Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, making personal lifestyle changes has very little impact on anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
These Scientists Are Radically Changing How They Live To Cope With Climate Change
When the US government is doing nothing to stop climate change, do your personal choices even matter? Here’s how climate scientists are — and aren’t — changing their lives.
Zahra Hirji BuzzFeed News Reporter
Posted on April 23, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. ET…
If everyone who already cared about climate change “reduced their carbon emissions to zero, it doesn’t actually change very much,” said Gavin Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Making your home energy efficient is nothing compared to laws that would require all buildings to be greener. Buying solar panels for your roof doesn’t pack the same climate punch as electric companies relying more on solar farms, and less on coal plants, to feed the grid.
“Agitating and voting and writing letters and op-eds,” Schmidt said, “make far more sense” for promoting systemic change.…
Schmidt is fine with people changing their lives because it’s fulfilling. But he doesn’t want the public to get the impression that the only way to save the planet is by abstaining from certain products or not traveling. “I don’t think that is where we want to end up,” Schmidt said.
His philosophy is: “Individual actions are not really the solution, but there’s no reason that you should unnecessarily pollute the atmosphere.”
Neither Schmidt nor Zelikova have given up flying entirely, but they have tried to cut back by combining trips or using virtual conferencing software. Schmidt became a vegetarian, driven both by animal welfare and climate concerns, and Zelikova aims to only buy meat from ranchers with sustainable grazing practices.…
Read more: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zahrahirji/scientists-climate-change-action
I’ll take climate scientists’ commitment to reducing their personal carbon footprints more seriously when they start teleconferencing major events like IPCC meetings, instead of holding massive fly in climate jamborees with 10s of thousands of participants.
The Earth’s climate has been changing for eons and most of that change was before mankind evolved. According to the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. The climate change we are experiencing is so small that it takes networks of very sophisticated sensors, decades to even detect it. We have to be careful not to mix up weather cycles that are part of the current climate with true climate change. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero.
AGW is a conjecture that depends upon the existence of radiant greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere provided for by trace gases with LWIR absorption bands. AGW at first seems to be quite plausible but a more in depth analysis uncovers that AGW is bases on only partial science and is full of holes. For example, the radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere, or anywhere else in the solar system for that matter. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction so hence that AGW conjecture is science fiction as well. It is true that the so called greenhouse gases absorb LWIR absorption band radiation but that does not mean the they hence trap heat energy because what they absorb they very quickly radiate away. Good absorbers are also good radiators and the primary mode of heat energy transfer in the troposphere is by means other than LWIR absorption band radiation. It would be the non-greenhouse gases that are more apt to trap heat energy because they are such poor radiators to space compared to the so called greenhouse gases. The AGW conjecture has got things backwards.
Since the AGW conjecture is nothing but science fiction, all papers and studies that use the AGW conjecture as a basic assumption are nothing but science fiction as well. Mankind could completely stop burning fossil fuels and it would have no effect on global climate. It is all a matter of science.
The greenhouse effect in a real greenhouse has virtually nothing to do with the composition of the gasses inside. It is the fact that glass readily transmits high energy visible an UV sun light but is opaque to inferred (LWIR) that substantially warms the greenhouse. LWIR from the warm interior surfaces is absorbed by the glass, conducted to the exterior surface and transmitted to the cooler outdoor environment by radiation and convection. This heat loss is significantly slower than it would be if the glass was transparent to LWIR.
But the greenhouse will cool down overnight and requires heating when outdoor temperatures are cold. Greenhouse operators frequently employ gas fired direct heaters to both elevate CO2 concentration and provide overnight heating – a very high efficiency heating process as nearly 100% of the heating potential of the gas is delivered to the space. However the effect of the increased CO2 on the heat loss rate is negligible and probably not measurable compared to that of the glass – especially if double glazing is used.
gavin’s (sic) position is rather like saying: you can put your rubbish in a bin if you like instead of dropping it on the ground, its a nice thing to do, but it won’t clean up the oceans, so not really important.
No, its not like that. Its all carbon. Its all the same thing.
The problem is that the reductions in carbon emissions that can be made by individuals in the West lowering their emissions by lifestyle changes are so small that they make no difference to the global total of emissions of that same carbon.
The reason for this is the same reason as activists promote lifestyle changes.
It is that the changes which are really necessary to lower US emissions would be enormous, and involve closing down the auto industry, moving people, moving businesses, restructuring the entire economy and the way we live. Nothing short of that will lower emissions materially. The problem is our choices affect our emissions at the margin. The vast bulk of the emissions per capita occur simply from living in our society as it is.
Activists cannot admit the need for the huge changes, so they promote the trivial ones.
What went wrong with science….
(Not just Gavin, everyone who tries to exist on a diet where most calories come from carbohydrate)
Perfectly explains why he bottled out of *that* interview.
His memory is/was trashed.
Self confidence is also trashed
Mental agility down to zero
He is/was hungry
He is/was dehydrated and hungover
He could only think of one thing – where’s my next snack/meal coming from and it had better be *bistro*
Science (politics, education & personal relationships) have all either:
a) Gone down the pan (aided by all that ‘healthy’ fibre – now= ‘prebiotic’ – look out for it)
b) Shot into the urinal – thank you Caffeine, soda-pop & booze plus our own system desperately trying to offload glucose
c) Blown away in the wind (If you don’t break wind 25 times per day – You Are Unhealthy. Insanity squared)
d) Blown away in the wind Ver: 2.0 – thank you tobacco & cannabis
e) Been further trashed via epic shortage of Vitamin B – not least Greta
How can anyone do science, education & politics while living inside that mess? Where every waking minute is taken up stressing about sugar, obtaining it, suffering the consequences of eating, off-loading it then: Repeat Ad Nauseam.
Literally “nauseam”
Here’s a nice one arrived today –
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2019/04/23/loch-ness-monster-mass-delusion-triggered-discovery-dinosaurs/
Just replace the word ‘dinosaur’ with ‘trapped heat’ and what have you got?
…..at least there is the possibility that dinosaurs actually *did* exist….
Not= The Anthroproffomorfickpropeceneyseen or whatever we deem to call ourselves
Possibly The Hubris-O-Cene but nah –
Welcome to The Dream-O-Cene
Optionally the junk, fake or hoax-o-cenes
At last NASA has come out with the truth. You can do what you like, because it won’t make any difference to the climate.
Why did it take them so long?
Have they really Rob – I see them still hiding, deleting/adjusting the clouds of CO2 (as seen by their own Sputnik) hanging over the big forests while claiming that CO2 is making them greener.
Not even NASA can get away with claiming that Black=White so they ‘Do A Gavin’ – run away and hide (the data)
Just like small children might do. Or Phil Jones – they do have precedent.
Now we see where Greta fits in….
“People who use the personal choices of climate scientists as some kind of excuse for not understanding science or refusing to accept science, those are not good-faith arguments, and we shouldn’t really entertain them,” Schmidt said.
Schmidt himself is being uber disingenuous here with his blatant straw man arguments as well as the Big Lie he sneaks in about it all being about “not understanding science” or “refusing to accept science”. So, he’s both a huge liar as well as hypocrite. Nice.
It is the first time I see Gavin Schmidt saying something that is actually true.
– Personal reductions in carbon emissions won’t affect climate much.
– National reductions in carbon emissions won’t affect climate much.
– Regional reductions in carbon emissions won’t affect climate much.
– Global reductions in carbon emissions won’t affect climate much.
Climate is not very much affected by CO2 levels, but photosynthesizers are. The biosphere loves the extra CO2.
YEAH!!! What you do as an individual is irrelevant!!!! The collective needs to take dramatic action through the government!!!! YEAH!!!
Bernie!! Bernie!!! Bernie!!!!!!!
Gavin has that “deer in the headlights” look.
That’s understandable seeing as how the temperatures have been falling for the last three years, down 0.6C from Feb 2016, while CO2 levels climb. Gavin’s CAGW hypothesis isn’t supposed to work that way. Temperatures are supposed to be getting “hotter and hotter”, according to Gavin’s CAGW hypothesis, but they’re not. What in the world is going on here?
Gavin must be thinking it is time for some more temperature chart adjustments. Things are looking bad for the CAGW narrative.
Gavin appears to be standing up well under the weight of all that smugness.
Above or below the chin?
Perhaps he is getting ready to retire and spend the rest of his life traveling and enjoying the finer things. So he has to say these things so as not to look like a hypocrite.
Imagine if Schmuck and LiarMann got together – the resulting smug cloud and smug storm could be catastrophic. Shudder.
Activists like Schmidt keep saying that we need to change the climate, but ‘climate’ is really an abstract concept being made up of – according to IPCC – of 30 years’ of weather.
So what these people really want to do is control the weather – every year for thirty years – world-wide! (and so on…..)
Someone let me know when scientists have come up with a system to control the weather.
tsk tsk, you climate deniers make me laugh.
As George Monbiot pointed out, flying across the Atlantic is as unacceptable as child abuse , Gavin is merely pointing out that ‘it doesn’t really change much’. Gavin and George (the GG’s) regularly fly the Atlantic even though they find it totally unacceptable. because it doesn’t change anything and is therefore acceptable
What’s so difficult to understand ?
Orwell called it ‘doublethink’.
Oh, but he’s overlooking the warm-fuzzy – the primary motive for the rank and file marching brooms – if not the head of the dragon.
Schmidt must know how broken climate science is to begin with, thus there’s no action any person or government can do that will have any effect whatsoever. If he doesn’t know how broken climate science is, any scientific degrees he has should be revoked.
Well, it’s just like every progressive policy – he believes if we had one-hundred percent compliance it would solve everything.
See, the unspoken subtext in his little claim is: NO FREEDOM OF CHOICE ALLOWED.
Like always.
Even if CO2 emissions were a problem, Gavin is just wrong. If you want to change the status quo, you need to be a leader. And leading by example is much more persuasive than just lecturing people. Shouting the crisis message while not making any personal sacrifices just makes you look like a hypocrite. Like most people, I hate hypocrites.
It’s all about the gov’t forcefully taking away rights and liberty.
Galloping coward Gavin claims:
Basically, Gavin claims the world must resort to a strict hierarchical tyrannical socialism. A tyranny that can force extreme changes upon a subservient populace.
Government that worked so well for the world and populations under Hitler, Stalin, Mao and many many more.
Gavin is a fraud. He rejects actual science n favor of global warming religious beliefs. e.g. “Buying solar panels for your roof doesn’t pack the same climate punch as electric companies relying more on solar farms, and less on coal plants, to feed the grid.”; where Gavin pretends that he knows what is best for supplying cheap energy to electric grids and the population.
Such ignorant activism in a Federal leadership position is disappointing and embarrassing.
Gavin a vegetarian? All the CAGW alarmists are vegetarian or vegan!
Hmm, so, what if every Warmist gave up their own use of fossil fuels and went neutral? According to their own talking points and Beliefs, this would make a huge difference. They should try it. But, this is really a deflection from Warmists having to practice what they preach, never thinking once that they will end up paying for it in taxes, skyrocketing cost of living, and massive government control of their lives.
Translation:
We need you all to be activists for a movement that does not really matter individually in practical terms, but the activism itself is powerful.
Famous movie line from The Matrix:
Morpheus states: “The human body generates more bioelectricity than a 120-volt battery and over 25,000 BTUs of body heat. Combined with a form of fusion, the machines had found all the energy they would ever need.
Thank you soooooo much, Gavin!
It’s great to know that we need not walk the walk, but only talk and talk and talk just like you!
Some time ago there was an interesting series on the History Channel called Life After People. Not certain about the accuracy of the timeline but my takeaway from the series was that, aside from a few monuments such as Mt. Rushmore, the pyramids, etc, there will be no trace of human existence on this planet after a few thousand years with no people. Almost everything we have ever done will be erased (one way or another) by the forces of nature very quickly including any contribution we have made to increasing the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere. Human beings and their activities, other than on the shortest of times scales, just don’t matter.
Nothing we do, in the long run, has a lasting effect. None of our land use changes, dams, bridges, roads, buildings and the list goes on, will survive us for more than a few thousand years, once we are gone. And, humans being gone (mostly or totally) appears to be the goal for some. It isn’t until recently (the last 60-70 years) that obliterating the entire human race has been an obtainable goal, by humans, that is. Nature could snuff us out, entirely, with no trouble at all. But, if you’re a human, killing most, but not all, of us is a tricky business. Anything effective enough to do the job is, well, likely to finish us completely so it would take a set of complete nut cases to kick off the effort and, unfortunately, there is no shortage of complete nut cases willing to make it happen, if they can. Talk about your zero emissions goal…
In the long run, mother nature is likely to cull our numbers when this, lovely, warmth, declines into the dry, bitter cold, of glaciation. The time line for this is probably too long for our nut cases but, assuming they don’t manage to kill most of us in the mean time, mother nature is going to do the job for them, eventually.
In the mean time, we’ll have to fight the good fight against the nut cases intent upon our doom, as a species. We’re doomed, to one degree or another, eventually, but I’d rather the doom be later than sooner.
\Sarc…Kind of.
Cheers
Max
Maybe this is tactical, when somebody now says to Greta “why are you still using fossil fuel based products?” she can say that her use of these has a minimal effect on the issue. It’s there to deflect and get around one of the contrarian arguments
Would you want a guy like that doing the wiring of your spacecraft headed for Mars?