Claaire asked me to post this in the comments, rather than telling her back-channel...
I’m here in the Frozen Prairie, our present time zone is US Central Daylight Time (CDT), which is five hours earlier than GMT. I can participate at any hour that you want to run the ZOOM event,
(1) My understanding about the shift from “global warming” to “climate change” has more to do with capturing the full panoply of changes that are expected to occur -- so, not just warming generally, but also possibly deeper lows in some places and at some times, and also shifts in rainfall patterns and the severity of storms -- and less to do with political correctness.
(2) Yes, significant changes in the climate have occurred previously, even in historical periods, due to such phenomena as cyclical lows in solar radiation; heightened volcanic activity, which disperses solar shielding particles and aerosols into the air; changes in ocean circulation; variations in Earth's orbit and axial tilt; and declines in the human population (e.g., from the Black Death and the epidemics that followed European contact in the Americas). The latter periods have been interesting because they have typically been followed by considerable tree growth, which captures and stores CO2.
But the concern about anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is that it is an additional factor that is strong enough to over-ride other possible non-anthropogenic changes that may be affecting the climate.
Regarding aerosols, when I was an undergraduate in the 1970s, the big worry (behind that of a risk of an exchange of hostilities between the West and the USSR that, besides killing millions immediately, would provoke a "nuclear winter") was global cooling because of all the particulates and sulfur aerosols being spewed into the air by factories and power plants. One of the ironies of shifting towards cleaner energy is the air should become cleaner (great for our lungs!), but that the countervailing effect of air pollution on AGW will be lessened.
I don't want to get too off-topic but I want to recommend this seminar that Adam Posen of the Peterson Institute about economic and political nostalgia did two days ago. I think it can be best described as a "globalist" response to this concern echoed by many here about jobs "disappearing" to do technological change. I think it might serve as an interesting discussion point for what we are talking about even though it is not specific to the energy sector.
Apart from Mr. Garkinkle's essay —so rich in too-clever-by-halfs— demonstrating a strong need of him obeying Georges Simenon's, "if you find phrases in your prose that you luv luv luv, immediately and ruthlessly delete them!" (as paraphrased)— his obsessive and phenomenally obnoxious put-downs of everything Trump, especially "Trump's Base", is not the way to win hearts and minds of those otherwise finding agreement on some of the particulars. I'd imagine Garfinkle has nearly zero first-hand experience with Trump's Base, given the rarified atmospheres of their/our betters in which he evidently lives and breathes.
great essay. Lots to think about. I wish I could see the association between CO2 and temperatures that everyone else does, but who could disagree with more research and innovation.
An excellent essay that underlines the point I have been making: You can't ignore the politics of climate change and energy policy; you have to finesse them. Obama was too much of a smartass to be bothered, Trump was without a clue, and I'm dubious of the proposition that Biden can hit the sweet spot. His long and undistinguished career gives no reason for optimism, but we shall see.
"The infamous Solyndra case says it all; look it up if you’ve forgotten the particulars. Not only did a pile of money get wasted amid heaps of favoritism and political sweetheart gestures but, much worse, Solyndra soured Congress and others on the whole approach. The bad apple ruined the whole barrel."
This is one of my favorite examples of how political wings are the enemy of reason. Rather than attempt to fix the errors made while researching new tech, pundits used this as an opportunity to sell their audience the plan of "fold your arms and pout." No need to do the hard work of improving our situation if you can throw up your hands in exasperation and blame all of the failures on The Other Guys. Especially true if you can use this incident to build up your strawmen for future debates over policy. And smug self-satisfaction.
Thanks for acknowledging the emotions present around the edges of this discussion. I'm sure you'll notice it leak into the comments section this week.
Claaire asked me to post this in the comments, rather than telling her back-channel...
I’m here in the Frozen Prairie, our present time zone is US Central Daylight Time (CDT), which is five hours earlier than GMT. I can participate at any hour that you want to run the ZOOM event,
Ronald STEENBLIK16 min ago
Two points to start off:
(1) My understanding about the shift from “global warming” to “climate change” has more to do with capturing the full panoply of changes that are expected to occur -- so, not just warming generally, but also possibly deeper lows in some places and at some times, and also shifts in rainfall patterns and the severity of storms -- and less to do with political correctness.
(2) Yes, significant changes in the climate have occurred previously, even in historical periods, due to such phenomena as cyclical lows in solar radiation; heightened volcanic activity, which disperses solar shielding particles and aerosols into the air; changes in ocean circulation; variations in Earth's orbit and axial tilt; and declines in the human population (e.g., from the Black Death and the epidemics that followed European contact in the Americas). The latter periods have been interesting because they have typically been followed by considerable tree growth, which captures and stores CO2.
But the concern about anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is that it is an additional factor that is strong enough to over-ride other possible non-anthropogenic changes that may be affecting the climate.
Regarding aerosols, when I was an undergraduate in the 1970s, the big worry (behind that of a risk of an exchange of hostilities between the West and the USSR that, besides killing millions immediately, would provoke a "nuclear winter") was global cooling because of all the particulates and sulfur aerosols being spewed into the air by factories and power plants. One of the ironies of shifting towards cleaner energy is the air should become cleaner (great for our lungs!), but that the countervailing effect of air pollution on AGW will be lessened.
I don't want to get too off-topic but I want to recommend this seminar that Adam Posen of the Peterson Institute about economic and political nostalgia did two days ago. I think it can be best described as a "globalist" response to this concern echoed by many here about jobs "disappearing" to do technological change. I think it might serve as an interesting discussion point for what we are talking about even though it is not specific to the energy sector.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFBSeYrmC-Y
I don't particularly like Newsweek, but:
https://www.newsweek.com/goverment-loan-program-funded-solyndra-makes-money-284538
This suggests Solyndra is a bloody shirt, not a smoking gun.
I'm available all times except Sat May 8, 16 to 20 GMT.
Apart from Mr. Garkinkle's essay —so rich in too-clever-by-halfs— demonstrating a strong need of him obeying Georges Simenon's, "if you find phrases in your prose that you luv luv luv, immediately and ruthlessly delete them!" (as paraphrased)— his obsessive and phenomenally obnoxious put-downs of everything Trump, especially "Trump's Base", is not the way to win hearts and minds of those otherwise finding agreement on some of the particulars. I'd imagine Garfinkle has nearly zero first-hand experience with Trump's Base, given the rarified atmospheres of their/our betters in which he evidently lives and breathes.
great essay. Lots to think about. I wish I could see the association between CO2 and temperatures that everyone else does, but who could disagree with more research and innovation.
An excellent essay that underlines the point I have been making: You can't ignore the politics of climate change and energy policy; you have to finesse them. Obama was too much of a smartass to be bothered, Trump was without a clue, and I'm dubious of the proposition that Biden can hit the sweet spot. His long and undistinguished career gives no reason for optimism, but we shall see.
Adam Garfinkle's piece contains so much wisdom in science, sociology, and politics. A phenomenally brilliant piece.
"The infamous Solyndra case says it all; look it up if you’ve forgotten the particulars. Not only did a pile of money get wasted amid heaps of favoritism and political sweetheart gestures but, much worse, Solyndra soured Congress and others on the whole approach. The bad apple ruined the whole barrel."
This is one of my favorite examples of how political wings are the enemy of reason. Rather than attempt to fix the errors made while researching new tech, pundits used this as an opportunity to sell their audience the plan of "fold your arms and pout." No need to do the hard work of improving our situation if you can throw up your hands in exasperation and blame all of the failures on The Other Guys. Especially true if you can use this incident to build up your strawmen for future debates over policy. And smug self-satisfaction.
Thanks for acknowledging the emotions present around the edges of this discussion. I'm sure you'll notice it leak into the comments section this week.
Bravo!!!