tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post3545243875041862541..comments2024-03-28T09:47:31.461-07:00Comments on Cliff Mass Weather Blog: What happens after the global warming problem is solved?Cliff Mass Weather Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-29005565120907128132018-03-11T10:42:48.337-07:002018-03-11T10:42:48.337-07:00Cliff for the water solution have you ever read/he...Cliff for the water solution have you ever read/heard about SlingShot from inventor Dean Kamen. It produces clean water using much lower amounts of electricity then a standard distiller. https://www.slingshotdoc.com/Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04988885353317158212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-17194127498999199392018-03-08T20:11:08.950-08:002018-03-08T20:11:08.950-08:00Cliff,
Thanks for the food for thought. Always g...Cliff,<br /><br />Thanks for the food for thought. Always good to dust the cobwebs from my brain.<br /><br />However, I'll do better than James and give you 100:1 on viable fusion technology NOT being available by 2022. I'd give you 1000:1 but its just not worth it as I'd have to stake everything I own to get a paltry payback that isn't worth having. Even if it was though, you're right...it won't save us. If anything, unless we change our ways it will accelerate the end and maybe that is your point. Within our current socio-economic framework, cheaper, more plentiful energy will always accelerate environmental degradation. Unfortunately, beyond the CO2 abatement, I fear this is true of renewables too. But let's not conflate that argument with a suggestion that climate change isn't a big deal. We both know it is.<br /><br />I know after our lunch in January that you're heart is absolutely in the right place with your passion on this, and I totally get what you're trying to do with respect to keeping the media honest. I agree with you, we need to keep the communication of science pure. But this isn't an attack on media hype and if I didn't know you personally I'd say it was nefarious, when I'm guessing the real intent is to inspire some critical thinking about our priorities. I really do think this piece is going to do way more harm than good, and violates your own tenants, in that it is subjective, likely not realistic, and doesn't consider the science and engineering nuances that are important to its premise. As for geo-engineering...now there's a scary thought. We've buggered up the planet inadvertently, imagine the damage we'll do if we're actually trying to change it. Remember, that process won't be undertaken by careful scientists with the better good in mind. It will be done by corporations, for profit. Cut a few corners here, a few there, what could go wrong?<br /><br />How about a note at the top like, "The science behind the greenhouse effect is well established...this post is not questioning the undeniable danger we are in, but rather stimulating critical thinking about why we are in this mess and how solving it doesn't solve the massive environmental degradation of the planet caused by human kind beyond the burning of fossil fuels."<br /><br />Good as always to have some stimulating debate,<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />JustinSharplyFocusedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08850999854488190488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-50620242994955340672018-03-08T12:53:27.674-08:002018-03-08T12:53:27.674-08:00A couple of interesting references on incorrect pu...A couple of interesting references on incorrect public perceptions on the near unanimity by climate scientists on the question of whether there is global warming and whether that warming is caused by humans. I appreciate that Cliff has publicly said a number of times that he is not a climate denier, but I also observe that many on this forum who appear to dispute that man-caused global warming is a real phenomenon take heart whenever Cliff makes skeptical-sounding comments on the nature and extent of global warming. Cliff is often directing those comments to the media exaggerations, which is I think is fair.<br /><br />However, and I am a bit reluctant to say it, but sometimes you need to consider the effect of what you say by the friends you attract when you say it.<br /><br />http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/scientific-and-public-perspectives-on-climate-change/<br /><br />https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/nov/20/why-we-need-to-talk-about-scientific-consensus-on-climate-changeMAC in Bellinghamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00951163853106956325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-19393927733233925292018-03-05T11:05:34.148-08:002018-03-05T11:05:34.148-08:00Hey Cliff,
I was wondering what you can tell me a...Hey Cliff,<br /><br />I was wondering what you can tell me about glacial-interglacial periods. I have done some reading about interglacial periods and it seems like past interglacial periods have been just as warm if not slightly warmer than the current period we are in now. I have also done some reading on this interglacial period and found that the majority of the Holocene has been just as warm if not warmer. I just wanted to know if you could educate me a little more on these cycles of climate? I was also wondering how much of the current climate change is normal change from Milankovitch Cycles and how much do you think is contributed to the increase in CO2 from human activities?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16474319111966993879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-18681167605039470722018-03-04T21:13:47.504-08:002018-03-04T21:13:47.504-08:00"Nothing the tectonic plates won't eventu..."Nothing the tectonic plates won't eventually solve." We humans are but a blip on the radar screen of earthy existence. <br /><br />I really doubt we'll see commercially viable fusion energy in the timeframes indicated. And the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere with its companion, ocean acidification, pretty much guarantee the eradication of more than 50% of our ocean's species. The carbon sequestration dream also seems dependent on a fusion "breakthrough" (PS - we've been working on fusion for 50+ years and I think we are still many decades away). We will see more species disappear, less fresh water, disruptive food systems, and more war over increasingly scarce resources.<br /><br />Disease, starvation, lack of potable water and war... these will likely be the determinants to our human species survival or lack thereof.<br /><br />I do hope we can find a way to ride this roller coaster down the steep slope with love and compassion.Bill Wisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06083214766445122316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-20317419109278744112018-03-03T17:43:47.549-08:002018-03-03T17:43:47.549-08:00THANK YOU for mentioning forest management as an i...THANK YOU for mentioning forest management as an issue. There are ways to manage the forest like you manage your lawn. Harvesting, trimming, and even selective burning. The forest is a resource, not a statue. A hands-off approach leads to wildfires, and leads to a lack of wood products that we use. Burning wood is a carbon neutral practice (it releases just as much carbon and heat if it degrades on the ground when it dies). But it is unwise to not manage it.Somebodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14024443041518305326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-42744183714386917862018-03-03T10:47:13.383-08:002018-03-03T10:47:13.383-08:00The same problem persists: Too many people on Ear...The same problem persists: Too many people on Earth. <br /><br />Either make less babies or find other places to stash all the extra people.BAMCIShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05285865892838328830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-73615311546589853082018-03-03T10:02:32.609-08:002018-03-03T10:02:32.609-08:00Cliff Mass presents what can only be described as ...Cliff Mass presents what can only be described as a best best case scenario. Plausible but entirely outside the bounds of what can reasonably be predicted under current "best knowns" and entirely premised on technological leaps that are not even close to probable in this remarkably short period of time given. The project in Squamish BC that he mentions is a "real thing" but the barriers to scaling it up out of the shoe box with a desktop fan capability it now represents places it in a class of priority not far behind sending everyone off to live on Mars. From a risk management stand point, no professional would pin any degree of hope on such an outcome. There is more substantive likelihood in a fortunate series of volcanic erruptions cooling things down for a while but even that would be just a time buyer or at best, a strong hint that geo engineering might just happen after all.<br /><br />All an extraordinarily optimistic offering for someone intimately familiar with the constraints of forecasting the future! I'm sure he will say he just uses this scenario as a perspective to consider his list of other environmental problems but again, from a risk perspective his other listed problems are run of the mill perturbations that even if late in the game can be stopped or even reversed by interventions and mitigation, such as rebuilding the collapsed east coast fish stocks. As bad as these catastrophies are, they are perturbed ecologies that return to a condition of stability, even if decidedly different than previous.<br /><br />This is actually what humanity is experienced with - ecological stability with only periods of perturbation followed by return to stability. We have no experience with ecological instability, certainly not on a global scale, which emphatically is the potential result of continued global warming at the rate we are in. <br /><br />This is how we all need to comprehend the risk of climate change which not at all the thing we are used to experiencing, as Unknown put it:<br /><br />" ... as we stabilize in a new normal"<br /><br />That is a fallacious assumption, one only entrenched by rosy speculations built on old expectationsBruce Kayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11070247298371179095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-11259609388992727772018-03-03T08:38:13.441-08:002018-03-03T08:38:13.441-08:00It is amazing how many different kinds of negative...It is amazing how many different kinds of negative effects the human species has been capable of causing in the very short period of time since the Industrial Revolution began. Aside from our major propensity towards violence to ourselves and to other species, we have developed an economic system based on the requirement of never ending growth. At its core, this growth model is fueled by the need for population growth to keep this unstable pyramid from toppling. And this growth requires an ever increasing consumption of scarce resources. Completely aside from ideology, our human conflict can simply be seen as competition for dwindling scare resources such as space, water, and arable land.<br /><br />If we do not have a major technological and social revolution that is based neither on population growth or violence towards one another, like the force of gravity, nature will surely cause its own correction.<br /><br />I think Cliff's technology bailout is a tongue in cheek exercise intended to point out the myriad of other problems that would not be solved if the issue of global warming was solved. But I would say it would be a big mistake to accept the argument that because there are other very pressing problems, we should not give serious attention to global warming as well. All of these problems have the potential of causing serious harm to the species.<br /><br />And lately the renewed prospect of a nuclear winter may be the worst of them all, at least in the short term.MAC in Bellinghamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00951163853106956325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-66397989693876392472018-03-02T22:11:17.467-08:002018-03-02T22:11:17.467-08:00I think this is a good approach from Dr Mass. I&#...I think this is a good approach from Dr Mass. I'd like to see a follow-up article with more details about what we in Seattle "are experiencing in 2038". One of the previous comments mentioned melting ice caps and glaciers which have continued to raise sea levels while technological fixes we're applied. Examination of how high sea levels are, what this means for Seattle neighborhoods, Port of Seattle, etc. <br />Bigger climate changes, new seasonal patterns we are grappling with, even as we stabilize in a new normal. Food prices, with the removal of ocean sources due to plastic contamination and collapse of fish stocks.<br /><br />I'd like to see more exploration of this what-if scenario.Duane and Lindahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12666710383577174416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-41695769879404726952018-03-02T18:09:41.374-08:002018-03-02T18:09:41.374-08:00Thank you, Cliff, for a thought provoking and inte...Thank you, Cliff, for a thought provoking and interestingly contrarian post. However, I do not understand the shot at Shellfish Growers. Shellfish growing is the cleanest, best means of producing protein on the planet. Shellfish filter the water, create huge amounts of habitat for other marine creatures and sequester a tremendous amount of carbon. Compare the Chesapeake and Puget Sound--On the Chesapeake various levels of government are spending billions of dollars to restore oyster beds to boost ecological function--and struggling mightily to build traction. Here in Washington State shellfish growers are providing literally billions of dollars worth of ecosystem functions at no public cost, are producing some of the finest foods on earth and employing thousands of people in rural waterfront Washington. Come out on the beach some time.....see for yourself....Fisheaterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03235760464705172571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-20626748464839735302018-03-02T14:08:49.603-08:002018-03-02T14:08:49.603-08:00I just finished "The Road To Survival" b...I just finished "The Road To Survival" by William Vogt which emphasizes all your points, especially soil loss -- in 1948.<br /><br />https://www.amazon.com/Road-Survival-William-Vogt/dp/B0006D7EVY/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1520028437&sr=8-3&keywords=the+road+to+survivaljimijrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05575435707603812489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-60649961272272686062018-03-02T12:14:56.196-08:002018-03-02T12:14:56.196-08:00Isn't Cliff mainly reminding us that there are...Isn't Cliff mainly reminding us that there are other serious problems besides Climate Change/Global Warming and they all need attention?RGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02017190779860810318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-55897899108921141662018-03-02T10:32:16.781-08:002018-03-02T10:32:16.781-08:00From this post I glean that if we were to rely on ...From this post I glean that if we were to rely on billionaires and their corporations to help get out out of this problem, we may have spent 20 years and billions of dollars solving only a silver of our climate issue. Really what we could have been doing in those 20 years is changing our lifestyle and our society to better coexist with our planet. <br /><br />An example of a simple but radical environmental lifestyle change would be switching over to composting toilets. The switch over would help clean our waterways by reducing the amount of fertilizer, pesticides going onto our food but also reduce the amount of feces going straight into our waterways. The fertile bi-product of the composting toilet can be spread onto our fields replacing the soil that has eroded. <br /><br />Permaculture farming practices could help reduce the amount of soil being eroded with more plant life present year around, less soil being directly exposed to the weather. The amount of animal feces entering our waterways would be reduces as well since animals are less concentrated (not a CAFO) and they are able to roam around a contribute their fertilizer to the soil. <br /><br />We don't have to throw cooperations out of the solution, but we best not put our eggs in the same basket. I fear that we are looking at expensive complicated technical solutions when we have a plethora of simple and natural ones at a very low cost. There is not one solution because there is not one problem so we need to stop acting like talking about it is not helpful and discuss the topic further. <br /><br />_______________________________<br /><br />"The people who see the population explosion in the Malthusian way - as a geometric progression - forget that population growth is not a biological issue. People are not increasing in numbers out of stupidity and ignorance. Population growth is an ecological phenomenon linked very intimately to other issues, such as the usurpation of the resources which allow people to live." - Vandana Shiva<br /><br /><br />"Terra Petra: How the Worlds Most fertile Soil Can Help Reverse Climate Change and World Hunger" by Ute Scheub (Author), Haiko Pieplow (Author), Hans-Peter Schmidt (Author), Kathleen Draper (Author), Tim Flannery (Foreword)<br /><br /><br /><br />Haley Agrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05436539676895975729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-53620457395140689032018-03-02T08:36:22.108-08:002018-03-02T08:36:22.108-08:00Cliff, I poured 9 years of my life into magnetic f...Cliff, I poured 9 years of my life into magnetic fusion. This left me convinced that even if it becomes possible in a scientific demo sense, the technology will be hopelessly complex and vulnerable to single-point failure. So perhaps you might substitute "solving the energy storage problem" for fusion in you narrative. If we solve storage- not a given -then solar + wind provide much of what we need.Abe Jacobsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00332896461501944728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-26188132604826239362018-03-02T08:07:56.038-08:002018-03-02T08:07:56.038-08:00Seriously people, check out the latest from this s...Seriously people, check out the latest from this scientist. The weather is more than just simply, let's all work together and stop burning fossil fuels. Way beyond that. Check out this video for starters:<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsqZJP54shg<br /><br />CheersAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06097807891329244609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-81626852268956854062018-03-02T07:55:02.873-08:002018-03-02T07:55:02.873-08:00Cliff - Thanks for your excellent blog. A thought...Cliff - Thanks for your excellent blog. A thought provoking entry, though I agree with precious comments about the danger of over-reliance on a quick fix through fusion or any other technology. The stakes could not be higher. But my point in writing is to correct one of my pet peeves, the phrase "pesticides and herbicides". Herbicides ARE pesticides. This is a common misunderstanding. As a scientist I am sure you understand the importance of correct use of terminology as the basis for accurately framing an issue. In this case I think you just meant to say "pesticides". If you want to highlight herbicides (which do comprise the largest pesticide group by volume of use) then you could say "herbicide and other pesticides". But the phrase "pesticides and herbicides" is misleading. Or as Trump would say "Fake News!" Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01275577261355408625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-64261147317622854832018-03-02T07:01:49.706-08:002018-03-02T07:01:49.706-08:00Lots of wishful thinking here, without a shred of ...Lots of wishful thinking here, without a shred of data driven support: the extreme techno-optimist view is yet another way of saying "proceed with the status quo, pollute away, some smart scientist will save us soon." Not likely.<br /><br />Little data supports that view. Breakthrough technologies are highly unpredictable in origin, can be hard to recognize when young, and even then implementation timescales are slow. Particularly for large expensive infrastructure.<br /><br />If such technologies appear, great. But the data driven approach says "what can we do with the technologies, including environmental, economic, and social tools, we already have today to fix these difficult problems?" Probability says thats how these problems get fixed. <br /><br />And its not population thats the problem, its intensity of resource use. You really want to screw the earth: put one billion highly affluent people with private jets amd fleets of cars on it. Lifestyle in the developed world is the problem. Tallguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06528858087878685321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-37251679279670692132018-03-02T05:52:52.239-08:002018-03-02T05:52:52.239-08:00Based on what is going on in Europe, I'd say n...Based on what is going on in Europe, I'd say not only has the global warming problem been solved; it's been beaten into a terrifying pulp. <br /><br />Note to other readers - please refrain from hyperventilating over what are simply sardonic comments.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18335955482091224148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-27921164849095433832018-03-01T22:49:23.733-08:002018-03-01T22:49:23.733-08:00Scaling back on human exploitation of the natural ...Scaling back on human exploitation of the natural world is the only behavior that has any chance of saving the human race as we know it. Seven billion and counting with current lifestyle expectations is obviously unsustainable. Technology itself will never be enough to bridge the gap between the needs of the natural world and the short term desires of so many clever primates with opposable thumbs. Mother nature will make short work of human society if we don't learn to respect and cooperate with the biological world we are all totally dependent upon.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02283069930936498820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-49488922059501265322018-03-01T20:36:06.548-08:002018-03-01T20:36:06.548-08:00The dream of jamming the solution to global warmin...The dream of jamming the solution to global warming into the political process for a solution is a nightmare. Politics does not have long vision. Politics changes directions frequently. It even reverses itself. Look at US politics. Some of the same forces will change Europe's political focus in coming years. <br /><br />But science and technology has shown that it can maintain a forward direction, following data, for decades after decades. It doesn't swing around and reverse itself. It doesn't forget what it has learned. It doesn't deny facts. We've seen countless examples of this in every major technology. <br /><br />In my view only science and engineering can stay focused on trying to solve long-term, complex problems. Whether it will find adequate solutions in time to avoid a climate catastrophe is unknown. <br /><br />But putting your hopes in political solutions to very long term technical problems is likely to remain extremely frustrating. That doesn't mean to give up on the politics, but rather to not depend on it. <br />John Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08271037292493818827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-38470042655207443392018-03-01T19:48:58.925-08:002018-03-01T19:48:58.925-08:00So, let's take a closer look at this. Let'...So, let's take a closer look at this. Let's ignore the fact that, as Tom said, scientists have been working for 50 years to develop a fusion reactor and have yet to achieve an energy break even point. Let's also assume that a modestly funded startup that doesn't even have a prototype will change the world and in only 20 years will manage to scale up this non-existent technology to the point where it's capable of replacing every fossil fuel plant in the world. This will involve replacing more than tens of thousands of power plants worldwide And what happens if we do this? We reduce emissions by 30%, because electricity generation only accounts for 30% of CO2 emissions. In order to stabilize the climate, 80% reductions of CO2 emissions are required. Fusion power doesn't get us there. <br /><br />But, what about carbon sequestration? Again, the technology is unproven to work at scale. And in order to be effective, it would have to pull out of the atmosphere the amount of CO2 that is being emitted: the equivalent of 10s of thousands of power plant emissions + the CO2 emission of 1 billion cars + industrial + agricultural emissions. Unlikely to happen in 20 years.<br /><br />And it gets better! Because the climate system has inertia - the oceans act as a heat sink and this has moderated climate change - even if CO2 levels were returned to levels of 100 years ago, we still would see warming for decades.<br /><br />So, despite what Cliff claims, there are no technical fixes and we are facing very serious environmental problems for generations to come due solely to climate change. And, yes, there are other severe environmental problems, but climate change is the by far the most devastating. Climate change will not be a "solved problem" for at least a 100 years.Fredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09062984894893459297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-39378290420403513452018-03-01T18:33:21.528-08:002018-03-01T18:33:21.528-08:00NoNoMichael DeMarcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04320634165404283841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-67231627508275757612018-03-01T16:32:11.669-08:002018-03-01T16:32:11.669-08:00Don't worry - be happy and burn all the fossil...Don't worry - be happy and burn all the fossil fuels you want because technology will solve everything seems like a dangerously short sighted message to be spreading. And it is particularly dangerous basing it on the fusion solution. Having spent the earlier part of my career in nuclear (both commercially and in research ) I have seen a lot of physicists generate a lot of research money by hyping fusion. The results after 50+ years have been disappointing. I wish the small startups like the one mentioned well but people need to understand that getting fusion to work for short periods of time and actually generating power from it at an economical industrial level is a huge step (in the 50s the hype was that fission power, a much easier technology, would be so cheap that they wouldn't have to meter it).<br />Even assuming that the breakthrough does occur it may not be that easy to turn back the climate if the Arctic is ice free and the West Antarctic glaciers have destabilized which the climate science community is telling us is going to happen.Weather Devoteehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07071334949599205140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-51604549762840795522018-03-01T14:27:38.650-08:002018-03-01T14:27:38.650-08:00I think I have to agree with James' response u...I think I have to agree with James' response up above. <br /><br />While I think Dr. Mass' post here is highly intriguing and gets people to think, I'm not sure that creating language that downplays the threat of global warming is helpful. Even if this post was a "hypothetical situation". <br /><br />The problem is that from a population-wide perspective, the human brain doesn't exactly separate timescales very well, nor does it seem to be able to make decisions based on fact and evidence, and not JUST emotion. This post is a good example of this in that it uses language in the present tense. I'm honestly not sure that most people are even close to educated enough or have the critical thinking powers required to fully understand the deeper message of this blog post. <br /><br />I will fully agree that highlighting other environmental threats (such as ocean biosphere degradation) is utterly critical and needs to be on the same level of political priority as climate warming. The data would indicate that the collapse of the ocean food chain is equally as serious as a polluted and warming atmosphere. But again, as James said above, I'm not sure how truly beneficial or helpful this post is. <br /><br />All that being said, thank you Dr. Mass for always stimulating people to THINK about issues, and not just "feel" their way to opinions. Russmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09793156892413087319noreply@blogger.com