Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 Next
Comments 3451 to 3500:
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:57 AM on 17 September 2022Food supply and security concerns mount as impacts stress agriculture
The back-and-forth between Gordon and Bob has been an 'interesting' example of an attempt to provide helpful input that was not helpful or an attempt to discredit, or be dismissive of, the evidence-based message being delivered.
Gordon may have genuinely believed the initial input offered was a helpful improvement of the information being delivered. But when they learned that they were not improving the message delivery they fell into the common trap of persistent resistance to. Their initial input, and subsequent versions of input, clearly do not 'improve the delivery of the intended understanding'.
Perhaps the responses by Bob did not make it clear enough that the message being delivered is not meaningfully improved by any of Gordon's suggested 'improvements'.
That makes it more likely that Gordon was attempting to discredit the message, be dismissive of (or distract from) the intended evidence-based logic of the intended learning opportunity, for some unreasonable reason. That will only ever be an evidence-based proposition. Only Gordon can be sure of the answer. But, based on the current evidence, there is reasonable reason to be skeptical of whatever 'explanation' Gordon would provide on this matter.
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:47 AM on 17 September 2022How climate change spurs megadroughts
A recent article over at CNN gives an interesting discussion of the issues of water management in the Colorado River basin. Talks mostly about Lake Powell and Flaming Gorge reservoirs, but Lake Mead gets a mention. It's a basin-wide management issue.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/16/us/colorado-river-water-lake-powell-flaming-gorge-climate/index.html
-
Bob Loblaw at 22:49 PM on 15 September 2022Ag’s challenging future in a changing climate
Eric @ 1:
I am not fond of graphing software that thinks that vertical grid lines are not valuable - figure 3 does make it pretty hard to line up the peaks on the line with the year labels on the axis.
If you follow the link to the report (given in the caption), you can see the original figure in the middle of the page. It looks like the blog post has only used the "real" values, not the "nominal" ones. The original figure in the report graphs both values.
Immediately under the original figure in the original report, we see a table of values. The table only seems to contain the nominal values, but the peak value is definitely for the year 2011 (and in the original graph, both real and nominal lines peak in the same year).
As such, I think it is reasonable to think that the 2011 peak was caused by the preceding drought (2010), rather than anticipation of the following drought (2012). On the other hand, that 2011 peak is more drawn out (lasts longer) than the mid-1970s and the 2008 spikes, so I also think it is reasonable that this could be due to the 2012 drought you mention.
-
Bob Loblaw at 22:32 PM on 15 September 2022Food supply and security concerns mount as impacts stress agriculture
Oh my! Call the Internet Police! Someone writng a blog post has pulled a fast one on us, taking part of a table and having the nerve to call it a "figure" in their blog post! And they only used half of that table! And they didn't quote the entire report, either! They just provided a link, expecting people to be able to follow it and read the original!
The nerve! How can we trust anything they say? This sort of alteration is completely unacceptable!
I notice that you seem to think that this "alteration" is unacceptable (calling a table a figure), but insist that the author of the blog post should have further altered the title from the original to suit your standards of "accuracy".
Oh, I'm sorry. Your proposed change is just an "amendment", not an "alteration". Well, that's OK, I guess.
I take it you actually have no substantive criticism of the rest of the post.
[Is there an html tag for sarcasm?]
-
MA Rodger at 22:28 PM on 15 September 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #36
JoJo @2,
The absence of mention here at SkS of paulownia tomentosa (aka Empress Tree, named for a Russian princess who became queen of Holland) is probably because this wonder tree is seemingly not so wondrous. The oft-mentioned 10x CO2 uptake refers to a value of 103t(CO2)/acre/yr which is subject to a rather large dollop of hype. Thus "past studies planting the Empress Tree in Eurasia have ranged from 3-15 tons of CO2 per acre per year, which is not so remarkable versus other tree varieties."
One advantage paulownia tomentosa possesses is it being a C4 tree which are pretty rare. C4 photosynthesis is more efficient than C3 although it will be more effected by rising CO2 levels. And comparing the 10t(CO2)/acre/yr [=6.75t(C)/ha/yr] x 5MWh/t(C)** = 34MWh/ha/yr which is nothing special. Mind, biofuels and natural carbon uptakes is not a simple subject. (**The value for coal use in power stations.)
-
David Hawk at 22:00 PM on 15 September 2022Ag’s challenging future in a changing climate
Agree with you Eric. Jeff has done a very good job that I will now distribute though parts of the agricultural industry via the governmental agencies involved in issues of: "soil and water conservation." My sister has been an important political member in this area of concern in Iowa for decades.
Your Parts 1 and 2 were very informative on many of the major issues that have surfaced as a problem in agriculture during 25 years, about aspects of major shortcomings in the path taken. Much diverse analysis of the causes of diverse effects has been done since 2010. Your notes weave together much of the cause-effect strands running throughout science and now seen in the climate change process. The limit is that this approach often misses the effects from effects where many are not in fact caused. The conclusion is that the overviews tend to be overly optimistic about the forthcoming situatoin. When Richard Garwin and I used to put on events for AAAS we kept making this point. Emphasizing causes comes to miss the effects of effects that are systemic in nature, not open to appreciation via analysis. The work I got to do with Hsue-Shen Tsien on systems sciences and complex problems came to the same conclusion.
I await your Part 3 that will more systemically integrate the pieces as is now under discusion in information systems science that frooze about 2010. Therein the 19th Century models of industrialization had been relied on to develop information technology. Mike Kelly's work at IBM, then DARPA and then at Georgia Tech move thinking from mass to single copy production and then my 2004 advice to Nokia to stay in open source programming and avoid the Microsoft model may now be instructive of a better response to climate change.
Agriculture is moving deeply into the unfortunate economcs behind Microsoft and Nokia relative to the long term costs of mass production and priviatized sourcing. You would do a good job of helping farmers avoid the road those two took.
The above is especially challenging relative to the rapidly spreading consequences of John Deer Inc. in its new design of their equipment for farming worldwide. Expanding their closed data mining, of farmer generated information, is now discouraging the wide participantion thought to be essential to creating the diversity of response constantly brought up on our Zoom calls by Stuart Kauffman. We are working with a group of farmers in many countries to keep the value of small and varied farmer pm the farm to create ideas of special value during climate change. He has long been into something special.
Conclusion: the standard cause-effect model used to create and spread the benefits of the industrial may not be the one to use when researching the consequences of that model. This is seen in the consistancy with which we see climate change changing and becoming more consequential than projected the prior year. Looking at those at the edges of the problem, not at the core, may be helpful to seeing things differently. Carl Sagan and I usedd to do such on this subject. This will be outlined in a forthcoming book: "Short-term Gain, Long-term Pain."
Thank you, and this site for continuance of the unusual and insightful doorways into difference.
-
Eric (skeptic) at 20:28 PM on 15 September 2022Ag’s challenging future in a changing climate
Very well written article. I have only one minor correction. I think the arrow in fig 3 points to the impact of the US 2012 drought. Non irrigated corn yields dropped to 116 bushels per acre (back to 1993 levels). Prices spiked in July 2012 after poor yields were predicted as early as May. spendmatters.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Corn-1024x650.jpg
-
Eclectic at 18:28 PM on 15 September 202297% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
JoJo @72/73 :
.... yuss, us speling nazzis jest hates on gramma. Unfortunately the posting system here at SkS website does not allow you even a few minutes' grace to hop back into your post and correct any typos. So ~ check and double check your proof-reading before pressing enter.
Even so, for me a few typos get through at times. Almost always, the result is still understandble for readers (who may get a minor chuckle up their sleeves, perhaps).
Nevertheless, if you have made a seriously misleading typo of some sort ~ you can post an appeal to the Moderator to make the correction for you. (And this the Moderator is likely to comply with, if he/she has the spare time to do so.)
Otherwise, relax . . . you will find a vast amount of climate information at SkS , if you have time to delve into it. But the site is not intended to be the fons-et-origo of total encyclopedic knowledge of the subject ~ nor are you likely to find much detail on fission reactors or non-fissioning Paulownia trees (per your other thread comment).
-
JoJo21832 at 14:27 PM on 15 September 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #36
I've done a search on here- for Paulownia... nothing comes up, why? All these brilliant minds, and nothing mentioned, regarding the Paulownia Tree? Look it up, in regards to CO2. The data speaks for it's self.
-
JoJo21832 at 13:45 PM on 15 September 202297% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
or spelling lol (gramma)
-
JoJo21832 at 13:39 PM on 15 September 202297% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
New here, thought I might join, to hear - what the brilliant scientific minds of the world think- regarding, well... everything.
Amazing, fascinating, educational, confusing, entertaining, overwhelming, and yes mind blowing, to say the least.
I truly didn't realize, that so much time is spent "arguing one's case."
Kind of a waste really, all these wonderfully brilliant minds, feverishly "making their point" - instead of building off each other's ideas, and simply working together. The compounding...could be simply astounding.Thanks for allowing me to share my lowly, psychology based, female mind, - (obviously not a fan of gramma)... or commas. please, commence with the sword fight, at hand, haha- just kidding! Remember, no crossing!
Oh come on, tell me that didn't make you laugh, just a little!
Seriously though, thank you for sharing your knowledge! Just trying to soak it up.
-
Gordon21829 at 11:49 AM on 15 September 2022Food supply and security concerns mount as impacts stress agriculture
Bob,
Sorry, but Figure 1 does NOT appear in the WMO report. Like you said an altered version of Table 1 appears in the Blog as Figure 1. In order for Figure 1 to be correct (and convey the correct context from the WMO report) the heading needs to be amended to "Deadliest Weather Disasters Globally, 1970 -2019"
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:18 AM on 15 September 2022Food supply and security concerns mount as impacts stress agriculture
I don't know what link you followed to what report, Gordon, but the link in the caption to figure 1 leads to a report that contains Table 1 (on page 18) that looks identical to what I see in figure 1. The only thing that is changed (slightly) is the title above the table. The orignal WMO report says " Top 10 disasters ranked according to reported (a) deaths and (b) economic losses (1970–2019)". The blog post only includes the top half of the WMO table (part a), so the title has been edited accordingly.
So the report is accurately cited, the source of the figure is accurately cited, and figure 1 is exactly what the blog post says it is in terms of origin and content. If you want to claim that the WMO report's own table caption is misleading, you should go to the WMO report, read it, and understand the context of the original table. As I stated in comment #2, the WMO report gives that context.
I also acknowledged that this could have been explained better in the blog post, but you're creating a tempest in a teapot. If you want to look at "inaccurate and misleading" statements, look no further than your claim that the WMO report does not use the image.
-
Gordon21829 at 09:45 AM on 15 September 2022Food supply and security concerns mount as impacts stress agriculture
Bob:
Figure 1 references its data from: Deadliest disasters since 1970, from the international global disaster database, EM-DAT. According to the EM-DAT disasters are classified as THIS which includes earthquakes. The image credit link: WMO - links to a paper, which incidentally does not even use the image claimed, but is as you say a paper on climate related disasters. I therefore stand by my original claim that the table heading "Deadliest Disasters Globally, 1970 - 2019" is incorrect and misleading.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:29 AM on 15 September 2022Welcome to Skeptical Science
Thomas Bevins @112,
It is not clear what you are specifically referring to when you say "Of course there are studies related to the most obvious, the sun and global warming. The Sun's effect on the oceans, the ocean's effect on the glaciers, and so on... There is a lot of talk that such normalization procedures have increased global warming although most of this site seems to be skeptical of this claim and does not agree."
This site specifically presents reasons to doubt "unjustified beliefs", which is different from having a "healthy skeptical curiosity that leads to constantly improving justified understanding".
Perhaps the most appropriate, but not the only, Sun related presentation is the Number 2 Most Used Climate Myth "Its the Sun" (Number 2 on the thermometer at the top left-hand side of the SkS pages).
And, indeed, SkS presents many other well presented reasons to doubt the robust diversity of myths (unjustified beliefs) that many people encounter and can be tempted, out of personal interest, to incorrectly believe "must be" valid claims.
As for the splitting open of the earth's crust, indeed, should something happen that opens a large gash in the Earth's crust the consequences for life on the plant could be significant. But that has not happened. The actions of humans are clearly understood to be the most harmful current impacts on life on this planet.
Some say a massive asteroid striking the planet could open such a gash. Even if a large asteroid strike did not open a gap in the crust, the results of such an impact could significantly harm life on this planet. But right now it certainly appears that the collective actions of callous self-interested humans is adding up to be as bad as a large asteroid hitting the planet ... don't worry about an asteroid ... try to learn how to help limit the harm done by callous self interested humans ... learn the difference between "unjustified beliefs" and "justified understanding".
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:03 PM on 14 September 2022Food supply and security concerns mount as impacts stress agriculture
Gordon:
The figure includes a link in the caption that tells you where the information came from. In this case, it is from the WMO (as stated in the caption), and the link leads to a page that says in Big Bold Letters
WMO ATLAS OF MORTALITY
AND ECONOMIC LOSSES
FROM WEATHER, CLIMATE
AND WATER EXTREMES
(1970–2019)So, no, it would not include earthquake-related disasters.
It's always worth checking the references to see what they really say. This aspect (weather-related disasters) could have been more clearly stated in the post, but the link provides the needed background to understand the statement.
-
Gordon21829 at 10:36 AM on 14 September 2022Food supply and security concerns mount as impacts stress agriculture
Shouldn't the Boxing Day tsunami of 2004 rate at number 3 with 227,000 killed ? Or do we have a new definition of disaster ?
-
michael sweet at 10:31 AM on 14 September 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #36
A new study in Joule was described by many newspapers today. They estimate future costs of fossil fuels and renewable energy and estimate that it will save trillions of dollars to build out a completely renewable energy systlem and get rid of expensive, polluting fossil fuels.
They consider the costs of battery storage and electrolysers to make hydrogen. The only thing stopping the immediate building out of a renewable energy system is the political power of the fossil fuel industries. The faster we build out renewables the more money we will save!!
Vote climate in the next election!!!
-
MA Rodger at 22:30 PM on 13 September 2022A critical review of Steven Koonin’s ‘Unsettled’
dvaytw @21,
This interchange has all gone a bit quiet. I've been reluctant to pitch in as I hold Koonin in very low regard given he has shown himself time and again to be a simple nepotistic nonsense-monger. But I did have a watch (not very attentively) of his 17 minute 'case against' in the video you mention and I don't see him presenting any worthy argument. It's all very 'chatty man' rather than well-founded analysis. It is but yet-more Koonin nonsense. (Note that Dessler & Koonin have recently debated before.)Specifically on your first "strongest point", that is the 'chatty-man' GDP argument, do ignore the IPCC aspect of it which is solely based on cherrypicking some wording from WG2's SPM that can easily be set out to sound logical but which is actually allowing any global disaster you wish to be ajudged as okay.
Even less narrowly, the use of global GDP projections will always provide a simple way of burying mountains of bad stuff. You can thus point out that global GDP has risen at 3% annually for decades and even if you accept the most worrying projections of the costs of ignoring AGW (and all these projections are all very poorly defined), it is too easy to say global GDP will be 10x bigger by 2100 so we can cope with losing a few percentage points of that. Even the worst projections I've read that talk of 50% loss of GDP would see us 5x better off.
Hurrah!! AGW solved!!!
However, it is just as easy to point to the ongoing increase in FF use wich is still tracking the old doom-laden RCP8.5 scenario and that is certainly nowhere humanity wants to find itself.
Note that both these uses of projections out to 2100 are overly simplistic and thus both verging on being utterly nonsensical if taken at face value.There are two serious criticisms of Koonin's chatty-man GDP argument.
Firstly, the argument is being made that it will all be fine-&-dandy because, given past decades, we can project these massive increases in the size of the economy. So, in the extreme, even if the damage and adaptation costs tot up to a hit equal to half the economy, we would still be far wealthier, 5x wealthier, and so have no reason for complaint. But that argument is mad, with its head too quickly stuck up the model and ignoring the outcomes in the real world in such circumstances. Koonin needs to make plain what climate he is advocating as an acceptable outcome before he starts sticking his head into his simplistic models to demonstrate the effects of such a future climate.
Secondly, and this has been touched on up-thread, the chatty-man GDP argument uses global averages which always allow unacceptably bad stuff to be buried.
Just for a kick-off, imagine say Madagascar with a GDP of $14billion or 0.014% of global GDP. If that entire nation simply melted and disappeared beneath the waves making 28 million souls homeless, it wouldn't even register as a blip on Koonin's global averages. And if such destruction isn't so bad, if one or two hapless countries have to take a hit to keep the world economy in Koonin's happy-place, how about the entire continent of Africa. Hey, it's only 3% of the world economy. I'm sure Africa's 1.3 billion inhabitants will understand the situation when Koonin explains it to them. Perhaps we should give them his address so they can go round and get it all properly explained to them. Mind, it's not all a bed of roses for Koonin because he wants so much to sell them billions of tons of expensive fossil fuels which can't happen if their economies disintegrate under future western-world-created AGW.Koonin is a lunatic. His 17 minutes could be disassembled and the nonsense it comprises exposed. But why bother? Koonin is a lunatic!!
-
Bluepenguin at 13:57 PM on 13 September 2022Welcome to Skeptical Science
the whole prospect of climate change is scary. I mean it made it look scary if we don't do anything now people are saying that our planet is in danger and so are we. I do believe in climate change it is something that I have felt over the years. I am someone who likes to question and find the answer to things that I do not know. So I understand how there are skeptics out there when the evidence isn't solid. all I can do is form My opinions. I want our climate to get better but I need more knowledge on the subject before I can say anything.
-
Shmaben at 13:49 PM on 13 September 2022Welcome to Skeptical Science
Its very helpful this article includes starting points for newbies studying global climate change. Its very easy to spread false information so having a reliable source and different methods to keep track is helpful. The only way we as a country will be able to solve this problem will be to stop denying that the problem isnt real.
-
Despicable_Llama at 13:08 PM on 13 September 2022Welcome to Skeptical Science
Skepticism to my understanding is to doubt something. In the article, the author states that skepticism is a good thing in regards to global warming but I disagree. I believe that climate change and global warming does exist. I believe this without being skeptic because there is enough data out there to prove that humans, burning coal and fossil fuels releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, are that the roots of global warming. Why would one decide to be skeptic about this, when there is proof showing that nothing other than greenhouse gasses are the cause of the planet heating up. Looking into other subjects like "do ghosts exist", i can say that being skeptic about the data is fair, because no one truly understands the topic, but in this case, I believe that the author has the wrong idea and isnt very knowledgeable about global warming.
Moderator Response:[BL]
DL. (May I call you DL?)
Within the article, "skepticism" does not mean "doubt" in the sense of "this is probably wrong". It means reserving acceptance of an idea until sufficient evidence is provided. In a court, this is usually expressed as "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" (for U.S. criminal court) or "in the balance of probabilities" (U.S. civil court).
In science, it becomes a case of "where does most of the evidence lead?". Unlike a court of law, the scientific judgement always remains open to challenge (there is no "double jeopardy"). We slowly transition from speculation, to uncertain, to more confident, to almost certain - as more and more evidence accumulates. We remain "skeptical" in the sense that new evidence may be found that tells us we have something wrong - but with all the available evidence we can still be pretty certain (although not absolutely certain).
"Reasonable doubt" does not mean "no doubt at all". But "doubt' needs to be reasonable - and also needs to follow the evidence.
We agree that there is lots of evidence in support of our scientific conclusions that humans and fossil fuel combustion are heating the planet. Although many details remain to be figured out, the broad pattern is something we have high confidence in.
The main "skepticism" here is being skeptical of the claims that humans are not affecting the climate - these claims fail when compared to the evidence.
-
Welcome to Skeptical Science
This was a very interesting read. The idea of Skeptical Science I feel can apply to other fields of interest, such as design or safety. In regard to climate change, I believe that we have solid evidence that shows a correlation between greenhouse gases and global warming. Ignoring that evidence to pursue alternatives is a good way of theory testing, but not a good way to view the problem overall. I'll make sure to bear what I've read here in my future career as best as I can.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:20 PM on 13 September 2022New study more than triples estimated costs of climate change damages
The NOAA document regarding the use of discount rates for Coastal System Restoration that nigelj linked to may be a good case study for an Economics course. It contains examples of potentially incorrect thinking (excuse making in the Era of Excuses) like the following:
"The social rate of time preference is the rate at which society is willing to substitute present for future consumption of natural resources. The federal opportunity cost of capital and the rate of productivity growth are commonly used as proxies for the social rate of time preference. The argument for using the federal opportunity cost of capital as a proxy for the social rate of time preference is that in the absence of the public project, the federal government could put the funds to productive use reducing the national debt. When using the federal cost of capital, the generally accepted practice is to apply the effective yield on comparable-term Treasury securities (e.g., 20-year Treasury bonds for a study with a 20-year analysis timeframe). During the decade of the 1990s, the average 10-year Treasury bond rate was 6.01 percent whereas inflation averaged 2.88 percent. Thus, the real rate of interest on Treasury bonds was roughly 3.13 percent during the 1990s (Bellas and Zerbe 2003).
Social policy is also concerned with an equitable distribution of consumption over time. Based on this premise, the rate of productivity growth can be used as a proxy for the social rate of time preference. This policy reflects the opportunity cost argument that the incremental or marginal benefit to the country generated by the public project should grow as fast as the productive capacity of industry. From 1990 to 2003, real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew by 2.96 percent (BEA 2004). Thus, using productivity over that period as the basis of the discount rate generates a roughly 3.0 percent rate. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recommends using the social, or consumer, rate of time preference for discounting interim service losses and restoration gains when scaling compensatory restoration (NOAA 1999).
NOAA has adopted a 3.0 percent discount rate as a proxy for the social rate of time preference. When discounting restoration and assessment costs, NOAA recommends that trustees use the rates on U.S. Treasury securities issued for a comparable term relative to the analysis period."
The fundamental flaw is using past economic statistics to evaluate a 'never before faced situation' - the need to evaluate the acceptability of a portion of global humanity benefiting in ways that are unsustainable and harmful to Other Humans (especially the future generations) and Other life. The understanding that GDP is a poor measure of progress is a growth industry producing a diversity of corrections to the flawed GDP (and other financial measures) way of evaluating progress.
Ethically it is simply unacceptable for a person to benefit from actions that harm another person. A person can personally benefit from an action where they are the only potentially harmed person. And a group can benefit in a similar fashion as long as all members of the group equitably benefit and suffer consequences. But it is not acceptable for some members of the group to inequitably benefit from harm done to other members of the group. That is pretty fundamental to Legal Judgments. But the ways that pursuits of increased GDP can make up excuses for more harm being done are understandably unethical, yet likely Legal (really think about that).
The case of climate change impacts is an evaluation of the harm done by human actions that a portion of the current global population inequitably benefit from. And any indications of GDP (or poverty and misery reduction, the real measure of progress) based on the harmful burning up of non-renewable resources are not sustainable. So it is a 'poor excuse' to use past measures of economic growth to discount future costs that are imposed on Others.
In addition, it is flawed 'excusing' to use a discount rate for this 'global novel' developed problem. And climate change impacts due developed human activity are a global novel problem. Never before has such an extensive integral part of developed human activity needed to be stopped because it was learned, well after the activity was very popular and profitable, that it was globally unsustainable and threatened the future of humanity. Damage to the Ozone layer was addressed, sort of, because it was understood to be a near term threat to even the rich people. And nuclear weaponry was a similar global humanity threat, but it was not as pervasive in global human activity as harmful unsustainable fossil fuel use (at least above ground nuclear weapons testing was stopped). Fossil fuel use needs massive excusing to evade the harm to the rich and powerful (and their faithful fans) that is undeniably required by the undeniably understood need to limit the harm done to the future of humanity.
And all of that is without accounting for the additional misery and suffering caused by fossil fuel use, the climate change harm that Others experience due to fossil fuel use as well as other harms due to fossil fuel use.
And all of that is said without adding the 'ethical externalities' of impacts on other life that currently do not economically get accounted for but are harmed by fossil fuel activity. Those impacts to other life include, but are not limited to, climate change impacts.
A narrow-minded view of economics can produce tragic consequences for the future of humanity as a sustainable part of the robust diversity of life on this amazing planet. A comprehensive concern for limiting harm done and developing sustainable improvements for humanity exposes how 'harmfully incorrect the current developed ways of living of most of the supposedly most advanced, most superior, humans are' rather than excusing those unsustainable ways of living.
-
Thomas Bevins at 12:15 PM on 13 September 2022Welcome to Skeptical Science
It is easy to be a skeptic when discussing global warming. There is no doubt that global warming is real but without concrete evidence as to why/how, it remains one of our biggest mysteries. It is never easy to convince someone with doubts or reservations that a theory is at all credible without at least a certain amount of evidence. Of course there are studies related to the most obvious, the sun and global warming. The Sun's effect on the oceans, the ocean's effect on the glaciers, and so on... There is a lot of talk that such normalization procedures have increased global warming although most of this site seems to be skeptical of this claim and does not agree. Also, what about the extreme tempature from earths core? It is very interesting that the question was raised to how big of a fissure or fault it would take to open up our ocean floor, allowing the earths core to warm up our oceans; resulting in all the same global warming concerns. -
Mr Pickle at 11:29 AM on 13 September 2022Welcome to Skeptical Science
Denying vlimate change because it seems like way to big of a problem to fix is a very lazy mindset. We all live on the same planet and have to deal with the consiquences of a heating planet regardless of our own personal impact. We should all care more. I think a great way to combat rising carbon dioxide levels is to plant more plants. Plants turn carbon dioxide into oxygen. Planting more plants will help the problem. It will not solve the climate crisis but it can significantlyt help.
-
Welcome to Skeptical Science
Personally I think to deny that there has been any type of climate change is to willingly blind yourself to the events happening around the globe and the earth's past. Not only is there significant evidence that the global warming is happening but climate changes such as this are nothing new. It does happen and there's a pattern of ice ages and the inevitable heating that comes after. However, it's important to note that the global warming that is currently hpapening is occurring at a rate that eclipses the previous events by a significant margin. What people need to understadn is that whiel climate change occurs regularly, what the earth is experiencing right now is not normal.
-
Gogurt Man at 10:42 AM on 13 September 2022Welcome to Skeptical Science
Climate change is important to understand and should be viewed with a skeptic mindset. That way any theory isn't immediately shut down, but isn't viewed as 100% true. Any individual with a denial mindset shuts down a theory that isn't 100% true which isn't right when it comes to the topic of climate change.
-
Triple P Charlie at 10:41 AM on 13 September 2022Welcome to Skeptical Science
LarryCorbett:
I agree with about needing to invent a better Mouse Trap if we are wanting to do anything to "fix" climate change. I think the first step is to stop having denial about climate change. The second would be to find alternatives to things that we use everyday. For example, back home we have a gas station that has unleaded 88 gas this is made up of more ethanol which causes it to burn cleaner than normal gas. Last step is that we have to relaize that we can not simply "fix" climate change as we can not undo the permanent damage that it has already cause. Instead we learn from these mistakes and hopefully pass it on to our future generations.
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:35 AM on 13 September 2022New study more than triples estimated costs of climate change damages
That link from nigelj looks like it is part of some course material for an Economics prof at Simon Fraser University. Undoubtedly saved from NOAA to use as teaching material.
Click on the menu drop-down on this link, choose "Courses", and choose Econ 483.
-
Reagan123 at 10:13 AM on 13 September 2022Welcome to Skeptical Science
There is no doubt that climate chnage and global warming are happening all around us. I understand there are skeptics but how could you look at all the research and evidence and still go hmmmm maybe not? There are articles about icecaps melting, wildfires due to drout, warmer climate due to moisture in the warmer air. I think it's time we come together as a people and try to cut down our carbon emissions worldwide. We've been gifted this wonderful planet that takes care of us, lets take care of it in return!
-
Doug Bostrom at 10:11 AM on 13 September 2022New study more than triples estimated costs of climate change damages
Considering that our escape hatch from the climate change problem we've created is composed of money more than it is hardware, a matter of economics rather than technological capacity, it's sad to see that NOAA's page on discounting appears now to be a relic made available only by the kindness of an SFU faculty member.
Thanks for the link, Nigel.
-
dw21808 at 10:05 AM on 13 September 2022How climate change spurs megadroughts
The loss of volume in lake meade is one of the most worrying results of climate change that I have witnessed. While storms are indeed getting stronger, we as humans are able to willfully dismiss this as natural and with a mindset of storms happen. In a sense, we can bury our head in the sand because we can say storms come and go, but life goes on. However, with lake meade disappearing, it makes it extremely difficult to do this. The lake is going but its not coming back and most of all, life won't go on without water. The droughts that are related to climate change has to start somewhere, and to me atleast, it appears like it has started there.
-
coldcutz21806 at 09:42 AM on 13 September 2022Welcome to Skeptical Science
I just don't really understand how we can expect to stop using fossil fuels and survive as a society unless we want to go back to monthly grocery trips on horse and buggy on our 4 hour journey to the supermarket, or own a self sustaining farm. Especially with not enough solid proof that you have to put "skeptical" in your group title because of being unsure. The Earth has heated and cooled as long as it has been around. We need fossil fuels to function in the society we live in unless we just want to throw everything away that we have built and manufactured.
Moderator Response:[BL] I think you misunderstand the meaning of "skeptical" in the name of this site. Good scientists are always skeptical - science does not produce 100% certainty in its results. As new evidence comes out, a good scientist will be willing to change his/her mind. New evidence can either increase or decrease our confidence (or uncertainty, if you prefer), but don't expect 100% confidence.
Many who disagree with the mainstream understanding of climate have co-oped the label "skeptic" for a mind-set that is rarely truly skeptical. As it says under the masthead of the Skeptical Science web pages, this site is about "Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism". Our goal is to examine the claims of these false "skeptics" and hold them up to the light of evidence available in the published literature. Most of these claims by the "skeptics" fail under a truly skeptical review.
You may find this recent post of interest:
https://skepticalscience.com/science-what-it-is-how-it-works-and-why-it-matters.html
-
Joel21800 at 08:00 AM on 13 September 2022Welcome to Skeptical Science
I think it is beyond healthy to differentiate between skepticism and denial as described in this post, as there are many who may claim to be "skeptical" in regards to climate change but, in reality, believe that climate change is almost completely natural or an outright falsity. Sure, there are some natural effects that may cause a very slight and negligible effect on Earth's temperature, such as the mildy fluctuating temperature of the Sun or orbital pattern of Earth, but these phenomena do not appear to be the cause of the sudden and rapid increase in temperature worldwide. There is also an argument that the Earth experiences natural heating and cooling cycles which, while true, is pretty irrelevant considering these cycles take thousands upon thousands of years to develop and create significant impacts to Earth's temperature anomaly. The changes in climate that we are seeing now have been developing more and more since just the Industrial Revolution, and they have only been getting worse in the past several decades. Humans are technically not the only cause of climate change, as there are natural forces that can change Earth's environment in such a way, but it is important to understand that these natural factors are, again, negligible, and humans have done most of the heavy-lifting in contributing to global warming, especially through carbon dioxide emissions. I haven't been the most well-researched person when it comes to climate change, but in no way have I ever once thought of denying the possibility that maybe, just maybe, humans are a direct cause for the plethora of climate related problems we are facing to today.
-
cayde62 at 07:53 AM on 13 September 2022Welcome to Skeptical Science
Clearly climate change is a pressing issue for the health of our beautiful Earth, and I am delighted to see such a website dedicated to hosting a plethora of insightful information that can be used to better understand this issue. I mostly look forward to reading the rebuttal section which deals with the most common climate change myths. Understanding the key arguments that are connected to the most commonly said climate change myths is one of the biggest keys to understanding the climate change situation in my opinion.
-
justice4all at 07:13 AM on 13 September 2022Welcome to Skeptical Science
As global temperatures rise it becomes more and more apparent that the reduction of our carbon footprint is essential for the planets survival. Temperatures are trending upward due to all the excess carbon in the atmosphere. Burning fossil fuels and deforestation is also aiding in the extra global carbon output. Forest are mother nature’s carbon filter, but due to forest loss the planet cant keep up. I feel as a society we are capable of amazing feats of science. We need to focus the worlds greatest minds to build and develop atmospheric filters to manually reduce the amounts of carbon in our atmosphere. We are responsible for the extra gasses so we should do our best to find a solution. Thankfully the technology to do this is being developed currently. Just outside Zurich, more than a dozen massive fans are fast at work, cleaning the air of carbon dioxide. So-called direct air capture is the leading edge of what could become the largest environmental industry aimed at saving the planet. The company behind it, Climeworks, is one of the few offering the technology to basically vacuum the atmosphere of carbon. The plant in Switzerland removes about 900 tons of carbon dioxide per year, according to Climeworks policy chief Chris Beuttler. To put it in perspective, globally we are emitting 40 billion tons.
DianaOlick. (2021, July 29). These companies are sucking carbon out of the atmosphere - and investors are piling in. CNBC. Retrieved September 12, 2022, from https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/23/these-companies-are-sucking-carbon-from-the-atmosphere.html
-
nigelj at 07:02 AM on 13 September 2022New study more than triples estimated costs of climate change damages
The following comments contain interesting examples of the discount rate concept applied to various environmental issues, and discusses some of the dilemmas involved, expanding on those OPOF mentions:
www.sfu.ca/~heaps/483/discounting.htm
-
Bobby21796 at 03:05 AM on 13 September 2022Welcome to Skeptical Science
While studying climate change, it is important that we have a skeptic mindset and not a denial mindset. Skeptics look for a definitive answer backed by evidence while peopel with a denial mindset shut down anything that is not proven correct. All the data with climate change should be viewed with skeptic mindset, not denial. This is so any theory or data that is not 100% proven is still accepted. A denialist would shut down anything that is only 99% correct. A skeptic would say that 99% is probably true. Not everything always lines up or makes sense to us, but that does not mean it is not true and can be denied.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:57 AM on 13 September 2022New study more than triples estimated costs of climate change damages
Arguably (meaning a reasoned justification exists - as opposed to claiming an argument based on unreasonable rationalizations) the 2% discount rate used by the evaluation should be considered to be an upper limit on the discount rate.
The following World Bank ... Blogs post provides reasons why "Zero" is a more appropriate basis for these type of evaluations.
Using a zero-discount rate could help choose better projects and help get to net zero carbon
My MBA education and life experience supports this. The discount rate should only be used when the same people who benefit now will "exclusively" face the full future consequences. It is used to compare alternative "Investment Options" for an investing group, a group that wants to chose the option that maximizes their net-present-value (the evaluation of full life-cycle value of the investment converted to current day dollars by 'discounting' the future revenue and costs). It is meant to differentiate the magnitude of the future increased value compared to the required initial investment. It is not a concept that should be used to evaluate and compare how much will be lost by investment choices.
Applying a discount rate to compare the magnitude of negative impact options, like the increasing of climate change harm, would result in the selection of 'biggest losing options'. Using the higher rate results in evaluations justifying more climate change harm done.
It is simply and clearly unethical to use a discount rate to justify how much harm can be done to Others. And all of the future generations of humanity, as well as many members of currently living humanity, are being harmed by the actions that a portion of current day humanity inequitably benefit from.
Most rapidly ending the harm done is the ethical requirement. Using a discount rate to justify doing less than could be done to limit harm, to justify doing more harm, is part of what Peter Singer referred to as the 'Era of Excuses' in his book Animal Liberation (an ethical argument that is interesting to re-read by replacing "limiting harm done to other life" with "climate change harm done to other life").
-
MSU student at 13:13 PM on 12 September 2022Welcome to Skeptical Science
Thank you so much for this site. I am in search of answers to solutions and reading through the comments this seems like a well-knowledgeable audience. I am a current student and would love some really great data on Nuclear Fusion, how far they have come and predictions on how long it would last the world. I have read a couple of articles and I would love some great opinions on the matter. I think it could be just what the world needs. If everyone could come together and make changes to completely eradicate fossil fuels. The problem would be, of course getting every country to follow suit. Not just from closed mindedness but poverty as well.
Moderator Response:[BL] Welcome to Skeptical Science.
It looks like we have quite a few new users posting here on the Welcome thread - almost as if it is a class project or assignment.
In general, we try to keep discussions focused, so that all readers and participants can find on-topic conversation and help each other understand the issues. I'll remind all participants that we have a Comments Policy that helps guide participants. You can always find a link to it above the text box where you enter your comments.
That being said, nuclear energy is a topic that often creates somewhat heated discussion. Skeptical Science does not have team members that are experts in this area, so we do not have a lot of posts that cover the topic. We do have some reasonably-well-informed commenters, but we also have some discussions that include not-so-well-informed participants! (Welcome to the Internet!)
You can use the Search box on the upper left of each page to find posts related to any search terms you like. You will find the results broken into two categories:
- Posts that are in our "rebuttal" section - our bread-and-butter responses to the most common myths about climate change. The top 10 and a link to all arguments are found just below the search box on the upper left of every page.
- Individual blog posts that have appeared over the years.
You also have the option (on the search results page) to extend the search into the comments. That can return an awfully long list, though.
Searching for "nuclear", a few posts that might be of interest are:
https://skepticalscience.com/small-modular-nukes.html
https://skepticalscience.com/wrong-nuclear-energy-debate.html
https://skepticalscience.com/NuclearEnergy.html
https://skepticalscience.com/GND-nuclear-power.html
Reading the comments, as well as the post, can be informative.
-
john cena at 12:41 PM on 12 September 2022Welcome to Skeptical Science
Global warming or climate change is a very big thing in thr world right now. Most people know it's happening but are in denial because they don't think they can change it. I believe if someone is in denial it's more hard to get out of that stage becuase you know it's a problem you just don't really want to help.
-
Cosmo Kramer at 10:28 AM on 12 September 2022Welcome to Skeptical Science
In order to have an informed opinion about climate change, it is important to be skeptical about, but not deny, the information presented about it. In order to truly understand it, the data needs to be looked at without any preconceived ideas. All the data presented should be viewed with a skeptical mindset, where ideas are not denied or accepted immediately upon viewing, but where they are held until they are supported by enough extra evidence. After this, an informed opinion can truly be created. This is especially important for climate change, where the vast majority of information supports the idea that it is caused by humans, but a small majority goes against this idea. A properly formed opinion requires a skeptic mindset.
-
patrick.tumlin at 10:20 AM on 12 September 2022Welcome to Skeptical Science
Climate change has become a major problem in today's society because it has been let go for so many years without any restrictions or guidelines. Most people are either skeptical of climate change or in denial. It is better for people to be skeptical than in denial because they are more likely to realize just how real that it is. If something doesn't change soon, what kind of environment will our kids have to grow up in? It is time that we focus on the climate crisis that is presented before us and take action.
-
Pumpkinspiceseason at 10:02 AM on 12 September 2022Welcome to Skeptical Science
Climate Change is real and I hope we can find a way to stop it. Using fossil fuels is definitely the reason to blame. One promising energy generator/storage is pumped hydro storage (PMS). Even with that though there are four issues; the rate of power delivery that is to come from storage, the length of time over which this rate would have to be maintained, the rate at which energy would have to be stored given the intermittent pattern of its availability and the efficiency of the full cycle (Trainer, 2017).
Works Cited
Ted Trainer,
Some problems in storing renewable energy,
Energy Policy,
Volume 110,
2017,
Pages 386-393,
ISSN 0301-4215,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.07.061 .
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421517304925) -
jonsnow at 09:09 AM on 12 September 2022Welcome to Skeptical Science
I agree that skepticism is better than denial. I think that in order to form a decent opinion regarding climate change, all of the facts need to be considered. That being said, I myself can see that we need to have more people who are "skeptics" rather than in "denaial". We need this change in order to stop the planet from burning up. If we do not make this change, the damage we could cause now and in the future is unfathomable. I will thoroughly enjoy looking at all of the theories and myths regarding climate change on this website.
-
MA Rodger at 22:12 PM on 11 September 2022CO2 effect is saturated
GreenEarth @661,
As Eclectic @ 663 says, your "mystery" is a 'phycisist' thing. You would get a reply from a physicist that it is well known that all thing which absorb photons likewise emit them. And to provide authority for such a statement they would cite Beer's Law.
This is true, but most folk would not find this entirely helpful.Consider the specrum of light. It is well known to have absorption lines which provide the fingerprint of the gases which cause those apsorption lines. But these are identical to the less-well known emission lines of those gases, the lines being caused by the difference in temperature of the gases and the more distant 'background emitter'. If the gases are cooler than the background, the lines will show as absorpion. If the gases are hotter they will show as emitters.
See also this 'Lesson Explainer' which may help.At lower temperatures (and thus lower energies) where only IR is being emitted, the more simple molecules like N2, O2 & Ar are entirely transparent, neither absorbing nor emitting IR.
Greenhouse gases are more complex molecules so can waggle in more complex ways than mono- & bi-atomic molecules, these waggles defining the basic absorption wavelengths. Thus for CO2, the waggles, (top to bottom in the diagram) v1, v2 & v3, are caused by abrosbing IR at 2.7 microns, 15 microns and 4.3 microns. They are also caused (and in our atmosphere overwhelmingly so) by collisions with other air mollecules, collisions which also overwhelmingly de-waggle the CO2. A CO2 molecule getting the chance to de-waggle by emitting an IR photon is comparatively rare (although there is loads of CO2 molecules so IR is emitted).
Our atmosphere is too cold to give a strong enough bash to the CO2 to impart the v1 & v3 waggles, so it is only the 15 micron v2 that concerns us. The v1 waggle is induced in the atmosphere by sunlight which is just about still significant at 2.7 microns, but our atmosphere is not hot enough to create v1 waggles so there are no IR emissions at 2.7 microns. And by 4.3 microns the sunlight is entirely weak while the atmosphere is still too cold, so v3 falls between the terrestrial and solar energies and is absent here on Earth.
Moderator Response:[BL] Note that comments have been moving around a bit due to deletions. Eclectic's comment 663 is now at 661.
Before anyone spends a lot more time on responses to some of these questions, it may be worth waiting to see if the comment survives moderation. We've seen a lot of thread-bombing on this particular subject in the past 2-3 months, seeing the same tired old "criticisms" of basic science. Although posed as questions, the commenter(s) rarely have any desire to learn the science.
-
Eclectic at 21:36 PM on 11 September 2022CO2 effect is saturated
Thanks MARodger @662 ~ sorry to have cross-posted with you.
The more the merrier, I hope. As you indicate, the subject is not particularly intuitive, and I hope to learn something more from GreenEarth's previous experience at other internet sites.
Moderator Response:[BL] Response to deleted comment
-
Eclectic at 21:28 PM on 11 September 2022CO2 effect is saturated
Hi GreenEarth (@661) ,
Offhand, I am not sure which would be the best page here to point you to ~ IIRC this information can be found on a number of threads (and perhaps a kindly Moderator can indicate some suitable ones).
What we are talking about is very basic stuff known by all physicists having any connection with radiation & atmosphere (in other words, climate science).
In short, the atmospheric molecules are all knocking about against each other. Likewise for the various molecules of the Earth's surface ~ energy passes from surface to atmosphere, and vice versa, by these impacts. There is also bi-directional energy exchange between the planetary surface and adjacent air, via radiated photons. (Of course, there is also short-wave photonic energy coming from the sun ~ including from clouds, dispersion by dust etcetera in the air.)
The surface loses "heat" upwards by convection, by evaporation/condensation, and by radiation (mostly by radiation into the atmosphere, but a small amount by direct radiation out to space via the "window" band around 10 microns). The so-called "sensible heat" loss (producing warm air and thus convection) derives from molecular impacts as well as the limited-range radiation you have mentioned earlier.
Once the energy has risen to the so-called Top Of Atmosphere [TOA] it can then be radiated out into space (the TOA altitude level is different for CO2, H2O, CH4 , and other greenhouse gasses).
I hope I have not been repeating too much stuff that you already know.
The essential point is that because the greenhouse gas molecules are so thinly distributed among the bulk of N2/O2 air molecules, they are speeding/ slowing/ vibrating owing to impacts with the N2/O2 molecules which are moving at the (average) speed determined by the local air temperature. In effect, CO2 [for example] is able to broadcast 15 micron photons by gaining energy from local air (and by radiating, effectively cools the adjacent air). Almost all the energy for radiation comes from impact energy ~ and only a minuscule amount is contributed from a received/absorbed 15 micron photon from a "distant" CO2 molecule.
This is the reason why the concentration of CO2 at near-surface altitude is irrelevant to the greenhouse warming effect ~ because the concentration at TOA is the important determiner of the planetary effect. Then we get to the importance of the temperature at TOA and the actual altitude at TOA combined with the Lapse Rate temperature gradient.
GreenEarth, my apologies if my condensed explanation is not as clear as you would like, but I hope it sets you off in a useful direction of exploration of the basic concepts. And I would be interested to know where the incorrect ideas you got were coming from.
Moderator Response:[BL] Portions snipped. Note that this is a response to a deleted comment. The poster in question has been pointed to appropriate places may times, but has not shown a positive learning slope.
-
MA Rodger at 20:29 PM on 11 September 2022CO2 effect is saturated
GreenEarth @659,
The quote from the 'Advanced' rebuttal you make continues:-But on the way up this light will find a decreasing pressure, i.e. less CO2 molecules. There will be a point where the light can escape to the outer space. The intensity of the emerging light will be appropriate for the temperature of this "last" layer layer.
And this is then followed by description of a simplistic model of a spreading absorption band caused by increased CO2. (It isn't perhaps the best of descriptions but the physics is both complex and novel for general consumption so what is 'best' will always be debatable.)
The continuation of your quote is saying that it the altitude from which IR is emitted into space that is the important, this being the effective radiative "top of the atmosphere".
And adding more CO2 (which is well-mixed up to the top of the stratosphere at 50km) puts more high-up CO2 in the way of the IR that would previously have exited to space. So more CO2 pushes the CO2 "TOA" further up not lower down.
If you consider the additional CO2 near the surface, more CO2 does indeed reduce the path length of IR before it encounters a CO2 molecule to absorb it. But because CO2 both emits and absorbs IR in equal measure**, while the IR has a shorter path length, with added CO2 more IR is being emitted. At a constant temperture, the shorter path length and the increased emissions cancel out. (**As Eclectic @660 says, CO2 emits due to collisions with other air mollecules. These collisions also absorb the energy from almost all absorbed IR. Because of this, the level of IR emission is determined by temperature and not by IR emissions from the surface.)Moderator Response:[BL] Note that this is a response to deleted comment.
