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:
-
Alvaro Estrada BCS Mx at 06:41 AM on 22 May 2021A history of FLICC: the 5 techniques of science denial
I made a translation to Spanish that needs some "cultural translation" since we don't have a straight translation to concepts like Straw Man which I translated as a negative Stereotype. I would like to colaborate to do a badly needed translation to Spanish of the whole page. I hope you don't mind I added the logos of some of my Science and Cultural causes.
-
RedBaron at 01:13 AM on 22 May 2021Greens: Divided on ‘clean’ energy? Or closer than they appear?
Michael,
I have an economical BCCS plan using modular autarky, but I tend to agree that CCS is difficult at best.
-
michael sweet at 00:15 AM on 22 May 2021Greens: Divided on ‘clean’ energy? Or closer than they appear?
I mostly agree with Nigelj:
Nuclear and CCS are both uneconomic and will not be built. We are discussing goals set for 2035. Both CCS and nuclear take 10 or more years to build and no-one is planning any new builds. I think nuclear is best left unsubsidized and the plants can shut down as they start to lose money. Maybe someone in 10 years will come up with an economic CCS plan that helps the climate crisis. I doubt it.
Biofuels are a little more complex. My cousin works in an electrical facility that burns trash and biowaste from yards/ They have a good scrubber. That seems OK to me. The wholesale felling of forests to ship pellets to coal plants in England is unsustainable. I think it would be best to pass this legislation and then come back later to deal with biofuels.
The most important thing is to encourage the building of wind and solar plants as rapidly as possible. Then encourage electric cars. You cannot just shut down all the coal plants tomorrow, you must have generation in place to replace them. As more renewable energy is built the uneconomic fossil plants will shut down.
Texas is building a lot of wind and solar this year. No government mandate. It will be inteesting to see how that works out. It is not Greenies who are building those plants. I saw an article about South Australia that also suggested that renewables are forcing out fossil fuels. There is not a government mandate, just people installing solar on homes and utilities building renewable farms.
-
Nick Palmer at 23:23 PM on 21 May 2021Greens: Divided on ‘clean’ energy? Or closer than they appear?
I think the '600' Greens have shot themselves in the foot on this one but, more seriously, I think they will alienate the deeper thinking, more knowledgable amongst their large numbers of supporters as the more 'watermelons' of their leaders continue to try to railroad the public towards their politically biased choices for 'solutions'. The last thing the world needs now is politic biases handicapping our options to solve this huge and deep seated climate change problem.
I find the seemingly growing poltical polarisation of the 'sides' worrying to see. The left seem to be becoming more extreme in their prescriptions for policy - 100% renewables, no nuclear, no CCS whilst simultaneously solving inequality, racial justice, white supremacy etc, etc! That seems to me to be making an already very hard problem much harder to address, possibly impossible.
The right, while they seem to have retreated from full-on rabid denialism, look to be dragging their feet in the hope that the 'lukewarmers' are right and that technical innovation and carbon capture will save the situation without too much disruption to the status quo.I think neither 'side' has all the answers, but their increasingly entrenched positions are starting to build up massive political tensions which cannot be a good thing for generating publicy acceptable policies for the fundamental changes over the long term that will be needed.
To head off some commenters, my position is that of a centrist - free'ish but lightly as possible regulated markets with social and enviromental safety nets - somewhat like the Scandinavian countries.Moderator Response:[BL] Random letters deleted...
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:37 AM on 21 May 2021Greens: Divided on ‘clean’ energy? Or closer than they appear?
nigelj,
I agree that biomass is not likely to be a sustainable energy supply, mainly because the harmful aspects are likely to be very difficult to keep from being a problem.
An additional concern about Carbon capture is that it is only acceptable as a short term transition system. It is highly unlikely that the technology will ever capture all of the carbon and permanently lock it away. So it should be restricted to being applied to newer existing fossil fuel facilities to reduce the emissions until they are removed from service by 2060 at the latest. And example is the Boundary Dam CCS added to the existing coal burning facility n Saskatchewan, Canada. However, the economics may make renewable energy generation a more viable action than adding CCS to extend the viability of operation of a fossil fuel plant by reducing its emissions.
Nuclear faces an additional double challenge. It consumes non-renewable materials, so it needs to be replaced by something else in the future. And it creates long lasting harmful waste products. So the economics of building safe nuclear with proven safe storage of the waste could also make it less viable than other renewable energy generation.
Carbon Capture applied to burning a refined bio product like bio-diesel has potential. But it also may not be economically competitive compared to other renewable energy options. However, the future need is likely to be a reduction of the over-charging of the atmosphere with CO2. So CCS on bio-diesel electricity generation may be beneficial for that reason. It is unlikely that there be a "natural - not due to Government intervention" marketplace motivation to remove CO2 from the atmosphere (there never was that "natural" marketplace motivation to not produce the current bigger problem or effectively limit the harm done).
Some questions are:
- How much will global governments pay to remove carbon after no more CO2 is being forced as additional into the atmosphere by human activity?
- Will global government just accept whatever level CO2 got pushed up to?
- What exactly is Global Government anyway and how does it effectively limit harm being done (that may be the root of the problem right there)?
-
nigelj at 08:00 AM on 21 May 2021Greens: Divided on ‘clean’ energy? Or closer than they appear?
"The issue in contention: whether certain technologies like fossil fuels that capture their carbon emissions, nuclear, and biomass power should be considered sufficiently “clean,” or whether they should be eliminated from the American power generation mix for the sake of environmental justice. "
You have to rule out burning biomass just because of the air pollution problem and the huge challenges finding enough land. 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. As does solar and wind power and various other sustainable generating options.
The decision on what generation to build would be better be left to generating companies with the only requirements being the energy must be clean and zero carbon and provided in a safe manner. Government's tend to micro manage too much.
Personally I dont think nuclear power and carbon capture have much of a future, or make a lot of sense, especially when you look at costs (eg the Lazard energy analysis available free online) and how long this stuff takes to plan and build, and at public opinion, but I just think leave the decision to generating companies.
The Democrats shoot themselves in their own feet politically time and time again by over complicating things.
That said, planting trees and the whole carbon offset issue is a situation where government should manage the situation and at a planning level. Otherwise you will have huge tracts of good farmland taken over planting forests, which is just crazy!
-
Rob Honeycutt at 13:43 PM on 20 May 2021What Does Statistically Significant Actually Mean?
Ado @ 11...
Given the fact that we know increasing greenhouse gas concentrations are increasing radiative forcing, it's actually fairly easy to make rational predictions about the coming 10 years.
I did this 10 years ago, based on the same premise, and won this bet:
https://skepticalscience.com/impossible-to-lose.html
I'm ready to make the same bet again, and would continue to do so until there's a reasonable assumption that we would reduce carbon emissions to net-zero within the coming decade.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:13 AM on 20 May 2021What Does Statistically Significant Actually Mean?
Ado @11,
In addition to the helpful comments already provided I have a different perspective regarding the answer to the question "... can we predict based on experimental data what the temperature will be in 10 years time?" The answer is that you need to be more specific. Provide all of the conditions that are to be the basis for forecast and provide a definition of what is meant by the Temperature.
Examples of Conditions:
- What amount and types of human impacts over the next 10 years are to be the basis for the forecast?
- What condition pattern of the ENSO is to be the basis?
- How much of the variable volcanic impacts are to be considered through the coming decade and in what pattern?
Examples of what is meant by "Temperature 10 years from now":
- is it the global average land-surface and sea-surface?
- Is it to include or exclude the polar regions?
- Is it an absurd request like asking for the average surface temperature for the month of April in 10 years time? Or a less absurd but still fairly absurd average temperature for the Year 2030.
- Or is it a more reasonable request like asking how much warmer the average through the next decade will be compared to the average of the previous decade and asking for the probability bounds of that estimate based on the conditions that you have presented as being the ones to be presumed to occur through the coming 10 years?
-
Bob Loblaw at 06:04 AM on 20 May 2021What Does Statistically Significant Actually Mean?
Well, Ado might have a point if the science of global warming was based on nothing more than extrapolating the current temperature trend, but it isn't.
Climate scientists know a lot more than what Ado appears to know, so Ado is engaged in an argument from incredulity dressed in sheep's clothing.
If Ado wishes to learn more about what climate science knows, he can try either of the following:
HIstory of Climate Science (big button near the top of the Skeptical Science home page)
https://skepticalscience.com/history-climate-science.html
Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming:
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:50 AM on 20 May 2021What Does Statistically Significant Actually Mean?
The trend over the length of the record is statistically significant. 10 years may not be enough data to extract significance but that is irrelevant, since there are much more data than is needed to assess a real trend. Such analysis will likely show that, not only there is a significant warming trend, but that it also is accelerating.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2019/11/08/global-temperature-update-6/
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
Excerpt from the NOAA page: "the combined land and ocean temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.13 degrees Fahrenheit ( 0.08 degrees Celsius) per decade since 1880; however, the average rate of increase since 1981 (0.18°C / 0.32°F) has been more than twice that rate."
Considering the observed increase in decadal trends, and considering the physical reasons for the trend to continue, Ado's remark doesn't have much value.
Some of SkS contributors made a bet with the No Tricks Zone deniers and of course, they won, because the trend is unmistakeable. I have no doubt the same bet will yield the same result for the next decade. It will most likely be very close to 0.2 degC/decade, Ado's uncertainty notwithstanding.
-
Eclectic at 04:13 AM on 20 May 2021What Does Statistically Significant Actually Mean?
Ado @ 11 :
It is statistically probable that you are quite wrong ;-)
Scientists look at the overall context of the climate situation, and are remembering that "significant" statistical data are only a derivative of the physical planet.
In the case you mention, the statistically insignificant 0 - 0.4 DegreesC is accompanied by significant ice-melt and significant sea level rise (for many decades . . . and the reason for that, is well-known). Only the most contrarian of scientists would fail to identify the overall warming!
Ado - using current and historical data plus basic physics, would you predict a higher temperature in 10 years' time? Or a lower temperature? (Even without your mysterious unspecified experimental data.) Probably you need to explain your thinking.
-
Ado at 02:30 AM on 20 May 2021What Does Statistically Significant Actually Mean?
I absolutely agree that the noise is too much to show with any certainty that the 0.2 Degrees C per decade increase in temperature is statistically significant and therefore indistinguisable from 0 or 0.4 Degrees C per decade, especially since you inply a linear trend (which it most certainly is not). The correct question however is; can we predict based on experimental data what the temperature will be in 10 years time? The answer: NO.
-
michael sweet at 21:31 PM on 15 May 2021China’s 2060 climate pledge is ‘largely consistent’ with 1.5C goal, study finds
Doug Bostrom:
Your paper presents an interesting perspective. The continuation of the rapid decrease in the cost of renewable energy is changing the landscape faster than the peer reviewed literature can keep up. Carbon Brief describes a new IEA projection which raises the amount of renewable energy projected to be built this year by 25% compared to its last evaluation just 6 months ago. The IEA report says that in 2020 90% of new capacity built worldwide was renewable.
It takes 5-10 years to build a fossil fuel generating plant. The small amount of fossil generation currently being completed was started before renewable energy was the cheapest. I think that China will shift to building out renewable energy overseas (and internally) because renewable is cheaper. And renewable energy continues to decrease in price year to year!!! The IEA report says that in China developers are building out record amounts of renewable energy even though production subsidies were ended last year.
Concerned people should encourage governments to continue renewable feed in tariffs and other subsidies for the renewable industry to encourage developers to build out renewable energy even faster.
In order to reduce fossil fuel use alternate energy is needed. If developers are encouraged by government subsidies and low renewable prices, the shift to all renewable energy will move forward faster.
-
Doug Bostrom at 03:05 AM on 15 May 2021China’s 2060 climate pledge is ‘largely consistent’ with 1.5C goal, study finds
From a complete systems perspective China's entire coal economy needs to be accounted for. For geopolitical and purely commerical purposes China is actively fostering and financing the construction of coal-fired generation plants outside its own borders. In a nutshell, coal-fired generation is an export product China is selling in signifcant quantity. This is an integral part of China's economy and so focusing entirely on emissions within the borders of China leaves an incomplete picture.
Ideally the additional impact of China's exports of coal-fired generation will be factored in with any assessment of China's total, net performance against its goals.
[We can simultaneously acknowledge that harsh judgement of China's performance w/regard to internal consumption has to be tempered by recognizing the realities of maintaining social stability in a challenging transition environment while also positing that exporting coal generation products for geopolitical d**k-swinging and profit seeking objectives is plainly inexcusable.]
A recently published paper responsive to the transnational perspective quantifies the situation, acknowledges the technical superiority of China's coal-fired generation plant exports but reminds us of the net effect being "wrong direction."
An empirical analysis of the environmental performance of China's overseas coal plants (ERL, open access).
Abstract:
China's ongoing commitment to overseas infrastructure investment through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has ignited concern over environmental impacts. The BRI's environmental impacts will be determined by China's decisions not only on what kinds of projects to fund, but also how those projects end up operating relative to projects without Chinese involvement. It is critical to understand current performance and establish a baseline understanding of the environmental impacts of China's overseas projects thus far. We examine the environmental performance of coal-fired power plants in Asia in terms of carbon dioxide emissions intensity. Using generating unit-level data and a regression-based analysis, we estimate the comparative emissions intensity of overseas coal plants owned, designed, or constructed, by Chinese and non-Chinese companies. We find that Chinese coal plants tend to have significantly lower emissions intensity than similar non-Chinese coal plants. Given that total emissions rather than relative emissions intensity primarily drive the global warming impact of a plant, we also estimate total annual emissions and committed lifetime emissions of the plants in our dataset. We find that while Chinese plants may have relatively lower emissions intensity, their total emissions will grow as a proportion of the coal plant emissions in Asia over time.
-
nevergiveup at 02:22 AM on 14 May 2021'Freedom from Fossil Fuels' - a climate science framework for non-scientists
Thank you so much Stephen ! I continually try to find words to describe climate change in a way that is easily understandable to people, especially the deniers, so I think you have cracked it ! I appreciate all the hard work it must have taken you to get to this point. Fantastic work. I look forward to your shorter versions ! Thanks again, from a climate activist
-
benabbott at 01:19 AM on 14 May 2021Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
The new estimates of volcanic emissions are around 50 million tons per year (Wong et al. 2019), lower than the low estimate in this article. Here is a graph I just made comparing cumulative human emissions to global biomass and cumulative volcanic emissions over the same time period: CO2 comparison.
-
Jim Hunt at 20:09 PM on 13 May 2021Overshooting 2C risks rapid and unstoppable sea level rise from Antarctica
And don't forget Greenland:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/new-climate-models-suggest-faster-melting-of-the-greenland-ice-sheet
And don't forget that here on SkS you have to manually add the hyperlink using the "Insert" tab! -
nigelj at 17:21 PM on 13 May 2021Overshooting 2C risks rapid and unstoppable sea level rise from Antarctica
Sidd I think you have the wrong article (similar but not the same). Correct article below:
Moderator Response:[BL] Link activated.
As Jim mentions, 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. -
Eclectic at 13:43 PM on 13 May 2021How sure are climate scientists?
Nigelj @5 :
On balance, I would go with Gws@4 about this video.
The video is more introductory than definitive, and IMO it has a suitably delicate touch. It is not talking to the scientifically well-informed, nor is it for the intransigent denialists. Rather it seems aimed at the middle ground, where many people are hesitant/doubtful about global warming consequences ~ maybe they're slightly irritated by the ongoing bombardment with pro/con messages in the media, or maybe they've been mentally pushing the climate problem into the too-hard-for-now basket.
Perhaps this video is capable of "softening-up" the mental defenses of those who are un-engaged (but are not in denial).
-
nigelj at 08:30 AM on 13 May 2021How sure are climate scientists?
gws @4, maybe I wasn't clear or something, but I think its the broad middle that are the exact people that may become sceptical after watching the video. For the reasons I stated. Not suggesting uncertainty in science should never be dicussed but it needs great care how its discussed.
-
gws at 01:02 AM on 13 May 2021How sure are climate scientists?
Nigel @1: There is no doubt that denialists will misconstrue what is in that video ... surprised? Since when do we care about their BS? they will do so anyway, regardless of what we say or what the video contains.
Instead, it is the broad middle, the cautious, disengaged, and doubtful we need to reach, and for them, the video will be helpful.
I do not agree with everything in it either, but I think it is one of the best outreach videos I have ever seen.
There is one important point in there, that requires repeating. In his nice (book form) summary from 2015, Andrew Hoffman calls it the need to "address the process by which the message was created". Aka, don't just endorse expertise (miscontrued as "authority"), endorse the scientific process through which we arrived at the "message" (here: we need to address climate change by eliminating GHG emissions).
SkS does this. So SkS shares this video. Thank you!
-
Jim Hunt at 21:02 PM on 12 May 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
Hopefully the guys'n'gals here at SkS will find this as amusing as my Arctic alter ego did?
https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/1392406380016021504
Tucker Carlson interviewed Steve Koonin for Fox News. Fox displayed lots of stock footage of melting sea ice in the background. Needless to say neither Tucker nor Steve broached the subject of the 800 pound canary in the Arctic coal mine.
-
ubrew12 at 06:33 AM on 12 May 2021How sure are climate scientists?
It's worth noting that uncertainty cuts both ways, and I hope his next video, on renewables, does this. Renewable power plants are temporary structures, while emissions from fossil fuel power plants are essentially permanent. The former thus comes with much less risk than the latter: you can take down a wind turbine, you can't take down an excess of carbon dioxide. Thus, the uncertainty about our climate future, so often used against climate action, actually favors renewable energy, and disfavors the fossil status quo.
-
Jim Hunt at 02:15 AM on 12 May 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
Eclectic @13 - Thanks for your kind words
Al @15 - Might I humbly suggest that in future you refrain from posting live links to the dark side from SkS? IMHO links to an archive like the one below are infinitely preferable for a variety of reasons:
Thanks for your suggestions, which may well come in handy in due course. For the present I am still trying to persuade Judy et al. to take on board my prime proposition. See for example:
https://archive.is/aVeMo#comment-949565 -
MA Rodger at 01:43 AM on 12 May 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
Jim Hunt @12,
I think you missed a trick in your interchange with Judy @ClimateEtc on the subject of Koonin & Arctic Sea Ice. Judy chips in "If you think that the consensus is that this decline is 100% caused by AGW, then you disagree with the IPCC SROCC report (which estimates ~50%). Very weak base for criticizing Koonin."
But come on, Judy is just flying arround on Occam's broom.
So I think the reply should be "Judy, have you read IPCC SROCC 3.2.1.1.1 and the references it bases that "est ~50%" on? I ask because if you had, I think you would be less quick with your "very weak base" comment."
IPCC SROCC 3.2.1.1.1 says "Approximately half of the observed Arctic summer sea ice loss is driven by increased concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases, with the remainder attributed to internal climate variability (Kay et al., 2011; Notz and Marotzke, 2012) (medium confidence). ... A lack of complete process understanding limits a more definitive differentiation between anthropogenic versus internal drivers of summer Arctic sea ice loss (Serreze et al., 2016; Ding et al., 2017; Meehl et al., 2018)."
So at first cut, the ~50% value appears to be based on some rather old references. Of these references, Kay et al (2011) which provides a 40%-50% value says "The conclusions we draw are only as reliable as the underlying climate model processes," which isn't the sort of finding you would lay great store by. Their conclusion is "Thus, consistent with early studies, this [study] should be seen as another reminder of the need to account for internal variability in the assessment of recent sea ice loss and the fidelity of global climate model simulations." It is thus not a reliable quantification of the contribution of internal variability.
And Notz and Marotzke (2012) basically says that internal variability is not the cause of the post-1979 trend in SIE decline. "1. Internal variability as estimated from pre-satellite observations cannot explain the recent retreat of Arctic sea ice. 2. The observational record shows no signs of self-acceleration and hence no signs of a possible ‘tipping’. 3. The satellite record is well described by a linear trend onto which internal variability is superimposed. The magnitude of this superimposed internal variability is very similar to that of the pre-satellite record. 4. The most likely explanation for the linear trend during the satellite era from 1979 onwards is the almost linear increase in CO2 concentration during that period."
Of the later references, Serreze et al (2015) says nothing on the subject,
Ding et al (2017) is saying the internal variability is being driven by sea ice loss in a two-way street [so this is AGW creating internal variability] and comes up wiht a 30%-50% value, while Meehl et al (2018) suggest the extra oomph in Arctic SIE decline 2000 is due to forced tropical SST.So I see nowhere any reason to dismiss half the 1079-2020 SIE loss as being due to one of Judy's wobbly trends.
-
Eclectic at 01:12 AM on 12 May 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
Jim Hunt . . . an addendum :-
I got a smile, from someone saying you were "a denier of consensus".
In another direction, there was also a neat comment by Joshua :-
"the basic science implies danger (within a range of uncertainty)"
~ and I shall try to remember that quote. Very neat.
-
Eclectic at 00:34 AM on 12 May 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
Jim Hunt @12 :-
Well congratulations and bravo, Jim, for your multiple comments in the Judith Curry blog (Post titled: Climate book shelf , on 10 May 2021).
Your droll ironies were entertaining/enjoyable. Such as: "It seems safe to assume that Dr. Koonin has heard of NASA ... [which is mentioned] once in the body of the book."
Meanwhile the "opposition" [the usual suspects] were parading themselves in typical form. Such as Turbulent Eddie's face-palming fatuosity about arctic maxima/minima. Others were in good form too ~ one stating the certainty of massive cooling due in the coming century or two. While another stated that the present arctic warming was, yes, caused by humans . . . but even in the absence of humans, the same amount of warming would have occurred in a few decades' time anyway! Others were deeply into "cycles" explaining all climate variation . . . yet they never seem to understand that there must be an underlying physical cause of every variation (cyclic or otherwise).
In some ways, Curry's blog "ClimateEtc" is more fun than the proverbial barrel of monkeys. But it is partly rescued by sane contributions from JH, Willard, and the very deft Joshua, plus some (erratic) others.
Curry herself (and likewise Koonin, who uses a partly similar style) is like a magician making a stage presentation. Rhetorical vagueness and obfuscation, like smoke and mirrors. All designed to keep the audience's attention away from the physical realities.
Yet overall so far, the deniosphere's response to the Koonin book is somewhat more muted than I expected.
-
Jim Hunt at 20:01 PM on 11 May 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
Eclectic @10 - "[Koonin] took a rather aggressive/persistent attack on the mainstream position."
Allegedly that has now changed. I'm endeavouring to point this out to the thick skulled denizens at Judith Curry's blog, but they seem incapable of taking this message on board:
It seems that I need to repeat myself very slowly.1) On page 21 (of the Kindle edition) of Prof. Koonin’s magnum opus it states:
"Along with its comprehensive AR series of assessments, the IPCC also publishes more focused special reports, such as those on Extreme Events, the Ocean and Cyrosphere (sic), or Climate Change and Land."
followed on page 22 by:"The assessment reports literally define The Science for non-experts. Given the intensive authoring and review processes, any reader would naturally expect that their assessments and summaries of the research literature are complete, objective, and transparent—the “gold standard.” In my experience, the reports largely do meet that expectation, and so much of the detail in the first part of this book, the science story, is drawn from them."
The final clause should of course read:
Much of the detail in the first part of this book, the science story, is cherry picked from them." -
RedBaron at 19:04 PM on 11 May 2021How sure are climate scientists?
Thanks for this! I will absolutely share it and even include it as a reference in my projects! Brilliantly done!
-
nigelj at 18:09 PM on 11 May 2021How sure are climate scientists?
The movie does have some good features like that graphical time line. It talked a lot about uncertainty in science, and quoted some big medical science mistakes, and although it tried to explain why climate science is different, it did this rather weakly for me. It could leave a lot of people feeling "uncertain" about climate science and whether action is required. It seems like a gift to the denialists.
-
sidd at 15:17 PM on 11 May 2021Overshooting 2C risks rapid and unstoppable sea level rise from Antarctica
The link to the article in carbonbrief is incorrect. The correct link is
correct link : https://www.carbonbrief.org/studies-shed-new-light-on-antarcticas-future-contribution-to-sea-level-rise
sidd
-
MA Rodger at 13:45 PM on 11 May 2021There is no consensus
The argument presented by hedron @896 is entirely anti-science in that it is saying any area of scientific study can be fake as it can be created to sustain fallacious findings based purely on the belief of those who initiated that area of study and not based on the scientific evidence. If this fake science were possible, all science would be at risk of being slowly stacked full of undebunked nonsense.
Of course, that is not to say that an individual or small group of resrearchers cannot go off and create a pile of undebunked nonsense. Indeed, many researchers do effectively spend their whole careers so employed. Such work is not of itself anti-scientific as, through the act of bebunking it by others or eventually by those initially involved, the science learns what is and what is not nonsense. The 97% consensus is thus healthy and healthier than 100% as the missing 3% provides an arena for testing the veracity of the 97% and specific to AGW healthy because that 3% is better seen as comprising 30 x 0.1% (as those testing the 97% do not present a singular criticism).
-
John ONeill at 12:56 PM on 11 May 2021Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Replying to micheal sweet 247
If you or anyone else are interested, there's an extremely long thread here ( rivalling this one ) where Ben Sovacool responds to some rather trenchant criticism of his two papers on bird deaths, and then to further criticism of his response. Warning - Sovacool makes 36 entries in reply to an even larger number from various critics.
https://atomicinsights.com/sovacool-vs-lorenzini/
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.It has been suggested that you re-read the comments policy. With regard to this current comment, please note the following section. If you feel that a link is relevant, do not just ask people to go and read it - provide some sort of indication of what you expect people to see. Your current comment is a bit light in that regard.
No link or picture only. Any link or picture should be accompanied by text summarizing both the content of the link or picture, and showing how it is relevant to the topic of discussion. Failure to do both of these things will result in the comment being considered off topic.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:42 PM on 11 May 2021SkS Analogy 22 - Energy SeaSaw
Evan, I try to learn as I try to help other people understand what is happening. I appreciate your attention to my comments, and your feedback.
I have a few more suggestions for your consideration starting with the last point you made in your comment @16 (potentially only my comments “Regarding 10 years of temperature data being a sufficiently long time to provide a degree of technical rigour” affect what you have presented in your See-Saw item).I find it helps to expose people to the fuller record of basic data like CO2 levels and Global Average Surface Temperature. That can help them see how unusual or unnatural the recent values are and that CO2 and Temperature are related. That is why I recommend looking at the history of Temperature and CO2 data:
- back to 1880 for the surface temperature which shows that one of the biggest See-Saws was a warm bump in the 1940s that many “global warming - climate change” doubters mistakenly believe was Globally warmer than now because it was very warm in parts of the USA (And some people experienced that or knew someone who was alive back then similar to your “Winter recollections”).
- back to 1979 for the satellite data (to see that, though satellite temperatures are not the surface temperature, the pattern of temperature is similar)
- and back 800,000 years for CO2 levels, like the animation by NOAA that allows the details of recent decades to be seen along with the final full length record. It shows that:
- several 100 to 120 ppm changes happened in the previous ice-ages
- the high level of CO2 of 300 ppm was only reached once in all that time, until recently
- for the past 4000 years the CO2 level has been between 270 and 280 ppm.
- CO2 levels are now at 420 ppm, 140 above the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm, and continues to increase, and indeed an increase of 100 ppm since 1960.
The higher recent rates of warming do indeed over-whelm the impressions of the See-Saw. However, the magnitude of the warming is more important. Even if the decade rate was only 0.10 degrees C, eventually the warming would be clear in spite of the larger swings of the See-Saw.
Regarding how people will perceive a message
There is a diversity of awareness, understanding and perspective. Not everyone will see things the way you intend.
You asked: “Many people feel a difference in winters now than during their childhood (1970's or earlier). Can you tell how old I am? :-)”
What I can tell is how far North you likely live. You are likely part of the small portion of humanity who live north of, or near to, 60 degrees N latitude. The arctic regions have warmed faster than the rest of the global surface. People may legitimately recollect that Northern winters were different decades ago. But global average warming since the 1960s is far less than 1 degree C with non-arctic areas warming less than the average (and there is more warming at night than the daytime. So, people in non-arctic areas may not recall a difference. I was born before 1970 and have lived between 50 an 55 degrees N. In spite of my bias of being aware of the warming and climate change that has occurred, I cannot claim a clear recollection that winters were significantly different when I was younger. So there are likely many people who do not have a legitimate recollection that winters were different decades ago.
Regarding 10 years of temperature data being a sufficiently long time to provide a degree of technical rigour
I do agree you may want to reconsider what you say about the adequacy of a 10 year set of temperature data.
As KR suggests, unless the data has had significant variable influences like ENSO and volcanic impacts scrubbed out of the data, which raises questions about how those impacts are “scrubbed out”, temperature data sets longer than 20 years may be needed to avoid unintended interpretations.
I spent a little time learning about “decades of temperature data using the SkS Temperature Trend Calculator. I looked at the Trend values for sets of 10 years in the GISTEMPv4 and UAHv6.0 TLT data starting in 1979 (everyone can do this to verify the results):
- The Satellite data set shows a negative trend for the decades starting in 1987, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004.
- There are also many decades where the Positive Trend is less than 1/10th of the 2 sigma range of variability starting in 1980, 1986, 1997, 1999, and 2005 (decades with almost no clear warming, like the set starting with 1997 being 0.015 +- 0.445 degrees C per decade meaning a value range from -0.430 to +0.460, or 2005 being 0.005 +- 0.376 meaning -0.371 to +0.381).
- In the Surface Temperature data set only the decade starting in 1987 had a negative trend. There were no decades with a positive trend that was less than 1/10 of 2 sigma.
This may explain why the likes of Dr. Roy Spencer focus on their satellite data manipulations and try to claim the superiority of that data over surface temperature data. That run of values from 1997 through 2005 was a long period of being able to claim that the warming had appeared to have ended even though CO2 levels continued to increase (the UAHv6 data set trend for the 19 year period of 1997 to 2015 is negative. In the UAHv5.6 data set the longest negative Trend was for the 11 years 1998 – 2009, and in the RSSv4 TLT data set the longest negative trend is the decade starting with 2003). So shorter sets of data, rather than the fuller story, can be the “Friend” of the likes of Dr. Roy Spencer (and updated manipulations of the data can also be “Friendlier to the likes of Dr. Roy Spencer.).
A final point about presenting decade averages
I do like the presentation of the averages of the 70s, 80s, 90, 2000s, 2010s when a graph cannot be shown. And I agree that such a presentation is not improved by adding earlier decades. But I also consider a “moving average” presentation to be better, but it needs to be Graphed (referring to the SkS Temperature Trend Calculator works). The moving average values can’t be described in words the way the decade averages can be. However, the discrete decade averages are a 120 month "moving average" with the data points being every 10 years (on a graph the decade averages would be points in the middle of each decade). As you can see from the investigation I summarized above, any set of 10 years of data can be a Decade average. And when those averages are done for each new month of data the series of points will look like a line (note that Dr. Roy Spencer presents a 13 month moving average because that makes it easier to present the data points. They go on the middle point of the data set – no need to set the graphic up to present a 12 month average between the middle two months of a 12 item data set).
-
nigelj at 07:14 AM on 11 May 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
Eclectic @10
"I am sourly amused by the repeated crocodile tears of denialists claiming that we (the West) should first supply coal-fired generators to bring electricity to the suffering poor of Africa..."
Me too. Very sourly amused. Funny how these conservative leaning fossil fuel loving denialists suddeny find all this sympathy for poor people when its usually so absent. The more usual rehetoric is "pull yourselves up by your own bootstraps".
That said, there is a group of liberal leaning denialists and luke warmers that appear driven by genuine sympathy for poor people and worry that they will be hurt by climate mitigation. For example while Mike Moore accepts AGW, he is opposed to renewables because he (falsely) believes they are a capitalist scam to enrich the corporate sector. He produced an anti renewables movie, but I can't remember the name. And Bjorn Lomberg is a lukewarmer who appears driven by genuine concern for poor people. This may be at least part of he source of his luke warmerism. He doesn't appear to have business or libertarian motives or links to the fossil fuel industry. Of course none of this justifies his luke warmer position.
The question is which group does Koonin fall into. We will probbaly never know. He seems to avoid discussions about his world view
-
Bob Loblaw at 05:29 AM on 11 May 2021There is no consensus
hedron states "Of course, 97% of climate scientists believe in global warming, the field of climate science itself was created by a group of people who believed in climate change".
This, of course, is complete bollocks. Studies into the nature of climate date back at least as far as the 1800s,
If hedron wants to inform itself of the history, it can go to Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming. Based in its brief posting history here, I doubt that hedron will make the effort, though.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 05:15 AM on 11 May 2021There is no consensus
hedron,
It is a little difficult to understand your convoluted reasoning and the analogies you provide don't help. There is such a field as the scientific study of hurricanes, it is a specialized area of work for meteorologists. It probably was started by specialists who believed that hurricanes were real. If you don't believe that it is legitimate, substitute your own advice to theirs next time a storm is barreling down the coast of Florida, but to keep honest, leave yourself open to litigation in case your advice leads to loss of life or property.
"Academies of science from 80 countries" and "many scientific organizations" does not equate to "97% of climate scientist." Furthermore, your analogy does not hold because scientific inquiry is a process whose very purpose is to uncover the stuff that is not a matter of opinion.
-
hedron at 04:45 AM on 11 May 2021There is no consensus
That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science.
This is a disingenuous statement. Of course, 97% of climate scientists believe in global warming, the field of climate science itself was created by a group of people who believed in climate change. It's literally no different than claiming capitalism in bad, because 97% of communists say so. It would be similar to creating an academic discipline of hurricane-ology. It's a one trick pony. When you have an entire academic discipline dedicated to a single political cause which is funded by a wealthy elite, I tend to be highly skeptical of the intent or motive.
So, this article has been officially DEBOOONKED!!!
-
Eclectic at 00:29 AM on 11 May 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
Nigel :- Koonin's attitude to mainstream climate science is not a new development. If you go back 7 years and read the transcript of his verbal contribution to the 2014 American Physical Society climate statement review, you will find he took a rather aggressive/persistent attack on the mainstream position. Clearly it was not a skeptical, but a prejudiced attitude he took with his carping.
Nigel, I am sourly amused by the repeated crocodile tears of denialists claiming that we (the West) should first supply coal-fired generators to bring electricity to the suffering poor of Africa. Thus raising their economic well-being . . . and only after that has been accomplished, would we be justified in pursuing our own renewable energy goals.
The poor of this world have have been suffering for many decades, with precious little help from the denialists. When even a 10% diversion of our global armaments expenditure could have made a colossal difference in helping the poor. But this hasn't been done ~ nor even suggested by the same denialists. Apparently we must not consider donating solar panels to African villagers for charging their (increasingly widespread & useful) cellphones etcetera ~ but we must first go to donating centralized coal-fired generation of electricity.
-
Jim Hunt at 22:31 PM on 10 May 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
Nigel @8,
Whilst Steve's apparently undimmed "scepticism" may well have been firmly debunked in the past it seems that the task needs to be undertaken yet again.
The latest episode in the Wall Street Journal's "Unsettled Science" propaganda campaign includes a video interview with Prof. Koonin that includes references to those well known climate scientists Al Gore and Joe Biden, as well as the cover of his new book in the background:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2021/05/koonins-unsettled-science-the-movies/
So there you have it. Al Gore is a mere straw man, easily knocked down with a cherry pick without even bothering to mention any of the underlying science.
-
nigelj at 18:11 PM on 10 May 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
MA Rodger @6
"So Koonin presents a wibbly-wobbly argument against AGW science."
He sure does.
"And if anybody sees in this reason not to brand Koonin a nought but a vaccuous blowhard, I'd be interested to hear that reason."
And he sure comes across like a vacuous blowhard. He is getting on a bit in age which might have something to do with it. What also troubles me is the way he is content to quote examples of how the weather is not changing, eg frequency of droughts and tornadoes but is happy to leave out evidence of where it is changing eg frequency and intensity of heatwaves and heavy rainfall events. In other words very selective, done like this for whatever purpose.
His climate views also seem to have been quite changeable, for whatever reason
Anyway I was googling about him briefly, trying to track down his political and world views, but nothing came to light, in fact a curious lack of a single thing, but I did find the quote about poor people in this article here.
“For me,” Koonin concludes, “the many certain downsides of mitigation outweigh the uncertain benefits: the world’s poor need growing amounts of reliable and affordable energy, and widespread renewables or fission are currently too expensive, unreliable, or both.”
More from that article. He might also fancy himself as a great contrarian truth seeker:
"Earlier in Koonin’s career, in 1989, that inclination led him to prominence, as one of a group of scientists who successfully debunked the claims of a University of Utah team who reported that they had discovered “cold fusion”—a breakthrough that, had it proved real, would have transformed energy production. "
And he comes out with the standard republican party climate views:
"While at BP Koonin, as he does today, advocated research into approaches typically favored by oil companies and Republicans opposed to fundamental change in energy supply. They include carbon capture and storage, advanced nuclear energy, and biofuels and geoengineering ideas, like seeding the atmosphere with aerosol particles to increase Earth’s reflectivity."
Although elsewhere he is supportive of solar power. His positions on mitigation thus also seem a bit changeable.
Yet he says he doesn't support Donald Trump. So who knows what drives the man. I think my original contention is still possible, but his real motivation and political beliefs and personal world view remain pretty much unknown. What is certain is that his scepticism on the climate issue is misleading, out of date, and has been firmly debunked.
-
Jim Hunt at 18:07 PM on 10 May 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
Al @6,
They don't brand Dr. Koonin "a nought but a vacuous blowhard", and it sounds as if they weren't sent a copy of his book for reveiw. However based on a review of the book in the Wall Street Journal the science content has been assessed as "very low" by Climate Feedback:
Scientists who reviewed the article found that it builds on a collection of misleading and false claims. For instance, Koonin states that “Greenland’s ice sheet isn’t shrinking any more rapidly today than it was eighty years ago”. Contrary to the claim, scientific studies using airborne and satellite altimetry observations show considerable thinning has occurred along the margin of the Greenland ice sheet since 2003. As explained below by Twila Moon, from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the Greenland ice sheet lost more mass during the 2003-2010 time period than during the entire time period from 1900 to 2003. Furthermore, this melting has generated a measurable sea level rise over the last 20 years.Koonin also claims that “the rate of sea-level rise has not accelerated”. Contrary to the claim, scientific studies show that rates of global sea level rise have changed over time and accelerated, notably since the 1990s, primarily due to glacial ice melting and the expansion of seawater as it warms. As pointed out by Zeke Hausfather, Director of Climate and Energy at The Breakthrough Institute, sea levels are rising faster now than at any point since records began in the early 1900s
etc. etc.
-
MA Rodger at 15:41 PM on 10 May 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
nigelj @5,
If you believe Koonin, in his recent NY Post OP he tells us he was fully-signed-up to the science of AGW until he took part in the 2014 APS Climate Change Review Workshop which he chaired. The APS found nothing in this workshop to change its stance on AGW which pitted the science against the grand theorising of John-boy Christy, Judy Curry & Dicky Lindzen, a falsely-balanced debate that had been exposed as nonsense for decades. So why Koonin was so strongly convinced by the denialist arguments, indeed his role in setting up the event (he has been advocatng the use of such a process ever since), does need more explanation from Koonin, explanation which is simply absent.
His work with BP back in the 2000s involved biofuels which do present a problem with high land-use but it would be a fool who took a decade to spot that truth and, then without pause jump to the view expressed in his Sept 2014 OP. While the usual take-away from this Sept 2014 OP is his denial of the science, it is actually a call to resolve the divide (the unresolvable divide) between AGW "belief" and AGW "hoax", to resolve through re-directing scientific effort, as this resolution "should be among the top priorities for climate research." But I neither see any emphasis being made by Koonin in 2014 that the cure (a zero carbon economy) would be a worse outcome that AGW. Nor do I see any emphasis by Koonin in 2021 any message calling to re-direct the scientific effort. The only sign of his continued holding of this view is his involvement in the RedTeam/BlueTeam initiatives, not the most scientific methods of tackling science.
A year later as the Paris climate talks draw near, Koonin is advocating AGW adaptation because mitigation cannot be achieved in time, a new slant on things again.
Now his 2021 OP (and presumaby his grand book) he brands talk of a climate emergency and the policies to address it as being fallacy, basing this on some very silly denialist nonsense.
So Koonin presents a wibbly-wobbly argument against AGW science. And if anybody sees in this reason not to brand Koonin a nought but a vaccuous blowhard, I'd be interested to hear that reason.
-
nigelj at 13:19 PM on 10 May 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
I read somewhere that Steve Koonin is worried that renewable energy will be allegedly too expensive and will hurt poor people. I wonder if this is why hes a luke warmer. There appears to be a small but genuine group of left / liberal leaning people like that. If so, he should check the numbers. Solar and wind power have plumetted in cost in the last 20 years, and are are now very cost effective (Lazard energy analysis).
He did work at British Petroleum about 20 years ago (according to his wikipedia entry) , and this was developing renewables. He may have lost track on the more recent trends in renewables. Of course he might have other motives for his luke warmerism. The motives of these people intrigue me. I get a bit obsessive about it.
-
Jim Hunt at 07:01 AM on 10 May 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
Bob @3 - Thanks for mentioning the work of my Arctic alter ego.
dmyerson @1 - I have a copy of the Kindle version of Dr. Koonin's new book. Here's a brief extract from my initial review at Great White Con:
I was compelled to acquire my own review copy, and have just purchased the electronic version. I eagerly searched the virtual weighty tome for the term “Arctic sea ice”, and you may well be wondering what I discovered?Nothing. Nada. Zilch. ничего такого. Nic.
What more would you like to know? -
Bob Loblaw at 06:49 AM on 10 May 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
I have not read Koonin's book,. but I am aware of some that have. Seems to be the same old misinformation he usually peddles.
A recent post over at And Then There's Physics talks about it briefly with links to previous criticisms of his work.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/18/did-a-physicist-become-a-climate-truth-teller/
A couple of posts from an Arctic perspective:
https://greatwhitecon.info/2021/04/allegedly-unsettled-science-by-steven-koonin-et-al/
https://greatwhitecon.info/2021/05/steve-koonins-unsettled-arctic-science
...and general background on Steve Koonin
-
ubrew12 at 05:19 AM on 10 May 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
Tenth item from the top: "Dissecting ‘Unsettled,’ a Skeptical Physicist’s Book About Climate Science"
-
michael sweet at 04:57 AM on 10 May 2021Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
John ONeill:
A free copy of the Sovacoll article concerning brds is here. From the abstract:
"The study estimates that wind farms and nuclear power stations are responsible each for between 0.3 and 0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while fossil-fueled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh. While this paper should be respected as a preliminary assessment ..."
Your claim that Sovacool "claimed that nuclear power was responsible for three times as many bird deaths per watt hour delivered as wind turbines." is false. Your description of Sovacool's work is so far from reality it is a waste of my time to address the facts. Sovacool describes his study as preliminary. He notes that all sources of energy are bad for birds.
You present material that is completely false. Keep in mind that your comments can be checked for accuracy.
-
dmyerson at 04:05 AM on 10 May 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
Would be good to get a book review of the recent Koonin book, Unsettled.
-
michael sweet at 22:51 PM on 9 May 2021Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
John ONeill:
Here is a free copy of the Sovacool paper apparently my previous link is broken. It took me 15 seconds to find. If you read the literature you would be able to do this yourself. You are welcome to think anything you want. The peer reviewed literature contradicts you. You are sloganeering.
"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." italiced is a quiote of me
I provided Uruguay as an example of reduction of carbon emissions from renewable energy. I found this clear example in less than 5 minutes on your reference. This proves that you do not "obsessively scan" for examples. You are simply trolling us.
At 236 you claimed "The BN600 and BN800 in Russia seem to be operating without any leaks or fires" I showed that the BN600 has had at least 14 fires. You are trolling us again.
At 238 you stated:
"'These reactors cost even more to build than normal reactors. They will never be economic. No more are planned worldwide.' - Apart from the one Gates' company is developing, there's one being built in India, and one in China." Italics is you quoting me.
The reactors you cite in 245 are a completely different design and are new, experimental builds financed entirely by the government. They are liquid sodium reactors, but are a different design. As one design fails, nuclear supporters give it a new hat and claim it will finally work. Your current claim that they are the same is false. Construction of the Indian reactor begun in 2007 for completion in 2012. Now due in 2022. Every year they extend the operational date another year. Typical nuclear build.
More renewable energy was installed last year than all other power systems combined.
"IRENA’s annual Renewable Capacity Statistics 2021 shows that renewable energy’s share of all new generating capacity rose considerably for the second year in a row. More than 80 per cent of all new electricity capacity added last year was renewable, with solar and wind accounting for 91 per cent of new renewables." source
At 245 you say:
"Exponential growth [of renewable energy] is easy enough from a small base"
In 2021 wind and solar power generated will surpass nuclear power worldwide. Nuclear currently has a smaller base to ridicule than renewable energy, after 60 years of operation. Nuclear generated less power in 2020 than in 2004. They are not buiding enough nuclear power worldwide to replace retiring reactors. You are trolling us again.
Moderator Response:[BL] Although countering repeated claims can be frustrating, please keep it civil.
Prev 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 Next
