Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 Next
Comments 5201 to 5250:
-
Eclectic at 20:32 PM on 5 September 2021Skeptical Science New Research for Week #35, 2021
MA Rodger @3 :
Thank you for that info. I had seen comments years ago on SkS by Dan Pangburn, and comments by him in more recent years on several blogs. His scientific ideas show an overlap of crackpot & delusional aspects. An interesting psychopathology ~ but far from rare in the sphere of climate denialism.
Citizenschallenge ~ some googling quickly showed you having a minor clash with Pangburn nearly a decade ago. With your inquiry at #1 , was it based on the discovery of something valid in "Pangburn 2021" ?? Had you any reason to suppose that a Stuffed Leopard would change its spots . . . or lose its stuffing?
-
MA Rodger at 18:31 PM on 5 September 2021Skeptical Science New Research for Week #35, 2021
citizenschallenge @1,
You could also ask whether "anybody has seen or commented on":-
"Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and other trace greenhouse gases have little if any effect on climate."
"Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) has had no significant effect on average global temperature."
"CO2 has no significant effect on climate."
"Long term prediction of average global temperatures depends substantially on long term prediction of sunspot numbers"
"The conclusion from all this is that carbon dioxide change does NOT cause significant climate change."
The lack of interest in Pangburn's work is evident in the total absence of reference to it within the scientific literature. But perhaps you ask why this lack of interest? Or what is the nature of the nonsense being so persistently peddled by Pangburn?
-
Eclectic at 15:03 PM on 5 September 2021Skeptical Science New Research for Week #35, 2021
Citizenschallenge @1 : Dan Pangburn was a frequent commenter in the earlier years of SkS. His track record for valid science is distinctly poor.
I would be grateful to learn from you if Pangburn has come up with anything useful. The importance of water vapor as a strong positive feedback on CO2's greenhouse effect is something well known to climate scientists for about a century. So I would be interested to hear if Pangburn is making a valuable contribution to current knowledge. It would be a surprise if he were ~ but anything is possible! But from the little info you have given, it sounds very unlikely.
-
citizenschallenge at 13:59 PM on 5 September 2021Skeptical Science New Research for Week #35, 2021
I don't suppose anyone has seen or commented on Dan Pangburn 2021? —
'During the time period when water vapor (WV) and carbon dioxide (CO2) have been accurately measured worldwide, 1988-now, WV increase has been responsible for the human contribution to Global Warming/Climate Change with no significant net contribution from CO2."
If so, a link would be much appreciated.
Moderator Response:[RH] Embedded link.
-
coolmaster at 08:27 AM on 5 September 2021The new IPCC Report includes – get this, good news
I consider it extremely dangerous or even fatal for life on earth to rely solely on the future, hypothetical CO² emissions of mankind, which also depends primarily on the psychological readiness of capital-driven, ignorant fossil fuel junkies . The rise in temperature that has taken place to this day has put a lot of psychological, physical, biological and ecological (just to name the most important) evolutionary pressure and feedback into operation, which in their interaction and mutual reinforcement cannot be calculated or estimated by (climate) science at all. The 30 years to 2050 can be damn long if you have one leg in hell and the other on the fire hose.
-
MA Rodger at 03:50 AM on 5 September 2021It's albedo
coolmaster @71,
There is something like 500,000 cu km of annual global precipitation (and the preceding evaporation) which might suggest the addition of 1,335 cu km evaporation per year is small on a global scale but a big volume in terms of SLR.
But water doesn't stay so long in the atmosphere with the atmospheric water content just 13,000 cu km suggesting an average residency time of less than 10 days. Thus if the continual addition of 1,335 cu km evaporation per year into the atmosphere were achieved, it would pro rata result in the removal of some 34 cu km from the planet's surface/oceans, reducing sea level by 0.1mm, the equivalent of about ten-day's-worth of today's SLR. And that would be a one-off reduction requiring the evaporation of 1,335 cu km each and every year to maintain.
-
coolmaster at 01:54 AM on 5 September 2021It's albedo
@Bob Loblaw
"useful extension"
They are not only a useful extension of the understanding of climate - but also the basis for recognizing where and how humans intervene (or could intervene) in the climate.
Fighting the causes of an evil (GHG emissions) is important and right - but is it actually enough? - I would say - NO. After decades of meditation on Mauna Loa Observatory / Hawaii GHG concentrations are still rising steeply.So we urgently need a second, additional strategy that is potent enough to stop further global warming.
All possibilities that humans could have available are shown in the changing global radiation balances. There you not only find the disturbed carbon cycle, but also the energy flow of the global water cycle.
When looking at the actual problems (decreasing biodiversity, SLR, droughts, record temperatures, floods, ...) that humans and creation have to suffer with global warming, it is noticeable that they all mainly have to do with the presence or absence of water. The idea of influencing the climate via the water cycle is therefore only logical, more direct and, above all, much faster. (All firefighters in this world nod their heads understandingly)
Let me now briefly explain this alternative climate protection strategy, which does not care much about the causes (mainly CO² & other warming GHG), but should at least noticeably alleviate the above-mentioned effects and problems of climate change:
- 3.7mm SLR = 9mm over the land area = 1335km³ of water = 2.7% of the global runoff via the rivers.
- This volume can be retained by a wide variety of measures before it flows into the oceans and converted into evaporation.
- 9L / m² corresponds to ~ 1% of the average annual rainfall over land and should therefore create ~ 1% additional clouds over the land mass. Also a multiplication effect arises because there is a high probability that these clouds will in turn rain down again over a (different) area of land.
- The net effect of the clouds(CRE) is given by Prof. M. Wild (ETH Zurich) as -19W / m². + 1% additional cloud cover over land (-0.19W / m²) corresponds globally to -0.07W / m² and is therefore a lot more than the current annual increase in radiative forcing.
!!! The rise in sea level and the rise in earth temperature would thus (in theory) be stopped. !!!In the graphic below I tried to show the simulated additional amount of clouds and water(red numbers) in the radiation balance. I look forward to your criticism and assessment. - Thanks
Moderator Response:[RH] Adjusted image size. Please keep your images down to a width of 450px because otherwise it breaks the page formatting.
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:15 AM on 4 September 2021It's albedo
The discussion diagrams provided by coolmaster in the preceeding comment are a useful expansion of the traditional "Trenberth" diagram that shows global averages.
- Clear skies and overcast skies are quite different.
- Land and sea are quite different.
- Visible light and IR radiation are quite different.
Add geographical differences related to latitude, continentality, global circulation patterns, etc. and you see even more variation.
Complex? Yes.
Incomprehensible? No.
This complexity is what general circulation models of the earth-atmosphere system do. Divide the planet up into small areas, model all radaition and other forms of energy transfer, the water cycle, etc. and watch the atmosphere and oceans respond.
Summary diagrams are summary diagrams - not detailed models.
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:05 AM on 4 September 2021CO2 effect is saturated
Oh, and note my comment #601, where I point out the error in comparing adding insualtion to a house (kept at constant temperature, reduces required heat input) with the earth-atmosphere system (constant heat input, adding insualtion raises temperature).
The devil is in the details.
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:02 AM on 4 September 2021CO2 effect is saturated
Having significantly decreased my home heating costs by adding insulation to basement walls, I can attest to the verity of MA Rodger's diagram in comment #613. Yes, the roof area is usually the first place to add insulation in a poorly-insulated house, but walls are also important.
My house was constructed in 2004, when local building codes only required R-12 for the top four feet of basement walls. And that top four feet was usually only covered by crappy "insulation in a bag" with no other wall treatement. Pathetic insulation performace.
Current building codes have improved so that new construction requires R-20 for the entire basement wall. My renovations met the R-20 requirement and virtually eliminated air leakage. Our fuel costs dropped by about 15%. (Main and second-floor walls were already R-20.)
-
MA Rodger at 20:01 PM on 3 September 2021CO2 effect is saturated
Eclectic @612,
The analogy addressed by the OP is faulty but the criticism of it @611 is also faulty.
If you add insulation to your roof, the diagram below shows it will not alter 74% of the heat loss, so doubling roof insulation thickness would reduce total heat loss by about an eighth. The doubling of CO2 'thickness' would add about +3ºC to a +33ºC GH-effect, so reducing total heat loss by roughly an eleventh, a not-disimilar proportion.
-
Eclectic at 15:14 PM on 3 September 2021CO2 effect is saturated
Amory @611 : Yes, fair enough for conventional house insulation.
But Marc Morano [a paid propagandist] is giving a completely misleading analogy regarding the so-called GreenHouse Effect. The stacking of housing insulation sheets is vastly different from the GreenHouse Effect mechanism of gasses & lapse rate in the atmosphere. The fault lies in Marc Morano . . . and his "analogy" is not really worth pursuing.
-
Amory at 13:40 PM on 3 September 2021CO2 effect is saturated
The explanatory quote in the fallacy statement is itself fallacious: "It's like putting insulation in your attic. They give a recommended amount and after that you can stack the insulation up to the roof and it's going to have no impact." False. The recommended amount of roof insulation is a minimum or supposedly economically optimal amount, not a maximum. The more insulation you add, the less heat can flow through it: infinitely thick insulation transmits infinitesimal heat. To be sure, adding thicker insulation becomes less effective because there's less heat already stopped by prior insulation and therefore unavailable to escape. Thus if the first 10 cm of insulation (for illustration) halves your heat loss, then adding a second 10 cm of identical insulation will save half of the remaining half, raising your total saving to three-fourths, and so on. But the belief that the second 10 cm has no effect is pure physics illiteracy, casting further doubt on the [fallacious] CO2 saturation claim.
Interestingly, there's a second layer of fallacy here, which every standard engineering textbook I've seen commits. Even if attic-insulation standards were economically optimal when conventionally calculated—comparing their cost with the present value of the heating energy saved over the years—that calculation is actually misframed if your aim is to optimize the house as a system rather than the insulation as a component. My house, at 2200m elevation near Aspen CO where it used to dip as low as –44˚C, used roughly triple the normally "optimal" amount of insulation (plus airtightness, ventilation heat recovery, and "superwindows" insulating like 16–22 sheets of glass and facing mostly south)...in all, enough to eliminate the heating system. This cut construction cost more than enough to pay for the efficiency gains that eliminated the heating system, so our construction cost went down while we saved ~99% of space-heating energy. That's the start of a long and interesting story about integrative design, introduced in a half-hour talk at https://energy.stanford.edu/events/special-energy-seminar-amory-lovins-holmes-hummel or a foundational peer-reviewed paper at https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aad965. Integrative design can make the energy efficiency resource severalfold bigger, yet cheaper—an important climate solution. More in "Recalibrating Climate Prospects" at https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab55ab.
-
coolmaster at 10:43 AM on 3 September 2021It's albedo
Also in response to blaisct's comment #66 posted over on the Urban Heat Island discussion.
The albedo is relative ... and depends primarily on the wavelength of the light that hits the body. We should therefore always specify a wavelength range for Albedo. Otherwise, strictly speaking, the entire spectrum of the sun is decisive. This relativity to the albedo is particularly important for an element as widespread worldwide as H²O.
As water vapor, it absorbs (28W / m²) largely only in the long-wave range and lets most of the visible light pass through.
As liquid water on the surface, it absorbs long-wave and short-wave light very strongly, although as a cloud in the same aggregate state, finely distributed in the atmosphere, it again reflects a high proportion (-47W / m²) of the high-energy, short-wave radiation.
As solid ice or snow on the surface, it reflects short-wave radiation as well as clouds. On the other hand, in the long-wave range it behaves like a black body and a layer of ice over the open sea isolates the one below
warmer water and prevents it from emitting its heat radiation to the atmosphere and space which in turn relativizes the ice albedo effect.So @bleisct is not that wrong if he ascribes the Earth's albedo a major influence on global temperatures. The atmosphere (and every single component - including CO² molecules) also has an albedo if the solar spectrum is viewed holistically across all wavelength ranges and light refraction and transmission are taken into account as factors. Higher levels of GHG lower earth`s albedo by absorbing ~20% of radiation energy.
@MA Rodger is right when he remarks that the cloud albedo ingeniously has the strongest albedo and the global albedo(change) is of very minor importance over urban areas.
With a global mean surface albedo of 13.5% and net shortwave clear-sky flux of 287 Wm−2 at the TOA this results in a global mean clear-sky surface and atmospheric shortwave absorption of 214 and 73 Wm−2, respectively. From the newly-established diagrams of the global energy balance under clear-sky and all-sky conditions, we quantify the cloud radiative effects(CRE) not only at the TOA, but also within the atmosphere and at the surface.
When assessing the earth`s albedo, it`s also helpfull to have a look to the different radiation balances from land and sea and the fact that the cloud albedo is very closely interlinked with latent heat flux of evaporation in the radiation balance.
Do not confuse the strongly cooling CRE (-19W / m²) with the warming cloud radiative feedback CRF of ~ + 0.42Wm-2 ° C-1, which is a missing +RF in the above graphic by @Bob Loblaw as is also the radiative forcing of the ice Albedo effect.
.
Moderator Response:[RH] Reduced image size.
-
RedBaron at 05:41 AM on 2 September 2021Here’s what makes a new Amazon carbon study so unnerving
Sorry to say this, but wrong biome to provide for "the planet’s ever-growing carbon sink". Fire just being one reason. Notice this from the paper?
"The other three areas, where forests are less depleted, were found to be either carbon-neutral or serving as weak carbon sinks"
This carbon pool is not the sink that matters most. Even when healthy it is at best a weak sink - to neutral. Sure reducing that pool is troublesome and doesn't help mitigate AGW, but again, wrong biome. Even restoring that pool would have limited help long term.
The carbon sink that matters for AGW mitigation is the grasslands soil pool. This is mainly why I hate just using terms like "ecosystem restoration" and "ecosystem services" alone without context. Which ecosystems? Which services? Otherwise we get well meaning but quite naive "plant a tree" campaigns which have minimal mitigation potential.
-
sfkeppler at 01:09 AM on 2 September 2021Here’s what makes a new Amazon carbon study so unnerving
Yes, carbon studies all around the world are unnerving, because people are beginning to doubt if CO2 was really the reason for global warming or the result. Dowelling of the permafrost and wildfires and accelerated decomposition caused by elevated temperatures are the second most important carbon sources of the world, just behind rock weathering!
One reason for Global Warming, surprisingly, is not taken into account. It is the suppressed Global Water Cycle. That’s the reason for the importance of the Amazonian rainforests and the other rainforests in the world. They booster evapotranspiration. In the Amazon, this happens all along the way from the mangroves of the estuary, up to the high rainforests in the pre-Andean basin.
Especially the oldest Climax-trees in the Amazon, which sometimes act as carbon sources, show tremendous evapotranspiration of more than 1 m³/d. Liquid water which absorbs 550 Cal/ml and expands 3000x, by transforming to gaseous vapor lighter than air. This additional pressure causes a strong Amazonian convection which directs the humidity to the northern and southern hemispheres. In the south, the importance of the flying rivers from the Amazon is well known. More than ever, nowadays, when we have to endure the consequences of their fail. In the north the Amazonian high pressure forces the humidity of the Orinoco and Caribbean Sea to the southern US-coast. But the Amazonian humidity gets up higher, composing atmospheric rivers which flow to Europe and bring the snow to Greenland and Scandinavia. The very unknown importance of the upper layer height-dynamics, between troposphere and stratosphere, may play a decisive role on global cooling control by the Global Water Cycle.Moderator Response:[DB] Sloganeering snipped. If you're going to make extravagant claims, you need to first demonstrate that you have an understanding of the subject matter and to be able to cite the published scientific literature that supports your claims. This is not the first time you've done this at this site so this requirement is not a stranger to you.
You are welcome to resubmit this comment, provided you can meet those requirements and compose the comment accordingly. -
citizenschallenge at 04:13 AM on 1 September 2021Catastrophic Hurricane Ida hits Louisiana with 150 mph winds
Post Port Fourchon images
https://weather.com/photos/news/2021-08-30-hurricane-ida-aerial-photos
-
BaerbelW at 03:02 AM on 1 September 2021CO2 was higher in the past
Please note that we published new versions written by Howard Lee of both the basic and the intermediate rebuttal versions today (August 31/September 1 2021 depending on where you are). Comments above this one therefore refer to what are now the archived basic and archived intermediate rebuttal versions respectively.
Please check the new versions and the many references linked in them!
-
MA Rodger at 19:30 PM on 31 August 2021Why trying to prove yourself wrong is the key to being right
Chuck @2,
The OP is not addressing the impact of CO2 on climate but considering more generally how science continually tests its theories to ensure they are sound. So to answer your initial question, it is not true that this OP (or SkS) are "arguing against CO2 causing climate change."
As for your own theories, these appear very shaky. Yes NOAA do publish hourly data collected at MLO (& elsewhere) showing CO2, H2O (or at least Relative Humidity) and CH4. Yet you say these data can be assessed against "global temperature records" which "proves that global warming is real." Quite how you would achieve this 'proof' is far from explained and I would suggest far from achievable.
And I would caution you that the idea that temporal precedence alone is not as strong an argument as you appear to believe. Pedantically such precedence does not survive in a relativistic world and, more real-world, matching pertubations in two time series (for instance global temperature and MLO CO2) does not prove the earlier pertubation 'cause' the later pertubation. Indeed to demonstrate the difficulties,we actually do see ENSO causing such temperature & CO2 pertubations with differing time lags.
-
Eclectic at 14:59 PM on 31 August 2021Why trying to prove yourself wrong is the key to being right
Chuck @2 :
it would be helpful if you clarified your expressions.
Your [hypotheses] Theories #1, #2 and #3 are somewhat obscure in their meanings. For instance [in #2] this sentence : "It takes about a week for a flux in CO2 to fully [?] find [?] and be saturated [?] in longwave radiation." ~How does that have a meaning in basic physics?
It is a fruitless task to generate truly falsifiable ideas, without first properly understanding the fundamental physics involved in mainstream climate science.
Quite possibly this discussion belongs on 1 or 2 different threads.
-
Chuck21005 at 07:28 AM on 31 August 2021Why trying to prove yourself wrong is the key to being right
You seem to be arguing against CO2 causing climate change. Is that true?
The one way to falsify that CO2 causes climate change is to test precedence. In physics, even relativity theory, cause must come before the effect. So while you can't prove cause, you can falsify a theory if the cause does not precede the effect.
If you go to every climate center in the world (there are nine), you will find time stamped CO2 and global temperature records (T). These records are what proves that global warming is real. There is no higher authority.
Pair them up with CO2 records from NOAA Global (buoy) or Mauna Loa (tower).
Choose a lag in time that is appropriate to test each theory (there are three).
Theory #1. CO2 forces climate change. Because this occurs at near the speed of light, Mauna Loa has hourly data that is perfect for this test. You can clearly see the greenhouse effects of H2O and CH4. They are strong and measurable. The CO2 effect is strong at a lag of one hour, and then gets interesting after that. It takes about a week for a flux in CO2 to fully find and be saturated by longwave radiation.
Theory Two. The associate aerosol effect of CO2 neutralizes the CO2 greenhouse effect. Aerosol effects also occur at the speed of light, so once again, MLO hourly data is perfect to see what happens.
Theory Three. The affect of CO2 on life that cools counters CO2's greenhouse effect. This cause-effect occurs at the speed of biology (slow). So monthly data is perfect to see that cause-effect. The results will blow your mind. Once the "green" effect of CO2 grows enough (about 4 to 11 months), does it more than counter the "greenhouse" effect that is at full lasting strength after about a week? If it does, then CO2 forcing will not precede global warming and theory #1 can be disproved.
-
Chuck21005 at 07:07 AM on 31 August 2021It's the sun
I appreciate the argument on recent decrease in solar output. But that is the "Gravity doesn't exist" argument. A person tracks a falling ball. Initially, gravity theory and fall rates match. Then they no longer match. So lesser scientists conclude that it's not gravity making the ball fall. "See, if it was gravity, then the ball fall rate would continue to rise." There are good arguments, but that's not a worthy one.
Scientists have long ago learned to account for fluids. With gravity, it's friction provided by the fluid called air. In climate, it's the fluid called oceans.
If I turn the stove down, stove element temperature will decrease. But, if the pan still has a temperature lower than the stove element, pan temperature will continue to rise. Oceans are about 7C warmer than the atmosphere. As sun and ocean temperatures fall, they will continue to increase the temperature of the atmosphere. Oceans will always have a temperature higher than the atmosphere. But, the gap does narrow as oceans cool and the atmospheric temperature continues to rise.
Think of atmosphere as aluminum foil and think of the oceans as the cast iron pan that is absorbing (and storing) solar heat. This will get you closer to the truth about climate change.
-
jef12506 at 10:41 AM on 29 August 2021Why trying to prove yourself wrong is the key to being right
99% of people who "got sick" lived.
99.99% of the population did not get sick or got mild symptoms.
The vast majority of people who got sik and died were very old and sick and the next major group were all this and also obese.
Of the people under the age of 35, 99.999% did not get sick and die
Those who have died fit the demographic of those who are going to die every year, just more so.
All deaths are tragic....wait a minute....there not....WE ALL DIE!
This issue does not fit any of the parameters of a pandemic. Also they lie when they say that natural immunity is not as good as vax.
The genetic based injections are not vaccines by the historic definitions.
The injections neither prevent infection nor transmission whis were the two reasons sold to the public for why every man, woman, and child in the world must be injected.
All of this is age old, well established SCIENCE and needs to be understood.
Moderator Response:[RH] Off-topic.
-
nigelj at 19:27 PM on 28 August 2021Can Hydrogen Fuel Power the Planet?
This is not simply about energy efficiency. Its all about user friendliness and hydrogen fuel cell cars have a big problem: Nobody is likely to buy these hydrogen fuel cell cars without an extensive and easily accessible refueling network, because you cannot refuel these cars at home ( to my knowledge). And no company is likely to provide a decent refueling network in case the cars still dont attract buyers.
And so what we see are quite small and experimental refueling networks. Japan has 134 refueling stations. Germany has 90, The USA 46, China 39, about 20 other countries have typically around 6 refuleing stations. It doesn't seem like not a lot of refueling stations to inspire public confidence, given it's for entire countries, and uptake of hydrogen fuel cell cars has been slower than EV's, unsurprisingly. Obviously other factors contribute, but I know I would be nervous buying one if there weren't many refuling stations reasonably close by and between cities.
However hydrogen fuel cell trucks have a future, because they have good range, and the truck companies provide their own refueling facilities. Information on hydrogen fuel cell trucks already being trialled is described here.
-
gws at 05:19 AM on 28 August 2021IPCC reveals how we are changing the climate
High Ed: If you watched Taylor because you lean conservative and agree with many other things Heartland, I suggest you try his brother Jerry Taylor at the Niskanencenter with respect to climate science etc. instead.
-
gws at 05:13 AM on 28 August 2021Can Hydrogen Fuel Power the Planet?
Jan: H2 is not a big problem in the atmosphere, so leaks only matter as a factor of fuel/energy loss. Atmospheric H2 is mostly consumed in soils, and little to none makes its way into the stratosphere.
-
gws at 05:01 AM on 28 August 2021Can Hydrogen Fuel Power the Planet?
Jan, fuel cells are actually not that efficient. I suggets you digest this:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hydrogen-fuelcell-vehicle-great-idea-theory-paul-martin/
The battery EV is actually about three times as efficient compared to a hydrgen fuel car with fuel cell ...
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:46 AM on 28 August 2021Skeptical Science New Research for Week #34, 2021
plincoin24:
If you follow the links to the full report:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/#FullReport
...you will see that it says:
The Technical Summary (TS), the full Report Chapters, the Annexes and the Supplementary Materials are the Final Government Distribution versions, and remain subject to revisions following the SPM approval, corrigenda, copy-editing, and layout. Although these documents still carry the note from the Final Government Distribution “Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute” they may be freely published subject to the disclaimer above, as the report has now been approved and accepted.
-
plincoln24 at 00:13 AM on 28 August 2021Skeptical Science New Research for Week #34, 2021
I just tried to download the IPCC report from the top of this homepage. It would appear that the link leads to an incomplete version which is missing figures and with text on certain pages requesting the user not to distribute this version. I think it needs to be replaced with the version that was meant to be released to the public.
-
ubrew12 at 13:21 PM on 27 August 2021IPCC reveals how we are changing the climate
I'm sure Adam is well-qualified to produce his video's. But the world is the way it is, and anyone wearing blue nail-polish while he makes his appeals on video is just not going to be taken seriously, by half of the American public. The other side of this debate is tatted and bulked up, full of colorful language, and appeals to testosterone-laced dominance: probably because the fossil-fuel corporations know it sells.
Half of America will take 2 seconds to decide if this is someone they want to spend 10 minutes of their lives with. Its wrong, but in those 2 seconds, they are judging based on visual cues. I didn't make this world: I'm just reporting on how it is.
-
Jan van Dalfsen 1 at 01:54 AM on 27 August 2021Can Hydrogen Fuel Power the Planet?
The engineer Rosie Barnes said they could burn H2 which could be useful for aircraft, but what about its use in fuel cells where electricity is produced without burning Hydrogen. Fuel cells simply reverse the electrolysis that produced the green hydrogen. Fuel cells produce electicity without wasting energy producing heat as well as electricity. I agree with the video that the best thing is to produce electricity as close as possible to where it is to be used. However, for industries with a high electricity appetite green hydrogen can be efficiently and safely transported as NH3 which doesn't take up anyway near as much space as H2. That would be useful for providing energy to factories requiring a higher concentration of energy than they can produce in the limited space they have at the factory. My first worry is that H2 is so small a molecule it could easily leak little by little. Eventually what effect is all that extra H2 going to have in the upper atmosphere? My second worry is that the distinction between blue hydrogen and green hydrogen might get blurred in practice. Thirdly, some natural gas miners like Twiggy Forrest promise to implement a plan to eventually transition to using green hydrogen in their natural gas facilities. They say that the facilities they are building for the natural gas they have rights to now so that these facilities can later be transitioned to using green hydrogen. Even with his marine ecology doctorate, if Twiggy Forrest is mining lots of natural gas, when does he switch to using his facilities for green hydrogen instead of using the natural gas, especially if he still has an abundant supply of natural gas? Is the promise of transitioning to green hydrogen a type of green washing of natural gas mining?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:51 AM on 25 August 2021IPCC reveals how we are changing the climate
Ed Evans,
I agree with Eclectic.
And I would extend the comment to all the "Popular in the Moment" crowd who are "uninterested in fuller presentations of information" or won't bother to independently verify if a claim they had an instant instinctive liking for was a valid understanding of what is going on, what is harmful, and how to limit harm done based on increased awareness.
-
Eclectic at 00:38 AM on 25 August 2021IPCC reveals how we are changing the climate
Ed Evans @1 :
Don't waste your time dealing with James Taylor and his Heartland crew.
Taylor's climate science is distinctly of the Flat-Earth sort.
And Taylor's only economics interest is : being economical with the truth.
-
Ed Evans at 21:12 PM on 24 August 2021IPCC reveals how we are changing the climate
I need to get into the report. And I'd like for someone to come up with web pages linking to what the report actually says. Here's why:
I watched James Taylor from the Heartland Institute comment on "Biden Administration's Climate Change Agenda," Span. He plays a yin and yang call-in game with democrats and republicans, giving each an equal chance to determine our future prospects, at least regarding climate change. He makes alludes to the IPCC report. He needs to be fact-checked in real time. I did not know enough to do so.
Moderator Response:[BL] Link activated.
The web software here does not automatically create links. You can do this when posting a comment by selecting the "insert" tab, selecting the text you want to use for the link, and clicking on the icon that looks like a chain link. Add the URL in the dialog box. -
Ed Evans at 20:49 PM on 24 August 2021Volunteer opportunity turned into a big win for SkS and students!
I see that I need to spend more time here because I missed the blog post for help. I would have volunteered. So, here's my email biosafe@aol.com should you need help in the future. If the task is within my reach, I will happy to help. Eddie Evans
Moderator Response:[BL] Email address redacted. As much as we appreciate your desire to help, we don't want your email address harvested by spammers. Your best bet is to use the Contact link buried at the bottom of the web page.
https://skepticalscience.com/contact.php
-
gws at 11:49 AM on 24 August 2021The new IPCC Report includes – get this, good news
To make the point maybe a bit more succinct:
What the terresrial bisophere and the ocean take up each year is driven by atmospheric concentrations of CO2, not annual man-made CO2 emissions. While the latter change dramatically in the SSP1 scenarios, the former do not. Atmospheric CO2 levels drop only slowly as the new equilibria get established over different timescales.
-
gws at 11:02 AM on 24 August 2021Key takeaways from the new IPCC report
ilfark2, some of the answers you seek are in sections B4 and B5 of the SPM.
First of all, note that this is a complete hypothetical because we won't stop emitting tomorrow; even a reduction to "net zero" by 2050 (aka within 30 years) is a stretch.
That said, note that the assumption of a linear drop you made @10 is unrealistic. Due to feedbacks in the earth-atmosphere carbon cycle system the drop is exponential as illustrated by the graph under @9, quite slow, and not returning to pre-spike conditions in equilibrium (after some 10s of thousands of years). OTOH, the graph @9 illustrates a spike of 5000 Pg; the actual spike at this point is closer to 1000 Pg. The graph is meant to illustrate a general system behavior, not a real-world scenario.
As atmospheric CO2 concentrations fall slowly after the emissions cease, the climate effect would linger, and as the SPM highlights in section B5, that means several climate parameters (e.g. sea level, ice cover) would remain altered for "centruries to millenia".
-
gws at 10:07 AM on 24 August 2021Why the IPCC climate reports are so important
re around 1:40 min: "extremely likely" is actually defined by the IPCC as a 95-100% likelihood, not "95%" as CliamteAdam states.
-
gws at 09:34 AM on 24 August 2021Science and its Pretenders: Pseudoscience and Science Denial
Wonderfully well written, dense in content yet concise and easy to follow. I will make undoubtedly use of this in the future.
-
MA Rodger at 05:23 AM on 22 August 2021It's not bad
DPiepgrass @400,
The accounting of deaths due to hot/cold weather is not at all easy. While I have no idea as to the source of the OP statement "deaths attributable to heatwaves are expected to be approximately five times as great as winter deaths prevented," there is a source that puts the 'prevented' total across 49 large US cities at 100/y while projecting "that changes in extreme hot and extreme cold temperatures would result in 9,300 additional premature deaths per year by 2090." So that is approaching a whopping 100-to-1.
But, to repeat, the assessment of the level of death due to hot/cold weather is not a straightforward exercise. If you're curious as to why that would be, see this Jeff Masters web-page (which does mention the numbers yielding that 100-to-1 finding), an account that sets out some of the difficulties.
-
BaerbelW at 21:26 PM on 20 August 2021It's not bad
dpiepgrass & Eclectic
If you don't mind, could you please use the Google form linked above in the "Argument feedback" box to provide this feedback on the rebuttal? It's then easier for us to track instead of trying via the comment threads. Thanks!
-
Eclectic at 19:20 PM on 20 August 2021It's not bad
DPiepgrass : (to continue)
Allow me to add a little anecdote : On another forum (not nearly so calm, logical and scientific as this one) there is a certain frequent poster who very often states that hospital / coroner / & other studies show that currently cold is a far greater threat to humanity, because cold deaths greatly exceed heat deaths. And as he never fails to mention, his own name is in authorship on one of these studies.
Eventually I found this too tiresome, so I followed his citation(s) . . . and there was some truth to his claims (though limited to data from three small regions). And as I followed, his cited studies referenced other studies, and they in turn led to other studies ~ many of which came to the opposite conclusion i.e. that heat deaths are greater than cold deaths.
I threw my hands in the air, for there were many confounding factors of tropical/non-tropical ; urban/rural ; First World / Third World regions. Not to mention the validity of reportage and sampling.
So, DPiepgrass , we will have to fall back on some armchair speculation on these matters, rather than use scientific precision. Whatever the present-day circumstances, my "bet" would be that a hotter world will increasingly progress to kill more frail elderly living in poverty ( in the Global South, versus the Global North ).
Good luck finding a comfortable armchair plus a Socrates/Aristotle.
-
Eclectic at 18:55 PM on 20 August 2021It's not bad
DPiepgrass, (and with my apology for multi-paragraph reply) :
@400 , you ask: What is the source of this claim [which I paraphrase as: that in the future we can expect heatwaves to cause five times as many deaths than the warmer clime would reduce cold-caused deaths].
As you point out, the Basic / Intermediate / Advanced versions of the OP are considerably different. Not different in a contradictory way . . . but different. (Like very condensed versions of non-identical essays.)
In the Basic version, the quantified "five times" is carried along in a single sentence. It gives the impression - at first glance - that "heat deaths" would be five times the "cold deaths". But on closer reading , that is not the actual meaning written ~ as I hope my expansion [in square brackets, above] can convey with more precision.
Worse, the very following sentence tends to imply that a significant portion of these heatwave deaths include an insect-vector disease linkage. Though it does not actually convey that.
It is all too condensed, for it to be capable of a knowledge-full conveying of information. Quite possibly it would be correct ~ yet it is unsupported within the Article.
DPiepgrass , I do not think I can concisely answer the question behind your question. Are/will heat deaths be exceeding cold-caused deaths? Obviously the answer must stretch across a wide spectrum ~ of degrees of climate warming ; of frequencies / extents / and intensities of heat waves ; of regional localities. It would be a very difficult task to scientifically assess the outcomes even in hindsight , let alone in future projection. Speaking for myself, I would not like to touch the task even with a 12.2 meter barge pole.
-
DPiepgrass at 12:06 PM on 20 August 2021It's not bad
The Basic Edition of this rebuttal says "deaths attributable to heatwaves are expected to be approximately five times as great as winter deaths prevented" (and oddly, only the Basic version says this).
What is the source of this claim?
-
nigelj at 07:26 AM on 20 August 2021Is Western U.S. experiencing a ‘megadrought’?
I was curious what caused these megadrougts in the past, and found this: "Civilization-Collapsing Megadroughts of Medieval Times Could Be in Store for a Warming Earth".
-
ilfark2 at 02:39 AM on 20 August 2021The new IPCC Report includes – get this, good news
thanks very much
-
swampfoxh at 16:42 PM on 19 August 2021Is Western U.S. experiencing a ‘megadrought’?
William DeBuys...that pesky speller, sorry
-
swampfoxh at 16:25 PM on 19 August 2021Is Western U.S. experiencing a ‘megadrought’?
A shorcut to understanding Western drought cycles can be found in William DeButs book "A Great Aridness", Oxford U., 2011. I think he reminds us that those cycles have been repeating about every 1,000 years since the end of the last ice age. The last "bad one" was around 1050 CE
-
MA Rodger at 02:58 AM on 19 August 2021The new IPCC Report includes – get this, good news
ilfatk2 @4,
I assume you are asking how additional warming will be constrained to keep us under +1.5ºC if we are already at +1.1ºC. Thus what you describe being "as we go back down the CO2 curve over the next 80 years" concerns our reduction in CO2 emissions in coming decades.
The processes that will determine whether we will keep warming under +1.5ºC are detailed and complex but I am assuming you are happy with the idea that when we do at last reduce CO2 enissions to zero, the global temperature rise will effectively stop.
(If you are not entirely clear on the reason for this 'stopping', it is because the "earth system" is not actually absorbing half our emissions. It is absorbing annually a level of CO2 that happens to be equal to roughly half our annual emissions. In rough numbers, we emit into the atmosphere 10Gt(C) per year while the planet sucks 5Gt(C) out of the atmosphere in the year. Very little of this 5Gt(C) 'in the year' is due to our emissions 'in the year'. If we didn't emit any CO2 next year our rough absorption number would only drop by something like 0.3Gt(C) because what is being absorbed is the accumulation of our CO2 emissions thrugh the years.)
So if AGW effectively stops when we achieve zero emissions and 2050, in three decades time, is often given as a lacklustre target date consider the rate of AGW is today running at something like +0.25ºC per decade. So at that rate we would see +0.75ºC additional warming by 2050.
But we hopefully will not be mad enough to run up to 2050 without large cuts running through those three decades 2021-50. So that +0.25ºC/ per decade will drop with successive decades, perhaps halving that post-2021 warming, say +0.20ºC+0.15ºC+0.5ºC=+0.40ºC, and allowing AGW to be restricted to +1.5ºC.
I hope that makes sense of the basics of the situation.
It will require deep cuts and even then note the negative emissions factored-in post-2050 to achieve +1.5ºC.
Sadly I am not entirely convinced that politicians (& I speak here for UK which is where I am) are truly understanding of the deep deep do-do we are facing and why deep deep cuts in emissions are essential and essential quickly. Instead the process seems to be drowning in greenwash.
I note your comment on tipping points and the link to the Lenton biog. My understanding is that the likes of Lenton are calling for the +1.5ºC limit to be taken seriously (as per Lenton et al (2020) 'Climate tipping points — too risky to bet against'). I am not aware of stronger scientific messaging although I would say that +1.5ºC is not without risks and is a level of warming that should be avoided rather than be seen as some target.
-
citizenschallenge at 02:08 AM on 19 August 2021Science and its Pretenders: Pseudoscience and Science Denial
Another excellent summary by Melanie Trecek-King.
All I might add is,
Unidirectional Skepticism, Equals Denial.
Prev 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 Next
