Again, learn to recognize when you're just pontificating an opinion. There are third-party offset verification organizations, and major governments have accepted offsetting as well. Just because there might some issues here in the beginning doesn't mean we can't get the science and the practice of carbon drawdown to work, which is what w…
Again, learn to recognize when you're just pontificating an opinion. There are third-party offset verification organizations, and major governments have accepted offsetting as well. Just because there might some issues here in the beginning doesn't mean we can't get the science and the practice of carbon drawdown to work, which is what we need to do.
As I mentioned, it's probable (still awaiting the science) that high-altitude emissions have more climate effects. Our World in Data cites a study that plane emissions have accounted for 4% of emissions. Likewise, only 10% of the world's people use planes in any one year. And, because of its carbon intensity, flying is generally a big chunk of an individual's carbon usage.
I agree with you that people will need to travel. Thus, as the globe modernizes, plane emissions will go way up. It seems to me that there is no choice but for us to learn how to draw down carbon emissions, and also agree to pay for our own. The early adopters will help drive the change.
>>"Again, learn to recognize when you're just pontificating an opinion."
... but then you post this in your next paragraph: "it's probable (still awaiting the science) that high-altitude emissions have more climate effects."
You freely acknowledge there's no science, but "you know" what it's doing? I call bullshit—if for no other reasons that above the troposphere-stratosphere pause, CO2 has a net cooling effect, not warming.
... which is why there's no "hot spot" above the tropics as CAGW theory proposes.
The IPCC has estimated that high-carbon emissions cause 3x the climate forcing. The UK still estimates they cause 2X. It's not that there is "no science" on this, but that the science is very complicated. As for your claim about cooling caused by plane emissions--can you provide evidence?
You gave NOTHING to support it. You cited a Our World In Data study that has no citation link and no credible science other than a supposition of "any emission = global warming".
I pointed out that CO2 above the tropopause (stratosphere-troposphere interface) has a net **COOLING** effect, not warming, so high altitude emissions likely are irrelevant to any discussion about climate change.
This is not evidence--it's a PDF without authors or an organization. It also concludes: "We now know that stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming are intimately connected and that carbon dioxide plays a part in both processes. At present, however, our understanding of stratospheric cooling is not complete and further research has to be done."
You're trying to say that plane emissions don't have a net warming effect. Let's see some evidence, Mr. BS.
Any cursory Google search into CO2 being a greenhouse gas will also mention that it cools the upper atmosphere (stratosphere and above) which translates to the level that airplanes fly (and above.)
You're still wrong, so is the UN IPCC, and so is the UK government. All of you don't understand the science and/or quote diametrically opposing claims.
>>Again, learn to recognize when you're just pontificating an opinion.
I am an extremely experienced systems engineer; I know what I am talking about in this area. Just like you are, I am giving my opinion on a topic that Lloyd has raised on his blog.
"There are third-party offset ... offsetting as well. "
And they have, without exception, fundamental and structural issues with how they go about doing this. Which is why they lack credibility and nobody (that's the powers that count) now days takes any meaningful notice of them.
"Just because there might some issues here in the beginning doesn't ... we need to do."
Well actually yes it does. Here you are demonstrating your lack of understanding of complex systems. If you have fundamental structural faults with your system when you start in almost all cases, you will carry those faults forward and will never be able to overcome them.
"Our World in Data cites a study that plane emissions have accounted for 4% of emissions." As an aggregate number it's not particularly useful. You need to differentiate between a short distance flight that has alternatives and a long distance one that does not.
"Likewise, only 10% of the world's people use planes in any one year." A particularly useless number. It neither references that it's not the same 10% every year or that you need to reference a lifetime rather than a year.
"The early adopters will help drive the change." No, they won't.
They have been pushing offsets for over 20 years with no meaningful results. They early adopters have tried and failed to move it into the mainstream. At some point you have to say "it's not working"
You write, 'They have been pushing offsets for over 20 years with no meaningful results. They early adopters have tried and failed to move it into the mainstream. At some point you have to say "it's not working".'
You misunderstand the issue. Only a small fraction of carbon emissions get offset, and only a smaller fraction of people understand what an offset is. So, these haven't been "pushed" for 20 years; they've been scarcely used, and there hasn't been much research allocated to understanding drawdown either.
So, you admit complete failure - right we are making progress.
"Only a small fraction of ...what an offset is" That's an admission of failure. After 20+ years of heavy pushing you fall back on "a small fraction". If offsets
were ever going to have any meaningful effect that would be happening by now.
"hey've been scarcely used" - that is because they have been completely and comprehensibly rejected.
You are faced with the fact that offsets are an ignominious failure. yet your response to this being pointed out is "we will get it right next time". Talk about sticking your head in the sand!
There haven't been "20 years of heavy pushing." In regards to carbon offsets, there has mainly been whining and misinformation such as you're pushing, despite some promising and successful examples and agreements. Again, you sound like a person who uses lots of carbon but likes to keep your pollution free. Is this true?
The IPCC notes that to reach climate goals, we will need negative-emissions techniques. Ecological rebuilding will have to be in the mix. And, ways to finance these will be needed. Thus, the hope for offsetting, where the polluter helps to pay.
Check out the book Drawdown by Paul Hawken et al. Take a reading break from your ignorant trolling.
You strike me as someone who uses a lot of carbon, and doesn't want to pay for it. Just like Lloyd.
You can't do basic reading comprehension, let alone systems thinking, it seems. When I write, "Just because there might some issues here in the beginning doesn't mean we can't get the science and the practice of carbon drawdown to work, which is what we need to do"--I'm saying that we need to get these things fixed to proceed, which, I and others believe, is possible.
>>"You can't do basic reading comprehension, let alone systems thinking, it seems."
Don't make me laugh—projection, gaslighting, and ad hominem attacks do not make for strong argumentation skills. Bob Baal has pointed out your nescience, and so have I. You just don't like being outed as being the failure you are so you project your failings onto others.
Educated people can see who's incapable of reading comprehension, and it's neither Bob nor myself.
>>"I was hoping that after Lloyd left Treehugger, you'd crawl back under rock and go away." I feel the love, man.
Also, don't care HOW you feel—it's my right to visit whatever websites I choose, and to offer my opinions and insight on whatever topics or comments I am inclined to deem worth my time.
Again, learn to recognize when you're just pontificating an opinion. There are third-party offset verification organizations, and major governments have accepted offsetting as well. Just because there might some issues here in the beginning doesn't mean we can't get the science and the practice of carbon drawdown to work, which is what we need to do.
As I mentioned, it's probable (still awaiting the science) that high-altitude emissions have more climate effects. Our World in Data cites a study that plane emissions have accounted for 4% of emissions. Likewise, only 10% of the world's people use planes in any one year. And, because of its carbon intensity, flying is generally a big chunk of an individual's carbon usage.
I agree with you that people will need to travel. Thus, as the globe modernizes, plane emissions will go way up. It seems to me that there is no choice but for us to learn how to draw down carbon emissions, and also agree to pay for our own. The early adopters will help drive the change.
>>"Again, learn to recognize when you're just pontificating an opinion."
... but then you post this in your next paragraph: "it's probable (still awaiting the science) that high-altitude emissions have more climate effects."
You freely acknowledge there's no science, but "you know" what it's doing? I call bullshit—if for no other reasons that above the troposphere-stratosphere pause, CO2 has a net cooling effect, not warming.
... which is why there's no "hot spot" above the tropics as CAGW theory proposes.
The IPCC has estimated that high-carbon emissions cause 3x the climate forcing. The UK still estimates they cause 2X. It's not that there is "no science" on this, but that the science is very complicated. As for your claim about cooling caused by plane emissions--can you provide evidence?
I gave support for that claim, above. Read closely.
You gave NOTHING to support it. You cited a Our World In Data study that has no citation link and no credible science other than a supposition of "any emission = global warming".
I pointed out that CO2 above the tropopause (stratosphere-troposphere interface) has a net **COOLING** effect, not warming, so high altitude emissions likely are irrelevant to any discussion about climate change.
https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/global-change-debates/Sources/Stratospheric-cooling/stratospheric-cooling-ESPHERE-encyclopedia.pdf
Try again, but this time without relying on your Dunning-Kruger toy action figure.
This is not evidence--it's a PDF without authors or an organization. It also concludes: "We now know that stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming are intimately connected and that carbon dioxide plays a part in both processes. At present, however, our understanding of stratospheric cooling is not complete and further research has to be done."
You're trying to say that plane emissions don't have a net warming effect. Let's see some evidence, Mr. BS.
"Not evidence" ... whatever, Dunning-Kruger. Do the research yourself instead of spouting what you FEEL is "true".
https://www.nasa.gov/general/nasa-satellites-see-upper-atmosphere-cooling-and-contracting-due-to-climate-change/
Any cursory Google search into CO2 being a greenhouse gas will also mention that it cools the upper atmosphere (stratosphere and above) which translates to the level that airplanes fly (and above.)
You're still wrong, so is the UN IPCC, and so is the UK government. All of you don't understand the science and/or quote diametrically opposing claims.
>>Again, learn to recognize when you're just pontificating an opinion.
I am an extremely experienced systems engineer; I know what I am talking about in this area. Just like you are, I am giving my opinion on a topic that Lloyd has raised on his blog.
"There are third-party offset ... offsetting as well. "
And they have, without exception, fundamental and structural issues with how they go about doing this. Which is why they lack credibility and nobody (that's the powers that count) now days takes any meaningful notice of them.
"Just because there might some issues here in the beginning doesn't ... we need to do."
Well actually yes it does. Here you are demonstrating your lack of understanding of complex systems. If you have fundamental structural faults with your system when you start in almost all cases, you will carry those faults forward and will never be able to overcome them.
"Our World in Data cites a study that plane emissions have accounted for 4% of emissions." As an aggregate number it's not particularly useful. You need to differentiate between a short distance flight that has alternatives and a long distance one that does not.
"Likewise, only 10% of the world's people use planes in any one year." A particularly useless number. It neither references that it's not the same 10% every year or that you need to reference a lifetime rather than a year.
"The early adopters will help drive the change." No, they won't.
They have been pushing offsets for over 20 years with no meaningful results. They early adopters have tried and failed to move it into the mainstream. At some point you have to say "it's not working"
You write, 'They have been pushing offsets for over 20 years with no meaningful results. They early adopters have tried and failed to move it into the mainstream. At some point you have to say "it's not working".'
You misunderstand the issue. Only a small fraction of carbon emissions get offset, and only a smaller fraction of people understand what an offset is. So, these haven't been "pushed" for 20 years; they've been scarcely used, and there hasn't been much research allocated to understanding drawdown either.
So, you admit complete failure - right we are making progress.
"Only a small fraction of ...what an offset is" That's an admission of failure. After 20+ years of heavy pushing you fall back on "a small fraction". If offsets
were ever going to have any meaningful effect that would be happening by now.
"hey've been scarcely used" - that is because they have been completely and comprehensibly rejected.
You are faced with the fact that offsets are an ignominious failure. yet your response to this being pointed out is "we will get it right next time". Talk about sticking your head in the sand!
There haven't been "20 years of heavy pushing." In regards to carbon offsets, there has mainly been whining and misinformation such as you're pushing, despite some promising and successful examples and agreements. Again, you sound like a person who uses lots of carbon but likes to keep your pollution free. Is this true?
The IPCC notes that to reach climate goals, we will need negative-emissions techniques. Ecological rebuilding will have to be in the mix. And, ways to finance these will be needed. Thus, the hope for offsetting, where the polluter helps to pay.
Check out the book Drawdown by Paul Hawken et al. Take a reading break from your ignorant trolling.
There is only one troll in this thread and it's not me.
You strike me as someone who uses a lot of carbon, and doesn't want to pay for it. Just like Lloyd.
You can't do basic reading comprehension, let alone systems thinking, it seems. When I write, "Just because there might some issues here in the beginning doesn't mean we can't get the science and the practice of carbon drawdown to work, which is what we need to do"--I'm saying that we need to get these things fixed to proceed, which, I and others believe, is possible.
>>"You can't do basic reading comprehension, let alone systems thinking, it seems."
Don't make me laugh—projection, gaslighting, and ad hominem attacks do not make for strong argumentation skills. Bob Baal has pointed out your nescience, and so have I. You just don't like being outed as being the failure you are so you project your failings onto others.
Educated people can see who's incapable of reading comprehension, and it's neither Bob nor myself.
I was hoping that after Lloyd left Treehugger, you'd crawl back under rock and go away. I'm sorry.
>>"I was hoping that after Lloyd left Treehugger, you'd crawl back under rock and go away." I feel the love, man.
Also, don't care HOW you feel—it's my right to visit whatever websites I choose, and to offer my opinions and insight on whatever topics or comments I am inclined to deem worth my time.
Translation: YOU have the problem, not me.
You don't know anything about me. I suspect that I was involved in environmental "stuff" while you were still a twinkle in your father's eye.
You have no idea of my carbon footprint.
All I am doing is calling you out for your BS about carbon offsets.
"I'm saying that we need to get these things fixed to proceed, which, I and others believe, is possible."
And yet you don't - you have failed over and over again and you continue to fail without any recognition that your whole philosophy is flawed.
no fighting in comments!
It can be hard Lloyd. Very hard when the other is trying to provoke. I will try though.