Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 Next
Comments 5651 to 5700:
-
Evan at 00:35 AM on 31 May 2021Talking about climate change: Necessary, yet so uncomfortable
prove we are smart @4 You ask good, probing questions and I don't want to pretend to offer simple answers. A researcher who has influenced me a lot is Prof. Kevin Anderson in the UK. I highly recommend watching some of his video lectures, because I think he is one of the few people giving an honest assessment of the problem and what solutions need to look like. For one, we won't build a bunch of wind and solar farms and solve the problem. It is deeper than that, and Prof. Anderson does a great job of dealing with this difficult subject. He is more of an engineer than a scientist, and I think he comes at the problem with the common-sense approach of engineers. To find his talks, try the following Google search:
youtube Kevin Anderson climate
He gives a lot of talks with different titles and similar content. One that I think is particularly informative is the following.
-
Jim Hunt at 23:39 PM on 30 May 2021Talking about climate change: Necessary, yet so uncomfortable
Thanks Timo,
"This observation raises the question why people get so emotional about the topic...Often you find yourself shouted down or repeatedly interrupted in the middle of a sentence, because the topic makes people boil. You will hear falsehoods, misconceptions, and lies that are circulated by politics, media, and lobbies."
Been there, done that. And while doing that I discovered in a public house in Exeter several years ago that political neuroscientists have a theory:
https://youtu.be/M2nZy6JoI1w
Accurate political predictions can be achieved through modelling brain function. This produces a new view of human nature, with biology subservient to the demands of human politics and its shifting coalitions, making our brains hardwired not to be hardwired.
See also: http://GreatWhiteCon.info/polneuro -
prove we are smart at 22:22 PM on 30 May 2021Talking about climate change: Necessary, yet so uncomfortable
About the only time I feel positive about people understanding the dire straits we are facing (even before the terrible tipping points soon to come)-is reading here on this blogsite the consensus of fixes and ways forward to address this building doom. Alas, upon resuming my regular day to day life ( I'm a farmer) it seems our systems are all failing us, not just GW and since unbiased common sense isn't coming from our leaders... will it come at all.
-
John Mason at 20:45 PM on 30 May 2021Talking about climate change: Necessary, yet so uncomfortable
Great post. I can share those identifications - been there, done that, on many occasions.
These obstacles were what got me into writing books like The Making of Ynyslas - to see if coming at climate change from a less conventional angle might bear fruit. Fitting a narrative of change to a place created by that change makes it hard to argue against the fact that the change has occurred. -
Bob Loblaw at 11:33 AM on 30 May 2021SkS Analogy 22 - Energy SeaSaw: Part II
Of course, the other key point of the analogy is to show that temporary downturns in the temperature record do not mean that the basic long-term upward trend is no longer there.
Just as Evan has created a fitted curve by adding a linear trend and a sine wave together, you can think of the observed temperature observations in the opposite direction. The observations are a complex curve, and you can subtract a sine wave from it reveal a much straighter line that makes the trend easier to see.
This "start with the full signal, subtract known oscillations" is the technique used in the paper by Foster and Rahmstorf (2011), which was blogged about over at Tamino's. They did not use just a simple sine curve - they used statistical methods to remove short term variations due to El Nino and volcanic activity, leaving a clear warming signal in the underlying trend. More sophisticated - with stronger physical reality - than just a sine curve, but the same "add the parts up, subtract them out" principle is at work.
Figures from Tamino's blog post:
To beat Fourier's drum just a little bit more, it's the same Fourier that created Fourier's Law of heat conduction. Quite a talented fellow.
-
Evan at 07:42 AM on 30 May 2021SkS Analogy 22 - Energy SeaSaw: Part II
Thanks for the comments Bob and for the explanation of Fourier series and how fitting can be used to ignore physics. For those not familiar with Fourier series, this is the same Fourier who, in the 1820's started the field of climate science. Fourier was not only well known for his mathematical developments, but he was also well known for his advancement of the science of radiation heat transfer, which led to his discovery of the greenhouse effect.
Bob's comments are right on the money in explaining how complex functions can be used to hide/ignore the physics. Because these analogies are designed to teach climate science to a wide audience, one of the challenges in communicating is to demonstrate how simple, easily grasped concepts explain much of what we observe. There are certainly climate scientists who have done a much better job of matching the observed warming trend with complex models that include more physics, but the point here, of course, was to show how observed trends can qualitatively be explained by the combination of a simple perturbation superimposed on a general trend.
-
Bob Loblaw at 05:59 AM on 30 May 2021SkS Analogy 22 - Energy SeaSaw: Part II
Good post, Evan.
The idea that a complex variation (in this case, temperature versus time) is the sum of components of predictable simple variations is fundamental to science and statistical analysis. A very useful technique.
In this case, you have used a linear trend versus time, summed with a sinusoidal variation over time, and it is clear from figure 3 that this simple variation of two types can closely match observations.
There are still squiggles left, and these could be "matched" by adding more cycles. You don't want to go to far without some physical reasons to expect cycles at different intervals, though.
Although it is purely curve-fitting, you can do a sine that repeats once in the time period, then add a sine that repeats twice in the time period, then a sine that repeats three times, then four, then five, etc. Keep adding cycles, and you can match a very complex set of observations.
Sound odd? No, it's called a Fourier series, and by comparing the amplitude of all those cycles you can use it to identify the important frequencies/periods of repeating patterns in your data.
Overuse it, and you can always say "it's cycles". Read How Curve-fitting can ignore physics. A common thread in the Anything But CO2 crowd is to fit cycles and claim you don't need CO2 to explain recent global temperature trends. (Spoiler alert: they are wrong.)
Where else do we see this? Ptolemy's geocentric model of planetary motion used cycles this way. But it wasn't based in physics, just math. A better model - simpler, and more in tune with our knowledge of the physics - is the Heliocentric model.
Cyckes are a very useful tool for exploring data, and helping us see what is there. Physics is an even more useful tool for explaining data, helping us understand why it is there. A good scientist uses it all.
-
Evan at 22:02 PM on 29 May 2021Talking about climate change: Necessary, yet so uncomfortable
Nice article Timo.
My personal opinion is that very few people will change their ways just by reading this or any other article on SkS or other high-quality news sources. However, reading these articles gets people equipped with the information they need so that when they encounter the types of painful transitions in their lives that do motivate change, that they are then equipped to change in the correct direction.
Talking about climate change is essential to prepare people for change, even if the change itself is delayed.
-
nigelj at 10:02 AM on 29 May 2021Talking about climate change: Necessary, yet so uncomfortable
Well said. I think a significant part of the scepticism and emotion about the climate issue is just some peoples natural fear and dislike of change, whether its new science, or economic or social changes. Especially if they are making good money from business as usual. The climate issue is pretty big and complex so that amplifies the fear. Unfortunately its spilled over into political tribalism. Changing all this is hard work, but we just have to keep trying. It might help to show them the wider benefits of climate mitigation policies.
And sooner or later fossil fuels will run out so we can't put off change forever even without the climate issue. Now might be as good a time as any.
And human beings are slow to do much about climate mitigation because we are mentally constructed to respond most strongly to immediate threats, not more distant threats like climate change. This is basic psychology. The work around might be to show people the fact that things like renewable energy and electric cars etc have some immediate and wide benefits.
If people are convinced something else is causing climate change like the sun or cosmic rays or geothermal activity they will remain being sceptics, so you must prioritise rebutting those arguments. You can rebut everything else, and miss this issue, you won't achieve anything.
-
Evan at 07:14 AM on 29 May 2021SkS Analogy 22 - Energy SeaSaw: Part II
Wow! The power of collaboration. :-)
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:11 AM on 29 May 2021SkS Analogy 22 - Energy SeaSaw: Part II
Evan. The revised wording is better than my suggestion.
-
Evan at 04:21 AM on 29 May 2021SkS Analogy 22 - Energy SeaSaw: Part II
OPOF, thanks for your suggestion. I modified the text according to your suggestion, not word for word what you suggested, but in that spirit.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:49 AM on 29 May 2021SkS Analogy 22 - Energy SeaSaw: Part II
Evan and jg,
Excellent brief and clear supplement to the See-Saw Part 1.
My only recommendation is a minor one. Try to improve the wording of the explanation of the production of Figure 2. My suggestion is:
"If we super-impose, or add together, the teeter-totter and elevator motions the combined result will vary up and down from the elevator line as the elevator continues to go up over time producing the motion shown in Fig. 2."
I am not brilliant regarding commas so my suggestion with few commas may not be the best presentation.
-
Jim Hunt at 18:41 PM on 28 May 2021Dr. Ben Santer: Climate Denialism Has No Place at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.S. I just glanced at a calendar!
r/his upcoming/yesterday's/! -
Jim Hunt at 18:35 PM on 28 May 2021Dr. Ben Santer: Climate Denialism Has No Place at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Eclectic @20:
It seems Boslough has a historical "soft spot" for Koonin:
"I’ve known the author of 'Unsettled' since I took his quantum mechanics course as a Ph.D. student at Caltech in the 1970s. He’s smart and I like him, so I’m inclined to give his book a chance.But smart scientists aren’t always right, and nice guys are still prone to biases – especially if they listen to the wrong people."
I agree that there's "no excuse", and Koonin's "motivations" are unknowable. Getting back to his "actions", and in particular his upcoming "seminar" at LLNL.
What do you suppose Ben Santer asked the powers that be at LLNL for in the way of "ample opportunity for actual climate scientists to set the record straight", and why was his request (presumably) refused? -
Eclectic at 09:33 AM on 28 May 2021Dr. Ben Santer: Climate Denialism Has No Place at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Nigelj , I am in much agreement with you. MA Rodger earlier pointed out the long back-story of Koonin's employment in the oil industry.
People can change . . . but sometimes they don't . . . and it is easy to see the possibility that Koonin's previous sphere of employment would give him a bias towards retrospective justification of his earlier activities.
There is no need to posit any recent financial influencing of Koonin. The past connection may well be enough, psychologically, to have him self-censor his intellect.
Nigelj, I am sure you can think of many cases where prominent individuals have been "turned" by means of big amounts of money. But psychologists' experiments show that one can often achieve large influence through surprisingly small payments. It seems the smallness of the reward causes the recipients to over-compensate by becoming even stronger in their advocacy role. Example: the very small stipend that was paid by Peabody to Lindzen.
But we needn't get too bogged down in all these sorts of analyses. The real problem is the actions of the deniers, rather than their motivations (which are difficult to change).
-
nigelj at 08:01 AM on 28 May 2021Dr. Ben Santer: Climate Denialism Has No Place at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Eclectic @20, Koonins motivations are a bit of a mystery to me as well. However he was chief science officer at BP (an oil company). Although he was hired to develop a renewables programme he was paid by the oil company and very much part of it. Seems possible his basic allegiances might be to the oil industry and its goals.
I couldn't find anything on his political views or world views or psychological state of mind (the later which you wouldn't expect to find). But like you say hes an intelligent guy yet he goes on promoting things that are just obviously nonsense. He must know at least some of these things are nonsense. So hes not your typical sceptic with a few lingering doubts. Those people come around eventually. He a hard core denialist and theres something going on in his head driving this. Trouble is it could be many things.
-
Eclectic at 06:51 AM on 28 May 2021Dr. Ben Santer: Climate Denialism Has No Place at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Yes, thank you Jim Hunt @19 .
Author Boslough's phrase: "Koonin's trust of those [poor] advisers and lack of rigorous independent verification" can be seen as a sort of semi-apology for Koonin.
But that doesn't really wash ~ for there is even less excuse for a very intelligent guy like Koonin to fall into the usual Denialist incompetence of intellect (in matters of climate).
Figuratively speaking, something is rotten in the state of Denmark ~ and presumably that something is a powerful lot of motivated reasoning going on in the mind of Koonin. And for me, it is quite unclear what is the underlying emotion driving Koonin. Whatever it is, it only partly overlaps with the emotional driving force to be found in the usual average denier. (But the end result is the same.)
-
John Hartz at 05:01 AM on 28 May 2021It's El Niño
Recommended supplemental reading:
As the 2020–21 La Niña has come to an end, leaving us with neutral conditions in the tropical Pacific, we now wonder if we have seen the last of La Niña for a while or if we will see another dip into La Niña conditions by next fall. In the world of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), double-dipping is not a party foul—it’s actually quite common for La Niña to occur in consecutive winters (not El Niño, though). If you’re wondering why, then this is the blog post for you!
Double-dipping: Why does La Niña often occur in consecutive winters? by Nat Johnson, ENSO Blog, NOAA's Climate.gov, May 27, 2021
-
michael sweet at 23:44 PM on 27 May 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #21
Yesterday (May 25) two new board members were elected to the board of Exxon. These new board members have climate concerns!!!! Who would have thought 5 years ago that climate activists would be on the ExxonMobil board!
Hopefully industry will start to work on climate solutions instead of denial. There is hope for the future.
-
Jim Hunt at 21:04 PM on 27 May 2021Dr. Ben Santer: Climate Denialism Has No Place at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Eclectic @17:
I selected a different quotation from Mark Boslough as my favourite in a recent review article:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2021/05/unsettling-koonin-critiques-continue/
Most of the technical mistakes and misrepresentations in “Unsettled” may simply be attributable to Koonin’s trust of those advisors and lack of rigorous independent verification.
"Those advisors" being John Christy, Judith Curry, and Richard Lindzen.
Plus an informative infographic from his suggested source:
: -
ubrew12 at 16:14 PM on 27 May 2021Dr. Ben Santer: Climate Denialism Has No Place at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
If you jump off a 10-story building, for 9 stories you can claim gravity is 'unsettled': where is the evidence for this invisible force? The problem, for climate science is it takes decades for the planet to respond to our climate forcer, during which the Koonin's can harvest their doubt. It may be useful to confront them with doubts of our own: what if they are wrong? An errant wind turbine can be disassembled, an errant excess of carbon dioxide... absent the much-hyped technologies of Science Fiction, something we could be paying for over many hundreds of years.
-
Eclectic at 09:15 AM on 27 May 2021Dr. Ben Santer: Climate Denialism Has No Place at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
John Hartz @16 :
Thank you for the recommendation of the Mark Boslough article at Yale Climate Connections. It is a fairly short article, and well worth reading.
On the peripheral (and strawman) meme "The science is settled" ~ Boslough says the President Clinton quote was actually: "The science is clear and compelling: We humans are changing the global climate."
Also noteworthy is Boslough's final paragraph :-
'If a pilot isn't sure about having enough fuel to get you to your destination, if an astronomer isn't sure that an incoming asteroid will miss the Earth, if your doctor isn't sure if you have a terminal disease, if you are not sure you turned the stove off: In each of these cases, the uncertainty is unsettling. Why does Koonin think that unsettled questions in climate science are any kind of comfort when the consequences of doing nothing can be catastrophic? "Unsettled" should leave serious scientists feeling unsettled.'
-
John Hartz at 05:09 AM on 27 May 2021Dr. Ben Santer: Climate Denialism Has No Place at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Also See:
A critical review of Steven Koonin’s ‘Unsettled’
‘Tilting at strawmen.’ Or ‘red flag.’ There are no finer shorthand descriptions of a controversial new book on climate science.
by Mark Boslough, Yale Cilimate Connections, May 25, 2021
-
Stephen Leahy at 01:36 AM on 27 May 2021Dr. Ben Santer: Climate Denialism Has No Place at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Interviewed Koonin in 2009 - kind of trollish in person as I recall.
Here's what he said:
"The magnitude of this problem is not widely appreciated (in the US)," says Steven Koonin, Undersecretary for Science at the US Department of Energy.
"Once carbon dioxide is up in the atmosphere, it is effectively up there forever," Koonin, a physicist and former chief scientist for BP Oil told IPS in Columbus. US per capita emissions are 20 tonnes of carbon per year while the global average is 4 tonnes but in order to stabilize the climate that average must reach 2 tonnes he said.
"Energy touches everything" he says and that makes change both complicated and difficult. Energy systems are integrated, low-carbon fuels would have to work in all vehicles for example. And, in the US where much of the energy system works well, there is little incentive to make changes.
https://www.ipsnews.net/2009/09/climate-change-time-running-out-on-vows-to-act-scientists-warn/
Looking back, Joe Romm had some good comments at the end.
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. -
Jim Hunt at 00:39 AM on 27 May 2021Dr. Ben Santer: Climate Denialism Has No Place at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Al @4 et al.
I am of course biased, but I like to think that Prof. Koonin "gets a bit of a kicking" here too:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/tag/steve-koonin/
Here's an extract from episode 6 of my ongoing review of "Unsettled":
Steven then rather ungraciously chose to ignore my follow up question:"Regarding 'the topic somewhat distant from ordinary folks’ perception', that is largely my point. Is Arctic sea ice decline really any more distant to the average (wo)man in the street than sea level rise?"
Etc. etc. For 8 days and counting…
Since Steve is evidently unable and/or unwilling to respond to my enquiry perhaps somebody else might be willing to do so?Meanwhile here’s news of a brand new paper documenting the evidently inexorable decline of the sea ice cover across the Arctic Ocean:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2021/05/month-in-review-arctic-science-edition/#Ricker
-
MA Rodger at 21:38 PM on 26 May 2021Dr. Ben Santer: Climate Denialism Has No Place at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Hameiri @12,
The enquiring mind should indeed be tinged with a level of skepticism, but only when that skepticism is matched by the ability to understand the subject. And using such a view of the use of skepticism as an excuse to spout nonsense is entirely wrong, or am I being too skeptical for you by saying that?
As for the twit Koonin who makes such a poor fist of criticsing AGW sceince, we will see tomorrow (27th May) whether he has at last found something worth saying or whether he is simply spouting the same old nonsense he has already presented.
-
Hameiri at 20:44 PM on 26 May 2021Dr. Ben Santer: Climate Denialism Has No Place at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Censorship has no place at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Science is skepticism.
-
nigelj at 17:05 PM on 26 May 2021Dr. Ben Santer: Climate Denialism Has No Place at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Free speech is obviously really important, but the first amendement on free speech does not say a private organisation has to give people a platform for their views. Its does not say a private organisation has to give equal voice to denialists and warmists. It does not say be a naieve, self defeating fool. Its only about governments not censoring free speech. This seems to get forgotten.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:28 PM on 26 May 2021Dr. Ben Santer: Climate Denialism Has No Place at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
I admire Ben Santer for being uncompromising when it comes to the pursuit of increased awareness and improved understanding of what is really going on, especially the application of that improving knowledge to help limit harm done.
It is tragic when a helpful uncompromising person like Ben Santer needs to end their association with an institution because that institution appears to be harmfully compromised.
More tragically, far worse than Koonin presenting in LLNL has happened far more often in the US Senate and House of Representatives. There have been many more absurd presentations in those institutions regarding climate science. In addition to the silly snowball by Inhofe, I remember reading a transcript of M. Crichton's presentation. Part of Crichton's presentation was that any science with a range of results that varied by 400% should not be taken seriously. He was a little unclear but appeared to be referring to the range of warming of 1.5C to 6.0C for a doubling of CO2. Being clearer about what he was talking about, that the low end value of 1.5C was a concern and that the 6.0C would be a catastrophe, would have exposed the absurdity of the claim made regarding the 400% variation of results.
And even more tragic is the way that giving absurd or misleading claims and beliefs the appearance of legitimacy because of Free Speech can cause people to compromise better understanding of what is going on and how to limit harm done. Centrists, moderates and pragmatists need to learn to be less compromising when it comes to understanding how to limit harm done. They need to be uncompromisingly willing to be unpopular and even support unprofitable actions that will limit harm done.
As a professional engineer I had to be unpopular and take positions that were unprofitable on many occasions, thankfully supported every time by the institution (the consultancy business) I worked for, even when my determinations about what was required or acceptable (to limit the potential for harm) seriously disappointed a client.
-
Evan at 08:55 AM on 26 May 2021Dr. Ben Santer: Climate Denialism Has No Place at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
To the moderator.
My apologies for violating the commenting policies. That was not my intent, but I see your point.
From what I see (this is only my opinion), it appears that people less credible than Koonin are successful at galvanizing movements. I don't offer references for this observation, but trust that people reading this know what I mean. It therefore stands to reason that people with credentials, like Koonin, will not be easily countered. But we need to keep trying, and to counter him, for the sake of the people who are seeking the truth, and who will be influenced by our efforts to present the results of credible, peer-reviewed research.
-
nigelj at 07:27 AM on 26 May 2021Dr. Ben Santer: Climate Denialism Has No Place at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
"I don't think there is any reason to think that Koonin wasn't always an oilman at heart and never properly signed up to AGW mitigation."
Theres probably something in that. But there are probably other factors as well. Some people are also very stubborn by nature. They will never admit they are wrong so they just continue on with the same views and take them to their grave. This can be caused by personality disorders like Narcissm (NPD), and even just getting older leads to less flexibility of thinking. I'm not saying Koonin fits this category because I have no idea, but it does happen. Climate denialism has a lot to do with allegiances to the oil industry and libertarian ideology, but this gets overlaid with a lot of psychological issues.
-
MA Rodger at 00:01 AM on 26 May 2021Dr. Ben Santer: Climate Denialism Has No Place at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Eclectic @5,
I don't think there is any reason to think that Koonin wasn't always an oilman at heart and never properly signed up to AGW mitigation. And the declaration of 'Climate Emergency' is what has pushed him into his book-writing.
As late as 2012 (this LINK downloads a Powerpoint presentation from 2012) we see him saying the requirement is to stay below 550ppm and that this will require emission rates dropping to 50%. "We need to reduce emissions by a factor of two from current levels to remain stable at the 550 ppm level, and this in the face of doubling the demand of energy by the middle of the century, so we need to cut the common intensity of our energy system by a factor of four." That is over 15 years behind the science!! And he also sees a very oily future.
Back a few years and Koonin is in THIS APS Q&A (with his future boss in the Obama Admin, Steve Chu, who is saying "You’ve got to do something now"). The message from Koonin is ambiguous and if you ignore his advocating CCS, is ambiguous to the point of being a non-message.
-
Evan at 22:41 PM on 25 May 2021Dr. Ben Santer: Climate Denialism Has No Place at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Trump is demonstrably incompetent in most areas where he claims competence, uses paper-thin lies, and has no defensible basis for questioning the recent election, yet he is galvanizing a dangerous movement.
Koonin has academic credentials, is a member of the US National Academy of Sciences, and he is being championed by credible sources (WSJ, LLNL). Whether we like it or not, he will continue to galvanize the contrarians.
But we need to continue to fight such disinformation for the sake of those whose minds are still open, even a crack, to receiving input from more diciplined, consensus-based scientific sources.
Moderator Response:[PS] That is crossing the line on the comments policy.
-
Eclectic at 22:40 PM on 25 May 2021Dr. Ben Santer: Climate Denialism Has No Place at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
MA Rodger @4 :
Yes, it is very strange mental activity by Koonin. His 2013 (2014?) activities at the APS "review" showed the same strange anti-mainstream attitude. His attitude then was a sustained aggressive carping attack which went (IMO) well beyond what a reasonable scientist would do. It was more than skeptical, more than Red Team. (Red Team attacks on conventional science have occurred - and very properly so - over many years in the scientific literature within reputable journals . . . and that has always been a desirable & necessary part of all fields of science. So there is no need for the Amateur Hour theatrics & special Red Team debating showmanship . . . which Koonin seems to be advocating.)
So I am puzzled by Koonin's inner motivation. If it were from one of the more common late onset dementias, then it would have shown itself more prominently by now [2021 versus similar signs in 2014. Could it be that rather more subtle condition (semi-humorously called Emeritus Syndrome) ~ a condition which is far from rare, but which is poorly understood? Or a subtle diminution of Pre-Frontal brain activity, allowing pre-existing political ideological bias to dominate his previously fine intellect? Or perhaps it is simply the case of a previously prominent man, who is now suffering from LDS [Limelight Deprivation Syndrome].
But there is not much point in trying to diagnose/analyse his situation. We just have to deal with the consequences.
-
MA Rodger at 21:49 PM on 25 May 2021Dr. Ben Santer: Climate Denialism Has No Place at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Eclectic @3,
The promotion of Koonin to premier-league climate-change dnier does give the opportunity to demolish another of these folk. He certainly gets a bit of a kicking here and here.
So what is his message?
This New York Post OP from Koonin appears to be saying that, while the science is sound, the problem is with the interpretation of the science. Yet while the exemplars he gives are probably flat wrong, they are not central to the AGW science so quite irrelevant in the full analysis. The only other thing he presents in this OP about his grand message is:-
"Humans exert a growing, but physically small, warming influence on the climate. The results from many different climate models disagree with, or even contradict, each other and many kinds of observations. In short, the science is insufficient to make useful predictions about how the climate will change over the coming decades, much less what effect our actions will have on it."
This he says he learned at the feet of Lindzen, Curry & Christie during the APS RedTeam-BkueTeam exercise Koonin chaired in 2013, an exercise that contains nothing of merit that I can see.
And as for climate models making useful predictions, they've done a pretty good job up to now.
So whay actually is Koonin bleeting about? Waht is his message? It would be good to see the actual message because so far all I hear is a blowhard!!
-
Eclectic at 18:34 PM on 25 May 2021Dr. Ben Santer: Climate Denialism Has No Place at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Maybe, the good Professor Koonin's gig at LLNL will turn out to be a transient aberration of LLNL conduct. Time will tell, on that.
Doug, as you are probably thinking yourself, there could be various wheels-within-wheels operating at LLNL. ??The personality quirk of some high-up in the organization's ranks ; a palliation of some political extremist in the ranks ; opening up a pipeline to Koch money (surely not?) which has been dangled in view ; a misguided attempt at fake "balance".
Could it be that some of the seniors at LLNL have simply been unable to recognize the flim-flam and logical faults of Koonin's climate presentations of the past 7 years or so? After all, Koonin has not completely stepped over the boundary into flat-earth territory. In that regard, he has some resemblance to Professor Curry ~ a large component of rhetorical vagueness and obfuscation/neglect of rigorous analysis of the total picture. A design to appear reasonable at first glance, at least in the eyes of the half-attentive public.
For years, Koonin has seemed to be on a discreditable crusade.
(But why?)
-
nigelj at 17:56 PM on 25 May 2021Dr. Ben Santer: Climate Denialism Has No Place at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Steven Koonin truth teller apparently. That had me in howls of laugher. From his wikipedia entry:
"Koonin's views on the status and conclusions of climate science have been authoritatively criticized. In an article in Slate, Raymond Pierrehumbert, the Halley Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, criticized Koonin's 2014 commentary in the Wall Street Journal, "Climate Science Is Not Settled,"[18] as "a litany of discredited arguments":
The nuggets of truth in Koonin’s essay are buried beneath a rubble of false or misleading claims from the standard climate skeptics’ canon. To pick a few examples:
He claims that the rate of sea level rise now is no greater than it was early in the 20th century, but this is a conclusion one could draw only through the most shameless cherry-picking...
He claims that the human imprint on climate is only "comparable" to natural variability, whereas multiple lines of research confirm that the climate signature of human-caused greenhouse gas increases has already risen well above the background noise level...
A large part of the natural greenhouse effect is due to substances (mainly water vapor, and consequent cloudiness) that are in the atmosphere only because carbon dioxide keeps the Earth warm enough to prevent them from condensing out...
He states that the effects of carbon dioxide will last "several centuries," whereas "several millennia" would be closer to the truth...
[He] doesn’t seem to appreciate that oceans cannot be a cause of long-term warming because almost all of the mass of the oceans is colder than the lower atmosphere.[19]"
-
Doug Bostrom at 17:02 PM on 25 May 2021Dr. Ben Santer: Climate Denialism Has No Place at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
In a spirit of fairness, here's LLNL's insipid and non-responsive reply to a request for comment by Gizmodo:
“Differing technical opinions are part of the scientific process,” a spokesperson for LLNL told Earther in an email. “Throughout its history the Lab has invited guest speakers whose opinions differ from those of the Lab and its workforce. It does not mean the Lab endorses those opinions. The Lab has a long and distinguished history in groundbreaking climate research — the Lab continues to advance and stand by that research.”
Does LLNL routinely invite speakers practicing outside of their professional domains and making markedly inaccurate scientific claims based on incomplete information and touching numerous other disciplines ? May we have some examples? No, we may not. LLNL doesn't normally invite obvious ringers. LLNL's hasty reply doesn't appear to have been fully considered, similarly to Koonin's invitation.
With all the scientific talent in the world more or less at its behest, LLNL specifically chose Koonin why? The parsimonious explanation seems most likely to be "publicist struck lucky on book tour," after which LLNL administration found itself stuck on the horns of a dilemma: cancel Koonin and weather a storm from the usual suspects, or gut it out by comparing Koonin with people of merit one might ordinarily expect to be speaking in that venue. LLNL chose the latter, which is again ill considered as by so doing LLNL inevitably drags down both its own reputation and that of anybody agreeing to speak there. From first rate to second rate, in one easy sentence.
Describing Koonin's "difference of opinion" as a legtimate provocation of better thinking is along the lines of inviting in a crank to describe the heliocentric nature of the solar system as unagreed. Yes, that will start a discussion, but it won't be productive.
LLNL could simply admit making an dumb error but for reasons we cannot know, the path chosen is the hard way.
-
nigelj at 06:32 AM on 25 May 2021Greens: Divided on ‘clean’ energy? Or closer than they appear?
Lawrie @13, yes nuclear power does produce toxic waste etc, but it is safe. Nuclear power kills far fewer people per megawatt / hour than fossil fuels and about the same as wind and solar power and that is obviously the key thing. Refer here. I tend to agree with your concerns about CCS.
-
Bob Loblaw at 06:17 AM on 25 May 2021We're heading into cooling
Vivian:
Your expression of certainty is trivial, and depends entirely on what time period you are talking about. Seconds? Minutes? Hours? Days? Months? Years? Decades?
For climate we are talking years to decades. And what will happen over the next few decades (depending what humans do in the way of CO2 emissions) is most certainly not an equal likelihood of coolling versus warming. The chances we will enter a cooling period are far smaller than the chances we will see continued warming.
One way of looking at this is to look at how often we set new record cold temperatures vs. hot temperatures. Here is a web site that tracks this information for the U.S., displaying results for the past year.
https://www.climatesignals.org/data/record-high-temps-vs-record-low-temps
Spolier alert: it is not a 1:1 ratio.
-
VivianLee at 05:05 AM on 25 May 2021We're heading into cooling
I just want to point out the problem with your survey. It asked if the Earth will enter a cooling period. I put in yes, then I read the article and the same question popped up. I again put in yes. The Earth warms and cools, it doesn't remain constant. Therefore it is certain that we will enter a cooling period, and equally certain that we will enter a warming period.
-
fairclue at 23:48 PM on 24 May 2021Report: All new cars and trucks in U.S. could be electric by 2035
The news is good for nature, in my opinion. Everything will change if this turns out to be true.
Hope for the best -
Lawrie at 19:52 PM on 24 May 2021Greens: Divided on ‘clean’ energy? Or closer than they appear?
Regarding Nigelj’s statement that: “But there is nothing fundamentally wrong with fossil fuel carbon capture and nuclear power. Because they both provide clean, zero carbon energy and can do it safely.” Well, not really. Nuclear power is neither clean nor safe. Uranium is a heavy metal toxic enough without the added hazard of radioactivity. Mining and processing of uranium is hazardous to workers and mining sites are irreversibly contaminated. Uranium and reactor products cannot be chemically neutralised so storage of nuclear waste imposes a burden on future generations for thousands of years.
Carbon capture and storage imposes even worse hazards than nuclear power. The idea is that CO2 emitted from fossil fuel powered generators can be captured, then compressed and forced underground into naturally occurring storage sites. Unlike nuclear waste CO2 has no half life. This means we are being asked to believe by CCS proponents that it is feasible to capture millions of tonnes of CO2 and sequester it safely FOREVER. Are there geological formations in the forever scenario that are so stable that they will never be threatened by seismic events?
It's reasonable to suggest that at least 10 million tonnes of CO2 could be sequestered at storage sites. Should such a cache be explosively released it would create a 5 cubic kilometre cloud ground-hugging cloud that would poison or smother everything in its path.
This is not science fiction. In 1986 at Lake Nyos in Cameroon, Africa, an estimated one cubic kilometre of carbon dioxide gas, naturally sequestered in the deep, cold water of the lake was explosively released to the atmosphere. No one knows what triggered the release but at least 1700 residents died from toxicity or suffocation as the gas flowed over the countryside. Luckily, deaths were limited by the sparse population in this remote area and the relatively small volume of carbon dioxide.
In the next 20 years with political will the entire world could be run on renewable energy. It is now immoral to use technologies whose waste products will endure to effect future generations thousands of years after everyone has forgotten about their presence. -
michael sweet at 07:33 AM on 24 May 2021Greens: Divided on ‘clean’ energy? Or closer than they appear?
Possibly a better example of a controversial biofuel would be corn ethanol, which many environmentalists do not like. The point is that there is a lot of discussion about the topic of biofuels. I think the environment will be better off if they pass the current proposal even though it is not perfect. We can come back next year to try to correct any perceived problems.
Red Baron: I hope your proposed BCCS program works. Good luck.
MARodger: Interesting stats about the total amount of wood products cut and its relationship to total energy.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:28 AM on 24 May 2021Greens: Divided on ‘clean’ energy? Or closer than they appear?
nigelj @9,
This is getting political. But it is important to understand what may be driving the misleading misinformation campaigns against action to limit climate change harm and how to get ore support for climate change action.
There is good reason to include actions to address developed injustice and inequity as part of the efforts to address climate change. The actions required to address climate change are significant changes of economic activity, especially the required reduction of energy consumption. Those changes will make significant changes to regional work opportunities and change the type of work opportunities. It is important to ensure that people understand that the less fortunate will not be put at further harmful disadvantage as these changes occur, even if that means that the economic changes "Cost more, require higher taxes on the rich, or are less profitable".
And making it clear that the collective action that includes climate action will actually make things better for the less fortunate should rob the Trump Republicans of the current pool of angry less fortunate people who have been lured into misunderstanding who to be angry at by the lurid misleading marketing of the Trump Republicans.
Reading books like Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" helps understand how the USA pursuit of Superior status is the harmful expansionist pursuit of Capitalism and Nationalism for the benefit of undeserving wealthy and powerful people, to the detriment of Others, especially those Others that the powers of capitalism and nationalism targets for penalty.
People who are less fortunate need help to understand how they ended up being less fortunate, help understanding who among the wealthy and powerful deserve to be wealthier and more powerful.
Tragically, some wealthy and powerful people do not care to self-govern and help govern others in the pursuit of the Sustainable Development Goals and related actions like limiting the harm of climate change impacts. And the centrist view, especially in the USA today, can be seen to be a harmful unsustainable compromise on many issues.
-
MA Rodger at 23:54 PM on 23 May 2021Greens: Divided on ‘clean’ energy? Or closer than they appear?
Regarding wood chips, this 2015 CarbobBrief post may be useful. The global woodchip market has grown since 2015, from 25Mt/yr to 45Mt/yr in 2020 according to Statistica but is still dwarfed by total wood production which measures globally perhaps something like 6,000Mt/yr of extracted biomass. The potential energy from such global timnber extraction is roughly 20% of global Primary Energy if all wood were turned to energy & ignoring energy imputs (Global Primary Energy 600 exajoules, wood 20Gj/t), but burning it all you would have no wood for other purposes or would have to collect it from where it becomes a recycled waste product.
-
nigelj at 07:53 AM on 23 May 2021Greens: Divided on ‘clean’ energy? Or closer than they appear?
I want to clarify some things. I said burning biomass to generate electricity doesn't make sense because of the land use and pollution. I had in mind planting new forests to do this or devoting entire forests to this. I agree burning biomass for electricty generation using waste timber makes sense, if its done away from urban centres or at small scale etc,etc. Its the old problem you can't say everything in one comment, nobody has the time.
Must say I'm a bit of a political centrist myself and a fan of Scandinavias way of doing things. Unfortunately there doesn't seem much centre remaining in the USA. Its become disturbingly divided. I suppose I'm biased, but I think this all started with Reagon and his rather one sided unhelpful characterisation of government as the enemy. This really alienated the Democrats and polarised things. Not that governmnets can solve every problem either. Sometimes the Democrats have unrealistic expectations. I can see this both ways.
Its important to reduce things like inequality, injustices, and improve the social good. My concern is the Democats tie all this in with environmental legislation which makes it impossible for the republicans to vote for it. It looks better to keep these things as separate legislation.
-
Greg19552 at 06:20 AM on 23 May 2021Greens: Divided on ‘clean’ energy? Or closer than they appear?
Having been around since FDR was US President, and having been a Republican, an Independent and a Democrat, I have seen and experienced many ups and downs with how things are going in the US, but the existential threat posed by climate change is by far the greatest threat that we will all face. When I talk to people about climate change, whether they are deniers or not, I ask them if they have noticed changes in the climate, regardless of the cause. The answer is usually yes. Then I ask if they think humans are contributing at all to the problem. Most are now saying yes, and for those who say yes and are on the denier side of the coin, their response is usually followed by saying there is not much they can do regarding climate change anyway. Unfortunately, nearly all Americans do not understand the causes of climate change nor do they understand the pros and cons of alternative actions that could be taken to eliminate the production of greenhouse gases. This, I believe, is due primarily to misinformation from Big Oil and politicians, whose interest in wealth, power and profit undermine attempts of obtaining a sustainable and acceptable future for us all. So, for those who feel there is nothing they can do, I tell them there is a very easy and significant first step they can take now and that is to not vote for ANY Republican politician (Representatives, Senators, Delegates, etc., at both the State and Federal level) who are lawmakers for at least the next decade. Even though their body language or verbal response indicates that there may be some truth to that position, their body language or verbal response indicate that that will never happen.
So, is there any hope? Yes, I am seeing a glimmer of hope coming from a strange place – the recent announcement that the Ford F150 Lightening pickup truck coming out at the end of the year (the F-150 product line is a multi-billion dollar business for Ford and is popular with many – over 750,000 sold last year). This is not a Ford commercial. Also, the more electric vehicles sold, the more it will help shift the momentum to electric vehicles. And, whether Ford, Tesla, VW, Volvo, etc., more charging stations will be needed and more people will feel comfortable with electric cars. Hopefully, it will help kick off an exponential growth of green vehicles. And, I think that even climate change deniers will buy the new trucks because they can power their table saws at the jobsite, power what they need at campsites, and power key equipment at home when the grid goes down the next time, without saying they are doing it for the climate.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:07 AM on 23 May 2021Greens: Divided on ‘clean’ energy? Or closer than they appear?
Nick Palmer @3,
I agree that Political Games should not decide what social or economic options Win. And the issue is far more extensive than the Climate Change aspects that sites like SkS focus on addressing.
This comment goes beyond the scope of SkS and Climate Science. But it is important for more people to be aware that there is more going on that also needs to be addressed.
Leadership providing a “... free'ish but lightly as possible regulated markets with social and environmental safety nets ...” would have been great if it had continued to be globally pursued and improved since the 1970s when the harmful reality of economic pursuit of More was becoming more clearly understood. The lack of helpful effective global leadership, especially the tragic Reagan-Thatcher “less Government assistance and less restriction so there is more opportunity for the Rich to get Richer because that helps everyone”, has produced the current developed reality where continuing to compromise what is understood to be required to limit harm done, the centrist compromised view, will significantly harm the future of humanity.
What is needed, and has always been needed, is for All Leadership (social, political and business), and an increasing portion of the population, to uncompromisingly pursue increased awareness and improved understanding of what is really going on and the diversity of ways (conservative and liberal, right and left, socialist and capitalist) to limit harm done, ideally excluding all harmful activity from competitions for popularity and profit. And it would be nice if unsustainable activity like burning up non-renewable resources, was also kept from competing for popularity and profit even if the harm done is not yet understood in detail (that would have meant restrictions on fossil fuel use even before climate science developed better understanding), because everything humans do needs to be Sustainable if perceptions of improvement of civilization are to be sustainable.
Recommended reading:
- Human Development Report 2020 which is the latest annual report regarding Human Sustainable Development.
- Jeffrey D. Sach's "The Age of Sustainable Development" or take the MOOC of the same name. The book (and MOOC) present the evidence-based understanding of the Sustainable Development Goals and are updated by the HDR 2020.
- Review the Sustainable Development Goals to see that the Green New Deal is aligned with what all Leadership should be pursuing (in spite of the developed popularity and profitability of not limiting the harm done by human competition).
- Also, look at the 1972 Stockholm Conference that was a clear start to global leadership collectively raising awareness of the harm done by insufficiently restricted competition for superiority.
- Finally, check out “The Planetary Boundaries” evaluation by the Stockholm University - Stockholm Resilience Centre that is a key part of all of the above.
The awareness and understanding from that reading and learning makes it undeniable that a lot of what humans have developed is harmful and unsustainable. In particular, systemic pressure for "more to exploit to obtain more benefit – always needing More" is expanding impacts beyond the real limits for humanity on this planet. And expanding beyond this planet’s limits, expanding to the Moon or Mars or mining asteroids, before figuring out how to sustainably live on this planet is not a sustainable solution.
Based on the planetary boundaries evaluation the expansion pressures have already clearly exceeded the planetary boundaries for Nitrogen, Phosphorous, and Genetic Diversity. And pressures for maintaining undeserved unsustainable perceptions of status (expectations based on the developed high consumption, wasteful, harmful impact ways of living) will undeniably result in impacts clearly exceeding the Climate Change boundary of human civilization sustainability. A Moderate centrist compromising response is no longer an option, but will be pushed for by those who have only cared to benefit as much as possible by delaying the reduction of harm done as much as they can get away with for as long as possible – Now they claim to like the Moderates but they still hope to win more extreme delays – more harm done.
Reducing harm done includes reducing the diversity of injustice and inequity that develops when people compete for popularity and profit in games where results are based on impressions. People freer to believe what they want and do as they please produce more harmful results because getting away with behaving and excusing being more harmful is a competitive advantage.
Any perceived advancement or improvement that is the result of activity that is unsustainable is understandably unsustainable and a little unfair to have a limited portion of humanity benefit (only the least fortunate should benefit that way, but even that needs to be understood to be unsustainable), and is also understandably undeserved if the activity is harmful (harmful activity is undeniably unsustainable). That applies equally to perceptions of status for those who are more fortunate and perceptions that the less fortunate have been helped develop an improved life.
The failure of the systems that produced the problems to effectively correct things, and the ways the systems develop resistance to correction, requires corrective systemic change, including Government intervention and action, to limit the harm done. Thirty years ago the climate change impact corrections would have been modest and the total harm done would have been serious and unfair but not tragic. Today the harm done and required corrections are tragic and dramatic. Without significant government intervention to limit the harm done, the required corrective actions in 10 more years is almost certain to be catastrophic corrections to the incorrectly over-developed human activity and perceptions of advancement. And the accumulated harm done by then is very likely to be also be catastrophic. And the current system will make the less fortunate suffer the most. And that is not Hyperbole.
But I agree that Government action should be limited to blocking the pursuit of unsustainable harmful activity, not choosing winners, just identifying harmful pursuers of benefit, blocking their harmful tactics, and penalizing them to make amends for harm done. Ultimately, to be sustainable, energy systems will have to be 100% renewable. And reducing energy consumption is undeniably a significant part of the solution. Reducing energy demand will reduce the amount of harm done by energy generation while the harmful unsustainable energy generation is sustainably replaced. That means that any new new energy system that gets built, like nuclear or “fossil fuel with CCS”, would be shut down as early as possible by rapidly developing the sustainable renewable systems built to replace them even if the renewable options are more expensive. And reduced per-person energy demand, particularly by the wealthiest, will more rapidly end the need for harmful unsustainable energy generation. Of course, the Be Harmless limit also applies to renewable energy systems – no Green Washing.
Lack of interest in investigating to discover and stop harmful unsustainable activity is a serious problem. Grandfathering (systemic gender bias is also a problem) harmful activity and protecting any wealth that was obtained from harmful activity is also a problem. Those aspects of the developed systems need to be diligently ended and kept from re-emerging in the competition for superiority which will always be part of human interaction. It would be great for that competition to be striving to be superior by being Less Harmful and More Helpful to Others and the Environment everyone shares.
A lot of changes of the Global Status Quo are required to develop a robust diversity of humanity in a diversity of sustainable socioeconomic political systems that are constantly adapting to be improved sustainable parts of the robust diverse environmental reality that humanity requires for sustainable survival on this one amazing planet. That required result will not be developed without thoughtful, unselfish, Government Interventions in the “games of competition for superiority”.
Wealth should be deserved by not being Harmful, and by being Helpful to Others without expecting a return benefit. That is part of the understanding behind the Sustainable Development Goals. Claims that some Help is delivered by the Harmful acquisition of wealth need to be challenged. Harm done is not justified by benefits obtained. A harmful version of Utilitarian beliefs excuses harmful actions because “someone benefits”. It is one of the most harmful beliefs ever developed. It leads to misunderstandings like the claims that the harmful unsustainable economic development that has occurred has reduced poverty. Any perceptions developed by unsustainable harmful activity are not sustainable.
People perceived as "shooting themselves in the foot" may be far more helpful and less harmful than people who do not see that the socioeconomic political system they have developed a liking for produces harmful unsustainable "impacts on the environment of the only planet that humanity is sure to be able to survive and thrive on” and ruins societies with injustice and inequity.
Social and environmental harm that is the result of human competition makes developed perceptions unsustainable. Popularity and profitability can be lousy measures of Merit and Worth when harmful unsustainable beliefs and actions are allowed to survive and thrive.
Prev 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 Next
