Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 Next
Comments 5701 to 5750:
-
Evan at 06:34 AM on 7 May 2021SkS Analogy 22 - Energy SeaSaw
Bob@10
"Dana did a post here about results of an analysis by John Nielsen-Gammon, which plotted independent lines for El Nino, neutral, and La Nina years."
We did something similar with our Christmas Dinner analogy where we plotted a trend line through annual temperatures and a trend line through decadal maximum temperatures.
-
Bob Loblaw at 05:32 AM on 7 May 2021SkS Analogy 22 - Energy SeaSaw
Running means represent smoothing, but they are highly auto-correlated and normal significance testing cannot be used.
Decadal averages do provide a clear step-by-step indication that things are warming.
Another convenient tool is looking at the list of warmest years - so many of the top 10/15/20 years are the recent ones.
One last link to an interesting analysis to remove some of the variation: Dana did a post here about results of an analysis by John Nielsen-Gammon, which plotted independent lines for El Nino, neutral, and La Nina years.
https://skepticalscience.com/john-nielsen-gammon-commentson-on-continued-global-warming.html
The key graphic:
-
Evan at 05:08 AM on 7 May 2021SkS Analogy 22 - Energy SeaSaw
OPOF@7 and Bob@8
I am not suggesting that we need to wait until 2030/2031 to assess current trends. Just that it seems that talking about decadal averages is more intuitive for non-technical people than refering to moving averages. That may change now in the age of Covid, because we are hearing more and more about 7-day moving averages, for obvious reasons. If moving averages move into and stay in the modern lexicon, I will consider using them. But decadal averages seems like a concept that is easy to understand, and accurate: for about 50 years each decade has been warmer than the previous, and with CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere continuing its 60-year, upward acceleration, there is no idication this trend is going to stop anytime soon.
I appreciate all of the references that you are suggesting and will consider additional modifications to my messaging.
-
Bob Loblaw at 04:38 AM on 7 May 2021SkS Analogy 22 - Energy SeaSaw
Evan:
"Is the record long enough?" is a characteristic of the data, not so much the method. A rule of thumb for global surface air temperature is that you need to have somewhere around 15-20 years of data to determine a trend - but that is deterimed from the noise characteristics of surface air temperature. It is not generally applicable to other data sets.
In addition to statistical significance, you also need to look at the power of the test. For a small trend, you need more data than for a large trend. With low power, a non-significant result may just be a lack of data, whereas if you have high power, no significant result is more likely to mean no relationship. Dikran Marsupial did a good post on this four years ago:
https://skepticalscience.com/statisticalsignificance.html
In addition to this, we are no longer in a position where the significance of our temperature trend is in question. We are clearly in a warming trend. When we encounter someone claiming "the warming has stopped!" or "No warming since 1998 2006 2010" (or whatever year they pick), asking if the trend is significantly different from zero is the wrong statistical test.
A statistical test involves evaluating the significance of the difference between "observed" and "expected". When testing if the trend is non-zero, the "expected" is zero. When testing if the existing trend has stopped, the "expected" value is the previous trend, not zero. So that is the comparison you need to make when determining something like a t-statistic.
So, to try to directly answer your question, any 10-year period should be looked at in the context of what preceded it. For the "warming stopped in..." argument, the easiest statement to make would be to say "the last 10 years shows the trend continuing".
The Foster and Rahmstorf paper that KR mentions is very good. Foster is the person that writes https://tamino.wordpress.com/, where you will find lots of excellent posts on statistics and climate (He's been on hiatus for while now, but the archives are a treasure-trove of good stuff.)
The approach taken in the Foster and Rahmstorf paper is to quantify known sources of variation and remove them from the data, leaving the long-term trend showing clearly. If you leave that variation in, it is treated as unidentified noise in a regression, which makes the trend harder to see. (It would be wrong to reduce the noise by averaging - that just deceives the regression test. You need to be able to independently say "yes this causes variation and I know how much".)
...and we always can make use of the SkS Escalator image:
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:15 AM on 7 May 2021SkS Analogy 22 - Energy SeaSaw
Evan,
I am not a climate science specialist, but as an experienced engineer I have experience in evaluating data to see what is important, and to see through misleading claims (Technical Sales Reps often struggle to answer the questions that good engineers will ask them about technical claims they make to promote their product).
Do not lose sight of the point I make in my comment @1 "... a 10 year moving average, or longer, ..."
When the data is evaluated using a tool like the SkS Temperature Trend Calculator, all of the data should be looked at, starting in 1880 for the surface temperature data sets (called Global and Non-global) and 1979 for the Satellite data sets). Note that manipulations of satellite data do not represent the "Surface Temperature" (They are manipulations of data to represent the averages of temperatures within a thickness of atmosphere, so they are not "surface temperatures").
What is important to avoid is making a statement that could be interpreted to mean that "the Complete Next Decade of data" must be waited for to see if the new "10 year average data point" is warmer or not. The rolling average updated each month gives an indication of the trend, and the longer the rolling average is the less noise there is in the trend line (without needing to remove the variable influences like ENSO).
The National Climate Normal values in Canada are updated every 10 years using the most recent 30 years of data. So from that perspective a 30 year rolling average is better. And this can be seen by comparing the trend line of the 10 year rolling average to the trend line of the 30 year rolling average. However, because the satellite data set only starts in 1978, a 20 year rolling average shows the trend better than the 30 year rolling average, especially 10 years ago when the data set was only about 40 years.
-
MA Rodger at 23:36 PM on 6 May 2021Welcome to Skeptical Science
garyjenkins @89,
Your 'kettle' question would be quite straightforward but for two complications which to overcome require assumptions to be made.(1) The means of boiling this kettle can be more-or-less carbon intense. Thus that jolly swagman of song may be boiling his billie over a fire made of driftwood from the billabong and thus be seen as carbon-neutral. Or perhaps there is coal lying about nearby which the swagman could use which would lead to a particularly carbon-intense outcome.
In the past I considered a similar question to the one you pose and, assuming the kettle was powered by UK electricity, I found the accumulating AGW energy would equal the FF energy in roughly a year. The energy-mix of the electricity generation wold impact this result, gas requiring 18 months for the AGW to equal the kettle's electric, coal requiring just 9 months.
(2) Also, and more difficult, there is the need to account for the level of atmospheric CO2 and how long it "hangs around," or indeed when in time this kettle is being boiled as CO2 forcing is logarithmic not linear so the result will alter with differeing atmospheric ppm CO2. And a final consideration - are AGW forcings accounted with-or-without feedbacks? Perhaps that is a consideratio too far.The SKS graphic below (from this SKS post) is useful in setting the scene for your kettle question. (The 2005 AGW forcing given appears to be actually the CO2 forcing which for 2005 is 1.6Wm^-2 according to the Global Carbon Project.) The values in the graphic give a ratio AGW Forcing-to-Energy Production of roughly 50:1, pretty-much identical to the ratio of 2005 CO2 emissions to accumulative total emissions provided by the GCP data.
This then sort-of supports the one-kettle-per-year result.However, with CO2 being slowly drawn down out of the atmosphere following its emission, perhaps the ratio of 2005 CO2 emissions to accumulated-by-2005 atmospheric burden should be used, this roughly halving the ratio. Thus immediately following emission of the CO2, the rate woud be perhaps two-kettle-per-year.
I note you say "CO2 hangs around in the atmosphere for 30-50 years" but it hangs round longer than that. Rougly, 30-50 years is how long it takes half of it to be drawn down. After 100 years perhaps 33% remains, 1,000 years perhaps 20% and it is tens-of-thousands of years before it is benothinged. And integrated over that full period, the accumulative count of AGW in kettles would be rather large (perhaps 100 kettles in 100 years, 300 in 1,000, maybe above 5,000 kettles before it is all gone) but the rate of kettles-per-year becomes smaller and smaller and the resulting global warming will thus diminish. -
Evan at 23:30 PM on 6 May 2021SkS Analogy 22 - Energy SeaSaw
Thanks for the clarifications Bob.
So my question to you and KR is this. Is there any reason to direct people to observe a temperature record longer than 10 years, or are we on sufficiently solid ground directing casual readers to consider 10-year atmospheric temperature trends as indicative of what the climate is doing?
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:26 PM on 6 May 2021Why scientists shouldn't heed calls to 'stay in our lane'
alonerock @ 27:
Science does not do "moral obligations". Science attempts to find observable patterns and understanding that allow people to make better predictions.
From a moral standpoint, this allows us to better realize the implications and likely outcomes of our choices - but it does not tell us what the moral choice is.
Right now, the science of climatology is telling us with a high degree of certainty that burning fossil fuels will lead to warming at rates far greater than anything humans have experienced before. The science of biology is telling us that nature will find it very hard to adapt to this rapid change. The science of economics (please don't laugh - let's be generous today) is telling us that as time goes on the economic costs of this rapid warming (and other anthropogenic climate changes) will greatly exceed the costs of avoiding it or minimizing it, and that these costs will be unequal across different parts of society.
What specifically is your moral concern? My morals tell me that I should have concern for my fellow humans, and nature in general. There is no Planet B if we get this badly wrong.
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:03 PM on 6 May 2021SkS Analogy 22 - Energy SeaSaw
Evan:
1988 would have been when Hansen was testifying in front of Congress. A pivotal point - at that time a lot of politicians were much more open to the idea that climate was changing. You may be remembering that testimony, or other statements/papers at the time.
Hansen's testimony and predictions are covered here at Skeptical Science:
https://skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm
A little earlier, in 1981, was when a key Hansen et al paper was published in Science:
Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, G. Russell
Science 28 Aug 1981:
Vol. 213, Issue 4511, pp. 957-966
DOI: 10.1126/science.213.4511.957At that time, the paper said "It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century".
In a paper, authors tend to be a little less assertive about their projections. The late 1980s was also a period of abnormal warmth, so that may have changed the statistics.
-
Eclectic at 23:01 PM on 6 May 2021Why scientists shouldn't heed calls to 'stay in our lane'
Nevertheless, there seems to be an increase in "positive" reviews of Koonin's new book. True, to some extent this is to be expected with any new book. The real test will be the test of time ~ will the book be a Nine-Day Wonder, or a 90-day, or a 900-day?
Ordinarily, for any new book, one might suspect the hand of the publisher is pushing the perceived enthusiasm. But with the Koonin book, one might also suspect the climate-science-denying Establishment is adding its own weight of propaganda. ( I noted that, inter alia , the book's review on WUWT was nauseatingly fawning . . . much as WUWT fawns on Lord Monckton's ludicrous & often self-contradictory emanations. Possibly a consequence of their very slim pickings for such purposes.)
Koonin is certainly running "out of his lane" regarding science. And the question is : Why is he doing such a political Propaganda Piece of half-truths?
Nothing unusual for paid shills to go deceiving the public. And nothing unusual for crackpots, crazies, and rabid right-wingers to try the same. But why is Koonin doing it? Yes, there are a few elderly eminent scientists (you know their names) who have Gone Emeritus for presumable reasons of mild early dementia / religious fundamentalism / loss of inhibition of their underlying Maverick tendencies / and so on.
But Koonin is in his late sixties, and so is rather below the usual age of elderly pre-frontal brain deterioration. Moreover, I recall his work on a subcommittee of the American Physical Society's review of the APS climate change statement. That was seven years ago (2014) and he was even then showing the same sort of eagerness to undermine a reasonable assessment of mainstream climate science & the reasonably-expected consequences of modern global warming.
So, no, I don't understand where his mind is coming from. And I am glad he is a rare case.
-
alonerock at 22:47 PM on 6 May 2021Why scientists shouldn't heed calls to 'stay in our lane'
Can anyone please suggest some past articles regardin why we have a moral obligation as a species to adress climate change? I am interested in writing a paper on this topic and want other points of view. I treid searching with no luck
-
Evan at 22:28 PM on 6 May 2021SkS Analogy 22 - Energy SeaSaw
KR thanks for your comments. Because I am not a climate scientist, but I am a chemical engineer, my role is to understand what the experts are saying and then find ways to communicate that message effectively and accurately to non-technical people. One of my goals is to be as consistent as possible with the messaging I hear from the professionals, which you also appear to be.
Whereas I agree technically with what you're saying, what I heard James Hansen say in 1988 is that the warming signal had emerged from the background noise, which was still present in the early 1970's. I hear you saying that James Hansen was able to make his statements because he knew how to remove from the temperature signal the effect of transients, such as ENSO, PDO, volcanoes, ect. I concede that point, but to the casual observer, what they hear is that the 80's were hotter than the 70's. What we commonly hear now is that since the 1970's each successive decade has been hotter than the previous decade. This is the message that I think resonates with people who are really trying to understand what's happening, and not just endlessly argue the points. Considering that globally averaged atmospheric temperatures are increasing about 0.2C/decade, and that the effect of ENSO is to create a transient with a maximum of about 0.2C over a few years, 10 years seems like a suffiiently long time to provide a degree of technical rigour, yet short enough that people can grasp the immediacy of the problem. I can only assume that this is why we hear reports of the trends of decadal, average temperatures
If I try to present all of the nuances, then the presentation also becomes more difficult to follow. Therefore, whereas I concede the point you're making, materially I think it is accurate and consistent with the messaging from climate scientists that the warming signal is clearly seen if we look at the decadal temperature trends.
-
Jim Hunt at 20:06 PM on 6 May 2021Why scientists shouldn't heed calls to 'stay in our lane'
Thanks Bob and Eclectic!
Getting back towards the topic at hand, as far as I can tell the Guardian article is still the only one in the global MSM mentioning over 400 scientists that have moved out of "their lane" in order, one assumes, to raise awareness of what they refer to as "climate breakdown as an existential crisis for humanity".
Meanwhile WUWT is a mere sideshow to the main event. There are hundreds of articles in media outlets of all shapes and sizes favourably reviewing the latest magnum opus of one Steven E. Koonin, currently peddling his "Unsettled Science" snake oil to hordes of eager buyers.
Fortunately in all the circumstances the Great God Google seems to have noticed our antidote advertisement:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2021/04/allegedly-unsettled-science-by-steven-koonin-et-al/#May-06
-
Eclectic at 10:23 AM on 6 May 2021Why scientists shouldn't heed calls to 'stay in our lane'
@24 , You're welcome, Jim Hunt. Your internet efforts are indeed deserving praise.
If the Moderators will allow me this brief OT digression :-
Jim, I did catch a couple of your comments at WUWT. When I went back to read them again, your comment to Willis-E was still standing. But (allowing for my possibly confused memory about threads) your "elsewhere" comment had been zapped by the petulantly wrathful Anthony-W. Either way, your comments were very reasonable (plus a hint of humor) ~ and did not receive a good response.
WUWT is a dreary wasteland of angry extremist & barely-sane people. They are whistling in the dark and are ever hopeful they will eventually be vindicated. It is pleasing to see how their spirits are rather low, after 2020 events . . . yet, however much reality they have to swallow, they will never change their position/positions.
BTW, I note how the good Willis-E's reply went somewhat to the side of the bullseye target. Must say that I like reading Willis posts ~ he has a sense of humor, and he is a clever fellow. Unfortunately his strong emotional bias keeps him firmly in the grip of motivated reasoning. He can analyse a tree, but can't recognize a forest. Gotta love his Thunderstorm Theory of global temperature homeostasis. AFAIK he has never quantified it ~ and like most denizens of WUWT, the concept of TOA is an elephant which does not exist.
. . . . And to Bob Loblaw, thanks for injecting some dry humor. (Not a vaccination, I hope.)
-
Jim Hunt at 07:00 AM on 6 May 2021Why scientists shouldn't heed calls to 'stay in our lane'
You are very kind Eclectic.
Anthony has indeed "outed" me again for the umpteenth time. It wasn't as though I was wearing a heavy disguise! No doubt it was mere coincidence that his scurrilous attack on my character occured shortly after I sent a missive to Willis including a link to some actual Arctic science? Which coincidentally never saw what passes for the light of day at WUWT.
At the risk of drifting off topic, if you're also interested in all things Arctic please see:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2021/05/month-in-review-arctic-science-edition/#Timmermans -
garyjenkins at 02:51 AM on 6 May 2021Welcome to Skeptical Science
Hi thanks for the great website and all the work behind it. I just have a simple question, inspired by the 4 Hiroshimas calculation. I'd like to complete the following sentence (or one like it) if possible: "The energy absorbed by the earth as a result of radiative forcing by the CO2 emitted when you boil a kettle of water is X times the energy used by kettle, spread over Y years."
My thought was that this would be easy to work out from the global TPES which seems to be about 6x10^21 J/annum and the forcing rate which seems to be about 8x10^21 J/annum, given that CO2 hangs around in the atmosphere for 30-50 years .... then I realized that I was playing with numbers I don't really know how to handle. I'd be eternally grateful if someone could advise me on the calculation and on whether the result might be easier to imagine than all those Hiroshimas.
-
Bob Loblaw at 01:57 AM on 6 May 2021Why scientists shouldn't heed calls to 'stay in our lane'
As the one that started teasing Jim about Twitter, it was his use of the word "informed" that caught my eye.
If he had said "I heard about it via Twitter..." then my sarcastic humour would not have been twigged... :-)
-
Eclectic at 23:31 PM on 5 May 2021Why scientists shouldn't heed calls to 'stay in our lane'
Jim Hunt @20 :
An amusingly ambiguous comment about the ephemera of Twitter !
And thanks for your good work at Great White Con .
And for your very recent amusing appearances at WUWT , regarding Professor Monckton's continual nonsenses on his "Pauses". I see that the good Anthony Scissorhands has now excised your comments. But, pleasingly, you have a several staunch companions who have not (yet) been banned there. (If it weren't for those few guys, the comments columns would be unmitigated dreck of anger & drivel.)
-
One Planet Only Forever at 23:16 PM on 5 May 2021Why scientists shouldn't heed calls to 'stay in our lane'
Jim Hunt,
Twitter is a lousy source for verified evidence-based information. Mind you so is media that is under the influence of the Propaganda Model of Communication.
As an Engineer I would dread the thought of any engineer considering that technical sounding stuff on Twitter is as valid as any other technical information.
Twitter is great for quickly disseminating fairly inconsequential information like sports scores or other entertainment information. It can be a source of verifiable information that can help build a verified better understanding of what is happening or has happened. But, tragically,it can more easily be abused to mislead and misinform. It, like other social media, is a perfect platform for disinformation because it can keep people from being exposed to the fuller story.
Some politicians have learned to turn politics into simplistic competition that can be won by harmful cheaters, like Sports. And they do it to Pump up Pride among Their Type of People. They can make Politics be like:
- Keeping people from understanding the harm they will do to Win, or how they cheat to Win (keeping people fascinated and engaged by grotesque engrossing distractions and other forms of hiding or masking the Truth - likely results of the Propaganda Model of Communication).
- Trash Talking Professional Wrestling (a tactic of the likes of Trump - Trump wasn't the first of this type and won't be the last)
- Gossip Rag Speculation-based Story-telling using selected bits of information, including made-up bits (also a tactic of the likes of Trump - Their Type are The Pure Best who Fight for their Deserved Glory and are Always Excusable. Others are: Less-worthy, Blame-worthy, Inexcusable - that loops back to the Pro-Wrestling style of Sport - those Trash Talking Gladiators, the Heroes of Their Type of People).
-
Jim Hunt at 21:37 PM on 5 May 2021Why scientists shouldn't heed calls to 'stay in our lane'
However Twitter is perhaps a good place to get the latest news before it's been "filtered" by the oligarch owned "mainstream media"?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:10 PM on 4 May 2021Skeptical Science New Research for Week #17, 2021
Oortcloud @1,
I hope this helps you better understand how to be less harmful and mnore helpful regarding CO2.
For the past 2000 years (likely 4000 years), up until the 1800s, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere was pretty steady at about 275 to 285 ppm.
And from the 1800s all the way back to 800,000 years ago the CO2 level varied from 180 ppm to 300 ppm until recently (and it only once reached 300 ppm about 300,000 years ago).
In about 1920 the CO2 level was up to 300 ppm. And by 1940 it was about 310 ppm (higher than any time since 800,000 years ago). And today the level is about 410 ppm and still climbing.
There are many references for this, including on SkS, but I like to refer to source data presentations like the NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory animation.)
And the main reason for the rapid recent increase in CO2 is the burning of buried ancient hydrocarbons (fossil fuel). No other explanation explains it.
So now that you can understand what is really going on, if you had shared your previous misunderstanding anywhere, hopefully you will go back and correct what you incorrectly believed and shared. And hopefully in the future you will seek better understanding before sharing it, but admittedly everyone can always learn something new to be less harmful and more helpful.
-
Bob Loblaw at 02:01 AM on 4 May 2021Why scientists shouldn't heed calls to 'stay in our lane'
"I am informed via Twitter..."
Now there is a phrase you don't hear very often.... :-)
-
KR at 01:20 AM on 4 May 2021SkS Analogy 22 - Energy SeaSaw
Even a decade may not be enough. There needs to be sufficient time to see a trend appear over fluctuations with scientific significance (to reject the null hypothesis of no warming). That's on the order of 20-30 years given current trends.
Unless you are accounting for cyclical and spike variations like the see-saw so well described above - ENSO, solar cycle, volcanic aerosols, etc. See Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 for an example of that. If you do, significance can be detected in perhaps 10-15 years, although that leaves open quibbling about how those variations were dealt with.
-
Jim Hunt at 17:59 PM on 3 May 2021Why scientists shouldn't heed calls to 'stay in our lane'
I am informed via Twitter that a judge ordered the Guardian/MSN stories to be taken down in order to avoid influencing the jury of the recent "Shell Knew" trial here in the UK:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2021/04/stop-attempts-to-criminalise-nonviolent-climate-protest/#May-02
Via Extinction Rebellion:
https://extinctionrebellion.uk/2021/04/23/breaking-the-xr-activists-who-took-on-oil-giant-shell-and-won/
Six Extinction Rebellion activists have been acquitted in a landmark verdict at Southwark Crown Court this afternoon.The jury delivered its not guilty verdict for each defendant, despite Judge Perrins ruling that five of the six had no defence under the law.
The trial, for criminal damage to the Shell HQ building in London’s Waterloo in April 2019, which could have led to a maximum five year prison sentence and/or a £10k fine each, is XR’s second only case to be heard before a jury.
The verdict is being hailed as a major victory for climate campaigners everywhere facing increasing criminalisation.
No doubt the mainstream media across the planet will now plaster the climate scientists' "open letter" and XR's victory in court across their front pages?
-
nigelj at 08:14 AM on 3 May 2021Skeptical Science New Research for Week #17, 2021
Oortcloud @1, what you say is a strawman. Definition of a straw man from Oxford dictionary: "noun, an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument." The real argument is too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in a short time frame causes a climate change problem, not that we have to get rid of all carbon dioxide.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 00:33 AM on 3 May 2021We're heading into cooling
I am not holding my breath for evidence (been more than 24 hrs already and none surfaced). I am familiar with Potholer, he does have good moments. I got a kick of Real Climate summary of the state of climate bets, especially with the NoTricksZone people. I have challenged people on a couple of occasions for bets on the next decade temp rise and all I got was lame excuses...
-
Eclectic at 23:25 PM on 2 May 2021Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
MA Rodger @350 :
Quite so. There is also kind of disjointedness to the "laundry list". Almost as if someone were using a program to generate random denialist phrasings.
Or pehaps the list is a sort of Poe. Une blague.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 23:03 PM on 2 May 2021Skeptical Science New Research for Week #17, 2021
Oortcloud,
Nothing on this page can possibly fit the description "all carbon is terrible because it might end up as CO2."
-
MA Rodger at 22:29 PM on 2 May 2021Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Eclectic @349,
I think what you call "quite a laundry list" presented by commenter lindzenfanone @348 is less a laundry list and more a nonsensical rant. (The commenter doesn't start well in my book with his chosen nom-de-clavier. For me Dicky Lindzen is today a proven liar who long-ago turned away from the scientific method.)
The rant begins effectively saying that there is no available ontological truth which of course will make all argument circular. This is followed by some silliness about naturally-emitted CO2 and anthropogenic-emitted CO2 requiring to act differently with AGW science. The non-correlation comment could be presented statistically if it were not so crazy and wrong, this followed by poorly presented statements that try (but fail badly) to set out reason to support a bold (and with the failure, unsupported) assertion that "IPCC's core theory is wrong!!"The links appended to the comment lead to a number of dubious published papers that don't bear scrutiny**, Berry (2019) 'Human CO2 Emissions Have Little Effect on Atmospheric CO2' (two links provided), Humlum et al (20130 'The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature', Koutsoyiannis & Kundzewicz (2020) 'Atmospheric Temperature and CO2: Hen-Or-Egg Causality?' and Harde (2019) 'What Humans Contribute to Atmospheric CO2: Comparison of Carbon Cycle Models with Observations' (**These 'usual suspects' have been publishing drivel like this for years. If these particular papers presented anything game-chnging for AGW, indeed anything at all new and worthy of some small consideration, then that 'something' is failing to appear either within the denialist world or in the real world.)
-
Oortcloud at 22:27 PM on 2 May 2021Skeptical Science New Research for Week #17, 2021
You guys have posted a lot of stupid shit but this time you're up to your waists in it. Now yo9u have that guy telling us that the scuientific understanding of carbon based life is wrong because it doesn't fit your AGW narrative. According to you all carbon is terrible because it might end up as CO2 which, according to you, is a pollutant.
How do you think plants incorporate carbon? By absorbing hamburgers?
Moderator Response:[BL] Rude insults snipped. If you can't even bother to be polite, your posts will be moderated.
General Warning
Thank you for taking the time to share with us. Skeptical Science is a user forum wherein the science of climate change can be discussed from the standpoint of the science itself. Ideology and politics get checked at the keyboard.
Please take the time to review the Comments Policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
Eclectic at 21:07 PM on 2 May 2021Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Lindzenfanone @348 :
You have quite a laundry list there. Much of it is wrong, but I guess you don't really care about that ~ since you obviously haven't bothered to educate yourself about climate science.
My next guess is that you are making a giant leg-pull. (Only on something like WattsUpWithThat website could your "ideas" be taken seriously.)
But I do have a question: Why your "Lindzen" connection with climate? For more than 15 years, Prof Lindzen has been moving away from scientific thinking and has been making his religious beliefs an emotional basis for his (largely rhetorical) speeches.
-
lindzenfanone at 20:09 PM on 2 May 2021Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Here’s why IPCC’s core theory is invalid.
All climate alarmism is based upon the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) invalid core theory of climate change: human CO2 emissions caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm and since 1750.
IPCC claims climate events provide “extensive evidence” that human emissions caused the events. But events cannot prove their cause.
IPCC assumes its own core theory is true to argue its core theory is true. This is invalid circular reasoning.
The IPCC says its core theory is “incontrovertible.” But the scientific method says evidence cannot prove a theory is true. Rather, only one error can prove a theory is false.
IPCC’s core theory says human and natural CO2 act differently, e.g., human CO2 sticks in the atmosphere while natural CO2 flows out of the atmosphere. This is impossible because all CO2 molecules are identical.
The correlation between annual human CO2 emissions and annual atmospheric CO2 increases is zero, which proves IPCC’s core theory is false.
Ice core data prove IPCC’s core theory is false.
Stomata leaf data prove IPCC’s core theory is false.
IPCC’s human CO2 cycle is not a scientific deduction. It is merely a replication of IPCC’s core theory.
IPCC’s human CO2 cycle is not compatible with IPCC’s natural CO2 cycle. This proves IPCC’s core theory is false.
In addition, preliminary data on the small 2020 reduction in atmospheric CO2 caused by the 2020 reduction of human emissions also proves IPCC’s core theory is false.http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=298&doi=10.11648/j.ijaos.20190301.13
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1U5MmvldPsJC2euF4AIwE_XQmzwGktqEG?usp=sharing
Moderator Response:[DB] Making things up is unhelpful. Further, simply asserting something does not make it true. This is a science and evidence-based venue and substantive sources are required to support hyperbolic statements. Please adhere to the Comments Policy and refrain from sloganeering.
Sloganeering snipped.
-
Eclectic at 06:42 AM on 2 May 2021We're heading into cooling
ClimateBuddha @41 ,
your second-to-last sentence doesn't make much sense. Please be kind enough to correct whatever typo or jumbled thought produced your error.
PhilippeC @42 ,
it will be most interesting to see what (if any) evidence our friend ClimateBuddha can come up with. Unfortunately for denialists & pseudo-skeptics, their cherry tree has few (if any) cherries left that they can pick.
Philippe, you may be amused to go outside the scientific papers, and visit the Youtuber world ~ where 10 months ago, the science journalist Potholer54 produced a 5-minute video listing more than a dozen failed Global Cooling predictions. These failed cooling predictions were made in the last 20 years (since 2001) by various scientists and wannabe-scientists. [video title: A short chronology of failed 'ice age' predictions]
No, not the failed Global Cooling predictions of last century. Just some of the failures of this century. As always, Potholer54 puts a humorous touch on things.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:08 AM on 2 May 2021We're heading into cooling
Climate Buddha, you should be more specific and provide evidence.
Antarctic land based ice has been shown to decrease by multiple studies, threads devoted to this subject can be found on this site. Antarctic sea ice has a lot of variability and, unlike Arctic sea ice, shows only modest trends that are dwarfed by the error bars: For April extent +1.4% per decade +-2.6%, which does not allow to rule out negative trend. In contrast the April Arctic trend is -2.6%/decade +-0.5%: All months in the. Arctic show statistically significant negative trends.
https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/compare_trends
For global temperatures Gisstemp, HadCrut anb other sources all converge toward an upward trend of 0.18 deg C/decade, even 0.2 in more recent times. Can you present the evidence you alluded to?
-
ClimateBuddha at 01:47 AM on 2 May 2021We're heading into cooling
This site is like Jehovah's Witness.
cherry picking bits of information and claiming that it is sceptics who do.
There is alarming amounts of growing evidence which show a downward trend in overall global temperature, coupled with cast amounts of 'unexplained' Antarctic ice increasing.
yet the singled out comments of scientists who have stated this type of evidence is used as rebuttal.
Give your head a good shake ffs
Moderator Response:[BL] Please make a bit of effort to avoid inflammatory accusations. Opening and closing your comment this way does not put you in a good light.
As others have pointed out, you have made specific claims with zero evidence. If you have such evidence, please provide it, or stop making such claims. This is not a site where empty proclamations carry any weight.
-
Jim Hunt at 19:58 PM on 1 May 2021Why scientists shouldn't heed calls to 'stay in our lane'
Hi 1Planet,
See my recent announcement just above for some "Shock News!!".
I cannot help but agree with you that the "Propaganda Model of Communication" is going full steam ahead at the moment, in the run up to the G7 Summit and then COP 26 here in the once United Kingdom. By way of example please see:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2021/04/allegedly-unsettled-science-by-steven-koonin-et-al/ -
Jim Hunt at 19:27 PM on 1 May 2021Why scientists shouldn't heed calls to 'stay in our lane'
No less a celebrity than Greta Thunberg has announced that the "redacted" article in The Guardian referred to upthread has now reappeared:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2021/04/stop-attempts-to-criminalise-nonviolent-climate-protest/#May-01
However no explanation has been forthcoming as yet for these strange comings and goings, as far as I have been able to ascertain. -
michael sweet at 22:13 PM on 30 April 2021Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
John ONeill,
The terrapower plant storage may be useful for short time use but for seasonal storage it will not supply anything.
Fortunately, we do not need to rely on your personel observations to determine whether nuclear plants or renewable energy lead to lower carbon emissions. This study: Differences in carbon emissions reduction
between countries pursuing renewable electricity
versus nuclear power Sovacool et al 2020 studied just that. The complete abstract states:"Two of the most widely emphasized contenders for carbon emissions reduction in the electricity sector are nuclear power and
renewable energy. While scenarios regularly question the potential impacts of adoption of various technology mixes in the
future, it is less clear which technology has been associated with greater historical emission reductions. Here, we use multiple
regression analyses on global datasets of national carbon emissions and renewable and nuclear electricity production across
123 countries over 25 years to examine systematically patterns in how countries variously using nuclear power and renewables contrastingly show higher or lower carbon emissions. We find that larger-scale national nuclear attachments do not tend
to associate with significantly lower carbon emissions while renewables do. We also find a negative association between the
scales of national nuclear and renewables attachments. This suggests nuclear and renewables attachments tend to crowd each
other out" my emphasisCountries that build nuclear as a group do not reduce carbon emissions. Countries that build out renewables do.
You look at France, Sweden and Ontario, Canada. Engineer Poet on Real Climate also likes those two countries and that state. Perhaps looking at Uruguay 100% renewable mostly wind.
North east Brazil 95% renewable, mostly wind. And
Bornholm, Denmark 100% renewable, no hydro.
These examples are from your source. All have renewable energy systems. You are just not looking. It appears your claim at 236 that "I obsessively scan for examples of it" is false. It took me less than 5 minutes to find these examples. I note that your links all say "wind=false and solar=false". Perhaps you are using the incorrect search terms.
Sweden closed 2 of their 8 remaining nuclear reactors in the last 18 months. During 2020 their remaining reactors only ran 60% of the time. They are rapidly bulding out wind and have no plans to build more nuclear. The nuclear plants cannot compete on the local grid with hydro and wind. Although they do not currently have plans to shut down the nuclear plants (they spent a lot of money refurbishing them 5-10 years ago), the handwriting is on the wall that when planned new wind is installed there will be no economic way to use the nuclear plants. Hydro will provide more than enough backup when the wind does not blow.
France is planning to shutter 14 nuclear plants in the near future (they also closed two last year) and install renewables. Ontario's nuclear plants are old and they are installing wind.
I noticed you forgot links to descriptions to the Russian nuclear reactors. According to Wikipedia, the BN600 has had 27 sodium leaks resullting in 14 fires. As much as 1000 kilos of sodium leaked. Apparently, in recent years they have leaks under control. Construction for the BN800 was started in 1983 and completed in 2016. source The BN 600 runs only 70% of the time because of required maintenance. Both reactors have three complicated triple part cooling systems to isolate the radioactive sodium coolant from water since sodium is flammable in water. These reactors cost even more to build than normal reactors. They will never be economic. No more are planned worldwide.
Renewables have only been the cheapest energy for a few years. Comparing directly to nuclear, a 60 year old, mature technology, is stupid. After 60 years nuclear generates less than 5% of world energy. Little is being built. In 2020 more than 80% of new electrical capacity added world wide was renewable. Because renewables are now cheapest, they are the most installed. For much of the non-renewable energy installed in 2020, construction was started when renewables were more expensive. In the future renewables will dominate all new construction.
-
John ONeill at 16:04 PM on 30 April 2021Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
'The storage of the Terrapower reactor would only raise output less than 50% for 5 1/2 hours.'
That would be adequate for demand cycles on most grids, where peak power, as a rule, is on the order of 50% higher than base. Remember, it's going from ~ 60% to 150% - at night much of the heat production goes to storage. Solar thermal storage has pioneered the technology, but has nowhere near the capacity factor -even in deserts, in summer - to match the reliability of nuclear.
The BN600 and BN800 in Russia seem to be operating without any leaks or fires - unlike some of the new grid storage battery plants, which, although nowhere near the gigawatt-day scale, or the price point, to be able to power a country through a cloudy, windless spell, are claimed to be ready to rescue part-time power sources from their role as sidekicks to the fossil industry.www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/burning-concern-energy-storage-industry-battles-battery-fires-51900636
'If we really try to build out wind and solar there will be a substantial decrease in carbon emissions in a short period of time.' That's something I haven't seen, though I rather obsessively scan www.electricitymap.org/zone/JP-KY?wind=false&solar=false for examples of it. Today, for the first time I've seen, Kyushu got well below 100 grams CO2 per kilowatt hour - but only briefly, at midday. For most of the 24 hours, it was three or four times as much. Areas that have invested mostly in nuclear - or hydro, when available - are routinely well below that mark, 24/7.
www.electricitymap.org/zone/CA-ON?wind=false&solar=false
www.electricitymap.org/zone/FR?wind=false&solar=false
www.electricitymap.org/zone/SE?wind=false&solar=false
( I'd have added Switzerland, but lately they've gone above the 100g/kwh mark most of the time. I'm not sure if it's because they've been closing reactors, or because, like here in New Zealand, they're having a dry hydro year. Either way, it's not a good augury for the country's goal of nuclear free, zero carbon, by 2050. Part of it could also be that they're importing a lot of power from Germany, which dirties their average.)
-
BaerbelW at 23:38 PM on 29 April 2021Welcome to Skeptical Science
I just now updated our Welcome Page to include the interactive version of "The Story of Skeptical Science" created for the 2020 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union. Enjoy!
-
Dale H at 09:54 AM on 29 April 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #17
Moderator
Thank you for the information. I have read the attached and the climate sceptics link explaining the information and alot of the comments and will look through the rest. It is a big help as well I will follow all the links.
Bob Loblaw @9, Doug Bostrom @10 & scaddenp @11
Thanks for reading my ideas and thank you for your time on responding. First I apologize on modelling comment as it was the wrong wording for what I was trying to explain and yes it is about statistical models not physics models. I will study all of the links and information to learn more. As you can tell I am also not a statistician but have used large amounts of data/statistical models to help change the behavior of people in all of the studies delivered which is difficult because people naturally resist change because of the risk involved and sometimes their own agendas so alot start out as deniers.
My point was we could strengthen our arguement by looking closely at the period when it was higher with all the different forcings and tie it back to the current increases to strengthen the predictions which I haven't seen done that often at least to the public level. In a simple sense it gets to us as the model said so without explaining the different pieces. Once again I come back to the premise that all of you have thought of these things and are not getting near the credit for all of your brillance and hard word.
I think we have convinced all of the scientists and now maybe broaden the approach with a full view aimed at a larger audience. As with everything else I mentioned you have probably done this already. I was just trying to understand the bigger picture and offer any help on understanding then educating and selling the ideas.
Thanks again as I have already learned alot in the last week.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:19 AM on 29 April 2021Why scientists shouldn't heed calls to 'stay in our lane'
Jim Hunt,
My suspicion is that influential interests are doing whatever they can get away with to influence what gets presented to the general public. And there is likely a lot that they can get away with.
In addition to the Propaganda Model of Communication presented in Manufacturing Consent that I referred to in my comment at 10, more recent books on the topic indicate that systemic propaganda influence of powerful interests is Still Going Strong. "Propaganda in the Information Age" by Alan MacLeod is a 2019 update of the original that investigates how social media is functioning. And Matt Taibbi's "Hate Inc." includes his personal experience of the Propaganda Model in action in journalism.
-
scaddenp at 07:31 AM on 29 April 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #17
I agree with Bob - Dale H appears to be confusing physical models with statistical models. Flying a drone on Mars shows you what physics modelling can achieve.
A good introduction to nature of climate model is here. There is also an old discussion here which explores some of the differences between climate models and other kinds of numerical models.
Finally, (putting on a moderators hat), discussions about reliability of climate models should be placed here.
-
Jim Hunt at 19:49 PM on 28 April 2021Why scientists shouldn't heed calls to 'stay in our lane'
Thanks again 1Planet,
I don't usually frequent Reddit. Why do you suppose that the few references to the "open letter" that do get published in the MSM all seem to be "scrubbed" shortly thereafter? -
Doug Bostrom at 11:38 AM on 28 April 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #17
A little further to Bob's point, try visiting scholar.google.com and entering "constraining climate models" (in quotes). That's a primitive search term but will produce a result helpful for understanding the phenomenal effort devoted to keeping models in the paddock labeled "realistic."
Models are kept on a tight leash and are not free to run away in imagination.
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:57 AM on 28 April 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #17
Dale H:
You said "As you all know in modelling you can predict outside the current data but the model error will go up as leave the data set."
Although what you say is very common in statistical fits to data (interpolate, don't extrapolate), it is much less common in models that are based on physics. Climate models have some statistical derivations for small-scale phenomena, but the bulk of the calculations are based on well-defined physical relationships and include things like conservation of energy that controls long-term behaviour. They are much less likely to show extrapolation errors.
-
Dale H at 09:38 AM on 28 April 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #17
Eclectic
Thank you for the information above as it was all new to me as my investigation into climate change has mainly been from 1880 to the present with a little bit around the little ice age plus the higher sea levels 1000 to 1250 AD.
I am sorry about breaking policy guidelines as it wasn't my intent and will adjust my questions. It was just one question lead to another and I didn't see threads with graphs about CO2 and temperature levels in the dinosaur age on the website as I had noticed were higher on google but wanted good data. I also started here because on the newbie page I mainly saw people complaining about deniers and was hoping for some colaboration to help point me to which projects have a greater acceptance.
As mentioned I have delivered over 1000 projects and workshops in the food business on 4 continents and we always let the facts and models find as close to truth for us and then model out multiple scenarios to help achieve results on their goals and what they can afford. The data has no room for denial but people don't like change so their starting point on most things is denial and we use facts and to help and outcomes to help change them. There is some advantage that the Food business isn't political but there is always different agendas in corporations etc.. on having the results that would benefit them. I found it surprising at the amount of politics on the website which will immediately get the opposing parties backs up and stop the exchange of ideas. I truely believe there is alot more hard work and wisdom in the area that isn't getting out to the public probably on the 5 to 10 fold scale. On deniers one of the reasons I honestly looked at the area at first is I was hearing outrageous claims of what was going to happen. I said maybe but would have to look at as much of the raw data and model outputs myself. Once I looked into it I could see some classic cherry picking the time period, changing the scale etc.. which would give misintented results that is easy for deniers to poke holes in the conclusion and once you lose credibility on the data set it is difficult to get back. I also saw that if you looked at the whole dataset the trend and results show the same result of an increase but maybe on a slightly longer timeframe and was a missed opportunity on changing deniers opinion in some cases. For myself it led to realize that we are affecting climate and I had to tease out the last few questions I had to see any natural increase. (sea level going up before the industrial revolution, why the slow down in the 30's & 40's and a few other things).
I do think you are selling yourselves a little short and have an opportunity to point out that we have over powered the latest decrease in solar irradiance and sunspot decrease and the temperature is still rising as further proof.
My hope was to learn more and possibily collaborate on the full picture to help in anyway I could. As you all know in modelling you can predict outside the current data but the model error will go up as leave the data set. My thinking was as we leave the most recent area were CO2 has been the last few million years why not try to learn as much as we can in the dinosaur period when temperatures and CO2 were hotter to help our knowledge and what we are up against. In addition, as you know match your presentations to your audience varying details/complexity to some groups and the big picture with simple reasonable outcomes with executives.
I will continue to go through the site to look for knowlege on the areas mentioned for question to stay within policy. If you have any good datasets and hypothesis it would be appreciated. Since this may not to policy and not to bore everyone on the site please contact me dale.hansson@verizon.net and I would love to learn and help in anyway.
Dale
Moderator Response:[DB] For a discussion of previous climates with high levels of CO2, see this post:
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm
Over the Earth's history, there are times where atmospheric CO2 is higher than current levels. The planet experienced widespread regions of glaciation during some of those periods. Does this contradict the warming effect of CO2? No, for one simple reason. CO2 is not the only driver of climate. To understand past climate, we need to include other forcings that drive climate.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016703706001979
http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2(GCA).pdf
Atmospheric CO2 levels have reached extremely high values in the deep past, possibly topping over 5000 ppm in the late Ordovician around 440 million years ago. However, solar activity also falls as you go further back. In the early Phanerozoic, solar output was about 4% less than current levels.
If climate scientists were claiming CO2 was the only driver of climate, then high CO2 during glacial periods would be problematic. But any climate scientist will tell you CO2 is not the only driver of climate. Climatologist Dana Royer says it best:
"the geologic record contains a treasure trove of 'alternative Earths' that allow scientists to study how the various components of the Earth system respond to a range of climatic forcings."
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-010-9633-1_4
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00151270Past periods of higher CO2 do not contradict the notion that CO2 warms global temperatures. On the contrary, they confirm the close coupling between CO2 and climate. When CO2 levels were higher in the past, solar levels were also lower. The combined effect of sun and CO2 matches well with climate.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 01:03 AM on 28 April 2021Skeptical about a defense of science?
Nice analysis DB. Mr Lucas' hypocrisy is, unfortunately, more the rule than the exception these days.
-
Evan at 22:45 PM on 27 April 2021SkS Analogy 22 - Energy SeaSaw
Thanks for the suggestion. I updated the post to include your suggested revisions.
-
Eclectic at 21:29 PM on 27 April 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #17
Dale H @6 ,
a somewhat brief overview from me as a non-expert :-
The atmospheric CO2 level was very high "from the start", in the sense of Pre-Cambrian times. Fortuitously, the early Sun was significantly lower in output (insolation has been increasing by 1% per 120 million years approx.)
In the long run up to now, exposed rock has very slowly absorbed CO2 by "weathering" to form carbonate which ends up on the ocean floor (and/or subducted by tectonic movement). And part of these carbonates is recycled into the atmosphere by volcanic venting.
The rate of weathering has varied at times. Also, there was a large "plunge" in CO2 level during the fossil-carbon formation in the Carboniferous age (much plant life, and no large herbivores?). A separate plunge during the Ordovician age (somewhat unclear, owing to uncertainty from poor time-resolution). And some major spikes in CO2 (and temperature) owing to Large Igneous Province eruptions such as the Siberian Traps and the Deccan Traps events.
Overall, it's been quite a ride !
The present latitudinal positions of the continents (plus Antarctica at polar position) has predisposed to glacial times for our planet. And likewise, the current "low" CO2. And if I have gathered correctly ~ in about an estimated 15 million years' time, the CO2 level would have become low enough to embarrass the present species of plants (unless they suitably evolve their photosynthetic mechanisms). Obviously the 15 million year time-scale gives the human race considerable leeway in tackling that particular problem.
Dale H , my apologies if you were already aware of much of this broad background. The SkS website has a vast amount of detail available for your self-directed searching.
As you have said you have already spent a goodly amount of time researching climate matters, then it might be advantageously efficient if you gave specific indication of where you feel puzzled or where you feel the mainstream climate scientists might be wrong.
If you need to raise particular questions, then it is standard SkS policy that you place one or two questions in the most appropriate thread . . . and deal with those questions . . . and then progress to the next question you have in mind.
Prev 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 Next
