover there, it’s a dark ocean and it absorbs that energy from the sun into the ocean. You then have to get rid of all that energy for sea ice to form in the fall, and that is one of the main reasons why we’re seeing an amplification of this global warming signal in the Arctic.

...

DIMITRI LASCARIS: And thus far, we’ve been talking about the effect on ice of global warming in the northern hemisphere. What are we seeing in Antarctica currently? What are the current trends telling us?

DAVID BARBER: Well, it’s complicated, just like it is in the Arctic. But the general thing you see in the media is that the sea ice in the southern hemisphere is not shrinking as quickly as the sea ice in the northern hemisphere is. And that’s very true. But it’s also very expected by us who work on sea ice. And the reason for that is, that the southern hemisphere is a very large land mass that’s covered with a very large glacier situated right in the center of the southern pole, and then surrounding it you have this sea ice.

So, you have this very large cold source, that is losing mass quickly to the oceans, which is increasing the amount of fresh water that goes into the marine system in the Antarctic. And that causes sea ice to actually grow more efficiently.

In the northern hemisphere, we have an ocean surrounded by continents, which is a much different scenario. As we lose that sea ice in the northern hemisphere, we go back to this issue of a dark surface, versus a white surface, and that dark surface speeds up the removal of more sea ice in the northern hemisphere. So, that’s why we’re losing so much sea ice in the North Pole, relative to the South Pole.

Both of them are giving us very strong signals that this global scale record that we have, this global scale increase in temperature, is affecting both poles very substantially. And of course, the other big thing in the southern hemisphere is all this land ice. It’s the removal of that land ice into the ocean system, which then eventually melts, which leads to sea level rise. So, these are very important issues, both for the southern hemisphere, and the northern hemisphere.[/quote]

As mentioned in the article, ice records show a period of significant cooling in northern Europe. I may just be using a different name, but isn't that effect likely tied to the slowing of the ocean conveyor, caused by less dense fresh water around Greenland? Slowing the conveyor means less Gulf Stream warmth arriving up north.

I wonder how cold it has to get in Germany and Norway, not to mention Iceland and the British Isles, before ice starts to accumulate in the Arctic Ocean again.

Yeah, the arctic reflect the sun, and if no ice, no reflection. Especially in the last months, during the arctic night... (when the Sun faces south pole, not north pole).

[QUOTE=kladner;452466]As mentioned in the article, ice records show a period of significant cooling in northern Europe. I may just be using a different name, but isn't that effect likely tied to the slowing of the ocean conveyor, caused by [U]less dense fresh water [/U]around Greenland? Slowing the conveyor means less Gulf Stream warmth arriving up north.

I wonder how cold it has to get in Germany and Norway, not to mention Iceland and the British Isles, before ice starts to accumulate in the Arctic Ocean again.[/QUOTE]
"Less dense" should have been hyphenated, and possibly preceded by "more." :smile:

[url=thediplomat.com/2017/02/why-is-asia-returning-to-coal/]Why Is Asia Returning to Coal?[/url] | The Diplomat

[QUOTE=ewmayer;453422][URL="http://thediplomat.com/2017/02/why-is-asia-returning-to-coal/"]Why Is Asia Returning to Coal?[/URL] | The Diplomat[/QUOTE]

I must admit, I sympathize with the Japanese for disbanding their nuclear plants since the Fukushima disaster, but coal...? Really?! There is no such thing as 'green' or 'clean' coal.

But we (the Netherlands) aren't doing any better:
[URL]https://energytransition.org/2017/02/the-dutch-step-away-from-their-gas/[/URL]
(2017-02-20)
NLD is nowhere near the 14% renewable energy goal set for 2020 (actually we're at only ~5%). One of the obstacles: Royal Dutch Shell, which in 2013 had revenues equivalent to 84% of the Netherlands $556 billion GDP. Shell is finally realizing it should invest in renewables, but for such a big company $1billion is just spare change money....

From what I've heard, China is leading the charge when it comes to renewable energy research. My idiot Arkansan neighbors blame China for pollution, they don't care that Americans are the biggest energy users on the planet. I guess they just see a number, count the digits and stop thinking.

[QUOTE=jasong;453839]From what I've heard, China is leading the charge when it comes to renewable energy research.[/QUOTE]

That's my general understand as well.

Please understand that the Asian thinking tends to be extremely long term. For example, I read a book which suggested that Sony had a 300 year business plan.

[QUOTE=jasong;453839]My idiot Arkansan neighbors blame China for pollution, they don't care that Americans are the biggest energy users on the planet. I guess they just see a number, count the digits and stop thinking.[/QUOTE]

That's their folly.

There are many opportunities available in the energy space, long after the dinosaurs remains have been burnt.

[QUOTE=jasong;453839]My idiot Arkansan neighbors blame China for pollution, they don't care that Americans are the biggest energy users on the planet. I guess they just see a number, count the digits and stop thinking.[/QUOTE]
You are both correct, it depends on the context.

China as a country emits more CO2 than the USA and the EU combined (in 2014)
China 10,540,000 kt
USA 5,334,000 kt
EU 3,415,000 kt

But in terms of CO2 per capita they are 'greener' than USA citizens:
China 7.6 t
USA 16.5 t
EU 6.7 t

[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions"]wikipedia - List CO2 by countries[/URL]