Is anybody actually doing anything about climate change?

I find it so odd that climate change has become a republican/democratic thing.
In general, being connected to the real world, as opposed to being connected to a world of "alternative facts", has become a Democrat/Republican thing, these days.
 
Also agreed. But to be fair, they are so cost effective in part due to the work done in the past to fund research, fund demonstration projects and provide incentives to get to mass production quantities. No one person makes a big difference, but a lot of people over decades do.

Funding R&D can be a bit serendipitous, not necessarily delivering what is sought but sometimes delivering more than expected. It is rarely a waste of money, although - cynical of me - early funding of RE seemed to me more like empty gestures of appeasement to growing community climate concerns as the easy alternative to committing to the hard and potentially problematic as well as unpopular massive worldwide expansion of nuclear. I think having the largest bloc of support for nuclear (Right-Conservative) turn Denier and oppose climate action had a much bigger impact on any possibility of mass nuclear for climate than fringe anti-nuclear activism; Greenpeace could never persuade the captains of commerce and industry to oppose nuclear nearly so effectively as climate science denial induced them to fail to support it.

I suspect there was strong conviction early on within mainstream politics that RE would not deliver anything useful and I think there was a give em enough rope undercurrent to supporting it; having RE funding widely perceived as a complete waste of money was, for some, a desirable outcome. Plus, as a bonus, it reinforced perceptions of the climate problem being a fringe issue for, by, about Environmental protest movements, about appeasing them - a much softer target for the doubt, deny, delay crowd to whip up opposition against than the world's leading science agencies. But within some political parties and within government departments as well as science agencies a core of people taking the climate problem serious persisted plus there were scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs who saw genuine potential in wind and solar power - and their efforts are much appreciated.

I don't think the nuclear route would have done it better, with so many points where it can stall or be stalled. I do not believe that in the absence of anti-nuclear environmentalism Right-Conservative politics would have abandoned absolute support for fossil fuels or that FF interests would not have pursued Doubt, Deny, Delay politics to stop low emissions energy, ie nuclear energy, just more openly anti-nuclear.

Now... solar is going to keep eating it's lunch in most regions in the world and the hours of each day, days of each week, months of each year when earnings of nuclear plants are below cost will only keep growing; an already too expensive option is only going to find it harder to achieve commercial profitability.
 
You forgot
5). It's getting colder where I live, stupid.

Looked for places that are getting colder on GISS maps. So you live near the Weddell Sea in Antarctica? Cool!

Or maybe you've just had colder than average Winter in a place that is experiencing overall warmer average conditions?

(This is the past 5 years, so the vagaries of one year won't deceive, compared to mid-20th century temperatures -

amaps.png
 
Looked for places that are getting colder on GISS maps. So you live near the Weddell Sea in Antarctica? Cool!

Or maybe you've just had colder than average Winter in a place that is experiencing overall warmer average conditions?

(This is the past 5 years, so the vagaries of one year won't deceive, compared to mid-20th century temperatures -

amaps.png
Calm down...
 
Looked for places that are getting colder on GISS maps. So you live near the Weddell Sea in Antarctica? Cool!

Or maybe you've just had colder than average Winter in a place that is experiencing overall warmer average conditions?

(This is the past 5 years, so the vagaries of one year won't deceive, compared to mid-20th century temperatures -

amaps.png
Seattle was adding to @billvon’s list of the arguments one comes across from climate change deniers.

sculptor does this, e.g. they’ve got snow in Brazil so global warming must be a lefty ecowarrior scam, er, blah blah…..watts up…….blah [repeat and fade]……. :-
 
Last edited:
Looked for places that are getting colder on GISS maps. So you live near the Weddell Sea in Antarctica? Cool!
If you look over small enough regions and over small enough timeframes there's always somewhere that's cooling. San Diego, for example, has had a cooler than average spring - and lots of clouds.
 
Now... solar is going to keep eating it's lunch in most regions in the world and the hours of each day, days of each week, months of each year when earnings of nuclear plants are below cost will only keep growing; an already too expensive option is only going to find it harder to achieve commercial profitability.
There's also a scaling issue. Nuclear power isn't even doable at very small scales (i.e. under a megawatt) with any level of safety or profitability. And at large scales it is hugely expensive and time consuming - the Vogtle plant was tens of billions over budget and took 20 years from planning to operation. Finding that middle ground where schedule, scale and profitability intersect is difficult.

Solar, meanwhile, works as well to power a ten watt roadside phone as providing 100 megawatts in the desert. And you can small/medium systems in weeks rather than years. And it just keeps getting cheaper. (Although the new tariffs will change that - but that's a whole nuther discussion.)
 
trees/forests are doing something
go trees---yay forests the young forests are cooling the US southeast while "the globe is warming".
The downside of that is that trees cool an area via transpiration - putting groundwater into the air. This worsens droughts where the trees are and leads to larger/more violent precipitation events elsewhere.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
 
The downside of that is that trees cool an area via transpiration - putting groundwater into the air. This worsens droughts where the trees are and leads to larger/more violent precipitation events elsewhere.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
CO2 is plant food
the higher the CO2 content the less the plants have to open the stomata(or they need fewer stomata)
the less the plants open the stomata the less the transpiration
the less the transpiration the less groundwater is needed or consumed

trees do not cause droughts!
in nature-----nothing stands alone

caveat
planting forests where forest once existed usually works well
planting forests where they did not previously exist is a tad more dicey.
(see the attempts to forest the great plains)
 
CO2 is plant food
So is chlorine. But I bet you wouldn't want more in your air.
the less the transpiration the less groundwater is needed or consumed
So CO2 does NOT cause plants to grow? You're starting to contradict yourself here.

Either CO2 causes plants to grow more (being plant food and all) and results in more transpiration from more trees, or CO2 causes less transpiration overall in which case there's less cooling. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
 
A return to the discussion after previous embarrassment...

trees/forests are doing something
go trees---yay forests the young forests are cooling the US southeast while "the globe is warming".
this link has pictures:

I can't see how reforestation can achieve much more than compensate for the emissions from, and reverse local climate effects of, past deforestation.

A lot (most?) of the revegetation that is happening now is not planned and planted, it is what happens with stopping the factors that prevent it regrowing (intensive farming somewhere resulting in abandoned farms, removing grazing herds). I think if we just take goats out of large areas in Africa, Middle East, Central Asia and we would get a lot of revegetation and do it more successfully than any deliberate planting.

Changes to rainfall patterns from global warming probably makes a lot more difference than greening from higher CO2 or (so far) from temperature changes, like the example of the East of the US getting greener because it has gotten more rain. Which vegetation return does affect rainfall in turn - but I don't think most, let alone all that regrowth can be attributed to planting trees or all the higher rainfall to the trees.

A lot of what is being claimed here in Australia as carbon offsets is vegetation recovery that happens anyway - with vegetation losses when those happen naturally (or from climate change) not being counted. Starting a carbon offset scheme during the dry times when vegetation and biomass is in at a natural low (assessing soil carbon and biomass then) will look a lot better than any begun during the wet times. Like stealing the land use sector's emissions successes to excuse fossil fuels' failures I think that kind of embedded cheating is a travesty.

CO2 "reduction" by reforestation means achieving a permanent increase in global biomass compensating for continuing fossil fuel use on top of land use emissions is a whole lot bigger than changing global biomass can deal with. We may well get an enduring rise in global biomass from warming but I still think the most of that will be from rainfall changes, which a warmer atmosphere will cause.

But not everywhere; more water vapor in warmer atmosphere gives heavier rainfall where conditions for precipitation occur reliably; in arid climates warmer atmosphere means it takes more water vapor to reach the 100% humidity needed for rainfall to happen, ie will cause dryer conditions. As someone living where drought is already the most economically damaging climate phenomena having reduced rainfall AND higher temperatures AND high bushfire risks is not something I would wish on anyone.
 
A return to the discussion after previous embarrassment...



I can't see how reforestation can achieve much more than compensate for the emissions from, and reverse local climate effects of, past deforestation.

A lot (most?) of the revegetation that is happening now is not planned and planted, it is what happens with stopping the factors that prevent it regrowing (intensive farming somewhere resulting in abandoned farms, removing grazing herds). I think if we just take goats out of large areas in Africa, Middle East, Central Asia and we would get a lot of revegetation and do it more successfully than any deliberate planting.

Changes to rainfall patterns from global warming probably makes a lot more difference than greening from higher CO2 or (so far) from temperature changes, like the example of the East of the US getting greener because it has gotten more rain. Which vegetation return does affect rainfall in turn - but I don't think most, let alone all that regrowth can be attributed to planting trees or all the higher rainfall to the trees.

A lot of what is being claimed here in Australia as carbon offsets is vegetation recovery that happens anyway - with vegetation losses when those happen naturally (or from climate change) not being counted. Starting a carbon offset scheme during the dry times when vegetation and biomass is in at a natural low (assessing soil carbon and biomass then) will look a lot better than any begun during the wet times. Like stealing the land use sector's emissions successes to excuse fossil fuels' failures I think that kind of embedded cheating is a travesty.

CO2 "reduction" by reforestation means achieving a permanent increase in global biomass compensating for continuing fossil fuel use on top of land use emissions is a whole lot bigger than changing global biomass can deal with. We may well get an enduring rise in global biomass from warming but I still think the most of that will be from rainfall changes, which a warmer atmosphere will cause.

But not everywhere; more water vapor in warmer atmosphere gives heavier rainfall where conditions for precipitation occur reliably; in arid climates warmer atmosphere means it takes more water vapor to reach the 100% humidity needed for rainfall to happen, ie will cause dryer conditions. As someone living where drought is already the most economically damaging climate phenomena having reduced rainfall AND higher temperatures AND high bushfire risks is not something I would wish on anyone.
agree about the goats---and sheep
iceland was once forested --- and then came the people who cut down the trees and then came the sheep who eat any new seedlings---
ok
so, i own a few icelandic wool sweaters
knowledge does not always transcend to action
oops

It seems that reforestation works best where there were forest in the past
and we had the ccc planting millions of trees in the 1930s
I have a small acreage that was forested when the homesteader Alonzo Denison got here in 1834'and
He spent many a weary month cutting down the trees and pulling the stumps so that he could farm
the land is on a slope and after 150 years of farming the once rich forest soil was degraded
so, i crawled around on my hands and knees and planted trees
and now, i have shade and singing birds and squirrels and chipmunks and firewood
and the trees keep it cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter

the best time to plant a tree is 33 years ago, the second best time is now
 
Where I live has been subject to human occupation before and after the last glacial maximum and has been fire prone for a lot longer than that. Regrowth Eucalyptus woodlands that is quite different to what Europeans found, that was regularly and irregularly set on fire. We are still grappling with how to manage the fire risks after that stewardship was broken, fire risks that global warming appear to be exacerbating. It is currently in a post fire stage of exceptional growth, more prolific from weather swinging wetter for a few years now - a lot of vegetation that will inevitably become bushfire fuel when the weather swings dry for a few years - and that cycle is made more extreme for the loss of traditional burning practices that reduced overall fire intensities by increasing their frequencies. Having that poorly managed cycle turn more extreme is very concerning.

Mowing (you can't NOT), slashing, fire breaks, burning piles of leaf litter, burning off where it is possible, when it is safe. Dedicated water tanks for fire fighting, a sprinkler system and knowing if conditions are bad enough even that won't be enough (and an evacuate order could come and no-one to start it). The workload devoted to risk reduction around here is serious and it costs a lot of time and money too. We're not denied insurance but it's getting expensive.

For larger areas forest owners and managers fire risks are a big deal and for several reasons warming seems likely to make it harder, require more equipment and labour. We've had about 1.5C of warming from 1C of global rise. 3C could go well above 4C and when it comes to times of drought and heatwave and extreme fire danger conditions that much hotter is going to do things to bushfires that have never been seen before, not even in the whole 60,000 years of human occupation.

Apart from the obvious, that hotter means drier means worse fires the effects of warmer cool season conditions are doing things we don't want too. Used to be common practice, aping aboriginal practices, to wait for a cool, clear night and light up and by early morning a blanket of dew and frost would usually put it out. Now it might not get cool enough, the fires can't be relied on to go out so readily on their own; more vigilance, more labour, more equipment is needed. Over time more people have moved into fire prone areas, who do not have knowhow and equipment and confidence, who have a natural reluctance to light fires that could escape and cause damage to others, that could lead to legal trouble. Or get people killed. The risks of fires escaping control, even in cool seasons are raised with global warming. And yet not burning off can be life endangering. It dismays me to hear fellow Australians, neigbors, shrug off the heightened risks from warmer temperatures - "We've always had fires".

So forests in Australia need management - dangerous to pull the livestock off and let nature take it's course
 
Back
Top