Virtue signaling is not a solution.There is often a solution --
Climate | Bouygues Construction
Bouygues Construction aims to achieve a 30% reduction in its CO2 emissions by 2030. Responsible and committed to the environment, the group is leading the way in the field of sustainable construction, with innovative solutions to design, implement and operate projects across all fields of...www.bouygues-construction.com
Climate and Weather
- Thread starter espola
- Start date
You and your alter ego need massive amounts of intense psychotherapy.
I wish I had a mic around here to drop.
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
For those interested in being educated about climate and energy, I highly recommend two substacks. The Honest Broker (Roger Pielke). He recently retired from the University of Colorado at Boulder and will continue writing and doing research on his own supported by his substack. His take on wind energy is below.
The other is Doomberg. Again, his posts are data-supported and relevant to the latest events. You can get a preview of his articles for free. The previews are informative even without the full post. To get the full posts requires a paid subscription.
newsletter.doomberg.com
The other is Doomberg. Again, his posts are data-supported and relevant to the latest events. You can get a preview of his articles for free. The previews are informative even without the full post. To get the full posts requires a paid subscription.
Doomberg | Substack
Energy, finance, and the economy at-large | Doomberg readers are better informed and smartly entertained | Enter your email address below to receive free previews | Bonus access to 5 of our top articles is included in the Welcome email! Click to read Doomberg, a Substack publication with...
newsletter.doomberg.com
Who said 700 gallons per year is significant?
In the context of "things that make megawatts", 700 gallons is rather small. It's like complaining about the number of rolls of toilet paper needed to run a nuclear power plant. Yes, there are issues to discuss, but that isn't one of them.
Maybe a picture would help. Here is your clean energy.
Virtue signaling? They have a concrete (pun intended) solution.
More power to them if it helps them sleep at night.
Now do 480,000 gallons.
I'm not sure what you are whining about.
I'm not sure what your so ebullient about.
One of the electronics techs I worked with at Spectral Dynamics/Scientific Atlanta (John Castanian, who climbed Mt. Whitney with me 1.9 times) had been a health physics tech in his Navy days. He analyzed nuclear reactor operators' radiation badges to assure that there were no unhealthy exposures (or at least to discover them when they occurred). He told me one tale of a reactor shield layer that was supposed to have been made from molten lead poured into a void, but that was showing a hot spot. When disassembled (don't ask me how) it was discovered that a hammer had been dropped into the void before the pour.
I was reminded of that while watching this YouTube video -- the part about health physicists starts at about 1:38 for a few minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6OfW_L0-RI
I was reminded of that while watching this YouTube video -- the part about health physicists starts at about 1:38 for a few minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6OfW_L0-RI
When did you retire?
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
How Democrats Left the IPCC Behind
Partisan realignment on the science of climate change
ROGER PIELKE JR.
MAY 20
On Wednesday, I’ll be testifying before the Senate Committee on the Budget in a hearing titled, “Droughts, Dollars, and Decisions: Water Scarcity in a Changing Climate.” My testimony is embargoed until then, but after the hearing, I will post my oral and written testimony here and I will be happy to engage questions and comments.
I have been invited by the minority (Republicans) and asked to summarize for the committee the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on drought. The first time I testified before the Senate, in 2002, I was invited by Democrats and I was similarly asked to summarize the findings of the IPCC on extreme events.
That has me thinking about how the views of the IPCC, Democrats, and Republicans¹ (and my own views as well) may have changed over the past several decades on the science of climate change — and on extreme weather and climate events specifically.
As I will relate in my testimony on Wednesday, the IPCC (Working Group 1) has been remarkably consistent in its periodic assessment reports in its findings on the detection and attribution of trends in extreme events. My research with many colleagues over decades has often been cited in those assessments, and — looking back at my past peer-reviewed studies, commentaries, and testimonies — my views have developed over time but also stayed highly consistent and also consistent with the findings of the IPCC.
Thus, the fact that Democrats used to invite me to testify about the IPCC and now Republicans do cannot be explained by a change in the findings of the IPCC or a rethinking of my own perspectives.
Instead, it’s my observation and experience that the views of the political parties on the assessments of the IPCC has shifted dramatically over the past several decades.² The schematic below shows my impression of how things looked in 2002, when I first testified before Congress. At that time, Democrats, for the most part, had views on climate change and extreme events largely in line with the findings of the IPCC. I’d venture that this is why I was invited by Democrats at the time to testify.³
Flash forward to 2024. Much more research has been published and three further IPCC assessments have been produced. Over this time, the IPCC’s bottom-line findings on climate and extreme events have become better supported with evidence and research.
In 2024, here is how I see views of the assessments of the IPCC in the current U.S. Congress.
Democrats — not all, but many — have left the IPCC behind in favor of an extreme view of climate and extreme events. Republicans — not all, but many — find themselves much more in line with the findings of the IPCC on climate and extreme events. Similarly, I’d guess that explains why in recent years I’ve been invited to testify by Republicans.⁴
Partisan realignment on the science of climate change
ROGER PIELKE JR.
MAY 20
On Wednesday, I’ll be testifying before the Senate Committee on the Budget in a hearing titled, “Droughts, Dollars, and Decisions: Water Scarcity in a Changing Climate.” My testimony is embargoed until then, but after the hearing, I will post my oral and written testimony here and I will be happy to engage questions and comments.
I have been invited by the minority (Republicans) and asked to summarize for the committee the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on drought. The first time I testified before the Senate, in 2002, I was invited by Democrats and I was similarly asked to summarize the findings of the IPCC on extreme events.
That has me thinking about how the views of the IPCC, Democrats, and Republicans¹ (and my own views as well) may have changed over the past several decades on the science of climate change — and on extreme weather and climate events specifically.
As I will relate in my testimony on Wednesday, the IPCC (Working Group 1) has been remarkably consistent in its periodic assessment reports in its findings on the detection and attribution of trends in extreme events. My research with many colleagues over decades has often been cited in those assessments, and — looking back at my past peer-reviewed studies, commentaries, and testimonies — my views have developed over time but also stayed highly consistent and also consistent with the findings of the IPCC.
Thus, the fact that Democrats used to invite me to testify about the IPCC and now Republicans do cannot be explained by a change in the findings of the IPCC or a rethinking of my own perspectives.
Instead, it’s my observation and experience that the views of the political parties on the assessments of the IPCC has shifted dramatically over the past several decades.² The schematic below shows my impression of how things looked in 2002, when I first testified before Congress. At that time, Democrats, for the most part, had views on climate change and extreme events largely in line with the findings of the IPCC. I’d venture that this is why I was invited by Democrats at the time to testify.³
Flash forward to 2024. Much more research has been published and three further IPCC assessments have been produced. Over this time, the IPCC’s bottom-line findings on climate and extreme events have become better supported with evidence and research.
In 2024, here is how I see views of the assessments of the IPCC in the current U.S. Congress.
Democrats — not all, but many — have left the IPCC behind in favor of an extreme view of climate and extreme events. Republicans — not all, but many — find themselves much more in line with the findings of the IPCC on climate and extreme events. Similarly, I’d guess that explains why in recent years I’ve been invited to testify by Republicans.⁴
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
<cont>
Of course, consistency with the IPCC (or not) says little about policy preferences. Democrats remain the party championing action on climate policy and Republicans remain much less supportive. Of course, the key question here is, What action? I have long argued that there are unexplored opportunities for greater bipartisan support for pragmatic energy and adaptation polies that would accelerate decarbonization and reduce vulnerabilities — but that’s a topic for another day.
Policy aside, with respect to the IPCC and climate science, Democrats are currently the party of RCP8.5 and “billion dollar disasters,” while many Republicans express views much more in line with the findings of the IPCC.⁵
One consequence of this shift in perspective is that some climate activists have sought to delegitimize the IPCC. For instance, Naomi Oreskes has called for the IPCC Working Group 1 to be shut down:
One step that could help that happen would be for the IPCC to declare the job of WG1 to be done and close it down.
After all, if human-made warming is as unequivocal as these scientists insist, then why do we need more reports to tell us the same thing?
Others argue that the IPCC has been corrupted by “contrarians”:
. . . contrarian views against anthropogenic climate disruption can lobby the scientific community, and the IPCC in particular, to be conservative and so reinforce contrarian views in a vicious, self-reinforcing circle
The battle for the soul of the IPCC has really only just begun — just wait for the coming battle over letting go of extreme, implausible scenarios.
The science of detection and attribution of extreme events under the IPCC’s longstanding framework can only change very slowly, as the additions to the observational record accumulate slowly as time passes, even under the seemingly glacial pace of IPCC assessments.⁶ In other words, five years more data on hurricanes, floods, drought, and so on will not alter the fundamental conclusions of the IPCC Working Group 1 on its assessment of long-term trends. At the same time, understandings that the extreme scenario once characterized as “business as usual” is now implausible means that projections of future trends will necessarily be less extreme.
Give these realities, I expect to see more attacks on the IPCC and mainstream climate science by climate activists, including those within the scientific community.
Consider the case of the U.S. National Climate Assessment, which I have argued has been fully taken over by climate activists. In 2014, the Third U.S. National Climate Assessment highlighted the importance of the IPCC’s framework for detection and attribution. The figure below comes from that report.
US NCA 2014
Similarly, in 2017, the Fourth U.S. National Climate Assessment (NCA) included a chapter on the detection and attribution of trends in extreme events, following the framework of the IPCC, explaining:
Detection and attribution studies are important for a number of reasons. For example, such studies can help determine whether a human influence on climate variables (for example, temperature) can be distinguished from natural variability. Detection and attribution studies can help evaluate whether model simulations are consistent with observed trends or other changes in the climate system. Results from detection and attribution studies can inform decision making on climate policy and adaptation.
However, in 2023, the authors of the Fifth U.S. NCA decided — amazingly — to eliminate its chapter on the detection and attribution of trends in extreme events and the IPCC framework, and instead to emphasize billion dollar disasters as an indicator of changes in extreme events.⁷
The number and cost of weather-related disasters have increased dramatically over the past four decades, in part due to the increasing frequency and severity of extreme events and in part due to increases in exposure and vulnerability. In 2022 alone, the United States experienced 18 weather and climate disasters with damages exceeding $1 billion (Figures 2.6, A4.5). There is increasing confidence that changes in some extreme events are driven by human-caused climate change (KM 3.5).
Though it hasn’t been much discussed (probably due to its poor quality), the Fifth U.S. NCA rejected the scientific framework of the IPCC. This should not be a surprise — I’ve long argued that the placement of the U.S. NCA in the Executive Office of the President makes it a tempting target for political meddling, by Republican and Democratic administrations. Thus, the 2023 U.S. NCA represents the current Democratic view of climate science that disfavors the IPCC.
Over recent decades, both Democrats and Republicans have shifted in their views of the IPCC. Given this shifting landscape, leaders of the IPCC and the broader scientific community should prioritize steps to ensure the institutional integrity of it Working Group 1, so that it can continue to effectively assess the science of climate change, regardless which elected officials cite their work.
Of course, consistency with the IPCC (or not) says little about policy preferences. Democrats remain the party championing action on climate policy and Republicans remain much less supportive. Of course, the key question here is, What action? I have long argued that there are unexplored opportunities for greater bipartisan support for pragmatic energy and adaptation polies that would accelerate decarbonization and reduce vulnerabilities — but that’s a topic for another day.
Policy aside, with respect to the IPCC and climate science, Democrats are currently the party of RCP8.5 and “billion dollar disasters,” while many Republicans express views much more in line with the findings of the IPCC.⁵
One consequence of this shift in perspective is that some climate activists have sought to delegitimize the IPCC. For instance, Naomi Oreskes has called for the IPCC Working Group 1 to be shut down:
One step that could help that happen would be for the IPCC to declare the job of WG1 to be done and close it down.
After all, if human-made warming is as unequivocal as these scientists insist, then why do we need more reports to tell us the same thing?
Others argue that the IPCC has been corrupted by “contrarians”:
. . . contrarian views against anthropogenic climate disruption can lobby the scientific community, and the IPCC in particular, to be conservative and so reinforce contrarian views in a vicious, self-reinforcing circle
The battle for the soul of the IPCC has really only just begun — just wait for the coming battle over letting go of extreme, implausible scenarios.
The science of detection and attribution of extreme events under the IPCC’s longstanding framework can only change very slowly, as the additions to the observational record accumulate slowly as time passes, even under the seemingly glacial pace of IPCC assessments.⁶ In other words, five years more data on hurricanes, floods, drought, and so on will not alter the fundamental conclusions of the IPCC Working Group 1 on its assessment of long-term trends. At the same time, understandings that the extreme scenario once characterized as “business as usual” is now implausible means that projections of future trends will necessarily be less extreme.
Give these realities, I expect to see more attacks on the IPCC and mainstream climate science by climate activists, including those within the scientific community.
Consider the case of the U.S. National Climate Assessment, which I have argued has been fully taken over by climate activists. In 2014, the Third U.S. National Climate Assessment highlighted the importance of the IPCC’s framework for detection and attribution. The figure below comes from that report.
US NCA 2014
Similarly, in 2017, the Fourth U.S. National Climate Assessment (NCA) included a chapter on the detection and attribution of trends in extreme events, following the framework of the IPCC, explaining:
Detection and attribution studies are important for a number of reasons. For example, such studies can help determine whether a human influence on climate variables (for example, temperature) can be distinguished from natural variability. Detection and attribution studies can help evaluate whether model simulations are consistent with observed trends or other changes in the climate system. Results from detection and attribution studies can inform decision making on climate policy and adaptation.
However, in 2023, the authors of the Fifth U.S. NCA decided — amazingly — to eliminate its chapter on the detection and attribution of trends in extreme events and the IPCC framework, and instead to emphasize billion dollar disasters as an indicator of changes in extreme events.⁷
The number and cost of weather-related disasters have increased dramatically over the past four decades, in part due to the increasing frequency and severity of extreme events and in part due to increases in exposure and vulnerability. In 2022 alone, the United States experienced 18 weather and climate disasters with damages exceeding $1 billion (Figures 2.6, A4.5). There is increasing confidence that changes in some extreme events are driven by human-caused climate change (KM 3.5).
Though it hasn’t been much discussed (probably due to its poor quality), the Fifth U.S. NCA rejected the scientific framework of the IPCC. This should not be a surprise — I’ve long argued that the placement of the U.S. NCA in the Executive Office of the President makes it a tempting target for political meddling, by Republican and Democratic administrations. Thus, the 2023 U.S. NCA represents the current Democratic view of climate science that disfavors the IPCC.
Over recent decades, both Democrats and Republicans have shifted in their views of the IPCC. Given this shifting landscape, leaders of the IPCC and the broader scientific community should prioritize steps to ensure the institutional integrity of it Working Group 1, so that it can continue to effectively assess the science of climate change, regardless which elected officials cite their work.
An old SF tale related how a catalytic converter could be improved by being plated on the outside with the appropriate catalyst so that it would be able to clean the atmosphere as it passed through it. This isn't quite that good --
calcarbonpartnership.com
Home - California Carbon Partnership
A Coalition of CalChamber California Carbon Partnership Establishing a Unified Voice for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in California Learn More Resources The Power of a Unified Voice Led by the CalChamber, the California Carbon Partnership (CCP) is a diverse coalition dedicated to advocating...
calcarbonpartnership.com