[Al_U_Card]

Daniel1960, on 2013-July-05, 11:02, said:

If NYC were to implement these actions, they should be more than fine. They list climate changes of 2-3C temperature increase and 1-2 feet of sea level rise not by 2100, but in the next 40 years! Not only are they using high end estimates, but using a much shorter time frame. Of course, some of these improvements were long overdue.

I wonder which (mob) construction company is lobbying for those contracts....?

Either way, as the evil Dr. Pat Michaels pointed out at the hellish WUWT concerning the Nature paper by:

Dahl-Jensen, D., et al., 2013. Eemian interglacial reconstructed from a Greenland folded ice core. Nature 489, doi: 10.1038/nature11789.

from which he gleaned that:

One of the reigning myths in climate science is that interglacial temperatures in Greenland were about five degrees © above modern, causing a dramatic loss of ice and raising global sea levels about 6 meters (19 feet). Ice cores from southern Greenland in fact have wood and vegetation at their lowest levels, which are younger than the Eemian.

Dahl-Jensen found that the average annual temperature peaked at a whopping 8 +/- 4°C (that’s 7 to 22°F!) warmer than the recent millenium in the ice core during the Eemian maximum.

And still the ice survived. In fact, the top of the ice was only a mere 130 +/- 300 meters “lower” (actually from 557 feet higher to 1411 feet lower) than today. For perspective, her entire ice core was about 8,000 feet in depth.

Looks like the only rise to expect will be in taxes and the drop to the actual sea-level from the higher ramparts to be constructed.

[onoway]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-05, 21:09, said:

Fertilizers (and other chemicals) are not fuels. The problem with fossil fuels is not that they come from fossils, it's that when you burn them they inject CO2 and radioisotopes into the atmosphere.

Mind you, I"m not saying that there can't be other reasons to avoid such fertilizers and chemicals. As for "sustainability" certainly if we give up fossil fuels as such, the petroleum or coal or whatever used for fertilizer and other chemicals will last a lot longer. Nothing, of course, lasts forever.

Fertilizers and other chemicals derived from fossil fuels are already reflecting the rise in cost which we see at the pump. It is becoming increasingly uneconomic for farmers even to run their tractors, much less buy the ever more expensive additions of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides which are required in ever increasing quantities in order for farmers to get a crop worth even harvesting out of increasingly degraded soil.

This has been demonstrated: the crop failure in South Africa, after which Monsanto said that their scientists had failed to specify sufficient quantities of fertilizer, and the recent decision by the USDA to up the amount of poison residue allowable in our food. That reflects the problem of bug and weed pests becoming immune to the type and quantity of poisons already in use.

If farmers were not already subsidized to some extent, many more of them would already be bankrupt.

This scenario has already played out in India, we know how it turns out in the long run. Not well at all, which is why a large area of India which had embraced GMO crops enthusiastically is now designated a GMO free zone.

As an aside, Mike, you will undoubtedly be pleased to know there is a guy in California building electric tractors powered by batteries charged by solar panels mounted on the roof. They're pretty nifty machines, he's done some very clever innovating with the design apart from the electrical system.

[hrothgar]

Al_U_Card, on 2013-July-06, 05:49, said:

Then you would most certainly be interested in this:

Taking care of business

As well as this: FAQ

Because temperature rise is the problem and [CO2] is the solution, right?

Ross McKitrick’s proposal to tie the price of a C02 tax to temperature is badly flawed in any number of ways. Here are two of the most significant.

1. Prices won’t be proportional to costs. The proposed pricing mechanism is a point measure based on the temperature at the current time. C02 in the atmosphere is chemically inert. The C02 that we emit today will continue to impact temperature for centuries to come. Simply put, your pricing mechanism is going to radically underestimate the true cost of emissions.

2. The variance in short-term temperature measurements is disproportionate to the long term trend. It’s possible to compensate for this using a moving average or some other type of smoother, however, this builds significant lags into the system.

McKitrick’s proposal strikes me as a bait and switch. His paper calls for abolishing all other regulatory mechanisms in favor of an extremely small initial C02 tax and a pricing mechanisms that systemically under-estimates the costs associated with C02 emissions.

[Al_U_Card]

I suppose if the bait is actually being concerned with controlling the "warming" by mitigating CO2 production/addition/sequestering, then the switch must be that if it doesn't work, it doesn't cost....

(Will definitely not be a huge fave with the bureaucrats/technocrats who will be wanting to be able to ride the gravy train to "Thermagheddon".)

[Daniel1960]

mike777, on 2013-July-05, 22:22, said:

again all of this is just a discussion of how urgent is climate change and how urgent do we need to move out or look into Outer Space for resources.

fwiw I still think by 2020 solar will be a useful source of cheap, safe, reliable energy. Yes, there are issues that need to be solved in a cheap and effective manner. I am betting on a massive trial and error process seeking profit to help us out here.( I mean massive in terms of a massive number of trial and errors not in a few massive trials.)
The Moon may help us with tide/wave energy.


Places such as Bangladesh and Florida will need a bigger fix in the sense of politics rather than science.

That would be nice. But, two things that I have learned in my lifetime is to never under- or over-estimate technology. Solar has certainly make great strides in the past few decades, but I can remember even greater predictions for solar power, which has yet to materialize. I like your trial and error, and keeping government far away from the process will likely speed things up. Government has a way of stagnating progress by subsidizing less than efficient processes, and stifling would be innovations. This is where the old adage comes into play; necessity is the mother of invention. Until the necessity becomes great enough, the inventions will only trickle. Same with the previous post about urgency.

[dwar0123]

Daniel1960, on 2013-July-08, 06:11, said:

That would be nice. But, two things that I have learned in my lifetime is to never under- or over-estimate technology. Solar has certainly make great strides in the past few decades, but I can remember even greater predictions for solar power, which has yet to materialize. I like your trial and error, and keeping government far away from the process will likely speed things up. Government has a way of stagnating progress by subsidizing less than efficient processes, and stifling would be innovations. This is where the old adage comes into play; necessity is the mother of invention. Until the necessity becomes great enough, the inventions will only trickle. Same with the previous post about urgency.

Lets not worry about it, the future and its technology will save us! Sager words have never before been spoken. Let's not worry about necessities other child. Failure is something that has never occurred in the history of the entire world, when ever necessity has raised her ugly head, it has always been success that has triumphed through her child invention. It is a wonder we even have words for these things that have never occurred. What madman dreamed up these nightmarish concepts and shared them so successfully that they joined our collective knowledge so well that we can even contemplate failure.

Good thing about keeping the government out of it too, I can't think of a single thing that the government has helped develop. It is almost as if I am willfully ignorant about it.

[Daniel1960]

dwar0123, on 2013-July-08, 17:26, said:

Lets not worry about it, the future and its technology will save us! Sager words have never before been spoken. Let's not worry about necessities other child. Failure is something that has never occurred in the history of the entire world, when ever necessity has raised her ugly head, it has always been success that has triumphed through her child invention. It is a wonder we even have words for these things that have never occurred. What madman dreamed up these nightmarish concepts and shared them so successfully that they joined our collective knowledge so well that we can even contemplate failure.

Good thing about keeping the government out of it too, I can't think of a single thing that the government has helped develop. It is almost as if I am willfully ignorant about it.

I think you have failed to grasp the concept of trial and error, mentioned in the earlier post. It is not all success, as you claim. Most inventors had numerous failures, before arriving at a successful product. To think that everything will magically appear to save us, is living in a wonderland. Maybe you prefer, "to not fail is to never succeed." It is difficult trying to think of anything that government has helped develop, except where it involves the war machine.

[Zelandakh]

onoway, on 2013-July-05, 18:06, said:

Zelandakh: Assuming you are talking about the current love affair that ill informed politicians have with GMO crops

I wasn't. I was referring to the high-yield crops that were introduced in the 1970s. Some of these improved the yield by a factor of three. This period is sometimes called the Green Revolution.

[hrothgar]

Daniel1960, on 2013-July-08, 06:11, said:

I like your trial and error, and keeping government far away from the process will likely speed things up. Government has a way of stagnating progress by subsidizing less than efficient processes, and stifling would be innovations.

And this is why Climate Change advocates have historically recommended using a carbon tax.
The government can adjust prices to compensate for the externality without trying to micromanage investment decisions.

[Al_U_Card]

Ruh roh....



Actually, what they do say is:

Unlike in previous years, the report does not provide a quantitative, transaction-based analysis of the international carbon market as current market conditions invalidate any attempt and interest to undertake such analysis.



Seeing as the "market" (as rigged as it likely was) has spoken, we can always use a tax to uhhhh, well, get some money?

[Al_U_Card]

Then again, thinking of the (grand)children, where is the interest (and principle) to save these victims?



As per WHO:

About half of the world's population is at risk of malaria, according to the World Health Organization. The disease's impact is mostly felt in the world's poorest countries; in 2010, there were an estimated 660,000 malaria deaths, 90% of which occurred in sub-Saharan Africa, mostly among children under five years old.

Just wondering...

[Al_U_Card]

An interesting debate.

Oxford Union: Voice of reason vs. pants-wetters, rent-seekers and the uninformed

[onoway]

Miscellaneous thoughts which seem +/_ to belong in this thread; someone some time ago said something about we are all headed for starvation as a result of climate change/population growth:

Found an interesting statement today which I have no idea how to fact check but no reason to think untrue:
"Hong Kong is presently producing 75% of its fresh produce within its city limits. This is achieved because urban food production has become inculturated into that society."

If you put that together with the observations that during WW2 families were raising enormous amounts of food in what had since become basically status symbols using massive amounts of chemicals, water and labour to maintain in the form of useless grasses in lawns, it's curious that almost nobody in the west seems to be suggesting that people ought to be planting gardens or perennial food forests in at least some of their space.

Most people I know are going to huge amounts of trouble and expense to keep lawns free of dandelions and clovers yet both are highly beneficial plants,and clovers at least, are just as pleasant to look at and walk on. (not so good for golf and such though:)) Dandelions are much more nutritious than almost any other green grown, definitely than most planted veggies. One farmer in Canada is making a very good living selling dandelion greens, of all things.

As well, there is a massive amount of unused land in cities which could be made productive, as indeed guerrilla gardeners are beginning to plant with or without permissions from city authorities. Almost any gardener gets more seeds per packet than needed, so growing food plants in unused spaces for anyone to harvest is an interesting way to contribute to society. Some cities are embracing the idea.

Also read something else that was intriguing,
http://news.bbc.co.u...ope/8539877.stm Apparently it is a highly successful project which has had a very significant impact on the amount of garbage/food scraps being sent to the landfill. Since old landfills are becoming increasingly difficult to replace - "not in MY back yard!" - as they become filled to capacity it would seem to be something governments might do well to investigate.

[Daniel1960]

onoway, on 2013-July-14, 13:13, said:

Miscellaneous thoughts which seem +/_ to belong in this thread; someone some time ago said something about we are all headed for starvation as a result of climate change/population growth:

Found an interesting statement today which I have no idea how to fact check but no reason to think untrue:
"Hong Kong is presently producing 75% of its fresh produce within its city limits. This is achieved because urban food production has become inculturated into that society."

If you put that together with the observations that during WW2 families were raising enormous amounts of food in what had since become basically status symbols using massive amounts of chemicals, water and labour to maintain in the form of useless grasses in lawns, it's curious that almost nobody in the west seems to be suggesting that people ought to be planting gardens or perennial food forests in at least some of their space.

Most people I know are going to huge amounts of trouble and expense to keep lawns free of dandelions and clovers yet both are highly beneficial plants,and clovers at least, are just as pleasant to look at and walk on. (not so good for golf and such though:)) Dandelions are much more nutritious than almost any other green grown, definitely than most planted veggies. One farmer in Canada is making a very good living selling dandelion greens, of all things.

As well, there is a massive amount of unused land in cities which could be made productive, as indeed guerrilla gardeners are beginning to plant with or without permissions from city authorities. Almost any gardener gets more seeds per packet than needed, so growing food plants in unused spaces for anyone to harvest is an interesting way to contribute to society. Some cities are embracing the idea.

Also read something else that was intriguing,
http://news.bbc.co.u...ope/8539877.stm Apparently it is a highly successful project which has had a very significant impact on the amount of garbage/food scraps being sent to the landfill. Since old landfills are becoming increasingly difficult to replace - "not in MY back yard!" - as they become filled to capacity it would seem to be something governments might do well to investigate.

I have seen a marked increase in neighborhood gardeners, although none have gone so far as replace their entire lawn. Most do it for the taste afforded by fresh fruits and vegetables. The fortunate ones have been bale to use adjacent, vacant land to supplement their smaller yards, and reap a more bountiful harvest. Not sure about chickens. One of our mroe distant neighbors raised chickens, which were reportedly loud. We did not hear the noise, but did receive the benefit of a few eggs occassionally. They did attract one of the more beautiful foxes that I have seen.

[onoway]

Most urban municipalities which allow chickens only allow hens. They are quiet unless being threatened by something (like a fox or dog or raccoon) when they will understandably squawk but the roosters do tend to be quite noisy. Don't need a rooster to get eggs though.

[blackshoe]

Vacant land, particularly in cities, is usually owned by somebody.

[onoway]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-15, 05:46, said:

Vacant land, particularly in cities, is usually owned by somebody.

of course it is. There was a case not too long ago, in Calgary if I remember, that a vacant lot which was simply an eyesore with garbage and junk collecting (as it will) which had had people planting stuff in it and the owners got very huffy. Apparently they liked the "nobody cares" look and put a huge chain link fence around the property so the junk and weeds wouldn't be disturbed.

To be fair though, they may have worried about insurance if someone tripped over a carrot,or got into a squabble over the zucchini,or a knife fight broke out over who got to pick the marigolds. People sue at the blink of an eyelash sometimes. Most of the time such reactions are simply dog in the manger though, imo, but it is after all their property so if they want to be silly about it they absolutely can. It's the chance guerilla gardeners face, that their efforts will be for nothing. Sometimes what they've done is appreciated instead.

I've heard but don't know if it's true, that Detroit is actively working with citizen groups trying to get blocks of derelict and/or abandoned properties used to produce food gardens.

[blackshoe]

I don't have a problem with people using other peoples' property to grow food, or marigolds, or whatever, so long as they have the property owner's permission. I have no problem with people who live near an eyesore suing the property owner (or going to mediation, or just talking to him) to get the eyesore cleaned up. I don't even care if they suggest the way to clean it up is to allow them to plant stuff. What I do care about is that the property owner's rights are respected.

If Detroit is doing that, I applaud it - again, so long as the property owner's rights are respected. If a property is abandoned, then there is no property owner, so the question of his rights doesn't arise. Note: I don't know what the law says about abandoned property, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it says that ownership reverts to the State. IMO, that's just wrong. It should be up for grabs for anyone to take it and improve it. First come, first served. Including the guy who wants to grow his groceries on it. I think that laws like that - ones that say that abandoned property reverts to the State (and I include local governments in that, for this purpose), or that the State has a right of Eminent Domain — are wrong, because they arrogate to the State rights and powers that go far beyond what the people have delegated to them.

[Daniel1960]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-15, 08:08, said:

I don't have a problem with people using other peoples' property to grow food, or marigolds, or whatever, so long as they have the property owner's permission. I have no problem with people who live near an eyesore suing the property owner (or going to mediation, or just talking to him) to get the eyesore cleaned up. I don't even care if they suggest the way to clean it up is to allow them to plant stuff. What I do care about is that the property owner's rights are respected.

If Detroit is doing that, I applaud it - again, so long as the property owner's rights are respected. If a property is abandoned, then there is no property owner, so the question of his rights doesn't arise. Note: I don't know what the law says about abandoned property, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it says that ownership reverts to the State. IMO, that's just wrong. It should be up for grabs for anyone to take it and improve it. First come, first served. Including the guy who wants to grow his groceries on it. I think that laws like that - ones that say that abandoned property reverts to the State (and I include local governments in that, for this purpose), or that the State has a right of Eminent Domain — are wrong, because they arrogate to the State rights and powers that go far beyond what the people have delegated to them.

I live in Michigan, and can comment on the Detroit issue. Any property that has defaulted on their property taxes is taken over by the city. These abandoned lots can be purchased for a minimal price. The city does allow anyone to start a garden on these lot with the understanding that they must vacate if a buyer purchases the lot. These are springing up all over town, and the city just ignores them. Some have even fenced in the lots (usually adjacent to their own), but that involves the risk of dismantling the fence. Just because a lot appears to be abandoned, does not mean that it has no private owner, although, in all likelihood, the owner has defaulted, and the property reverted back to the city.

[blackshoe]

I figured it was something like that. At least Detroit is trying to do a good thing.