Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 Next
Comments 5901 to 5950:
-
michael sweet at 07:16 AM on 24 April 2021It hasn't warmed since 1998
Vonyisz,
The answer to your question "what we know about changes in energy across the ocean today?". The ARGO floats measure most of the ocean to a depth of 2,000 meters. This part of the ocean is pretty well known. The areas under sea ice are harder to measure but not that extensive (and they are measured to some extent). Deeper than 2,000 meters is hard because there are not many old measurements. Fortunately, the change in temperature is small, hundredths to thousandths of a degree.
This article gives information on ocean temperatures to a depth of 4757 meters near Argentina. They were using equipment designed to measure currents and realized that they had sensitive temperature measurements also. Apparently these current measurements are done in many locations and scientists will use them to determine deep ocean changes for the past 10-15 years. These detailed measurements can be used to calibrate other older records.
The bottom line is that the deep ocean has not changed very much yet. Because it is so hard to measure the changes are not well characterized. Recent data will start to track deep ocean changes. Because the changes are small they do not affect the big picture of AGW.
A lot is known about ocean flow also. This article details changes in large eddies. Other currents are monitored regularly. Scientists often report that they are surprised by how fast everything is changing. They are optimistic at first.
-
MA Rodger at 16:48 PM on 23 April 2021It hasn't warmed since 1998
Vonyisz @412,
The use of energy fluxes and energy anomalies to account for AGW is the useful approach. Mind the global surface temperature that results remains the main measure of the problem. You subsequently argue that there are other measures of importance (eg wind, humidity) but these effectively all lead on from temperature, as does the poleward energy fluxes (which will increase under AGW thus and this result in the boosted temperature rises seen in Arctic Amplification).On the issue of PE. Yes the simplistic PE=mgh is correct (although it gets a little more complex when applied to a spinning planet). But from this point you entirely fail (and will fail) to present any significant increase in PE resulting from AGW. If the oceans were to warm by a single degree Celsius, the energy required to provide that temperature increase will be hundreds of times (using a very gererous Coefft of Thermal Expansion, 350-times) greater than the PE increase due to thermal expansion of the oceans. Similarly, the energy of Latent Heat required to evaporate a kg of water to add to the atmospheric mass would equal the PE required to raise such a mass 230km.
In general, such small factors involving PE are quite ignorable.
-
nigelj at 08:29 AM on 23 April 2021Why scientists shouldn't heed calls to 'stay in our lane'
This climate denial issue is not a simple thing. Its like an octopus with many arms slithering around. People have various reasons that drive denial about issues of the day. It might be vested business interests, extreme levels of self interest and entitlement, seeking popularity, fear of job losses, addiction, fear of government control, religion, conspiracy thinking. This is easily observed.
Normally its possible to overcome these fears with time and facts, with the vast majority of people anyway, but something sems different with climate denial. It might be that its become so politicially tribal with the right wing genuinely believing climate science is some giant left wing conspiracy to enslave them to government control, (it isnt of course) and they see this as more of a threat than climate change. So its war, and in war anything goes including even the most inane and contradictory attacks on the science.
I'm not sure how you counter this. Although explaining the facts about the science is always worth a try, and its not going to hurt and it may convince a few people. I think its important to get across to denialists that the science of climate change goes a long way back predating things like socialism, and the modern green movement. But quite how you convince denialists that there is no giant left wing climate conspiracy to control people or take away freedoms or eat the bodies of their children god only knows. Its hard arguing with stupid.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:49 AM on 23 April 2021Why scientists shouldn't heed calls to 'stay in our lane'
Unfortunately, I encounter many people like T because I live in Alberta, Canada.
I have found it helpful to be more aware of the comprehensive presentations of history. And I try to stick to verifiable facts to refute modern day beliefs, especially about the history of what has happened (a good book on the topic is "Telling the Truth About History", by Joyce Appleby, Lynn Hunt, Margaret Jacob).
One important point is that Trump is not the only Republican to spout nonsense that appeals to easily impressed people. Many others were doing it before Trump chose to try to become "Their Leader". And they have done it on many issues, not just climate science and the related understanding of what is wrong with the developed socioeconomic political systems.
Bush declared that "Americans did not have to change how they lived" when he announced that the USA would not officially sign on to Kyoto. And Republicans since Nixon, and maybe before that, have appealed to the misguided "Utilitarian" belief that Being Harmful can be justified if there are Net-Benefits (Their Benefits as they evaluate things are greater than the Harm Done as they evaluate things). That incorrect thinking also suits the pursuit of Liberty that justifies harmful things by claiming the virtue of "Freedom". And it fits the pursuit of Purity and Nationalism that justifies harmful things by claiming only a limited diversity of ways of being human are acceptable and that "Interpretations of Old Books are Immutable Law".
I won't say I am always successful in changing every mind I encounter that has developed powerful selfish interests (Alberta has many people who are very powerfully motivated to maintain their developed beliefs). But sticking to the facts of the harm done and the nonsense that has to be believed to excuse the harmful behaviour does make some people appear to reconsider what and who they are choosing to believe. But then some of them state the classic nonsense excuse that "They have no choice - until someone else makes it easier and cheaper for them to not be so harmful" which they pair with a passionate dislike of regulation that restricts the harmful activity they could benefit from (making less harmful options easier) and really dislike Carbon Pricing that makes the harmful activity more expensive (making less harmful options cheaper). They seem incapable of seeing the irony of what they dislike while they claim to be willing to be less harmful if it was cheaper and easier.
-
Vanessa Witzki Colatusso at 05:15 AM on 23 April 2021Why scientists shouldn't heed calls to 'stay in our lane'
I have many "Ts" friends ... Here in Brazil, since the last elections it was impossible not to leave an opinion in front of so many climatic absurdities proposed by the current government. The problem is that the government will always be the consequence of our society and never the cause.
-
Vonyisz at 03:52 AM on 23 April 2021It hasn't warmed since 1998
Thanks for your answers Eclectic michael sweet MA Rodger
I’m sorry if I was misunderstood when I called attention not to consider temperature as energy. I note that I consider this an important detail that cannot be ignored. I have quoted the sentences I have quoted in terms of method, of course I know, like everyone here, what has happened since then. I know that from a marketing point of view, it would sound pros and cons to describe global warming in ten powers and all this in Joules. It is easier to enter in degrees Celsius. But for that simplification, we are paying a high price. This is because we can easily liken an apple to an elephant. The temperature of the deep ocean is fundamentally determined by the amount of cold water: the largest "river" from the Arctic. „The total ocean heat content (all the way to the bottom) is probably a more scientific measurement but does not relate to people as well. Global warming warms the ocean all the way to the deepest depths. In general, the warming is slower the deeper you go.” – Sure?
„You follow that by the assertion that it is all about energy rather than temperature which is true but not greatly relevant as Ocean Heat Content is effectively a temperature thing.
And then you introduce the concepts of PE & KE.
Surely PE & KE are red herrings. Is there some part of the global system where mass is increasing in altitude? Are there parts of the global system where stuff is whizzing about faster? In energy terms, any such change globally (if at all) will be miniscule enough to be entirely irrelevant, thus the red herrings.” – E (pot) = m * g * h true or not? In terms of energy, it is important where (high and salinity) a 5 degree water in the ocean. In the same way, at different altitudes of the atmosphere, 5 degrees of air can be associated with different amounts of energy (the hidden energy of water vapor). This is not a joke, can we agree on that? Is the temperature almost energy? Are you serious? When tenth and hundredth of a degree Celsius changes are included in scientific articles, should we be generous and say that temperature is equal to energy? I understand that mathematical accuracy is different from physical accuracy. But this is an exaggeration. I think so. Although air temperature is significant in our daily lives, it is only one element of our sense of warmth. Other elements: wind, percentage of water vapor, temperature of surrounding objects, energy of current sunshine. It is not possible to snatch one of these five elements. On the other hand, in the energy balance of the earth’s surface (no matter how we determine what we include in it and what we omit), we can agree that the vast majority of energy is stored in the ocean. If we really want to study global warming, we need to look largely at the dynamics of the energy of the oceans. We don’t just need to be able to measure temperature changes. Not just the top 2000 meters. We need to explore the temperature profile of the entire ocean. We need to be able to examine the causality of the processes.In any case, there is a need to justify why the temperature at the poles is rising much faster than around the Equator. If it is also about accelerating heat transfer, there is also a chance that the deep ocean will cool faster. Because water vapor at the poles does not interfere with radiation (in the atmosphere), and because the radiation is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature (in Kelvin), the radiation at the poles has multiplied into space due to global warming and other processes. Although some of the cold produced in this way also cools the air around the poles, here I find it important to mention here that some of the cold “disappears” for us into the depths of the oceans (especially the Atlantic Ocean). How much of this cooling cools the atmosphere and the upper ocean and how much of it deepens the deep ocean? This process will really "explode" when the Arctic ice disappears. I was looking for a scientific description of this (believe me), I haven't found it on the internet yet.
It’s a mystery to me how warmer water gets into the deep ocean, as you can read in many places. I know there are salt fingers, but they don’t affect the area below 3,000 feet. You wrote (and thank you) to ask only one question, only one. Here’s what we know about changes in energy across the ocean today? Not just the top 2000 or 3000 meters, but the whole ocean! What do we know about changes in the great ocean flow system? Thank you in advance for your answers.
-
MA Rodger at 16:20 PM on 22 April 2021It's cosmic rays
yurivs @116,
The research you cite concerns the classification of cosmic rays that have been known about for decades. It does not alter understanding of the cosmic rays arriving at Earth, rather points towards whee they come from. As scaddenp @117 alludes to, Svenmark has been barking up the wrong tree for decades now in a hopless journey to prove that black is white.
-
Wol at 11:24 AM on 22 April 2021Why scientists shouldn't heed calls to 'stay in our lane'
Apologies for the spelling!
-
Wol at 11:24 AM on 22 April 2021Why scientists shouldn't heed calls to 'stay in our lane'
As a long retired civvil pilot I have but a superficial training in meteorology and climatology (I can still use a tephigram but probably get the wrong answers<g>).
I'm politically somewhere to the right of Atilla the Hun; however this doesn't mean that I am obliged to close my brain down and go along with what has become a political fight by denialists.
There's certainly been a shift in public opinion about global warming these last five years but - and, America, I'm looking at you - there's a significant percentage of the population that is NEVER going to take the trouble to check the veracity of the huge amount of misinformation out there. It's almost comical that some can quote temperature CO2 and sea level data from millions of years ago yet without blinking rubbish what the same science is telling us now.
It's psychology bordering on psychiatry that's the issue, and I don't think there's any way of countering it - certainly not with facts.Scott Morrison, here in Australia, is making faint noises about minimal investments but it's merely to assuage some of the criticism without breaking from his close relations with parliamentary colleagues and the FF industry.
The even sadder thing is that, in the unlikely event that global gree efforts DO hold temperatures to a manageable level, the deniers' descendents will of course cry "There you are, what was all the fuss about - it was rubbish". We saw just that with the millenium bug!
-
scaddenp at 11:04 AM on 22 April 2021It's cosmic rays
If you look at the advanced tab, you see the steps that must be fufilled for GCR to influence climate. While it is great that advances are being made in understanding GCRs, I dont see how those discoveries impact in any way on creating a climate impact. The empirical evidence for correlation between GCR and cloud formation remains elusive.
-
yurivs at 08:21 AM on 22 April 2021It's cosmic rays
Hi
Do you know if this new discovery related to the "iron cosmic rays" in any way alters your refutations of the Henrik Svensmark hypothesis? Thanks.
- AMS reveals properties of iron cosmic rays;
- Ironing Out Cosmic Rays;
- Properties of Iron Primary Cosmic Rays: Results from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer.Moderator Response:[BL] This appears to be your first post here. Welcome to Skeptical Science! There is an immense amount of reference material discussed here and it can be a bit difficult at first to find an answer to your questions. That's why we recommend that Newcomers, Start Here and then learn The Big Picture.
Remember to frame your questions in compliance with the Comments Policy and lastly, to use the Preview function below the comment box to ensure that any html tags you're using work properly.
In particular, note that the Comments Policy states the following:
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.
Simply asking others to read links and report back to you is frowned upon. Please provide some indication of what you see at those links, how it relates to the subject of this post (i.e., why it is on topic), and then ask specific questions.
-
Haiburton42 at 07:50 AM on 22 April 2021Why scientists shouldn't heed calls to 'stay in our lane'
LOVE IT.
I do this all the time this is my life dude
Vroom vroom give me room fool[Chorus]
You can catch me
Switching lanes lanes
Switching lanes lanes
Switching lanes lanes
You can catch me
Switching lanes lanes
Switching lanes lanes
Switching lanes lanes
You can catch me
Switching lanes lanes
Switching lanes lanes
Switching lanes lanes
You can catch me
Switching lanes lanesSwitching Lanes
Kid Cudi
Album Dat Kid From Cleveland -
Jim Hunt at 22:10 PM on 21 April 2021Why scientists shouldn't heed calls to 'stay in our lane'
Scientists are not staying in their lane these days. They are protesting, or attempting to at least. However it seems the "powers that be" aren't very keen on that idea:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2021/04/stop-attempts-to-criminalise-nonviolent-climate-protest/
That article in the online version of the UK's Guardian newspaper was "redacted" shortly after publication on Monday.
-
MA Rodger at 17:53 PM on 21 April 2021It hasn't warmed since 1998
Voyisz @408,
You quote the OP which is making the point that Ocean Heat Content is the big recipient of the global energy imbalance caused by AGW (rather than the warming which results in surface temperature increases which is a minor recipient).
You follow that by the assertion that it is all about energy rather than temperature which is true but not greatly relevant as Ocean Heat Content is effectively a temperature thing.
And then you introduce the concepts of PE & KE.
Surely PE & KE are red herrings. Is there some part of the global system where mass is increasing in altitude? Are there parts of the global system where stuff is whizzing about faster? In energy terms, any such change globally (if at all) will be miniscule enough to be entirely irrelevant, thus the red herrings.
-
TVC15 at 06:29 AM on 21 April 2021'Disinformation ecosystem' - in broader context beyond climate
Why on earth was a warning placed on this video? Could it be those climate denier algorithms?
-
TVC15 at 06:20 AM on 21 April 2021'Disinformation ecosystem' - in broader context beyond climate
@ Marcin
I'm located in the US and when I click on the link it takes me to my YouTube account and once the video loads it states "This video may be inappropriate for some users” I have the option to click on the link below the warning that states: "I understand and wish to proceed".
It's sickening to me to see what my country has become. This video puts it in the spotlight. As a biological and medical scientist I am disgusted by the anti-science I see here in the US. We are seriously considering leaving this country.
Just last night I visited a forum I used to participate in trying to educate the climate deniers. I was astounded with the human caused climate denier comments. There's no getting through to a person with a climate denier mind. I wanted to jump in and correct all the distortion of facts and disinformation, but I realized I never want to waste anymore of my time on a forum with people of that mindset. I wasted years on there and the same people are parroting the same BS.
I digress. -
michael sweet at 06:18 AM on 21 April 2021It hasn't warmed since 1998
Vonyisz:
Interesting questions. Most of your questions are answered in other posts here on Skeptical Science.
First I would point out that the OP you are responding to was written in December 2007. Since then, as the OP correctly predicted, the temperatures have risen substantially and no-one seriously claims that the temperature is not increasing any more.
There are indeed many metrics that can be measured for heat content of the entire Earth. Most or all of them are measured. For a general audience, like here on Skeptical Science, the surface air temperature is easiest to explain and relates to peoples lives best. The total ocean heat content (all the way to the bottom) is probably a more scientific measurement but does not relate to people as well. Global warming warms the ocean all the way to the deepest depths. In general, the warming is slower the deeper you go.
I recently saw an article (sorry no cite) that said the surface ten meters or so of land has heated up more than scientists thought. As you point out measuring the heat content of soil is difficult, but scientists make the best estimates thay can. Scientists are contually improving heat measurements. Skilled scientists know these measurements and consider them but for the average man on the street (or woman) the surface air temperature means the most. The surface air temperature is noisier than ocean heat content but people relate to air temperatures better.
I have seen calculations similar to yours about melting the ice in the Antarctic (or Greenland). The point is that if all the ice in the Antarctic melted 65 meters of sea level rise would result!! So if only 0.1% of the Suns energy melted ice it would result in 6 centimeters of sea level rise per year! What a disaster that would be.
It turns out that scientists working full time on these difficult questions can reach fairly good approximations of all these measurements. Sometimes a new measurement changes the picture a little (like the land measurements mentioned above), but overall where the heat goes is well known. If you ask about a single one of the measurements you mentioned above perhaps someone can give you a citation. You have too many questions here to specifically answer them.
-
Eclectic at 06:05 AM on 21 April 2021It hasn't warmed since 1998
Vonyisz @408 :
You have gotten yourself all tangled up. Please step back and look at the overall picture ~ and at what has changed over the past (say) 150 years in our modern world.
The mean sea-level has risen, and continues to rise. The amount and distribution of planetary ice has reduced, and continues to reduce. The planet is warming ~ warming in ocean, topsoil, and lower troposphere. All the regions where plants & animals live.
You do not need to know worldwide soil temperature "all over the earth at a depth of one meter". Unnecessary detail !
But you do need to know the overall trend of warming ~ how large it is, what is causing it, and what we should do to counteract it. Over many decades, the climate scientists have discovered the trend, and its causations.
-
Vonyisz at 01:51 AM on 21 April 2021It hasn't warmed since 1998
I would have a methodological questions. As this text suggests:
„To claim global warming stopped in 1998 also overlooks a simple physical reality - the land and atmosphere are just a small fraction of the Earth's climate (albeit the part we inhabit). The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance. The atmosphere is warming. Oceans are accumulating energy. Land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt. To get the full picture on global warming, you need to view the Earth's entire heat content. More than 90% of global warming heat goes into warming the oceans, while less than 3% goes into increasing the atmospheric and surface air temperatures. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) showed that the Earth has continued to heat up since 1998.”
– global warming is not really about temperature, but about the amount of energy.
But this is often misunderstood. Throughout the media, global warming is portrayed as if it could be characterized by changes in temperature.
Q = c * m * ΔT, but here c is not an exact value, consider large pressure and temperature differences
E (pot) = m * g * h, E (kin) = (m * v ^ 2) / 2
And I would have more questions here.
1. What do we refer to the amount of energy? Atmosphere? The kinetic and potential energy of air? With or without hidden heat? (The equivalent potential temperature (theta-e) is the temperature a sample of air would have if all its moisture were condensed out by a pseudo-adiabatic process (i.e., with the latent heat of condensation being used to heat the air sample), and the sample then brought dry-adiabatically back to 1000 hPa.) Surface? How deep? One meter? More? Caves? Groundwater that has a connection to the surface? Top 200 meters of oceans? Or the whole ocean? Energy stored in salinity and depth? Ice? Melting or freezing energy? Potential energy?
1.conc. Average global temperature? Why? When misleading in light of the above: the amount of energy (no matter how we determine what we include in it) is not equal to temperature. Thus, a change in temperature cannot be equal to a change in the amount of energy! Not me saying that. The quoted text does this.
2. We determine what we want to measure. Can it succeed? Can we assign a global average to the temperature of the entire earth? When I buy myself a pair of pants, at least three metrics help me with that. And do we characterize the average temperature of the earth (or rather the total amount of energy) with a single data? Even if we do, what are we going to do with it? What usable speech data does this tell us? This is because exactly what spheres are included in the total energy calculation are closely related to this data. If we calculate this as accurately as we wanted, what can we say about how long this accuracy has been available to us in the past? 10 years ago? 100 years?
2.atm. Do we really measure the temperature and humidity and density of the entire atmosphere? Do we really know the temperature of the earth's surface all over the earth at a depth of one meter?
2.surf. Do we know how much energy is stored in that part of the earth’s surface that is involved in the processes detailed here, absorbs sunlight, and largely heats the atmosphere? Do we know its density? Do we know your specific heat? Do we know its water content? Maybe it's not just the top one that counts? Could it be several meters in some cases? Who can say that? How to calculate? If someone says something, what to expect from him? How do you justify his theory?
2.oce. Do we know the temperature and the amount of dissolved salt everywhere in the oceans? Of course, we don't have an instrument everywhere, we fill in the missing data with approximation calculations. What is the ratio of the total error rate caused by the approximate calculations to the percentage of change to be examined? I read in several places that only the top 200 meters of the oceans matter in terms of global warming. Others write 100 meters. Many people write that the deep ocean has only long-term effects, it doesn’t count in the heat balance in the short term. Why a hundred? Why two hundred? Why doesn't it matter? The limit drawn here seems very arbitrary to me, and in terms of the change in total energy ... it is important to decide and justify: whether or not to include the deep ocean in the energy balance when examining global warming!
2.conc. I see a lot of temperature charts pros and cons. This is how the temperature goes up or how the earth cools. But none of the camps really show how the total amount of energy on earth measured according to the principles detailed above has changed, at least in the last 10-20 years, where perhaps we already have evaluable data in this regard. How can we start a scientific debate without clarifying the framework? The concepts? Principles of repeatable measurements? How is the data processed? Both camps bombard the media with marketing texts that pick it up as raw material and distort it so that it will no longer be completely untraceable to the average person.
3. A degree of warming of the whole ocean is approx. on the order of 10 ^ 24 Joules. Melting the ice of Antarctica would absorb 10 ^ 24 Joules of energy. A degree of warming of the dry air is on the order of 10 ^ 21 Joules. The Sun kisses the Earth with 10 ^ 24 Joules of energy in one year.
Based on these, the scare that the entire Antarctic ice sheet will melt soon seems rather doubtful. This event would eliminate the amount of energy in a whole year of solar radiation (of the same order of magnitude). This needs to be justified! While land ice heats the air when it forms and cools the air when it melts, the formation of coastal ice hanging in the ocean heats both the surface of the ocean and the air, but its melting typically cools the deeper layers of the ocean. Interestingly, land ice can be coastal ice. I hope I use good concepts. The direction of energy as a whole: heat is transferred to the atmosphere from the deeper parts of the ocean. People with CO2 can't warm up the ocean as a whole, just the top few hundred meters. And that is my next question. Are we counting the incoming solar rays and the outgoing infrared rays in the total amount of energy on earth? For example, the city is 35 degrees Celsius in vain if objects are 50-70 degrees Celsius and radiate heat unbearably to humans, while the same 35 degrees in the forest is unpleasant but tolerable because here the temperature of the objects is not higher than the air temperature. Here, the air temperature alone is very misleading. And sorry for the analogy, do we count the energy on the ocean heat transfer road to the total amount of energy on earth? I would like to draw attention to a trap. When the ocean conveyor delivers less energy, the average temperature in the upper part of the ocean is lower, but in this case heat is trapped around the Equator and the poles cool. On the other hand, with higher energy transport, the surface temperature of the oceans increases, most of the excess heat arrives at the poles from around the Equator, so significant warming begins here, more significant than at the Equator. However, the excess heat at the poles also means that the earth's surface can radiate over a larger surface at a higher temperature (T ^ 4). Overall, more heat is dissipated compared to when the capacity of the oceanic strip was smaller, disregarding other factors. I am thinking in particular here that, as soon as the Arctic ice melts in the summer, this process must be taken into account, because the thermal insulating effect of the ice will disappear.
3.conc. Is it conceivable that a change in the latter will affect a change in the distribution of the total amount of energy on earth? Perhaps these and other relevant metrics can bring the understanding and explanation of global warming closer to both experts and the average person? -
Marcin Popkiewicz at 21:24 PM on 20 April 2021'Disinformation ecosystem' - in broader context beyond climate
The video has been flagged as 'age restricted'. Either you share your personal ID documents with Google or you won't be able to watch the movie. Most people haven't done that, so the audience will be severely limited.
-
Eclectic at 20:45 PM on 20 April 2021Why scientists shouldn't heed calls to 'stay in our lane'
Sad for Ben Santer to lose a friend to "trumpism".
I have lost a cousin who has cut himself off from his siblings & extended family ~ in part because Global Warming is a Hoax. Add some conspiracy ideation and a "suspicious mind" about the (presumed) nefarious intent of his siblings/cousins. His adult children try to keep their heads down and wait for it all to pass (but they don't seem hopeful).
He is not insane in the strict medico-legal sense, but IMO he is intellectually insane. Nor do I think he has an organic brain dysfunction and/or early dementia, as far as I can tell. But judging by the shenanigans on the internet (especially the echochamber of GreenHouse denialism at WattsUpWithThat ) his is not a wildly uncommon case. Additionally, there must be millions who go along for the ride, as a matter of identity politics.
Fortunately, I rarely encounter flagrant denialists in everyday real life. But obviously they exist, even in the higher echelons of government.
The real question is :- Which way is the tide running? And are politicians starting to see the light . . . or are they merely responding to increased public & media pressure, and are simply dissembling while hoping they're dealing with a transient wave of publicity.
From what I've seen during the past 5 months [ i.e. since mid-November 2020] , the denizens of WUWT are a bit glum, but consider themselves to be bravely holding out against all this unscientific AGW nonsense (and its underlying Marxist World Revolutionary push). Bravely holding out until the public is brought to its senses by sky-rocketing electricity prices and the inevitable arrival of decades of drastic Global Cooling. Due soon.
-
nigelj at 12:32 PM on 20 April 2021'Disinformation ecosystem' - in broader context beyond climate
What a depressing parade of denialists, opportunists, narcissists, and conspiracy theorists. You cannot appease these people or convince them with facts. Tell them they are idiots and that they are spreading ignorance. Its about the only language they will understand.
-
nigelj at 11:54 AM on 20 April 2021Wind and solar energy are job creators. Which states are taking advantage?
We dont have an automated economy, so we need to create jobs so people can build the automated ecomomy. And to build the power sources that fuel the automated economy (renewables). You cant put the cart before the horse.
However the completely automated economy is probably a fantasy. I doubt the world has enough material resources for millions, perhaps billions of robots etcetera because that is what you are talking about. The services sector will still employ quite a lot of people.
-
David-acct at 10:59 AM on 20 April 2021Wind and solar energy are job creators. Which states are taking advantage?
Withut critisizing Ig guy above, - The linked article provides excellent information about the number of jobs in each state by source of electric generation. Below are some pertinent data from the Texas and California which have some of the largest penetration of renewables in their electric generation mix.
The electric generation mix in Texas is a approx 25% wind and approx 45% from natural gas. The attached link cited in this article shows the employment numbers are approx 25,500 for wind generation and approx 7,900 for jobs in electrical generation from natural gas. that equates to approx 5 jobs in wind generation to produce the same amount of electricity from natural gas.
The same report cited in this article shows jobs in the solar sector is approx 124,000 of which 50,500 is in solar construction leaving approx 74,000 for electric generation from solar, where as 20,500 jobs are in the natural gas electric generation sector. The electric generation mix in California is approx 15% while electric generation from natural gas is approx 34%. That equates to approx 9 jobs in solar to produce the same amount of electricity from natural gas.
https://www.usenergyjobs.org/2020-state-reportswww.usenergyjobs.org/2020-state-reports
-
michael sweet at 00:44 AM on 20 April 2021Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
John O'Neill:
According to this World Nuclear News article from September 2020, the Terrapower sodium cooled reactor you refer to has not been submitted for certification. They hope to start commercialization by the end of the decade. Likewise Canadian Terrestial Energy is a start up with a paper design and little else.
Can you provide references that support your claim these reactors are more than paper designs?
The storage of the Terrapower reactor would only raise output less than 50% for 5 1/2 hours. That doesn't sound like cheap storage to me. Both these designs have signficant problems to deal with for example: liquid sodium reactors have chronic sodium fires and molten salt reactors have no materials to manufacture valves.
Since nuclear power plants have to be run full out all the time to be economic they do not fit into a renewable system. The claim that with storage the reactors fit well with wind is simply propaganda from the industry. In addition, they are too expensive to build and run and take too long to build. Even the builders of the reactors you mention do not expect their designs to be buildable before 2030 best case. We need to change over to renewable energy before those reactors will be ready.
When a nuclear power plant is shut down it takes time to build replacement renewable energy. 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. As more and more renewable energy is built out emissions have already started to decrease.
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:25 PM on 19 April 2021Wind and solar energy are job creators. Which states are taking advantage?
...and yet the people arguing against taking action on climate, or other environmental issues, keep using the excuse that the proposed actions are "job killers".
And the people employed in the fossil fuel industry worry about losing their jobs and being unable to buy the essentials of life. Being able to provide them with alternative jobs is a benefit, not a cost.
Automated production isn't free - it takes huge amounts of capital investment. The idea that automation will make stuff for free is a pipe dream.
-
Ignorant Guy at 12:14 PM on 19 April 2021Wind and solar energy are job creators. Which states are taking advantage?
Very often I see the argument that something is good because it creates job. That is a mistake. Work is not an asset, it's a cost. Imagine we could produce all goods and services we need without any person doing any work because exactly all production was automated. Then all goods and services would be free. On the other hand, imagine that some sector, e g renewable energy production (or fizzy drinks), would create an enormous amount of jobs, say 8 billion new jobs. Then, unless the rest of the production was automated, everyone would be busy producing renewable energy (or fizzy drinks) and nothing at all except renewable energy (or fizzy drinks) would be produced. Work is a cost because work is the price we pay to keep the production going. It's not work that is an asset but labour. But labour is an asset only as long as work needs to be done.
-
TVC15 at 03:37 AM on 19 April 2021Explainer: The polar vortex, climate change and the ‘Beast from the East’
As more and more researchers look at the effects of the weakening polar vortex, we are now starting to see these types of cold snaps in TX.
More climate extremes ahead for Galveston County, experts agreeModerator Response:[BW] Corrected the broken link
-
Tom Dayton at 23:03 PM on 17 April 2021The choice is clear: Fair climate policy or no climate policy
Eggsasperated: You are incorrect. Please learn the difference in Meaning of those two words.
-
Eclectic at 22:55 PM on 17 April 2021The choice is clear: Fair climate policy or no climate policy
Eggsasperated @4 ,
Should we discriminate against certain people, such as criminals?
Is "discrimination" automatically a bad thing? Are you discriminating against discrimination? ;-)
Equity - like probity or disinterested - is one of those underused words. And critical thinking is aided by usage of precise words, in the handling of concepts. In a sloppy way, words are too often used as slogans. Phrases, too, can suffer that fate ~ "The Climate Is Always Changing" is an example of a slogan used to short-circuit real meaning.
Yes, the word equality also is too often used as an unthinking slogan. Equity is a rather legalistic word ~ but it deserves prominence when we consider the world's problems.
-
eggsasperated at 22:20 PM on 17 April 2021Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
The view that an increase from 2 billion to 8 billion people breathing out billions of tons of CO2 is carbon neutral cycle and not a problem is interesting. Using that logic, we could say that burning fossil fuel and building concrete infrastructure is simply releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere from whence it came is a carbon neutral cycle too - albeit on a longer time frame.
Moderator Response:[TD] The long time needed to recycle the carbon injected into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels in fact is the problem. Read the post about breathing, and if you want to comment more on that topic do so there not here.
-
eggsasperated at 21:38 PM on 17 April 2021The choice is clear: Fair climate policy or no climate policy
Equity is just a nice word for discriminating against people to achieve equality of outcome.
-
John ONeill at 23:39 PM on 16 April 2021Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
'In a renewable energy world baseload power is very low value. Peak power on windless nights is most valuable. Current baseload plants are dinosaurs.' At least three nuclear designs going through certification - the Bill Gates/Terrapower sodium cooled reactor, the Canadian Terrestrial Energy molten salt graphite design ( based on the Oak Ridge Molten Salt Reactor Experiment ), and Moltex (an innovative fast reactor using plutonium chloride salt in fuel tubes similar to those of current reactors) - propose directly heating nitrate salts, as used in concentrating solar power plants. This would enable the reactor part to make heat 24/7, at ~ 500 megawatts, but store it to make power on demand at 1000 or 1500 MW, with only an additional turbine or two. This would integrate well with wind, which usually manages a 30-40% capacity factor. This would be much better than the current scenario, where part time wind, backed by natural gas, is undercutting baseload nuclear. Overall emissions rose after the closure of Vermont Yankee and San Onofre. They will certainly go up again when Indian Point, near New York, closes. Andrew Cuomo, governor of NY state, admitted that the closure of upstate reactors would lead to more gas being burnt, but would not relent on forcing the Indian Point reactors, which provided about a third of the city's power, to shut. They had been in the process of getting a twenty year licence extension, and could probably have had a further twenty years, as have several similar power plants.
https://www.electricitymap.org/zone/US-NE-ISNE?wind=false&solar=false
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. -
BaerbelW at 06:01 AM on 16 April 2021The Conspiracy Theory Handbook: Downloads and translations
The Conspiracy Theory Handbook is now also available in Turkish, which marks the 10th available translation of this very helpful handbook!
-
Postkey at 21:08 PM on 11 April 2021The choice is clear: Fair climate policy or no climate policy
'This' may invalidate the 'choice'? 'We' have ten years? “ . . . our best estimate is that the net energy
33:33 per barrel available for the global
33:36 economy was about eight percent
33:38 and that in over the next few years it
33:42 will go down to zero percent
33:44 uh best estimate at the moment is that
33:46 actually the
33:47 per average barrel of sweet crude
33:51 uh we had the zero percent around 2022
33:56 but there are ways and means of
33:58 extending that so to be on the safe side\
34:00 here on our diagram\
34:02 we say that zero percent is definitely\
34:05 around 2030 . . .\
we\
34:43 need net energy from oil and [if] it goes\
34:46 down to zero
34:48 uh well we have collapsed not just
34:50 collapse of the oil industry
34:52 we have collapsed globally of the global
34:54 industrial civilization this is what we
34:56 are looking at at the moment . . . “
Louis Arnoux. www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxinAu8ORxMModerator Response:[BL] You have been warned before about posting comments that consist of little more than quoted material. You are skating on thin ice, approaching violation of the comments policy.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
wilddouglascounty at 23:36 PM on 10 April 2021The choice is clear: Fair climate policy or no climate policy
It seems to me that this article does an excellent job of describing the complexities of what true equity is and where the inequalities exist in the regional, national and international spheres. Alas, these well described complexities could also be used to argue precisely the opposite conclusion: that the inertia that arises from built in reinforcements for the advantaged that are inherent in those inequalities is the primary reason things have not changed in a timely fashion so far. So if we want to be able to change things, we must work within the framework of inequality in order to make it worthwhile for those who have concentrated power and resources to adopt the low carbon economy required to reduce carbon emissions.
I'm not trying to defend the inequalities that have been created through the fossil fuel economy; indeed these inequities make it even more difficult not to see the transition to a low carbon economy as yet another way for those with power to retain it. But I believe we are in an "all hands on deck" time if we are to avoid an even more dire future, meaning that we need to enlist those who benefit from inequity alongside those on the short end. The "haves" have unfortunately but predictably been reluctant to redistribute the concentrated wealth that comes hand in hand with a fossil fuel economy but it will be easier to attain the common good of a low carbon economy if they can be allies instead of barriers. The 'haves' have already shown a willingness to create a 'gated community' version of the future where the 'haves' increase inequality in order to maintain their power, leading sometimes to violence and more/new forms of inequity. Some countries have used governments to reinforce the concentration of economic power in the form of totalitarian/fascist repression, while other countries have used their governments to spread the wealth more equitably. But this has been difficult to maintain considering that all governments are responsive to their own sources of their power and find concentrated power irresistable.
As we look at the technological and cultural challenges of transforming to a low carbon future through such endeavors as Project Drawdown, I think we need to devote similar attention to the barriers that are caused by the concentration of political and economic power that goes with it. Change does not occur unless the barriers to change are removed, no matter how attractive the alternatives are. The barriers to a low carbon future are intertwined with the barriers to equity and I daresay that even if we can remove enough barriers to create a low carbon future, we will find the barriers to equity even more resistant.
-
Bob Loblaw at 03:33 AM on 10 April 2021There is no consensus
Karlengle:
You may find it informative to read the American Meteorlogical Society's author information web page. They publish several highly-respected journals in various specialities in atmospheric science.
https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/publications/author-information/
The review process is described here:
...and what they expect from editors and reviewers is here:
A couple of Skeptical Science pages on peer review:
https://skepticalscience.com/clouds-over-peer-review.html
https://skepticalscience.com/pal-review.htm
The second of those links shows a case where "skeptic" scientists basically did what they keep accusing the mainstream scientists of doing. Another blog post on the same story can be found at ThinkProgress:
Two more examples of misbehaviour at journals:
-
Karlengle at 03:00 AM on 10 April 2021There is no consensus
BaerbelW @893
Thanks for the links. This will definitely add to my toolbox!
-
BaerbelW at 02:42 AM on 10 April 2021There is no consensus
Karlengle @892
Have you browsed our TCP homepage about (esp.) our consensus-related studies yet? I'm fairly certain that we by now have answers for all the various attacks lobbed by the usual suspects at them. Most will be answered in the FAQs and others in one of several blog posts and rebuttals published over time and listed a bit further down on the homepage. And there's also The Consensus Handbook with even more information!
-
Karlengle at 23:58 PM on 9 April 2021There is no consensus
Tom Dayton, Thanks for the insight into the peer review process! Sounds pretty grueling...
I was asking because one of the main responses I get from deniers when I give the studies on consensus, are links to notable deniers going into details on their own reviews about the studies always claiming a smoking gun of trickery and deception on these studies. One usually has to get pretty deep in the weeds to dispel those. I always look for the simpler explanation that makes sense to the possible audience of my discussion. I've usually given up on convincing the other person, but I want to always frame my arguments to appeal to those with a cursury interest and not get mired in the snowing attempts from deniers. It would be good to argue that denier biased "reviews" of studies are not reliable, and the scientific peer review process is much better at catching bad science.
-
bobvoss50 at 23:36 PM on 9 April 2021Skeptical Science to expand impact as 501(c)(3) non-profit
Congratulations on becoming a 501(c)(3)! For all the reasons you presented so clearly, this will empower your organization to have a much bigger impact. The work you are doing is brilliant and essential—and helping to empower many, many others to become forces for change.
I look forward to seeing your "Theory of Change". Having worked for several years facilitating transformational change leadership with nonprofit organizations, I deeply appreciate how vital it is to embody a clear understanding of how to drive real change, no matter what arena it may be in. And if there is any issue where transormational change is desperately needed--climate change is it!! Kudos to Skeptical Science for taking this step!! -
prove we are smart at 17:27 PM on 9 April 2021The choice is clear: Fair climate policy or no climate policy
This article puts words to my thoughts. An example here in the Upper Hunter Valley,with my local NSW state govt here in Aust unwilling to unshackel from its fossil fuel donations and an election in under 6 mths. The local populace are very pro mines, so a losing stratergy for any politic party if anti coal. People want action on climate change but not if it is too disruptive, ha . https://reneweconomy.com.au/surge-in-new-coal-mine-proposals-in-nsw-triggers-fresh-calls-for-coal-moratorium/ Sometimes I think we get the leaders we deserve- not the leaders we need..
-
scaddenp at 13:14 PM on 9 April 2021There is no consensus
Note there is more the Naomi Oreskes paper here. It is not clear to me from the context whether the Oreske article was peer-reviewed. Editorial-type and some review pieces in Science journals are not always peer-reviewed, though papers are in Science. However, the Oreske paper was in section called "essays on science and society". Since it was presenting an actual analysis rather than comment, I would guess "yes", but it isnt that clear.
The Oreske conclusion is not substantively different from other peer-reviewed studies of consensus however. It is extremely difficult to challenge the conclusion that a very strong scientific consensus on AGW exists from the evidence.
-
Tom Dayton at 10:11 AM on 9 April 2021There is no consensus
Karlengle: Perhaps I misunderstood your question. I thought you asked to see the peer reviews of the publications. Are you instead asking how to tell whether a given publication was peer reviewed?
-
Tom Dayton at 10:02 AM on 9 April 2021There is no consensus
Karlengle: "Peer review" of submissions for scientific publication usually is done double blinded--the reviewers don't know who the authors are, and vice versa. Authors are given the reviews regardless of the final decision of acceptance or rejection by the journal or conference. For many decades, those reviews remained private, as a way to support frankness. But some publications are changing the model to open reviews.
(In fact, at this very moment, I am in hour 10 of 12 hours of a conference subcommittee meeting--fortunately three sessions of four hours. All 37 subcommittee members are watching discussions of each submitted paper by two of those members, summarizing each paper's review by them plus by two to four reviewers who are not on the subcommittee. Substantial effort went into carefully recruiting those two to four external reviewers, curating discussions among those reviewers to clarify disagreements in their reviews, and crafting demanded or suggested revisions to the authors.)
-
Karlengle at 06:45 AM on 9 April 2021There is no consensus
Hi, I have a question about peer reviews. Are there lists somewhere that show who has peer-reviewed studies/papers being mentioned? For example, I have been searching for peer reviews of Naomi Oreske's consenus study, but I'm not having any luck? Any places you can point me to? When offer these studies at online discussions, I invariably get linked to critiques given by bloggers. Of course, these bloggers, being climate deniers offer all sorts of claims of dishonesty and bad studies, but it seems like if these studies where peer reviewed, those reviews would hold much more water than a denier blogger with no real expertise in climate science...
-
TVC15 at 05:20 AM on 9 April 2021CO2 is plant food
johnd@44
Hi johnd,
CO2 is not the basic buidling block for a carbon based life.
CHNOPS, which stands for carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, sulfur, represents the six most important chemical elements whose covalent combinations make up most biological molecules on Earth.
Carbons ability to hybridize orbitals is the key factors here, not the CO2 molecule.
It's also Carbon's capability of forming a vast number of compounds, more than any other element, with almost ten million compounds described to date. Carbon's widespread abundance, its ability to form stable bonds with numerous other elements, and its unusual ability to form polymers at the temperatures commonly encountered on Earth enables it to serve as a common element of all known living organisms. Carbon is important because of its ability to form long chain-like molecules (carbon chains form the backbone of organic molecules.
Finally, consider the abundance of carbon in the universe ( 4,600 ppm in the universe) versus the next group 14 element silicon (650 ppm in the universe) and you see that carbon has a unique abilty to hybridize its S and P electron shells, thus making 4 electrons of equal energy level, this proptery of carbon really was the only way to achieve a carbon based life here on earth. Why? Because carbon can form stable bonds with itself, but also with a variety of other types of elements. This is why life is "carbon-based" or predominantly carbon. -
TVC15 at 03:38 AM on 9 April 2021CO2 is plant food
Eclectic @42, @43
I truly enjoy your responses. I've learned so much from posting the links and comments from the occasional denialist I run across.
I told the Canadian to go ask the Midwest farmers if the extra CO2 in the atmosphere helped their flooded fields in 2019 and the econimic impact it cost. I suggested that while he's at it, please ask the CA farmers if the extra CO2 in the atmosphere helped their drought stricken crops last year and to explain how climate change impacted these events. -
Postkey at 20:47 PM on 7 April 2021CO2 was higher in the past
Robert Murphy#46
"And that is true, except it says nothing at all about CO2 levels." From: 'The Undesigned Universe' - Peter Ward
“ . . . it>
62:26 is these ocean state changes that are
62:28 correlated with the great disasters of
62:30 the past impact can cause extinction but
62:35 it did so in our past only once that we
62:38 can tell whereas this has happened over
62:40 and over and over again we have
62:42 fifteen evidences times of mass
62:45 extinction in the past 500 million years
62:48 so the implications for the implications
62:51 the implications of the carbon dioxide
62:52 is really dangerous if you heat your
62:55 planet sufficiently to cause your Arctic
62:58 to melt if you cause the temperature
63:01 gradient between your tropics and your
63:03 Arctic to be reduced you risk going back
63:07 to a state that produces these hydrogen
63:11 sulfide pulses “ www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ako03Bjxv70Moderator Response:[BL] You have been warned before about posting comments that consist of little more than quoted material. You are skating on thin ice, approaching violation of the comments policy.
The comment you claim to be responding to (#46) was posted in 2011. Do you really expect to be engaging in discussion with that participant?
-
johnd at 20:08 PM on 7 April 2021CO2 is plant food
Perhaps rather than considering that CO2 as being plant food it is more exact to describe it as the basic building block of a carbon based life form, given all life as we know it is just that.
Typically, 99% of the human body consists of six elements, oxygen 65%, carbon 18.5%, hydrogen 9.5%, nitrogen 3.2%, calcium 1.5%, and phosphorus 1.0%. which explains why when the human body combusts, so too with most other materials, all that is left is carbon.
Prev 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 Next
