Climate, compost, and those plastic cups: Sustainability (1)
Climate, compost, and those plastic cups: Sustainability and Climate Change (1)
This past week I was at the county fair. There were science exhibits, and a display on climate-wise gardening. There was a lot of attention to garbage; it was a zero-waste event. There was an exhibit and lecture on irrigation, with, of course, some discussion of stressed and contentious water resources. After the fair I took a one-day course on grasslands and the reclamation of prairie land. There are many places where climate and climate policy fit into this mix of small activities.
I want to start with the idea of “sustainability.” When I moved to University of Michigan in 2005, I was introduced, seriously, to the idea of sustainability. I kept asking whether or not there was an accepted, single definition of sustainability. The short answer was, “no.” If you look around you find a couple of notions that are always included in the definition of sustainability. First, there is the idea that the way that we use resources to maintain our standard of living does not preclude the ability of future generations to do the same. Second, there is the idea that all of the pieces fit together into a whole. A popular notion of sustainability is “think globally, act locally”, or conveyed by the company Seventh Generation, which strives, “To inspire a revolution that nurtures the health of the next seven generations.” On a whole different scale is Ceres, which “leads a national coalition of investors, environmental organizations and other public interest groups working with companies to address sustainability challenges such as global climate change and water scarcity.” Here are some links to definitions and discussions of sustainability: @ Washington State University, Wikipedia, Environmental Protection Agency, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
It is obvious that our climate and climate change fit into the notion of sustainability, but it is not an easy relation to understand, describe and to make actionable. More directly related to our ability to sustain ourselves are population, energy, energy consumption, and standard of living. Historically we have used easy resources, because they are easy. For many centuries we were reliant upon wood for fuel and building. We cleared forests for agriculture. During the 1800s the United States was largely deforested. It became self evident that forests and whale oil were not going to support a growing population, an industrial society, and a growing economy. (A nice history of energy, and interestingly Dolly Sods Wilderness.) These sources of energy were replaced with coal and oil. All of these sources of energy have obvious, direct environmental consequences. There are also some environmental consequences that are not quite as obvious and direct; namely, those consequences due to the release of carbon dioxide.
The wealthy economies and standard of living that followed from industrialization become the priority; hence, easy energy becomes a priority. The obvious and direct environmental consequences, ultimately, become something that we try to deal with – for example, The Clean Air Act. We seek a balance of environmental pollution and industrialization – a contentious balance. Climate change is an environmental problem that is not as obvious and not as direct. It is problem where it takes, compared with a human life, a significant amount of time for the signal of climate change, of global warming, to emerge over the natural variability that we are used to dealing with. In order to mitigate climate change through the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions our “easy” choice is to quit burning fossils fuels, but that is not an easy choice to make if we humans exercise our prerogative of pursuit of high standards of living and population growth. To address climate change requires us to look out beyond the length of our lives and to see the value that a sustainable environment will have to those who follow us.
There was a couple of years ago a paper in Nature entitled, “A safe operating space for humanity”, by Johan Rockstrom and many colleagues. Here is Figure 1 from that paper.
Figure 1: “The inner green shading represents the proposed safe operating space for nine planetary systems. The red wedges represent an estimate of the current position for each variable. The boundaries in three systems (rate of biodiversity loss, climate change and human interference with the nitrogen cycle), have already been exceeded.” From “A safe operating space for humanity”, by Johan Rockstrom and many colleagues (Nature, 2009)
This figure conveys the integrated nature of sustainability on the planetary scale. An easy example to point out – climate change is, primarily, a problem of carbon dioxide emission, as is ocean acidification. Hence, from an integrated perspective, the two cannot be looked at in isolation. But looking around the circle, all of these environmental issues are related. They are all related to population, energy, consumption, standards of living and robust economies.
I started this entry, this series, with a very mundane event – being at the fair. At the fair we talked about water, and sure climate change might be important to water, but it does not seem as immediately important as the cities’ thirst for water and the purchase of agricultural water rights (Thirsty Cities, Dry Farms). This interface of climate change on this local level is real, it is contentious, and it is substantive. Yes, I have started another series, and in it I will look at “think globally, act locally.” Yet another problem of many scales that must be addressed as we adapt to global warming.
r
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 — Blog Index
You all need to be nicer, for real!
Ya!,,,,, I know,,,,, I have no room to talk, but think about it?
Without a dictating view or question of such, this place would be quite borging, no ?
Perhaps we need a refresher ~
Next request, stop giving free StarBucks coupons to CB! :)
It is not about turning, it is about learning.
Unfortunately, many accept that of which is purveyed as absolute truth. Neo is a prime example of such.
Think about if one small part of the models used to create climate opinion in today's world was wrong?
The impact is exponential long term, period.
We do not have the slightest grasp on cloud formation and have a very slanted view of CO2. Clouds are the key to the end result...... I don't think anyone would argue that clouds do indeed stabilize our temperatures more than any other Earth bound impacting force.
There is only one aspect/influencer of our climate that can actually play the role CO2 is currently inaccurately positioned in and that is the Sun.
Long term history shows us that in no uncertain terms.
Gnight~
Ossqss - I did read what I could find concerning the link you provided me to Dr. Rod Spencer's blog, from Professor Rood's previous blog. I also read the comments that were posted there. There was one person, in particular, that was questioning the math and the starting point that Dr. Spencer was using. No one, not even Dr. Spencer, could scientifically discredit what this blogger was questioning. I am not a scientist and I do not know the math involved in his study but, since no one, not even Dr. Spencer could invalidate these questions, from the blogger, then I too much question Dr. Spencer's study on this.
Cosmic rays do produce particles but, at the sub atomic level. I am also aware that cosmic rays are extremely harmful to life, as we know it. Cosmic rays will split DNA chains and destroys them. This would lead to cancer later in life. Cosmic rays are everywhere, in the universe. We are protected from cosmic rays due to the Earth's powerful magnetic field that deflects most of the cosmic rays. Of course, higher in the atmosphere, fewer of these cosmic rays are deflected. My question is, since cosmic rays deal with sub atomic particles, what is the science that shows these particles are large enough, or abundant enough, to induce the cloud formations that Dr. Spencer bases his theory on?
"It is not about turning, it is about learning." - Exactly! Why, then, do so many of you believe that this is a game to be played against Nea? Quite frankly, for the most part, you are starting to sound like a group of school kids bragging about how you bullied the kid at recess. This is not about teaching or learning. This is about playing games for your own amusement purposes. And the lesson is???? What did you, or anyone else, learn?
I am a firm believer that climate change is real. Anyone that disagrees with that is anyone that is incapable of knowing the Earth's history of even the most simple mechanics of an atmosphere. Any atmosphere, of any planet. I am not, however, fully convinced of AGW. Here is what I do know:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse. Science has proven this beyond any REASONABLE doubt.
2. The Earth has natural CO2 sinks. Any "sink" will reach a point of saturation and will begin to lose its effectiveness along the way to reaching its saturation point.
3. Green plants will absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and release oxygen back into the atmosphere. The carbon is stored by the plant and when the plant dies much of this carbon is stored below ground and, eventually, very deeply below ground. We, mankind, destroy forests either through cutting them down, or worse, by burning them down. When we burn them down we are also releasing the carbon that they have stored and this carbon is not sequestered underground. A double whammy, one might say.
4. The Sun is the ultimate heat engine for Earth. There is simply not enough internal heat, in the Earth, that would even come close to accounting for the heat the Earth has now. This, to me is a given. The Sun is the ultimate heat engine for the Earth. With this said, what is the scientific data that shows the Sun has heated the Earth significantly enough to account for all of the heat we see over the past two centuries?
5. Mankind's activities, over the industrial period, have released an ever increasing amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. We have the evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse and will trap some of the heat from the Sun and not allow a "natural" amount of heat to escape into space. "Natural" being the lower CO2 levels we experienced before the industrialization by mankind. - Yes, I know. There were higher CO2 concentrations before there was even a "mankind" but, there is strong evidence that fully supports this was over a much larger time frame than what we see today.
These are just a few of the "basics" that we know concerning how the Earth is warming now. You can either teach me, I am quite willing to learn, or you can ignore me. What I will not allow you to do is to try to insult my intelligence by thinking you can throw anything out there and I will believe it. Show me the verified data that will show me that mankind's activities have not contributed to the rapid climate change we are now experiencing on Earth. I have told Nea that if he feeds me data that is not factual, I will call him on this. You may rest assured that will do the same to anyone that tries to bring me their opinions and not the evidence that supports their claims. I urge you to not consider me as someone that lacks the intellect to read and to comprehend the basics of what I have read.
I have also seen several try to disprove AGW simply on the basis that none of the prior models accurately predicted what are the observations of today. You know, that is a funny thing about models. Models do not tell you that 32512 Did I Get It Right Lane in Pleasantville, Ohio will see 104 F while standing in 3.27" of sea water on May 17, 2022. What models do is show you probabilities of what could happen over a given time period. Some of these probabilities will become reality and some will not. I suggest that you stop looking for absolutes in what models show to be probabilities. They do not work this way. They were never intended to work this way and to believe otherwise is simply a foolish belief. - I am willing to learn. What are your facts?
I had contacted Dr.Masters about this yesterday. Apparently there was a minor factual error in an article from which Dr.Masters pulled the info from.
There is a caveat to this record and I'm doing a little research (although I doubt I will turn up anything) to see if this is, in fact, a record. The period of record for JFK airport is 1948-50, 1964-present). So for the years 1951-1963 there's no records (at least officially) for this site. It just so happens that Hurricane Connie of 1955 is missed by this climosite. That's an unfortunate circumstance concerning this record because just up the Van Wyck to the Grand Central lies La Guardia Airport which received 10.51" of rain during Connie. Central Park had 6.32" but both of these totals were truncated by midnight.
The "crowd" turned on me? Oh, you mean a "crowd" as in "two's company, three's a crowd"? No, as SHTBTR pointed out, it was the same small gang of denialists who often pollute the various fora with their anti-science babble. Anyway, given that my OP received more plus votes than did any of those by the "crowd", I could say it looks like the forum turned on that "crowd", no?
...or, you know, he had some other things to do. Seriously, no one here should be so egotistical as to think that any member's absence is due to anything done to them by any other member(s). Me embarrassed? By a denialist? It's never happened, and never will. Not so long as I'm standing atop a mountain of empirical science...
Anyway, I saw someone mentioned the dot maps. Here's the latest. Please note--again--the preponderance of reds:
FWIW, July was the 317th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last month with below average temperatures was February 1985. If things are cooling--or at least not warming, as some say--wouldn't that streak have to be broken at some time?
img src="
Neo
Notice how much larger,massive,numerous and HUMONGOUS the Red Dots are compared to the less numerous,tiny,small and infinitesimal its y bits y blue dots.
OUCH!
Very well put, indeed.
A group of sheep may be called a flock, herd, trip, drove or mob of sheep.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_group_of_sheep _called#ixzz1VCcCI7NW
Thank you, Overwash. Give me time to read and review this. A brief glimpse tells me that this relates to a resilient Earth or is the title simply misleading? Has the resiliency of the Earth been the question before? I was more considered about our resilience, in a changing climate. The Earth does not need us, in order to endure. We need the Earth, in order to endure.
I also thought that our pursuit of "truth in science" was to not include any "agenda driven science". The authors of the site clearly have several agendas that they pursue. Two of which are to promote their book and to " express their views".
Link
I do not claim that their research is not valid. I will have to study this to find the "science" and not the "viewpoints". Please, allow me the time to do so.
Cities are built around sewage systems so that all the nutrients in residents waste are broken down and discarded, then synthetic fertilizer (made from fossil fuel energy) is used to grow new nutrients somewhere else.
In fact, human waste represents a very large stream of high value nutrients (proteins, carbohydrates, and trace metals). We degrade this down to CO2 and NOx (GHG), then send the metals to a land fill. We do all of this because human waste contains some pathogens. Pathogens can also be food for some critter (rotifers et al). Rotifers can be food for copepodes, which can be food for fish. The copepodes and fish can be protein for our livestock, that provide us with food.
In short, the unwritten assumption of most sewage treatment plants is that there will be cheap fossil fuel to make fertilizer. It does not have to be this way. Some cities, such as NYC, send their sewage sludge to farms for use as fertilizer. It is a good start.
If you and sloppy writer at the site you linked to are going to rely on a peer-reviewed paper to make a statement than you better stick to the conclusions in the paper.
I took the time to download the paper and read it to see what it actually says. What can and can't we say from that paper?
1) Ice cover around Greenland was lower ~8500 and 6000 years ago than today.
2) No information from that study on global temps. They hypothesize that it was due to a change in the Arctic Oscillation, not a global phenomenon.
3) Your links make a claim that it was 2 to 4 C warmer. No where in this paper do they make an attempt to reconstruct temp record.
4) They estimate 50% less ice than today around Greenland, BUT an increase in other parts of Arctic at same time. Prediction for end of this century are for 0% ice during summer period for all of the Arctic region and perhaps during winter too.
5) Authors feel significance of their paper is to highlight ways sea-ice models could be strengthened. No where do use it to make the claim that AGW is discredited or that it was warmer globally during previous 10,000 year period of study than today.
6) The regime of drivers of sea-ice change than and now are different. Since that case of sea-ice retreat was driven by natural climate variation, it was able to recover. If you are going to cite one specific peer-reviewed paper, then you can not ignore the one that attributes 50% of current sea-ice melt to human causes (Jennifer Kay, et al. Geophysical Research Letters) Our contribution is something we are not presently trying to reverse. So, if we do not act, we will go beyond what was seen in this paper, and it will not recover for a very very long time.
7) So the specifics and context are quite different between what happened ~8500 and 6000 years ago and what is happening today. For a scientist these details matter.
Conclusion, your inference ("There is evidence of warming of this magnitude before") reaches beyond the scope of the paper you use as evidence to make the inference. Common mistake made by first year undergraduate science majors, usually cleared up with good training. I tell students to look up "scope of inference" and explain it to me the next time we meet.
I cannot disagree with what you said about the "extremist". Then why did you give me a link to a site that you knew was not based on your claims? Do you not consider this to be self defeating and agenda driven?
You assume that people become featured bloggers at WU only because they support AGWT, but I think that's a false assumption. I think people become featured bloggers here because they happen to know a lot about weather and climate. And as it turns out, of course, the more one understands about those two things, the more one is likely to support AGWT.
You need to think more Purpledrink!
img src="
well...you're right, I do assume. But some featured bloggers here haven't updated their blog or made a comment in months. like that tornado chaser/photographer guy...nothing new in 2011...the year of the great southern tornado swarm..nothing since 2010.
You know, Neapolitan, I would love to see you get a featured blog. What with your knowledge of climate and other sciences. I'd vote for you. I think it would be entertaining. You can call it...The Anti-Denialsphere with Climate-Pope Neapolitan the Wise.
seriously, you're kidding yourself if you think wu is not onboard with the green crash. yes, I said crash instead of movement.
Purpledrink you need to think!
<>img src="
why don't you make like a tree..and get outta here
You need to think before you drink!
only you can prevent Earth from warming, only you
You may be right!
The ones with "low IQ" are the ones that believe that Earth's climate is static. You do not fit in this group.
7000 year old tree stumps, in the Arctic region, will cause one to pause for thought. There must be an explanation for this. Until we have this explanation there is little else we can decipher from this. The article provides a very plausible explanation for this but, what it does not do is add credence to nor does it distract from the AGW theory. Do you not think that I, as are many others, are not confused from all of this? Those of us that lack the scientific knowledge to explore the science behind AGW, for ourselves, must rely on our other strengths to decipher the data that "extremist" would have us to believe. This is not an easy task but, it is a task we must undertake regardless, if we wish to discover the truth for ourselves.
Let me give you my personal take on all of this. I am not a scientist and I lack the math skills to verify the work performed by scientist. How, then, do I know which side of the debate I need to look at when I know I need to make a decision now, instead of later? The sense of urgency, in making a decision, is based on "what if I am wrong?" What is the greatest harm in believing in AGW as opposed to not believing in AGW and therefore oppose any efforts to promote a more certain future for us all? Well, let us look at the possibilities:
Let us say that AGW is not real and it is a scheme by Al Gore to make billions of dollars based on his scare tactics. What is the worst damage I will have caused to come to be, if Al Gore had duped me and I supported the AGW theory?
1. I will have helped to force us to a renewable energy. - should this not already be a primary goal? Do not even those that do not believe in AGW still think it is in our best interest to conserve the resources we have left?
2. I would have caused us to spend a lot of money that could have been spent in other others of needs. - money can be made again. We seem to do this all of the time.
3. I would have helped to slow economic progress. - there is money to made, no matter which side of the issue you stand on. Without conservation of our remaining resources, this will no longer be true, in the not so distant future.
Let us say that I fight any changes that would help us to stave off AGW changes because I do not believe it is real, and it does prove to be real.
1. DOOM! - that pretty much covers it, for me.
When we hear people say that we need to weigh costs vs. benefits then this is what I do. I do this with an outlook to the future and for us all. The cost of doing nothing, even if AGW is wrong, far outweighs the cost of doing all that I can to stave off AGW, even if AGW is wrong. Until AGW is proven to be wrong, the cheapest thing we all can do is to pay into negating the future costs that AGW could bring. Even, if later, AGW is proven to be wrong. Simple, straight forward and to the point. There is no doubt that we will soon have to move away from our dependence on fossil fuels, if we plan to survive as a nation. Let alone, as a species.
Never let anyone tell you, not even yourself, that your IQ is low. I will state just the opposite. That, my friend, is a promise! You have shown me that you have an opinion but, you will allow that opinion to change with new data. That, my friend, takes intelligence! I can only hope that I can maintain the same level of intelligence as that you have shown. .... a 1996 GEO? You are also BRAVE!
Lets review what you did...
Do something, yet doesn't happen:
1) Force renewable energy; sustainability
2) Lost money; it can be remade
3) Slowed down consumption; delayed the inevitable depletion of remaining resources
Do nothing, yet happens:
1) DOOM! End of the world!
You paint a very one-sided picture. It's probably on Al Gore's standard business card that he hands out to his tail wagging fans. You skipped over the downsides of being wrong and made them into pluses instead. You exaggerated the horror of what would happen if nothing was done. You effectively said that doing something is always a plus and doing nothing is a unimaginable nightmare.
If you want to be fair, you have to assume the worst case scenario for doing something, yet nothing happening. It's perplexing that you made everything a plus.
Do something, yet nothing happens
1) Economy is slowed down and when the year 2070 comes the people of earth are unprepared for news of imminent catastrophe. An inbound asteroid XEIB8008A-1 has been spotted and it's days from impact. Everyone scrambles. The switch to renewables delayed the production of wealth that would have led to strong space programs across the world. Near-earth asteroid programs were also cut along with many other related sciences. Because of this, the governments are unable to produce a practical plan, the military fails, and the asteroid colides with earth, killing 10's of millions.
Whether the governments do it or the private companies do it doesn't matter. The economy affects everyone on both sides and has far reaching consequences.
There's your worst case. I'm sure there're many more, if you want to play those games.
Unfortunately, this is about facts, not speculation or games. I am with you in that I am not a climate scientist and cannot judge this material accurately. Just the other moment I was imagining the CO2 in the air around me and looking up at the sun and wondering what was going on in the atmosphere because of the CO2 that's there. This is a real phenomena. It can't hide from us. I have indeed seen some reference to the science we've done in regards to this matter, but then there're the details and they always get me. I'm not equipped to judge them and so I am fated to sit on the fence.
Comparing a hypothetical meteor with 94% sure destruction from global warming makes no sense. But taking the meteor, the assumption is that the hypothetical global slowdown due to green technologies puts us below the meteor destruction technological capacity threshold. However, if we stayed where we are, it we would be above it. Any meteor that fell in the range of could be destroyed if we didn't go green but could not be stroyed if we do go green would have to be about prefectly placed size and speed wise. I would much rather gamble o nthe chances of htat happening instead of gambling on global warming, of which we already see the effects.
But this whole 'economic slowdown' is false. 1) It doesn't mean living with fewer resources, it just means with less oil and pollution. If America hadn't become so whiny crybaby lately (or big oil controlled), it wouldn't have a problem embracing change. 2) Even if it does mean less resources, living without resources encourages innovation more than living with resources does. Examples are everywhere: Japan after WWII that had to develop technology instead of mass produced turds like Detroit did mid 70s to 80s. Many more examples of innovation due to necessity exist if you like, it even has a name in business schools: "stretch". 3)It is going to come anyway. Not because of oil and global warming but because there is a limit to how much more we can consume. The thirld world will be the big consumers since they are the ones that (mostly) go to bed hungry each night instead of us (mostly). Better to develop green technology and sell it to the third world than sit on our fat butts and let the technological revolution pass us by.
However, all that would require being proactive and I have yet to see any politician except Gore and to a lesser extent Obama actually be proactive unless it involves a war against a country for reasons no still knows.
Your words and actions are ON THE RECORD!
If you can change hurricanes then you can change the weather. Transfer of heat is all it takes. Someone needs to knock their noggins repeatedly and make them think!
img src="
Link
Of course it does but you talk as if it is 100% of the problem. What percent is it?
It's interesting that Watts published an article supporting AGWT. I'm sure he won't let it happen again...
Blog is working fine?
Viewing: 51 - 101
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 — Blog Index