Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 Next
Comments 59501 to 59550:
-
DaveMcRae at 01:25 AM on 27 April 2012ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
If anyone can find, if it's available, the Admiral Titley clip that was also cut, I'm sure that would be also most interesting. I suggested to QandA/ABC that it should put it's hand to curing cancer as well. No oncologists or anyone of a medical background, what would they know. A panel of miners and politicians should be able to nut it. Catalyst, the science show before this documentary on balance fallacy was good. http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3488105.htm -
Bernard J. at 00:31 AM on 27 April 2012ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
I concur with Sceptical Wombat that Q&A does not geniunely balance the denialist pseudo-evidence with real scientific discourse. On the episode tonight Clive Palmer trotted out trope after trope with nary a correction. As an example the "humans are responsible for only 3% of the increase" canard was repeated by Palmer a number of times, with almost no attempt to discuss the effect of compound interest - which surely warms the cockles of Palmer's heart when he's contemplating his bank balance... Even Matthew England didn't corner this rat, although time constraints might explain why. Too often I find myself wondering how an obvious error of science, or a fallacy of logic, or a plain old untruth, is simply allowed to stand and contribute to the overall impression of "debate", especially on the public broadcaster. Better than having the clip of Naomi Oreskes would have been to have her as a panel member, even if by satelite. She would have sunk Palmer quicker than would have a pair of cement shoes. On the matter of denialism itsef, as embodied by Minchin, Palmer and so many others, it's like this... ...There's a corspe, formerly known as Ms Ecosystem, lying on the ground, and the corpse has a CO2 bullet in its head - a bullet fired at point-blank range from a Coalington-Oilchester rifle. There's a medico autopsying the corpse, a Dr Climatologist, and she concludes that the cause of death was an AGW brain injury resulting from the impact of the dissected CO2 bullet, now lying in the bloody kidney bowl. Watching the autopsy is a member of the NRA, a Mr W.A.S.P. Warming-Denier Snr, who (although he has no experience in medicine) variously asserts that: 1) there is still a scientific debate about the capacity of CO2 bullets to inflict serious damage to brains 2) well, OK, bullets might cause small bumps, but something else caused the corpse to actually die even though the autopsy showed no other plausible factors 3) that the corpse isn't really dead anyway 4) that CO2 bullets are good for the brain 5) alright, so maybe the bullet did kill Ms AGW, but if you control firearms, my life will fall apart, it just will. Nothing that Mr W.A.S.P. Warming-Denier Snr asserts has any objective relationship to the science that determined the cause of death. Several are ideological knee-jerks in response to the implications of the investigation, but these knee-jerks do not alter the fact of cause and effect. The debate isn't about the cause of death, no matter how strenuously Mr W.A.S.P. Warming-Denier Snr attempts to make it so. The debate is simply about Mr W.A.S.P. Warming-Denier Snr's unfettered ability to continue to do what he's always done, no matter that control of this activity would result in less harm in the future. If Mr W.A.S.P. Warming-Denier Snr wanted a genuinely honest discussion, he'd openly admit that CO2 bullets will kill most, if not all, of Ms AGW's family if they are all thusly shot, and he would argue that his right to shoot those CO2 bullets at these folk outweighs the rights of Ms AGW's family not to be shot at. Of course, that is a much harder argument to win, so Mr W.A.S.P. Warming-Denier Snr is going to avoid it at all costs, even if he can never admit it even to himself... -
catamon at 00:23 AM on 27 April 2012ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
"and it is a pity they have prevented Naomi Oreskes pointing out that Nick Minchin is (metaphorically!) naked of any scientific case for his views." Seemed pretty obvious to me from the program content that his position is based entirely on an economic / political perspective and the science is pretty much not an issue for him. Much surprisement here given his background. That said, the linked vid in the op here is well worth watching and i thought quite insightful. I thought the comment from one of the QANDA panelists about the ABC's online survey being worthy of lining a kitty litter tray was pretty apt. But how did Clive Palmer wind up there?? -
adelady at 00:14 AM on 27 April 2012ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
It might have been uninspiring, but it wasn't quite as awful as I feared. I confess I didn't watch all of it, but I was really, genuinely surprised that Nick M. trotted out the Nova-Evans duo and Marc Morano! of all people. Perhaps it wasn't just Oreskes that was cut, maybe some halfway reasonable people chosen by Minchin were also omitted. I did think Minchin was a bit taken aback by the suggestion that the whole idea of the program was ill-advised for Rose (Goldacre's rather vivid remarks). It seems not to have occurred to him before that anyone relying on scientific evidence was at a disadvantage in dealing with people who dished up "bad science" in 'debate'. -
Michael Whittemore at 00:06 AM on 27 April 2012ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
Having such a young person stand for the side of anthropogenic warming not be in the field of climate science was appalling. She could not state a single fact about anything. She must have known who she was going to have to visit, and if she did not know the ABC has made it impossible for her to debate anything, she is just there to look good. The show was a complete waste of time that really gave no hard hit home on either side. When at Hawaii the fundamental facts of CO2 being increased by man and the measured amount of extra infrared radiation hitting the Earth should have been stated by her!. With Lindzen she should have asked him what climate sensitivity value he gives the doubling of CO2, and she should have explained that his value is small to all the others. The young girl plays the part of an emotional undergrad that is sticking to her guns because her lecturer told her so. The ABC has played this issues off as a joke, the only time that there was real facts been pointed out was during the Q&A show by the Oceanographer in the audience. And the CSIRO CEO on the Q&A show was ridicules, she completely thinks we should do nothing to stop the emission of CO2 and only focus on making solar cheaper, in the hope it will be as cost effective as coal. She does not even want government help regarding this, just let industry do it?? -
ChrisPlants at 00:03 AM on 27 April 2012Climate Change Boosts Then Quickly Stunts Plants, Decade-long Study Shows
Having given the paper a quick read, I'm surprised there is no measure of CO2 included at both sites. My understanding is that CO2 partial pressure decreases with increasing altitude (roughly 10% less CO2 per 1000m), thus transplanting from high to low sites would also impose a CO2 enrichment effect. It is also my understanding that CO2 enrichment causes a short term boost in plant productivity which is then lost as other factors become rate limiting (photosynthetic acclimation). This sounds familiar to the findings in this paper, although I am unsure on the time-frames on CO2 photosynthetic acclimation. -
adelady at 00:02 AM on 27 April 2012Global Warming Causing Heat Fatalities
The best "adaptation" we've made in Adelaide after our disastrous record-breaking heatwave 4 years ago is organisational and behavioural. The Red Cross has a list of people who've signed up to be contacted for all kinds of problems. When heatwave conditions are predicted, they get on the phones and start nagging people to drink water and remove their shoes to cool off. (Elderly men are notorious for maintaining "decent" dress - singlet, shirt, tie, jacket, trousers, wool socks, lace-up leather shoes - and sticking to routines like a cup of tea at 10.30am rather than frequent drinks of plain water.) Radio and TV stations also broadcast messages, not for people at risk, but for families and neighbours to get on the phone or visit to make sure that old or sick people are drinking enough and actually using their fans and air conditioners rather than trying to economise in their usual way. And changing the colour of cars won't save kids trapped in hotboxes. The temperature difference is measurable but nowhere near enough to be survivable for a child or an animal left there for more than a matter of minutes when the outside temperature is over 35 or 40C. The car temperature rockets to 50+ in a virtual blink of an eye. "Full physiological adaptation" is a nonsensical concept for a fortnight or more over 35C when some of those days also exceed 40C. I've lived through it. By the time you're at 6, 8 or 10 days of this stuff, you might have better water drinking habits, but you're exhausted. And so is everyone around you. Tired people make mistakes - and they can't sleep properly either. If they're susceptible to illness, they become more susceptible. -
Richard D at 00:00 AM on 27 April 2012ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
Thanks, Excellent video clip. Should have been aired IMO. -
dr2chase at 23:24 PM on 26 April 2012Global Warming Causing Heat Fatalities
Re some posts above: seasonal flu deaths can run pretty high (3k to 49k per season). adaptation: there's a mess of inexpensive adaptations to heat waves, but we have known that we need them for decades (we've had heat waves before, and they've killed before), and there's no evidence that we are getting smarter or learning any faster than in the past. It's likely that people pay more attention for a few years following a bad heat wave; it would not be surprising to see some reduction in the deaths-per-degree rate afterwards. Cheap adaptations range from color of automobiles (some of those heat-related deaths are kids left in a car in the sun -- we make mistakes, sometimes horrible ones) to siting and shading of houses (and zoning and homeowner's association codes) to learned-but-unconscious reactions to heat (living in CA, over the years got to see about a half-dozen Gulf Coast friends-and-family get slightly dehydrated because they did not notice they were sweating). A sudden heat wave in a normally cool place will catch people without full physiological adaptation (takes a week or two), and without having already learned heat-friendly habits (e.g., hydration cues), so some adaptations are just not available. But most adaptations entail a minor expense/inconvenience, else we would have made them already. About the only one that does not is albedo change (white cars, white roofs, white pavement, white clothing) -- and notice that generally we don't do that yet, either. -
Dan Olner at 22:58 PM on 26 April 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part one - Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930
Nicely written! I got hooked into the story, didn't intend reading to the end just at the mo, but ended up doing so. -
Tristan at 22:47 PM on 26 April 2012ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
That was a pretty uninspiring two hours. I doubt anyone had their mind changed. -
Composer99 at 22:01 PM on 26 April 2012Levitus et al. Find Global Warming Continues to Heat the Oceans
anthony: As a non-scientist, I often find the varying forcing amounts confusing myself. What appears to be consistent is that, the shorter the time period under consideration, the smaller the forcing number. I'm sure those fully in the know can explain better. -
shoyemore at 19:45 PM on 26 April 2012ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
The concern I have about this program is that is once again lets the media portray a non-existent balance. The ordinary viewer is left with the impression that for every climate scientist, there is a climate science denier with valid arguments. That is just not the case, and it is a pity they have prevented Naomi Oreskes pointing out that Nick Minchin is (metaphorically!) naked of any scientific case for his views. -
chriskoz at 19:39 PM on 26 April 2012ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
Sceptical Wombat, you said @2: I don't think it is profitable to waste time impugning Minchin's motives - it is much more important to include as much as possible of the evidence for global warming. This clip maybe not profitable for us - who understand science - but it surely is profitable for people like Dibble's mum. Or just look at the comments in John's ABC Env article: many people don't understand (for whatever reasons) basic concepts of physics of climate science. Therefore, basic arguments that Naomi puts forward in this censored clip (about GHG being major driver of AGW) must be repeated until large audience understands that there is no legitimate debate left at scientific level. I understand that listening to this deja vu basics is waste of time for you but it's not for the audience the program is directed at. So, like others, I'm disappointed that ABC censored it, giving false impression that Naomi & Minchin are having equal stance here and thus reaffirming denial in very large part of public. -
John Mason at 19:18 PM on 26 April 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part one - Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930
Chris, good point. A better wording would be "they will still restrict heat-flow out into space." -
Riccardo at 19:05 PM on 26 April 2012ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
Naomi Oreskes did quite a good job in highlighting the weakest point of the conservative climate policy. The longer we wait the more invasive will be Government intervention, one thing not many will welcome. What they're trying to do is really short-sighted, delaying mitigation measures may be profitable in the short term but it will leave the world in an undesirable situation in the longer term. This is exactly what ConservAmerica (former Republicans for Environmental Protection) is trying to avoid, making it clear that environmental protection is not a partisan issue per se, while the solutions are or might be. It's only the distorted views of right wing fringes (fundamentalists?) that gives this impression to (presumably) gain political benefits. In the meanwhile, we're still waiting for a conservative climate policy other than attack the science, ignore the problem and keep going. To moderators: although my intention is to show that environmental protection is a non-partisan goal, I understand that I may have crossed the line of "no politics". Please delete if appropiate. -
Realist at 16:31 PM on 26 April 2012Renewables can't provide baseload power
#71 You really think its not subsidized? These are deals companies make before they will build a new plant. In Australia there are even special government departments whose only job is to come up with deals to get industries to invest. No company is stupid enough to build a new power station without a deal. They don't have to invest in NZ, they can take their money and invest where they will get a deal. Its all done under confdentiality agreement. No subsidy Is the equivalent of someone paying full price for a new car. Doesn't happen (except for the very stupid). -
Dibble at 16:07 PM on 26 April 2012ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
I agree with Stevo that this footage should have been aired. Having said that, I can see why it was dropped. With this programme, ABC are doing exactly what she says the denial industry are setting out to do. They're shifting the debate to be about the science, in order to delay doing something about the problem. My mum wouldn't understand either side of the'argument', but she'd watch this and think there was one. -
scaddenp at 14:40 PM on 26 April 2012Renewables can't provide baseload power
Oh, and ETS increases cost of power to consumer, not decrease it. Where is your evidence that $0.24/kwh is not the unsubsidized price? -
scaddenp at 14:37 PM on 26 April 2012Renewables can't provide baseload power
So where are the subsidies in New Zealand? That is what I am pointing out. ETS only came into play few years ago if you are regarding that as "subsidy". Not that relevant as no new carbon-burning generation has been built since. -
Sceptical Wombat at 14:37 PM on 26 April 2012ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
I disagree with Stevo - I don't think it is profitable to waste time impugning Minchin's motives - it is much more important to include as much as possible of the evidence for global warming. My complaint is that the the ABC is forever pitting seasoned political campaigners on the right against young relatively inexperienced idealists from the left. In Q and A it is often a representative of a conservative think tank versus a celebrity of some type. Anyhow most Australian's surely know that Minchin is famous for apologising to the John Nicholls Society for the fact that Work Choices didn't go far enough and that the coalition would do better in the future. -
anthony at 14:06 PM on 26 April 2012Levitus et al. Find Global Warming Continues to Heat the Oceans
Levitus find a forcing of 0.39 Wm-2 for OHC to 2000 m since 1955 due to GHGs, which corresponds to a global forcing of 0.27 Wm-2. AR4 concludes a net global, anthropogenic forcing since 1750 of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2. So, Levitus find a decrease in forcing since 1955? -
Stevo at 13:58 PM on 26 April 2012ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
It annoys me intensely that footage such as this failed to make it to air. What other gems have been edited out so that the media could maintain an illusion of fairness? -
Bob Lacatena at 13:49 PM on 26 April 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
RW1, I suggest you take your comment to the climate sensitivity thread. -
Realist at 13:32 PM on 26 April 2012Renewables can't provide baseload power
#68 Despite looking, I have not found any country where that electricity market financial model actually exists ie zero subsidies during development or during operations. Are you aware of its existence? Nor aware what is/would be the electricity tariff under in unsubsudised market? Would be rather high. -
r.pauli at 12:56 PM on 26 April 2012Levitus et al. Find Global Warming Continues to Heat the Oceans
Stumbled onto news release for today "Warm Ocean Currents Cause Majority of Ice Loss from Antarctica" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120425140353.htm -
RW1 at 12:13 PM on 26 April 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
Can you move my deleted comments to an appropriate thread of your choice? If Tom wishes, he can continue the discussion there. -
RW1 at 12:05 PM on 26 April 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
Which thread, DB? How about suggesting a thread before deleting comments? -
scaddenp at 11:56 AM on 26 April 2012Renewables can't provide baseload power
If a generating company wants to build a hydro, windfarm, etc. then they must buy the land and build it unaided, and raise capital in normal way. You can only make money from say a wind turbine if your price is competitive enough to bid into the market. Transmission costs ($0.17/kwh) are passed to directly to consumer. While a government owned company, the transmission provider has to raise capital with bonds, pays tax at company rate and dividends on profit. What is coming into play slowly is effectively a "subsidy" on non-carbon generation - the Emission Trading Scheme. However, renewables were more than competitive with coal/gas before it arrived. Also, emitters were given credit for current rate of emission, the ETS so far only counts against expanding carbon-generating emissions. The clear message here is that government is doing its level best to ensure there are no direct or indirect subsidies. -
muoncounter at 11:50 AM on 26 April 2012Global Warming Causing Heat Fatalities
Eric#67: Thanks for your kind words. Here's another take on the 'more people die in winter, but not necessarily due to extreme cold' story. Most of them are due to strokes and heart attacks. "This is because the blood becomes more liable to clot in people who are exposed to the cold." ... Studies show elderly people, and particularly those on low incomes, are at the greatest risk. There are a number of reasons why. Those that succumb are not necessarily sick already, but older people's blood vessels tend to have rougher linings than those of younger people, which makes them even more susceptible to clotting. We know that there will still be winter even under the worst global warming scenarios, so this cause of death may not vary all that much. Indeed, it may rise as the population ages. However, when the hot get hotter, heat-related deaths will rise. Unless, of course, we do as Chip suggests and simply 'adapt.' We can simply evolve so that we are born wearing one of these. -
Eric (skeptic) at 11:38 AM on 26 April 2012Global Warming Causing Heat Fatalities
It's such a simple question that I asked above, that I was sure there was a simple answer. But while there are some simple answers, e.g. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/02/090209-flu-humidity.html they are incomplete. -
Eric (skeptic) at 11:30 AM on 26 April 2012Global Warming Causing Heat Fatalities
Muoncounter, I am sorry to hear of your father's death. I don't know why there are 60k more deaths in the U.S. in winter than there are in summer. I would appreciate any references anyone has to help explain it. In the absence of such references I have to assume that cold weather is a factor in some of those deaths even indirectly. For example more people confined indoors with less ventilation than summer. -
Realist at 11:20 AM on 26 April 2012Renewables can't provide baseload power
There are hundreds of ways of subsidizing, or externalising costs. For the hydro, who paid for the dam, the land the dam is on, the land the power station is on, the transmission lines, the land the transmission lines are on, the roads, the water costs, the compensation for flooded farms etc. For the gas power station, do the gas producers pay full taxes on gas provided to powers stations, or do the gas producers have an obligation to provide gas to power stations at a defined and reduced cost as part of their approvals with the government? In Australia green energy is cross subsidized by power companies having a mandatory renewable energy target, so they pay the subsidy by installation rebates and feed in tariffs as high as 66 cents/kwh. So subsidies can be well hidden. The point is if you remove subsidies, you change the economics of supply, whic means you move on the supply-demand curve and get a new price equilibrium. The other way of looking at it is, what is the role model country for electricity generation and do they have subsidies and what is their cost? -
muoncounter at 10:45 AM on 26 April 2012Global Warming Causing Heat Fatalities
Here's another data point: Texas temperature-related mortality, 2003-2008:
-- sourced above
Texas is 'highly adapted' to heat, however, the figures in this period - which, of course does not include the record-shattering heat wave of 2011 - show that more people still die of heat-related causes on an annual basis.
This argument that "heat-related deaths are less common in hotter cities" is totally bizarre and suggests a very jaundiced worldview.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:38 AM on 26 April 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
RW1's bizarre claims assume that solar forcing results in no feedback response. That is, if the world's oceans are heated by 1 degree C by an increased GHG concentration, that will result in increased evaporation and an increase in absolute humidity (and hence a water vapour feedback), but that an increased temperature of the same proportion brought about by a brighter sun will not increase evaporation at all, nor melt any snow, or in any other way have feedbacks. RW1 can only attribute this view to climate scientists because, as always, he operates in complete disregard of what climate scientists actually say. As KR ably demonstrated, climate scientists make no such assumption. Indeed, in the only direct comparison in the chart above, CO2 forcing is around 10% more effective than solar forcing, and WMGHGs in general are 20% more effective - a far cry from the 300% claimed by RW1. These small differences are because the CO2 GHE and solar warming have their strongest effects at different latitudes, and at different times of the day and year. Still more bizarre is RW1's claim that CO2 should result in less warming because of the energy needed to modify the internal energy structure of the atmosphere. What is bizarre here is that inside the troposphere, there is no significant difference in the change in temperature structure with time under GHG and solar warming. But solar warming heats the stratosphere, while increased GHG cools it - so as usual, RW1 gets the science completely backwards.Moderator Response: [DB] Please take this discussion to one of the more appropriate threads. RW1 must perforce translate everything climate related into electrical engineering terms instead of learning the science in question; a very slogging approach, detrimental to thread health. -
scaddenp at 10:36 AM on 26 April 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
"excessive linearization" is inappropriate attempts to linearize a non-linear system. That's the only way to conclude "The AGW 3C rise hypothesis requires that watts of GHG 'forcing' have a 3 times greater ability to warm the surface than watts forcing the system from the Sun." As KR's plot show, AGW requires no such thing. -
Global Warming Causing Heat Fatalities
Chip Knappenberger - Climate change is just that: change. And changes, even if successfully adapted to, always cost money for those adaptations. Monies that would not have to be spent otherwise - new costs... -
muoncounter at 10:17 AM on 26 April 2012Global Warming Causing Heat Fatalities
Eric#58: Are you equating deaths that occur in a particular calendar month with deaths due to a specific set of causes? Clearly there were more deaths in the US during each of the years given in the NWS chart/table - but my father's death this past February, for example, was not due to cold weather. He was 95. -
Bob Lacatena at 09:42 AM on 26 April 2012Global Warming Causing Heat Fatalities
62, Chip, You have a rather simplistic view of things. Clearly if things get hotter (1) climate control equipment must run longer, more frequently, and at higher power, (2) there will be areas that would not have needed anything before but do now and (3) there will be more extreme events, even for prepared areas, that exceed or strain capacity (or require the expense of much greater capacity simply to prepare for such peaks). We're not talking about costs "that were going to be spent anyway." We're talking about adding (substantially) to those costs. That is fairly obvious for anyone to see. Or did I misunderstand your statement? -
Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
RW1 - "It's the non-linearity of the system's response to the forcing of the Sun that contradicts GHG 'forcing' being 3 times that of solar." Nobody claims that GHG forcing efficacy is 3x that of solar.
They are roughly the same according to current data, with long-lived GHG's perhaps 10-15% more effective than solar due to where the energy goes. But if the solar input increased by 3.7 W/m^2 (as per a CO2 doubling), we would still expect ~3C of warming total.
Moderator Response: [DB] If RW1 persists in his refusal to understand this point, then he will have to take it to a more appropriate thread. This will be about the 4th go-round for him, if so. -
RW1 at 09:13 AM on 26 April 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
scaddenp (RE: 81), "Climate science agrees solar and CO2 forcing are about the same. It's your excessive linearization that makes you think that CO2 is required to be 3 times solar." Actually, no - it's the exact opposite. It's the non-linearity of the system's response to the forcing of the Sun that contradicts GHG 'forcing' being 3 times that of solar. -
scaddenp at 08:59 AM on 26 April 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
Sigh, numerous people have tried to help you see this particular error, RW1, but since you wont do your homework, I doubt it is worth trying. Just for the record, the efficacy of the various forcings are approximately the same (see here and Hansen 2005. Climate science agrees solar and CO2 forcing are about the same. It's your excessive linearization that makes you think that CO2 is required to be 3 times solar. -
Chip Knappenberger at 08:24 AM on 26 April 2012Global Warming Causing Heat Fatalities
dana1981 (#60); You have made the point on several occasions that adaptation to heat waves is occurring without consideration of a changing climate. So, a certain value of your “significant cost” of on-going adaptation is unrelated to climate change. I hypothesize that climate change may hasten the adaptation saving more lives sooner. Does it add costs beyond those that were going to be spent anyway? Like I said, I am not an economist. But doesn’t the possibility exist that money spent now is cheaper than money spent later? I don’t know the answers, but I think it is a possibility worth considering and not one summarily dismissed. One way to reduce the threat of wolves on sheep is to kill all the wolves, another is to train a sheep dog to keep the wolves at bay. -Chip -
RW1 at 08:23 AM on 26 April 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
Actually, if anything, the ability of a watt of incremental GHG 'forcing' to warm the surface would be a little less than solar because some of the internal energy would have to be expended to reorganize the temperature structure of the atmosphere. -
noelfuller at 08:20 AM on 26 April 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part one - Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930
Sometimes, while thinking of the importance of infra-red in this whole business, I like to start with Herschel in 1800. His realization provided a backdrop to all subsequent thinking on climate science even though he was not thinking about climate. Noel -
RW1 at 08:07 AM on 26 April 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
How do I know I'm right? Very simply. The AGW 3C rise hypothesis requires that watts of GHG 'forcing' have a 3 times greater ability to warm the surface than watts forcing the system from the Sun. Give that each incremental watt from the Sun causes proportionally less and less warming in the system, and a watt of GHG 'forcing' can only do the same amount of work as a watt of solar forcing, Occam's razor prevails. -
grypo at 07:23 AM on 26 April 2012Global Warming Causing Heat Fatalities
Who cares if the endangerment finding looked at the question of what it would be like if no adaption or no mitigation occurred? That's a different argument and question. You are avoiding the argument being presented here. You've yet to show how mitigation is harmful. Your reasoning doesn't address ethical concerns. Your evidence doesn't back your claims. -
dana1981 at 07:15 AM on 26 April 2012Global Warming Causing Heat Fatalities
Well Chip, to return to my analogy, your argument is akin to saying we should require everyone to buy bulletproof vests instead of taking measures to reduce gun violence. Your approach doesn't address the existing threat, it simply forces people to adapt to it (at a significant cost). The problem is that you're arguing the threat doesn't exist, when you should be arguing that there are different ways to address the threat. I agree with that. I believe it was Lonnie Thompson who said that climate change will result in some combination of mitigation, adaption, and suffering. But your fundamental argument, that the EPA is wrong to call increased AGW-caused heat events a threat, is incorrect. -
Chip Knappenberger at 06:44 AM on 26 April 2012Global Warming Causing Heat Fatalities
dana1981 (#55), Thanks for the hosting the discussion. I don’t think we’re really that far apart on this particular topic, but obviously, if we were in complete agreement, you wouldn’t have written your piece in the first place. :^) I agree that adaptation to extreme heat (a threat) is ongoing (even without climate change). I just think that climate change hastens the adoption of adaptive measures. And thus more quickly induces us to reach a point where we are better off than we were before. Heat can kill if you aren’t prepared. This is true today, in the past, and in the future. We could try to force the climate to a state where there are no heat waves and thus potentially solve the whole problem. Or, we could try to force the climate to a state the same as today’s (or the 1950s, or whenever) when heat waves presumably occur less frequently (and with less intensity) than they will in the future. It is not clear to me , although admittedly it seems clear to most everyone else on this thread, that this solution produces less heat-related mortality than will occur under, say, midrange scenarios of unmitigated climate change. You just can’t say that since heat waves are a threat, that more of them are a bigger threat. Most any type of weather is a threat of some sort. That’s why “shelter” is a basic need. But once you have sufficient shelter, then the threat is reduced. Right now, many places don’t have sufficient shelter from heat-waves which occur in the course of a normal climate. Global warming may hasten a solution to that problem. It seems to me, that an assessment of the impacts on public health and welfare should at least consider such a possibility and that short-term negative impacts may be replaced by positive ones in the long-term, once sufficient shelter has been established. -Chip PS. And grypo (#57), I am somewhat familiar with the EPA’s adaptation strategies when it comes to extreme heat events, in fact, I had a hand in the development of their Excessive Heat Events Guidebook. But none of that matters when it comes to how the EPA assessed endangerment from GHG emissions. This is what they have to say about adaptation: "EPA considers adaptation and mitigation to be potential responses to endangerment, and as such has determined that they are outside the scope of the endangerment analysis." -
Eric (skeptic) at 06:27 AM on 26 April 2012Global Warming Causing Heat Fatalities
muoncounter you are pointing to 138 deaths from heat versus 76 from cold (2010) but the statistics from 2006 show 60k more deaths in DJF than in JJA. There can be explanations that are not strictly weather-related like the seasonal spread of flu, but I don't think that explains the whole difference.
Prev 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 Next
