MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 11 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
Hits of the Day
- artappraiser (32)
- artappraiser (27)
- artappraiser (26)
- PeraclesPlease (26)
- artappraiser (24)
CO2 stable 3 years in row
By PeraclesPlease on Fri, 03/17/2017 - 3:05pm |Well, that was easy - was that all it took?
URL:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/17/co2-emissions-stay-same-for-third-year-in-row-despite-global-economy-growing
- Add new comment
- 15891 reads
Comments
EMISSIONS "from energy production" were "stable" or did not increase, ie, coal, gas, oil burning. CO2 is not stable, it is going up. It will keep going up for decades as we produce more than is absorbed by oceans etc.
Energy production, burning, does not include factors like CH4 methane leaks from fracking, which are now deregulated thanks to Trump, does not include CO2 release from forest fires in tropics or elsewhere, methane release from melting permafrost. Methane is 10 times the greenhouse potency as CO2, although it doesn't last in the atmosphere as long.
Atmospheric levels are still increasing in a steady curve.
by NCD on Sat, 03/18/2017 - 1:13am
Yes ncd, good post. All this means is we're still pumping the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere despite the growing economy. It's good news in the smallest possible way. And this doesn't account for the many coal fired plants in the pipeline, especially in India and also in other countries. We really needed a big push towards renewables now. That's why I was heartened when Hillary promised 500 million solar panels in the next four years. Instead we won't see any action for at least four years. As ncd pointed out, it will likely get worse with Trump. I'm not the biggest climate alarmist among my environmentalist friends. I keep holding out hope, but I'm more depressed about climate change than I have ever been. I've finally come to admit that we will see some major earth changes, at least flooding and eventual abandonment of all coastal cities. That's inevitable now.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 03/18/2017 - 2:29am
Thanks for more glass-half-empty analysis. Yes, nothing can be considered a positive when discussing environment science - you might think a gloomy prognosis is enough, but then you're being soft on gloom, and that only encourages the naysayers, so if you think there's something good to say about environmental developments, just can it and wait for something more dour to say.
BTW, here's more info on the current discussion. including charts and bouncy balls and spinning avatars.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 03/18/2017 - 3:21am
It's not a glass half full half empty thing. You don't seem to get it. We're emitting dangerous amounts of co2. We've stabilized at that dangerous level. It's good that we're not increasing the amount emitted but we are still emitting at dangerous levels. That's bad enough but it's likely that the stabilization is temporary.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 03/18/2017 - 3:51am
It's good but a) not good enough & b) (sheer speculation) whatever good is temporary, short-lived, sux.
Got it. Welcome to bleakhouse. Wonder why it's hard to get people onboard with environment? First rule of motivation is to celebrate successes before putting nose back on grindstone.
Here's an Excel sheet showing steady decreases in the US over the coming years (i.e. all sectors aside from Industry 2 emissions) from US Energy Information Administration (EIA).
The Climate Action Tracker has nice graphs showing the EU improving, US roughly flat, China still getting worse.
The EIA also shows the cost of electric cars falling from $46K last year to $35K by 2025, but the marketplace is showing this to be too pessimistic, with Chevy, Tesla & Nissan already surpassing these targets.
The full list of Climate Action Tracker’s ten short-term steps:
1) Electricity: sustain the growth rate of renewables and other zero and low carbon power until 2025 to reach 100% by 2050
2) Coal: no new coal power plants, reduce emissions from coal by at least 30% by 2025
3) Road transport: last fossil fuel car sold before 2035
4) Aviation and shipping: develop and get agreement on a 1.5°C compatible vision
5) New buildings: all new buildings fossil-free and near zero energy by 2020
6) Building renovation: increase rates from <1% in 2015 to 5% by 2020
7) Industry: all new installations in emissions-intensive sectors are low-carbon after 2020; maximise material efficiency
8) Reduce emissions from forestry and other land use to 95% below 2010 levels by 2030, stop net deforestation by the 2020s
9) Commercial agriculture: keep emissions at or below current levels, establish and disseminate regional best practice, ramp up research
10) CO2 removal: begin research and planning for negative emissions
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 03/18/2017 - 5:09am
It's good but a) not good enough & b) (sheer speculation) whatever good is temporary, short-lived, sux.
A: It's good but just barely. An almost insignificant good.
B: It's not sheer speculation but a reasonable extrapolation based on current data. I gave you a link listing the numbers of coal fired plants from several countries that are planned.
If you want to celebrate stabilization at the level of dangerous amounts of co2 being emitted go for it. Just don't expect everyone to cheer along.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 03/18/2017 - 5:15pm
Didn't expect cheering. Surprised at the knee-capping and sniping.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 03/19/2017 - 11:24am
From Bloomberg on the inherent pessimism re: renewables:
From CleanTechnica:
From MSNBC:
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 03/18/2017 - 5:38am
The Chinese canceled those coal fuled power plants because their demand for new power has decreased and it has nothing to do with solar which they will use along with natgas to reduce their existing horrible pollution problems. Their investments in solar and wind production is purely business, cornering a growing market.
It's a shame how easily rubes swallow the propaganda offered by our MSM on this agenda where people don't even question BS like 100% renewables being remotely possible. Solar and wind power are intermittent sources of power and the Germans are already having problems integrating their intermittent sources with their power grid.
All of this hype seems to be designed to ease the Warmer's fears of catastrophe fed to them to encourage them to support and invest in the Corporate Green Agenda.
Converting to fracked natural gas is what has reduced coal power plant emissions in the US and along with a stagnant economy reduced our growth in emissions. Stripping the industrial base from the country and shipping it to China and elsewhere also offshored much of our co2 emissions.
by Peter (not verified) on Sat, 03/18/2017 - 12:35pm
Oh, the killjoy's here, ready to call everyone a rube except himself. Easier to swallow "propaganda" than the non-existant sources you offer. I can pull speculation out my ass too to kill any discussion. How about shift gears and rise to some level of intelligence in your contributions. I don't care if you disagree with me. I object to your continual reliance on vapor logic, unsupprorted "facts" and verbal contempt as your only rhetorical methods. I know you're not stupid, so you don't have to play the role of mindless partisan.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 03/18/2017 - 2:02pm
IEA notes more Chinese coal plants makes no sense as their coal use peaked in 2013. Elsewhere noted their 5 year plan 2015-2020 doubles their non-fossil production. So what are us rubes supposed to conclude - that their manufacturing production is actually collapsing instead?
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 03/18/2017 - 2:44pm
It's called the Great Recession, PP and China's growth in demand for new power has declined because of their slowing business so these new coal or solar plants aren't needed. They were planned for and being constructed to meet the earlier increasing demand projections before growth slowed. Solar power accounts for a whopping 1% of China's electric generation so there is plenty of room for expansion to replace some of the choking smog producing coal fired plants.
Something else I never see mentioned in these solar promotions is that for every power plant sized solar instillation built an equal output sized gas fired plant must be built because the sun don't always shine especially at night. The backup for solar must be quick responding ready at short notice to replace lost power generation.
China and India produce massive amounts of small sized aerosol pollution, from burning coal, that are reducing the amount of radiation reaching the surface of the earth, it's called solar dimming. If they clean up their pollution too quickly it might cause a rapid rise in global temperature as much as one whole degree C. Ironic if China's expansion of solar power causes GW.
by Peter (not verified) on Sat, 03/18/2017 - 4:26pm
The solar power plants that the Chinese are building are to supplement current gas and coal-fired plants to make them obsolete. Even household solar collectors are built to store the energy collected during the day so it can be used at night and during storms, cloudy days, etc.
Where do you get your (bogus) information? Really? China is finally taking fossil fuel pollution seriously. They will be world leaders in this technology very soon.
by CVille Dem on Sat, 03/18/2017 - 5:09pm
One problem with fossil fuel use is it's not getting much more efficient.
The efficiency of sollar cells is improving greatly, so factories producing X Gigawatts of electric capability will then be producing 2X Gigawatts, then 4X, and so on. So startup costs this decade for renewables may seem high compared to traditional fossil fuel equivalents, in 20 or 30 years they'll be completely dwarfing the other options.
And of course you have to load coal into a coal-based generator each day over a lifetime of X years - you obviously don't need to do that for solar, even though solar still has its maintenance costs.
Improving the efficiencies of the electric grid will also improve the renewables calculation over time. Here they discuss how the electric production part of the equation is already improving. (or "what's my EV really using")
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 03/19/2017 - 7:33am
I buy this part of your comment as regards the U.S.
Converting to fracked natural gas is what has reduced coal power plant emissions in the US and along with a stagnant economy reduced our growth in emissions. Stripping the industrial base from the country and shipping it to China and elsewhere also offshored much of our co2 emissions.
but the Guardian story is about an International Agency Report and the article says this:
US emissions are at their lowest level since 1992, while the economy has grown 80% since that time.
Carbon dioxide output also declined in China, by 1%, and were stable in Europe, offsetting increases in most of the rest of the world, the IEA said.
by artappraiser on Sat, 03/18/2017 - 3:39pm
and it appears the IEA is virtually spin free, for which I say yay:
Dr Fatih Birol, the IEA’s executive director, said: “These three years of flat emissions in a growing global economy signal an emerging trend and that is certainly a cause for optimism, even if it is too soon to say that global emissions have definitely peaked.
“They are also a sign that market dynamics and technological improvements matter. This is especially true in the United States, where abundant shale gas supplies have become a cheap power source.”
note he does not advocate that "shale gas supplies" as a "cheap power source" are the next best thing since sliced bread, he is merely saying that evidence is showing that market dynamics and technological improvements matter
by artappraiser on Sat, 03/18/2017 - 3:48pm
The Chinese decline in co2 may be explained by their winding down of their huge building stimulus and the reduction in cement production along with their lower growth rate. It certainly has little to do with solar which requires a few years to pay down its co2 load before it can be counted, if it ever can, as a zero emission source.
I should have included that business in the US has made great strides to reduce their waste of energy thereby lowering co2 emissions for a profit along with the other factors i mentioned. US co2 emissions from manufacturing have still been offshored during this time period and i wonder how much of that economic growth they list is from the financial and service sectors which produce much less of this gas than does manufacturing.
Some people say it's already too late and with the co2 levels we have now there will be catastrophe in the near future so this Green Industrial Revolution is too little too late. Other people say the whole co2 GW connection is overblown even an agenda and they may be correct but the planet is warming and the climate will change.
by Peter (not verified) on Sat, 03/18/2017 - 7:27pm
Thank you.
Re: offshoring to China, that horse left the stable a long time ago - I remember when south LA skies were horribly yellow from all the production and when the inversion layer would rise all the stinging pollution would stream through the San Fernando pass - I'm not sure how that's a factor in evaluating changes in carbon footprint in the last 20 years.
Yes, some people say it's too late, some people say it's overblown, and some people like me are trying to figure out what is the affordable balance where we *quickly* improve the situation without unnecessarily spending trillions in upheaving our world.
And yeah, I get that levelling of CO2 emitted isn't the same as a leveling of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere. But I'm also expecting improvement, and as the 2 graphs above show and the situation with the Chinese show, sometimes improvements happen *faster* than predicted.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 03/19/2017 - 3:16am
Your link title was misleading, your comment "that was easy" was disingenuous, and potentially misinforming to visitors to this site.
Who might get an overly Pollyannish impression from your title, your 'that was easy' and from an article which they might not comprehend - if they even read it (did you?). It's not like the vox populi in America understands or even believes in the science of it all, our President doesn't.
So it seemed called for to note this fact:
Is trying to concisely improve the facts and clarity of what is presented on this site now taken as a hit on the vanity of the person corrected?
Then the thread gets smothered in a parade of new charts, verbose verbiage, and then the 'bleakhouse' cheap shot, without a "thanks for clearly pointing that fact (above) out"?
by NCD on Sat, 03/18/2017 - 11:33am
When you read a comment about someone --> "He seems nice," <-- do you think the writer is endorsing the civility and pleasantness of the person? If, after you read the whole essay or paragraph, and find out that the target is after all, a horrible person; would you accuse the writer of being "disingenuous," or would you realize that you don't get snark?
I agree with Peracles that when there is a shred of good news, it just might give those who otherwise have the excuse to do nothing about climate change because it is hopeless, the nudge they might need to act on an individual level.
Your suggestion that Peracles might have intentionally poisoned the minds of 'visitors to this site' is over the top. The Guardian is a reputable site, and the article was certainly easy to comprehend. Could you explain what was so hard about it for you to understand?
by CVille Dem on Sat, 03/18/2017 - 11:44am
I have something along the same lines to say: thank god some science reporters are still willing to report scientific results and unbiased analysis of those results, not propaganda for one agenda or another.to convince people to do or not do something.
by artappraiser on Sat, 03/18/2017 - 12:33pm
P.S. Yes, we all have a confirmation bias problem to some degree. But there's a difference when one advocates that confirmation bias should be purposeful, i.e., an advocacy system of any type, it's that which I happen to loathe. Sorry, just not me, and just not why I participate here. If I see a lot of contributors here just trying to spin an agenda, I'm outta here. I like a place where people share loads of info. using more than one mind trying to figure it all out, where there's a lot of honesty about doubt. I'll mostly keep what I think should be done about anything to myself. Self censorship sucks and people I see doing it, I don't trust to be honest players about anything. That said, have no problem looking at "he said, she said" as part of this game.
by artappraiser on Sat, 03/18/2017 - 12:47pm
I saw the results of 1 study showing clever people to be even better at justifying their confirmation bias than non-clever people.
And then there's Kahnemann who dives into a ton of on-rational but convenient decision processes.
The piece on vaccinations is more complicated. Even tho I know the thimerosol data was faked, my wife has yet another friend with a debilitating disease that apprars caused by a vaccine, and I've had a 2-year vaccination reaction that my doctor in no way warned about the possibility for (but in researching, was listed on the tin as a possibility).
In any case we're loathe to change opinions once formed. Ask Hatfields and McCoys.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 03/18/2017 - 1:48pm
For my millions of fans and followers, I was wiretapped by Obama, Trump, GCHQ *and* Merkel. I demand an investigation, though after I've had my nap.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 03/18/2017 - 1:30pm
Misinforming or misleading impression is noted, and then providing the most relevant fact is 'poisoning'?
The key data point is the still rising ppm of Co2 in the atmosphere. He didn't mention it. The end.
by NCD on Sat, 03/18/2017 - 2:38pm
I read the linked article and asked myself, "Does the Guardian not have an environmental reporter?" Scroll to the top, and it's by "Staff and agencies." In this era of shrinking newsrooms, I know what that means.
The story lacks basic context, which NCD tried to supply, perhaps a bit too brusquely. I would love to be an optimist about global warming, but the science won't let me. The graph NCD highlights, showing the steady year-by-year increase of CO2 ppm in the atmosphere, tells the underlying story: humans are emitting more greenhouse gas than Earth can recycle.
Stabilizing and even lowering current emissions won't solve the problem; even if we could instantly stop burning all fossil fuels, we are locked into at least a 2C rise in average temperatures, and probably much worse. We've already warmed the Arctic enough that permafrost has begun to melt, releasing millions of years of trapped methane. An even worse GHG than CO2.
So we're basically screwed. Solar, wind and other renewables may, at some point, mitigate how badly we're screwed. But the international commitment still isn't serious.
One last point about the article: it credits the reduction in emissions to renewables "and natural gas." Yes, LNG is somewhat better than coal for power generation; almost anything would be. But it should never be hailed as an alternative to gasoline for powering vehicles. It is at most 15-20% "cleaner" -- if we're going to convert fleets of trucks and buses (and subsidize them), at least make them electric.
by acanuck on Sun, 03/19/2017 - 4:50am
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/environme...
by acanuck on Sun, 03/19/2017 - 4:50am
Please, you can find the same report as released by the IEA the day before. Or New Scientist if you prefer. Shooting the Guardian as messenger is rather pointless. US emissions at lowest level since 1992. China declined 1%. EU flat. Gains were from rest of world where intensive focus on renewables not so great. Not sure why that means "international commitment still isn't serious" - it means the organized, cooperating zones of the international community are serious, while the more chaotic or less-integrated countries of the world have yet to address the problem.
Yes, the articles point out that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are still rising and that the plateau is not enough to meet <2 degree C temperature increase. No, the articles did not address street crime in Brazilian favelas, the rape situation in India, nor increase in tuition costs in America.
You may think we're screwed. I think we'll figure it out, big as the problem is. Shame we have Trump as our leader, But then again, Hillary was Hitler who didn't speak out against the Keystone pipeline or fracking and in the pocket of banks and big energy corporations, so we were screwed all along, no? So why should I even listen to all this gloomy retort? Everything's equal, nothing's differentiated.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 03/19/2017 - 6:09am
From Climate.gov:
Now, if the rate of increase flattens out, we've bought another 20-30 years. If I do a simple comparison of Year-on-Year changes over the last 3 1/4 years, it seems possible that the increase of CO2 ppm in the atmosphere has slowed from a peak last year of over 4 for some months. Are we able to accept the *possibility* of good news even if not the end of the road or a final resolution?
Month Delta PPM
2014-01 2.3 397.85
2014-02 1.21 398.01
2014-03 2.34 399.77
2014-04 2.97 401.38
2014-05 2 401.78
2014-06 2.64 401.25
2014-07 1.78 399.1
2014-08 1.83 397.03
2014-09 1.93 395.38
2014-10 2.33 396.03
2014-11 2.12 397.28
2014-12 2.07 398.91
2015-01 2.13 399.98
2015-02 2.27 400.28
2015-03 1.77 401.54
2015-04 1.9 403.28
2015-05 2.18 403.96
2015-06 1.55 402.8
2015-07 2.21 401.31
2015-08 1.9 398.93
2015-09 2.25 397.63
2015-10 2.26 398.29
2015-11 2.88 400.16
2015-12 2.94 401.85
2016-01 2.54 402.52
2016-02 3.76 404.04
2016-03 3.29 404.83
2016-04 4.14 407.42
2016-05 3.74 407.7
2016-06 4.01 406.81
2016-07 3.08 404.39
2016-08 3.32 402.25
2016-09 3.4 401.03
2016-10 3.28 401.57
2016-11 3.37 403.53
2016-12 2.63 404.48
2017-01 3.61 406.13
2017-02 2.38 406.42
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 03/19/2017 - 7:07am
I take it that you believe the name"350.org" represented a number pulled from Bill McKibben's ass.
Sadly, no.
Also, as if ...(ed note: huh?--oh, as if the rate were really gonna flatten out )
by jollyroger on Mon, 03/20/2017 - 10:19am
Even the Black Plague eventually flattened out (after taking 1/3 of Europe's population with it).
What's the real probability that we'll ever reach 800ppm?
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 03/20/2017 - 11:54am
Small temperature changes have large effects on the planet.
by ocean-kat on Sun, 03/19/2017 - 7:37am
Yes, that's why we're trying to hold temp increase to max 2° C and preferably much less, and why we're already documenting effects of current warming.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 03/19/2017 - 7:44am
I wrote that thawing of Arctic permafrost could set "millions of years" of frozen vegetation free to produce methane. But the depth of permafrost varies a lot, and I don't really know how much potential methane it contains. I've read it's a lot.
What we do know is that the Arctic is already warming at about twice the rate of the rest of the planet, and that methane is roughly 20 times better than CO2 at trapping heat. And both gases are reinforcing the same change in climate. Methane release is real:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YegdEOSQotE
by acanuck on Sun, 03/19/2017 - 2:25pm
Methane concentrations have gone up 11% in 30 years. Methane's at 1.78 ppm, CO2's at 400ppm, so CO2 is >10x the problem if your 20x multiplier is right, but only 1 of these has been increasing significantly during this period. (Direct sun warming is much greater than greenhouse effect, but it's a relative constant that we can't change anyway). When cloned/cultured meat comes into play big time (20 years?), a large chunk of yearly methane release will disappear as well.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 03/19/2017 - 2:50pm
You're correct that methane from thawing permafrost is not yet a major driver of global warming. But even the most optimistic scenarios show human activity pushing average global temperatures higher for decades. We have already reached the point where permafrost has begun to thaw. That releases more methane, and allows less ice and snow to accumulate, lowering the planet's albedo or reflectivity. Earth gets even hotter. So we're moving from a situation we can theoretically control (how much CO2 we pump into the atmosphere) to one driven by the planet's entirely natural response to the conditions we have created. I'm sure Earth will find its balance (it's done so repeatedly), but not sure we'll like our role in it. OK, enough negativity for one night.
by acanuck on Mon, 03/20/2017 - 3:22am
I just linked a fairly obvious news release on CO2 - I hadn't intended on addressing every aspect of global warming.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 03/20/2017 - 6:12am
The land based process is so far along it's blowing fuckin' holes in Siberia like 20 per day.
I wish to report my [premonition (in support of which, I had a Trump premonition also a mets in world series (disclaimer, I thought they'd win--against all reason at the time).
Sea level rise of 5ft within ten years (!!!maldita!!!).
There are so fuckin many feedback loops poised to kick in at once it's scarier than shit.
With all due respect to Desi up there.
by jollyroger on Mon, 03/20/2017 - 10:24am
It's probably impossible to slow ths growth of this Warmer hysteria you are experiencing but even the IPCC report on sea-level rise doesn't completely support your mad predictions. They stated clearly that there was 'no' increase in the rate of sea-level rise in all of the 20th century, none, nada, zip. Yet humans rapidly and massively generated co2 especially in the last 50 years.
The Warmers love their feedback loops for without them co2 just doesn't have the warming power their Rube Goldberg climate change predictions are based on. The planet is warming, climate is changing and the seas will continue to rise probably more rapidly but there is no need to buy a houseboat yet.
Your sinkhole picture is cool and spooky but has nothing to do with climate change, it's caused by the action of underground rivers or the lack of water in them.
by Peter (not verified) on Mon, 03/20/2017 - 12:05pm
Uh, ocean rise is only 1/8 an inch per year - it's been a couple inches in 20 years.
Sinkholes? could be from fracking, Russians boring hole into underground gas coverns, something to do with permafrost, a few other guesses. Me, I think it's Jules Verne's revenge, i.e. Son of the Return of Journey to the Center of the Earth Part III.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 03/20/2017 - 12:34pm