The Reef Ain't Dead

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by AKA-None

...I’ve seen photos of beautiful reefs and photos of dead reefs but I’ve not seen where anyone tried to get the same photos of the same places over time. Do such exist?

https://www.coralreefimagebank.org/before-after

See Also:
https://www.atlasobscura.com/article...ng-catastrophe

[SailOar]

‘Gas is over’, EU bank chief says

To put it mildly, gas is over,” Dr Werner Hoyer said at a press conference on the EIB’s annual results.

“This is a serious departure from the past, but without the end to the use of unabated fossil fuels, we will not be able to reach the climate targets,” he added.

The EU aims to reach net zero emissions by 2050 and is expected to adopt a new carbon reduction target of -55% for 2030. However, gas has remained a grey area, with the European Commission saying it will still be needed to help coal-reliant EU member states transition away from fossil fuels....

Gas has limited support under the EIB’s climate roadmap. Only power plants emitting less than 250 grammes of CO2 per kilowatt-hour are currently eligible for support under the bank’s rules and the EIB intends to pursue its decarbonisation policy by phasing out all funding for fossil fuels before the end of the year.

Funding for large-scale heat production based on unabated oil, natural gas, coal or peat, upstream oil and gas production or traditional gas infrastructure will all be stopped by 1 January 2021, the EIB explained.

Instead, more finance will go towards energy efficiency projects, renewable energy projects, green innovation and research, Hoyer said.

The roadmap also outlines the EU bank’s intention to support both green hydrogen – generated from renewable electricity – and so-called “low-carbon hydrogen” produced either from nuclear power or natural gas with carbon capture technology.....

See Also:
Natural gas is a ‘caveat’ in energy transition, EU admits

[SailOar]

Global ice loss accelerating at record rate, study finds

The melting of ice across the planet is accelerating at a record rate, with the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets speeding up the fastest, research has found.

The rate of loss is now in line with the worst-case scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world’s leading authority on the climate, according to a paper published on Monday in the journal The Cryosphere.....

About two thirds of the ice loss was caused by the warming of the atmosphere, with about a third caused by the warming of the seas.....

About half of all the ice lost was from land, which contributes directly to global sea level rises. ...

The greatest quantities of ice were lost from floating ice in the polar regions, raising the risk of a feedback mechanism known as albedo loss. White ice reflects solar radiation back into space – the albedo effect – but when floating sea ice melts it uncovers dark water which absorbs more heat, speeding up the warming further in a feedback loop.

Glaciers showed the next biggest loss of ice volume, with more than 6tn tonnes lost between 1994 and 2017, about a quarter of global ice loss over the period. The shrinking of glaciers threatens to cause both flooding and water shortages in some regions, because as large volumes melt they can overwhelm downstream areas, then shrunken glaciers produce less of the steady water flow needed for agriculture.....

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Taken together, one might conclude that the authors are suggesting that individual carbon footprints are just a single component of the problem, and somewhat of an irrelevancy.
This is a conclusion, with which I (mostly) agree.

Hi GordMay
Thanks for the clarification and further input. I guess what you are suggesting is to think critically about per capita carbon production? That is to say, there are fixed and variable components to that?
It is an interesting conundrum that has policy implications. One conclusion might be that a few well-meaning people can't solve the problem, even if they reduce their variable contribution. One could go full nihilistic-defeatism on that line of thinking, which I decline to do.
On the other hand, much like race cars and racing sailboats, the bleeding edge can support pioneering development of new technologies, whose prices subsequently fall to allow mainstream use (e.g., turbochargers and networked Nav devices). In this way, a small number of people can have larger downstream effects beyond their direct variable contribution.
Another argument for reducing the variable contribution is the old environmental saying "Think globally and act locally." Not unlike what I was taught about the outdoors, which was to leave only footprints and take only pictures. I am doing my level best to reduce my variable component. I really don't think there is that much difference between spewing CO2 and leaving garbage in a campground. Both are convenient for the individual, but bad for the commons. I don't get a lot of juice from moralizing about this, but it was deeply ingrained in me that one should just not do this. I think sailors in general are cognizant of this - holding tanks in anchorages being a primo example.
Perhaps the other implication is that insofar as the fixed components are concerned, what is needed to address that are changes to the political, economic and regulatory forces, because they are outside the scope of individual control and discretion.
Your post was provocative, thanks.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Nothing to add to my post that you quoted, except more confirmation. Learn some tolerance. Might teach a bit of humility, if not make you less hateful of different types of people you've repeatedly made clear you know nothing about.

I'm happy to engage meaningfully with anyone willing to discuss with honesty and evidence. Little tolerance for the parrots or trolls, sorry. I'm smack in the middle of the boating demographic, and I can tell the difference between a genuine, thoughtful conservative, and an unthinking regurgitator of misinformation provided by what passes for the 'conservative' establishment these days.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Global ice loss accelerating at record rate, study finds

The melting of ice across the planet is accelerating at a record rate, with the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets speeding up the fastest, research has found.

The rate of loss is now in line with the worst-case scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world’s leading authority on the climate, according to a paper published on Monday in the journal The Cryosphere.....

About two thirds of the ice loss was caused by the warming of the atmosphere, with about a third caused by the warming of the seas.....

About half of all the ice lost was from land, which contributes directly to global sea level rises. ...

The greatest quantities of ice were lost from floating ice in the polar regions, raising the risk of a feedback mechanism known as albedo loss. White ice reflects solar radiation back into space – the albedo effect – but when floating sea ice melts it uncovers dark water which absorbs more heat, speeding up the warming further in a feedback loop.

Glaciers showed the next biggest loss of ice volume, with more than 6tn tonnes lost between 1994 and 2017, about a quarter of global ice loss over the period. The shrinking of glaciers threatens to cause both flooding and water shortages in some regions, because as large volumes melt they can overwhelm downstream areas, then shrunken glaciers produce less of the steady water flow needed for agriculture.....

Hi SailOar
Good post. A sobering reminder that predictions are not certainty and that they can be off in either direction. I think the evidence is accumulating that the Greenland Ice sheet is melting faster than the predictions just 5-10 yrs ago. The denialist wing is always crowing "They're just predictions and they could be wrong!" Yes, but the denialists pretend that the only error could be over-estimation of the effects of AGW/ACC. Unfortunately, the mid range of the scientific consensus is bad enough and overall, they are about equally likely to be under-estimating it as over-estimating it (an inherent property of statistical modeling).
The middle range of the estimates of AGW/ACC is pretty bad. The high end, and the possibility of consequences above the high end of the range are not likely, but terrible.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by SailOar

[URL="https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/gas-is-over-eu-bank-chief-says/"][B][SIZE="4"]

The roadmap also outlines the EU bank’s intention to support both green hydrogen – generated from renewable electricity – and so-called “low-carbon hydrogen” produced either from nuclear power or natural gas with carbon capture technology.....[/INDENT]

Heard a good interview with Gretchen Watkins, the President and CEO of Shell oil and gas (US) last night. She was clear that carbon capture at scale is nothing but a hope at this stage. They support its development and hope that it will work, but are not basing near term decisions on its success. No magic wand there, I am afraid.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I'm happy to engage meaningfully with anyone willing to discuss with honesty and evidence. Little tolerance for the parrots or trolls, sorry. I'm smack in the middle of the boating demographic, and I can tell the difference between a genuine, thoughtful conservative, and an unthinking regurgitator of misinformation provided by what passes for the 'conservative' establishment these days.

So now you, of all people, believe yourself to be an unbiased arbiter censor of "conservative" points of view? Please, get over yourself, give it a rest, let others express their points of view. Allow such opinions to survive or fail, influence or not, on their own merit and not from some partisan-inspired, one-dimensional perspective that believes disruption, division, suppression and censorship is an appropriate path to scientific "truth." There is much to be learned from the discussion/debate that ensues from opinions you (and I) personally don't approve of, whether merited or not. What are you afraid of?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Please, get over yourself, give it a rest,

Please take your own advice.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Hi GordMay
Thanks for the clarification and further input. I guess what you are suggesting is to think critically about per capita carbon production? That is to say, there are fixed and variable components to that?
In our societies, as currently organised.

It is an interesting conundrum that has policy implications. One conclusion might be that a few well-meaning people can't solve the problem, even if they reduce their variable contribution.
To a large extent - especially in N. America.

One could go full nihilistic-defeatism on that line of thinking, which I decline to do.
On the other hand, much like race cars and racing sailboats, the bleeding edge can support pioneering development of new technologies, whose prices subsequently fall to allow mainstream use (e.g., turbochargers and networked Nav devices). In this way, a small number of people can have larger downstream effects beyond their direct variable contribution.
Indeed.

Another argument for reducing the variable contribution is the old environmental saying "Think globally and act locally." Not unlike what I was taught about the outdoors, which was to leave only footprints and take only pictures. I am doing my level best to reduce my variable component. I really don't think there is that much difference between spewing CO2 and leaving garbage in a campground. Both are convenient for the individual, but bad for the commons. I don't get a lot of juice from moralizing about this, but it was deeply ingrained in me that one should just not do this. I think sailors in general are cognizant of this - holding tanks in anchorages being a primo example.
Indeed.

Perhaps the other implication is that insofar as the fixed components are concerned, what is needed to address that are changes to the political, economic and regulatory forces, because they are outside the scope of individual control and discretion...
ABSOLUTELY!

Well said.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

So now you, of all people, believe yourself to be an unbiased arbiter censor of "conservative" points of view? Please, get over yourself, give it a rest, let others express their points of view. Allow such opinions to survive or fail, influence or not, on their own merit and not from some partisan-inspired, one-dimensional perspective that believes disruption, division, suppression and censorship is an appropriate path to scientific "truth." There is much to be learned from the discussion/debate that ensues from opinions you (and I) personally don't approve of, whether merited or not. What are you afraid of?

Challenging, criticising, doubting, disparaging, trivializing, and/or even mocking or deriding an idea (even a person) is neither censorship nor suppression.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by lestersails

. I think the evidence is accumulating that the Greenland Ice sheet is melting faster than the predictions just 5-10 yrs ago.

All ice sheets are melting.

We combine satellite observations and numerical models to show that Earth lost 28 trillion tonnes of ice between 1994 and 2017. Arctic sea ice (7.6 trillion tonnes), Antarctic ice shelves (6.5 trillion tonnes), mountain glaciers (6.1 trillion tonnes), the Greenland ice sheet (3.8 trillion tonnes), the Antarctic ice sheet (2.5 trillion tonnes), and Southern Ocean sea ice (0.9 trillion tonnes) have all decreased in mass. Just over half (58 %) of the ice loss was from the Northern Hemisphere, and the remainder (42 %) was from the Southern Hemisphere. The rate of ice loss has risen by 57 % since the 1990s – from 0.8 to 1.2 trillion tonnes per year – owing to increased losses from mountain glaciers, Antarctica, Greenland and from Antarctic ice shelves. During the same period, the loss of grounded ice from the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets and mountain glaciers raised the global sea level by 34.6 ± 3.1 mm. The majority of all ice losses were driven by atmospheric melting (68 % from Arctic sea ice, mountain glaciers ice shelf calving and ice sheet surface mass balance), with the remaining losses (32 % from ice sheet discharge and ice shelf thinning) being driven by oceanic melting. Altogether, these elements of the cryosphere have taken up 3.2 % of the global energy imbalance.

https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/15/233/2021/

The plain language version:

https://phys.org/news/2021-01-global-ice-loss.html

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Exile

......What are you afraid of?

Oh, I don't know, maybe an attempted overthrow of the government of 'the greatest nation on earth' (or perhaps more accurately, one which was founded on [at that time] the greatest ideas on earth) by those worked into a frenzy by the hucksters and charlatans who disseminate such misinformation?

Or, if that's not good enough for you, how bout the destruction of the ability of the only place we (macroscopic life forms) have (Earth) to support our (their) own complete life cycles?

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Challenging, criticising, doubting, disparaging, trivializing, and/or even mocking or deriding an idea (even a person) is neither censorship nor suppression.

Thanks GordMay

Reminds me of watching the news the other night. They were interviewing a politician who was ranting and raving that he was being silenced.

He was on national broadcast news

Being interviewed

And his complaint was that he was being silenced.

This faux victimhood gig is really a bit much.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Challenging, criticising, doubting, disparaging, trivializing, and/or even mocking or deriding an idea (even a person) is neither censorship nor suppression.

Actually, I think you're blurring lines here, but in the abstract and as stated I'd generally agree. But that shouldn't be used as an excuse for simple intolerance for opinions one disagrees with, something which is becoming increasingly in vogue these days.

Freedom of thought and speech are not unlimited and also not amenable to absolutes. When applied to the CC debate, we're dealing with an issue that even its proponents largely admit is an unsettled area of science. Even if we assume that (i) AGW is happening, it's mere existence fails to rise to the same level of concern unless it's likely to have (ii) negative impacts, which in turn will require (iii) serious remedies to address the anticipated harm. By branding everyone with the "denier" label, you're simply deterring a large number people who, for e.g., may agree on (i) and maybe even (ii), but are not convinced that the (iii) remedies are commensurate with the potential impact. If not obvious on its face, it's been pointed out countless times, so hard to believe that the negative connotations associated with "denialism" are employed for any reason other than to deter further discussion or debate.

That's just one of many examples of the type of intolerance on full display. The other favorite, of course, is stereotyping large groups of people perceived as the "enemy" based on the actions of a few. This is the very definition of prejudice, and we've already witnessed it here on CF with attempts to paint all conservatives (same as Repubs and climate deniers, right?) based on the actions of the numbskulls and their inciter-in-chief who stormed the US Capitol. Surely we can do better than conflating the vagaries of the different facets of the CC debate with the events of Jan. 6th. This is even worse than the false "causation" analogies we often hear that try and bestow CC with the same level of scientific certainty as the earth being round or the relationship between smoking and cancer/heart disease. I know many of you (along with many scientists) have the opinion that CC enjoys a similar level of certainty, but it doesn't appear to be an accurate representation of the science as a whole (except maybe part (i)).

I remain a firm believer in the "marketplace of ideas" which generally serves as an effective filtering mechanism, and a far more productive one than the transparent attempts we so often see to bully, shame, or ridicule opinions some find intolerable, all under the guise of "defending the science" or "preserving the truth." Which part of the science? Who's truth? It's pretty obvious what's going on when a single poster with well known partisan leanings proposes what type of "conservative" is worthy of participating without being subjected to harassment. It's this sort of presumptuousness and conceit which creates the strife, not so much the differing opinions themselves.