Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Comments 501 to 550:
-
ubrew12 at 16:28 PM on 17 April 20242024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #15
Of potential interest to readers of SkS: This opinion piece in 'The Hill' ("Expect financial fallout when the fossil fuel bubble finally bursts") suggests that when the fossil fuel bubble finally pops it will rival the Crash of 2008 on the global economy. The article examines what such a phenomenon might look like. A quote "We are past the point for the “smooth” and “gradual” transition that... [former Governor of the Bank of England, Mark] Carney urged a decade ago, making his warning of a major Minsky Moment even more relevant."
-
Rodgers_Kawooya at 04:16 AM on 17 April 2024Climate's changed before
As this is your first post, Skeptical Science respectfully reminds you to please follow our comments policy. Thank You!
-
prove we are smart at 00:04 AM on 16 April 2024What is Mexico doing about climate change?
On behalf of Mexico and the many,many nations on this planet who will struggle more than the "entitled wealthy", climate justice - can it come from those who have given us the current 20% of global co2. www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zP0L69ielU
Full article here www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-which-countries-are-historically-responsible-for-climate-change/
-
scaddenp at 06:19 AM on 15 April 2024A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change
William,I have been away.
The risk is : we try and transition aways from fossil fuels without a better alternative - all previous significant energy changes have occurred naturally - when we have had a better alternative.
I don't think you have provided any evidence that alternative energy systems are not a better alternative. Especially when considering all factors like climate change, health impacts of pollutions, etc
One day we likely will have a better cheaper alternative to fossil fuels - at the moment we don't . Renewables cannot replace fossil fuels they are too unreliable and expensive ,Constantly repeating this does not make it true. You have been provided with peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary. The Lazard analysis of levelized energy costs is putting unsubsidized wind+storage and solar+storage ahead of all but fully depreciated FF stations.
Fossil fuels have brought untold benefits.
I don't dispute this for a second, but I fail to see why it is relevant. FF are now doing a great deal of harm and we have alternatives. We don't "owe" FF any loyalty for past benefits. That would be absurb.What puzzles me is why you obviously dont believe peer-reviewed analysis of alternatives but instead opt for what seems to me to be either uninformed opinion or worse, FF propoganda. You seem to be deeply commited to the status quo, and trying to find arguments to defend that. Why do you think that is and how do go about evaluating competing claims?
-
Eclectic at 12:54 PM on 14 April 2024Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!
Plymouth Sid @ 107&108 :
yes ~ "Sid for World Prez" sounds a good idea.
And, my term "rant" was just a tad self-deprecating. And, the definition of a Statesman : is a politician who rises above the usual hot mess of denial, sloth, etcetera.
Sid, although the Venn Circle called politics does overlap with most aspects of everyday life, nevertheless SkS does permit "political" discussion of actions & remedies ~ so long as the discussions keep away from partisan politics.
And yes, the WUWT blogsite does have its points : (a) It is very, very active as a website, both in articles per day, and in 100's of comments per day. True, the articles are selective & slanted as outrage-stimulating propaganda . . . and the comments are highly repetitious venting. But interspersed with a few useful comments (by a handful of real scientists who enjoy tweaking the Denialists' noses).
~(b) WUWT is a slanted mirror, enabling the viewer outside to gaze over the parapets of the Deniosphere ~ and into the Bedlam that lies within. The denizens there are not insane [per legal definition] . . . but most are intellectually & morally insane. Arguably, they are psychiatrically insane too.
~(c) Possibly . . . and arguably . . . WUWT is a "good thing", for it acts as a flame to attract & amuse the climate nutter/moths of the Anglosphere, and give them a feeling that they are being "active" in their cause.
Sid , the SkS site is very much the opposite (of WUWT ) : it is a small site, run by volunteers, and provides only a few comments per day ~ but provides a wealth of easily-accessible climate science information for those who wish to educate themselves. So the site cannot be expected to be the "mover & shaker" on the world scene (such as a President like yourself would desire).
Sid, the SkS site
-
William24205 at 03:52 AM on 14 April 2024A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change
https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters#:~:text=In%20most%20years%2C%20the%20death,less%20frequent%2C%20or%20less%20intense.
All the prrof of no increase in droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc - can be found above.
It is intercative - so put in the floods or drought and it will show the stat.
Wprld in Data is the the gold standard of datsa sights - used by everyone during the pandemic
Moderator Response:[BL] Empty assertions. That link means nothing more than "data exists"
Your posts here are devoid of analysis.
In that web page, I see increases in many of the metrics they provide. Have you actually bothered to read it, or are you just repeating links from some cheat sheet?
As I stated previously, on this comment:
Here is a prediction: you will continue to scatter your comments with statements that are discussed (and discredited) on other posts here that you have not bothered to read.
Are you willing to make an effort to make my prediction incorrect?
...and here is the closing graphic from the link you provided: No signs of increase here, you think? Floods and extreme weather seem to be driving the increase.
-
Plymouth Sid at 02:50 AM on 14 April 2024Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!
Eclectic at 106.
Thank you.
Some would say that the very essence of politics ~ "is a hot mess of denial, sloth & inertia, and short-term self interest." What scientists must try very hard to do is, somehow, to "enter the lists" and adjust the focus away from the short term. (If I knew how to do that I would be "World President" ! )
Beware! ???? If you "rant" (no matter how justified, you will be moderated and chastised! Notwithstanding, I thank you for the promt to look at WUWT ~ it, like the movie, is quite entertaining.
Plymouth Sid
-
Plymouth Sid at 02:26 AM on 14 April 2024Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!
Bob Loblaw @105
Thank you. You are doubtless correct but the scientist in you should scream that what matters is what people actually do not what they say (evidence not stated opinion).
At least one major branch of economics (which some would like to call a "science") would insist that the "price mechanism" in a free market economy cannot be bettered (that does not at all mean that it is error free!).
Re: This blog's policy on Politics would seem to allow some political/economic discourse on this thread's topic. The "Movie" seems to me to be (unfortunately) very much about politics.
Democracy, by which I mean one person one (SECRET) vote, can at times produce perverse outcomes as often as not as a result of campaigns of misinformation (such as "Climate: The Movie"). It behoves scientists (and the media) to produce effective counters. This site goes a long way towards that but how far does it actually reach and can it be bettered? (Those last two questions are a cri de coeur and rhetorical.)
Plymouth Sid
-
Eclectic at 10:34 AM on 13 April 2024Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!
Plymouth Sid @104 : you are certainly correct in your scientific assessment.
IMHO, the "climate problem" is like a coin ~ one side is the mainstream science; the other side is the politics of How & When to take action against the problem.
The science side is very straightforward ~ and only a handful of genuinely well-qualified scientists are nay-sayers or doubt-mongers (and even these, on closer examination, are often guilty of speaking out of both sides of their mouth).
The politics side ~ is a hot mess of denial, sloth & inertia, and short-term self interest. Of which we are all guilty to a greater or lesser extent. Plus, we need better technology too, to fully replace fossil fuels.
On SkS here, I occasionally rant against the notorious WUWT website (a website I view frequently, to experience some laughs . . . and some Schadenfreude). WUWT shows both sides of the coin continually ~ the participants there are largely in denial of the realities of climate science . . . and at the same time they exhibit a political extremism brimming with anger, selfishness, and uncharitableness. WUWT is a very toxic site : and the participants love "Climate - The Movie" and seem oblivious to its many severe flaws.
-
nigelj at 08:33 AM on 13 April 2024A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change
Moderator. Thank's for the correct link. There was also a typo. The numbers are for deaths in 2010 and projected deaths in 2030. I'm having a bad day. Sorry.
-
Bob Loblaw at 08:18 AM on 13 April 2024Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!
Plymouth Sid:
The choices that humans make can be guided by science, but those choices also include values that are not really amenable to scientific examination. You can use science to study people's choices, and associate the choices they make with other measurable items, but values are hard to measure. (You can record what people say about their values, or you can assign "value" labels to their actions or words, but there is a degree of subjectivity about individual behaviour.)
As for politics: that also can be guided by science - but often it is not. Here at Skeptical Science, we try to avoid purely political discussions - but there are times when political issues do connect with climate science. The Comments Policy states this as follows:
No politics. Rants about politics, religion, faith, ideology or one world governments will be deleted. Occasional blogposts on Skeptical Science touch on issues intimately related to politics. For those posts this rule may be relaxed, but only if explicitly stated at the end of the blogpost.
-
nigelj at 07:00 AM on 13 April 2024A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change
Regarding claims that "currently over 400,000 deaths are caused every year by climate change." Orginal source material below:
https://daraint.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CVM2ndEd-FrontMatter.pdf
The main factors in the 400,000 deaths are (Numbers in 2010 and projected numbers in 2023)
Diarrheal Infections 85,000 150,000
Heat & Cold Illnesses 35,000 35,000
Hunger 225,000 380,000
Malaria & Vector Borne Diseases 20,000 20,000
Meningitis 30,000 40,000
Environmental Disasters 5,000 7,000Moderator Response:[BL] The link provided is broken. I think this is the correct link:
https://daraint.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CVM2ndEd-FrontMatter.pdf
Confirmed as correct by the original commenter and corrected in the original comment.
-
Plymouth Sid at 06:10 AM on 13 April 2024Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!
I have hugely enjoyed following this "blog" and am gratful that I checked this site before I swallowed "Climate: The Movie" whole. It is a very entertaining movie if over long.
The problem, as I see it, is that the issue of "Climate Change" has 3 parts:
1. Is this latest episode of "global warming" unusual in such a way that it deserves close attention?
(I think the answer to that is a resounding YES ~ depite what the "Movie" says.)2. Is this latest episode of "global warming" mostly caused by us humans?
(I think the answer to that is also a resounding YES ~ depite what the "Movie" says.)
3. What shall we humans do to prevent what appears to be the consequences for "the world"?
(Am I correct in saying that the answer to that question will not be found on this site because this site is about science NOT politics?)
Plymouth Sid
-
William24205 at 03:36 AM on 13 April 2024A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change
Can renewables provide baseload power?
No , because we do not have the battery storage capacity . the USA currently has 7 minutes of storage capacity . - they need at least 3 months. So we are not even remotely close.
Is renewable energy too expensive?
Yes - because of the above - Renewables are cheap in theory but not in practice - not in practice because they don’ t do the job required . It is the equivalent of buying an expensive electric car and still having to use petrol.
From source to the end user they are expensive - which is why the Germany despite having spent billions on subsidies for renewables have one of if not the highest energy costs in Europe. And why they had to rely on Putin's gas. You have to pay twice.Moderator Response:[BL] Until you read the links provided, don't bother commenting.
-
William24205 at 03:10 AM on 13 April 2024A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change
You are again repeating yourself - treating one statistic as if it is the only thing that matters, and treating predictions about the future as if they mean nothing at all.
Amongst other things, this is just getting boring. Please come up with a new argument, or stop wasting people's time.
I have not just used one statistic - I have cited stats on flooding, drought, hurricanes, typhoons bush fires - and provided links for evidence.
I don't think predictions for the future are meaningless - I just think they should be not be treated as firm evidence and carry the same weight as hard facts. I don’t think I am being unreasonable there.Moderator Response:[BL] Providing links and citations requires actually providing links (i.e. a clickable source)and citations (i.e. a full journal name, title, etc. that someone can easily find). IT does not mean "I saw a study somewhere", which anyone can make up.
You provided one link to one news article (on USA Today) that mentioned one Lancet study I had to find myself.
You are now just provoking moderation.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
William24205 at 02:59 AM on 13 April 2024A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change
William, it isn't clear what you meaning by risk. Financial risk, increased mortality? or what? I would say that in any case, how you transition would be relevant - and that varies country to country, region to region. Suddenly dropping fossil fuels without replacing with other energy sources or better efficiency would indeed be damaging but I am not seeing advocates for that.
The risk is : we try and transition aways from fossil fuels without a better alternative - all previous significant energy changes have occurred naturally - when we have had a better alternative.
One day we likely will have a better cheaper alternative to fossil fuels - at the moment we don't . Renewables cannot replace fossil fuels they are too unreliable and expensive ,Spend money on R&D and keep investing in fossil fuels at the same time.
To answer your question directly .
Fossil fuels have brought untold benefits.
So by definition the inverse could unwind some of those benefits.
Fossil fuels are the main reason we are safer from the climate than ever before - it seems pointless to risk throwing all the gains or somehow the gains away.
Increased poverty brings many problems - expensive energy has inherent risks.Moderator Response:[BL] Your ability to remain uninformed is impressive. From the list of most common myths.
Can renewables provide baseload power?
Is renewable energy too expensive?
Here is a prediction: you will continue to scatter your comments with statements that are discussed (and discredited) on other posts here that you have not bothered to read.
Are you willing to make an effort to make my prediction incorrect?
-
MA Rodger at 17:19 PM on 12 April 2024Climate Adam: Is Global Warming Speeding Up?
ubrew12,
Tamino subsequently posted an OP titled 'Accelerations' which features this NOAA adjusted data (the last two graphics) showing a pair of break-points in the rate of warming, 1976 & 2013, with the pre-2013 rate being quoted as +0.165ºC/decade and the post-2013 rate measuring a rather dramatic +0.4ºC/decade. But that said, there will be very big 'error bars' on that last value. Additionally Tamino's adjustments did result in 2023 temperature being increased (by +0.02ºC) which, given the cause of the "absolutely gobsmackingly bananas" 2023 temperatures remain unresolved, may be very wrong.
-
Eclectic at 12:19 PM on 12 April 2024At a glance - Does CO2 always correlate with temperature?
William @1 , you are making multiple failings in logic.
Bigly confused politicians tend to use a "word salad" ~ but William you are using a "logic salad".
Maybe somewhere you have some good points to make . . . but it's certainly not obvious! Please slow down a bit, and make your points one at a time ~ and use a carefully considered logical analysis. The "close your eyes and use a shotgun" approach is unconvincing and counterproductive, if you are seeking to persuade readers.
-
William24205 at 10:05 AM on 12 April 2024At a glance - Does CO2 always correlate with temperature?
Instead, the correct way to look at temperature trends is to examine them over multiple decades - 30 years is standard in climate science. So to answer the question, "where are we now?", one would look at the temperature record from 1992-2022.
30 years is a tiny sample size - there has been 4.5billion years of weather. The next 100, 1000, or even 10,000 of weather would not necessarily mean anything either way.
It could be 3c colder or warming and still be natural variation . We just don't have the records . We have guess for large periods of milliosn of years - but nothing on any specific period of less than 1000 .
There could have been multiple periods of 100 years whne the temp when up or down by 1.2c. It is statiscally likely there have been . because there have millions of 100 year periods.
Moderator Response:[BL] "We have guess [sic]" only applies if "we" means people that have ignored the huge amounts of evidence about past climates and what we understand about the climate processes that created that evidence.
I am pretty certain that you are correct in including yourself in that "we", but your "we" does not include climate scientists.
You can read more about what climate scientists know about past climates (and how this influences our expectations of future climates) by reading this SkS page. Or this one. Or this one. Or this one. Or this one.
-
William24205 at 09:53 AM on 12 April 2024A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change
scaddenp
Thanks again for you reasonable reply - you do at least seem to believe in reason and the real world . It is refreshing
Moderator Response:[BL] Why don't you actually try answering some of his questions?
-
William24205 at 09:51 AM on 12 April 2024A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change
"New Health Data Shows Unabated Climate Change Will Cause 3.4 Million Deaths Per Year by Century End."
It is a prediction for the far future.
That currently over 400,000 deaths are caused every year by climate change
An obscure article with no credible data or evidence. What are the extra 400,000 dying of? Deaths have gone down . it is a familar tactic of citing existing occurances and saying it is climate change - it would be plausable if there were increases in what was cited - but it is not credible when there are fewer .
Moderator Response:[BL] You are again repeating yourself - treating one statistic as if it is the only thing that matters, and treating predictions about the future as if they mean nothing at all.
Amongst other things, this is just getting boring. Please come up with a new argument, or stop wasting people's time.
-
nigelj at 05:19 AM on 12 April 2024Skeptical Science New Research for Week #15 2024
"Rebutting 33 False Claims About Solar, Wind and Electric Vehicles, Eisenson et. al., Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia University."
Very interesting, informative and useful resource. Thanks!
-
Grumnut at 20:39 PM on 11 April 2024Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!
I think it's bizarre, that Durkin has basically made the same movie again. This is "The Great Global Warming Swindle" made over with the same players. One of the oddest parts of BOTH films is the contention of the claim that warming comes first, followed by CO2 rise, 800 years later. They even use the graph (at least in TGGWS) from the paper from Caillon et al. The trouble is, that paper clearly states that CO2 rose first in the Northern Hemisphere followed by warming. Highly educated scientists, some with doctorates, can't read a simple scientific paper, it seems.
They wouldn't be trying to put one over on us, would they?
-
scaddenp at 06:32 AM on 10 April 2024A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change
"Would you not acknowledge that transitioning away from fossil fuels to a different energy form carries some risks in itself "
William, it isn't clear what you meaning by risk. Financial risk, increased mortality? or what? I would say that in any case, how you transition would be relevant - and that varies country to country, region to region. Suddenly dropping fossil fuels without replacing with other energy sources or better efficiency would indeed be damaging but I am not seeing advocates for that.
-
ubrew12 at 04:54 AM on 10 April 2024Climate Adam: Is Global Warming Speeding Up?
Tamino adjusts the raw data for 1) volcanic aerosols 2) El Nino/La Nina cycle, 3) solar variations. The adjusted graph is much clearer that the global warming signal is accelerating upward, as should be expected from the input signal (greenhouse gases). NASA GISS yearly averages, adjusted, shows the clearest signal:
I got this link from this website a few weeks ago. -
Eclectic at 04:38 AM on 10 April 2024Climate Adam: Is Global Warming Speeding Up?
Steveeeeej @1 : Also, google is your friend, independently.
Dr Adam is intelligent, well-informed, yet a tad histrionic..
I suppose that's better than being the opposite !
-
Bob Loblaw at 04:30 AM on 10 April 2024Climate Adam: Is Global Warming Speeding Up?
steveeeej:
If you are genuinely curious, you could try following the link behind "Dr. Adam Levy", near the end of the first line in the green box.
-
Steveeeej at 01:30 AM on 10 April 2024Climate Adam: Is Global Warming Speeding Up?
Adam,
Please tell me what your credentials are in order for me to understand who I'm listening to.
Steve Jesus
-
John Mason at 16:50 PM on 8 April 2024Gigafact and Skeptical Science collaborate to create fact briefs
Right on the money, Eclectic. 150 words is a tall order and every single one has to be considered. There's one in the pipeline on the topic of consensus where this area can be considered with more detail.
-
Eclectic at 11:19 AM on 8 April 2024Gigafact and Skeptical Science collaborate to create fact briefs
Joel @1 ,
like you, I strongly suspect that a new survey, of scientific papers published in the last 5 years, would show a 99+% figure "agreement". The original gold standard ( the Cook study of 2013 ) was in a large number of papers ~ with a median date approx 2005 [note: approx date only; I haven't summed it precisely]. So that's a median date 15-20 years ago. Almost ancient history !
But that would be on evidence in published papers ~ and it might be a point or two lower in casual conversation with climate-related scientists. Casual conversations or anonymous surveys of "opinion" , where other somewhat emotional factors come into play.
Emotions were very evident in a survey of (IIRC) metorologists in the USA last decade ~ where only 90% were in "agreement". Presumably the outlier 10% could not produce scientific evidence to support their position . . . but they could express a (casual) opinion that fitted with their rather extremist political affiliation. A tribal vote, of sorts.
None of all this could be pointed out in a 150-word bite.
-
Joel_Huberman at 08:16 AM on 8 April 2024Gigafact and Skeptical Science collaborate to create fact briefs
I suspect the % of climate scientists agreeing that global warming is real and human-caused is now, in 2024, much closer to 100% than when the 97% measurement was made.
-
BaerbelW at 00:07 AM on 8 April 2024The science isn't settled
Please note: the basic version of this rebuttal was updated on April 7, 2024 and now includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @ https://sks.to/at-a-glance
-
michael sweet at 16:10 PM on 7 April 2024A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change
William,
I am sorry, I don't usually comment on deaths caused by climate change
This article documents that currently over 400,000 deaths are caused every year by climate change. Your claim of 12,500 deaths is grossly incorrect. You have ignored the major causes of death caused by climate change. If you ignore enough data you can make any absurd argument that you want to.
The link to this headline was broken:
"New Health Data Shows Unabated Climate Change Will Cause 3.4 Million Deaths Per Year by Century End."
It appears that your death estimates are off by a factor of about 300. Because your argument is so far from reality the people who post here at Skeptical Science are not familiar with the data.
-
michael sweet at 07:39 AM on 7 April 2024A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change
William,
We generally feel it is a waste of time to listen to views that have no basis in facts.
I note that according to Wikipedia:
From June to August 2022, persistent heatwaves affected parts of Europe, causing evacuations and a confirmed death toll of 24,501.
and " More than 70,000 additional deaths occurred in Europe during the summer 2003."
You have neglected to count these deaths. These are only European deaths, third world deaths are not counted. You also do not count any deaths caused by starvation during droughts. I note that most of the aliens crossing the southern border of the USA are climate refugees. Are you willing to take in an additional 100,000,000 to 300,000,000 refugees when sea level really gets going?
-
William24205 at 22:37 PM on 6 April 2024A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change
Nigelj - thank you for your reasonable reply - that did accept the evidence .
So when I look at the big picture there is a strong case to stop greenhouse gas emissions and transition to a new zero carbon energy grid.
Would you not acknowledge that transitioning away from fossil fuels to a different energy form carries some risks in itself ?
-
William24205 at 22:29 PM on 6 April 2024A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change
This means by 2080 there will be around 12,500 heat-related deaths and 36,500 cold-related deaths.
Firstly it is relatively tiny either way .
2nd - They say without adaption - so in their own terms it will be even smaller.
-
William24205 at 22:24 PM on 6 April 2024A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change
Echo chambers help no one. People should be brave enough to hear opposing views .
Moderator Response:[BL] This is essentially a moderation complaint, which is expressly forbidden by the Comments Policy.
- All comments must be on topic. Comments are on topic if they draw attention to possible errors of fact or interpretation in the main article, of if they discuss the immediate implications of the facts discussed in the main article. However, general discussions of Global Warming not explicitly related to the details of the main article are always off topic. Moderation complaints are always off topic and will be deleted
Hearing "opposing views" is one thing. Hearing someone say the same thing over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over - is not at all constructive. Especially when that person will not look at all the opposing views that others are responding with, and simply keep going back to the same tired argument.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
Just Dean at 22:15 PM on 5 April 2024Renewable energy is too expensive
I have now posted a reply to the Energy Bad Boys, EBB , with references to my Notes at Substack that include graphics. Here is a copy of that reply.
--------------------
A thorough review of electricity prices for the 48 contiguous states suggests that there is no correlation between increased use of wind and solar and higher electricity prices. If anything, the opposite appears to be true.
Using data available at the EIA electricity data browser, a comparison of the increase in average electricity prices from 2002 to 2022 for the contiguous U.S. as a function of the percentage of renewable electricity generated suggests that more renewables lead to lower electricity prices, not higher.
A comparison of the retail price of electricity for 2022 for the 48 states as a function of percentage of renewable electricity also shows a similar trend, states with more renewables tend to have lower electricity prices.
------------------
-
Eclectic at 21:27 PM on 5 April 2024Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!
"Climate ~ The Movie" is still pinned at top of WUWT articles.
Number of comments there seems to have stopped at 433.
No new comments for about 48 hours = death zone, for WUWT.
( Denialists have been mighty quiet at SkS also, for a day or two )
Yeah , a slow news day !
-
r.pauli at 12:36 PM on 5 April 2024Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!
Well, I liked the music in the movie.
-
Bob Loblaw at 02:59 AM on 5 April 20242024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #13
Gavin Schmidt has also posted about this over at RealClimate.
In the concluding paragraph:
Remarkably, the Hansen et al projections are basically indistinguishable from what the mean of the TCR-screened CMIP6 models are projecting. Or, to put it another way, everybody is (or should be) expecting an acceleration of climate warming (in the absence of dramatic cuts in GHG emissions)
-
michael sweet at 02:53 AM on 5 April 20242024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #13
Dr Gavin Schmidt published an opinion piece in Nature today. He asserts that the heat in 2023 cannot be explained by known factors. It mentions aerosols, El Nino, the volcano and the items we have discussed. A newspsper article about Gavin's piece quoted Michael Mann as thinking that El Nino was the primary cause of the heat in 2023. Gavin thinks El Nino does not explain the data. I think the blog I linked above puts Dr Dressler in the natural variation group.
It is very interesting to see how this scientific question is discussed in the literature and in the press. Usually scientific issues are discussed primarily in peer reviewed papers. This issue is getting a lot of informal discussion since it is changing so fast. I cannot argue with the likes of Mann, Schmidt, Hausfather and Dressler. Hansen is probably saying I told you so. Chose your own favorite explaination, we will have to wait for more data. On the bad side, March set another huge heat record.
-
Bob Loblaw at 01:07 AM on 5 April 2024Welcome to Skeptical Science
cookclimate @ 118:
I have looked at the paper in the volume I linked to in comment 121. There are definite changes compared to an earlier version I found that said "submitted to Earth and Space Science", so I presume that you've had some sort of review and modified the paper since the earlier drafts.
It looks like you have identified the 1470-year cycle using your eyecrometer. I see nothing in the paper that actually does any sort of signal processing to identify cycles using any objective statistical technique. You are seeing a cycle because you want to see a cycle.
Your speculation includes arguments that include all sorts of stuff that has been debunked many times before. Pages are available on Skeptical Science that cover thee topics:
- Geothermal heat flux is included in this post.
- The "CO2 lags temperature" argument is discussed here.
- Most of your examples use regional, not global, temperature proxies. Regional temperatures are far more variable than global ones, and it is invalid to compare the two directly. This is discussed in this SkS post.
- You're convinced that an increase in volcanoes are adding to warming. That is the opposite of the argument commonly made by "skeptics" that increasing volcanic activity caused the Little Ice Age, so a subsequent decrease is causing warming (discussed here). In any event, just counting the number of volcanoes (your figure 3) is extremely simplistic. Arguing that more volcanoes implies more geothermal heat is a non-starter, as discussed in the post linked above.
- Your "computer models are unreliable" is an old, tired argument, scoring position 6 on the SkS Most Used Climate Myths. The rebuttal is here.
So, your paper is really nothing more than an "I see it" 1470-year cycle mixed with a rehash and Gish Gallop through a variety of common "skeptic" myths. I could probably find more, but it isn't worth the time.
I hope you didn't pay too much money to get it published.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:33 AM on 4 April 2024Welcome to Skeptical Science
Ahhh. Here is a link to the journal issue that contains the paper:
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:22 AM on 4 April 2024Welcome to Skeptical Science
Cookclimate @ 118:
Your paper link seems to be broken.
Google Scholar finds multiple links to papers by you with that title, but it's hard to tell if they are all the same paper. Most links seem to be pre-prints, not actual peer-reviewed publications. One of them states that it was submitted to Earth and Space Science in 2020. Another seems to indicate that it was published in late 2023, in Journal of Marine Science Research and Oceanography, which is a title published by Opast. That journal's web page seems to use a DOI: 10.33140/JMSRO prefix, but searching for "Eugene Cook" fails to find the paper.
Opast is listed on Beall's List as a predatory publisher. As such, it appears to have little or no proper review. Can you tell us anything about the efforts you have made to publish your work, and what any reviewers have told you (if there have been any)?
So, by all appearances, you have pointed us to a "paper" that has not been peer reviewed. Perhaps between 2020 and 2023 you had the paper rejected by other journals? And finally managed to "publish" it in a pay-to-play journal?
Anyway, your 1470-year cycle looks awfully close to previous efforts that have identified 1500-year cycles. Skeptical Science has a page that covers this:
https://skepticalscience.com/1500-year-natural-cycle.htm
I'd hate to waste time looking at a pre-print that may have been changed before publication, so if you can properly point us to the correct copy of the paper, that would help.
...and please post anything else on the correct page, linked above. And read that post, and give us some reason why you think that your magical 1470-year cycle is any different from the many other cycles that people have failed with.
Eclectic is most likely correct: your analysis probably has some serious errors.
-
Eclectic at 09:45 AM on 4 April 2024Welcome to Skeptical Science
Cookclimate @118 :-
You are wrong. When the arctic/Greenland ice-sheets melt, that raises the sea level near the equator, and consequently that slows the Earth's rotation. Basic physics. And you are wrong about so very much of the other stuff you posted.
Where do you get all that wrong info from?
-
cookclimate at 09:28 AM on 4 April 2024Welcome to Skeptical Science
CO2 does not cause Earth’s climate change.
It is estimated that it will cost $62 trillion to eliminate fossil fuels, but eliminating fossil fuels will be a complete waste of our tax and corporate dollars, because it will not stop the warming. You can’t stop Mother Nature.
The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) frequently shows that temperature correlates with CO2 for the last 1,000 years as proof that CO2 is causing the warming. But if you extend that to the last 800,000 years, the temperature and CO2 lines do not correlate or fit (Figure 14 in Supplemental Data). If the lines don’t fit, then you must acquit CO2. CO2 is not guilty of causing climate change. CO2 does not control Earth’s temperature. The IPCC has not demonstrated any scientific evidence that CO2 controls Earth’s temperature (they only have unproven theories).
The facts:
• Earth is currently warming (it is still below the normal peak temperature).
• CO2 is increasing (it is above the normal CO2 peak).
• Earth’s current warming is being caused by a 1,470-year astronomical cycle.The 1,470-year astronomical cycle warms the Earth for a couple of hundred years and melts ice sheets primarily in Greenland and the Arctic. It has repeated every 1,470-years for at least the last 50,000 years. It is normal that it would be happening again. It accelerates Earth’s rotation, stopping length of day increases (Figure 9). It warms the Earth. Based on historical data, the current warming should peak near the year 2060 and then it should start to cool.
For more information, see A 1,470-Year Astronomical Cycle and Its Effect on Earth’s Climate,
and Supplemental Data,
www.researchgate.net/publication/379431497_Supplemental_Data_for_A_1470-Year_Astronomical_Cycle_and_Its_Effect_on_Earth's_Climate#fullTextFileContent -
Eclectic at 08:59 AM on 4 April 2024Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!
Jimsteele @97 / 98 :-
John Mason is quite correct, in that the SkS website is open to all-comers. And so, unsurprisingly, as you gaze around the threads, you will occasionally see comments by climate crackpots who have delusional unscientific fixations and who are impervious to reason and scientific facts ~ whereas, at the WUWT website, those sorts of commenters come in droves. (Indeed, they are the 95% majority there.)
But at SkS , you need to comply with the very reasonable rules of posting ~ and you should provide rational fact-based discussion, not pseudo-science & repetitive ranting.
Jimsteele, you have some serious work to do, to reconcile your self-contradictory statements.
-
jimsteele24224 at 08:54 AM on 4 April 2024Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!
John Mason, I could easily refute your ridiculous post but when I do, only my posts are deleted and deemed off topic. I dont have the privilege posting here that you do
Moderator Response:[BL] One last try:
All you need to do is look at the table presented in this blog post, find the topic that you want to discuss, and follow the link to a place where that topic is the key subject. Then your deleted comments will be on topic.
As part of your comment, you can point back to the comment you are responding to. The date/time label at the top of each comment is a link you can use.
Final Warning
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.
-
John Mason at 08:16 AM on 4 April 2024Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!
Jim, which is it to be?
"But truth is I have never denied the greenhouse effect."
"Clearly commneting here on SkS is a privelege only given to those who support the CO2 warming narrative."If you have never denied the greenhouse effect, you must surely accept that enhancing its intensity warms the planet. Likewise you must surely accept that reducing its intensity cools the planet.
Both, I must add, based on very old, tried and tested first principles.
There are as we all know other factors that should be taken into account at all times. We are talking about one component, albeit highly significant, of the climate system here.
So I suggest you try and reconcile the two statements above, upon which I have quoted you.
