Cont: Global warming discussion V

[The Atheist]

You're wrong.

I'd be interested to have a look at their evidence, because what I saw was clearly mostly slash.

The whole of NZ is at risk of a major earthquake.

No. No doubt we'd feel it if one struck somewhere close by, but we're in an area that isn't impacted by major faults and we'd suffer no damage. Our area isn't alone - quite a bit of the country is safe from earthquakes.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

No. No doubt we'd feel it if one struck somewhere close by, but we're in an area that isn't impacted by major faults and we'd suffer no damage. Our area isn't alone - quite a bit of the country is safe from earthquakes.

This does not appear to be true.

The 2010–11 Canterbury earthquakes are outside the areas of greatest statistical risk of high ground shaking. This illustrates the point that large earthquakes may occur anywhere in the New Zealand region, not just in the highest risk areas.

https://teara.govt.nz/en/map/4416/new-zealand-regions-at-greatest-risk-of-ground-shaking

 

[Myriad]

Not so far as I can tell.

The rainfall in NZ varies a lot with El Nino/La Nina and the heaviest rain recorded was Bola in the 1980s, so there's been nothing truly exceptional.


I think you're missing the point due to unfamiliarity with the country.

The logs and forestry waste isn't a flood mitigation issue and never has been. It's an economic issue that has become a flood issue due to build-up of waste over decades. It was a disaster waiting to happen and whether the planet is 1, 2 or 5 degrees warmer it was going to happen one day. It just happened to be in the tail of Cyclone Gabrielle.

I am very much unfamiliar with NZ, but there are analogous hazards in many places, including the estuarial wetland ten meters from my front door. One thing that's becoming clear is that there's no separating the various issues.

Flood mitigation doesn't only encompass things you do in case there's a flood. It also includes things you don't do because if you did them it could make floods worse. Overdevelopment of low-lying lands in South Florida (see this past Friday's news) is just as much a flood mitigation failure as the building of the South Fork Dam (whose failure caused the Johnstown Flood of 1889) or the accumulation of slash in timbered New Zealand forests.

The New Orleans disaster of 2005 is a well-known example. Was it caused by unwise development of lands that should never have been developed, by inadequate levee construction and maintenance, by the Army Corps of Engineers' policy of refusing to sacrifice half the city to allow the Mississippi River to change its course naturally during the last century, or by warmer sea water that intensified the hurricane? Yes.

There are things that shouldn't have been done and things that shouldn't have been left undone all over the environment. It's true they would be hazards even if the climate were unchanged, but stronger storms are bigger hazards regardless. Neglected levees didn't help turn Katrina into a category 5 storm, and slash on the landscape didn't help turn Gabrielle into a category 3.

 

[The Atheist]

This does not appear to be true.

I'd disagree with the analysis, mainly because the example they use of Christchurch is wrong. None of their earthquakes have been large and would have caused very little damage if most of the damaged property wasn't on thixatropic land that turned to liquid. The CTV collapse was due to fraudulent engineering work that was never prosecuted, and the cathedral would have fallen down at some stage.

Two other earthquakes of identical magnitude struck Peru and Taiwan and caused no damage:

https://www.straitstimes.com/world/earthquake-of-magnitude-63-strikes-off-southern-peru

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/514975/taiwan-rattled-by-6-point-3-magnitude-quake

There are things that shouldn't have been done and things that shouldn't have been left undone all over the environment. It's true they would be hazards even if the climate were unchanged, but stronger storms are bigger hazards regardless. Neglected levees didn't help turn Katrina into a category 5 storm, and slash on the landscape didn't help turn Gabrielle into a category 3.

Fair points.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

This does not appear to be true.

https://teara.govt.nz/en/map/4416/new-zealand-regions-at-greatest-risk-of-ground-shaking

When has that ever bothered The Atheist?

I'd disagree with the analysis, mainly because the example they use of Christchurch is wrong. None of their earthquakes have been large and would have caused very little damage if most of the damaged property wasn't on thixatropic land that turned to liquid.

Now you're just being silly.

2011 Christchurch earthquake

Although smaller in magnitude than the 2010 earthquake, the February earthquake was more damaging and deadly for a number of reasons. The epicentre was closer to Christchurch, and shallower at 5 kilometres (3 mi) underground, whereas the September quake was measured at 10 kilometres (6 mi) deep...

many buildings were already weakened from the previous quakes...

The peak ground acceleration (PGA) was extremely high, and simultaneous vertical and horizontal ground movement was "almost impossible" for buildings to survive intact...

Intensity

Initial measurement of peak ground acceleration (PGA) in central Christchurch exceeded 1.8 g (i.e. 1.8 times the acceleration of gravity), with the highest recording 2.2 g, at Heathcote Valley Primary School, a shaking intensity equivalent to MMI X+. Subsequent analysis revised the Heathcote Valley Primary School acceleration down to 1.37 g, with the 1.89 g reading at Pages Road Pumping Station in Christchurch revised down to 1.51 g. Nevertheless, these were the highest PGAs ever recorded in New Zealand; the highest reading during the September 2010 event was 1.26 g, recorded near Darfield. The PGA is also one of the greatest-ever ground accelerations recorded in the world, and was unusually high for a 6.2 quake

As usual your ignorance is matched only by your chutzpah.

 

[The Atheist]

Now you're just being silly..

You're trying to tell me that the 6.3 magnitude earthquake was stronger than
a 6.3 earthquake.

Since it's not climate, feel free to start a new thread for me to educate you in.

 

[The Atheist]

Meanwhile, Gaia is attempting to influence the US election by making climate protection an election issue.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/17/weather/heat-wave-east-us-climate-monday/index.html

 

[dann]

Researchers find extreme heat four times more likely than at turn of millennium and urge reduction in fossil fuels.
Deadly heat in Mexico and US made 35 times more likely by global heating (TheGuardian, June 20, 2024)

Still doing fine:
Exxon Mobil Corp - Rating as of Jun 20, 2024 (Morningstar)

Multiple community organizations joined ExxonMobil's second annual Community Health & Wellness Fair at Charlton-Pollard Elementary.
ExxonMobil hosts second Juneteenth community wellness fair ('BeaumontEterprise, June 20, 2024)

 

[dann]

Americans?! Democrats?!!!

Joe Biden is producing more oil than Donald Trump did (Newsweek, Jan 9, 2024)
United States produces more crude oil than any country, ever (U.S. Energy Information Administration, March 11, 2024)
Why oil companies are raking in record profits under Joe Biden (CNN, June 11, 2024)

Under President Joe Biden, who campaigned on a pledge of “no more drilling,” America is pumping more oil than any country ever has.
As he campaigned for president in 2020, Joe Biden made a bold promise at a New Hampshire town hall, adding repetition for emphasis: “No more drilling on federal lands. Period. Period. Period. Period.”
Four years later, it appears that Biden may have overpromised.
Why no president has slowed the boom in U.S. oil drilling (WaPo, Aug 16, 2024)

Vice President Kamala Harris and other Democrats have not made significant mentions of climate change or the environment in recent stump speeches.
(...)
The split-screen approach suggests that Democrats see talking about the environment as a lose-lose proposition. If they call for curbing fossil fuel production to fight global warming, they risk alienating voters in Pennsylvania, a pivotal swing state where natural gas powers the economy. But if they tout record U.S. oil production that has helped lower energy costs, they risk angering young voters, a crucial constituency for Democrats.
(...)
“It looks like a deliberate decision to forgo both pro-climate and pro-drilling messaging,” said Kevin Book, managing director at ClearView Energy Partners, a research firm. “The campaign may have concluded that it has more to lose by alienating voters on either side than to gain by drawing in undecideds.”
Why Democrats are so quiet about climate change right now (WaPo, Aug 22, 2024)

Meanwhile:

* Wind and solar generating capacity surpasses 1,200 gigawatts
* Nation’s grid operators investing to handle intermittent power
China by far outspends the rest of the world when it comes to clean energy, and has repeatedly broken wind and solar installation records in recent years.
China’s world-leading clean energy boom has passed another benchmark, with its wind and solar capacity surpassing a target set by President Xi Jinping almost six years earlier than planned.
The nation added 25 gigawatts of turbines and panels in July, expanding total capacity to 1,206 gigawatts, according to a statement from the National Energy Administration on Friday. Xi set a goal in December 2020 for at least 1,200 gigawatts from the clean energy sources by 2030.
China Hits Xi Jinping's Renewable Power Target Six Years Early (Bloomberg, Aug 23, 2024)

Rather lose young voters than Big Oil (and cheap oil!) , right?!

 

[The Great Zaganza]

what matter is the next quarterly earnings report, not the future of the planet.

 

[dann]

President Biden made climate change a cornerstone of his agenda. Vice President Kamala Harris has yet to detail her own plan.
Harris Goes Light on Climate Policy. Green Leaders Are OK with That. (NYT, Aug 21, 2024)

Yeah, right!

“Harris’ extremely brief mention of climate change” during her speech “capped a week in which the climate crisis was shockingly absent in Chicago,” said Collin Rees, political director at Oil Change US, which advocates for a faster transition away from fossil fuels. “We need concrete, specific commitments.”
For the presidential nominee, the decision to stay largely silent may be a strategic one. While climate activism could energize young voters, it also risks alienating potential supporters in the gas-rich swing state of Pennsylvania, said Kevin Book, managing director of the Washington consulting firm ClearView Energy Partners LLC.
Opponent Donald Trump has relentlessly attacked Harris’ approach to fossil fuels, telling a crowd in York, Pennsylvania, earlier this week that if she’s elected, energy prices will “quadruple,” and the US won’t produce “a drop of oil.”Harris Skips Over Climate Change Even as Party Touts Green Wins (BNN Bloomberg, Aug 23, 2024)

Interesting that Trump appears to recommend Harris to young voters!

There's a striking consistency in the way Kamala Harris and Tim Walz offered just glancing references to climate change in their DNC speeches.

Why it matters: The framing in the context of "freedom" could preview their strategy for the balance of the short campaign.
Driving the news: Harris' speech very briefly touched climate in a much wider riff on what she called "fundamental freedoms at stake" in November.
* It's the "freedom to breathe clean air, and drink clean water and live free from the pollution that fuels the climate crisis," she said.
* That's the same construction that Tim Walz used a night earlier, when he said the election is about "freedom."
* He didn't even mention climate but tucked in the allegation that Republicans want corporations "free to pollute your air and water."
On climate, a short riff grows in Chicago (Axios, Aug 23, 2024)

They really, really can't be accused of promising too much climate-wise! The "freedom to breathe clean air, and drink clean water and levee free from pollution that fuels the climate crisis" is as meaningless as the freedom to pursue happiness etc.
'I know you have to breathe filthy air and drink filthy water because that's what it's like where you live, but you have the right and the freedom to do so!'

And let us not even mention the freedom to breathe air uncontaminated by SARS-CoV-2. The people at the DNC had that freedom, too, but they would have had to stay away from the Convention to enjoy that freedom.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

They really, really can't be accused of promising too much climate-wise!

No, and right now that's not a bad thing.

Politicians can't do good if they aren't elected. The next 2 months are critical, not just for Harris but for all Democrats. Once they have an overall majority and/or bipartisan support, then they can look at specific policies to combat global warming.

And let us not even mention the freedom to breathe air uncontaminated by SARS-CoV-2. The people at the DNC had that freedom, too, but they would have had to stay away from the Convention to enjoy that freedom.

They risked their lives for democracy.

Like it or not, most people are tired of trying to avoid Covid and just live with it now. Vaccines were supposed to make this possible, and would have if all countries had eliminated the virus early on. But they didn't, and now it's mutated to much more infectious forms that will never go away. Sad, but totally predictable given the half-hearted response of most countries. Add Covid to the long list of horrible diseases we put up with because you can't spend your whole life in a hazmat suit.

There's a time to be outraged over lack of progress, but now isn't it. Wait until the election is over and then hold their feet to the fire if you're not happy (which I know you won't be...).

On a more positive note...

NZ: Government investment 'big driver' for solar power

A solar power company getting government investment aims to produce 15 percent of the country's daytime electricity.

The $78 million deal between Crown-owned New Zealand Green Investment Finance (NZGIF) and Far North Solar Farm signed on Tuesday will connect five of the company's sites to the national grid...

They would produce the equivalent of 15 percent of daytime electricity, allowing more of the power from hydro lakes to be used for evening demand.

The company, formed in 2019, gained consent in May for a solar farm in the Rangitīkei town of Marton and was building or had approval for others including at Pukenui in the Far North, Edgecumbe in Bay of Plenty, Waiotahe and Foxton.

The NZGIF loan would be a "big driver" to speed up solar generation, he said.

"There is a lot being done [with the government] that you're not necessarily seeing the results for today, but within the next two to five years we'll see more and more of this generation coming online."...

Transpower said the grid connection agreement was the first of many around the country.

"The ability for a developer to access capital is another critical element of getting renewable energy developments off the ground," said Transpower's executive general manager of customer and external affairs Raewyn Moss.

This is no Big Government handout, but an investment in the future. New Zealand is running out of natural gas and now has to import it. Hydro dams are running low due to poor rainfall and less than expected wind. Right now we get very little electricity from solar, but that is about to change. 15% of daytime usage is huge. 58% of the electricity generated in New Zealand is consumed by the industrial and commercial sectors, which have high daytime usage. Hydro provides 49% on average, but its enormous storage capability and nation-wide distribution means any electricity produced by solar increases hydro storage by the same amount. It's like pumped hydro but without the inefficiency!

Solar farms are being installed in the north where sunlight hours are high. With the panels mounted 2m off the ground the same land can be used for farming. The panels actually improve land use by promoting grass growth and providing shade for animals.

 

[dann]

So not a word from American Democrats. Instead we get a lesson about democracy:

No, and right now that's not a bad thing.

Politicians can't do good if they aren't elected. The next 2 months are critical, not just for Harris but for all Democrats. Once they have an overall majority and/or bipartisan support, then they can look at specific policies to combat global warming.

So it's supposed to be a good thing that politicians don't mention what you imagine that they want to do. It's supposed to be good that they give the voters the wrong idea in order to get elected, and once elected, i.e. "have an overall majority and/or bipartisan support," you are convinced that they will do what they didn't dare say they would do: combat global warming.
And until then, it's better that they don't even "look at specific policies to combat global warming," because, of course, that's what they have desired to do all the time if only the "overall majority" would have let them even though the previous (and current) Democratic president outcompeted the opposition's slogan: Drill, drill, drill!

What a marvelous thing this idea of representative democracy turns out to be: Instead of telling people what then think ought to be done, what they want to do once elected, it's all about giving voters the wrong idea, and once elected with a big enough majority, they will then do nothing but good, no matter what the people voting for them thought they would do, so in the meantime, it's all about tricking voters into electing them.
George Santos seems to have had a pretty good idea of what representative democracy is, after all.

They risked their lives for democracy.

Like it or not, most people are tired of trying to avoid Covid and just live with it now. Vaccines were supposed to make this possible, and would have if all countries had eliminated the virus early on. But they didn't, and now it's mutated to much more infectious forms that will never go away. Sad, but totally predictable given the half-hearted response of most countries. Add Covid to the long list of horrible diseases we put up with because you can't spend your whole life in a hazmat suit.

There's a time to be outraged over lack of progress, but now isn't it. Wait until the election is over and then hold their feet to the fire if you're not happy (which I know you won't be...).

The didn't risk their lives for democracy. They were deluded enough to think that the pandemic was over, and they were told that it was over. The enthusiastic convention celebrated that it was over. But it wasn't and it isn't. The delusional thinking may cost some them their lives, more likely the elderly than the young. And some of them may have brought home with them a life-long souvenir to share with their loved ones and/or colleagues, students and/or patients, some of whom may also remember it until they die, sooner or later.

So the DNC in Chicago helped spread the virus along with another lie, the one about the virus.

No On a more positive note...

NZ: Government investment 'big driver' for solar power
This is no Big Government handout, but an investment in the future. New Zealand is running out of natural gas and now has to import it. Hydro dams are running low due to poor rainfall and less than expected wind. Right now we get very little electricity from solar, but that is about to change. 15% of daytime usage is huge. 58% of the electricity generated in New Zealand is consumed by the industrial and commercial sectors, which have high daytime usage. Hydro provides 49% on average, but its enormous storage capability and nation-wide distribution means any electricity produced by solar increases hydro storage by the same amount. It's like pumped hydro but without the inefficiency!

Solar farms are being installed in the north where sunlight hours are high. With the panels mounted 2m off the ground the same land can be used for farming. The panels actually improve land use by promoting grass growth and providing shade for animals.

In Denmark, we have had sheep grazing in the shade of solar panels for several years.
It's not a bad idea, but it's not unproblematic.
https://landbrugsavisen.dk/biolog-hold-af-får-i-solcelleparker-kan-være-en-dårlig-idé
https://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publication...-af-fødevarer-fra-dyr-der-har-græsset-på-mark

 

[dann]

What else isn't new?!

Exclusive: Over $12bn in subsidies awarded for technologies like carbon capture experts call ‘colossal waste of money’
How Exxon chases billions in US subsidies for a ‘climate solution’ that helps it drill more oil

A handful of wealthy polluting countries led by the US are spending billions of dollars of public money on unproven climate solutions technologies that risk further delaying the transition away from fossil fuels, new analysis suggests.

These governments have handed out almost $30bn in subsidies for carbon capture and fossil hydrogen over the past 40 years, with hundreds of billions potentially up for grabs through new incentives, according to a new report by Oil Change International (OCI), a non-profit tracking the cost of fossil fuels.

To date, the European Union (EU) plus just four countries – the US, Norway, Canada and the Netherlands – account for 95% of the public handouts on CCS and hydrogen.
The US has spent the most taxpayer money, some $12bn in direct subsidies, according to OCI, with fossil fuel giants like Exxon hoping to secure billions more in future years.

The industry-preferred solutions could play a limited role in curtailing global heating, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and are being increasingly pushed by wealthy nations at the annual UN climate summit.

But carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects consistently fail, overspend or underperform, according to previous studies. CCS – and blue hydrogen projects – rely on fossil fuels and can lead to a myriad of environmental harms including a rise in greenhouse gases and air pollution.
US leads wealthy countries spending billions of public money on unproven ‘climate solutions’ (TheGuardian, Aug 29, 2024)

Will CCS projects be mentioned by Harris & Walz, possibly as the solution to global warming?

 

[Aridas]

Will CCS projects be mentioned by Harris & Walz, possibly as the solution to global warming?

The solution? Incredibly unlikely. I'd be surprised if it didn't continue to be a small fraction of the resources directed to address climate change, though, given politics.

Complaints about how bad a use of resources CCS projects are and have been are hardly anything new, of course, so I'm mildly surprised that you seem to be just hearing about such now, though.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

All technology starts out expensive and inefficient.

 

[dann]

The solution? Incredibly unlikely. I'd be surprised if it didn't continue to be a small fraction of the resources directed to address climate change, though, given politics.

Complaints about how bad a use of resources CCS projects are and have been are hardly anything new, of course, so I'm mildly surprised that you seem to be just hearing about such now, though.

I'm surprised that you seem to think I didn't hear about it till now! Why do you think so?
(You weren't here last year, were you? Or in the other climate thread.)

 

[dann]

All technology starts out expensive and inefficient.

Unfortunately, a lot of technology stays that way, especially if it was never meant to be anything other than misdirection.

 

[Aridas]

I'm surprised that you seem to think I didn't hear about it till now! Why do you think so?

Your choice of wording in the post I responded to.

 

[dann]

And while Harris said in 2019 that she supported a ban on fracking, a spokesperson for the vice president told The New York Times that she no longer does so.
It's possible that the Harris-Walz campaign already believes that it has clinched the support of those, generally young, voters who would cast their ballots on climate issues.
A new poll from the Environmental Voter Project found younger voters are now more energized for Harris and Walz than they were for President Biden. But, that could be risky - a Data for Progress survey published this month shows respondents say climate is more important than ever to their vote this year.
Harris, Walz are climate candidates: So, why aren't they talking about climate? (The Independent, Aug 30, 2024)

“I think the most important and most significant aspect of my policy perspective and decisions is my values have not changed,” she said. “You mentioned the Green New Deal. I have always believed – and I have worked on it – that the climate crisis is real, that it is an urgent matter to which we should apply metrics that include holding ourselves to deadlines around time.”
Her campaign later said Harris does not continue to support the Green New Deal, a wide-ranging proposal to address climate change first introduced in 2019.
During a September 2019 climate crisis town hall hosted by CNN, Harris was asked if she would commit to implementing a federal ban on fracking on her first day in office.
“There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking, and starting with what we can do on Day 1 around public lands,” Harris said at the time. By the time she had become Biden’s running mate, she had moved away from that stance and even cast the tie breaking vote to expand fracking leases, as she noted to Bash.
On Thursday, Harris pointed to the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act, which provided record investments in combatting climate change, as an example of her climate record.
“We have set goals for the United States of America and by extension, the globe, around when we should meet certain standards for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, as an example. That value has not changed,” she said.
“What I have seen is that we can grow and we can increase a thriving clean energy economy without banning fracking,” she added.
Harris explains in exclusive CNN interview why she’s shifted her position on key issues since her first run for president (CNN, Aug 29, 2024)

Not exactly promising, is it?!