Losing sustainability in the urban canyons
New York: from the UN Commission on Sustainable Development
Could New York be the world's least sustainable city?
The question came to me as I walked down the narrow corridors that pass for open space here, the city canyons that guide the cars and the people (in that order of priority) between the soaring walls of stone and glass.
I'm here for the two weeks of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) meeting - not reporting, but running a project aimed at enhancing media coverage of sustainable development issues in developing countries and the former Soviet bloc.
With journalists from Bulgaria, India, Kenya and Peru, we're running a mini radio station from the basement of the UN, reporting on the themes of the CSD negotiations, on issues raised by the numerous interest groups represented at the meeting, and - as making good radio means getting out of the studio - on some of the sustainability projects scattered among the suburbs of New York.
What exactly is meant by "sustainable development" is a question I'll come to in a moment - or rather, a question that one of the journalists I'm working with, Madhyama Subramanian, will come to.
But for many at the meeting, it's largely about the L-word: local production of food, local generation of energy, local employment, and so on.
I've had a long think about this as I trudge to and from the ageing UN headquarters through Manhattan's man-made canyons.
And it's an important question. Soon, more than half of the world's population will live in cities; and although few of them are as densely packed as New York, clearly the view that sustainable communities involve villages growing their own food and making biogas from residues left by their own cows is becoming less relevant.
Hope springs here, however. New York NGOs have taken international delegates on bus tours of urban farms, and showcased projects seeking to create green collar jobs in the city's most deprived areas.
Are these projects anything more than sticking plaster? Before answering, I thought I'd better do a few sums.
With a land area of about 60 square kilometres, Manhattan contains about 1.8 million people.
If you covered the area with wind turbines, packing them as closely together as you can without creating "wind shadows" for each other, then by my calculations you could install enough capacity to generate, at absolute maximum, about 1.5GW.
Manhattan's maximum electricity demand now is about 2GW. So maybe if you also covered every roof with solar panels, installed CHP schemes in every tower block and trimmed demand by installing smart meters in every home, you could just about envisage the district generating enough low-carbon electricity to meet its needs - though what the place would look like is another matter.
That's just electricity, of course; self-sufficiency in overall energy is a very different matter - unless the stream of big yellow taxis enters a permanent parking lot and everyone switches to big yellow bicycles, I suppose.
Food is a more difficult calculation because dietary habits and consumption can somersault with the circumstances of our lives. But according to one estimate, the average American - a person I've yet to meet, by the way - requires about half a hectare to produce the food he or she will consume in a year.
Cover Manhattan's roofs with the finest agricultural soils - best of luck with the Chrysler Building, by the way - and by that measure you'd produce enough food to feed 12,000-odd people. Window boxes, fungi raised in dank cupboards and chickens given free range of the streets might add a few extra calories but it's going to be totally inadequate whichever way you cut the cake.
And the waste... as they say in these parts, "don't even go there".
All these are very rough calculations. But I hope the point is obvious: a city cannot survive without the life-support system of the land around, and the more densely packed it is, the less local must its service providers be.
So some other measure has to be arrived at for the sustainability of city life: the merely local metric won't do, and the idea that every crowded city can generate its own energy with no help from outside - let alone grow its own food - must surely be a product of an over-optimistic imagination.
I have no idea what that other metric might be. But as more of the world's cities echo the high-rise citadels of New York and Hong Kong, it would probably be a good idea to work it out pretty quickly.
Street life
The term "sustainable development" has been around for decades, but do people outside the confines of UN headquarters know what it means?
"A few days back, I was out on the streets of New York asking people if they knew the meaning of the term "sustainable development, as part of our radio project at the CSD," writes Madhyama Subramanian. She goes on:
"I was a wee bit nervous, but was also quite looking forward to it, since this is my first trip to the US and I was just a day old in New York, still understanding the Avenue and Street system.
"And I had heard quite a bit about how people in America really value their private space.
"It was an amusing mix of responses and people, on a rainy Monday morning!
"Many people were really serious, busy, on their way somewhere, and just the sight of my microphone made them veer past me.
"I began first by asking some elderly people, because I thought they would be more open and patient in talking to nosy journalists, and my guess was right... they were not in much of a hurry.
"I began by being really correct and asking people for permission to speak to them, and the number of 'No's I got made me miss India a bit; there, almost anyone on the street would be happy to talk to you, especially if you had a mic - in fact, they would answer you and then ask which channel the interview would go out on.
"Anyway, a number of people did answer my question, and the responses of the number of people who did not know what sustainable development meant was very amusing, ranging from a simple 'No' to 'I have never heard the word sustain' to 'I am new to America, so, I don't know about these things'."
"But what really struck me was the conversation that I had with an African-American cleaner called Roy Holder.
"He was loading huge black garbage bags onto the garbage truck. When I asked him if he knew what sustainable development means, he said that he didn't, and asked for the meaning.
"I told him that it was about caring for the resources of our planet, and using them such that they last over a long period of time.
"To my surprise, he immediately started talking about what he felt.
"He said: 'Starting from the Industrial Revolution, when the bigwigs known as part of the new world order started their programme to become the first billionaires, they stole this land from the native Indians.
"'They polluted this land, and in their greed they destroyed it - so much so that now the Earth itself is a living organism and it has started reacting with natural disasters.
"'I do this (cleaning) for money, but it also helps cleaning up the Earth. You replenish the Earth, come back and clean it up, one person at a time and try to get others, not forcibly, but willingly, to help do the same thing.
"'In other words, we got to return back to common sense.'
"What was striking about Roy was his confidence and his very matter-of-fact understanding of sustainable development, without any knowledge of the term.
"I think that as long as we all have the basic understanding of our relation to planet Earth and the understanding that we have to use our resources carefully, we can hope for the planet that is well looked after.
"Then does it really matter whether we call it 'sustainable development', 'curtailed consumption' or any other term that makes its way into the hallways of buildings that discuss development?
"And if we have to educate people about caring for the planet, I guess it has to be in a way that people can relate to in an everyday kind of way.
"A couple of days later I was in Central Park, asking people why they liked this huge, fantastic, magical place.
"And the words that came often in my conversations there were very simple ones - nature, happy, blue, green, energy, peace!"
I'm Richard Black, environment correspondent for the BBC News website. This is my take on what's happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature's resources increases.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~43~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This is something that has long bothered me about buying local food. It might be fine if you live in Norwich surrounded by the sparsely populated and highly fertile Norfolk soil. But I've never been able to work out how it could apply to London or Birmingham or Manchester. Sure you read articles or see TV programmes about how a family in a big city have managed it. But what about 3 million families with barely a green space in sight. I wonder how many other sustainble ideas are really sustainable on a grand scale. I watch "Grand Designs" on channel 4 and Kevin McCloud tells us its sustainable to use straw to insulate our houses as it has little "embedded energy". But the government tells us we need to build 3 million homes over the next 20 years. Is this really suatainable on such a huge scale? I'm not convinced there is a sustainable way for 6.5 billion (or 9.5 billion) people to live on this planet, at least not in what we would call prosperity. But organisations like the "Optimum Population Trust" send shudders down my spine (even if they are supported by the avuncular David Attenborough)
Complain about this comment
"This is something that has long bothered me about buying local food. It might be fine if you live in Norwich surrounded by the sparsely populated and highly fertile Norfolk soil. But I've never been able to work out how it could apply to London or Birmingham or Manchester."
Uh, you buy from Kent or Norfolk or...
And not from China, Venezuela, Spain, ...
If you really want to get picky, unless you grow all your food in your own back garden, it's not local produce either.
Complain about this comment
Must be a typo because Manhattan has over 8 million residents, not 1 million. Silly Brit!
Complain about this comment
When i lived in a big city, i was lucky to live in a 1930's council house with a large garden and grew some of my own veg. Now I live near a big city and find buying a £10 box of seasonal fruit and veg from the local farmer is pretty good, although still need to go to the local supermarket. Not everybody is fortunate enough to have local food supplies
Complain about this comment
Welcome to NY and good luck interviewing people over the next two weeks - It's not that New Yorkers can't be friendly or responsive but their first concern is anonymity. We certainly don't lack for opinions. I'm confident your visit to NYC will be a unique and interesting experience. Perhaps you will visit one of the Green Markets [Union Square 14th St] and see a small but steady source of local / regional food [so much more could be done] The city* is surrounded by water: wind & wave action may be utilized in the future to offset the grid. *To counter one of the comments: NYC is comprised of 5 boroughs: Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, & Staten Island = 8M residents. Recommend "Top of the Rock" for best views, and the esplande along the Hudson River from Battery Park to Chealsea for best stroll.
p.s. Avenues run north/south and Streets run East/West
Complain about this comment
Richard has missed an important point about large cities like New York - its residents are actually more energy efficient than their neighbours in the suburbs. New Yorkers tend to live in flats, which use less energy to heat, cool and light than detached homes. New Yorkers walk to work or take the subway - again more efficient that driving.
Indeed, if every New Yorker had a patch of land for a wind turbine, solar panel and vegetable garden the city would sprawl over a much larger area - and its energy consumption would rise.
Green spaces are nice, but having to cross them to get to work or the shops costs energy and contributes to climate change!
Complain about this comment
Sustainable is NOT the same as saying locally produced.
Sustainable development means a development of society (say, a continual improvement of standards of living) but which can be continued for EVER. The most important pre-requisite for this is that development shouldn't rely on depleting finte resources.
The present reliance on hydrocarbon fuels for transportation implies that locally produced goods, like food, should be more sustainable than those shipped or flown large distances.
This is fine but as is pointed out in the article and comments there isn't enough land near the high population centers so true sustainability can only be achieved when production and transportation of goods can be achieved without depleting scarse resources. This is the area where the effort has to be put.
For example, fruit grown with methods that don't rely on unsustainable fertilizers and pesticides, and then transported using some future solar powered container ship could be perfectly sustainable even if it travelled half way around the world.
Unfortunately we're nowhere near that yet so local will have to do for now, but it's vital we all understand that it's not the whole answer.
Complain about this comment
"Richard has missed an important point about large cities like New York - its residents are actually more energy efficient than their neighbours in the suburbs."
And you miss that that is often due to externalities not being included. The energy efficiency is obvious when you read that their power could easily be sourced by wind power alone but that this would exclude car power. NY could use walking or pedal power. They don't, except for the very poorest.
And adding to CT's point in #4, I buy organic potatoes and onions not because "I'm green" but because they LAST LONGER!!! The pre-packaged stuff lasts a few weeks, even onions! They SHOULD last 6 months!!! Organic foods do. Probably because they haven't got enough of a market to make playing with lead-time worthwhile: this is where they know that they have a seasonality so they store up a backlog of produce to be sold later and after a while they only sell older stuff and slowly catch up to newer produce when there's a glut. So the produce you buy may have a shelf life of 6 months but already spent 5 of them sitting in the warehouse.
Makes for efficient stock control since you can reduce or increase your holdings in anticipation of a glut or paucity in the market, maximising profit levels.
Local produce can benefit from the same "lack of economy of scale" of a low-volume produce sale and be fresher.
Ever wondered why crisps were given "stay-fresh" silvered bags? Not so you'd have a longer lasting packet of crisps or fresher crisps. In fact you get staler crisps because the longer shelf life means they can smooth out demand and purchase levels and maximise profit. Selling you older packed crisps with less chance of them having gone off before sale.
Complain about this comment
re #7 second para: there has been tests done on a third-world farm where they stopped the high-additive first-world agriculture for old-style agriculture. Productivity went UP. Costs went down (you can buy a locally produced Ox cheaper than a year's worth of Roundup).
It seems that after a few years of high-intensity farming, the productivity goes down, but this is beyond the normal period used for showing productivity increases. To maintain higher yields requires more and more chemical product.
It's likely the same will happen with the old-style agriculture, but the cost of that level of advance is so much lower, the profits are higher.
Complain about this comment
#3 Hebjorkm - New York as a whole has more than 8 million people, not Manhattan.
Complain about this comment
Given the size of New York State, Manhattan could be completely sustainable on local produce grown on the fertile land upstate from Manhattan. I'm not clever on this subject, but would driving local produce from upstate instead of flying it from other countries be better for the environment? So much of it is imported and so much money is made from imports that I can't ever see this happening anyway. The same goes for a lot of US cities I suppose.
Complain about this comment
I would say the city where I live is the most unsustainable...Las Vegas,NV. A city in the middle of the Mojave Desert, which is only habitable in summer due to air conditioning. A city with limited public transport infra-structure and water resources and based economically on tourism, bright lights and excess. We produce virtually no food, barely recycle our waste.
Surely Las Vegas, NV is the most unsustainable in any measure?
Complain about this comment
Why should individual cities have a sustainable economy? What matters, ultimately, is sustainability of human life on Earth. At least that is what matters to humankind. Civilization is specialization. Modern cities are highly specialized, and they are not self-sufficient. They require food and energy produced elsewhere, also in highly specialized centers. All are interdependent. The question is, is this model better or worse for humankind than a less specialized system wherein the sustainable economic unit is much smaller? Look to societies where every family unit is responsible for its own food and shelter for the answer.
Complain about this comment
Hebjorkm (#3), you are mistaken. The population of New York City is a little over 8 million. The population of Manhattan, a part of NYC, is about 1.7 million.
Complain about this comment
That's my point (I meant to type NYC instead of Manhattan). What about the sustainability of the other 7 million residents who live in the outer boroughs and who mostly work in Manhattan? To sustain 1.5 million residents isn't that tough, but factor in the other 5-6 million people who work on the island and that is why the Energy levels are so high.
Complain about this comment
I believe 'civilization' has always meant co-dependence - between the 'city' and the rural countryside. At first, cities were very small, and the countryside which sustained them very close.
Today, as with much else, cities are very large, and the rural countryside may span a planet. There may be safety here, in a changing world.
I agree totally with 'delaplaya' #7 and 'Gary_A_Hill #13.
TandF1, on the very first post, wrote:
"I'm not convinced there is a sustainable way for 6.5 billion (or 9.5 billion) people to live on this planet, at least not in what we would call prosperity. But organisations like the "Optimum Population Trust" send shudders down my spine (even if they are supported by the avuncular David Attenborough)"
And I agree here too, although I'm not shuddering. A few of us have said as much in our Mayday Declaration. http://www.pratar.org/pu/
In his latest 'Communication', "Temple of Doom", May 5/09, the climatologist James Hansen states in a letter to the Australian government:
"Human population growth is a root cause of the stress that humanity is placing upon the global environment and upon the other species sharing our planets resources. A deliberate policy of population growth is inconsistent with preservation of climate and nature."
- James E. Hansen
Having been born and raised in the heart of Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and having spent many of my summers in the Laurentian Mountains just north of Montreal, at the family cottage, I feel like I have seen the best of two worlds. And I believe that 'the energy of life' comes from contrast.
When I climbed mountaisn for seven years full-time, I still lived in the city, this time Calgary, and I was often asked why I did not move to the mountains, say to Banff or Canmore.
Because I believe in both the city and the country, and in the still wild places too - the open sea, the great deserts, the incomparable mountains.
All, together, make us rich beyond imagining. The future can be bright with promise, and not just for the few.
It would be to our utter shame if due to ignorance or willful disinformation, or misguided good intentions, we fail to alert the people of Planet Earth to the current global environmental situation, which includes population growth and climate change, and instead of having one or two or perhaps three children spaced five years apart, we have too many too quickly and watch them die of pandemic disease, or famine and drought, or resource war, or preventable disease and malnutrition, or consign them to a less rich existence due to illiteracy and lack of education opportunity, lack of highest quality information on the internet and elsewhere, etc...
There is opportunity here, developing before our eyes in the form of necessity and the global reach of the internet, to right this ship, and sail on.
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
First, I think that Los Angeles, Cairo, New Delhi, and other Megacities in arid or semi-arid areas are far more unsustainable than NYC. People in New York recycle more per capita than anywhere else in the U.S. People there travel more by public transport than anywhere else as well. $500,000 in New York City might buy a 2,000 square foot flat (about 200 sq. meters), but in my town of Albuquerque, the same price will buy me veritable mansion, on a generous piece of land. Big city dwellers, on average, have lower ecological footprints than those in smaller cities or suburbs.
Second, you need to define LOCAL. Are the massive hydropower works at Niagara Falls part of New York City's local energy-shed? Are the massive strides in reforestation of Upstate New York related to NYC's carbon footprint? I would argue that, for megacities that serve as commuter and tourist hubs, LOCAL can mean regional. Can the suburban and rural areas of the American Northeast be managed sustainably? There are hydro-resources, wind, sun, biomass, among others that can be developed regionally. I would include Quebec and Ontario in the Northeastern Region -- in which case, the renewable resource base is enormous.
CB
Complain about this comment
If you covered the area with wind turbines, packing them as closely together as you can without creating "wind shadows" for each other, then by my calculations you could install enough capacity to generate, at absolute maximum, about 1.5GW.
Manhattan's maximum electricity demand now is about 2GW. So maybe if you also covered every roof with solar panels, installed CHP schemes in every tower block and trimmed demand by installing smart meters in every home, you could just about envisage the district generating enough low-carbon electricity to meet its needs...
That's just electricity,
Don't know the qualifications brought to bear for such calculations but, appreciating there are a few 'coulds' and 'maybes' in there, any follow up on the detail of the science and/or engineering behind these suggestions?
Complain about this comment
re 18, well one "could" is people *could* decide to do so. They *could* be ornery too.
But if they decide that they WILL have solar panels on their roofs, the statement is correct.
The actions of people are not under the auspices of inevitability or calculable like the load on a bridge in engineering.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
pot / kettle ;)
Complain about this comment
undefined.
Please define the values for variables pot and kettle.
Complain about this comment
"you could install enough capacity to generate, at absolute maximum, about 1.5GW."
And what would be the absolute reality ? 4% of that 1.5 GW? or as happened in the UK in the cold snap of early 2008 1% ?
Complain about this comment
Uh, last I looked, New York wasn't in the UK, Porkpie...
Complain about this comment
"Uh, last I looked, New York wasn't in the UK, Porkpie..."
God bless your powers of observation but did I say ,infer or suggest that it was?
"or as happened in the UK " means just that, I could have used data from other places for comparison without having the slightest intention of relocating New York
Complain about this comment
19. At 08:10am on 13 May 2009, yeah_whatever wrote:
re 18, well one "could" is people *could* decide to do so. They *could* be ornery too.
Can't even begin to try to argue with that:)
But if they decide that they WILL have solar panels on their roofs, the statement is correct. The actions of people are not under the auspices of inevitability or calculable like the load on a bridge in engineering.
However, in the spirit of enquiry I fear I must persist.
Just looking at the nice picture at the top, I merely wonder what the consequences might be as the sun moves and certain areas end up in the shade of various tall structures around and abounding.
At least in the original piece there was a caveat on the wind contribution, though again I have to wonder to what extent there may be problems from the wind patterns around such urban canyons. I am sure if Mr. Cameron had a penthouse overlooking Central Park we may have some better idea.
So no matter what people can and then decide to do, even en masse, I'd still be keen to know what the realistic generation capacities might be, bearing in mind the ambient climatic and architectural conditions, from someone who might know.
I am still hoping in matters of renewable energy deliverables, historical data and professional experience and calculations can get pretty close to a reasonable estimate. Perhaps a tad closer than the current rough calculations? This indeed may be of value to the journalists from Bulgaria, India, Kenya and Peru, and the numerous interest groups represented at the meeting, who I am sure have flown in from far and wide to appreciate all the facts about what causes climate change... and possible high enviROI mitigations, of course.
Though some terribly reasonable optimistic level lampooners may still prefer to stick a finger up in the air. To measure, of course.
Complain about this comment
Well, porkpie, it's kind of relevant when you say that New York wont get power since the UK would have had 1% power on one date.
Complain about this comment
" yeah_whatever wrote:
Well, porkpie, it's kind of relevant when you say that New York wont get power since the UK would have had 1% power on one date."
I have no wish to be unkind or rude,but perhaps you could post in English as I am unable to extract any meaning from the above.
Complain about this comment
well, porkpie, not wanting to be unkind or rude, but if you can't see why saying what is going to happen is defined by what happened once in the UK is stupid because New York isn't IN the UK, then you're lacking in brain.
Complain about this comment
The very idea of wind turbines in a city fills me with horror. Have you seen the modes of failure of turbines? Tower collapse, blade failure and fire. Any of these could have devastating consequences. And then there are problems with ice throw, noise and vibration. A simple risk assessment of putting wind turbines in heavily populated areas would show that the risks would be intolerable.
And of course, until smebody can come up with a cheap way of storing large quantities of electricity (or energy), then the intermittency problem with solar (or wind) means that you still need some back-up source of power (from outside the city) for night-time or periods of no wind).
Complain about this comment
Wow, Paw, you certainly have an imagination on you.
If I were you, I'd not watch airplain disaster movies for a while.
(PS at night time, most people are asleep and have very little need of lights, cookers, TV and other electrical conveniences)
(PPS if ice freezing is a problem, how high up do you think the skyscrapers are???)
Complain about this comment
PS at night time, most people are asleep
You seem well named, hungry, it's hardly pertinent to the discussion and I shouldn't, but in light of the above maybe there is this worth considering... http://www.hostelsclub.com/article-en-22.html
Complain about this comment
yeah_whatever:
As usual, you ignore the evidence.
Have you not seen the damage three 10ton wind turbine blades, with the tips travelling at 150mph, can cause when they disintegrate? Or what happens when a tower collapses? Or what happens when one catches fire? You think firemen can put the fire out.
So the residents of New York turn off their air-con units at night in summer and turn off their heating systems at night in winter?
I may seem to have a vivid imagination, but you seem to have zero knowledge and ignore the facts when they are presented to you.
Complain about this comment
What evidence, Paw? Do the turbine blades of the big modern turbines go 150mph? Even if the tips do, the tips are not 10 tons.
Over-egging the pudding.
And you complain about "alarmists"!!!!
How about looking at the evidence when one of those thousand-ton skyscrapers falls down like happened one year in september in New York too? Maybe we should't build them because if you smack a plane into one they fall down...
Complain about this comment
yeah_whatever;
Do we have to spoon feed you everything?
Assume a 3-bladed turbine rotates at 20rpm; blades 80m diameter; calculate tip velocity. Bigger turbine tips go up to 200mph, but blade rotation speeds vary - google for facts.
For statistics on wind turbine accidents, go to http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/page4.htm
To see a wind turbine disintegrating google 'wind turbine accidents' and look at the youtube video of a Danish accident. Then use your imagination.
It doesn't matter what I think about the risks from wind turbines. If someone wanted to place wind turbines on skyscrapers in the UK, then it might be thought by the HSE that a risk assessment would be a good idea.
Complain about this comment
Funnily enough, just after reading Richards piece, I received an advertisement for a book which attempts to show what Manhattan would look like without all the roads and sky-scrapers.
Manahatta: A Natural History of New York City reconstructs, in words and images, the wild island of Manhattan as it might have looked 400 years ago with the forests of Times Square, the meadows of Harlem, and the wetlands of downtown...
The book was researched and written by landscape ecologist Eric Sanderson and illustrated by Marley Boyer. They geographically matched an 18th-century map of Manhattan's landscape to the modern cityscape, and combed through historical and archaeological records, and applied modern principles of ecology and computer modelling in order to reproduce the landscape of Manhattan in the early 1600s, when Hudson first glimpsed the island.
Eric W. Sanderson is the Associate Director for Landscape Ecology and Geographic Analysis in the Living Landscape Program of the Wildlife Conservation Society at the Bronx Zoo. He is an expert in the application of geographic principles and techniques to problems in wildlife, landscape, and ecological conservation. He lives in New York City.
Markley Boyer has worked with the Wildlife Conservation Sociey creating maps and visualizations for a new series of National Parks in Gabon. He lives in Brooklyn.
Complain about this comment
re 15, if that was your point, why did you not mention it?
All you said was NY had 8 million people, not 1 and so it was silly.
No mention of this "what your point was"!
I suspect that you're afraid we'll think less of you if you are found wrong. Don't worry, we won't.
Complain about this comment
Paw, you know "assume" makes an "ass" out of "u" and "me", don't you?
Do turbine blades go at 20rpm?
Now it isn't a problem that the thing weighs 20 tons since it is not moving at the same speed for all its mass.
It seems you need spoon feeding on the difference between rotational and linear motion equations.
What is the moment of inertia of the turbine blade? Call that I. Assume it turns with an angular speed (radians per second) of w.
Then the rotational energy (which is what you're trying to whinge about here) is given by
E = 1/2 Iw^2.
This is not equal to the linear equation:
E = 1/2 mv^2.
So calling it 10 tons going at 150mph is overblown.
This is first-year secondary school dynamics, for crying out loud!
Complain about this comment
Richard said... "But according to one estimate, the average American ... requires about half a hectare to produce the food he or she will consume in a year."
That begs a few questions, like; is that repeatable year after year, ie can half a hectare continuously feed one person; and is that in addition to other food source like fish?
But seeing as we have about 2.1 hectare each at the moment (if we each got our fair share of the planet's landmass), and bearing in mind that on average only a fraction (1/10 or less?) of that 2.1 hectare would be useful for cultivating food, we seem to be a bit short of space for mr average.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
davblo2, an acre was enough to (barely, admittedly) feed a family in the middle ages. 2-5 acres was a normal indentured serf's allotment from which they would pay the church, the crown and the lord of the estate and THEN feed their family.
1 hectare is about 2 acres.
Complain about this comment
#30 PAWB46 and Yeah-whatever
Concern is a good thing when siting wind mills in their current form...I have seen a video of windmill self destruction when the blade either broke from over-speed or flexed too much/hit the tower. Spectacular sight as the whole machine lost all blades in less than a second.
Okay, forget that wind machines look like we are accustomed to seeing. Now think about wind machines in a different way in which the building is the tower structure for elevation to reach higher wind velocities, and there is a different wind machine with a horizontal axis machine with lower spinning mass/inertia such as that by Aerotecture International here:
http://www.aerotecture.com/projects_mlh.html
Wind can be integrated into the building structure such as the Pearl River Tower in China for new construction. Practically speaking, there is a lot of already built infrastructure which has potential for retrofit of both energy efficiency measures (to deal with heat loss and gain factors) and energy generation integrated into the building with various forms of technology.
The very canyons between the buildings have interesting wind characteristics due to venturi effect...since wind energy has a cubic law property with velocity. These are actually interesting places to site different types of wind machines and has been done.
To Richards NYC sustainability:
There can be economies of scale (due to proximity), which make energy usage index lower than that for an equivalent population in the suburbs. (This makes an automobile redundant to other available mass transit means or walking/biking...so, many city dwellers rightly view automobiles an unnecessary liability.) Proximity allows use of Cogeneration as Richard illustrates....over doubly efficient than normal large scale power generation plant...and the "waste heat" can be harnessed for useful purposes. Electrical Transmission/distribution losses are minimized if siting of Cogen is relatively well distributed.
Proximity means that per-capita surface area of buildings is less, so less building envelope heat loss/gain per-capita.
Now, the downside to high population density...heat island effect is much higher in cities due to material heating and the thermal mass of buildings in these islands. There are mitigation strategies such as green roofs or choosing surfaces with high albedo to reduce the solar heat gain. Windows can be treated to reduce the "solar oven" effect in the buildings so less rejected heat by HVAC systems.
Another opportunity to use human waste in digesters which can also give energy. (sorry to go there but it actually solves multiple problems and it has to be treated either way).
Water current generation and wave generation are other assets to be tapped to make NYC more sustainable since those assets are available for use.
Sustainability is more far reaching than merely energy, that just happens to trigger my interest. Sustainability goes to balance of resources...food, energy, durability, cost of ownership...big picture vision is key.
Food production and water are essential elements...at least shipping food from nearby farms would help sustainability, from big picture view.
Maybe some of the abandoned warehouse buildings (every city has them) could be re-purposed for food production...when outdoor space is limited. The Japanese are doing this in idled factory space instead of importing certain items.
Considering all the elements in proximity to NYC, it should be a much more sustainable place with vision/creative thinking and some reconfiguration for better overall efficiency. Now if we have the focus/interest/fortitude to do it.....
Complain about this comment
davblo2, also one reason for raising meat is that grazers are a great way of turning marginal land into edible food.
I think if you include ruminant-friendly land you get about 1/3 or 1/2 of the land is available for food production.
In theory we should be able to manage. After all, many of the most populous areas are peopled by workers whose lifestyle is sedentary rather than moderately active.
We don't need the 2200 calories for the ICAO standard man.
Complain about this comment
doctor Porkpie, are you an incapable of reading? Can you only insult?
Complain about this comment
To davblo2 #39:
You wrote:
"But seeing as we have about 2.1 hectare each at the moment (if we each got our fair share of the planet's landmass), and bearing in mind that on average only a fraction (1/10 or less?) of that 2.1 hectare would be useful for cultivating food, we seem to be a bit short of space for mr average."
Very interesting! In fact, your entire post was entirely to the point. Does the half hectare include fish from the sea? Let's hope not, because we're about to lose all the fish in the sea.
"And is that repeatable year after year, ie can half a hectare continuously feed one person;" (davblo2)
Another excellent point - does that require fossil fuel fertilizers; how much water, and from where?; pesticides? What type of farming are we talking about?
You know, I think that not only are cities entirely co-dependent on the countryside, but humanity is entirely co-dependent on what jr4412 calls the 'ecosphere'.
I think it's not so much 'are cities in any way self-sustaining?', for they are not, but rather can the people who live in cities 'do the right thing'?
For example, in Calgary, where I live, and in most, or all cities I have visited, we raise grass with no animals to graze on it, we raise ornamental trees, and hedges which produce nothing edible.
But in a few places in Calgary, within walking distance of our home, there are saskatoon bushes beside a set of stairs in a green hillside area with a southern aspect which produce a profusion of edible berries every year. We three can be found there munching away in the summer months, with virtually no significant competition, the local twenty thousand or so local residents (within a ten minutes walk), seem to prefer grocery store berries at high prices. A strange type of animal?
Why do we raise grass? Ornamental trees? Bushes without berries?
Hmm - I guess the big chains wouldn't like the competition, but then General Motors and Chrysler and many of the world's financial edifices are essentially bankrupt, aren't they, so maybe it really is time to change our thinking, and do once more what makes sense. Imagine that, people thinking and doing for themselves.
"Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing"
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Rigid thinking is 'the' problem, as far as this citizen can see. And a more or less complete disconnect from the natural world, and from 'feeling'.
Isn't there a song, something to the effect:
"You pave paradise, and put up a parking lot"
But I'd like to sheathe my cycnicism for a moment, and suggest that cities can and must lead the way if we are to survive and thrive as a space faring species. Time to learn to think again folks, and 'do the right thing.'
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
re 43: "Concern is a good thing when siting wind mills in their current form...I have seen a video of windmill self destruction when the blade either broke from over-speed or flexed too much/hit the tower."
And they now have governors that stop the wind turbine from doing this.
Engineers DO learn from their mistakes.
Do we ban air travel because I've seen a video of the Hindenberg? Or that early passenger jets broke up midair (because the windows were square and the sharp corners were stress points that broke up when the plane was high up)?
No, we don't because they fixed the problem.
Complain about this comment
If there is anybody other than yeah_whatever who disagrees with the following statement, please let me know and I will withdraw it.
@yeah_whatever # 44
doctor Porkpie, are you an incapable of reading? Can you only insult?
Almost every statement you post contains insults, attacks on individuals and generally intolerance to anybody or any statement that you do not agree with and, sometimes, even people you agree with. If you cannot take being insulted / attacked / disagreed with, then please, show a little restraint, a little respect and a little courtesy to your fellow posters and refrain from dishing out the insults.
If you cant stand the heat, stay out of the anthropogenic global warming
Complain about this comment
ps
i am not going to enter into lengthy discussion on the above post
Complain about this comment
" yeah_whatever wrote:
doctor Porkpie, are you an incapable of reading? Can you only insult?"
As my post has been removed it will of course be difficult for the more informed contributers to this discussion to see what you are ranting about.However the tone you have set here is not inspiring so I must away to more productive areas.
Complain about this comment
just my humble opinion:
I don't think wind turbines is a practicable solution for cities like NY etc., but I do think there are many ways in which we could make changes, which would benefit all of us including building owners, building users, the environment and our dwindling resources. Some of the following I have said before:
Green roofs - an oasis of green in a desert of high rise. Green roofs provide fantastic environments, encouraging insects and birds, insulating the roof to a high standard, attentuating rainwater, reducing the surrounding temperature by up to 10C (according to some studies) and they even look pretty!
Passive design - passive design such as solar shading, solar gain etc can reduce dependance on energy. PassivHaus do a good line in sustainable development, but there is a premium to pay for zero carbon homes
Renovation - existing housing stock is far cheaper to renovate than tear down and rebuild even with VAT (why do we pay VAT on renovation and not new build housing?)
Of course none of the above does NY any good, but short of starting again, how do you make a place like NY sustainable?
Complain about this comment
Exactly, CuckooToo
Complain about this comment
CT you put plenty of insult in every post too.
porkpie didn't say what was indicative of uninformed discussion, just lammed out an insult. When I insult you I tell you why you deserve it.
Complain about this comment
@doctorPorkpie
#49
if you check your email, the mods will tell you why it was removed and you can repost with a few amendments
Complain about this comment
re 49, there WAS no content. Your martyrdom will have to wait.
Complain about this comment
"Almost every statement you post contains ... intolerance to anybody or any statement that you do not agree with and, sometimes, even people you agree with."
I disagree with statements that are WRONG.
"Oh, AGW is all a political scam" I abuse because it's WRONG. "Oh, increasing CO2 has no effect on temperatures" I abuse because it's WRONG. "I never said no effect, just insignificant effect" Well, that got abuse because the difference between no effect and insignificant effect is insignificant, by definition. And WRONG.
If you don't like being insulted, try not spouting falsities.
You did it twice so far on this thread and on one I applauded and continued.
But you only want to see one side of this situation too.
Complain about this comment
re 51 and 52. Fair enough, you DO NOT CONSIDER it practical.
But some places have done so and there's no genuine proof that it cannot be applied here.
51's options are all possible too, and could be placed IN ADDITION to other options. This isn't a "pick one" game.
Complain about this comment
Burghermeister wrote:
#30 PAWB46 and Yeah-whatever Wind can be integrated into the building structure such as the Pearl River Tower in China for new construction. Practically speaking, there is a lot of already built infrastructure which has potential for retrofit of both energy efficiency measures (to deal with heat loss and gain factors) and energy generation integrated into the building with various forms of technology.
I recall some similar work in Australia [sorry no link] and it would seem that the power developed is consistent unlike the natural wind with its problems of intermittency.This is a positive approach and perhaps a study of the possible recovery of heat from the areas around large buildings might also be productive ?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
CuckooToo wrote:
Green roofs - an oasis of green in a desert of high rise. Green roofs provide fantastic environments, encouraging insects and birds, insulating the roof to a high standard, attentuating rainwater, reducing the surrounding temperature by up to 10C (according to some studies) and they even look pretty!
This is an idea I have considered for restoring some old stone buildings.I have a thatched house with walls 2-4' thick which is a doddle to heat and feel that a green living roof would be ideal for the other buildings.Dwarf scented herbs spring to mind but I would have to see such a roof close up and weigh up the pros and cons before committing scarce funds !! I have been a scavenger of materials for years but I fear that I will soon have competition from sacked MP's at the skips :)
Complain about this comment
#57 DoctorPorkpie
"This is a positive approach and perhaps a study of the possible recovery of heat from the areas around large buildings might also be productive ?"
That is possible and has been done I believe in Sweden with tubing under the blacktop in parking lots.
Only caveat...don't let destruction crews dig up the pavement where these systems are in place. Maybe a steel protective plate over for such potential mistakes would be good preventative measure.
Certainly high SEER air source heat pumps would be able to grab some of those BTU's for some useful purpose. Would be better yet if they are powered by locally renewable source generated power.
Complain about this comment
As Mr. Black does reads this blog (more than most, and to be applauded for doing so), I wonder if he feels the cause of rational discourse is being well served by the moderation?
There seems a certain ongoing benign tolerance of terribly reasonable optimistic level lampooners.
Complain about this comment
JunkkMale wrote:
"As Mr. Black does reads this blog (more than most, and to be applauded for doing so), I wonder if he feels the cause of rational discourse is being well served by the moderation?
There seems a certain ongoing benign tolerance of terribly reasonable optimistic level lampooners."
I have now had 2 posts removed.The first when I replied in kind to insulting remarks as noted by other members.When I rewrote the complaint in moderate terms this post was also removed.Yet when I made objection to some posts i was told it was all in order.Is there an explanation for this type of uneven moderation ?
Complain about this comment
And now my email seeking an explanation has been bounced.Oh dear.
Complain about this comment
Burghermeister wrote:
"Certainly high SEER air source heat pumps would be able to grab some of those BTU's for some useful purpose. Would be better yet if they are powered by locally renewable source generated power."
My water comes from a spring which flows at a constant rate and the outflow from the well drops some 12 feet over a short distance.The potential [although not the capital right now !] is there to install a turbine and use this to power, amongst other items ,a heat pump.I already use a solar pump which is very effective and keeps my veggie patch and plantings going.
Complain about this comment
@doctorPorkpie
#59
unfortunately i don't think you would get planning permission
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
for those interested in the passivhaus version of zero carbon please see here:
http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3133804&origin=bldgweeklynewsletter
unfortunately passivhaus standards don't really match our building regulations
Complain about this comment
CuckooToo wrote:
"unfortunately i don't think you would get planning permission "
No problem,everything is on my land and way out of public view.Local Council would rather see buildings restored than knocked.The google photies are way out of date .
I wonder if anyone has done a roof with dwarf herbs? I mentioned thyme which is a perennial and a magic bee plant but maybe something else would be a better proposition ? When it comes to sustainable projects I always examine all the possibilities and feeding bees and hoverflies seems like a nice bonus.Not that it would work in NY.
Complain about this comment
Now why has the post number 66 from CuckooToo been referred to the moderators? Is there some sort of malice afoot ? The situation seems to be out of hand,please correct this Mr.Black.
Complain about this comment
Back to the matter in hand [please let there be no more sidetracking]. Why should any city be sustainable ? Mutualism springs to mind as man does not live by bread alone.We yokels in the rural areas provide food and then we can go stomping all over the libraries and museums and galleries provided by the cities.Not to mention the wealth generated by those who beaver away in stinkie offices and factories.
Complain about this comment
doctorPorkpie #71 "Why should any city be sustainable?"
Richard didn't say it should. He merely went though a mental exercise which showed that it wasn't; given current capabilities and demand for resources.
"Mutualism springs to mind..."
That may work for some; but one of the reasons I left England (which I already explained in another tread here) was the intolerable feeling I had of being shut in. Within towns virtually no space and on escaping finding the vast proportion of the countryside is owned by goodness knows who (by the sound of it you are one of them), fenced in and restricted. If there is anywhere nice to go, there is guaranteed to be an overfull car park and masses of tourists. Ok I exaggerate a little but the feeling was there none the less. Here in Sweden we can at least escape from the cities and find some peace.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
davblo2 wrote:
"Richard didn't say it should. He merely went though a mental exercise which showed that it wasn't; given current capabilities and demand for resources."
Thank you,I did manage to figure out that bit.
"Within towns virtually no space and on escaping finding the vast proportion of the countryside is owned by goodness knows who (by the sound of it you are one of them), fenced in and restricted "
My goodness this blog is full of folks with assumptions. I do own a smallholding which I worked hard to buy and it is not fenced as it is too far from town for the riff-Raff to be a bother.the local people respect their surroundings.My first venture into escaping from the cities had to be fenced in to keep "right to roam" plonkers and their dogs and feral children out. This after having far too many of my free-range poultry terrified and savaged,Not to mention eggs stolen "as they were just lying there".Did I mention that as I was [trying]to be self-sufficient the "collecting" of the berries from the hedgerows [which I had restored] left me short of food and booze? Not everyone who owns a patch of land is a "class enemy", some of us just got off our butts.
Complain about this comment
doctorPorkpie #73 "Thank you,I did manage to figure out that bit."
If I were "you know who" I would ask.... Then why did you ask "Why should any city be sustainable?"
But I'm not, so I won't.
Re: "..full of folks with assumptions"
Sorry about that; but you did start the "us and them" thing in your #71 with "We yokels in the rural areas provide ..."
Then you talk of "right to roam plonkers" so you don't appear to get on so well with townies. Doesn't that make you a "class enemy" (as you put it) to them anyway.
Re: "some of us just got off our butts"
I did just that and ended up in Sweden. I never really looked at trying to get a "smallholding" in UK. It never really appealed but I don't know exactly why. Maybe it was the timber houses and endless forests here which won me over.
We also have more berries than we know what to do with, grass roofs are quite common hereabouts, and we also suffer from the inevitable tourists (which we were previously); so maybe we have a few things in common.
So my question to you is how did *you* feel before you got out to your smallholding?
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
#73, #74 continued...
Now I remember why I didn't buy out of town in the UK. Price.
With what I paid for a beautiful place here, in full working order, in a forest, by a lake; I could have bought, at best, a derelict barn in the north of Scotland (nothing against Scotland); but.. no contest.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
To davblo2 #75:
Reading between the lines, something must have driven you out into the country - I'm wondering what?
Since this thread is about big cities, I'd be interested in knowing.
Underacanoe has just informed me that I've really been 'retired' for some fifteen years now, despite working at 'odd' jobs. This has got me worried, because I know it's true, and I hadn't fully realized it. I'm 'hiding out'.
" In the society of men, the best man becomes a sinner" (Vedas).
Does that have resonance with you davblo2?
Is this blogging an attempt to re-emerge?
Cities remind me of something from chaos theory, that goes something like this:
" If you push a system far out of equilibrium, it will invent ways to spend energy."
Is that what the seven years of climbing was all about - is that what your seclusion is all about?????
Is that what our 'Mayday Declaration' is all about?
Luckily, like the Chinese Mandarin in the movie, I believe that confusion is a sign of growth.
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I picked up in Richards article:
But I hope the point is obvious: a city cannot survive without the life-support system of the land around
I take the view that: A city is built to sustain the land around
Its a centre of commerce, shops etc. where folks come to buy all the produce of the land around. Its a centre that administers all the land around. Without the city the land around would collapse. It brings in visitors and buyers and every sort of services for the sustenance of the land around. The whole of the US is in this case the land around which is in some ways dependant on NY.
It does not have to sustain itself by itself. Its there because its sustained by the land around that put it there and is supported by it.
Then Richard says: So some other measure has to be arrived at for the sustainability of city life
I say No. Its there because its needed. Otherwise it would fall away and be left to decay. This happened to Detroit a few years ago and to San Francisco when the dot.com bubble burst. Cities will come and go like all things. They have there own governance for sustainability if natural forces are left to take care they will adjust naturally. Mans attempts to artificially mitigate do not have a good track record.
Hey, I see yea-whatever is still alive and kickin and manysummits #77 has given him another set of marching orders. Ill let him keep the Awesome Bore award I presented him with a few weeks ago. It was a life time award and Ill keep my word.
Cheers..
Complain about this comment
Add to #78:
Thought to add that there has been a lot of good discussion on ways to improve energy efficiency which we all seem to have as a common goal. Applying this to ALL situations is a given in my book so I dont always refer to it in general discussion. But there again, all singing kumbaya around that would not be nearly as much fun:)
Cheers.......
Complain about this comment
re 77.
Funny. You complain that every comment contains insults in a comment that contains insult.
It is also demonstrably incorrect.
See, for example, this one.
Or #8 and #9.
Please inform me where *all* my comments contain an insult.
Complain about this comment
manysummits, where's your "take a hike advice for doctor porkpie? Plenty of his comments contain insult. See, for example, the elements taken out by davblo2 in post #74.
Or are you only concerned about some insults not others.
NOTE: porkpie started it with his assinine "Hah NY state has *8* million, not 1! Do your sums again!!!" comment.
So is it you like a fellow country man who hates townies and their "right to roam"?
Get Orf Moi Laaaannnd!!! is it?
Complain about this comment
re 70. maybe there was someone who complained about it.
Why the great concern for how this blog operates???
Complain about this comment
re 67, some more advice:
1) If Cuckoo Too links to something, he hasn't read it. So don't waste your time doing so. If you ask him about it, he'll say "take it up with them".
2) Don't go making insults yourself or you'll have your comments removed at best, be ignored at worst.
3) Look at the log in your eye before you complain about the splinter in someone else's
4) Keep on topic
Complain about this comment
@DoctorPorkpie
Don't worry about posts being referred to the mods, there are mant reasons why the mods have to censor posts. It couls be my reference to passivhaus, which could be construed as advertising, but in reality is an accepted term in much the same way that hoover is accepted.
Back to roof gardens
Google "sedum roof" or "single ply membrane". There are a number of manufacturers providing the type of roof you are looking for. I have tried to install these types of roof several times, but have met with resistance from planners, builders and nimbys. From what you have described, I think you are looking for a sedum roof
Seduf roofs are great for all the reasons i've described before
good luck with that - shame i can't guide you through the planning process
Complain about this comment
@yeah_wahtever
#82
Because before you came along, we had disagreements just as strongly, but respected each others point of view without insults etc.
if it was up to me, you would be banned - not because of your views, I am more than happy to read what you think about these issues, but because of how you express them and insult everybody as you go along
Complain about this comment
CuckooToo#84 "Back to roof gardens"
I checked out some suppliers and roof types.
It's interesting to see the difference between the UK "ideal" of grass roof compared to the trditional ones here and for example in Norway where they are very popular.
Compare pictures at...
http://www.green-roofing.co.uk
...prim, proper, neat, low maintenance etc etc...
...with the real "hairy beast" at...
http://www.hallingtorv.no/html/myrland.html
Now that's what I call a grass roof.
(I guess you'll say it doen't matter as long as it works.)
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
Are we allowed to say Sedum ? or "hairy beast" ? ;)
Complain about this comment
timjenvey #78 "I take the view that: A city is built to sustain the land around"
That's an interesting point, I missed that.
Just a quick response...
It seems to me that was true years ago, when villages developed into market towns where the country folk came to trade their produce. But surely at some point the commerce etc in cities developed a life of its own and went way beyond the needs of the countryside. I'm sure a lot of what goes on in cities is done mainly for its own inhabitants and those in other cities.
Put it another way; you don't need all those millions of people in a large city to support the surrounding countryside.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
davblo2 wrote:
Thank you for those links, I'm not too keen on flat roofs of any type but the link to the hairy one is more like it.Wish I could speak the language, Cornish is it?
I must scroogle further into this,I would love to build a living roof and maybe get a few extra benefits such as bees etc.
Complain about this comment
davblo2 wrote
"Put it another way; you don't need all those millions of people in a large city to support the surrounding countryside."
Would the countryside be sustainable if all these millions spread out ?
Complain about this comment
doctorPorkpie #89 "Wish I could speak ... Cornish..."
Go to...
http://gramtrans.com/
..second section from top "Web Page Translation"
Paste in the link to "hairy beast"
Select from drop down list "Norwegian to English"
(or to Cornish if you like)
Then click "Translate".
It even works as you browse the site.
Occasionally comical translation but generally understandable.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
#78 Timjenvey
"Then Richard says: So some other measure has to be arrived at for the sustainability of city life
I say No. Its there because its needed. Otherwise it would fall away and be left to decay. This happened to Detroit a few years ago and to San Francisco when the dot.com bubble burst. Cities will come and go like all things. They have there own governance for sustainability if natural forces are left to take care they will adjust naturally."
That is an interesting view....living in the Detroit area, and watching it decay through lack of will to acknowledge it is no longer relevant. It is like an avalanche with everything letting go at once...WOOSH!
All is so sprawled out that there is no chance of proximity benefits...and no mass transit of any real worth yet. There are rumblings of that on the horizon...but we are living with the current reality that the automakers killed mass transit many years past.
Detroit is just starting to wake up from the dream (nightmare?) and re-defining itself. But still like a walking zombie. The recent talk is of shifting to "green" jobs/technology/markets...obviously with the government stimulus money. These dollars are a short term push which are not long term sustainable either.
The "natural" process as I see it...
The cities which become non relevant have a death/decay/rebirth process just as a tree in the forest does....only it takes a lot of added energy to facilitate the process of cities rebirth. So, if we are to be sustainable, maybe part of the process is to let cities die and decay?
I say no, due to the amount of energy already spent/needed to rebuild a dead city... If energy gets scarce, maybe that is the vision of the future....death and decay of cities.
A Different path?...
Sustainability involves building for long term durability and the view that spending the effort (same as money) on maintenance will achieve a better life cycle cost picture...and the life cycle is actually extended by Predictive and Preventative Maintenance.
It is said that the greenest brick is the one already in a wall...and if you look at how old are the walls in Germany, they are long term sustainable...even though the initial cost of construction was higher. Life cycle cost perspective in action, and look at the sustainability. Many hundred years old and looking good because the inhabitants view has, historically, been long term.
The proximity of these cities to farms growing consumable food and the connection of the inhabitants with the land is another important aspect.
It is shocking how many people know nothing of the process of growing food...or even can visually identify a vegetable out of a market. If they are removed from a city, could not identify a carrot in the earth.
Connection with the land might make city dwellers more apt to embrace green spaces (with actual food gardens)over pavement. That would seem sustainable.
Peoples' attitudes/priorities/participation all contribute to the result of sustainability. The lack of it results in death by many small cuts and no sustainability.
Complain about this comment
Cheers davblo2 just look at the woodwork on the houses,pure magic.
Complain about this comment
manysummits #76 "something must have driven you out into the country - I'm wondering what?"
It was probably more a case of becoming aware of the fact that better places to live exist and being attracted by the possibilities I saw, mainly on visits to the Swedish countryside. I should probably confess that I still need the city because that is where the (my) work is :-(.
manysummits #76 "In the society of men, the best man becomes a sinner" (Vedas).
That reminds me of when I was in my early twenties and had so far flatly refused to have a car. I preferred even to walk for miles rather than use the bus (slower pace of life then). Then suddenly one sunny day I was watching people in their cars and something clicked. I thought; why not, why should they have all that convenience and pleasure(?) whilst I deny it for myself? I've had a car ever since.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
timjenvey #78 & Burghermeister #92
I think your example of Detroit is a "counter" example to your claim of the city supporting the countryside.
Being ignorant on the matter I looked up "Detroit Collapse" and found amonsgt others...
"There is an extraordinary deindustrialization. Factory after factory of the City's famed auto, steel, machine tool, and other heavy industrial facilities, have been boarded up"
How much of that auto, steel and machine tool industry was involved in running the countryside? I'd imagine an awful lot of it went toward building more and bigger cities and filling them with cars.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
doctorPorkpie #93
You like wood? try one of these...
http://www.artichouse.fi/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=56&Itemid=19
(It's even in English, Cornish and Finish)
Complain about this comment
To timjenvey #78:
Welcome back! Interesting thoughts on the city.
This discussion brings me back to my roots in Montreal, and to my researches in archaeology and the origins of civilization.
Stephen Mithen's book "After the Ice" is a case in point, along with Ronald Wright's "A Short History of Progress" and "Stolen Continents" and latest, "What is America?"
The city is power, power over others. And it works. It is not for no reason that Rome dominated the western world for so long ("all roads lead to Rome").
But these days we may have overdone it, as people move to the city for any number of reasons.
I remember trying to miss Mexico City on my way to a mountain, and we hit it anyway. After hours in gridlock, and another hour trying to figure out how to extricate ourselves, I pulled over to the side of a superhighway, and was planning to get out the tent and spend the night before I ran out of gas.
Two police officers came to our rescue, and politely escorted us to the outskirts of the city.
That's a comical sort of story, but the 'overdoing' things seems to be a part of our culture these days. We don't just fish the oceans, we are fishing them to death, etc...
With the financial collapse, and now the automakers collapse, I truly think we are all in shock again, like we were (are) after JFK's assasination.
There's no real way I've found to discuss this rationally. When I was a stockbroker (for a year, 1988), I had GM on my screen as a monitor of US industry. How can one conceptualize this change?
Calgary is now over a million, it was half that when I first saw it in 1970. This is happening everywhere, and we all instictively know, I think, that this cannot continue indefinitely.
Your area of the world, for instance, San Francisco and silicon valley. I watched Juan Marichal pitch at Candlestick Park in that same year, 1970. I scarcely recognize San Jose these days!
Well, off to work - one wonders for what?
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
davblo2
And in Chinese too! Drop dead gorgeous homes and renewable to boot.What a pity that this is not the norm,then cities would begin to look less grim.Too late for NY but maybe an idea fro other places faced with the need to expand
Complain about this comment
@Davblo2
#86 I see the problem with grass roofs as being a maintenance issue - the health and safety mafia would have a field day (oun intended) with pitched and grassed roofs. Other than setting a couple of sheep on the roof (and i have seen it done) cutting the grass on that pitch would be a none starter
@drPorkpie
#87 sedum actually means a family of succulants. They are ideal for low pitched (almost flat) roofs. The only real maintenance they require is watering through a leaky pipe during periods of no rain. They attract all sorts of insects and birds - I love em - i just wish some far sighted client would let me do one!
#89 there is nothing wrong with flat roofs when done properly, the biggest problem is peoples attitude towards flat roofs. Gone are the days when all flat roofs leaked. If you look at modern roof gardens, they are all flat roofs
i really wish you luck installing one on your properties - make sure you used a contractor who is a member of the Single Ply Roofing Association and you shouldn't go far wrong
Complain about this comment
oh, drPorkPie
in case you and others were wondering, I am an architect with several "eco-friendly", low energy, social housing schemes under my belt, including a few award winners and i still can't figure out how shipping western red cedar from canada makes it sustainable!
Complain about this comment
re 99:
"#89 there is nothing wrong with flat roofs when done properly, the biggest problem is peoples attitude towards flat roofs. Gone are the days when all flat roofs leaked."
Afraid not.
Maybe it's true if the work is done ***properly*** but any attempt to cut corners seems to mean that the end of the leaky flat roof is hopeful at best.
Complain about this comment
CuckooToo #100 "still can't figure out how shipping western red cedar from canada makes it sustainable!"
Any help?...
http://www.vincenttimber.co.uk/welcome2/environment/index.html
You've probably seen it already.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
CuckooToo wrote
"i still can't figure out how shipping western red cedar from canada makes it sustainable!"
Its longevity ? cuts down on replacement of rotten softwoods?
Complain about this comment
@yeah_whatever
#101
re 99:
"#89 there is nothing wrong with flat roofs when done properly, the biggest problem is peoples attitude towards flat roofs. Gone are the days when all flat roofs leaked."
Afraid not.
From personal experience, Ive never had a leak yet and Ive been using single ply membranes since 1988, but then I do tend to specify the right product for the job and watch it being installed, so fingers crossed.
@davblo2
#102
Yeah, Ive seen it and actually have used them in some jobs, they are pretty good. It doesnt make sense to me though, how can it be more sustainable to use western red cedar from Canada, when we have perfectly good (if more expensive) douglas fir on my doorstep in the new forest and douglas fir is a much more robust timber
Complain about this comment
@drPorkPie
Properly treated douglas fir has roughly the same durability as western red cedar (around 50 years)
Ive just looked at green specifications, but still not sure, perhaps its the use of preservative treatment against the use of evil fossil fuels for transportation
Complain about this comment
Thought!
Why not use sailing ships to transport lumber across the sea?
Aren't there modern sailing configurations? I remember The Cousteau Society had one, the Alcyone:
http://www.cousteau.org/about-us/alcyone
Perhaps even fabric sails again, with a motor for ports and emergencies.
Bring some romance back to the sea, some feeling. There are a number of tall ships still: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_ship
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Thinking about Jacques Cousteau in post #106 gave me another thought.
In his tribute to Jacques Yves Cousteau in National Geographic, Feb 1998, Luis Marsden desribed his embarkation on a four months expedition to the Red Sea:
"When I joined Calypso at the French naval base at Toulon, I saw at once that she was a well appointed ship. She carried two tons of red wine in stainless steel tanks and twenty tons of fresh water. With irrefutable Gallic logic, the water was rationed but the wine was not."
- Luis Marsden
With all this talk of sustainability, and our environmental woes, we're going to have to find a way to have some fun while we make our way into an uncertain future.
I just read a new "American Scientist" article which indicated the 1972 "Limits to Growth" book, in hindsight, was very prescient, despite some claims to the contrary. In fact, the authors went so far as to say that the extrapolations into the future made some thirty seven years ago were almost unique in their basic accuracy, and that it is time to again review our situation.
I thought that's what we've been doing on these blogs, so perhaps cyberspace is out in front?
Maybe we need to lighten up a bit, and explore some possibilities which are fun, but not necessarily 'efficient'. As Robert Pirsig pointed out in "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance," there is a higher efficiency - of life!
- Manysummits - brandy for bloggers? -
Complain about this comment
re 104. Well, not at my place of work.
There don't seem to have been any leaks in the last year or so, but the first three years (brand new installation) there were ALWAYS leaks.
If you know what you're looking for, CHECK THE WORK NOW.
Especially if it's your home, water on your things can destroy things that are personal and irreplaceable. At work? Meh. There's always another way. Home? No, there's no off-site backup or other to rely on.
Complain about this comment
manysummits wrote:
"Aren't there modern sailing configurations? I remember The Cousteau Society had one, the Alcyone:"
There was a Japanese tanker knocking around some while back called Shin-Aitoku-Maru which used sails and cut oil usage by about 50%
Complain about this comment
To doctorPorkpie #109:
Listening to the comments on this blog, and going for a coffee this morning, I was struck by a phrase which often crops up in discussions of climate change:
"Signal to Noise"
It appears to me that this thread has been all noise. We are living in a nightmare time, and it just won't go away. So for a time we talk about green roofs in cities, and western red cedar, and too much red wine, and maybe sailing ships.
And all the while we approach the abyss.
The green of the leaves are showing again here in Calgary, another city, in another place - my place. I am glad to once again experience the turn of the seasons, glad to be alive. But what of our future?
We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, the tar sands are still proceeding, etc... And we fiddle while Rome burns. A few of us thought to summarize the situation, and so we wrote the "Mayday Declaration". But I have been unable to return to it in a meaningful way - it's so depressing. I look at the great mountains to my west, and just want to go climb them, where I can once again feel alive and win. Winning is important - it's what we do - we are even competitive in going green.
But at present we are losing everywhere, and we are losing big.
How to turn this around is the only question of importance today, with interludes to recover one's sanity.
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
i'm sorry, manysummits, but i think your "heading towards the abyss" is just nonsense
Complain about this comment
To CuckooToo #111:
Please don't be sorry. I have been doing alot of thinking since we wrote that Mayday Declaration, and I can hardly believe the amount and solidity of the information I personally have gathered in the last half year.
My post #109 was an all-encompassing one, with climate change only one of the mentions.
I find it very interesting that your ability to deny AGW extends as well to the overall global environmental situation. As I just pointed out, in American Scientist, the latest planetary reassesment by the authors suggests that "The Limits to Growth" which so moved me in 1972 has proven all too accurate.
I think denial is a defense mechanism, necessary and therefore useful to some, but in the end, leaveing it up to others to carry the ball.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
#112
I find it very interesting that your ability to deny AGW extends as well to the overall global environmental situation
deny the overall global environmental situation? i've said many times that i whole heartidly support efforts to clean up our act on the environment and i have been actively involved in producing low impact buildings. i just don't accept the whole AGW alarmism, especially the role of CO2 in causing the recent warming
climate changes and is proved througout written history and in the proxy records (distorted in the tree rings of course)
you see, it is not the position of people who do not except AGW to prove anything - the burden of proof is on the alarmists and there is still not a single piece of empirical evidence to prove AGW
burying your head in the sand and repeating the mantra "human CO2 induced AGW" is true defence mechanism
look here as a starter before you suggest that i am in denial:
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall04/atmo336/lectures/sec5/holocene.html
and here to see how sceptics are treated by the alarmist mafia:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5416#more-5416
Manysummits, i have a great deal of respect for you, because you clearly care deeply for this earth, but you need to read some alternative views to find the truth. Reading Hansen will not reveal this
Complain about this comment
To CT #113:
What do you think of that American Scientist article - it's the current one on the shelves?
You say you are denying only the AGW, but I suspect otherwise. By your thinking, unless I am mistaken, we can and should continue to burn fossil fuels, and get our living from the oil business, both directly and of course indirectly, because whatever warming is happening, or coming, is not the result of fossil fuels and all of their ancillary businesses and fallout - what I suppose could be called collateral damage.
I posit that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsehwere are not wars at all, but fossil fuel grabs at any price. And further, human population has increased with the medium of fossil fuels, in lockstep. Our machines, our fishing trawlers, our fertilizers, our transport system, and more, are all locked into fossil fuels, which for you, conveniently, we do not have to worry about, because it's not AGW.
Aside from the convenience of your argument, it is also demonstrably entirely untrue, as AGW is beyond reasonable doubt. But I won't try and convince you of this, for your arguments have almost nothing to do with science, and everything to do with smoke and mirrors. That is my opinion.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
"The power of instruction is seldom of much efficacy, except in those happy dispositions where it is almost superfluous."
- Edward Gibbon, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"
For two hunded plus years now Edward Gibbon's book has remained current, because his book is not only about an empire of the past, but about us. New York city is the new Rome, and the American Experiment the new empire.
But human nature appears to have changed not at all, and it has always been Gibbon's insights into human nature which attracted me to his dissertation on an obscure and largely irrelevant chapter of our collective past. I can hear the howls of protest as I write this, please don't bother to reply.
When Jacques Cousteau turned from exploration to environmentalism, a great loss was apparent to me. Despite the obvious good intentions, the result was negative. I now feel the same way.
When Reinhold Messner turned to environmentalism, another great loss was apparent. Messner admitted as much in his book "Antarctica", when he said that he didn't think he accomplished anything at all in his years as a member of the environmental party in Germany. He pointed directly to our modern detachment from nature and feeling as the cause of our environmental disaster, and while no doubt a simple explanation, I can think of no better.
Lately I have found myself again indulging in "what to do" rational thinking. Our Mayday Declaration" was the end result, but it is entirely unsatisfactory, despite the good intentions. It might, in a hopeful world, reach many who are still in possesion of an open mind, and therefore it might be worth something in that regard.
But I think attempts to 'speak' to those denialists of AGW in our modern well-informed society are less than pointless, for instead of only one with a type of mental impairment, there are then two.
I was irresitibly drawn to the mountains many years ago, and gave up all to pursue this calling. This decision, arrived at without thinking, has to date given me everything worth having, my wife and child, and an outlook on life which is spontaneous and satisfying, if not conventionally rewarding.
"Simon-swede' once said, "so much anger, so much vitriol", or something to that effect.
I am reminded of a saying by Anne Hugyen, in "The Exploration of Africa...":
"...Explorer... the all-around hero, scornful above all else of deceipt and irresolution"
and of Freeman Dyson, in "Disturbing the Universe":
"Sanity is, in its essence, nothing more than the ability to live in harmony with nature's laws."
And finally, a puzzling quote, but one which resonates:
"Then Arthur learned, as all leaders are astonished to learn, that peace, not war, is the destroyer of men; tranquility rather than danger is the mother of cowardice, and not need but plenty brings apprehension and unease."
- John Steinbeck's "The Acts of King Arthur and his Noble Knights"
Having lost my way temporarily, I will now return to the mountains for my main source of inspiration and sanity. But I do hope to continue blogging, but it will be in a different way.
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
#106 (Manysummits) asked about using sail for cargo ships.
There is a modern variant, using a computer-controlled "kite". Energy savings for propulsion seem to be in the order of 30-35%.
Thw following site describes teh activities by one company, who has installed and trialled its system on large vessels.
http://www.skysails.info/english/information-center/news/news/article/skysails-update/472/9fdd80a301/
Complain about this comment
In 113, CT clings yet harder to his religion: "i just don't accept the whole AGW alarmism, especially the role of CO2 in causing the recent warming"
When someone says "look out!" do you deny them and say they are just an alarmist? Then you will regret the car behind you crippling you.
You call them alarmists merely because you don't believe AGW. And you say you don't believe in AGW because they are alarmists. But you call them alarmists because you don't believe in AGW. And yet, you don't believe in AGW because...
And rather than a circular argument, it becomes spiral.
You wind yourself in your religion with ever greater strength.
Prove that CO2 doesn't contribute significantly to the earth's climate temperatures.
Prove that increasing CO2 doesn't contribute more.
Prove that we are not increasing CO2 by a significant (nay, huge) amount.
You keep saying that the ones with the statements must prove themselves.
You come with the statement that AGW climatologists are alarmists.
You prove your statement.
Complain about this comment
@manysummits # 114
What do you think of that American Scientist article - it's the current one on the shelves?
I take it you mean projections of how much sea levels could rise if Antarcticas massive western ice sheets fully disintegrated as a result of global warming?
First of all, if temperatures continue to rise, then no doubt sea levels will rise enormously. The acticle doesn't tell us what the time period for this event is likely to be, but i'm pretty sure we will have time to adapt, if temperatures rise enough to melt Antarctia. Afterall, according to NOAA, Boston has already experienced a sea level rise of over 260mm (10") since 1900 and the Bostonians simply adapted to the rise.
Secondly, this article in no way provides proof that the rise in temperatures is caused by man made CO2, although the media will no doubt carry the normal scare stories instead of reporting on the facts.
I believe it was Hansen who predicted 20 years ago that the rate of sea level rise would accelerate. Clearly this prediction was wrong, because the rate of increase has not accelerated.
By your thinking, unless I am mistaken, we can and should continue to burn fossil fuels,
You are mistaken. Oil will run out and i believe we have to conserve our natural resources until viable alternatives are found and developed. This may include solar etc, but at the moment at least, these alternatives are not viable and require back up. The Danish experience of wind turbines has not closed a single coal fired power station. I believe we need to stop wasting precious water too, the big culprit in this case being the water companies themselves, who fail to fix leaking pipes.
I posit that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsehwere are not wars at all, but fossil fuel grabs at any price.
Totally agree. I also believe the Iraq war was illegal under international law and the gentlemen who lied to us and took us into an illegal war should be tried as war criminals. That is not to say that our soldiers should be criticised (except the obvious illegal activities), the soldiers were just doing their jobs.
Aside from the convenience of your argument, it is also demonstrably entirely untrue, as AGW is beyond reasonable doubt.
With all due respect, manysummits, as i have repeatedly said, it is not up to sceptics to prove AGW is wrong. The burden of proof lies with the AGW alarmists. It is their hypothesis. A hypothesis has to be proved before it is accepted as fact. Todate the proof tests stated by the IPCC simply have not been met (please refer to earlier posts). Until alarmists can show empirical proof, AGW remains an hypothesis and not a very convincing one either.
Complain about this comment
@yeah_whatever
When someone says "look out!" do you deny them and say they are just an alarmist? Then you will regret the car behind you crippling you.
if the car moved at the rate of global warming is happening, i would have a couple of hundred years to get out of the way, so why be alarmist about it?
you want proof that climate scientists are alarmist?
how about this from Stephen Schneider?
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. (Quoted in Discover, pp. 4548, Oct. 1989; for the original, together with Schneider's commentary on it misrepresentation see also American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996.
Complain about this comment
Schneider link to previous comment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider
Complain about this comment
#110 Many_summits
That is the absolute truth...fiddling while Rome burns. I guess this is slightly better than watching television situation comedies...as it causes one to do self evaluation. You have to feel solid to "spar" with others..but what is the signal and what is the noise?
Critical thinking allows each of us to examine facts, perform reconciliation against what our position is at that time and HOPEFULLY be objective enough to change our position when the facts facilitate that perspective shift through emotional intelligence. You have had your epiphany and I also have mine...some had other epiphanies. The truth is the truth, the climate cares not of our positions....
The fact that CT is working on low impact buildings is a key activity, which contributes much to the improvement of the planet. Low impact buildings have continuous improvement built into their performance specifications. The direction is zero net energy buildings over a migration path. Truth told...we should have stuck to that migration path when started in late 70's. Is the slope of that path steep enough to have enough effect to reverse the cumulative output of climate changing mechanisms?
I admire the process which you and CT use to discuss the critically important facts to take each of us through our own personal journey of enlightenment. We are all much better for that sharing process.
You have embarked deeply into self enlightenment, reconciliation of the facts, and sharing results. You speak with truth, clarity, and conviction. I have much respect for you for that.
If we can agree to disagree at the end, that is good too...it shows a level of respect and maturity which is another important aspect of this process...how to do good things with good outcomes AND good socialization skills.
We all have our parts to play....and are all involved in our own way. It is important that we are involved...as long as that involvement results in overall improvement. That is the signal...improvement and results for the good of the planet and all who inhabit it.
Complain about this comment
link to Spencers web site
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/05/global-warming-causing-carbon-dioxide-increases-a-simple-model/
i know, spencer is a creationist, so therefore he doesn't know anything about the way the world works ;)
Complain about this comment
So why link to him?
And have you read his "thesis"? Checked it?
You already know that he'll ignore anything that doesn't say what he's pre-supposed to know.
Why not treat his treatise with the skepticism you want to place on the IPCC report?
Complain about this comment
re 119, so you don't want to change because someone's grandchildren will reap the benefits whilst you pay the price. Why not rail at your father for his part that you will have to undo?
Show your proof that this is alarmism. You still haven't. You make the statement, you prove it. That's always been your fallback position.
And on the quote, do you not do the same, with the added misinformation that you never read or understand what you say?
Complain about this comment
B, you say "If we can agree to disagree at the end, that is good too."
How about if we agree to disagree that kiddie porn is bad? Ethnic cleansing? Torture.
NONE of us have ever held KP. None of us have ever undergone or embarked on ethnic cleansing or torture.
Yet to stop these we agree that WE will pay the price of stamping these out.
Yet those who undertake these see these acts as not bad.
Should we agree that we disagree on these things and let them go?
AGW requires that WE act and pay for the acts of others that other people we may never meet will reap the benefits. Just as I have never and am never going to be a casualty of KP, children will reap the benefit of the cost of policing this act.
And there is a huge array of denialism. Like religion, they cannot ALL be right. Like religion, they are held sacrosanct and unquestionable. And, again like religion, others suffer needlessly because it gives some people comfort that they are not at fault and do not have to change.
The science has many uncertainties, but they are plainly spoken. Unlike religion or denialism. There are many threads of argument, but unlike the various religions and denialist creeds, they do not counter each other, but at worst, avoid each other, at best, compliment each other.
You may as well ask that we agree the world could be flat or that dinosaurs did roam eden 6000 years ago and were all vegetarians, but the only reason to do that is to allow the lies to continue merely because we want the comfort of a quiet life.
And one of the reasons mitigation is being withheld is that China or India may not join in the changes we may undertake in mitigation. Ignore that they both are working faster toward mitigation than the west:
Would that not mean that those who disagree there is a problem be allowed also not to change? Especially since there are many who have said openly "I will go out and get a big SUV just to teach those eco-nazis a lesson".
Complain about this comment
@yeah_whatever
#123
comment on the content, please
#124
first paragraph - what on earth are you talking about? if GW is natural then you and i can do nothing to stop it
second paragraph - what on earth are you talking about? the quote clearly states offering up alarmist claims is the way to convince the public that AGW is real, even if the scientists themselves have doubts
third paragraph - what on earth are you talking about?
Complain about this comment
#115 Many_summits
You have eloquently shared the root of the situation and the need to DO something to affect positive change.
The puzzling quote at the end is great... As we have entered a period of turmoil now, there will be an impetus to impact change. We need a force to push against or we waffle and flip/flop around with no real movement.
I recently attended a Green Jobs conference where Van Jones was the lunch keynote speaker. He is on Obamas team, a clear speaker and offered an easy take away thought to the effect....It takes a significant event to impact positive change. (There is also a series of interviews on the Fortune magazine website in the Green jobs bent, and Van Jones is interviewed on there...worth a listen.)
We now have some significant events that have shown the fallacy of our unsustainable consumption...which should drive change. There has been significant awareness raising recently of our need to do things better, in a more sustainable fashion...and money earmarked to support DOING things better.
The methods identified for prescriptive improvements to building energy consumption are not optimum, but will improve energy consumption on the cheap. It is good that our economy has taken a pause from the rampant consumerism, and that many are "available" to impact that change. As long as the mentality does not stop there and continues to dive deeper into what else we can further improve, it is okay.
There is a slight perspective shift that we need to harness those natural processes which can and WILL deliver sustainable energy moving forward. We can save the world...one BTU at a time.
The point is we WILL move forward and DO IT, regardless of whether the denialists are enlisted and also move forward. The effort involved in enlisting their participation may be better spent doing what we know must be done for the good of all.
Regarding losing your way temporarily, you took some paths and performed thought experiments...which resulted in solidifying your "True North Compass". That is not bad...as you will harness that "energy transformation" to the ultimate good.
Peace.
Burghermeister
Complain about this comment
re 118
"With all due respect, manysummits, as i have repeatedly said, it is not up to sceptics to prove AGW is wrong. "
Prove that this must be so.
You made that statement, you haven't shown any reason why AGW is not proven right, thereby passing the need to prove to YOUR assertion that AGW is, despite that proof, wrong.
There is PROOF of AGW.
1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
2) CO2 is produced in massive amounts by humans
3) Temperatures are rising
4) Only CO2 increases happen at a rate and to a size of change enough to explain #3
Now, prove any of these wrong.
Complain about this comment
@yeah_whatver
#128
again burden of proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
Science and other uses
Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, either positive or negative, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven.
Taken more generally, the standard of proof demanded to establish any particular conclusion varies with the subject under discussion. Just as there is a difference between the standard required for a criminal conviction and in a civil case, so there are different standards of proof applied in many other areas of life.
The less reasonable a statement seems, the more proof it requires. The scientific consensus on cold fusion is a good example. The majority believes this can not really work, because believing that it would do so would force the alteration of a great many other tested and generally accepted theories about nuclear physics.
1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
2) CO2 is produced in massive amounts by humans
3) Temperatures are rising
4) Only CO2 increases happen at a rate and to a size of change enough to explain #3
you keep repeating this again and again
this is not proof of anything, merely a few statements and an assumption
Complain about this comment
CT states
"#123
comment on the content, please"
Why? You have never known what the content is. Any queries are replied with "Ask them, they put it up".
"#124
first paragraph - what on earth are you talking about? if GW is natural then you and i can do nothing to stop it"
We can stop the CO2 portion that we are creating. Which is a NATURAL result of us producing billions of tons of CO2 each month.
So "what can we do about it" is answered by "not burn CO2".
And nobody knows what you're talking about. Not even you.
And the third para is completely parseable by a homo sapiens. Treat RSpencer's "model" with the same skepticism as you treat
http://www.ipcc.ch/
Complain about this comment
#125 Yeah
Your walk through the park is well taken...
But the "process energy" spent in changing all to our side or indefinitely arguing our points/facts/truths for the sake of whatever, results in energy inefficiency. Your passion is undeniable, but what will result from that?
I have been guilty of this also, but am FOCUSING my "energy" on Energy Efficiency. (I enjoy the banter...but what results from that?)
We need to FOCUS our energy on RESULTS that affect positive change....not argue our points ad-infinitum.
What result do you intend to achieve with results for the ultimate good? Pick a course of ACTION and stick to it. That is the directional vector you must focus on, which will result in your time here on earth being well spent. GO FOR IT, MAN!
Peace OUT!
Burghermeiter
Complain about this comment
re 129
"1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
2) CO2 is produced in massive amounts by humans
3) Temperatures are rising
4) Only CO2 increases happen at a rate and to a size of change enough to explain #3
you keep repeating this again and again
this is not proof of anything, merely a few statements and an assumption"
You make a statement that they are merely assumptions.
Prove it.
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
Not an assumption, proof.
2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Consumption_statistics
Not assumption, proof.
3: Your own graphs show rising. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
Not assumption, proof.
4: Show that there is enough change in ANY OTHER climate forcing that will manage the change.
Running the CO2 graph against the temperature record and 76% of the variation is explained by CO2. A mathematical proof. Just like Beers Law.
Not assumption, proof.
Complain about this comment
"But the "process energy" spent in changing all to our side or indefinitely arguing our points/facts/truths for the sake of whatever, results in energy inefficiency. Your passion is undeniable, but what will result from that?"
Spreading weedkiller doesn't stop weeds growing.
It does stop them spreading so quickly.
CT's lies and half-truths and unsubstantiated rhetoric were it to go unopposed would spread far father. If people had stood up to this in 1932-36, there would have been no Hitler:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
Complain about this comment
re 129, why do you keep saying "you keep saying this but they aren't proofs"?
Why do you insist they aren't proofs? SHOW THEY ARE NOT PROVEN.
Burden of Proof is on you.
Complain about this comment
What I meant by 134 is that you keep saying that you DO NOT have to explain your alternatives because you say that AGW is not proven.
But you STILL HAVE NOT shown that this is true.
All you've shown is that there must be proof before questioning.
You're not questioning, though, you're bringing up your own theories. And they have the same burden of proof as any other theory.
NOTHING in that link says that you do not have to explain your theory.
Complain about this comment
at the risk of repeating myself, the first 3 items in your list are correct and have been known about for decades, you then jump to the conclusion that because 1-3 are correct, 4 must be, but there is no empirical proof to make that leap of faith
if there is empirical proof to support 4, please provide a direct link to show the proof. No long winded explanations for this and that, no accusations, no unsupported statements. Just a single link will suffice
Complain about this comment
you know it's laughable that you can compare sceptics with hitler
i guess it's me that has got bored with this ping pong first
Complain about this comment
#133 Yeah
Please do not take the following as an excoriation....just some kind input. Okay?
From your response, I take it that the total climate output by your "energy" is not taking action to address that which you discuss so passionately. The output of your chosen path...is discussion/bantering/pursuit of the truth in undeniably excruciating detail.
You and CT have interesting discussions which go to infinity...what is the resulting ACTION you are taking from that?
From an earlier post:
"We now have some significant events that have shown the fallacy of our unsustainable consumption...which should drive change. There has been significant awareness raising recently of our need to do things better, in a more sustainable fashion...and money earmarked to support DOING things better."
You seem to have missed my point. ACTION...not words....make something happen for the good. Have you not yet had the revelation that you need to jump up and DO? Is there not sufficient realization that you can make a REAL difference to deal with the climate change you are so passionately defending? You merely need to set a course, and take ACTION to change the path you are on. (it will be much more fulfilling for you)
I repeat my previous query/proposition to you...
"What result do you intend to achieve with results for the ultimate good? Pick a course of ACTION and stick to it. That is the directional vector you must focus on, which will result in your time here on earth being well spent."
Are you a talker, thinker, or a DOER? Use your passion combined with FOCUS to make a real difference. Choose your ultimate path and "energy" expenditure wisely....or you will find your frustration from a life of contributing verbage, to be overwhelming. I believe you WANT to do something to make a difference...ACTION will take you to that place, once you achieve clarity of purpose.
Now, I am going out to DO...
Burghermeister
Complain about this comment
So why is 4 incorrect?
Co2 is enough to make that difference, 76% of it to be precise.
Now if you think that something else is doing it, what is it? The burden of proof is yours. Prove what is doing it if not CO2
Complain about this comment
137: it's laughable that you take the one thing that is different and think that is the commonality.
It isn't.
The Big Lie is the commonality.
"There is no proof" is the big lie of denialism.
Complain about this comment
If you want a link to CO2 read the 4th assessment of the IPCC report.
Complain about this comment
I gave Cukoo Too four papers to look at that shows a 2-5C per doubling of CO2 in this thread
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/04/the_scientists_behind_this_wee.html
.
He *said* he'd go off and read it.
Apparently he's forgotten.
Complain about this comment
Repeating links from that thread:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/213/4511/957
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1980/JC085iC10p05529.shtml
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/04/target-co2
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/the-certainty-of-uncertainty
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006.../2005GL025259.shtml
As well shows how to do it.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
and i read the original links and replied
the new link is a paid for paper, so if you have another link i'd be grateful, although i would point out (as i have before) that several newer papers refute climate sensitivity being as high as stated in this abstract - in fact they state climate sensitivity as being considerably lower
Complain about this comment
#139
Now if you think that something else is doing it, what is it? The burden of proof is yours. Prove what is doing it if not CO2
you really don't understand what "burden of proof" means do you?
Complain about this comment
To simon-swede #116 re 'modern' sailing:
Thank you for the link - very interesting; I wasn't aware that progress was happening along these lines - in spite of my pessimism!
To CT #118:
My fault - wrong article - I should have given a proper reference, which is: "American Scientist", May/June/09; "Revisiting the Limits to Growth After Peak Oil", by Hall and Day.
I have cut this article out and added it to my binder, as it was the Club of Rome's early writings and the 1972 book "Limits to Growth" which turned me into an environmentalist. I highly recommend this article to all bloggers on this site!
Let me summarize, from the perspective of a former stockbroker and an oil hunter:
When a bond trader buys a million dollar bond, he typically only makes a small payment, say $5000.00. If the bond goes up in the next little while, big profit on small investment. This is the principal of leverage, a fancy term for gambling or gaming.
The 2008 global financial collapse, and the ensuing FannyMay/General Motors/Chrysler/manymore bankruptcies are in my opinion little different in reality. In all cases 'leverage' has been used to gain potentially larger than normal advantage. Lots of fancy terms are here, derivatives etc..., but it is just gambling, usually with other people's money.
At least a bond trader is on the hook if the bond goes south, but our big corporations have managed to circumvent this obstacle - when things head south, the taxpayer steps in and pays - I believe it's eleven trillion dollars and counting as we speak - 11 Td perhaps we should say -a new SI unit! Gambling without risk - Hmm - maybe that's not gambling anymore, but something the International Criminal Court at the Hague could profitably look into?
Anyway, the authors in this article point out in ecologist language that peak oil is probably here already, and that population continues its relentless climb to its own peak sometime in the future, etc etc...
But I like the analogy of leverage - we have leveraged ourselves, like a bond trader, but to fossil fuels. If fossil fuels run out, industrial civilization as we know it will collapse. In my opinion, it is collapsing as we banter here on this blog. It's a case of 'can't see the forest for the trees.' It's so big it's almost invisible.
To Burghermeister #121 and 127:
Thanks for your comments - always appreciated, and I admire your can do one BTU at a time approach. Being a soul-surfer, I sometimes end up at the wrong end of the curl, and have to get back onto the board. It's a usual thing.
I like your comment:
"You have to feel solid to "spar" with others..but what is the signal and what is the noise?"
Nice word usage there - 'spar' -
You also wrote:
"And one of the reasons mitigation is being withheld is that China or India may not join in the changes we may undertake in mitigation. Ignore that they both are working faster toward mitigation than the west:" (my emphasis)
I remember simon-swede alerting me, and I presume others, to this 'truth', a rather humbling truth.
To CT - blog "Carbon Caps..." post #542 re list of natural climate change:
One of your dates was:
"10,000 - 8500 BC
Younger-Dryas
Rapid cooling, prolonged cold period, then Rapid warming"
Those dates are a little out of date - should be ~10,800 to 9,500 BC;
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
I haven't checked all your other dates - this one struck me because it is of particular interest to me for several reasons - not sure if you are interested in any of these reasons?
The end of the Younger Dryas marks the official end of the Pleistocene/beginning of the Holocene, and is a glacial stage termination, an excellent example of my 'drastic non-linear response'.
There is increasing evidence that it also marks the end of the Clovis culture, and speculation on the coincidence in time of this date, 9500/9600 BC, and Plato's date for the destruction of fabled Atlantis. Mountain avens are also my favorite alpine flower, because of their very commonness as well as beauty - perhaps there is a psychological clue there to my political tendencies? That recent mountain trip to Thunder Mountain - I noticed a profusion of the distinctive leaves of the mountain aven along the entire ridge route. Come mid-June, they should be beginning to flower - I might have to go back, to see them and to see if that curious Big Horn sheep is still there?
- Manysummits - soul surfer -
Complain about this comment
here's a first - Monbiot admits he has made a mistake and Arctic ice is actually above average for the satalite era - a full 30 years
It is therefore correct to state that the April 2009 extent exceeds the 1979-2009 average
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/may/15/climate-change-scepticism-arctic-ice
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
#147
I don't disagree with what you say about the article, although i like to think that by the time fossil fuels run out, we will have used technology to solve the problem in a reliable way
with regards to the dates being out of date, i don't have a problem with that, the important thing is climate changes without our intervention - all the time
i am also very interested in all things natural - i spent half my childhood in Manchester Museum in the Natural History department - it was fascinating and those memories have stuck with me all my life
Complain about this comment
To CT #'s 148 and 149:
Re Monbiot: I doubt it's a first. George Monbiot is simply admitting to a technical error on his part, something any scientist would be proud to do, as it is a part of human nature to make honest mistakes, and part of Greek pre-Socratic Arete to admit them. Also, is your post not an ad-hominum attack on one of the United Kingdom's citizens?
Thanks for posting the link - all is explained there, but I will excerpt for emphasis:
"Arctic sea ice extent declined quite slowly in April; as a result, total ice extent is now close to the mean extent for the reference period (1979 to 2000). The thin spring ice cover nevertheless remains vulnerable to summer melt. Sea ice extent averaged over the month of April 2009 was 14.58m sq km (5.63m sq miles). This was 710,000 sq km (274,000 sq miles) above the record low for April in 2007, and 420,000 sq km (162,000 sq miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average."
- Snow and Ice Data Centre
As the article points out, the extent of ice cover is slightly above the average for 1979 to 2009, though not the base period 1979 to 2000. All data sets suffer from this complication. For example, in James Hansen's GISS report on the global temperature average for year 2008, and in the anomaly maps, the base period upon which the anomalies are calculated is a chosen interval of time. The anomaolies would be different for different base periods.
But what is your real point CT? Do you think arctic summer sea ice is going the way of the Do-Do bird or not?
And I have another direct question for you, with regards to the natural climatic variations pre-dating the fossil fuel area. (your list - post #542 'Carbon Caps blog':
What do you think is the cause of these pre-industrial climatic fluctuations? That would include the trigger, or prime climate driver (or drivers), plus positive amplifying feedbacks minus negative feedbacks?
I would expect that a full answer to this question would interest many of us on this website!
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
#150
Monbiot isn't a scientist and i don't know how pointing out that he has conceded Arctic ice extent has grown since 1979 is an attack
As you are aware a climate period is generally accepted as 30 years not 20 years, so isn't it a little cherry picking to say sea ice extent is below average for a period less than 30 years, especially when there is 30 years of satelite data available? Also isn't the NSIDC image of sea ice a little misleading, if they do not show the data - afterall if i only looked at the images on their website, i could believe mistakenly that sea ice is below average.
Do you think it's wrong to look at all the available data for the period 1979-2009?
Would it be fair for me to point out that, despite CO2 continuing to rise, this century temperatures have fallen without acknowledging that recorded temperatures were high towards the end of the last century and the 30 year trend is still up?
In answer to your question is sea ice going the way of the dodo, i think it may or may not, but one thing is sure, if temperatures continue to rise, it will in all likelihood disappear. But arctic ice has gone before and i am sure it will go again at some point in the future.
I'm not sure what answer you are looking for in your penultimate paragraph. Climate changes naturally due to various influences such as the sun, various cycical events etc etc. But one thing for sure, according to the ice cores, temperature rises first and then around 800 years later, CO2 rises, not the other way round.
Here's a question, if CO2 is the driver behind recent warming, why has it cooled despite the continuing rise in CO2 levels? Could it be that something more powerful than a few molecules of CO2 is at work?
Complain about this comment
CT, you don't seem to understand burden of proof.
You don't get to say "that's not proof" and keep the burden on. You accept what is given to you as proof and you can counter it, but your counter has to say why it isn't proof.
If proof is given, "that's not proof" needs backing up.
Do so.
Complain about this comment
"Here's a question, if CO2 is the driver behind recent warming, why has it cooled despite the continuing rise in CO2 levels? "
Here's an answer: the trend of temperatures is upward.
Just saying that it's cooling says nothing about the trend.
On the graph you've linked to before, have a look at 1800-1850. Would you have said "it's cooling"? Yes. But the trend went up. 1940-1950 was higher than any year in 1800-1850. But again, if you'd stopped there you'd say again that it was cooling. Yet it got even hotter.
So please prove the trend is downward.
You make the assertion.
Back it up.
"Could it be that something more powerful than a few molecules of CO2 is at work?"
Well, what do you suggest it is?
Complain about this comment
re 150: problem with April ice is this is after winter, when there's be little or no sun for 6 months.
The minimum temperatures are not hugely affected by CO2 since it can only delay heat loss, not remove it completely.
Take a look at CT's "Elephant in the room": Summer time losses of sea ice extent.
Getting bigger each year.
And that's when the sun can start to introduce warming into the system that CO2 can then trap until some more sun comes in, raising average temperatures quite a lot.
Complain about this comment
Against "recent cooling": http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Ball.html
http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Reber.html
For CO2 sensitivity: http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/ClimateSensitivity.html
And 76% of the change in temperature can be explained by CO2: http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Correlation.html
Pity you didn't say anything about your "problems" last time. Just said "Ta. I'll spend a few days on this" and then... uh... didn't.
Complain about this comment
And for those of you who wonder whether CT's "CO2 has insignificant effect" means you don't have to look:
http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Saturation.html
Since 1956.
Was AGW a "sure thing" for gaining grants, power, control and tax revenue ever since then?
I don't think so.
Complain about this comment
Ah, why not.
On Roy Spencer: http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Spencer.html
Complain about this comment
God Lord,I have been around the internet for many years and have never had any posts removed from any forum. Most of my newbie attempts at posting here have been removed. I do look forward to the replacement of the current incumbents at the BBC and a return to common sense.I have been saving my posts just for the sake of it and look forward to seeing if this one is removed. I do so much like freedom of speech.
Complain about this comment
yeah_whatever wrote:
a lot really,but not much in reality.
Complain about this comment
To CT #151:
1) In your post #148: "here's a first (my emphasis) - Monbiot admits he has made a mistake".
That's a small ad hominum, surely.
2) in 151: "isn't it a little cherry picking to say sea ice extent is below average for a period less than 30 years"
Only if you assume it's only the satellite data which is available.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_pole
3) 151: "Do you think it's wrong to look at all the available data for the period 1979-2009?"
Not at all. And what is all the available data CT?
Try this for a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_shrinkage#2008
see in particular 'recent expert statements - 2008'. Also note that even Wikipedia is behind the curve in their opening statement. Recent information suggest the Arctic Ocean will be summer ice free as soon as 2013.
There's a lot more - but that's a start.
4) 151: "I'm not sure what answer you are looking for in your penultimate paragraph. Climate changes naturally due to various influences such as the sun, various cycical events etc etc. But one thing for sure, according to the ice cores, temperature rises first and then around 800 years later, CO2 rises, not the other way round."
And why do temperatures rise first CT? That was my question. You are on the right track, with natural changes in the sun, and cyclical events, but surely for one who is adamantly opposed to AGW, you have a fuller explanation. An understanding at some substantial level of what caused the initial temperature increase, how that was amplified, and most importantly, why this same initial temperature rise/amplifying feedback/glacial termination cycle is repeated throughout the Pleistocene, and recorded virtually everywhere now, in marine sediment cores, mountain glaciers, our great ice sheets, caves, tree rings, pollen counts, a multitude of isotope records, computer models from around the world etc...
I would not expect any normal person to know all this, but I would certainly expect the BBC's prime anti-AGW blogger to be willing and able to provide a more detailed answer than a few words.
5) 151: "Here's a question, if CO2 is the driver behind recent warming, why has it cooled despite the continuing rise in CO2 levels? Could it be that something more powerful than a few molecules of CO2 is at work?"
It's called weather - up and down over a range. And those few molecules of CO2 have acidified the entire world ocean's surface waters, with pH H+ activity up some thirty percent. Those same few CO2 molecules have been heating the world ocean primarily - estimates off the top of my head are that 80 to 95 % of the heat is being absorbed by the ocean, not the atmosphere. That's why most of the world's coral reefs are bleaching and dying. This is all documented empirical data CT - it's not heresay - I would expect the BBC's chief anti-AGW blogger to be intimately familiar with this evidence, and to have a valid explanation other than AGW and CO2.
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
An Interlude from Science, or "Balance on a Sunday Afternoon"
"We must never forget that art is not a form of propoganda; it is a form of truth."
"Art is the great democrat, calling forth creative genius from every sector of society, disregarding race or religions or wealth or color."
"Too often in the past, we have thought of the artist as an idler and dilettante and of the lover of arts as somehow sissy and effete. We have done both an injustice. The life of the artist is, in relation to his work, stern and lonely. He has labored hard, often amid deprivation, to perfect his skill. He has turned aside from quick success in order to strip his vision of everything secondary or cheapening. His working life is marked by intense application and intense discipline."
"If sometimes our great artists have been the most critical of our society, it is because their sensitivity and their concern for justice, which must motivate any true artist, makes him aware that our nation falls short of its highest potential. I see little of more importance to the future of our country and our civilization than full recognition of the place of the artist."
- John Fitzgerald Kennedy, "The Uncommon Wisdom of JFK"
- Manysummits - off to the climbing park with son and Underacanoe -
Complain about this comment
- Back to Science - or is it Art? -
We just arrived back from the park, at a run, from the great north wind!
The temperature dropped in one hour from plus 24 deg C to 14 deg C, as the wind veered from west to northeast, kicking up clouds of prairie dust down what I call the slot - over the airport - along the famed ice-free corridor, former path of mammoths and paleo-Indians.
This, CT, is called weather. Contrary to empirical evidence, I am not expecting another ice-age - only snow tonight, and a return to spring in the next few days.
On the other hand, at the end of the Younger Dryas, some 11,500 years BP, the temperature went up some ten deg C in a few years over central Greenland (Eismitte in German I think), and stayed up for the next ten thousand years or so - this is called climate.
Forgive the levity - I couldn't resist!
- Manysummits - in the ice free corridor, but not for long -
PS: Long time ago, the Laurentide ice sheet coming from Hudson's Bay collided with the mountain glaciers flowing out of the mountain valleys to the west of Calgary, and the meeting of the two glaciers produced a medial morraine which entrained large and small chunks of a distinctive quartzite from the Jasper area, possibly from Mount Edith Cavell. This ice-age boulder train extends for many hundreds of kilometers in a thin line from the US border into the Jasper area, and contains the 'big rock' at Okotoks, which is the size of a house, even a few houses actually, and is reputed to be the largest glacial erratic in the world (there's that competitive spirit again!).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okotoks
Complain about this comment
#158 Dr PorkPie
You could also have a look at the rules for this blog and try to follow them...?!
Complain about this comment
#151 CuckooToo
You keep focusing on sea ice area. However sea-ice volume is a more reliable indication of longer-term trends.
Complain about this comment
@simon-swede
#164
Simon, the discussion was on Monbiots focus on sea ice extent and his error when he tried to ridicule Booker
It is therefore correct to state that the April 2009 extent exceeds the 1979-2009 average
to be fair, i think it was pretty decent of Monbiot to admit his mistake publicly
Complain about this comment
#165 and that invalidates Monbiot's error how?
It doesn't.
Afraid to answer questions? Go on, you can do it.
Complain about this comment
Just a thought:
"151: "Do you think it's wrong to look at all the available data for the period 1979-2009?"
Not at all. And what is all the available data CT? "
Also didn't CT complain bitterly about the incorrect data that lasted a few days before someone spotted it and it was corrected? Why then use 2009 data that hasn't been QC'd?
Similarly for the data from the aerial survey, no QC of data has been produced from that survey, yet CT wants to use it NOW.
And if it turns out that corrections are needed but it still doesn't say what he wants, any bets he'll complain about the bad data input?
Complain about this comment
Porkpie, why did you feel the need to whinge twice about comment deletion?
Do you think that it will change?
As simon says (no pun intended!), try staying somewhat on topic or put a little more than "I hates them!" in your message.
Complain about this comment
Yeah, Manysummits, Cuckootoo
Have you seen the movie "What the Bleep_Down the Rabbit Hole"?
You are going further down the rabbit hole in pursuit of the truth that each seeks. I believe you are doing a good dig into the truth from many different angles...sometimes the depth of the argument seems to get stuck in very minute but perhaps critical points.
There are a multitude of rabbit holes to dive down into in different specialties of science. Manysummits proposed a Convergence approach a while ago. He has done a lot of deep digs in many different directions.
Some rabbit holes may not yield all the facts/data/truths and other rabbit holes contain key missing nuggets needed to rationalize the unknowns of the first rabbit hole. Kind of like keys to locks which open up the truth which is veiled by intense focus in one dimension of missing nuggets. Convergence of multiple dimensions of data seems most productive...and perhaps opens up much complex blogging discussion, but finally contains convergence to the desired answer.
Stepping back from intense focus to look at a wider picture of connected facts yields results much more efficiently. This is a critical thinking/problem solving approach, which is widely used as a technique to uncover hidden facts which answer difficult questions with a structured approach. I had a class in it when working in the engineering world on airbag diagnostic module safety analysis....and used it to great advantage.
Problem solving techniques such as this have universal application which facilitate looking at all the data differently, and find the common links within some structured methodology....allows a pattern to be revealed usually unseen when merely looking at all the seemingly unconnected facts. Does this approach make sense to rationalize the ultimate truth you seek?
Just a thought to help you efficiently find the sought truth.
Burghermeister
Complain about this comment
Building on what Burghermeister wrote in #169
A letter in the most recent issue of Science, dated 15 May 2009, gave a broader perspective on the Climate conference held in Copenhagen in March. The letter is of particular interest as it was written by the chairs of some of the 57 sessions held during the 3-day meeting.
The authors wrote the letter because they "would like to highlight the enormous breadth of new research presented at Copenhagen about the interactions between climate and human society." To me the letter highlights once again the fact that no one discipline or small group of disciplines holds a monopoly on knowledge relevant to climate change and its impacts.
The authors note:
- Of the 593 research papers orally presented, only about 25% dealt with observed or modeled behavior of the Earth system.
- Nearly 50% of the papers were from scholars from the social sciences and humanitiesgeographers, philosophers, political scientists, anthropologists, economists, sociologists, and environmental historiansoffering new insights about governance, adaptation, communication, behavior, resilience, innovation, and culture.
- These insights suggest that it is possible to avoid the catastrophic outcomes foreseen by biogeophysical scientists, particularly if climate change is addressed as part of the much larger societal transformations that are necessary to foster both equity and sustainability.
- However, little of this new research on climate change from the social sciences and humanities has been reported or recognized in mainstream media reporting from the event.
- The key messages of the conference were not, and could not be, the "consistent" message of some 2000 scientists. The conference messages indeed constitute an important call to action. They would have been more inspiring, however, if they had taken note of the depth of insight that emerged from the research about the motives, forms, scales, and processes of possible actions.
- There is a large and growing body of research about climate change from the social sciences and humanities, which offers new ways of framing the phenomenon, of opening up discourses between peoples and political actors, of elaborating potential solutions that can be sustainable, and of linking such solutions to other key social, economic, and environmental phenomena.
- These are all insights that are more engaging, empowering, and fruitful than a discourse of catastrophe, and it is important that they are given much more prominence in climate change science-policy interactions and in media reporting.
Complain about this comment
@yeah_whatever
#166
#165 and that invalidates Monbiot's error how? It doesn't.
Im sorry, yeah_whatever, I really dont understand what that is meant to mean.
Afraid to answer questions? Go on, you can do it.
If you are talking about your questions in your most recent posts, of course not, but I will give you the courtesy of reading the links you have posted before answering
#167
"151: "Do you think it's wrong to look at all the available data for the period 1979-2009?"
Not at all. And what is all the available data CT? "
The latest, up to date data is available on the NSIDC web site, where you will find confirmation that the 30 year record for sea ice extent shows an increase
Also didn't CT complain bitterly about the incorrect data that lasted a few days before someone spotted it and it was corrected? Why then use 2009 data that hasn't been QC'd?
No, that was PAWB46, although I may have pointed out in previous posts that sloppy science should be checked and corrected before it is made public.
The incorrect data you are talking about is the one where data was published by AGW alarmists, a realist showed the data was flawed and within a few days the data was corrected by another person and credit was given to this other person, instead of the realist who actually highlighted the errors.
The mysterious person turned out to be none other than Gavin Schmidt, who tried to claim credit for spotting the error in his RealClimate co-bloggers data (the "et al" in the paper includes Michael Mann) by giving a false name and sex. Full story is here:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5093
None of which matters, of course, because the important thing to note is the peer reviewed paper contained errors that artifically warmed the Antarctic
Similarly for the data from the aerial survey, no QC of data has been produced from that survey, yet CT wants to use it NOW.
I actually agree with you, the data should not be used until it is published in the correct manner. So the Caitlin team should also stop giving interviews to the BBC and releasing news that the ice they found was thinner than expected. I would bet my house on the Caitlin discovery the Arctic ice is thinner than expected makes the news, but the news that the international survey team discovered thicker ice than expected doesnt make the news, especially on the BBC.
Complain about this comment
@Burghermeister
#169
I understand what you are saying, but AGW alarmists are asking us to dig deep into our pockets to "solve" a problem that may not exist. With fundamental disagreements over whether of not CO2 causes a significant rise in CO2 or not, to fully understand what is happening I think we have to dig deeper than relying on which side shouts loudest and longest.
Complain about this comment
Something else came to mind:
Now that scientists have discovered that the Atlantic deep water conveyor belt doesn't work like they thought for over 50 years, does this mean the computer climate models need reworking?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090513130942.htm
Complain about this comment
@yeah_whatever
#155 / 156
None of the links seem to be working at the moment - i did have a quick look this morning though. The links seem to be a geocities website by an IT / science fiction writer, but i couldn't find anything to suggest that thes links were anything other than a blog by an alarmist.
I'll try again later
Complain about this comment
Re Burghermeister #169 and simon-swede #170 (multi-faceted approaches):
The new article in American Scientist, May/June/09, "Revisiting the Limits to Growth After Peak Oil", by Hall and Day, is, I believe, one which we could all obtain and discuss profitably, as it is exactly the many-faceted approach of which both of you speak.
And it's right up to date!
The revised graph on p.235 (figure 7), is a sight for sore eyes, and makes we catastrophists look more than a little sane.
However, I would certainly like to hear more on the 'insights' from Copenhagen.
To simon-swede: "Science, dated 15 May 2009"; does the Letter offer any of these insights, or only suggest that one read more? Is there a compendium of digestible size available??
You wrote:
" These insights suggest that it is possible to avoid the catastrophic outcomes foreseen by biogeophysical scientists, particularly if climate change is addressed as part of the much larger societal transformations that are necessary to foster both equity and sustainability."
This sounds a lot like Richard Alley's approach in his 2004 Scientific American article "Abrupt Climate Change", where he ends by saying:
"It is well worth considering how societies might increase their resiliency to the consequences of an abrupt shift - or even how to avoid tipping the climate canoe in the first place."
And it also sounds a bit like our "Mayday Declaration", in which we discuss population growth, promotion and reform of the United Nations - in essence "societal transformations that are necessary to foster both equity and sustainability."
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
#173 Cuckootoo
I have said that all along that climate models need new tweaks as clearer evidence is discovered. Definitely.
Another point is whether they truly understood it 50 years ago, and included in the models... It may have such a slow system response time that it can be ignored over a shorter time horizon if the other effects are dynamically changing fast enough and adding insulation to the system.
Now I go back to a previous thought...
How much data and how long do we stay stuck in paralysis by analysis...all the while fiddling while Rome burns? Time for change is now, my friend. We are in the process of technology evolution for the better, and will not use so much energy to sustain us moving forward.
Arguments of not committing currency/effort to sustainable energy technology are thin...in view of the estimates that our global negative effect from climate change is in the multi Trillions of dollars.
That is a significant effect holding back the growth of humanity (maybe not a bad thing considering planet carrying capacity).
Do we alternatively commit that money/effort to making widgets and electronic doodads? This can make money, but does it REALLY add value and investment to better the plight of humanity? What is the value of that money if we have an unsustainable environment in which to exist?
Ultimately, we can choose to do business as usual or progress with technological advancements to make the net total supply of energy last longer, to make our existence sustainable.
P.S. I sense you are not really obstructionist, but rather prefer to know all details in full...and enjoy healthy debate...fair enough.
Burghermeister
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"Now that scientists have discovered that the Atlantic deep water conveyor belt doesn't work like they thought for over 50 years, does this mean the computer climate models need reworking?"
Coupled models that include the gyre will.
But that won't change the effect of CO2 on temperatures, just change the pattern of that change.
And maybe only slightly.
After all, you have no proof that this change is significant when it comes to climate, have you. You would have to prove it first, yes?
Complain about this comment
"The latest, up to date data is available on the NSIDC web site, where you will find confirmation that the 30 year record for sea ice extent shows an increase"
And has that data been through QA to remove erroneous data?
Please show your workings that this is confirmed, that this also means (in light of what simon pointed out) that ice volume (which you have not disagreed is a better indicator of warming than ice extent) is also increasing.
After all, a warmer air can produce more snow which will increase the maximum WINTER extent of ice.
If you want to say that this proves the climate is cooling, please prove it as you understand Burden of Proof.
Complain about this comment
ManySummits #175
You asked if the letter referred to in my post #170 "offers any of these insights"? It does, in the sense that the bullets I gave are taken verbatim from the main points made in the letter. The letter itself does not have a reference for further reading, but a complete compendium of the abstracts of papers presented is available on-line at:
http://climatecongress.ku.dk/abstractbook/
Complain about this comment
@Burghermeister
#176
P.S. I sense you are not really obstructionist, but rather prefer to know all details in full...and enjoy healthy debate...fair enough.
And i like to think you are correct.
The thing that concerns me is on the one hand we have many scientists who are saying AGW is not happening and on the other we have many other scientists who are saying AGW is happening, but governments all of the world want to commit huge sums of money to solving a problem that may not exist.
I can think of many pressing problems that need funding before we try to tackle global warming without, as far as i can see, real proof that this event is man made
Complain about this comment
@yeah_whatever
#177
so what you're saying is anybody who disagrees with the opinion of alarmists is a crackpot / in the pay of big oil / denialist etc etc
and you think i have a closed mind
the difference is, when the sites you listed are back up, i will go to them and read, if the author is a legit scientist i will see what he has to say or if the site links to real work by real scientists i will read the links. But if the site is just another alarmist idiot then i will probably ignore it
Complain about this comment
@yeah_whatever
#178
you know something? i actually think you are right about this post
#179
you are going to moan about this answer, but the data doesn't belong to me and i have no reason to question the findings of NSIDC in the same way that i have no reason to question Hadleys data showing recorded temperatures since 1850
Complain about this comment
manysummits #175: "The new article in American Scientist, May/June/09, "Revisiting the Limits to Growth After Peak Oil", by Hall and Day, is, I believe, one which we could all obtain and discuss profitably, as it is exactly the many-faceted approach of which both of you speak."
I'm all in favour of "the many faceted approach". We all have different backgrounds, training and experience. The sum total could be a good combination.
Unfortunately; the document you referred to doesn't seem to be freely available...
http://www.americanscientist.org/my_amsci/restricted.aspx?act=pdf&id=23850182259297
"The content you've requested is available without charge only to active Sigma Xi members, affiliates and American Scientist subscribers."
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
No, CT, a crackpot is a crackpot.
Evidence for the prosecution is as follows:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/roy-spencer-on-intelligent-design/
http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2008/07/28/yes-roy-spencer-is-a-creationist/
Oh, and as to why he's against AGW:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=19
And who pays for Heartland Institute?
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41
Go down to "Funding".
Complain about this comment
"And i like to think you are correct."
Of course you do. And you'd like others to think so too.
Yet you show great credulity to anything that denies AGW and great resistance to anything proving AGW.
Complain about this comment
re 179.
You do question Hadley's data. You refuse to accept the data that 2-5C per doubling of CO2.
Do you have anything to say about the methodology, the maths or anything else in those links? If not, then why do you bring it up? You don't know what it says, you just say "This is right, I reckon".
Didn't you say 181 that can't see any real proof of AGW? But you don't seem to want proof of any paper that says it isn't happening.
And there is plenty proof.
Temperature goes up. CO2 is going up. The variation from flat-line to recorded temperature is 3x larger than if you rate it against not the flat line but CO2-levels.
Evidence empirically arrived at that shows maybe as much as 76% of the change can be explained by CO2 rises.
That is proof.
If you say not, then why not.
You cannot just say "that's not proof". Back it up.
Complain about this comment
And this is REALLY weird:
"and i have no reason to question the findings of NSIDC in the same way that i have no reason to question Hadleys data showing recorded temperatures since 1850"
Yet you DO question those self-same scientists that their results on AGW is right. You seem to have a lot of right to question when you're asked to support yourself.
You do not know what you're talking about, you're just going "there are people who say it's wrong, so therefore it must be".
Well, there are people who believe that you're an alien sent down to stop any "real human" from finding out the truth. Unless you ARE a Scientologist, in which case anyone who isn't you believe is not a real human. In either case, you would have this mean that we don't know if there's any humans on the planet.
What a weird world you live in, kid.
Complain about this comment
And try those links in 155, they're using the data from sources you have no reason to question and you can run the correlations yourself, in case he's telling porkies.
So having read them, I take it you have no objection to the sensitivity of 2-5C and 76% of the variation of temperatures being due to CO2, yes?
Complain about this comment
CuktooToo #181 (and elsewhere)
Several times now you have written that governments should not take action about AGW so because to do so now would be to commit huge sums of money to solving a problem that may not exist".
I remember identical arguments being used repeatedly in similar circumstances in the 1980s by those opposed to action to reduce releases of ozone-depleting substances (ODS). Here is a sense of some of that debate.
By 1981 UNEP was convinced that a scientific case had been built on the need to reduce releases of ODS. Between 1981 and 1985 an international working group struggled to come up with an international control regime to govern these chemicals. The then EEC opposed such measures. In 1985, the only agreement possible at a conference in Vienna was a framework convention to conduct more research and monitoring. The signatories did agree to develop a control protocol in two years time, but not many would have gambled much on a meaningful outcome. In late 1986 the Antarctic ozone hole was discovered and all of a sudden the negotiations finally began in earnest. The Montreal Protocol was signed in September 1987. The original Protocol required an immediate freeze on new production of ODS and a progressive reduction in major ODS production to 50% in 10 years time. Increased awareness and concerns about ozone depletion lead to an accelerated phase-out being agreed, with the London Protocol of 1990 and the Copenhagen Protocol of 1992 requiring 100% reduction. In 1997 methyl bromide was added to the list of ODS covered.
Critics of this process frequently argued against the incurring the cost of replacing CFCs and other ODS on the basis of flimsy scientific evidence of ozone-depletion in the first instance, and of lack of evidence of harm to human health after the ozone hole made the first argument difficult to sustain. Claims and counter-claims went back and forwards, prolonging the debate even after political decisions on revised ODS phase-out targets were reached.
Finally, in 1997, Environment Canada published a report looking at the costs of phasing out and replacing ODS. The report concluded that replacement of CFCs would cost about USD 128 billion, replacement of methyl chloroform would cost about USD 48 billion, and the replacement of halons about USD 13 billion.
The global cost of replacing all ODS with alternatives was estimated to come to about USD 235 billion by 2060. Big numbers, even if is not in the trillions of dollars that have been claimed here by some as the cost of action on climate change.
But maybe not so big also The USD 235 billion by 2060 would have amounted to a total cost of USD 47 per person, or seventy-five US cents per year.
There would also be direct benefits. The same study concluded that if the action was taken, there would be 19 million fewer non-melanoma skin cancer cases per year, 1 million fewer melanoma cases, 129 million fewer cataracts, and approximately 330 000 fewer skin cancer fatalities. No economic assessment was made for these health benefits. The largest direct economic benefit would have arisen from a reduction in damage to the worlds fisheries, estimated at over USD 230 billion. Reduced agricultural damage was estimated at about USD 190 billion. Reduced damage to buildings and other infrastructure was estimated at USD 30 billion.
Excluding any economic value of the health benefits, the total economic benefits of the ODS phase-out was estimated at USD 459 billion. The total cost of finding non-ODS chemical alternatives was estimated at USD 235 billion. The total NET benefit is then about USD 224 billion.
See Long-term benefits of the Montreal Protocol, Alexander Chisholm, Wintergreen Consulting, published in Blurring Boundaries of Scientific Evidence in Public Debates, New York Academy of Sciences, September 1999.
Complain about this comment
Hey, empirical proof that the temperatures are highly sensitive to CO2 concentrations.
.http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200612/10/eng20061210_330836.html
Quote:
The resulting greenhouse effect heated the earth as a whole by about 9 Fahrenheit (5 Celsius) in less than 10,000 years, geologic records show.
...
And if methane was the culprit, then Earth climate must be extremely sensitive to carbon dioxide increasing, over 10 Fahrenheit (5.56 Celsius) per carbon dioxide doubling," noted Pagani.
And in this link:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
There's this little bean:
"Temperature and various forcings (including CO2) over the past few centuries shows a climate sensitivity between 1.5 to 6.2°C (Hegerl 2006). One study combines the results from various paleontological studies to narrow climate sensitivity to around 2.5 to 3.5°C (Annan 2006). Basically, multiple studies covering many different periods of earth's history confirm that when CO2 is doubled, global temperatures go up around 3°C"
Heger's 2006 link: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7087/abs/nature04679.html
And Annan's 2006 link: [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Which says:
That is to say, it has a maximum likelihood value of 2.9 C, and, using the IPCC terminology for condence levels, we nd a likely range of 2.2-3.9C (70% condence) and a very likely range of 1.7-4.9 C (95%).
Complain about this comment
CT Do you reckon that there's a conspiracy behind the september 11 attack on the WTC?
http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/86
Look at what else they talk of:
http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/5325
And they have the same case for 11/9 being a big conspiracy as you have for AGW (which is why I asked):
#
# 9/11 - "Lucky Larry Silverstein." Follow The Money
# 9/11 - 110 Professors Question the 9/11 Commission Report
# 9/11 - 40 Experts Quoted - 70 Facts Listed - The Real Ossama Bin Laden
# 9/11 - Building 7 Becomes The Achilles Heel Of The Official Conspiracy Theory - BBC's 9/11 Yellow Journalism Backfires
Very close to your points "proving" AGW is ficticious.
Just thought it an interesting coincidence.
Complain about this comment
From the Annan paper:
"They also imply that the sensitivity range of modern GCMs (2.1-4.4C) is likely to include the correct value (with greater than 80% condence), and is very unlikely to exclude it by more than a small margin, thereby increasing our condence in the models."
So observational data fits in with the results of the climate models.
What do you need to prove a model is working, if not that?
Complain about this comment
Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
(Where there is doubt, there is freedom)
- Latin Proverb
On this pensive holiday Monday, it has occurred to me that I may finally understand this proverb.
How many of us are beholden to some belief, any belief, and how does this constrain our freedom?
Is this not an age of maximum uncertainty, with "peak everything" and the "perfect storm" said by some to be here now, or soon, and others saying "Nay"? Do you belive in Gaia, or the revenge of Gaia, or in Peter Ward's "Medea Hypothesis", or are you free to make up your own mind?
Is this potentially a time of maximum freedom - to choose one's own path?
I've been reading James Lovelock's "Revenge of Gaia", and rereading the American Scientist article on "The Limits to Growth".
To jr4412 and davblo2
{On Lovelock}
It occurs to me that what we have been advocating in our "Mayday Declaration" is essentially James Lovelock's "sustainable retreat", and not "sustainable development". Further, this is not a matter of semantics, but very real.
I believe managing a military retreat is one of the great tests of a commander, and I think this is truly our situation.
{On Limits to Growth, and Malthus}
It occurs to me that Malthus was entirely right - population increases geometrically and food only arithmetically. Despite the green revolution, modern irrigation and fossil fuel leverage, actually because of these, we have been deceived.
A population which is overweight is every bit as malnourished as a population that is too thin. A population riddled from top to bottom with preventable degenerative disease is in no real holistic sense healthy, or even affluent - and this is also not a semantic argument.
We have been mining the soil, not farming, depleting water reservoirs, not sustainably irrigating, eating industrial products for the most part, not partaking of real food.
Our Mayday Declaration is on the right path after all, in my opinion.
- Manysummits, thinking -
Complain about this comment
To simon-swede #180:
Thank you for the link - 1600 abstracts in 58 sessions - a daunting task for even the avid reader.
I am reminded of Burghermeister's "paralysis by analysis"!
In thinking about the 'sustainable retreat' some of us are now obviously advocating, perhaps here is a focus for the future? Perhaps some of these abstracts spoke to this?
I think it was Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce who conducted a famous retreat in days of not so long ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Joseph
Five hundred years ago we came to the Americas in search of fame and fortune and land and converts. We broke our word at every turn, in favor of what?
I have always maintained that our problems are largely psychological, the technical difficulties being rather easily overcome.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
#172 Cuckootoo
"I understand what you are saying, but AGW alarmists are asking us to dig deep into our pockets to "solve" a problem that may not exist. With fundamental disagreements over whether of not CO2 causes a significant rise in CO2 or not, to fully understand what is happening I think we have to dig deeper than relying on which side shouts loudest and longest."
A clarification on my previous reply to this....less words now.
We see the concept of digging into pockets and fallacy of wealth made from arbitrary monetary fiat currency clearly after "investing" during the markets of 2007 and 2008. Use internal reflection and emotional intelligence to truly query your soul about your true path of purpose.
Digging into pockets is an illusion....digging into one's soul to do the right thing is much richer, and has more MEANING in the final analysis.
Putting ones shoulder squarely to the wheel....and truly, deeply, believing and realizing that we all are connected to a common purpose...is the REAL digging into our pockets. It spends on growing humanity together...connected/sustainably. We all have different personal currency of skills/views/experience which can be very complementary and worth much more together in synergistic fashion with the wealth of others' personal currency.
This currency cannot be swayed by inflationary cycles...only our WILL to make forward progress.
Peace
Burghermeister
Complain about this comment
#194 Many_summits
Very deep and clean!
"How many of us are beholden to some belief, any belief, and how does this constrain our freedom?
Is this not an age of maximum uncertainty, with "peak everything" and the "perfect storm" said by some to be here now, or soon, and others saying "Nay"? Do you belive in Gaia, or the revenge of Gaia, or in Peter Ward's "Medea Hypothesis", or are you free to make up your own mind?
Is this potentially a time of maximum freedom - to choose one's own path?"
You encompassed the root of our situation well. I believe if we cling to the past unsustainable behaviors and money as our true north compass, the number of tangles in the web of human progress will need scissors to clean up. I see the current economic morass as a light tap on the shoulder where we are given the opportunity to "choose a different path".
(I liked that phrase so much that I use it in my business logo with a green road going into the sun.) That is also what I have done...chosen a different path. It is not always easy...but nothing of true value ever is.
Another deep stretch in the river...
"It occurs to me that Malthus was entirely right - population increases geometrically and food only arithmetically. Despite the green revolution, modern irrigation and fossil fuel leverage, actually because of these, we have been deceived.
A population which is overweight is every bit as malnourished as a population that is too thin. A population riddled from top to bottom with preventable degenerative disease is in no real holistic sense healthy, or even affluent - and this is also not a semantic argument."
You are on target...BULLSEYE!!! Our illusory belief in monetary affluence misses the true affluence of sustainability...and that is only achieved by connection with the real world. I believe the Native Americans had it right...then we came in like a pack of baboons...where are we now?
#195
"I have always maintained that our problems are largely psychological, the technical difficulties being rather easily overcome."
That is SOOOO on target, and one of the realizations that came to me a couple of years into my engineering career. I was told by an older mentor...."now you are starting to REALLY learn", I was so fortunate to have the insight of that individual to guide me. Fast forward to our present situation and the reluctance of some to commit that money/effort to dealing with our climatological challenges...purely psychological. Some make the leap more slowly, cling to unsustainable beliefs/patterns for some reason...maybe fear of change.
Peace,
Burghermeister
Complain about this comment
To Burghermeister # 197:
Peace to you Burghermeister.
- Manysummits, Underacanoe, and Cloudrunner -
PS: Mig was asking - if he ran fast enough, could he stay on top of the clouds and not fall through!
Complain about this comment
Since the link to the paper in 191 wasn't liked (It linked to Japan Agency for Marine Earth Science and Technology, so I can't see why), the title of the paper is:
Using multiple observationally-based constraints to estimate climate sensitivity
J. D. Annan and J. C. Hargreaves
FRCGC/JAMSTEC, Yokohama, Japan
Complain about this comment
So... no one who can help shed any light on the validity of the sums from the original blog post then?
I feel I might well be able to cite this thread as a metaphor for so much. Sadly.
Complain about this comment
Well, there's definitely enough energy. When you add in solar panels, energy storage and old-fashioned fossil fuels *as backup* the sums work out fine.
Your post could be used as a metaphor. Sadly. Shakespeare had it nailed: your post signified nothing. Put some content in it next time, this isn't Star Trek (2009) you know...
Complain about this comment
@yeah_whatever
#155 etc
ok, i've been able to look at Barton Paul Levenson personal blog and, as far as i can see, Levenson is a computer programmer who would like to be a writer of science fantasy novels. I'm not quite sure what his qualifications are to write on climate science - his wiki page appears almost self written, but i believe he has a right to express an opinion, although he doesn't appear to add anything to the argument.
On recent temperatures, he tells us the trend is up, by which he means the 30 year trend is up and i agree. He claims Ball is wrong, but Ball actually tells us that recent temperature trends are down and not up. Hadley agrees with Ball. That is not say that BPL is incorrect.
He also tells us that Reber is wrong, but then seems to agree with Ball that recent temperature trend is down.
On climate sensitivity he is a few years out of date and he appears to be so blinkered in his belief that AGW exists, that he doesn't read anything that may upset this belief.
On correlation, he tells us that because current temperatures are rising in line with CO2 emissions, this proves CO2 is the current driver behind climate, but as the ice cores show, CO2 and temperature have never risen in tandem. CO2 rise follows temperature rise by around 800 years.
On saturation, i read as far as BPL telling us the troposphere ranged from 11km to 15km and stopped reading for obvious reasons.
He then goes on to challenge Spencer to sue him. I would hope Spencer wouldn't be too upset at being challenged by a writer of novels (oops, novel), unlike a certain climate scientist i've heard of who is suing a 16 year old girl for libel
How you managed to find such an obscure commentator on climate change is beyond me, but i guess it's clear where you get your literary style and ideas from.
Complain about this comment
@yeah_whatever
#185
and what does spencer's religious beliefs have to do with his ability to understand the how climate works? Spencer used to work for NASA, it didn't bother them, so why should it bother you so much?
Spencer own website tells us he has never taken money from oil:
Dr. Spencers research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.
this type of idiotic attack is out of place
Complain about this comment
@yeah_whatever
#188
And this is REALLY weird:
"and i have no reason to question the findings of NSIDC in the same way that i have no reason to question Hadleys data showing recorded temperatures since 1850"
Yet you DO question those self-same scientists that their results on AGW is right. You seem to have a lot of right to question when you're asked to support yourself.
It's a record of observed data, not an opinion, but you and others make the assumption that because temperatures have risen, CO2 must have caused it. You cannot make such an assumption without evidence and the ice core evidence points to CO2 lagging behind temperature, not the other way round
#191
you think pointing to an article is proof that climate sensitivity is high, but won't accept published papers by Shaviv or Spencer or Christy when they say climate sensitivity is a lot lower than the IPCC thinks it is. Incidentally, the IPCC calculated sensitivity higher in 2001 and have seen revised estimates down and yet you accept this article when it says climate sensitivity is 4.5 - that's higher than the IPCC first assessment, which is now just over 3 as stated in your remaining paragraphs.
#192
don't be ridiculous
Complain about this comment
@Burghermeister
#196
I'm not really sure how to answer this, because i'm not sure if it is meant to be an attack on what you perceive as my values, so apologies if i have misunderstood.
I have spent most of my professional career providing social housing, including timber framed (since 1981), sustainable housing etc and i am currently converting a property for use a paralysed woman. Believe me when i say there is not that much money in it - i change a lot less than your local garage charges to service your car
This headless chicken rush into solving the problem of CO2 is going to affect people on low incomes a lot more than it affects people on high incomes - somebody has to pay for cap and trade an CCS.
Complain about this comment
re 203, his religious beliefs? Nothing. His "scientific" belief that there's a lot of consistent and scientifically valid information in the bible, however, DOES make a huge difference.
Read the second link.
It has some *hilarious* quotes from him.
All of which undermine his credibility as a scientist.
And of course, he's never taken money from Exxon. I mean, he *said* so, didn't he.
And what that could easily mean is that he got some money from the Heartland Institute that *came from* Exxon.
*Technically* telling the truth.
Complain about this comment
re 202. Do you have anything that proves his mathematical workings incorrect?
And the trend IS up. See 153 for how your "It's going down" says NOTHING AT ALL about the trend.
This, of course, would require you to know what statistics is and how to find statistical significance.
An exercise which shows that the trend is upward still.
Now, do you have any PROOF that the mathematics were incorrect or that the data is not the data from the hadley centre or other such site that you say you have no reason to reject?
Because at the moment, it looks like "no".
Complain about this comment
you know something?
i give up
i really don't think climate is as sensitive to CO2 as alarmists make out (and when it boils down to it, this is the only question that needs answering), but i found out a few weeks ago that my beautiful wife is pregnant and she is much more important to me than any of this nonsense and clearly i am wasting my time trying to get you guys to actually read things for yourselves and question the "consensus".
@yeah_whatever
try to tone the language down a little please and perhaps people will take you seriously
@manysummits
respect - i disagree with your adoration of Hansen and your beliefs, but you are always courteous and i think you have every right to be wrong ;)
@everybody
i'll probably pop back every now and then and i will definitely carry on reading Richards blog - i agree with him more often than not (except this doom and gloom on CO2!)
keep an open mind and read the actually papers for yourself
all the best
Complain about this comment
"Levenson is a computer programmer who would like to be a writer of science fantasy novels."
So? Is his maths incorrect?
"He claims Ball is wrong, but Ball actually tells us that recent temperature trends are down and not up."
And many other scientists agree with Levenson and disagree with Ball.
PROVE the temperatures are going down.
"On climate sensitivity he is a few years out of date and he appears to be so blinkered in his belief that AGW exists,"
Are you sure you're not talking about yourself? There are other links, the Annan paper for example, says it FAR higher than you seem to want to think it is, yet you're so blind in your religiois fervour against AGW that you refuse to read or accept anything that breaks that belief.
"On correlation, he tells us that because current temperatures are rising in line with CO2 emissions, this proves CO2 is the current driver behind climate, but as the ice cores show, CO2 and temperature have never risen in tandem."
That's because it had to be something getting warmer that released the CO2. We are burning it from fossil fues.
Why do you not understand it? It's not difficult.
We are burning fossil fuels.
We are producing CO2.
And CO2 HAS risen in tandem. When CO2 has risen, temperature has risen. There's a delay in several cases in paleohistory where temperatures rose up FOR OTHER REASONS, but there has been additional warming from CO2 that has risen in tandem.
So please prove your assertion that the CO2 emissions and temperature increases have occured in tandem.
Burden of Proof.
"On saturation, i read as far as BPL telling us the troposphere ranged from 11km to 15km and stopped reading for obvious reasons."
What obvious reasons? You didn't like him?
Complain about this comment
"you think pointing to an article is proof that climate sensitivity is high, but won't accept published papers by Shaviv or Spencer or Christy when they say climate sensitivity is a lot lower than the IPCC thinks it is."
Where do you think that the IPCC get their figure from?
PUBLISHED PAPERS.
Published papers you do not accept because they say that climate sensitivity is higher than Shaviv, Spencer (who we have already shown is a kook) and Christy say it is.
Where's the papers you're alluding to? Where's their proof? Where's their attempt to see if their lower sensitivity will match paleoclimate records? THEY HAVEN'T DONE IT.
Complain about this comment
Cuckoo Too, comment on the data provided by the website and the papers I linked to
are their findings right or wrong? if you think they are wrong, please provide supporting evidence.
Where is your supporting evidence?
Complain about this comment
Regarding post 192, you say "don't be ridiculous".
What's ridiculous?
You've said that the reason why you know AGW is wrong is because there are several scientists who say it is.
You say, have said (and Paw too) that all you need to do is "follow the money" and you'll see that AGW is hokum.
You say that there are many questions that do not get answered the way AGW wants (tropospheric upper air, for example) so therefore it must be wrong.
You have said that this is all a ploy by politicians to garner more power and control.
Well, they are the same reasons why that site thinks that 11/9 is a huge government conspiracy.
Are you saying that those reasons are ridiculous?
Well, I'm glad you're coming around.
Complain about this comment
"208. At 7:23pm on 19 May 2009, CuckooToo wrote:
you know something?
i give up
i really don't think climate is as sensitive to CO2 as alarmists make out (and when it boils down to it,"
Ah, so you admit there's no proof that the climate is not as sensitive, you just don't ***BELIEVE*** it.
"keep an open mind and read the actually papers for yourself"
Hang on, is this the guy who posted in the G20 summit link (#400):
"take it up with Wiki - their figures not mine"
???
And responded similarly when asked about Archibald's numbers (in his un reviewed paper)?
Complain about this comment
In case he comes back or someone wants to continue his work, he says in the G20 thread post 543:
"alarmists set climate sensitivity at an absurdly high value, but in reality, as demonstated by Monckton, climate sensitivity is much lower, so you see CO2 cannot produce significant rises in temperature"
But doesn't say how he's demonstrated it.
The paper doesn't seem to demonstrate it either, merely say it is.
So if anyone wants to go with a lower than IPCC range of CO2 sensitivity, can they let us know where Monkton demonstrated it was lower.
Ta.
Complain about this comment
And if anyone can tell me how this is arrived at logically (from 205)
"This headless chicken rush into solving the problem of CO2 is going to affect people on low incomes a lot more than it affects people on high incomes - somebody has to pay for cap and trade an CCS."
I'd like to know.
The lowest incomes can't afford big gas guzzling cars, trips each year to Marbella or waste power as it is. Taxes on CO2 production will affect those with invested money in energy production far more than the poor person. Big shareholders will have problems finding a ogliarchy to invest in when distributed power is available.
Cap and Trade will not affect the poorest in the world, since they benefit from the scheme.
The only ways the poor get the shaft here is in exactly the same way as they get it now: in capitalism, the more money you have, the more power. And the more power you have, the less you have to put up with consequences.
That's why the worker has to take a pay cut or work unpaid overtime "to be competitive" but the CEO gets a huge pay rise and a massive salary "because we want the best". It seems to say that they don't want the best workers, doesn't it? But you're poor, you have no power and you NEED this job to survive.
And so they hand the mine to the rich guy and the worker gets the shaft.
But maybe someone out there has the reason why combating AGW and avoiding its impacts are going to affect the poor more than the rich.
If so, speak up.
Complain about this comment
208. At 7:23pm on 19 May 2009, CuckooToo - perhaps people will take you seriously
Of course, one then merely needs to get to the next post(s) and read on, and on, and on...
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
CuckooToo at #298
You wrote: "...i found out a few weeks ago that my beautiful wife is pregnant..."
Congratulations and good luck to you both!
Complain about this comment
#205 Cuckootoo
I was not attacking your values, my apologies if you got that. My point was that the money/effort spent on re-wiring a broken energy consumption set of values is well spent relative to other ventures which make money but do not make sense in long term sustainability.
Looking at the results of global business on the earth...it is an extrapolated version of all the poor land use policy which happens in the rich/developed countries. Although the poor in low cost/developing countries receive some benefits by business moving in and developing, there is a cost paid in the earth being exploited in unsustainable ways at the site of new cheap manufacturing/shipped across the earth/consumed/thrown away in landfills. When another cheap labor country is willing to be exploited for the sake of "progress" the locusts then move there and repeat the cycle. So the remaining survivors are left with what...and are they ultimately better off?
It may well be said that the poor are affected disproportionately by climate change resulting from the chain of unsustainable activities. I speak of all the people living in low areas prone to flooding brought on by climate change, among others. (Manysummits referred to revenge of Gaia...this is it) The cost of inaction is high...not in money terms alone.
As Yeah_whatever posted in #215..
"The only ways the poor get the shaft here is in exactly the same way as they get it now: in capitalism, the more money you have, the more power. And the more power you have, the less you have to put up with consequences.
That's why the worker has to take a pay cut or work unpaid overtime "to be competitive" but the CEO gets a huge pay rise and a massive salary "because we want the best". It seems to say that they don't want the best workers, doesn't it? But you're poor, you have no power and you NEED this job to survive.
And so they hand the mine to the rich guy and the worker gets the shaft."
The poor support the rich just as the poor have some benefit as they are allowed to work the job to survive. I guess this is the unbalance of where we are now. (We are all connected in this web of life.)
Any effort to change our energy consumption to sustainable usage will ultimately lead to less destruction of earth's climate....which yields improved conditions not only for the poor, but for all. The cost of action can ultimately lead to a lower end cost since we have less unsustainable development destruction which we create and then must repair/support.
The true cost depends on the implementation and distribution of these costs...and how much is siphoned off by the governmental "machine". Cap and trade can be successful depending how it is implemented, and what is the ultimate agenda of governments/big business. If you are skeptical of big business and their role in big government...it is justified. In US, way too much influence by attorneys over the direction of policy...that is starting to change a little...but it needs to change a lot.
Regarding your values and deeds which you illuminated...Very Good things you do in sustainable development for poor folks...ultimately reduces the output of GHG and helps those in need. These efforts increase sustainability...you are already working at improving the climate change of which you seem skeptical. That's a good thing, sir!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
If 220 gets banned for potential defamation, I'll go back and remove all the similarly "defamatory" posts against RC, IPCC, the government etc.
Complain about this comment
CuckooToo at #298
I second Simon_Swede's well wishes....
Now you have an even more vested interest in the sustainability of our future for your progeny, and their progeny.
Congratulations!
Burghermeister
Complain about this comment
Why is it that asking why someone calling the IPCC corrupt isn't defamatory is defamatory?
Complain about this comment
Alternatively, why is asking why people calling a group NOT the IPCC/government corrupt IS considered defamatory (when calling the IPCC/government corrupt isn't) considered defamatory?
Answers on a postcard...
Complain about this comment
thanks for the good wishes, guys
just for the record, I have always believed in sustainability (i did my first eco-friendly housing development in the early '80s using passive design and lots of insulation), recycling before it became trendy, not wasting anything and i have always preferred small economical cars
i even used to think agw was real back in the '90s, until i noticed how alarmists would attack sceptics instead of arguing what the sceptic was actually saying, so i started reading more and the more i read, the more i became convinced that AGW isn't happening - warming yes, AGW no - which is why i urge you guys to read alternative views, not just alarmist views
if you are interested look up alternative views about climate sensitivity and you will see the latest findings suggest that climate sensitivity (defined as the average increase of the temperature of the Earth that you get (or expect) by doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere) is considerably lower than the IPCC would have us believe, which means even if CO2 went to 600 ppm, it would have negligable effect on temperatures
that's it
see ya
Complain about this comment
Cukoo Too, it's an alternative. There's also the alternative that the sensitivity is more than 5C per doubling.
Why is the one saying it's less the right one?
Does it fit the data?
You make that statement "Temperature sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C" (which is the take-home of your mate Archie) but you have no proof it is. Just a model.
And when you try again later, the latest findings will show that it is higher. Depends on when you do your search, doesn't it.
Complain about this comment
The text within this:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/once-more-unto-the-bray
will also show how you can arrive at a higher level of sensitivity by using the very basic physics.
A quote
"But back to his main error: Forcing due to CO2 can be calculated very accurately using line-by-line radiative transfer codes (see Myhre et al 2001; Collins et al 2006)."
And produces a value around 4W/m^2.
Historical evolution of radiative forcing of climate
Gunnar Myhre, Arne Myhreb and Frode Stordalc
Radiative forcing by well-mixed greenhouse gases:
Estimates from climate models in the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)
Contain the words of scientists.
Complain about this comment
PS it's funny CT complains that the reason why he went off AGW was because of the attacks against the skeptics not against the science.
Yet he's used attacks against the AGW scientists. A link to a Monkton report was replete with attacks against the Hadley Centre, not the science and so on and so forth.
So where will he move next?
Complain about this comment
re 15, if that was your point, why did you not mention it?
All you said was NY had 8 million people, not 1 and so it was silly.
No mention of this "what your point was" in your original slap at Richard.
Complain about this comment
Tryin again in what I think was originally 177:
Ah, CT you don't mind putting up a link to a known denialist site (WUWT) or to a scientist known to put their religion ahead of a scientific discipline if they come into conflict (Roy Spencer is a weatherman, not a climatologist and he's willing to ignore any biology papers that say that we evolved rather than were creations), but you DO have a problem if there's a geocities site to a scientist or a collective blog with several reputable scientists (RealClimate).
Complain about this comment
Yeah_whatever
I guess you are emphatically talking to the sky...CT left the arena.
You won....
Now, what path do you choose? It is all yours to do....
Get in the game mate. Search deep in your soul and find your true path. You have the energy...FOCUS IT!!!
There is a big world to affect positive change upon. Don't let your 525oo2oo minutes go to waste. DO IT MAN!
10/4 good buddy!
Burghermeister
Complain about this comment
I won what? This isn't a game, you know.
Cuckoo Too had something that seemed to be pertinent on building codes, logging etc. But because he can't go "I heard someone who has a PhD in something say that AGW was wrong, therefore it is wrong and you have to prove it right so there" he's run off.
Not only taking the bull***t away but anything that was actually of worth too.
And what happened to the hippy speak of "It's all love, PEACE OUT"? Sarcasm doesn't work with the personae of "I'm a great guy" you want to present.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This is the question that keeps getting moderated out as begin defamatory:
"Why is it calling the entire IPCC "something unsupported" and AGW a "not correct thereby" (both of which have happened here in posts by several people) is OK but to call someone "something poorly supported" (which requires no illegal activity at all to become) is considered "potential defamation"?"
WHO IS BEING DEFAMED????
ANYONE?
ANY GROUP?
ANY THING AT ALL????
Is it because it does a grep or similar for some words???
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I'm advised:
"If you can rewrite your contribution to remove the problem, we'd be happy for you to post it again."
by the moderator.
Strangely enough, the post doesn't actually FIT in any of the reasons to identify a defamatory post. The message advising removing the problem elucidates nothing about what would have to be removed itself.
Complain about this comment
And in 235, there was a post from Cukoo Too from the G20 thread.
If that post itself wasn't defamatory, how can a post quoting it be?
Complain about this comment
Why is this post on the G20 summit thread not defamatory and if I disagree I must respond rather than ask for it to be removed:
"549. At 2:24pm on 04 May 2009, CuckooToo wrote:
no peer review, regardless of the conclusion is valid if conducted properly and not by a bunch of mates all singing from the same hymn sheet"
Yet this post keeps getting removed from this thread for being defamatory:
"Why is it calling the entire IPCC OPTIONA and AGW a OPTIONB (both of which have happened here in posts by several people) is OK but to call someone a OPTIONC (which requires no illegal activity at all to become) is considered "potential defamation"?"
MODERATORS:
The complaint button should only be used to alert the moderators to content that may contravene the House Rules.
If you disagree with another poster's viewpoint, please add your own views to the blog.
House Rules on Defamatory:
* Exposing the individual or organisation to hatred, ridicule or contempt;
* Causing the individual or organisation to be shunned or avoided;
* Lowering the individual or organisation in the estimation of right-thinking members of society; or
* Disparaging the individual in their office, profession or trade or the organisation's office, profession or trade.
So which one is in effect and why?
Without that, how can I reword it? I don't know what words are being refused I could change each one but that would be a new post, wouldn't it.
Now was it
OPTIONA: corrupt
OPTIONB: fraud
or
OPTIONC: crackpot
that is at fault?
Or several of them?
Complain about this comment
And obviously whoever moderates doesn't bother to read.
Complain about this comment
#232 Yeah_whatever
wrote
"And what happened to the hippy speak of "It's all love, PEACE OUT"? Sarcasm doesn't work with the personae of "I'm a great guy" you want to present."
Maybe I am complex...just as you.
If you don't see clearly that I have some faith in the value that you could contribute to the greater good...let me say it clearly.
You are raw unharnessed energy...as I have been in the not too distant past, and I am trying to convey to you the spiritual observation that you can do much good with your energy. I think you have all the passion without the spiritual connection with your true purpose, and I mean that in a good and helpful way.
Sorry if you are annoyed that I attempt to inspire you to greater heights, but you can get there. If I could change path and focus, I am confident you can also. It only takes a life changing event to facilitate that perspective shift...I have had several and observed the signs that I blindly ignored before as a result of them.
I think you believe in the value of doing the right things to affect positive change, but are caught up in the noise and excitement of the debate and discussion...which interferes with your true connection to that which you know is your true path to follow. Don't give up on walking the true path...settle in and believe in yourself deeply.
Burghermeister
Complain about this comment
re 240: It was you who said "there's a lot of ego stroking going on". Twice.
Someone removed a whole slew of posts and so I put it back.
Complain about this comment
This has some bearing on this thread.
There is a telegraph blog that has a section about Dr Chu's idea of having white roofs rather than dark ones to reduce the CO2 needs of cooling a house.
Here's one of the more printable loonies comments (there are some TERRIBLE ones there. If you think I'm rude, have a look http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/5389278/Obamas-green-guru-calls-for-white-roofs.html)
"I am confused, if the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap in heat and that is what is the cause of GW, how is reflecting that heat off buildings and roads going to reduce the warming? It's already trapped in the atmosphere."
Astounding, really.
Confusion either expressed and not felt or one from willful ignorance.
Forgetting that sunlight has to be absorbed before it can be turned into heat, so REFLECTING sunlight isn't an issue, forgetting that there is an ice albedo feedback which would demonstrate that this really does work and then getting confused because they don't understand what's going on.
Like wow.
Complain about this comment
I see CuckooToo has posted a long message about me. As far as I can see he has gotten nearly every particular dead wrong.
1. He claims to have visited my blog. I don't have a blog. I have a web site.
2. He questions my qualifications on climate science. I am not a professional climate scientist. I do have a degree in physics (University of Pittsburgh 1983), and I have been writing computer atmosphere models for twelve years. I have been interested in planetary astronomy since about 1973 and have been studying it on my own and formally since then.
3. He says I wrote my own wiki page. This is not only wrong, it is an accusation of misconduct, and absolutely untrue and unjustified. Anyone familiar with my writing style, which is all over the web, would see that I did not write my wiki page. As nearly as I can figure out from the support pages, most of it was written by the internet literary critic who signs himself Botendaddy.
I have read Botendaddy's blog and left some messages there, and it's clear to anyone who reads both of us that we are not the same person. When I volunteered, I was turned down by all four armed services because of my chronic medical conditions. Botendaddy is a decorated Army Lieutenant Colonel who served on the front lines in Bosnia and Iraq. I am a liberal Democrat, Botendaddy is a self-described Reagan Democrat. For that matter, I accept AGW theory, whereas Botendaddy is a global warming denier like Cuckoo (except a lot more polite). So Cuckoo has not only insulted and falsely accused me, but one of his allies as well. But I hope Cuckoo continues in this vein, because fratricide among the anti-science types is always amusing.
3. Ball is wrong, the temperature trend is not down. This is not something that is subject to debate and personal opinions. The World Meteorological Organization defines climate as mean regional or global temperature over a period of 30 years or more. "Global warming stopped in 1998" is wrong because a "trend" that isn't statistically significant is not a trend. Nor can you say "Well, I think it's significant." It's not up to you. Statistical significance is something that can be measured to a given confidence level. There is no falling temperature trend. All the last ten years are among the warmest on record.
4. I never said the correlation proves the theory -- AGW theory isn't based on climate correlations. It's based on radiation physics. The close correlation between changes in temperature anomaly and changes in ln CO2 (r = 0.87 for 1880-2007) is only confirmation. The theory predicted the correlation before it was observed (long before, in 1896, to be exact). The correlation did not lead to the theory.
5. I never said the troposphere ranges from 11 to 15 km altitude. I said the top of the troposphere does. It ranges from about 15 km near the equator to 11 km near the poles (hot air expands and all that). To be fair, I might have confused the issue by using the word "troposphere." It might have been clearer to talk about the tropopause.
I suggest CuckooToo do a little more research. I don't care if he does research on me or not, but if he's going to pontificate about climate science he really ought to crack a book, and I'm not talking about some pop pseudoscience book full of polemic. I'm talking textbooks by professionals. I can recommend some good ones if--IF--he's interested.
Complain about this comment
@BartonPaulLevenson
Hi Barton,
Couple of points:
My post was in response to yeah_whatever, who seemed to think you were an authority on climate change. My understanding is you are not.
You are a part time writer of science fantasy, who once claimed lizards were indeed trying to take over the earth. In fairness, this could have been quoted out of context from one of your "books".
You tried to have a paper published on saturation, but this was rejected by "Physics Today", which is unfortunate, because physics is your major.
I actually said you seemed to have written our own wiki page - I accept your explanation and, therefore, assume the author of your Wiki page is a fan.
If you read my other posts, i have said the temperature change over the 30 year period is uo, but recent temperature trends have been flat or down. I have never said overall temperature trends are down. That is clearly not the case. I have never disputed the rise in global temperatures recorded in recent times, just the source and relevance of these changes.
Others disagree with your correlation and historical temperatures still lead CO2 rise
If you are going to write about climate change it is usually bext to be clear on what you say. For a writer, I am surprised at this error. I assume you will correct your website
I do a lot of research, Barton, and I have read many books on the alarmists and sceptical sides. I even started off being a believer, but my research showed me the error of my ways.
Please do recommend books, I am always ready to learn something new. Are you?
Complain about this comment
BPL, you'll notice CT does that a lot: it's not his fault, it's NEVER his fault, it's always someone else and you should go and ask them.
"If you read my other posts, i have said the temperature change over the 30 year period is uo, but recent temperature trends have been flat or down."
And there's no trend flat or down.
A trend isn't "it's lower now than it was at some time before". You have to use statistical significance tests to assert a trend. You don't.
You just don't believe AGW is happening and will therefore accept anything that says it isn't happening from anyone without any critical thought. And demand more than 100% proof from anything that says AGW is real.
Complain about this comment
Oh, and this is wrong:
"Others disagree with your correlation and historical temperatures still lead CO2 rise"
Incorrect.
Paeliohistory has temperature increasing CO2 and then that CO2 causing a corresponding increase in temperature.
There are times when greenhouse gasses have increased by other means than temperature and in those occasions, the temperature rose after the increase.
Your cherishing of this logical fallacy (a follows b, therefore b must precede a) is incomprehensible. When you die, your heart stops. This does not mean that someone who has a heart attack and their heart stops must have been dead before then, does it. So why must CO2 only ever follow temperature?
Complain about this comment
@yeah_whatever
And there's no trend flat or down
try telling that to the Met Office - here is a graph from Junkscience (save the trashing of the website, they are just showing the data obtained direct from HadcRUT3:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/HadCRUG.html
To me, this graph shows a clear upward trend until we peak in 1998. I really can't see how anybody can construe the 11 year period since 1998 (almost half a climate period) as anything other than flat or slightly down.
#246
"Others disagree with your correlation and historical temperatures still lead CO2 rise"
Incorrect.
How is that statement incorrect?
Even New Scientist accepts CO2 rise lags temperature rise:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-cosub2sub-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming.html
I quote (cherry picking of course)
There is uncertainty about the timings, partly because the air trapped in the cores is younger than the ice, but it appears the lags might sometimes have been 800 years or more.
This proves that rising CO2 was not the trigger that caused the initial warming at the end of these ice ages
Even you agree "Paeliohistory has temperature increasing CO2", so how can my statement be incorrect?
Oh, I know, you are about to pull the "lying by omission" routine
Complain about this comment
"And there's no trend flat or down
try telling that to the Met Office - here is a graph from Junkscience (save the trashing of the website, they are just showing the data obtained direct from HadcRUT3:"
That graph doesn't show a TREND down.
It shows that there is a drop in annual temperature compared to selected earlier years.
That isn't a trend.
Statistical analysis will tell you if it's a trend.
That isn't on that graph and you haven't shown it either.
Show us your significance test. Show a TREND.
Complain about this comment
"Even New Scientist accepts CO2 rise lags temperature rise:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-cosub2sub-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming.html"
Nope, that's saying that the temperature produced more CO2. It doesn't say that the CO2 didn't produce a LATER temperature change, does it.
Complain about this comment
Cuckoo writes:
You tried to have a paper published on saturation, but this was rejected by "Physics Today", which is unfortunate, because physics is your major.
True. About half of papers submitted to journals are rejected. Note that Physics Today isn't a peer-reviewed journal; it's basically an industry journal for physicists. That was the audience I wanted to reach, so when they turned it down--not because of errors but because it wasn't saying anything new--I decided not to go "journal shopping" to find one that would accept it.
If you read my other posts, i have said the temperature change over the 30 year period is uo [sic], but recent temperature trends have been flat or down.
Temperatures since 1998 aren't enough to establish a trend. A trend has to be statistically significant.
Others disagree with your correlation
They disagree with my correlation? Did I get the math wrong? Either I calculated the correlation correctly or I didn't. It's not really subject to opinions. There's an equation for it.
and historical temperatures still lead CO2 rise
I found r = 0.87 in the same year for 1880-2007 (N = 128).
Please do recommend books, I am always ready to learn something new.
For a non-mathematical overview of global warming, I recommend Spencer W. Weart's "The Discovery of Global Warming" (2nd ed. 2009) and J.T Houghton's "Global Warming: The Complete Briefing" (2nd ed. 2009). S. George Philander's "Is the Temperature Rising?" (1998) is also good.
For climate science, I would start with something like Dennis Hartmann's "Global Physical Climatology" (1994). In addition, I would read either J.T Houghton's "The Physics of Atmospheres" (3rd ed. 2002) or Grant W. Petty's "A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation" (2nd ed. 2006) and--and this is very important--work the problems. If price is a problem, Ray Pierrehumbert's climate textbook is free on the web at
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateBook.html
To follow the recent debate, there's no better place than RealClimate (http://www.realclimate.org). Tamino's Open Mind blog is good to understand the statistical analysis involved (http://tamino.wordpress.com). RealClimate is run by climatologists and Tamino is a professional statistician.
Are you?
Of course.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS