Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 Next
Comments 6251 to 6300:
-
Tom Dayton at 11:32 AM on 26 January 2021There's no empirical evidence
gzzm2013: In the left margin above the login area, there is a button labeled Interactive History of Climate Science. Click that.
Moderator Response:[DB] Sadly, gzzm2013 has recused themselves from further participation here.
-
Tom Dayton at 10:24 AM on 26 January 2021There's no empirical evidence
gzzm2013, here are explanations of greenhouse effect causality:
-
gzzm2013 at 09:29 AM on 26 January 2021There's no empirical evidence
Dayton @407 that is a correlations, no proof of causality.
Dayton @408 yes the oxidation of carbohydrates produces CO2 gas.
-
Doug Bostrom at 04:32 AM on 26 January 2021The SCIARA Project – Interactive Time Travel into the Climate Future
A fascinating effort to exploit new capabilities to produce policy guidance. We're bound to learn something of interest from this project.
I'm wondering how players will be selected for participation, or if they will select themselves.
If self-selected, how will simulation results account for self-selection bias?
It may be (is probably?) the case that fully self-selected participants will more or less converge on a population with proclivities not faithfully reflective of information, attitudes and beliefs of a more complete sample of the general population.
As well, drop-outs during the course of the game could result in a further distillation of users more divergent from the general population.
The resulting group of participants may feature unusual levels of information on various details of climate change, climate solutions. As well, they may not be reflective of general atittudes toward and acceptance of policy interventions, necessities for lifestyle changes etc.
If indicators for paths forward assessed by participation of such an unrepresentative subsample are then applied to the general population in the form of policy, incentives etc., there is a strong chance that misalignment due to the original self-selection will become visible, with acceptance and support projected by the game not mirrored in the real world.
I suspect that consumers of iinformation provided by the game in the political and policy realms will be aware of this risk.
How will self-selection be controlled for?
For readers wanting to learn more about the limitations of previous efforts mentioned by Daniel, a nice example is The Climate Action Simulation, Rooney-Varga et al, 2019 (open access). As is often the case, the supporting citations in this paper are of great value as a means of gaining at least a tenuous foothold on this domain, as valuable in their own way as the actual investigation described.
-
MA Rodger at 21:07 PM on 25 January 2021There's no empirical evidence
gzzm2013 @410,
You complain that your comments are suffering deletion. However, most can still be read by those logged-in and we are not missing much. You do however request a better explanation of the greenhouse effect and also argue that the term 'greenhouse' is not appropriate. I have responded to these comments on a more appropriate thread.
-
MA Rodger at 21:03 PM on 25 January 2021CO2 is not the only driver of climate
gzzm2013,
Your request for an answer you can understand on the subject of CO2 as a greenhouse gas have fallen fowl of moderation. While I have already presented an answer for you above @62, perhaps a more detailed explanation would assist you, something which Einstein's 6-year-old could grasp. You also elsewhere insist that the mechanisms of an actual greenhouse and the planet's greenhouse effect are fundamentally different. I will also address the falacy within that argument.
The graph presented @62 shows three traces, Ts, Tmin and a raggedy one inbetween.
Ts is the radation we would expect from a planet with a temperature of +15ºC but no greenhouse effect, +15ºC being the average temperature as the Earth's surface. The raggedy line is a trace of the actual radiation from Earth. The raggedy trace is important as the area beneath it represents the energy radiated out into space. It is what cools the planet.
If the area below the raggedy trace does not equal the area below a similar trace of incoming absorbed radiation from the sun, the temperature of Earth will change until they do become equal.
The size of the Earth's greenhouse effect is represented by the area between Ts and the raggedy trace. About a quarter of that area is the big bite out of the raggedy trace at Wavenumber 666. That big bite is caused by CO2.
So imagine there was no CO2 and the big bite was absent. The area under the raggedy trace is now bigger and no-longer equals to the area under the solar heating trace. So the raggedy trace would become lower as Earth cools to make them equal again. (And a cooler Earth will have a lower Ts trace as well.)
And what makes CO2 even more important than providing directly a quarter of the Earth's greenhouse is that the other three-quarters is down to water vapour in the atmosphere. A cooler planet cannot support the same amount of water vapour in its atmosphere. This increases the height of the raggedy trace along much of its length again making the area underneath unequal to the solar heating trace. The planet thus has to cool even more to put them back in balance, which again reduces the level of water vapour in the atmosphere causing yet more planetary cooling. The upshot is that without CO2 in Earth's atmosphere, the temperature becomes so low that the greenhouse effect pretty-much disappears. That is the power of CO2 in our atmosphere.
And run it the other way by increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, the big bite becomes bigger and Earth has to warm up to shed the extra heat caused by the CO2-enhanced greenhouse.
...
You also argue elsewhere that an actual greenhouse works by preventing convection while the greenhouse-effect works radiatively. You suggest that this difference in operation, one convection the other radiative, makes the term 'greenhouse' inappropriate for a planetry 'greenhouse' effect. Your argument is not actually well-founded.
Both a greenhouse and the 'greenhouse' effect rely on radiative effects to operate. The incoming solar radiation freely passes through the glass/atmosphere while outgoing radiation of a longer wavelength is unable to pass freely back out.
The greenhouse does also require the glass to prevent the heated air within causing convection and so dissipating the elevated solar warming. The atmosphere also acts to generally prevent convection. Of the two, a greenhouse is atually more leaky than the atmosphere which has a very gentle upward convection process (outside serious storms etc which in the grand scheme of things are quite rare). On average it takes over a week for a packet of air to rise the 12km to the top of the troposphere.
-
gzzm2013 at 12:06 PM on 25 January 2021There's no empirical evidence
It is hard to discuss when my comments are deleted entirely.
So I will leave this echo chamber for now, and hopefully my unanswered questions to the claims made are left for the record.
Moderator Response:[DB] Moderation complaints snipped.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 07:12 AM on 25 January 2021There's no empirical evidence
Gzzzm2013,
The fact that you feel you can be sentencious and pontificate on such obvious elements as the atmosphere being transparent to solar light reveals that you have not done anywhere near enough reading to form an informed opinion that will hold any value. Everyone who contributes here is well aware of everything you just said. I could be pedant and add that temperature decreases with altitude up until you hit the tropopause, then things get a little more complicated.
And incidentally, both albedo (which you hint at without naming it) and aerosols have been studied extensively. They are the subject of an entire body of scientific litterature, and are an examined item of denial at SkS: It's aerosols
-
Tom Dayton at 02:24 AM on 25 January 2021There's no empirical evidence
Gzzzm2013: See A Global Warming Cluedo. Also the post on the new Gillett et al. attribution study.
-
Tom Dayton at 01:50 AM on 25 January 2021There's no empirical evidence
Gzzzm2013: You should start with an overview. If you had bothered to read Newcomers Start Here, you would haveseen a recommendation to read Global Warming in a Nutshell.
-
gzzm2013 at 01:16 AM on 25 January 2021Greenhouse effect has been falsified
The term greenhouse effect is a slight misnomer, in the sense that physical greenhouses warm via a different mechanism. The greenhouse effect as an atmospheric mechanism functions through radiative heat loss, while a traditional greenhouse as a built structure blocks convective heat loss. Two different things, same name. When the very terms of scientific study are confusing and ill defined, some flags are raised.
Moderator Response:[BL] You are still refusing to read and engage in the points made in the thread you are posting on.
Mindless rhetorical talking points are not "discussion".
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.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, as no further warnings shall be given.
-
gzzm2013 at 01:12 AM on 25 January 2021Models are unreliable
[deleted]
Moderator Response:[BL] Moderation complaints deleted.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.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.
-
gzzm2013 at 00:58 AM on 25 January 2021There's no empirical evidence
198 topics and none of them directly address the problem of particulate pollution. Anyone that has been to a number of big cities has noticed the large problem of air pollution by particulates.
Particles in the atmosphere cause scattering of incoming radiation, so the amount of solar radiation that impact the earth's surface is affected, either incoming or outgoing. This means that higher elevations receive more solar radiation including ultraviolet or UV radiation. So why doesn't greater exposure to solar radiation result in higher air temperatures with elevation? The answer is that very little of the atmosphere is heated directly by absorbing solar radiation. As any chemist will explain to you, air is mostly vacuum, void. Instead, most incoming solar radiation is either scattered in the atmosphere or passes through it and is absorbed by the earth. This is why the ground is often warmer than the air surrounding it.
Therefore, what warms the air, is the direct contact with the ground and liquid surface of the ocean, the interface. Solar radiation (e.g. light) will pass through the air.
Temperatures decrease with distance from the earth's surface.
So another factor to be considered is the absorbtion of solar energy by the earth's surface that is clearly changing (in color, material composition, etc) by human activity and natural activity.
Moderator Response:[BL] One more time: use the Search box to find appropriate threads for discussion. Just because you don't see something here does not mean that it is not discussed elsewhere. Your comments show little evidence that you have actually read and tried to understand anything at this site.
[TD] In the post about CO2 being the main driver of climate, both aerosols and albedo are addressed. Also use the Search function on those terms.
-
gzzm2013 at 00:35 AM on 25 January 2021CO2 is not the only driver of climate
I will rephrase my question:
Where is the proof that CO2 is driving the climate change (via greenhouse effect) and CO2 variation is not an effect of other variables, like solar energy. Please post the evidence that proofs undeniably this supposed fact. Correlation does not mean causation.
Where is the proof that CO2 rising levels in the atmosphere is causing increasing global surface temperature? Don't give me general comments like its all over this website, or all over IPCC reports, please point to me to the exact evidence, the definite and exact published scientific reasearch paper, who is the author, when was it published, in what journal, and so on.
You cannot brush these questions off by saying, you are a beginner, go on a read all my claims, go and read this website and then come back.
Simply answer directly the questions raised before, in plain and simple English. Einstein said if you can't explain it to a 6 year old, you don't understand it yourself. Carl Sagan said extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Please produce here the evidence. It should not be hard for a matter that is supposedly settled.
Moderator Response:[BL] Repeating the same baseless, uninformed, arrogant challenges is going to waste everyone's time.
Either show a willingness to read some material and engage in discussion, or your posts will be deleted.
-
gzzm2013 at 00:27 AM on 25 January 2021Models are unreliable
Eclectic
Your reply at "Eclectic at 16:08 PM on 24 January 2021"
Constitutes a series of ad-hominem attack fallacies... no substance.
Waiting to hear direct responses to the questions I have raised from others as I am not going to bite on these attacks.
Moderator Response:[BL] You are continuing to refuse to engage in honest discussion.
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.
-
MA Rodger at 17:29 PM on 24 January 2021CO2 is not the only driver of climate
gzzm2013 @60,
I am curious as to what you actually mean by describing CO2 as either "driving the climate" or being "a third exogenous variable."
Beyond than you ask for 'undeniable proof' of 'causation'.
While, as the response indicates, there is s great deal of evidence to show this "causation", perhaps the simplest "proof" is the IR spectrum of Earth's cooling system. The big bite out of the spectrum at Wavenumber 666 is "undeniably" due to CO2 and thus "undeniably" the direct cause of a quarter of the planet's greenhouse effect and this being so is also "undeniably" the driver of the other three-quarters.
-
Eclectic at 16:19 PM on 24 January 2021CO2 is not the only driver of climate
Gzzm @60 ,
the evidence regarding CO2 ~ is to be found in the latest IPCC report, and also in many other places such as the websites of the learned scientific societies (e.g. American Academy of Sciences, the U.K. Royal Society). They all give the same basic information for you, yet you will find the most detail at the IPCC.
Since you seem to be starting from scratch, and it will take some hours of instruction, you should not ask Tom to spoonfeed you.
-
Eclectic at 16:08 PM on 24 January 2021Models are unreliable
Gzzm @1282 ,
thank you for replying to Tom Dayton, who, I gather, was inclined to bet that you yourself were simply one of those "timid-but-angry" commenters who make a drive-by comment . . . and are never seen again here, owing to their strange psychological make-up.
Gzzm, clearly you are made of sterner stuff and wish to add some rational intelligent points to the online discourse. And it's never too late to begin in earnest !
In reply to your point /4. [in brief because off-topic] :-
4. Where is the proof ... CO2 ... variable like solar energy ...
Alas, Gzzm, this is "off-topic" here at this thread. You will find the evidence you ask for, at the Top Left of this page, via MOST USED Climate Myths number 2 "it's the sun" . . . or the other thread recommended by the Moderator. Indeed, your education would be greatly enhanced by you reading through at least the first half-dozen Myths in their Original Post form [basic thru advanced ] . And as has already been suggested, please read the OP of this thread here (which you appear to have omitted from your things-to-do-first list.)
Back on topic, Gzzm, with the models are unreliable ~ I can recommend some later reading for you, for the counter-arguments which can be found on the WattsUpWithThat blogsite. At WUWT the view is that all the scientists' models have subsequently proven to be completely wrong . . . and therefore all climate science is wrong.
Gzzm, you may not have heard of WUWT , or perhaps you have been warned to avoid it because of its strong tendency to promote half-baked science (or disproven science) and even more to repeatedly promote rubbish which is "Not Even Wrong". But fear not, Gzzm ~ among the pig-swill there, you may occasionally find a pearl or two from genuine scientists like Nick Stokes. Alas, Stokes does not appear there often . . . likewise there are a few other scientific minds to be found in the WUWT comments columns, but few and rare, because they generally get driven out of WUWT by the editors/censors. (Or perhaps these scientific minds get tired of the incessant torrents of mindless vitriol they receive at WUWT .)
Nevertheless, Gzzm, the WUWT blogsite is a fascinating exhibition of logical fallacies and intellectual insanity. An excellent guide to What Not To Do with one's brain. Most interesting of all, is the huge amount of anger there, underlying the flakey thinking and political extremism and lack of human compassion.
Gzzm, I have the strong impression that you yourself may be able to enlighten me about the deepest psychiatric basis of the sheer anger in these disparate "contrarian" minds. Some of it may be a genetic personality-type anger in all or most of the denialists, but there may well be one or more other factors. Your own insight would be welcome ! (But please reply on a more appropriate thread.)
Moderator Response:[BL] Please leave moderation to the moderators.
Discussing the character of people's behaviour at other blog sites is not helping this discussion.
-
gzzm2013 at 15:45 PM on 24 January 2021CO2 is not the only driver of climate
Where is the proof that CO2 is driving the climate and not a third exogenous variable, like solar energy. Please post the evidence that proofs undeniably this supposed fact. correlation does not mean causation.
Moderator Response:[BL] Science does not "prove" things - it supports positions with evidence. "Undeniable proof" does not exist for people that are are unwilling and unable to review evidence.
Skeptical Science is a user forum wherein the science of climate change can be discussed from the standpoint of the science itself. Ideology and politics get checked at the keyboard.
Please take the time to review the Comments Policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
gzzm2013 at 15:42 PM on 24 January 2021Models are unreliable
Dayton
Your argument is a red herring to distract from the fact that you won't answer my questions. The material you offer does not address directly the questions. The onus is on the claimant to produce the evidence. I don't have to produce anything. I am simply questioning the claims.
Moderator Response:[BL] "Just asking questions" as a rhetorical ploy does not cut it here. You must be willing to learn - and willing to put an effort into learning.
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.
I also recommend watching this video on why CO2 is the biggest climate control knob in Earth's history.
Further general questions can usually be be answered by first using the Search function in the upper left of every Skeptical Science page to see if there is already a post on it (odds are, there is). If you still have questions, use the Search function located in the upper left of every page here at Skeptical Science and post your question on the most pertinent thread.
All pages are live at SkS; many may be currently inactive, however. Posting a question or comment on any will not be missed as regulars here follow the Recent Comments threads, which allows them to see every new comment that gets posted here.
Comments primarily dealing with ideologies are frowned upon here. SkS is on online climate science Forum in which participants can freely discuss the science of climate change and the myths promulgated by those seeking to dissemble. All science is presented in context with links to primary sources so that the active, engaging mind can review any claims made.
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. -
Tom Dayton at 14:45 PM on 24 January 2021Models are unreliable
gzzm2013: Your two responses to me show that you have not bothered to read any of the material I linked for you. That behavior of refusing to engage in actual back and forth conversation is called "sloganeering" and is prohibited by the policies of this site, which you need to read.
-
gzzm2013 at 13:50 PM on 24 January 2021Models are unreliable
Dayton
2 and 3. So let's put it this simply, let us draw an analogy. Many so called sciences like economics claim that they have economic "models" , which model complex systems, but the fact remains that the economics science is not able to predict the next global financial crisis in magnitude or timing or nature.
Yet people are claiming that the climatic models are reliable and can actually predict future climate (but long term trends only). I would like to hear from the best model, you chose it, name it, locate it, say who programmed it, who maintains it, who financed it (the onus is on the claimant, not me) and say what is the sea level (however they define it) in year 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040, and so on until year 5000. Also change in global temperature (however they define it, give the formal unchanging definition). We of course don't know what the sun is going to do, or volcanoes. So the prediction is contigent of factors that are unforeseable, so the predictions are a function of different combinations and series and progressions of multivariable values. I want to see the data. Should not be hard for a proven theory, right?
4. New topic. Where is the proof that CO2 is driving the climate and not a third exogenous variable, like solar energy. Please post the evidence that proofs undeniably this supposed fact. Remember that correlation does not mean causation.
Moderator Response:[TD] Regarding your new question #4, see the post “CO2 is main driver of climate.” Post any comments on that topic, in the thread off of that post. Your comments about that topic are off topic in this thread, and further off topic comments will be deleted.
-
gzzm2013 at 13:38 PM on 24 January 2021Models are unreliable
Dayton
1. So you are saying that because those models are to be run on expensive computers they cannot be accessed by the general public. Why can't the public enter the input to the model, send it to the operators, then get the output of the model? Is the public not paying for the models? Every model has inputs and outputs. Its that simple. Can you list what are the input parameters of the best model? And what are its output parameters? Are the models too busy with experts entering inputs on them all the time that there is no time for the public to use what they paid for? Can things not be explained in plain English? Someone very smart said that if you can't explain it to a 6 year old you don't understand it yourself.
-
gzzm2013 at 13:30 PM on 24 January 2021Models are unreliable
Eclectic:
In his Politics, Aristotle believed man was a "political animal" because he is a social creature with the power of speech and moral reasoning: Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal.
To think that the IPCC is not political is naive at best. The United Nations Security council is formed by the victors of WW2, nations that have been colonial empires and empires. They are great exporters of weapons and they have financed the United Nations.
You cannot analyze the science of climate change without questioning its funding, motives, mechanisms, governance and who is not sitting at the table, and who is not represented.
Moderator Response:[DB] Off-topic snipped.
-
John Hartz at 02:24 AM on 24 January 2021Models are unreliable
Recommended supplemental reading:
If scientists can create a new way to predict climate change – making it as accurate as, say, forecasting the weather – it would help people make everyday decisions: how high to build a sea wall or what crops to plant.
Meet the team shaking up climate models by Doug Struck, Environment, The Christian Science Monitor, Jan 22, 2021
Note: This is a very well-researched and well-written indepth article.
-
Tom Dayton at 13:24 PM on 23 January 2021Models are unreliable
RealClimate has posted its 2021 comparison of models to observations.
-
Tom Dayton at 12:50 PM on 23 January 2021Models are unreliable
3. I'm not going to waste my time answering these questions, when you have not bothered to read the post on which you are commenting. I suspect your questions are merely rhetorical--actually, that's dignifying them too much. I suspect you are just drive-by ranting. Please do prove me wrong, by posting more specific questions that reveal you have done at least basic reading already.
-
Tom Dayton at 12:45 PM on 23 January 2021Models are unreliable
2. Numerous groups of researchers all over the world create and run climate models, which intentionally differ from each other to provide consilience in the evidence. Scroll down in this page in the RealClimate site for a list of links to just a few of the model's web sites, where you will find the information you asked for. The most prominent, though certainly not only, organized effort to create and compare multiple models is CMIP--Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. The most recently completed version of that multimodel project is CMIP5. CMIP6 is in progress. There is a summary of the degree of independence of the most prominent models, in this RealClimate post. More fundamentally, you need to learn better what "model" means in this context; Steve Easterbrook's post is a good summary. Getting at the root of your questions, watch Steve's TEDx talk.
-
Tom Dayton at 12:23 PM on 23 January 2021Models are unreliable
- The General Circulation Models (GCMs) can run only on supercomputers. (Well, they can run on lesser hardware in principle, but you'd need to wait years, decades, or centuries for results.) There are numerous dramatically simpler models used for teaching the principles, such as this one by Tim Osborn that you can play with as you requested. Tamino described a model you can play with, without needing a computer at all. Other evidence not involving computer models is abundant on this SkepticalScience site, and in a huge number of other sources, including a video by investigative journalist Potholer54.
-
Eclectic at 10:58 AM on 23 January 2021IPCC is alarmist
Gzzm @137 ,
your language is rather vague wrt "address the problem".
The various IPCC reports, over the years, are intended to summarize the overall climate science. The IPCC also produces a condensed version for Policymakers i.e. politicians.
Gzzm, best if you clarify what you mean by politics and political positions. The term politics covers a vast range of meaning.
As example, is it politics to say about a wildfire: "Quick, send in the fire-fighters" or on the other hand to say: "Nah just let it burn, come what may" ? Are such decisions practical decisions, or are they political decisions?
Can be hard to say what, if any, is politics. Probably best if we simply use common sense wrt "the problem".
Gzzm, please clarify any points you wish to make.
-
gzzm2013 at 06:46 AM on 23 January 2021IPCC is alarmist
Why has the IPCC and other international bodies attempting to address the problem stopped talking about the cumulative nature of CO2 and who has historically contributed more to the problem?
AFter all, those of us old enough to remember the Kyoto Protocol recognize this:
"The Kyoto Protocol is based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities: it acknowledges that individual countries have different capabilities in combating climate change, owing to economic development, and therefore puts the obligation to reduce current emissions on developed countries on the basis that they are historically responsible for the current levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."
This was almost universally recognized before, ignored today. Does the IPCC have a poltical agenda? I know political topics are not allowed, but here there is talk about IPCC as if it is just a scientific body, when it clearly has taken political positions throughout its history.
-
gzzm2013 at 06:19 AM on 23 January 2021Models are unreliable
I have a few comments:
1. These so called models, many of them, were made with public money. Why has the public no access to play with the models? For example, enter inputs (CO2 concentrations), and see what the predicted outputs (e.g. temperature) are.
2. Where are these models, who programmed them, who owns them, who controls them, who maintains them, who checks them?
3. From the best public models, what are the predictions the models are making? Are these predictions published? Can we compare future outcomes vs model predictions? Do these models predict based on scenarios? What percent of previous models been correct in their predictions? Which accessible model is the best one, based on past predictions/forecasts vs. actual empirical data. What are the current predictions of this model ? Are these predictions contingent on certain scenarios, conditions and assumptions? What are these? Have these been documented, published and made public?
“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”
Moderator Response:[DB] Sloganeering snipped.
-
Tom Dayton at 11:27 AM on 21 January 2021Covid-19 and Climate Change Will Remain Inextricably Linked, Thanks to the Parallels (and the Denial)
COVIDFAQ.co is sort of like the SkepticalScience.com for COVID-19.
-
BaerbelW at 05:34 AM on 20 January 2021Getting involved with Climate Science via crowdfunding and crowdsourcing
Dawei @10 & 11
Can you please drop us an email via the contact form? Right now your website doesn't quite fit the crowdsourcing aspect as there's no option to sign up for any tasks like the other sites do. Therey may however be other options to support your project.
-
Dawei at 15:24 PM on 19 January 2021Getting involved with Climate Science via crowdfunding and crowdsourcing
Wow, I've been working too late again and I got lost reading about climateprediction. Climateobserved.org is the name of my project
-
Dawei at 15:22 PM on 19 January 2021Getting involved with Climate Science via crowdfunding and crowdsourcing
<>
True, although the concept was first drafted back in July 2011 ... by me :)
https://skepticalscience.com/Citizen-Science-Climatology-for-Everyone.htmlBaerbel I suppose you wouldn't want to add my personal project of climateprediction.org? Still sort of early in the project but definitely open to contributors, as it's still only just me working on it and the task of finding all papers that found an observed effect of climate change is, as you can imagine, quite large. Also looking for people who understand SEO and can help with design consulting.
Moderator Response:[BL] Link activated.
-
John Hartz at 06:11 AM on 18 January 2021Sea level rise is exaggerated
Recommended supplemental reading:
Rates of global sea level rise have accelerated since 1900, contrary to bloggers’ claims, Edited by Nikki Forrester, Claims Analysis, Climate Feedback, Jan 15, 2021
-
MA Rodger at 22:30 PM on 17 January 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #1
Climate Detective,
I have replied to your comment on an appropriate thread.
-
MA Rodger at 22:27 PM on 17 January 2021It's waste heat
Climate Detective from elsewhere, [link URL not being uploaded https://skepticalscience.com//news.php?n=4962#136555 ]
Forgive me for demonstrating the major fallacies within your grand work but as you say "The calculations are not difficult to do."
The assertion you make that "All energy generation by humans results in an output of heat or thermal energy" is fundamentally wrong. It is "power" that is generated and when this is through the application of kinetic energy from passing fluids, through the burning of recently grown plant matter or from intercepting solar energy that would otherwise be absorbed by the ground, there is not net increase of the planet's surface energy. It is only the absorbing of albedo-decreasing solar energy, the splitting of heavy atoms or the burning of fossil fuels to release chemical energy that does result increased the planet's surface energy.
Further your attempts to suggest a significant level of climatic warming in an area such as the UK is due to these increases in surface energy ignores what would be the absence of such warming in adjacent areas where there is effectively no such surface warming, like the North Sea, the North Atlantic or for that matter, the whole of Africa. Taken over the whole globe, the UK is exceptional as it uses ~1% of global primary power but within ~0.05% of the global surface area. Because, as with all small areas of the globe, UK temperatures are very much dictated by the adjacent climate, the global average is the relevant value and that is trivially small. (Generally the energy released by FF use is exceeded by the GHG effect of the CO2 thus released in 9 to 18 months, depending on the type of FF employed.) -
2021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #1
nigelj @4
The calculations are not difficult to do. I have done them here and here.
What Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy appears to be saying in comment @1 (if I understand correctly) is that even renewable energy use will increase global temperatures. This is obviously true. All energy use ends up as heat and entropy, i.e. temperature. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that.
The relevant question is, by how much does this energy use increase local temperatures? The answer is, that in advanced economies with high population densities current levels of energy use can increase temperatures by more than 1 °C since pre-industrial times, and this will only get worse with more population growth and economic growth. Even the average suburban housing estate will heat the local environment by over 1 °C (see here). More importantly, this has nothing to do with CO2 and the greenhouse effect. It applies equally to all energy sources, but obviously CO2 will make it even worse via radiative forcing or feedback.
The point is, green energy is not a free lunch. Therefore zero carbon emissions is not a panacea either.
Moderator Response:[BL] Please do not continue to carry on off-topic discussions here. Discussions of waste heat can be carried out on this thread:
Regular readers will find any new comments via the Comments link under the masthead, and you can always leave a link in a new comment here pointing to where you have made the on-topic comment.
-
Eclectic at 11:58 AM on 16 January 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #1
Philippe @31 ,
Greetings. And no offense taken by me. For anyone interested in the science of climate science, the WUWT blog is indeed an almost complete waste of time.
However, as a student of human nature, I must say that WUWT illustrates some of the human response to the challenges of AGW ~ and in that connection WUWT is a marvellous microcosm of mental pathologies. And being somewhat of a gentleman of leisure myself (sadly, far more a bourgeois gentilhomme than a true gentilhomme ) it is easy for me to find time to indulge my hobby there. Also helps me to keep some practised ripostes at the ready, against Denialists.
But I must not deflect further from this thread's topic. Despite the WUWT attractions of the ridiculous Christopher Monckton and the slightly less ridiculous Andy May, Willis Eschenbach, et alia. And despite the "peanut gallery" as you call it ~ a gallery rich in old chestnuts as well as peanut ideations, and even including some Brazil nuts (well, one or two from Chile or Argentina actually, as expatriate Yankees).
So I had better get off my hobbyhorse, and return the thread to its main topic, which seems to be the good Doctor Reddy.
Moderator Response:[BL] Actually, the topic here is discussion of the various items posted in the digest.
Dr. Reddy seems to have decided that finding a thread here at SkS where his musings are on topic is too difficult. If he returns, we will again try to redirect the discussion to an appropriate topic. Until then, let's stop speculating about individuals.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 05:01 AM on 15 January 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #1
DSJR,
I will not comment on your quality or ethics, as I really have no interest in it. This is not about you, or me, but helping readers form understanding. I reiterate that the framing of your argument on satellite data suggests nefarious intent, although you provided no substantiation of such intent. Perhaps you don't see that and it's a language issue.
There is on this site abundant discussion of satellite data, including the repeated shortcomings of the UAH team, who had to have others show major mistakes on at least 2 occasions. There are also detailed posts on the height of the "slices" where the measurements are taken from which temperatures are derived. Go hack at it there. Perhaps this is about other satellite data than the ones we are most familiar with, then more references are needed, so we can check for ourselves. Usually, when corrections are done, papers about the why and how of the corrections are published.
As for the idea that solar and wind power plants have any measurable effect at a global scale on surface temperatures, I'll say that what you provided falls short by so much that, under the current state of knowledge, it puts that hypothesis in the "not even wrong" category. However, my opinion is always open to modifications in the face of new findings. If the idea attracts research and it turns it had merit, I will acknowledge that. However, as of now, I don't see that we are anywhere close to have the weight of evidence necessary.
Don't take it personally. Once again, this is not about you.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:41 AM on 15 January 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #1
Thank you for the compliment, Eclectic, and no offense was intended. I know it is necessary to monitor the crazyness of the denialist crowd, I just don't ever find that I couldn't do something better with my time. I've been at this long enough to have fond memories of Steven Goddard and the carbonic snow in Antarctica :-)
Nowadays, Watts is a little more careful to weed out whoppers of such magnitude. But then, there was BEST, and the NOAA studies that completely invalidated the basic argument for the very existence of the site, and eventually Watts'own results that did exactly the same thing, all met with anger (toward BEST) and more denial.
The attitude of the WUWT peanut gallery when faced with reality taught me everything I needed to know about these clowns. Not to mention, of course, the "outing" of private addresses of scientists whose work they disliked, predating methods that have unfortunately become more common.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:26 AM on 15 January 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #1
Bob, to elaborate, I'll repost this here, where it is even more relelvant than on the wildfire thread:
NOAA has just put out an assessment of the costs of climate change related extreme events over the past few decades. The steady increase in the yearly number of events and the yearly costs is staggering. The acceleration is interesting: the 2010s saw 119 events, of which 50 occured inthe past 3 years. Although 2020 ranked 1st with 22 events (probably due to the hurricane season), that's an average of 11.9 events per year, almost double the rate of the 2000s (6.2 per year).
Meanwhile, the subsidies to fossil fuels are not exactly slowing down.
The economic argument is making less and less sense, and the adverse effects of climate change are no longer some diffuse problem diluted in a somewhat distant future. It's here, now, slapping us in the face once a month.
-
Bob Loblaw at 01:03 AM on 15 January 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #1
Money talks. Munich Re has been one of the organizations that shows up in the news more often than others, when it comes to the insurance risks of climate change.
I saw this article last week in a major Canadian newspaper. (Not sure if it is paywalled.)
-
michael sweet at 23:38 PM on 14 January 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #1
Today (01-14-21) Politico (an online news organization) posted an article claiming that major banks and insurers want to start sending more money to address the climate crisis. Apparently they want a promenent seat at the table during the Biden administration.
While the proposals described in the Politico article do not go as far as many climate activists would like, it seems to me that it is a hopeful sign that financial institutions are talking about the climate crisis.
This carbon brief article claims that models used by the IPCC severely underestimate the damages currently caused by climate change. Apparently the IPCC models try to estimate general damages from climate change and assume extreme weather events cause little damage since they are rare. If fact, extreme weather events currently cause billions of dollars and a large part of that damage is attributable to climate change. For example hurricanes have long existed but Hurricane Harvey did more damage from increased rain due to climate change.
If insurers become concerned that they are losing money from climate change the pressure to take significant action will increase dramatically. Even 5 years ago financial institutions were mostly silent about climate change. Hopefully this will result in significant action being taken. I am interested in what other SkS readers think about this topic.
-
Eclectic at 17:33 PM on 14 January 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #1
Typo : slightly redeemed by
-
Eclectic at 17:30 PM on 14 January 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #1
Philippe @24 ,
your comment blessant is noted, that you regard the monitoring of WUWT to be time wasted.
Sadly, as a frequent reader/sampler of WUWT blogsite, I must agree with you, considering that site's continual overflow of puerility, mendacity and intellectual insanity. A septic pit indeed. But slightly redeemed its sheer concentrated exhibition of all types of interesting psychopathology and logical fallacies and general irrationality.
Philippe @17 ,
you surprise me when you say English is not your mother tongue. ( I have often admired your turn of phrase in various earlier posts on SkS. ) But perhaps your very eloquence should have alerted me to that possibility.
I any case : Happy New Year to you and all readers. Though it seems 2021 is out of the starting gate and is set fair to outpace 2020 in the Horridness Stakes. Place your bets, Ladies and Gentlemen !
-
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy at 09:58 AM on 14 January 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #1
I don't think, I need advise from poor quality/ethics people like you.
Moderator Response:[BL] General complaint deleted.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.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.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:51 AM on 14 January 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #1
DSJR,
"You used the word used by WUwt." What? Sorry, I have no idea of what this could possibly mean. Unlike others who make a point of monitoring the lunacy, I feel like any time spent on WUWT is wasted. It's not like I don't already know what's there, or that it ever gets better.
Your claim that language is not relevant to science is mistaken. Not only language is crucial for communication between members of science teams, but also for communicating science findings, whether that would be to a specialized audience or the general public. You are on this thread of your own accord, with a purpose. If you attempt to participate in an online discussion, you can't be cavalier about your ability to effectively convey your meaning. Get some help, take the time to polish your posts, eep it short ans simple.
Prev 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 Next
