Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 Next
Comments 58051 to 58100:
-
From Peru at 10:53 AM on 18 June 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #24
Hmmm, unlike things like "sustainable growth" , sustainable development is not an oxymoron. Of course if "development" is identified with the economic model that rules the world since the Industrial Revolution, that is, an endless economic growth that depends on the intensive use of limited and non-renewable natural resources, sustainable "development" is an oxymoron. However, if "development" is identified not with identified with things like the GDP growth, but with the quality of life of the common people (health, a purchasing power that permits everyone to cover at least the basic needs, social equality, education, etc) then not only sustainable development isn't an oxymoron, but sustainability becomes a necessary condition for development. -
Riduna at 10:12 AM on 18 June 2012Carbon Pricing Alarmists Disproven by the Reality of RGGI
Unlike the RGGI, the Australian Carbon Tax ($23/tonne) is far more pervasive, affecting all parts of the economy and comes into effect on 1 July, 2012. The relevant legislation was strenuously opposed by the Liberal-Country Party Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott. every step of the way. Its application continues to be bitterly opposed by him and his Party with dire warnings of economic doom, loss of export markets, food prices escalating, entire towns being wiped off the map, industries closing, mass unemployment, the nation being driven into poverty. Unprecedented drivel coming from a supposedly responsible politician who aspires to become Australia’s next Prime Minister. The present Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, is of course rubbing her hands with glee, knowing full well that none of these outcomes will result from introduction of the carbon tax, a tax which is levied on the 500 or so largest GHG emitters, not on individuals. The Australian price on carbon is much higher than that levied by other countries and, unlike the RGGI has far wider coverage and applies nation-wide, so it will be the one to watch over the next year or so. Its effects on the economy are predicted to be zilch and that being the case, we may see Tony Abbott loose his position as Opposition Leader and prospective Prime Minister. Where global warming and its effects are concerned, Abbott makes the Tea Party look moderate! -
GillianB at 09:28 AM on 18 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
ralbin@15 & 18 -- "Trying to be nice to these people in hopes of persuading them to come to your side is a delusion." Yes, it certainly appears that no amount of persuasion will convince the right. Indeed this is almost a definition of "the right" these days. Far-right and central-right in the US and Australia seem prepared to cause a lot of damage on their way to getting and keeping power. That makes for an asymetrical power struggle because the left isn't prepared to trash the economy, the environment and science itself. Thanks for the perspective on the right in post-WWII Europe. It makes sense. I think Germany's position is also bolstered by the fact that Angela Merkel is scientifically literate. As was Margaret Thatcher. -
Tom Curtis at 09:04 AM on 18 June 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
curiousd @34 and 35, on page 958 in the article, Hansen writes:"The radiative calculations are made by a method that groups absorption coefficients by strength for efficiency. Pressure- and temperature-dependent absorption coefficients are from line-by-line calculations for H2O, CO2, O3, N2O and CH4, including continuum H2O absorption. Climatological cloud cover and aerosol properties are used ..."
That means aerosols equivalent to the average over the period of climatology (probably 1951-1980, although I am unsure) where used in the model. This means changes in aerosols after that period are not included in the model, but because of clean air acts in Western Democracies in the 1970s, and the collapse of Eastern European industry with the fall of the Soviet Union and unification of Germany, the increases in aerosols have been small over that period. -
Bob Lacatena at 06:45 AM on 18 June 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
CuriousD, Concerning this comment:How can there be a constant climate sensitivity, including long term feed backs, if large fractions of the world ice were gone? If there were no ice left would there not be an "as bad as it can get" effect on the climate sensitivity? No ice left means no ice-albedo feedback anymore? (Yes? No?) I am completely on board with the notion that AGW is probably an existential threat exceeding all out nuclear warfare, but for me it is really, really important to have all my ducks in a row when teaching this stuff. So I do not see how the idea of a constant eventual increase in temperature is associated with CO2 doubling if you compare the situation with lots of ice left (now) with no ice left (eventually BAU), because of the "as bad as it can get effect in terms of "ice melting - albedo lessening feedback".
You seem be making two errors in your general appreciation of the situation. First, you seem to have latched onto the ice-albedo feedback as "the feedback" (possibly because it is something that is very easy to visualize and conceptualize). Second, you seem to think that climate sensitivity is a hard and fast "universal constant." There are many feedbacks in both directions. The feedbacks for any particular configuration (starting temperature, type of forcing, continental and ocean current configurations, etc.) are very, very different. Those parameters affect the exact feedbacks that occur, and that in turn varies the climate sensitivity. No two scenarios have exactly the same climate sensitivity. It's not a simple linear equation. It's an extremely complex, multi-dimensional problem with thousands of variables. There is no way to truly know exactly what the climate sensitivity is in our particular situation... short of running the exact experiment we're running right now, which is to apply a forcing and then see what happens. What we do know is that: 1) Studies of immediate observations point to a climate sensitivity between 2.5˚ to 4˚ C. 2) Studies of models, which attempt to incorporate as many factors as we can, as best we can, point to a climate sensitivity between 2.5˚ to 4˚ C. 3) Studies of many past climates -- admittedly all different from today's, as they all must be -- point to a climate sensitivity between 2.5˚ to 4˚ C. It's never going to be a scenario where you can say "well, ice albedo feedback will do exactly this, and methane feedback will do exactly this, and... it all adds up to exactly this." [As an aside, concerning the Arctic... suppose all of the ice does melt? What about all of the methane that is stored, on land and in the oceans? What temperature change would it take to release that, and how much might be released? Part of the problem here is that one can't necessarily anticipate all of the feedbacks, and properly quantify them. No matter what you think of, you're likely to be in for some rude shocks.] -
WheelsOC at 05:23 AM on 18 June 2012Seagrasses Can Store as Much Carbon as Forests
I'm wondering if there's an appreciable ecological difference if the carbon being sequestered came from dissolved CO2 or from the carbonates in the water. Lots of hardwater and marine plant species take carbonates in preference to CO2 for their metabolism, and if the seagrass is removing more carbonates that CO2 from the water to store in the soil, isn't that making the stuff less available for organisms that depend on carbonate skeletons and shells? -
zinfan94 at 03:58 AM on 18 June 2012Seagrasses Can Store as Much Carbon as Forests
The next step: Estimate the amount of carbon that could be sequestered if we rebuilt the Mississippi River delta and the Gulf of Mexico coastline. Then do a cost analysis that would allow us to carry out this important task. Then examine river deltas around the world, to see if similar actions are warranted. -
dana1981 at 03:08 AM on 18 June 2012Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
Russ - I guess that depends on what's considered 'significant'. Transient climate response tends to vary fairly proportionately to equilibrium sensitivity, so a lower sensitivity also means a lower transient response, and a smaller short-term warming. Not a huge difference, but like I said, it depends what you consider 'significant'. -
dana1981 at 03:05 AM on 18 June 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
curiosd - as michael sweet notes @36, the 2.8°C climate sensitivity value is an equilibrium value. That's how much the planet will ultimately warm once it reaches a new energy balance. That takes time because of the heat storage in the oceans. This is called the thermal inertia of the climate system. It takes many decades - even over a century for the new equilibrium state to be reached. What you're looking at is called the transient climate response - how much the planet warms immediately - which is roughly two-thirds of the equilibrium response. -
L. Hamilton at 01:23 AM on 18 June 2012Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
Lloyd, you might check our Polar Geography paper cited above for a different take on these issues, based not on worldview but on self-identification ranging from 1=extremely liberal to 7=extremely conservative. We also use the 11-item GSS "science literacy" scale, different from the 8-item science literacy (w/o old-Earth questions) + 15 math word problems that Kahan et al. use for "science & numerical literacy." Anyway, our findings (highlighted in our Figure 1 and Table 3) replicate theirs in certain respects while differing in others. A journalist asked me recently for a more detailed comparison. That could appear online as a footnote somewhere soon, I'll link to it here if so. -
ralbin at 00:07 AM on 18 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
GillianB@16. The game is developing sensible policies to meet the challenges of global climate change. Encouraging the (-snip-) of individuals like Adler is potentially self-defeating as these long-falsified libertarian ideas are part of the problem. This problem has two dimensions; one is the actions and influence of sincere but misguided individuals like Adler. The second and greater dimention is that "(-snip-)" like Adler provide the ideological justification for what would otherwise be transparently exploitative actions of the wealthy. This is a major feature of public life for the past few decades. For a concise and actually prescient account, try David Harvey's short history of neo-liberalism. Developing sensible climate policy requires combating these powerful and deeply entrenched special interests, An important aspect of such efforts is discrediting their ideological support. Lloyd@17 - Thatcherite Britain was one of the major sources of neo-liberalism, though I agree that the strong evangelical component of American conservatism is a pretty distinctive feature. When you refer to the pragmatic secular conservatism of the rest of the world, I suspect you are mainly thinking about Europe (possibly Australia as well, I'm not competent on this point). The relative moderation of conservatism in much of western Europe is an interesting consequence of WWII and the nature of the postwar reconstruction of western Europe. The catastrophe of WWII had the general effect of discrediting a large spectrum of right wing politics, pushing the political center leftward. There is a nice discussion of this point in Tony Judt's fine book Postwar. Conservatism in Europe and America has been consistently obsessed with attacking the left for approximately 2 centuries.Moderator Response: [DB] Inflammatory snipped. -
michael sweet at 23:14 PM on 17 June 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
Curiousd, Geoengineering schemes have been proposed using sulfates to lower surface temperature. The Chinese have started implementing these efforts ;). One side effect of this scheme that is not often mentioned by proponents is that it significantly lowers evaporation from the ocean surface. This causes drought. Sulfates also make ocean acidification worse. Choose your poison: heat or drought. The 3C climate sensitivity is an equilibrium change. You are doing your calculations using only the realized temperature change. The climate is not in equilibrium so you are substantially underestimating the sensitivity. All the observed change so far is from the "fast" feedbacks. These take decades to come to equilibrium. Remember, we are talking about the entire Earth. The slow feedbacks, like melting ice sheets, take decades or centuries to come into play. These are difficult calculations to make. Read more before you make any conclusions based on your own calculations. For myself, I rely on Hansen's papers (and the IPCC) and do not attempt to check the calculations. -
Lloyd Flack at 22:47 PM on 17 June 2012Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
I think their world view measures both confound some different variables. Is communitarianism a concern for and identification with the community as an entity itself that should be cherished? Or is the community seen as a means to look after the welfare of its individual members? That is, is it really universal altruism? A couple of the questions used to measure it were definitely the latter. The others could be measuring either. Is egalitarianism a desire for equality of outcomes? Or is it a desire for equality of rights and opportunity? Or is this axis about authority and responsibility? Some of the questions concern the first of these. Some concern the second. None as far as I can see have much to do with the third. The way these axes were conceived and the questions asked reflect the political viewpoints and concerns of those who asked them. In this case it looks like how a progressive would frame things. Interestingly, I've seen libertarian attempts at a two dimensional array of political orientations. These are motivated by not feeling that they are accurately represented by the usual left-right political axis. Quite fair enough, but what they choose for axes does reflect their concerns and others may see them as not the most useful ones. -
curiousd at 22:32 PM on 17 June 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
O.K. Tristan. Maybe I see it? They normalized their zero point on the graph to 1950, and by the 1940s there had already been a lowering of temperature due to aerosols. So the predicted 0.8% increase was by this kind of normalizing, taking the aerosols into account. So if I am right that 2.8% climate sensitivity would have produces a 1.3% increase with no aerosols, maybe this means that the aerosols we have contribute about half a degree cooling? BTW the sensitivity doubled in their model four when they put into the model that clouds move to a higher altitude as temperature increases. Does this mean we can fight global warming by having vehicles/factories that produce as much of certain kinds of obnoxious smog emissions`as possible? Only partially kidding, here. -
curiousd at 22:01 PM on 17 June 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
Tristan, I can find no place in the article by Hansen, et al in 1981 that states they include sulfates in their calculations. GHG effects only. And at the same time on many places in this site the fact that the 1981 calculation gets the 0.8 degree C increase right is taken as excellent confirmation of their approach. I don't see how all this agrees with your statement, which is - I guess? - that the observed temperature increase is not expected to agree with a GHG only calculation?? -
Russ R. at 21:38 PM on 17 June 2012Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
"Forecast temperature trends for time scales of a few decades or less are not very sensitive to the model’s equilibrium climate sensitivity. Therefore climate sensitivity would have to be much smaller than 4.2ºC, say 1.5-2ºC, in order to modify our conclusions significantly." Hansen (1988) -
Tristan at 17:50 PM on 17 June 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
CuriousD The temperature anomaly is not the same as the increase in temperature due to GHG forcing. Human activities force the temperature both up and down. Therefore the temperature impact of GHGs = temperature anomaly + temperature impact of sulfates et al. -
Lloyd Flack at 15:15 PM on 17 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
I think conservatism in the US has become different from conservatism in the rest of the West. I think conservatism there has become obsessed with attacking the left and will attack most things that the left supports just because the left supports them. Libertarianism is threatened by the market not having an answer to AGW and hence is looking for reasons to believe it does not exist. Denialism is a club created by libertarians that has been enthusiastically adopted by many conservatives as something to beat the left with. With the libertarians the matter is what they are protecting. With conservatives it is part of the general attack on the left. Most other Western countries have a pragmatic secular conservatism rather than the religious conservatism or the libertarianism that seem to form most of the right in the US. What denialism you fing elswhere is i think mostly ispired by the denialism in the US. . -
curiousd at 14:33 PM on 17 June 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
More focused statement about what bothers me about understanding how climate sensitivity concept jibes with 1981 model result..what is a fast response, what is a slow one and so on. Here are two answers that were given to my questions about the fact that apparently the concentrations of CO2 C2/C1 = 2^(t/2.8), and then about the 1981 calculation of Hansen. I had asked which of his models were plotted in the graph. 1. Dana 1981: Hi curiousd. I believe Figure 6 is a plot using Model 4, actually. If you look at the top of page 3 of the paper (page 959 in the journal), it says Model 4 has the climate sensitivity they're using of 2.8°C for doubled CO2. Prior to that they note that they didn't have enough knowledge at the time to include the vegetation feedback for Models 5 and 6, so 4 was advanced as they could get with reasonable confidence. 2. Am not sure string for this next comment here but: curiousd @53, across a wide range of CO2 concentrations, including all those that have been experienced on Earth in the last 600,000 years or are projected under anthropogenic emissions, doubling CO2 results in a 2-4 degree increase in temperature if we ignore slow feedbacks such as melting of ice sheets. The IPCC best estimate for that figure is 3 degrees C. But if (second comment) the climate sensitivity of about 3 degrees is not slow feedback, then if CO2 has increased by ~40% since pre industrial levels, doesn't this mean, since by first comment they have climate sensitivity of 2.8 in 1981 graph, that C2/C1=1.4 if 40% increase in CO2 since pre industrial era. But C2/C1 = 2^(t/2.8) should have been observed, t is temperature increase. (Check....at t = 2.8, C2/C1 = 2) So 1.4 = 2^(t/2.8) ; solving t - the temperature increase - would be about 1.3 degrees. But we have only seen about 0.8 degrees. I do think they get the 0.8 degrees for 1981 model that had just CO2 direct effect plus holding relative humidity constant to get a water vapor feedback.But then the "climate sensitivity" is not 2.8 degrees????? This all would make sense to me if that 2.8 degrees climate sensitivity did contain a long term feedback we have not seen yet. But from the second comment, that 2.8 does not include the ice/albedo thing, and should therefore be short term??? But then we should have seen over a degree by now? There is a good possibility I am just being dense about this, I know. -
GillianB at 11:10 AM on 17 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
Ralbin@15 -- Surely it's OK to discuss 'rhetorical strategy'. It's just another phrase for climate communication and that's a valid topic for discussion. I guess that labelling people and putting them in boxes is valid too, as long as we keep sight of the fact that the main game is persuasion, not classification. -
ralbin at 09:59 AM on 17 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
Tom@7: I'm afraid that you are discussing rhetorical strategy, not real policy choices. This kind of conservative ideology is one of the major reasons we're in this predicament. Trying to be nice to these people in hopes of persuading them to come to your side is a delusion. The reason so many conservatives repudiate the concept of global warming is that they implicitly, and occasionally explicitly, recognize that admitting the existence and magnitude of the problem undermines their ideology. For a good example, take a look at the part of Rachel Maddow's interview of Senator Inhofe where he admits that global warming seemed reasonable to him until he thought about the consequences of conceding its existence. You may think the conservatism means defending the status quo, but Adler's version of conservatism, widely prevalent in the USA, is a form of neo-liberal (Coasian) libertarian radicalism. Composer@9: So, what are the legal barriers and how would they be reduced? How would permitting be simplified? In the USA, this would mean reducing reducing local and state authority and de facto strengthening federal authority. Equally important, Adler's suggestion would likely involve reducing the ability of existing property owners to use court systems to obstruct wind developments. Again, this would tilt authority to administrative bureaucracies, most likely Federal level ones. This is hardly a libertarian, "conservative" approach. Several of Adler's proposals are sensible, including regulatory reforms to facilitate offshore windpower developments, but claiming that these are "small government, conservative" policies is window dressing. -
Charliec65 at 09:49 AM on 17 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
On the conservative side of things, the Economist, has a great special on global warming in the current addition. They don't start from a position of denial, represent the data accurately, and speak to the benefits and dangers of the warming. Absolutely nothing is going to come from the Earth Summit, except more warming. -
michael sweet at 09:32 AM on 17 June 2012Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Dallas Texas suffered $1.5-2 billion dollars of damage from a hail storm last week. This link to a Reuters article gives some detail. Apparently from 1990-2010 the total damage in the USA from severe weather (except hurricanes) was about $20 billion. This single storm was 10% of that. Doug Bostrom has some interesting links at Real Climate in the monthly thread look around comment 206. Dougs links include peer reviewed articles about the frequency of hail storms and global warming. -
JohnMashey at 07:48 AM on 17 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
re: 65 yes It was not accidental that I though the de Freitas / Michaeles / CR history worth writing up, starting a year ago. -
funglestrumpet at 07:24 AM on 17 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
The way things are going, I am grateful that anyone on the same side of the fence as Monckton can show that they have actually considered the situation. What we always seem to get is denial that Climate Change is happening, or if it is, denial that it is anything to worry about. Adoption of these positions seems to be a right-wing rite of passage, even though it is obvious that they neither know nor care where the passage in question is leading them. I rather think that we are at the last chance saloon. The science is not going to win the day with the denialati. Even the knowledge that YouTube etc. has a wealth of evidence showing those who are responsible for the lack of action on tackling Climate Change does not deter them, and I would not be in their shoes for all the tea in China when the public eventually sees through the deception. So let's encourage Professor Adler. We might as well, nothing else is working. Overly pessimistic? Possibly, but who reading this seriously expects anything dramatic to come from next week's Earth Summit 2012? And we really are now at the stage where only dramatic action is going to guarantee a tolerable future for the next generation and beyond. This blog should now be at the stage where it is discussing the scientific merits, or otherwise, of the remedial actions currently proposed instead of seeing a "Glimmer of hope" because a right-winger speaks some sense for a change. -
scaddenp at 06:34 AM on 17 June 2012Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation
My basis for worrying about coal is the very large volume of it available and very cheap price of it. Tar sand oil is very expensive. I think it is likely that technological advance and increasing oil price will move us away from petroleum and leave tar sands behind as well. However, this is also likely massively increase demand for electricity and in many places, coal is the cheap way to do create it - especially if you have subsidies. -
r.pauli at 06:18 AM on 17 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
What a great discussion. But we have let go of science to talk about politics. As politics should properly be separated from science. But if politics is to enter this fray, then Alder should be scientifically vetted. Most politicians seem to regard the 2007 IPCC as the accepted science - quite dated. Like trying to fight a house fire based on initial reports of smoke. Rather than the flames before us now. -
Andy Skuce at 05:43 AM on 17 June 2012Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
L. Hamilton: Thanks for those comments. I'm looking forward to reading your paper when it's published. An open access version of Lawrence Hamilton's Polar Geography paper is available here. -
Mike3267 at 05:11 AM on 17 June 2012Hansen 1988 Update - Which Scenario is Closest to Reality?
This post at RealClimate does a good job of discussing model-data comparisons more generally. -
Esop at 03:18 AM on 17 June 2012Hansen 1988 Update - Which Scenario is Closest to Reality?
Good stuff, Dana. Looking forward to the debunking of Solheims ridiculous claims. He is like our (Norwegian) local version of Pat Michaels, ie. a serial disinformer. Got a free pass to the press, while the realists, like Rasmus (Benestad) who submit a written debunking of the misinformation usually won't get their rebuttal printed. This is more often than not the case in Norways major newspaper, Aftenposten. Once upon a time, it reported the science, but has turned into a bona fide denialist rag, unfortunately. I sense that the disinformers are getting rather desperate these days. Could it have something to do with the fact that their own favorite dataset (UAH AMSU) is at an all time high level right now, indicating that 2013 could likely be the hottest on record, just like Hansen predicted years ago. Contrast that to the deniers forecast of dramatic cooling. Just like we saw back in 08 when Hansen predicted a record in 2010 while the denier choir were sure the temps would continue to drop. -
dana1981 at 03:09 AM on 17 June 2012Hansen 1988 Update - Which Scenario is Closest to Reality?
From a purely psychological perspective it's not odd. James Hansen is one of the world's foremost climate scientists, one who has been making very good climate model-based predictions for decades, and one who actively advocates for moving away from fossil fuels immediately. Thus it's easy to see why "Hansen was wrong" is a psychologically appealing argument for those who are in denial about AGW. And the further he was 'wrong', the more it supports their denial, which is why they argue for Scenario A, even though it's actually the furthest from reality. For those of us who are climate realists it's very strange that they keep making this obviously wrong argument. But that's because it's difficult for a realist to understand the psychology of a person who's in denial. -
KR at 02:44 AM on 17 June 2012Hansen 1988 Update - Which Scenario is Closest to Reality?
Dana1981 - it might be worth a combined graph, 1998 values first, then 2010 values to the right, to give some perspective under the same scale. Might even add some actual lines connecting the bars, although that could be a little busy visually. I would completely agree - arguing about differences from Scenario A is a complete strawman fallacy - one often tied to a "CO2 is the only forcing" error. I really find it odd that the 'skeptics' keep cycling back to such a bad argument. -
dana1981 at 01:40 AM on 17 June 2012Hansen 1988 Update - Which Scenario is Closest to Reality?
Oh yeah Alex, longer timeframe = larger forcings = larger y-axis in the updated version. -
Alex C at 01:15 AM on 17 June 2012Hansen 1988 Update - Which Scenario is Closest to Reality?
I was thrown off for a second by the seemingly smaller methane contribution over the longer period, then noticed the scales of the graphs are different. So, just a heads-up to anyone wanting to do comparisons between the two time periods. -
L. Hamilton at 01:10 AM on 17 June 2012Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
Using different survey data, analytical methods and "science literacy" indicators, we also found that more scientifically-literate respondents tend to be more polarized. Hamilton et al. (2012) "Public knowledge and concern about polar-region warming" in Polar Geography. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1088937X.2012.684155 There are some differences between our conclusions and those of Kahan et al., however. 1. In our analysis of both 2006 and 2010 General Social Surveys, the 2011 NCERA national survey, and 2012 statewide polls in New Hampshire, despite the polarizing effects we also found positive main effects for science literacy on concern/belief regarding climate change. It does not appear that science literacy's effects are totally overthrown by politics, although they are moderated. 2. Explanations for these patterns emphasize that science knowledge is not one thing. General background knowledge helps one to acquire and frame, perhaps selectively, true or false "facts" that reinforce one's prejudices. However, the specific content of those facts -- a more detailed kind of science literacy -- can be significantly different depending on politics. A new paper examining the behavior of more detailed climate science knowledge or is currently in review. -
curiousd at 00:49 AM on 17 June 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
Hello All, Curious D back with more questions pertaining to explaining all this to a basic physics class. So.. 1. You folks have taught me that there is a logarithmic dependence of dF in terms of CO2 by empirical results or simulations. Therefore, an exponential growth of CO2 concentration leads to a linear increase in expected T with time. But.. 2. there are separate fast responses and long term responses. Therefore: 3. If by magic, all CO2 going into the atmosphere were to stop, there would still be another shoe (or maybe more than one shoe) to drop. I figured out the predicted temperature increase of Hansen's 1981 paper assuming only his CO2 alone plus the constant humidity water vapor based on his results from his "model one" and I think it gives just about the observed 0.8 degrees C. O.K. BUT 4. The "removing ice decreased albedo" feedback has not really struck home yet from assuming CO2 about 40% increase over pre industrial levels. Correct? Then: 5. Is a 40% increase in CO2 enough to eventually melt Greenland?(i.e. even in a magic world with no more CO2 Greenland ice is eventually toast anyway. Yes? No?) 6. How can there be a constant climate sensitivity, including long term feed backs, if large fractions of the world ice were gone? If there were no ice left would there not be an "as bad as it can get" effect on the climate sensitivity? No ice left means no ice-albedo feedback anymore? (Yes? No?) I am completely on board with the notion that AGW is probably an existential threat exceeding all out nuclear warfare, but for me it is really, really important to have all my ducks in a row when teaching this stuff. So I do not see how the idea of a constant eventual increase in temperature is associated with CO2 doubling if you compare the situation with lots of ice left (now) with no ice left (eventually BAU), because of the "as bad as it can get effect in terms of "ice melting - albedo lessening feedback". -
DSL at 00:37 AM on 17 June 2012There is no consensus
Example, Punksta? The social construction of knowledge via the scientific method takes the garbage out eventually. The more scrutiny the discipline gets, the quicker the garbage is taken out. I can't think of a discipline that is not funded by a political institution(s). Solely? Probably not. I keep thinking of Jeffrey Wigand's research while he was working for a tobacco company. He did good work, but he wasn't allowed to publish his findings (often the case with private research). The scientist wasn't the problem, though. Wigand wasn't pushing an agenda (well, not true - he was working on smoke-free cigarettes and that may be why he decided to work for the company); the political institution (the company) was the corrupting force (well, it didn't force Wigand to lie about his findings; it just prevented publication either in physical expression (engineered product) or in sharing with the rest of the world). The diversification and dispersal of science throughout the university system is a good way to keep politics (in the mainstream sense) from taking a heavy hand in most sciences. -
chriskoz at 21:22 PM on 16 June 2012Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation
I disagree that the real issue for climate is coal, because (as scaddenp & NSherrard seem to argue) we run out of oil very soon and there'll be no petroleum. Tar sands & shales will no doubt provide very large of domestic (CAN & US) reserves for potential petroleum production. And that's a very sad prospect for future generations, because shale is one of the dirtiest fuels: it produced the most CO2 per unit of usable energy. When we run out of oil, then tars & shales can become economically viable and will be exploited if no better alternatives are developped. The prospect of exploiting resources with big CO2 footprint is very tempting for environmental and scientific ignorants and certaqinly very possible by policy makers like Romney, if they listen to (-snip-) individuals like Singer. Therefore I totally understand Jim Hansen who turned to activism by joining the rally against Keystone pipeline & got himself arrested. And he succeeded with thisaction: Obama vetoed it later. IMO, that was a very impotant decision with respect of US economy's cabron footprint.Moderator Response: [DB] Inflammatory snipped. -
Punksta at 20:24 PM on 16 June 2012There is no consensus
So a consensus in science is different from a political one.
In theory, yes. Does though assume that scientists behave as scientists ought to, eg making their data available etc etc, and more generally searching for truth rather than pushing an agenda. Which, when the sole funder of a science is political institutions, may be easier said than done. And so an apparent science consensus may in reality be a political consensus in disguise. -
GillianB at 16:14 PM on 16 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
As things are now, it's refreshing to hear statements like this coming from Americans -- "Though my political leanings are most definitely right-of-center, and it would be convenient to believe otherwise, I believe there is sufficient evidence that global warming is a serious environmental concern." We could do worse than give them more oxygen in the US. It's a different story in Europe where even the right side of politics seems to gets it. For me, it's important to emphasise every time that the right/left politicization of climate issues is nowhere near universal. In 2009, when Copenhagen city council voted to become the world's first carbon-neutral city, how close was the vote -- 50/50 or perhaps a sweeping 80/20? It was unanimous. It's not surprising that they are on track so far to achieve their 2025 goal. -
sailrick at 15:41 PM on 16 June 2012Today's Climate More Sensitive to Carbon Dioxide Than in Past 12 Million Years
@6 Rob Painting Thanks for the response. -
BodHod at 14:44 PM on 16 June 2012Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
I'm a bit of a fence-sitter - interestingly both politically and on the subject of climate change risk. I find SkS to be a beacon amongst the many sources of dodgy and biased information on the subject - so you do a great job - thanks! I don't mind the personal bias of authors being evident, but at times authors stray beyond bias and make the occasional slightly barbed comment. This has certainly annoyed skeptic friends who I've referred to SkS in order to back up an argument. Therefore it does seem that, at least occasionally, the hard work you do explaining the science is spoiled by allowing your political opinions to taint otherwise politically unsullied argument. Keep up the good work. As far as possible keep out the politics. -
Eric (skeptic) at 13:29 PM on 16 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
From his paper on prizesPrizes are no panacea. Indeed, barring some serendipitous discovery, there is no panacea for the climate policy challenge. Yet technology inducement prizes offer a relatively low-cost way to encourage greater innovation than traditional grant-based R&D funding. In order to encourage greater levels of technological innovation, it would also be desirable to reduce existing regulatory barriers to the development and deployment of alternative technologies, as well as to place a price on carbon, ideally with a simple and straightforward carbon tax.
When people argue that there is no possible technological fix for the carbon emission problem they are strengthening his argument for prizes. He also argues that the atmosphere as a commons needs super-competition since it cannot be protected by competition. An argument against his proposal is that prizes are a gamble. But considering the magnitude of the needed reductions, a seems like a worthwhile gamble to me, basically libertarian and a believer in innovation. -
Charliec65 at 12:25 PM on 16 June 2012Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
The Kahn et al study corroborates other studies and observation in social psychology; Jonathan Haidt's, The Righteous Mind is worth a look. We're not rational creatures and are excellent at bending the facts to suit our ends, and we don't like being pushed. Community, friendship, commonly shared problems drive our social network. We're great warriors too, but wars cost lives and treasure. The best you're ever going to do is to engage people in making their own observations, and using their powers of reasoning, and one has to build on these innate skills and foster their use through practice. A story is worth way more than a pile of facts. -
Composer99 at 11:31 AM on 16 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
ralbin: Adler has discussed why a cap & trade solution is unsatisfactory from a conservative-libertarian perspective in the Atlantic article compared to the fee & dividend approach advocated by Hansen (namely, per Adler the former is more susceptible to rent-seeking & special interest interference than the latter). In addition, I am not certain how your claim Similarly, his recommendation that legal barriers to deployment be eased is essentially advocacy of increased governmental regulatory power. follows from what Adler wrote. In fact, the example he gives, where a wind power project has been postponed for some time by delays in obtaining permits, is much more likely to be the opposite of what you assert. Surely reducing permit requirements is a rollback of governmental regulatory power rather than an increase? -
Andy Skuce at 09:50 AM on 16 June 2012Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
Dave123 @ 15 I don't quite see it that way, but what does bother me in some of this analysis is that there's a bit of a patronizing air to it; at the extreme, treating your opponents' views as being the manifestation of some kind of social or psychological pathology that needs to handled with kid gloves, could easily appear condescending. To be sure, if I detected some "skeptic" trying to administer sugar-coated medicine to me, I'd be offended. I think that there are potential sources of blow-back if a culturally sensitive approach to communication is done clumsily. For it to work, your respect for the opponents' cultural values has to be genuine and I'm sure I'm not the only one in the climate debate who finds that kind of authenticity hard to fake. -
Tom Smerling at 09:23 AM on 16 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
Ralbin @#5 I fully understand why some of Adler's far-right critics say that given what Adler wrote, he can't be a real conservative. I have a harder time understanding why we would want to reinforce that logic, thereby forcing people to choose between climate science vs. their identity and their peer group. How is that a winning strategy? BTW, Dan Kahan (referenced in Andy Skuce's SkS post immediately before this one) explores this issue in great detail through his research on "Cultural Cognition." Maintaining one's identity and one's status among peers trump objectivity almost every time. -
Tom Smerling at 08:47 AM on 16 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
Dennis - re: think tanks, I was actually thinking of Peter Wehner, who is at the neo-con Ethics & Public Policy Center, described by SourceWatch as "the cutting edge of the neoconservative-driven culture war against progressive theology and secularism, and the associated effort to ensure right-wing control of the Republican Party." To be more accurate, I could have written "academia or some think tanks." -
shoyemore at 07:31 AM on 16 June 2012Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
One point about the Kahan study is that it is US only. The US has the most "structured" right-left (or right-centre) divide in the democratic world. Boundaries are much more fluid in Europe, and I think the Kahan results would not be duplicated there. However, I could not hazard a guess on how different - probably the alignment of minimizing climate risk and hierarchical-individualism would be weaker. Here is a recent Eurobarometer Poll, where (in general) Europeans rate climate change as a worse problem than the economy, but behind provision of food and water for the world's poor. Eurobarometer Poll on AGW Australia seems to more resemble the US rather than Europe. But I could be wrong there. -
Dennis at 06:42 AM on 16 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
Tom @4: Do you know of any of the conservative think tanks (e.g., Cato, Heritage, AEI) that accepts the IPCC scientific reports, or major scientific organization (e.g., AAAS, NAS, AGU) scientific statements on climate change? My mind wanders to a guy like Patrick Michaels at Cato, who clearly does not. When you write about "tolerance of diversity of opinion" at conservative think tanks, I can't think of any regarding climate science. In fact, I find the opposite, as I mention above. Adler is at a university -- a very different beast entirely -- and yet another community that conservatives routinely attack as part of the "liberal bias" -- even for science!
Prev 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 Next
