Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change

Here's a dose of realism about ice.

No New York Times, Melting Ice in Greenland Isn’t a Serious Threat
GLACIERS NOVEMBER 1, 2022

". . . But the real elephant (or maybe we should say mouse) in the room is the claims of ice loss made in the NYT article where they say: “From April 2002 to July 2022, Greenland has lost more than 5,000 gigatons of ice to the ocean.”

Sounds huge, but as pointed out in Climate at a Glance: Greenland Ice Melt, compared to all the ice in Greenland, the loss of ice is hardly noticeable as seen in Figure 1. When recent ice loss since about 2002 is compared to the full Greenland ice sheet, the loss is so small that it is almost undetectable.




Figure 1. A comparison of presentations of satellite data capturing Greenland’s ice mass loss. The image on the right shows changes in Greenland’s ice mass relative to Greenland’s total ice mass. Sources: The data plotted in these graphs are from the Ice Sheet Mass Balance Inter-Comparison Exercise, a joint exercise by NASA and the European Space Agency.4 Graphs originally by Willis Eschenbach. Adapted and annotated by Anthony Watts.


While the NYT might give a good story here of observations via airplane flyovers and quotes from locals that say they’ve seen ice disappear, it is all anecdotal, and not science. As seen in Figure 1, the full-context examination of the Greenland ice data shows only a tiny fraction of Greenland’s ice sheet is melting, and with very little impact—the exact opposite of what many climate activists and media outlets claim. . . . "

 

I did it's heavily subsidized solar power even more you only subsidize things that suck because they can't survive on their own.

it is the truth.

this is just greeny weenie cult brainwashing I don't argue against it are you against it validates it. It just simply isn't valid.

this is a religious approach just look at how much we sin we sin and sin and sin some more. There is always going to be a cost for producing energies called the laws of physics.

it's not that the demand is sky high it's that the supply is minuscule.

They made electric cars as far back as 1840 and for my entire life and 40 years before it they made electric cars. Anybody could have had an electric car at any time. They don't want them because they suck. A few people want them because they are status symbols kind of like a Coach handbag.

They don't want them because they are superior in any way they are not.

Tuesday undeniable reality of why they're not.

A gas-powered car has machine parts like pistons and valves and rockers and lifters and crankshafts and camshafts and timing chains, transmissions exhaust pipes computer controls and so forth. It is infinitely more complicated to make than an electric car.

But the technology that's in the Tesla regarding the drivetrain existed in the 1930s and nobody built a car that used it because they suck.

Let's see what happens if Toyota and Ford and Chevrolet each produce millions of them. I'm Beth hitting once people realize what garbage they are and how ridiculously expensive they are to maintain they won't be able to give them away.

Tesla so far is the only example. Rivian will probably go belly up in the next 2 years polstar is Chinese owned as a division of Volvo so maybe they'll stick around but I don't think people are going to buy them.

And I'm curious to see what quality lucid will have.

Before the GM electric products are garbage and they don't even compete.

yeah just like what Toyota Nissan Ford GM Mercedes BMW Saab Volkswagen all did they started with luxury cars.

Lol.

Also these aren't luxury cars they're horrendous compared to luxury cars. I can get a Citron from the 1990s it is far more luxurious than any of this garbage.

something I don't remember is the government making laws that mandated You by a Japanese car by a certain year.

Again you only have to do that because capitalism won't do what you want.

You have to force people to buy things that suck they wouldn't do it otherwise.

No we're not. We're seeing more along the lines of what happened in Soviet Russia or Yugoslavia. The government forbids capitalism so that they can prop up companies that make garbage that no one wants otherwise.

If you believe this is like what happened to Detroit remove the loss and see if Ford drops production of that garbage F-150 that can't tell anything. See if rivian springs black to life after having to recall every piece of garbage they built.

 

If you can’t back up your opinion with data you are conceding the point. You made these claims.

Let’s look at crop yields first.





Three major crops showing positive yield growth over the 5 year average.

I can’t find any data to support your argument. Summer precipitation is normal or slightly increased from historical averages. Where does the water go? You say it runs off the fields but how can the rivers be dry then?

There are predictions all over the Internet about extreme rain events in the future but I can’t find any data showing changes thus far. You claimed you had a graph of facts but I can’t get you to produce it. I know what I’ve posted. I’m asking you to substantiate your claim. If you posted it please direct me to it as I’ve looked through your posts several times. If I missed it I’m happy to admit my mistake.

As always I’m open to evidence, but the only evidence I can find directly refutes your claims.

You describe your area as having the perfect climate at some undefined point in the past. The perfect climate is subjective. To define a climate as “perfect” is a statement of personal taste.

 

Yes, I agree different parts of the world require different strategies and that monitoring locally is important.

The difference is commercial foresters are mostly concerned about wood for harvest. And they are more apt to favor monoculture models that require commercial fertilizers for maximum production. Long term soil health based on soil biological diversity isn’t pursued so the forests aren’t actually sustainable without fossil fuel inputs like commercial nitrogen fertilizers.


Conservationist target sustainability through biological diversity. Understory flora is encouraged that has the ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen and pull micronutrients from the soil so they are available to over-story species.


While “tree farming” isn’t sustainable at high carbon sequestration rates without fossil fuel inputs, the practice is certainly valuable as it prevents old growth and other sustainable forests to remain unharvested. In other words, while commercial forestry isn’t perfect it beats the alternative.

The likelihood of a planted forest developing diversity of flora and fauna comparable to native old growth forest is almost zero, at least over a period of a couple human generations. That’s why we both prefer old growth most likely.


Planted forests can be designed to do a couple functions well in relation to affecting climate, but it’s impossible to replace the beauty and wonder/efficiency/sustainability of biological diversity inherent to established native forests.

I’m a big proponent of carbon sequestration using all plant and animal life. I advocate for a greener planet even though the current environmental movement is in direct opposition to the building blocks of a greener planet.

Both are part of the carbon cycle. Varying time periods of sequestration vs. free environmental carbon are irrelevant. Sequestered carbon can always be released and used to build life forms. It makes no difference if it’s wood sequestered for 20 years or oil sequestered for millions of years. Both have great value for potential greening of the planet. We have limitless opportunities to use increasing atmospheric carbon to our benefit and to the benefit of other species as well.

I don’t know how in depth you want to go on deforestation and how much it has attributed to atmospheric CO2 directly and by reducing sequestration pools but the numbers are staggering and most are unaware of them. If you have read my posts in this thread you will have seen how unaware people are of the correlation between warming and global deforestation. Apparently most believe there is little to no correlation.

Yep. Clear cutting is death on soils. Thankfully I’ve never seen the results in person. My dad cut timber in Colorado off and on when I was a kid and teen. I saw a lot of timber cut on a lot of different sales/leases and never saw a clear cut. Even when a small percentage of trees were taken there could be a lot of soil destabilization from road building and skidding/loading operations. Clear cutting would be horrific to see.

Yes, when soils move aquatic and non aquatic life forms downstream always suffer. In Pakistan it’s causing flooding that kills men, women, and children.

 

If its left to the free market Coal would still be our main source of fuel. The free market cannot afford to consider niceties such as pollution, unless their competitors are also forced to do the same.

 

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. The free market created fracking which made natural gas cheaper which did more than anything else in history to reduce carbon emissions.

I wasn't subsidized by the government at least not to the degree that in waste of space solar and wind is.

The government can't make a competitor they've propped up wind and solar and it's never going to be a competitor I doubt it gets beyond 2% of the energy we consume.

 

Busy at the moment, perhaps this might help.
https://www.ceh.ac.uk/news-and-medi...perienced a prolonged,we move into the autumn.
And perhaps we are considering different crops
https://european-seed.com/2022/09/drought-drops-european-potato-crop-by-7-to-11-percent/

 

Natural gas became popular after the restrictions on the use of coal. That was government.

 

Yes, southwest US states killed a lot of forests as well and pay a high price in higher temps, less precipitation and less capture of precipitation that does fall. Once deforestation begins it creates a snowball effect of negative consequences that quickly compound. As I mentioned earlier in the thread with Pakistan, it’s no surprise the parts of the planet that destroyed the most trees are on the lists of places most at risk from “climate change”. Of course they are. They destroyed their local climate and what I do or don’t do with carbon management can’t help them. Local climate issues caused by local deforestation etc. can’t be solved at the global level.

The vast majority of Pakistan is tropical/subtropical. But yes the elevated regions in the Himalayas get cold. Unfortunately, the majority of the whole country still uses wood to cook and heat. That accounts for a lot of deforestation. But other causes are huge as well. One being unsustainable agricultural practices that lead to abandonment of land and deforestation for “new” land with organic matter and nutrients. Mangroves in the coasts were decimated as well, but are coming back better than forests in other regions.

Not a problem. There are many native species that are well suited to their regions of Pakistan. Nature spent hundreds of thousands of years selecting excellent species for each region. One example being mangroves mentioned above. They are well suited to coastal climates and provide innumerable benefits including coastal erosion protection, storm surge flooding protection, and spawning areas for a large percentage of species important to fisheries.

The problem in Pakistan isn’t that there aren’t fine native species for every region, it’s that humans kill trees and create soil conditions that discourage or completely prevent natural and artificial afforestation.

I picked corn until 10:00 pm last night. Moved equipment and tended livestock until 11:00 pm. Ate supper and slept until 5:00 am when I milked cows, then started raking hay at 6:00 am. Now I’m off to deliver a load of corm to the elevator so when I get home it’s light enough to feed the weaned calves and see if any are developing respiratory illness.

Maybe someday we can get into specifics but I’m out for today.

Not really limiting. Just pointing out local problems with climate caused by local anthropogenic actions require local solutions. When the main problem with regional or local climate isn’t caused by AGW, you can’t solve it by some slight reduction in CO2 emissions on the other side of the planet.

Let’s say you buy a house on one acre that has 40 mature beautiful trees surrounding it and live there for two years. Your heating and cooling bill is stable. Your vegetable garden thrives. Your neighbor is happy to live next to you.

One day you cut down 35 of your trees. Your next electric bill goes up $50 because you’re AC is working harder without the shade and transpiration cooling effects of your trees. Hot winds and direct sun toasts your vegetable garden. One day it rains and you notice big cuts of erosion forming in your yard. Fall comes. Your heating bill is higher than last year. It rains again. The previous rain clogged the culvert with soil so the runoff from this rain goes into your neighbor’s yard and floods his in ground pool and his tool shed. He’s pissed.

I ask you how you are one day and you tell me your life is crap because of climate change. You are hotter in the summer, colder in the winter, you are dealing with flooding and erosion and can’t grow food as well anymore. You tell me we need to stop using fossil fuels because AGW is killing you. And you won’t believe me when I tell you it doesn’t matter how much wind power I buy or how small a pickup I drive, you are still going to pay more to heat and cool your house. Your garden is still going to suffer, and your yard is still going to end up flooding your neighbor.

That’s what is going on when we read articles about climate problems in Pakistan and may other places. Blame is being misappropriated. When this happens the core problems are not addressed.

 

Actually, natural gas beat coal on price.

 

Media commentary on one year’s weather is not evidence of climate changes. If I claimed my climate had changed would you accept one year of data as evidence?

 

Fun fact. In 2020 the EU harvested 27% less potatoes than in 2000.

In 2020 the EU cultivated area of potatoes was almost half the cultivated area of potatoes in 2000.

Does that look like a decreasing yield trend? See why facts matter?

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/stati..._-_statistics_on_production,_prices_and_trade

 

Not at the time it didn't

 

Looks to me like they adjusted to climate change. Doesn't change the fact that crops are much reduced from what was expected.

 

I wasn't trying to prove climate change. I was showing you evidence that we did have a drought.
Do you still need proof of climate change

 

You claimed there was a new normal of torrential rains that run off fields but not into rivers and that resulted in lower yields.

 

I want you to provide evidence for the claims of yours I quoted. Guess that’s too much to ask.

Why would I need proof of “change “ generically? I want evidence your specific claims have merit. I guess they don’t. Why not admit it or provide the evidence? Should be easy if true….

Every “change” in climate you’ve claimed has no evidence of existing. Every result of the unproven change you have claimed turns out to be false. By a large margin

 

I wouldn't take the word of CleanTechnica on what our energy plans are.

And, as they point out in their article, what they are claiming has not been written.

My bet is there are parts that are true. For instance, it makes some sense to figure our what the limits of wind and solar are. And, of course there is the most expensive power we know about - nuclear.

 

You said no one was aiming at 100% renewables. That link refutes your claim.

 

Yes that's been the direction we've been heading in. Much hotter weather, with heavy rain storms. Last two years our lawn has gone completely brown, never used to happen. Thunderstorms the like we have never seen but the ground bone dry again 24 hours later.

I have provided evidence. Its in our news, farmers weekly, annual reports etc. You can assume they are all lying if you wish.
Your rainfall charts only measure the amount of rain, not how it falls and how quickly it runs off or evaporates from the hot dry ground.
2020 from our Met office. Another unusual year.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/met-office-a-review-of-the-uks-climate-in-2020/
It is no exaggeration to say that 2020 has been a dramatic and memorable year for the UK – and our weather and climate is no exception.
We have experienced periods of record-breaking rainfall, record dry and sunny periods, and another notable summer heatwave.

As far as I know no one measures how fast rain falls. So the only evidence is reports of flash flooding etc

 

No one as in no one that counts.

 

I assumed you knew what the term Climate Change was shorthand for.

 

Looks tiny, took it into Excel and its about 2%, a fair bit.
I think the point you are missing is that the ice didn't used to melt at this rate, so somethings happening. Thankfully those making the decisions are not waiting for Greenland to be truly green before they start taking action.

 

Nope. As the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, you're entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts.

 

99.5% of the ice in/on Greenland in 1900 is still there.