Arguments
Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation
Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?
2016 SkS Weekly Digest #15
Posted on 10 April 2016 by John Hartz
SkS Highlights... El Niño Impacts... Toon of the Week... Quote of the Week... SkS in the News... SkS Spotlights... Coming Soon on SkS... Poster of the Week... SkS Week in Review... 97 Hours of Consensus...
SkS Highlights
To meet the Paris climate goals, do we need to engineer the climate? by Simon Nicholson & drew the highest number of comments of the articles posted on SkS during the past week. After COP21: 7 Key Tasks to Implement the Paris Agreement by Eliza Northrop (World Resources Institute) attracted the second highest number.
El Niño to La Niña
Back in November, El Niño reached a fever pitch, vaulting into the ranks of the strongest events on record and wreaking havoc on weather patterns around the world. Now it is beginning to wane as the ocean cools, so what comes next?
It’s possible that by next fall, the tropical Pacific Ocean could seesaw into a state that is roughly El Niño’s opposite, forecasters say. Called La Niña, this climate state comes with its own set of global impacts, including higher chances of a dry winter in drought-plagued California and warm, wet weather in Southeast Asia.
Will La Niña Follow One of the Strongest Ever El Niños? by Andrea Thompson, Climate Central, Apr 8, 2016
Toon of the Week
Hat tip to What on Earth? comics
2016 SkS Weekly News Roundup #15
Posted on 9 April 2016 by John Hartz
A chronological listing of the news articles posted on the Skeptical Science Facebook page during the past week.
Sun Apr 3
- 9 Times Bill Nye Blew Our Minds With Climate Change Knowledge by The Climate Reality Project, EcoWatch, Apr 1, 2016
- Climate Change Worsening Colorado River Droughts by John Upton, Climate Central, Apr 1, 2016
- Climate Catastrophe, Coming Even Sooner? by Elizabeth Kolbert, New Yorker, Mar 31, 2016
- The Wall Street Journal, Climate Change Denial, and the Galileo Gambit by Michael E Mann, Huffington Post, Mar 28, 2016
- Massive deforestation found in Brazil's Cerrado, (e) Science News, Apr 1, 2016
- Attention Must Be Paid (Except to Climate Change) by Marty Kaplan, Huffington Post Media, Apr 1, 2016
- Even in a Warming World, It Will Still Snow Somewhere by Justin Gillis, New York Times, Apr 2, 2016
- How do scientists know how hot it will be in 100 years?, Climate Reality Project, Apr 1, 2016
The 35 countries cutting the link between economic growth and emissions
Posted on 8 April 2016 by Guest Author
This is a re-post from Carbon Brief
Is it possible to reduce emissions while growing the economy? This is a major question for policymakers hoping to combat climate change.
Historically, emissions have increased as the global economy has developed. More people have access to electricity and transport in richer countries. In many cases, development has also been associated with an increase in carbon-intensive industrial activity.
This has led to a debate often conducted on ideological grounds.
Some, including scientist Kevin Anderson and author Naomi Klein, argue against certain types of economic growth in the interests of shrinking emissions.
But in a world where 836m people still live in extreme poverty, and people in the developed world enjoy all the benefits that a large economy brings, shrinking the economy in the name of climate change is a tough political sell.
David Cameron, the UK’s prime minister, has said that there is no need for a “trade-off” between economic growth and reducing carbon emissions. US president Barack Obama has expressed a similar sentiment.
Recent real world data on the economy and emissions suggests they could be right. The International Energy Agency (IEA) says that global emissions stalled in both 2014 and2015, even as the economy grew.
Factcheck: Are climate models ‘wrong’ on rainfall extremes?
Posted on 7 April 2016 by Guest Author
This is a re-post from Robert McSweeney at Carbon Brief
Several media outlets are reporting that new research shows climate model projections of rainfall extremes may be “flawed” or “wrong”.
The study, published yesterday in Nature, reconstructed periods of wet and dry extremes for the last 12 centuries. The paper says that large extremes of wet and dry conditions that climate models simulate for the 20th century aren’t found in the reconstruction.
The paper prompted a MailOnline headline of, “Projections of global drought and flood may be flawed”, while the Australian followed suit with, “Climate model projections on rain and drought wrong, study says”. Elsewhere, a brief news story in today’s Times – subsequently bumped from the second edition – claims that “climate scientists have wrongly blamed manmade emissions for droughts and floods”, under the headline “Climate change row”.
But other scientists tell Carbon Brief that the discrepancy between the data reconstruction and model simulations is more likely because the reconstruction underestimates climate extremes, not that models overestimate them.
MailOnline, 6 April 2016.
After COP21: 7 Key Tasks to Implement the Paris Agreement
Posted on 6 April 2016 by Guest Author
This is a re-post from the World Resources Institute by Eliza Northrop
The Paris Agreement adopted at COP21 last year reflects the collective vision of 195 countries, but it is only the start. While the Agreement lays out essential goals, the ability to achieve these goals will depend on the rules, guidelines and processes adopted to implement the Agreement —and these will be hammered out in the months and years to come.
The newly created Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement (APA), made up of all the Parties that adopted the Agreement last year, will develop most of the new rules and guidelines. The group will meet multiple times a year, starting in May 2016, and will be supported by existing UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) bodies such as the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI).
Some of this work must be completed by the first meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement, which will occur once the Agreement enters into force (see a related blog post on when the Agreement will take effect). There is no certainty as to when this will happen, but it certainly could be well before 2020. Parties will likely need to agree on a new work plan at COP22 in Morocco later this year to ensure that remaining tasks are completed in time.
Below are seven key areas for Parties to focus their attention between now and the first meeting:
To meet the Paris climate goals, do we need to engineer the climate?
Posted on 5 April 2016 by Guest Author
The climate talks that convened in Paris at the end of 2015 produced a historic agreement, giving negotiators and climate activists good reason to celebrate. Now the task is to ensure that the ambition shown in Paris is matched by action.
The good news is that there are a number of viable ways to meet the Paris climate goals. It was reported a couple of weeks ago that, since 2007, the output of the U.S. economy has grown by around 10 percent, while primary energy consumption fell by 2.4 percent over the same period. It is now possible to imagine that the economy can grow, even as fossil fuel-based energy production declines. Add to this an announcement from the International Energy Agency that electricity produced worldwide from renewable sources looks to be on track to overtake coal-fired generation by 2030, and the much-needed renewable energy revolution may well be upon us.
All is not necessarily rosy, however. For one thing, international agreements don’t always translate into domestic momentum. Witness, for instance, the decision by the Supreme Court of the United States to place a stay on a key part of the Obama administration’s plan to stem carbon emissions.
A second piece of bad news, or, at least, news that will be unwelcome in many quarters, is that matching the ambition of Paris will demand consideration of options for addressing climate change that to this point have been widely deemed unpalatable.
The similarities between Trump support and climate denial
Posted on 4 April 2016 by dana1981
It’s long puzzled climate realists: why do free market supporters oppose free market solutions to climate change? The answer may be related to another puzzling question: why does Donald Trump have such unwavering support among a certain segment of American conservatives?
A recent paper by Jeremiah Bohr published in the journal Environmental Politics sought to answer the climate question. As Bohr notes:
Mainstream policy responses seek to utilize market mechanisms in an effort to minimize costs for major emitters of greenhouse gases. Presumably, this should win over some climate change deniers who align themselves with think tanks promoting free markets and economic growth. Yet, climate change deniers and free-market activists are as staunchly opposed to market-based climate policy as they are to any other form of climate mitigation.
Bohr looked through issues of the Heartland Institute’s Environment and Climate News newsletter. He found that about 75% of Heartland’s articles denied climate science, usually by exaggerating uncertainties, or by presenting the evidence as junk science. About 6% argued that climate change will be beneficial, and 39% argued that climate policies will do more harm than good, usually claiming that they’ll hurt the economy.
Among the latter group, 51% characterized markets as inherently efficient, self-regulating, and generative of wealth. Heartland views any tampering with the market as bad for the economy. As Bohr describes it:
2016 SkS Weekly Digest #14
Posted on 3 April 2016 by John Hartz
SkS Highlights... El Niño Impacts... Toon of the Week... Quote of the Week... SkS in the News... SkS Spotlights... Coming Soon on SkS... Poster of the Week... SkS Week in Review... 97 Hours of Consensus...
SkS Highlights
New survey finds a growing climate consensus among meteorologists by John Abraham (Climate Consensus - 97%, Guardian) attracted the most comments of the articles posted on SkS during the past week. Global food production threatens to overwhelm efforts to combat climate change by Pep Canadell & Hanqin Tian (The Conversation) drew the second highest number.
El Niño Impacts
Water levels may swell up to 80 per cent and could result in flooding as severe as 1998 disaster when the worst El Nino in history killed thousands and affected 220 million across 24 provinces, says flood control official
China’s Yangtze River to face catastrophic spring floods as near record El Nino strikes, South China Morning Post, Apr 1, 2016
Toon of the Week
2016 SkS Weekly News Roundup #14
Posted on 2 April 2016 by John Hartz
A chronological listing of the news articles posted on the Skeptical Science Facebook page during the past week.
Sun Mar 27
- Energy forecasters consistently underestimate wind and solar. A critic explains why that’s a problem. by David Roberts, Vox, Mar 25, 2016
- The coral reefs that almost made scientists cry (for joy) by Sarah Kaplan, Washington Post, Mar 26, 2016
-
Obama Says Climate Change Is a Security Risk. Why Are Republicans Laughing? by Keith Johnson, Foriegn Ploicy, Mar 21, 2016
- If a Power Plant Is Built in U.S., It’s Likely to be Renewable by Bobby Magill, Climate Central, Mar 25, 2016
- Trump Even Gets Climate Denial Wrong by Joe Romm, Climate Progress, Mar 24, 2016
- Scientists fly glacial ice to south pole to unlock secrets of global warming by Robin McKie, Observer/Guardian, Mar 26, 2016
- Three International Days in a Week, But Is Anybody Listening? by Monique Barbut, Inter Press Service, Mar 22, 2016
- Industrialised nations must lead an exit strategy for fossil fuels by Rainer Baake, Guardian, Mar 23, 2016
Global food production threatens to overwhelm efforts to combat climate change
Posted on 31 March 2016 by Guest Author
Each year our terrestrial biosphere absorbs about a quarter of all the carbon dioxide emissions that humans produce. This a very good thing; it helps to moderate the warming produced by human activities such as burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests.
But in a paper published in Nature today, we show that emissions from other human activities, particularly food production, are overwhelming this cooling effect. This is a worrying trend, at a time when CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels are slowing down, and is clearly not consistent with efforts to stabilise global warming well below 2℃ as agreed at the Paris climate conference.
To explain why, we need to look at two other greenhouse gases: methane and nitrous oxide.
The other greenhouse gases
Each year, people produce about 40 billion tones of CO₂ emissions, largely from burning fossil fuels and deforestation. This has produced about 82% of the growth in warming due to greenhouses gases over the past decade.
The planet, through plant growth, removes about a quarter of this each year (another quarter goes into the oceans and the rest stays in the atmosphere and heats the planet). If it didn’t, the world would warm much faster. If we had to remove this CO₂ ourselves, it would cost hundreds of billions of dollars each year, so we should be very grateful that the Earth does it for free.
Why is 2016 smashing heat records?
Posted on 30 March 2016 by Guest Author
Yet another global heat record has been beaten. It appears January 2016 - the most abnormally hot month in history, according to Nasa - will be comprehensively trounced once official figures come in for February.
Initial satellite measurements, compiled by Eric Holthaus at Slate, put February’s anomaly from the pre-industrial average between 1.15C and 1.4C. The UN Paris climate agreement struck in December seeks to limit warming to 1.5C if possible.
“Even the lower part of that range is extraordinary,” said Will Steffen, an emeritus professor of climate science at Australian National University and a councillor at Australia’s Climate Council.
It appears that on Wednesday, the northern hemisphere even slipped above the milestone 2C average for the first time in recorded history. This is the arbitrary limit above which scientists believe global temperature rise will be “dangerous”.
The Arctic in particular experienced terrific warmth throughout the winter. Temperatures at the north pole approached 0C in late December – 30C to 35C above average.
Mark Serreze, the director of the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre, described the conditions as “absurd”.
Six burning questions for climate science to answer post-Paris
Posted on 29 March 2016 by Guest Author
This is a re-post from The Conversation by John Church, CSIRO; Alistair Hobday, CSIRO; Andrew Lenton, CSIRO, and Steve Rintoul, CSIRO
Much has been written about the challenge of achieving the targets set out in the Paris climate agreement, which calls for global warming to be held well below 2℃ and ideally within 1.5℃ of pre-industrial temperatures.
That’s the headline goal, but the Paris agreement also calls for a strong focus on climate science as well as on curbing greenhouse emissions. Article 7.7c of the agreement specifically calls for:
Strengthening scientific knowledge on climate, including research, systematic observation of the climate system and early warning systems, in a manner that informs climate services and supports decision-making.
The next paragraph also calls on countries to help poorer nations, which have less scientific capability, to do the same.
But what are the many elements of climate science that need strengthening to achieve the aims of the Paris agreement? Here are six questions that need answers.
New survey finds a growing climate consensus among meteorologists
Posted on 28 March 2016 by John Abraham
There have been multiple scientific studies that all concur: scientists know that climate change is happening and it is largely caused by humans. I recently wrote about this here, where I reviewed the studies. It turns out that the more scientists know about climate change, the more they are convinced that humans are warming the planet. In fact, the consensus is extraordinarily strong. But it isn’t just that the vast majority of scientists agree; it’s that the best scientist agree. We find that the contrarian scientists tend to be less accomplished, have had their research found to be incorrect time after time, and they produce less science.
But very recently, a study from the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication was completed that adds to our knowledge on the consensus. Lead author Ed Maibach and his colleagues are very well-respected surveyors and scientists who study this topic. The study didn’t focus on what we think of as climate scientists – rather they polled meteorologists.
There were actually two surveys that were merged. In one, the authors identified 1038 professionals currently working in broadcast meteorology from the American Meteorological Society (AMS). In a concurrent study, the authors obtained a list of members from the AMS who were not broadcast meteorologists. The two groups were asked a series of questions on whether climate change is occurring, the degree to which respondents felt humans were responsible, what could be done to minimize climate change, among others. The authors also asked about the educational background of the respondents.
Not all members of the AMS are meteorologists. Additionally, someone working in meteorology is not necessarily a climate scientist. Similarly, a climate scientist is not necessarily a meteorologist. Sometimes these populations overlap but in many cases they do not.
2016 SkS Weekly Digest #13
Posted on 27 March 2016 by John Hartz
SkS Highlights... El Niño Impacts... Toon of the Week... Quote of the Week... He Said What?... SkS in the News... SkS Spotlights... Coming Soon on SkS... Poster of the Week... SkS Week in Review... 97 Hours of Consensus...
SkS Highlights
How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims by John Cook & Margaret Crane (The Conversation US) attracted the most number of comments of the articles posted on SkS during the past week. Current record-shattering temperatures are shocking even to climate scientists by Dana Nucitelli (Climate Consensus - the 97%) garnered the second highest number of comments. Temperature tantrums on the campaign trail by Andy Skuce collected the third highest.
El Niño Impacts
One of the strongest El Niño periods on record and a positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation were the climate drivers in 2015 that led to an exceptional season of Pacific tropical storms and severe windstorms and flooding in Europe, according to a report published by Guy Carpenter & Co.
Nevertheless, 2015 was a quiet year in terms of global insured losses, which totaled around $30.5 billion, said the report titled “Global Catastrophe Review – 2015.”
2015 Global Insured Losses Lowest Since 2009 Despite El Niño Effects by Guy Carpenter, Insurance Journal, Mar 25, 2016
Toon of the Week
2016 SkS Weekly News Roundup #13
Posted on 26 March 2016 by John Hartz
A chronological listing of the news articles posted on the Skeptical Science Facebook page during the past week.
Sun Mar 20
- Shrinking of forest carbon sink under climate change may be ‘less than anticipated’ by Robert McSweeney, Carbon Brief, Mar 16, 2016
- Forest conservation: An environmental success for China by Eva Botkin-Kowacki, Christian Scince Monitor, Mar 19, 2016
- Peru Tries to Adapt to Dangerous Levels of UV Radiation Brought on by Climate Change by Lucas Iberico Lozada, Newsweek, Mar 15, 2016
- El Niño Upsets Seasons and Upends Lives Worldwide by Henry Fountain, New York Times, Mar 19, 2016
- John Kasich is no better than Donald Trump on climate change by Rebecca Leber, Grist, Mar 15, 2016
- The Next Great Global Warming ‘Hiatus’ Is Coming! by Ethan Siegel, Starts with a Bang, Forbes, Mar 16, 2016
- Angry Birds For Climate Change – Red Is The New Honorary U.N. Ambassador For Green With #AngryBirdsHappyPlanet by Alap Naik Desai, Inquisitr, Mar 19, 2016
- China's forests recovering at the expense of other nations, study says by Chris Arsenault, Thomson Reuters Foundation, Mar 18, 2016
Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study
Posted on 25 March 2016 by Guest Author
The world is on track to reach dangerous levels of global warming much sooner than expected, according to new Australian research that highlights the alarming implications of rising energy demand.
That forecast, based on new modelling using long-term average projections on economic growth, population growth and energy use per person, points to a 2C rise by 2030.
The UN conference on climate change in Paris last year agreed to a 1.5C rise as the preferred limit to protect vulnerable island states, and a 2C rise as the absolute limit.
The new modelling is the brainchild of Ben Hankamer from UQ’s institute for molecular bioscience and Liam Wagner from Griffith University’s department of accounting, finance and economics, whose work was published in the journal Plos One on Thursday.
It is the first model to include energy use per person – which has more than doubled since 1950 – alongside economic and population growth as a way of predicting carbon emissions and corresponding temperature increases.
The researchers said the earlier than expected advance of global warming revealed by their modelling added a newfound urgency to the switch from fossil fuels to renewables.
Temperature tantrums on the campaign trail
Posted on 24 March 2016 by Andy Skuce
Originally published at Corporate Knights on March 17, 2016.
Sorry Ted Cruz. There's no conspiracy among scientists to exaggerate global warming by fudging the numbers.
Last year was the warmest year recorded since the measurement of global surface temperatures began in the nineteenth century. The second-warmest year ever was 2014. Moreover, because of the persisting effects of the equatorial Pacific Ocean phenomenon known as El Niño, many experts are predicting that 2016 could set a new annual record. January and February have already set new monthly records, with February half a degree Celsius warmer than any February in history.
This news is deeply unsettling for those who care about the future of the planet. But it is even more upsetting for people opposed to climate mitigation, since it refutes their favourite talking point – that global warming has stalled in recent years.
U.S. Congressman Lamar Smith claims there has been a conspiracy among scientists to fudge the surface temperature records upwards and has demanded, by subpoena, to have scientists’ emails released.
Senator and presidential candidate Ted Cruz recently organized a Senate hearing on the temperature record in which he called upon carefully selected witnesses to testify that calculations of temperature made by satellite observations of the upper atmosphere are superior to measurements made by thermometers at the Earth’s surface.
It’s easy to cherry-pick data in order to bamboozle people. The process of making consistent temperature records from surface measurements and satellite observations is complicated and is easy to misrepresent.
But the fact remains that there are no conspiracies afoot. Here’s why.
How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims
Posted on 23 March 2016 by John Cook, Margaret Crane
This article was originally published on The Conversation. For Skeptical Science readers wondering what Trump has to do with climate science, note that this article is actually about critical thinking and inoculation, key topics in our Denial101x online course (Trump is just a case study).
A potential Donald Trump presidency terrifies people worldwide. His racism, bullying, and enthusiasm for violence are a great concern for onlookers.
But we see a positive in Trump’s candidacy: We can improve our critical thinking by using him as an example of how people spread misinformation.
And there is no shortage of material to work with, given Trump’s firehose of falsehoods.
Politifact found that 78% of Trump’s statements were Mostly False, False, or “Pants on Fire” (the most extreme form of false). Fact-checking websites, parody videos, and even a debunking speech by former governor Mitt Romney have highlighted his misinformation.
But pundits and political scientists are mystified that this hasn’t hurt his level of support, with fact-checking efforts sometimes helping Trump and energising his supporters.
When facts aren’t enough
Psychologists are quite familiar with the fact that die-hard supporters of an idea aren’t swayed by contrary evidence, which can backfire and strengthen preexisting attitudes. Indeed, trying to change the minds of headstrong Trump supporters may be largely futile.
Communicating to the larger majority who are still open-minded to facts is more effective. Psychological research on science denial provides a model for how to reduce Trump’s influence on the general populace: inoculation theory.
This uses the metaphor of vaccination. Vaccines stop viruses from spreading through inoculation, which is when when healthy people are injected with a weak form of a virus and then build immunity to the virus.
The inoculation theory applies the same principle to knowledge. Research has found we can make people “immune” to misinformation using the Fact-Myth-Fallacy approach. In this method, we first explain the facts, then introduce a related myth, and then explain the technique the myth uses to distort the facts. By understanding the technique used to create the myth, people are exposed to a “weakened form” of the misinformation.
Science deniers use five techniques to distort facts: fake experts, logical fallacies, impossible expectations, cherry picking evidence, and conspiracy theories. The acronym FLICC is an easy way to remember these techniques.
FLICC: Fake experts, Logical fallacies, Impossible expectations, Cherry picking, Conspiracy theories. John Cook
In-depth: the scientific challenge of extreme weather attribution
Posted on 22 March 2016 by Guest Author
This is a re-post from Carbon Brief by Roz Pidcock
Working out whether human activity is supercharging extreme events, such as floods, storms, droughts and heatwaves, is one of the youngest branches of climate science. But it’s moving at breakneck pace.
So much so, that the US National Academy of Sciences has fast-tracked a report, taking stock of the science and where it’s heading.
Event attribution is the field of science that asks if extreme weather around the world would look any different if we could replay the last 200 years or so, without human-caused greenhouse gases.
Today’s report is an overview, rather than a showcase for new results. And at about 150 pages long, it’s not a light read. But its weightiness is apt for a topic that has come to underpin climate conversations everywhere from flooding in the UK to climate change adaptation.
Carbon Brief has been speaking to key scientists in the world of attribution about how far the science has come, experimenting with communicating the nuances, and the thorny issue of making results public at lightning speed, often before peer review.
One thing is for sure, Dr Heidi Cullen, chief scientist at Climate Central and a contributor to today’s report, tells Carbon Brief:
The days of saying no single weather event can be linked to climate change are over. For many extreme weather events, the link is now strong.
Current record-shattering temperatures are shocking even to climate scientists
Posted on 21 March 2016 by dana1981
“Stunning,” “wow,” “shocker,” “bombshell,” “astronomical,” “insane,”“unprecedented”– these are some of the words climate scientists have used to describe the record-shattering global surface temperatures in February 2016.
NASA GISS global monthly (red) and 12-month average (blue) surface temperatures as compared to pre-industrial temperatures. Illustration: Dana Nuccitelli
It’s difficult to see any ‘pause’ or slowdown in the global warming over the past 50 years.
To put the current temperatures into context, prior to last October, monthly global surface temperatures had not been more than 0.96°C hotter than the 1951–1980 average, according to Nasa. The past 5 months have been 1.06°C, 1.03°C, 1.10°C, 1.14°C, and 1.35°C hotter than that average, absolutely destroying previous records. Estimates from Noaa are in broad agreement with those from Nasa.
Right now, the Earth’s average surface temperature is hotter than it’s been in thousands of years; potentially even longer.
