Global Climate Disruption.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Fusion, eh?

It's been pretty clear for a while that only the magnetic bottle approach might yield net power. Some of the other stuff is way cool to think about, but just cannot do it (using more power than is created is pointless). My "Manhattan" reference was geared at reducing the overall development time. I'm 50 and I would love to see it happen before I drop dead of old age. Current estimates leave me a centenarian+ before fusion really gets doable. It is possible, of course, that throwing money at the problem wouldn't make a difference to the time scale. As an American I find that frustrating, since it is what we do best.

[HopAlongBunny]

I'm 50 and I would love to see it happen before I drop dead of old age.

I am with you on that point! The good thing about throwing money at the problem is it keeps the game going.
As long as they can get funding, scientists will continue to poke and prod at fusion; I hope the "Aha" moment comes in my lifetime.

[CBR]

Many of the elements needed for solar are mined (almost exclusively) by China. I would consider it a failure on a colossal scale if we managed to remove our energy dependence on the Middle East and decided to hand it over to China. Sad thing is that many of you wish to do just that.

Just because China does most of the mining right now does not mean they have a monopoly. They just took over because it was the cheapest. They have about 37% of known global reserves while USA has another 13%. Might as well let them use theirs first, if it is so important to think in such terms.

Then there is the research with other materials like zinc, so maybe it won't be as bad as you fear.

[InsaneApache]

Oh dear me. Another sinner who hath come to repent......

The contact group included representatives from of a diverse set of countries, ranging from small to large, and from poor to rich. Hence, I do not believe that the responsibility for the problems that arose are attributable to any specific country or even set of countries. On the contrary, nearly all delegates in the meeting demonstrated the same perspective and approach, namely that any text that was considered inconsistent with their interests and positions in multilateral negotiations was treated as unacceptable. In fact, several (perhaps the majority) of the country representatives in the SPM.5.2 contact group identified themselves as negotiators in the UNFCCC negotiations. To ask these experienced UNFCCC negotiators to approve text that critically assessed the scholarly literature on which they themselves are the interested parties, created an irreconcilable conflict of interest. Thus, the country representatives were placed in an awkward and problematic position by the nature of the process.

Over the course of the two hours of the contact group deliberations, it became clear that the only way the assembled government representatives would approve text for SPM.5.2 was essentially to remove all “controversial” text (that is, text that was uncomfortable for any one individual government), which meant deleting almost 75% of the text, including nearly all explications and examples under the bolded headings. In more than one instance, specific examples or sentences were removed at the will of only one or two countries, because under IPCC rules, the dissent of one country is sufficient to grind the entire approval process to a halt unless and until that country can be appeased.

http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/

Well, well, well.....

[Ironside]

Oh dear me. Another sinner who hath come to repent......

http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/

Well, well, well.....

So, you're telling us that the nations have done a bad job on climate migation and wants to cover that up? Those sinners!

Original version. Shortened version.

They've removed most criticism and most suggestions.

[InsaneApache]

It's hardly science though is it?

[Pannonian]

It's hardly science though is it?

It's politics as well, which isn't such a bad idea as you'd want to paint it as. For all that you want to discredit those who push the green agenda, there is a political argument which you've hardly approached. Our current energy over-use leaves us uncomfortably dependent on countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia. If we decrease our usage by tightening up our efficiency, we'd be more independent of governments whom I'd rather not touch with a bargepole.

[InsaneApache]

Oh I am sorry. I thought the whole thing was about stopping us frying from all that warming.

It all makes sense now.

[CBR]

It's hardly science though is it?

Before returning to the topic of today’s blog entry — the SPM process and outcome — I want to emphasize that the IPCC’s Working Group III “Technical Summary” and the underlying Working Group III report of 15 chapters were completely untouched by the government approval process of the Summary for Policymakers. So, the crucial IPCC products – the Technical Summary and the 15 chapters of WG 3 – retain their full scientific integrity, and they merit serious public attention. Now, back to the SPM process and outcome …

So it does not affect the science in any way. Since you appear not to understand what his blog post was about maybe this article will make it more clear:
http://theconversation.com/censored-...te-talks-25813

At the plenary meeting in Berlin last week, significant changes were made to the draft summary. The approved SPM emphasises justice and sustainability more than the draft did, and downplays the need for countries to cooperate to deal with climate change.
Delegates also deleted all of the graphs and text that describe the greenhouse gas emissions of specific regions and groups of countries. The approved summary only presents data on global totals.
...
Many countries have good reasons for not wanting specific information about their own emissions to make it into the IPCC summary. If the SPM includes details of regional trends as well as global ones, that might be seen as an endorsement of a particular approach to burden-sharing.

In other words, some countries don't like a SPM that means less freedom in negotiations.

[Pannonian]

Oh I am sorry. I thought the whole thing was about stopping us frying from all that warming.

It all makes sense now.

So if there are 2 sets of benefits from following the green agenda, one scientific/environmental which you dispute, and one political which is indisputable, you want us to forgo the political benefits just because you disagree with the scientists? It doesn't harm us to follow the path they prescribe, and if you agree with their argument, it will benefit us. So it's a no risk path on the scientific side with the possibility of benefits. But on the political side, anything that lessens our dependence on the Saudis and Russians is a good thing. And against that, all you have is a HIGNFY-style "witticism".

[Ironside]

Oh I am sorry. I thought the whole thing was about stopping us frying from all that warming.

It all makes sense now.

I'm still not seeing your point. The green agenda, as you put it, has the claim that global warming is real and without radical measurements to reduce CO2 emissions, we'll have a lot of problems in the future. A lot of countries agrees with that, but won't put money where their mouth is. Their influence has done the report much more vague on the specific parts.

It's proof of current narrative. Yet it's supposed to prove that IPCC is cheating on the science to show that global warming is much worse that it really is. That's by reducing criticism. (Rape is worse than murder! Let us change the punishment of this hideous crime to fines!)

It's like saying that capturing Russian soldiers in Ukraine (the narrative) shows that American soldiers are manipulating things.

[Fragony]

Owww, nice report comming up, hasn't been released yet but this is going to be fun.

Think about the children, I mean 'agents of change'

[Fragony]

Owww, nice report comming up, hasn't been released yet but this is going to be fun.

Think about the children, I mean 'agents of change'

[Papewaio]

Here is an easy to read one from the US:
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/

[Beskar]

Think about the children, I mean 'agents of change'

You make that sound sinister but it is a fact that children and young people adapt far more quickly than older people. They usually are not have rooted ideologically either so they can see the evidence and pick what is the right direction (usually).

For example with technology, my parents never ever used the computer and they avoided it like an alien device, even now when they have their own laptop, they have no sense of direction near it. On the other hand being younger, I saw the benefits almost instantly and very versatile around a computer system. Even as I have grown older, there are some trends which I haven't caught on which I have noticed in my nieces and nephews, luckily, they are not anything important or worthwhile. So technically speaking, children and young adults are agents of change in society.

[Husar]

It's similar to the lifetime of a product, ideally it goes from stars via cash cows to old dogs.
I.e. young people are highly innovative and very promising, then they just have to rake in the money to keep society working before they can retire and are discontinued. Thus human resources. Capitalism just follows the path nature has carved out for all of its products.

[HopAlongBunny]

It's real.
It's happening.
We're pretty much already at the point of dealing with its effects, rather than preventing those effects.

Enjoy!


Addition:

U.S. focused assessment:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/...-already-here/

[Beskar]

It's real.
It's happening.
We're pretty much already at the point of dealing with its effects, rather than preventing those effects.

Good timing to vote Green in the EU election then.

[HopAlongBunny]

A little comment on "balance" in climate debate:

http://happynicetimepeople.com/john-...porting-video/

[HopAlongBunny]

This more about "sinking land" than rising seas, and less about climate change than about unintended consequences.
It strikes me as a very visual illustration of the cost of commerce (in some cases)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...aring-quickly/

[HopAlongBunny]

Back on topic

I just watched an interesting DVD; it makes the case that fossil fuels pale in comparison to the GHG contributions from agriculture. Its a dirty little secret that goes to the bottom line of environment, industry, and government:

http://cowspiracy.com/

.com link back up; here is the facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/cowspiracymovie?_fb_noscript=1

[a completely inoffensive name]

Methane is a lot more potent than carbon dioxide in terms of the greenhouse effect. Methane eventually breaks down into carbon dioxide after two decades (has a half life of two decades), but the damage is immense.

[HopAlongBunny]

That's more or less why I thought we were headed for the inevitable with the melting of permafrost in Canada and Russia; turns out there is a more prolific source of methane.
The DVD is quite informative, aside from the numbers (which are of course highly disputed) the legal bulwark agri-industry has built up is jaw dropping.
As one rancher points out; He could defend himself because what he had said on Oprah was true; since that time, even if what you say is true you can be found guilty thanks to the Patriot Act.

[HopAlongBunny]

The DVD raises issues along the lines of this:

http://timeforchange.org/are-cows-ca...at-methane-CO2

Deforestation for livestock and other uses (with pasture being dominant):

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0262e/a0262e00.pdf

Ocean dead zones and habitat degradation (agi run-off, algae and creation of deadzones:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_%28ecology%29

I'm sure there are better sources to illustrate each point, but I'm not interested in paying for the articles that caught my eye

[Beskar]

The DVD raises issues along the lines of this:
http://timeforchange.org/are-cows-ca...at-methane-CO2

The slightly depressing thing is that you are making this sound as if it is all brand-new. I remember being taught over 16 years ago that Cows (and Agriculture) played a big impact. Biggest man made contributor.

[HopAlongBunny]

Like any good scam the DoD is all over it

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...lobal-warming/

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So euthanize half the human population of the planet; allow all meat animals to die of a ripe old age; revert the remainder of the human population to organic agro-subsistence with a vegan diet augmented with plenty of downloadable music and scads of internet porn; outlaw personal wealth or the acquisition of same past a pile 10-years current salary or higher; set production standards etc. for required industries by standing government regulatory committees; prohibit indirect ownership via stocks and prohibit separate corporate "persons."

Problem solved, climate returns to natural-fluctuation within a century.

[InsaneApache]

Great isn't it?

[Fisherking]

Climate change PROVED to be 'nothing but a lie', claims top meteorologist

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature...hannel-founder

Consensus is not science. It is popular opinion. How scientific is that?

On the other hand calls to obey consensus is quite authoritarian. Right there with an agenda. Tax and control.

[Beskar]

Why you cite a tabloid, a paper of limited value and makes money from popularizing viewpoints and claims beyond any evidence (like the Daily Mail in the other thread) in exchange of money, as your source? Especially when you purposefully speak against popularization in your statement.