Monday Message Board

Back again with another Monday Message Board.

Post comments on any topic. Civil discussion and no coarse language please. Side discussions and idees fixes to the sandpits, please. If you would like to receive my (hopefully) regular email news, please sign up using the following link You can also follow me on Twitter @JohnQuiggin, at my Facebook public page   and at my Economics in Two Lessons page

7 thoughts on “Monday Message Board

  1. Meet the new epithet “dangerous anthropogenic interference” (DAI)”

    Thanks to these two in particular;

    Regulatory & Response time for ameliorating global warming / climate change. With a lawyer who has done a huge ammount to introduce Montreal protocols we all talk about;
    And Mario J. Molina (and others)
    “The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1995 “Prize motivation: “for their work in atmospheric chemistry, particularly concerning the formation and decomposition of ozone.”

    “Reducing abrupt climate change risk using the Montreal Protocol and other regulatory actions to complement cuts in CO2emissions

    …”This would mean that the climate system is close to entering if not already within the zone of “dangerous anthropogenic interference” (DAI). Scientific and policy literature refers to the need for “early,” “urgent,” “rapid,” and “fast-action” mitigation to help avoid DAI and abrupt climate changes. We define “fast-action” to include regulatory measures that can begin within 2–3 years, be substantially implemented in 5–10 years, and produce a climate response within decades. We discuss strategies for short-lived non-CO2 GHGs and particles, where existing agreements can be used to accomplish mitigation objectives. Policy makers can amend the Montreal Protocol to phase down the production and consumption of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) with high global warming potential. Other fast-action strategies can reduce emissions of black carbon particles and precursor gases that lead to ozone formation in the lower atmosphere, and increase biosequestration, including through biochar. These and other fast-action strategies may reduce the risk of abrupt climate change in the next few decades by complementing cuts in CO2emissions.”

  2. Increase after 2000 shown is simple enough for deniers to understand.

    “A century of tropical storm destruction in one minute. “Normalized US hurricane damage estimates using area of total destruction, 1900−2018.”

    “Damages are framed in terms of an equivalent Area of Total Destruction. How large an land area do you have to completely destroy to account for the reported economic damages for each event.”
    Citation: Grinsted, A., P. Ditlevsen, J. Hesselbjerg Christensen (2018), PNAS, Credit: Aslak Grinsted, Niels Bohr Institute

  3. Ahhh technology + science = we can now see how and “we can hope to rationally redesign photosynthesis in crop plants”;

    “Experts unlock key to photosynthesis, a find that could help us meet food security demands
    “”Previous studies have shown that by manipulating the levels of this complex we can grow bigger and better plants. With the new insights we have obtained from our structure we can hope to rationally redesign photosynthesis in crop plants to achieve the higher yields we urgently need to sustain a projected global population of 9-10 billion by 2050”.

    “Researchers now aim to establish how cytochrome b6f is controlled by a myriad of regulatory proteins and how these regulators affect the function of this complex”

  4. Scomo & Nats centrallly planned economy + rentiers allowed – in a single policy… “Dictating the water must be used for a single purpose”… “then simply selling an equivalent amount of any carry-over allocation at the going rate of up to $1,000 a megalitre”.

    “In the Murray-Darling southern basin lucerne hay currently sells for A$450 to A$600 a tonne. That would make the market value of 120,000 tonnes of lucerne A$54 million to A$72 million.

    “It means, on a best-case scenario, the federal government will be spending A$85 million to subsidise the production of hay worth A$72 million to its producers.

    “What measures will prevent farmers buying the discounted water and then simply selling an equivalent amount of any carry-over allocation at the going rate of up to $1,000 a megalitre?

    “Dictating the water must be used for a single purpose …”

  5. So is this report real? Or is it just fake news designed to give humans fake hope?

    I recall a similar device being hyped on TV 20 years ago. But that device never developed in to anything substantial.
    Was that device that was being hyped 20 years ago fake? If it was real it seems that no one one the planet should be suffering from a lack of access to fresh clean water today. Could it be that there were other more sinister reasons that it did not take off?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s