Recent Comments

Prev  1394  1395  1396  1397  1398  1399  1400  1401  1402  1403  1404  1405  1406  1407  1408  1409  Next

Comments 70051 to 70100:

70051. Daniel Bailey at 01:10 AM on 20 November 2011
       The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
       

       "It is not anti-science to reach a different conclusion, but it is anti-science to close your mind to the idea that you might be wrong."

       The issue faced by the world today is the abandonment of reason and logic by the fake skeptics in their prosecution of their predetermined narrative, a narrative achievable only by ignoring multiple lines of consilient evidence inconvenient to their ideology. Indeed, the horror faced by those who would have us debate the existence of gravity (or if pizza is a vegetable) is not the risks derived from AGW/CAGW/(insert your climate pejorative du jour here) but the danger of keeping one's mind so open that one's brain falls out.
70052. Bernard J. at 01:02 AM on 20 November 2011
       Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
       It seems apposite to recall how pre-emptive was the film Erik the Viking, with respect to Republican (and Australian Federal Coalition) attitudes to climate science.
70053. Bernard J. at 00:39 AM on 20 November 2011
       Lone Star State of Drought
       Tom Curtis:

       The east coast of Australia, for example shows little change in Precipitation - Evaporation...

       In my corner of Australia it's a rather more grim picture, with a rather dark shade of black plastered over the map. Given the tinderbox conditions that we already experience here in summer, the future is a worrying one indeed. Only today I was surveying the lower acres of my land, contemplating the changes I'll need to make in preparation for the inevitable conflagration that will come. There's already a peculiar interaction between (current lack of) summer humidity and poor soil moisture retention here, that can result in drought-equivalent conditions within days after a whole season of flooding rains. In recent years, the hot nor'westers have ensured that even the usually wet creeklines have been withering in a way that some old orchardists here say is particularly ususual. I suspect that given a full allotment of three score and ten, I will live to see my deep forested valley completely razed - something that even the 67 fires did not totally manage. After the fires in Melbourne two and a half years ago, most locals here say that they are simply going to run when the time comes, although I fret that the topography might be unforgiving should an arsonist torch the bush in just the wrong place. Whatever the future brings, my kids will definitely live in a different landscape to the one that was here when I was a lad.
70054. Eric (skeptic) at 00:23 AM on 20 November 2011
       Lone Star State of Drought
       chriskoz, I agree we need the distribution of rainfall to decide. It is pretty clear from current events that the distribution will change by season and be heavily affected by natural patterns particularly meridional versus zonal flow here in the USA. In the case of Texas the deciding factors are the strength of the Aleutian low and the upper troughs that drop down the west coast and move east. As they weaken, Texas gets less rain chances.
70055. minglewood at 00:07 AM on 20 November 2011
       Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
       Climate skeptics are alive and well on the web. Against my better judgment, I posted a rebuttal to a fella who insists that there are plenty of peer-reviewed articles against AGW. His response was: "Here is a list of references","What exactly disqualifies them as 'climate science'", and "How could I so flippantly attempt to dismiss 30 plus scientific articles many of which are peer-reviewed". The link he provided, https://docs.google.com/viewer. Cannot believe that even after the BEST results, that Congress cannot get its act together to help squelsh the myths that keep getting repeated daily on the web.
70056. skept.fr at 23:44 PM on 19 November 2011
       World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
       Tom, I agree with most of your points except the following precisions. ‘Simply discovering a connection between energy use and human well being (which undoubtedly exists) is not sufficient to justify your policy paralysis’ No paralysis in my mind, energy transition is necessary for diverse reasons. I mainly discuss its reasonable pace and better instruments. There are many places where wind turbine, thermal solar, concentration solar, geothermia are of interest. Nuclear is of course a mature technology. Same is true for more drastic norms on energy efficiency in transport, building, and so on. Furthermore, a carbon tax (or any attribution of a cost to carbon) is basically needed... for pragmatic and ethical reason (polluter pays principle)! All that is of interest now, not in a vague future. ‘Your consequentialist arithmetic leaves something to be desired. Let's assume a transition to purely renewable energy sources is made, using the central estimate from the WG3 SRREN 2011 report. ON that basis, by 2050, world energy production will be 248 *10^18 Joules per annum, or 27.56*10^9 Joules per capita per annum for a population of 9 billion, or 7,650 kwh per capita per annum. For comparison, if you consult the chart in my 16 you will see that that is above the mode of per capita energy usage for OECD nations, coming somewhere between the usage by Japan and Australia.’ Your arithmetic is correct… but your figure in #16 in uncorrect. If you prefer kWh to joules, mean kWh/capita consumption in the World was 21,871 in 2008. Your number of 7,650 kWh/hab/y is in the order of magnitude of Africa consumption (7,094 kWh/hab/y) but very far from EU (40,240) and of course USA (89,021). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption The source of your #16 figure is a Stephen Benka 2002 paper, adapted from Pasternak 2000 (links therafter). It deals with electricity consumption and real numbers for total energy consumption per capita are far higher. Pasternak 2000 doesn't stop his analysis with electricity consumption as you can read in his chapter ‘Implications for Total Primary Energy Consumption: The Ratio of Total Primary Energy to Electric Energy’. His scenario for human development concludes for a 2020 need of ‘976 to 1,089 exajoules’ for global primary use, very far from the 248 exajoules RE supply in 2050 from median SRREN scenario. http://www.fisica.unipg.it/homes/sacchetti/matematica/energia-1.pdf http://www.terrawatts.com/HDI.pdf ‘minimizing loss of agricultural productivity, and preventing the otherwise highly probable complete collapse of global fisheries’ Hem, do you have any source fort this ‘highly probable’ and highly frightening total collapse of global fisheries ? I read in IPCC AR4 WG2 SPM : 'Globally, the potential for food production is projected to increase with increases in local average temperature over a range of 1-3°C, but above this it is projected to decrease.' Of course, if you overestimate costs of AGW and understimate costs of low-energy scenario (or probability of risk in each case), your consequentialist choice will differ from mine! But that's a real problem for me, CB analysis are poor in the IPCC report, and divergent elsewhere.
70057. les at 22:07 PM on 19 November 2011
       Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
       IMHO American colleagues should take this issue very seriously not just regarding climate policy, but for the broader 'anti-science'/pro-lobby way Washington has evolved into operating. Read this article, which at first is amusing and then horrifying...

       ...we live in America, where people, who have been elected to public office, do not believe in climate science, but do believe pizza is a vegetable.

       I can't see the Dems, Reps or Teas chaining that....
70058. chriskoz at 21:49 PM on 19 November 2011
       Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
       Would that situation in the House change after 2012 elections? How likely are DEM to regain the control? Given econo troubles in US, voters are very unlikely to consider AGW as their top priority. So current situation is very likely to continue for at least few years unless some strong international pressure forces REP to change their stance or another extreme event like Katrina will have them re-evaluate priorities.
70059. Tom Curtis at 21:29 PM on 19 November 2011
       World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
       skept.fr @40, while I agree with Ayres and Warr that improved exergy is an essential ingredient in improved human well being, it is not the only such factor. Even more important is the improvement in agricultural productivity. Other important technological revolutions that have improved human well being include the medical revolution, the revolution in trade and commerce including (like it or loathe it) globalization, the manufacturing revolution lead by Henry Ford, the materials revolution that has given us plastics and semi-conductors, and certainly not least the ongoing communications revolution that is bringing us this debate. All of these are interrelated in various ways, and energy production is amongst the most important of them - probably the third or fourth most important (behind agriculture, medicine, and possibly education). What is more, the early stages of the energy and agricultural revolutions where essentially coupled. But any analysis that focuses on just one of these various areas will be seriously distorted. More importantly for this discussion, the importance of a factor for human well being is not the relevant consideration from a pragmatic view point. Air, for example, is fundamental to human well being, but excluding a few niche markets (medical oxygen, scuba gear, faddish cafes) is essentially cost free. The cost of supply of a product depends not only on how much it contributes to well being but also on its availability, and specifically how many resources need to be dedicated to obtaining a particular level of it. Consequently, even if energy availability was the sole determinant of human well being, the effect of transitioning from one energy source to another is fully integrated by the change in expenditure as a percentage of GDP in doing so. That is the cost in other resources for the transition, and hence the only relevant cost from a pragmatic policy perspective.
70060. chriskoz at 21:14 PM on 19 November 2011
       Lone Star State of Drought
       Eric @25, I'm very sceptical about your elaboration that "light blue is OK". If that precipitation, in order to to make up for a previous long drought, falls as 100mm/h downpour for a few weeks causing widespread floods and soil erosion (as it did in QLD in January), then the total can look like your light blue. But it's definitely not "OK". IMO all of those graphs are hardly relevant to real problems: we don't know the changes in precipitation rate. It would be nice to have such "average rate-anomaly" if somebody ever tried to predict it. If such anomally was minus-zero it would not be bad even for slightly brown regions but I gues it'd be all plus-zero along with temps.
70061. Tom Curtis at 21:08 PM on 19 November 2011
       World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
       skept.fr @38: 1) Let me congratulate you on your command of English. Although you claim not be be fluent, your literary prose is indistinguishable from a native speakers, and considerably better than many native speakers who have graced this site. Further, your command of technical language shows you to be extremely well read in English as well. 2) With regard to the purely pragmatic issues of biofuels, as a solution to stationary energy supply they are abysmally inefficient. However, they are potentially an important interim step in reducing CO2 emissions from transport (through ethanol blends), and potentially crucial to reducing CO2 emissions from rapid air travel. 3) The current cost of energy includes capitalization of the entire energy infrastructure over an approximately 30 year time frame. That being the case, substituting low emissions energy sources for high emissions sources can be done for little more capital investment than is currently involved in maintaining present infrastructure and replacing obsolete power stations. This is in fact one of the major reasons why an immediate response to climate change is the best option. Assuming we need to reach zero emissions by 2050, and begin replacing existing power stations as they near obsolescence with low emission sources. over the next 38 years, nearly all power plants will be replaced in this way at an effective cost of the difference between the new low emissions power plants minus the cost of a replacement plant using a high emissions technology. That cost is not an additional cost because we would needed to have paid for it in any event. There will be some additional costs in switching to a smart grid, etc, but there are additional economic benefits from that, and it represents a small portion of the total capital cost. In contrast, if we wait until 2030 before taking action, we need to replace power stations as an effective cost of the cost of the new low emissions power plant minus half of the cost of an equivalent substitute high emissions plant. The reason for the higher cost is because we are replacing plants which are a long time from obsolescence, and consequently losing the capital invested in those plants. This fact, by the way, is reinforced by Vaclav Smill's research. If energy infrastructure transitions take decades, and we need such a change of infrastructure, then only by beginning early do we have time for such a transition. (As a side note, Smill's conclusion says little about how quickly such a transition can be made as a result of a deliberate program, rather than just leaving things to the market.) 4) Your consequentialist arithmetic leaves something to be desired. Let's assume a transition to purely renewable energy sources is made, using the central estimate from the WG3 SRREN 2011 report. ON that basis, by 2050, world energy production will be 248 *10^18 Joules per annum, or 27.56*10^9 Joules per capita per annum for a population of 9 billion, or 7,650 kwh per capita per annum. For comparison, if you consult the chart in my 16 you will see that that is above the mode of per capita energy usage for OECD nations, coming somewhere between the usage by Japan and Australia. Given that any additional anergy above 4000 kwh per capita makes minimal difference to HDI, a conclusion that nearly double that represents a major risk to human well being is hardly justified. Even worse is your consequentialist dilemma. Given a choice of stabilizing climate change with a 2 degrees C (thus minimizing loss of agricultural productivity, and preventing the otherwise highly probable complete collapse of global fisheries, or allowing global energy consumption to exceed 450*10^18 Joules per annum (=13,900 kwh per capita, or significantly more than US per capita energy consumption in 2000) you would choose the collapse of food production. Simply discovering a connection between energy use and human well being (which undoubtedly exists) is not sufficient to justify your policy paralysis.
70062. The Inconvenient Skeptic at 20:40 PM on 19 November 2011
       The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
       Hi Steve, I am away from a computer and have to resort to my phone... I was a bit surprised to see your comment that paleoclimate studies show that the insolation of the Eemian was sufficient to explain the higher warmth of the Eemian, when in the previous articles that was the comment I was making and you were saying that plants in the northern latitudes were respnsible. Clearly I agree that the greater 65N summer insolation was sufficient to explain the warmer NH climate during the Eemian. The ENSO discussion isn't usefull because comparing a 40 year period of variability to a 10,000 year period is folly. What I am more curious about is what is not discussed. I agree that the Eemian is the crystal ball for the future, but I reach a different conclusion. The 65N insolation anomaly went negative during the Eemian ~120,000 YBP. Using the EPICA ice core data, the rate of cooling in the 11,000 year period after that was -0.67C per 1,000 years. That is a very low rate of cooling, but there was a standard deviation of 0.59C over that same 11,000 year period. Meaning that any temperature within +/- 1.18C of the negative linear trend was statistically normal. The +/- 0.4C that the Earth has experienced in the past 200 years is well within a single standard deviation of the comparable insolation from ~119,000 years ago. Also not mentioned is that the Earth cooled for almost 10,000 years while CO2 levels remained at the 270ppm level. That temperature drop was 5C globally based on the Raymo 2005 benthic reconstruction. So the Earth cooled from a warm climate for thousands of years while CO2 stayed elevated at interglacial levels. In no way did the high CO2 levels appear to keep the Earth warm as the Eemian ended into the last glacial period. I applaud the effort you put into this series of articles. It is one of the best series this website has ever had. It does miss some important information, but I suspect that there were some challenges to the orthodoxy that you had to spend some time working through. I devote a few chapters to the Eemian in my book. If you ever get a chance to read it, you should as I think you would find it interesting. My biggest gripe with warmists is not their conclusions, but the derision they heep on anyone that reaches a different conclusion from the warming belief. It is not anti-science to reach a different conclusion, but it is anti-science to close your mind to the idea that you might be wrong. I remain open to that possibility, but I suspect that few readers of this website have an open mind to the idea that they might be wrong.
       Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Incorrect. Many readers have emphatically stated they would love to be wrong about the changes we've wrought upon the environment. The evidence, however, has yet to appear that suggests substantive error. By contrast, the denial side of the argument seems to be proved wrong with regularity. As for 'derision,' you've got to be kidding. The derision shoe is on the other foot.
70063. Riduna at 18:43 PM on 19 November 2011
       Cardinal Pell needs to practise what he preaches on climate change
       Cardinal Pell asserts that the individual should examine the primary data and make up there own mind as to the veracity of claims of anthropogenic global warming - this coming from a man who manifestly can not read or understand a peer reviewed scientific paper. If he is going to practice what he preaches, surely he should advocate the same principles being applied to the religious beliefs he espouses? Martin Luther did!
70064. Bob Lacatena at 17:18 PM on 19 November 2011
       Lone Star State of Drought
       25, Eric, I got that much. I just wasn't sure if you were honestly or sarcastically suggesting that a small or even large region of increased rainfall somehow offset vast areas of precipitation deficit.
70065. RJG at 15:59 PM on 19 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
       Many years ago I learnt that people may listen to a lecture, but their trust in its veracity can be greatly undermined by one question from the audience that creates the smallest element of doubt. Similarly, I understand the tactics of the "merchants of doubt". I also believe that one shouldn't argue with idiots. Consequently, when confronted with a climate myth, I try to ignore the myth, and endeavour to employ the tactics of the merchants of doubt. A typical response of mine might be "do you know of any national acadamy of science that agrees with you on this issue" Seems to work well and not backfire !
70066. dana1981 at 15:40 PM on 19 November 2011
       Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
       apirate - most Congressional Democrats don't deny basic climate science, so there's not as much need for them to attend these sorts of briefings/hearings. Though I would certainly prefer if they would attend as well.
70067. Norman at 15:40 PM on 19 November 2011
       Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
       muoncounter @ 63 Here is a quote from the NASA link: "A series of connected changes begin because clusters of blocking events can divert the normal track of the storms crossing the Atlantic, which in turn can alter the twisting motion that the wind has on ocean waters, or wind curl. Depending on how wind curl works, it can speed up or slow down the large, circulating currents in the ocean known as gyres. When a blocking event reverses the rotation of the wind curl, the winds push against the direction of the whirlpool-like North Atlantic subpolar gyre, slowing its rotation. A slower, weaker gyre allows subtropical waters that would normally be trapped in the whirlpool-like flow to escape and move northward. "These warmer and more saline waters then invade the subpolar ocean and cause a series of impacts," said Peter Rhines, an oceanographer at the University of Washington, Seattle, and co-author of the new study. "They erode the base of glaciers, contributing to the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. And the change in temperature and freshness of the waters can alter subpolar ecosystems, too." The blocking pattern allows for warmer tropical water to move up north. The warmer water does not cause the blocking pattern. Your point: "It's not clear from that whether blocking causes warming or warming causes blocking." From my reading it seems it is farily clear that the blocking causes the warming. The enhanced warming may intensify the blocking but I can't find articles which make the case that warming is the cause of the blocking. Articles on blocking make the claim that a high or low pressure gets stalled by jet stream pattern. A high pressure system that stalls in an area will prevent clouds and rain from entering an area. Sunshine will dominate, the ground will dry and the temperature will rise above the normal. Do you have any links or articles that would support the possible idea that a heat wave causes a blocking pattern and not visa versa?
70068. apiratelooksat50 at 15:08 PM on 19 November 2011
       Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
       AT @ 7 I am not sure what your point is. This article is clearly political in nature. If Republicans are ridiculed for not attending, then the Democrats should be as well. "Maybe Congressional Republicans will find some time to listen to climate scientists when they're finished classifying pizza as a vegetable."
       Response:

       [DB] "If Republicans are ridiculed for not attending, then the Democrats should be as well."

       You conveniently ignore the reasons for the briefing in the first place:

       • Since gaining control, Congressional Republicans have held one climate hearing, and mostly invited climate fake-skeptics to testify
       • The Republicans have since refused all Democrat requests for further climate hearings
       • the Republican-controlled House has voted 21 times to block actions to address climate change, including a vote to deny that "climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities and poses significant risks for public health and welfare."

       If your position is that these statements of facts are 'holding Republicans up for ridicule' then you quite plainly will be considered to be leaving the realm of "debate" and joining them in their war on climate science.

       I'm a Republican and I approved this response.

70069. actually thoughtful at 14:56 PM on 19 November 2011
       Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
       Apirate - when you are teaching a unit on ocean ecosystems to your class, and the brightest kids are away at a debate camp, and the least motivated kids are out "sick" - who do you think will most likely makeup the work and achieve the learning goals you had for that lesson?
70070. actually thoughtful at 14:49 PM on 19 November 2011
       Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
       "No Republican attended the briefing" - predictable but very telling. It is hard to maintain your position that it isn't happening when well respected members of the scientific community are telling you it is.
70071. Eric (skeptic) at 14:29 PM on 19 November 2011
       Lone Star State of Drought
       Sorry, that comment was mainly for muoncounter. He said skeptics would take comfort in (only) the "no change" zones in his image shown in #13 (similar to yours in #17). I countered that light blue is ok. I should probably have elaborated: "light blue is relatively ok due to slight precipitation excesses being a lot less problematic than major precipitation deficiencies".
70072. KR at 14:16 PM on 19 November 2011
       David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold
       oneiota - Thanks for the feedback re: the JoNova thread. I find the posters there generally sincere, if often mistaken, with a smaller percentage than Watt's site being actively nasty. And at times they appear to listen... I dropped that thread when it got down to about three posters with, ahem, "unique" perspectives on climate change, unwilling to consider other points of view. While a bit exhausting, I suspect that presenting the consensus view, as supported by the data, is at least potentially informing those on the fence. I've received the occasional compliment there on being willing to discuss matters, for presenting links to peer-reviewed papers and also reading what others link to, and I treasure a particular moderator comment to a ranting poster along the lines of "Please shut it - while I disagree with KR, you are making him look reasonable..." :)
70073. apiratelooksat50 at 14:14 PM on 19 November 2011
       Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
       The Natural Resources Committee website states: "The Natural Resources Committee consists of 48 Members, 27 Republicans and 21 Democrats." From the above article: "Unfortunately, the Republican anti-climate science trend continued, as no Republican congressmen attended this briefing." As far as I can tell, other than Markey, none of the Democratic members attended either. Waxman is not a member of the committee. Apparently there is political disinterest amongst both parties.
70074. Bob Lacatena at 14:00 PM on 19 November 2011
       Lone Star State of Drought
       23, Eric, Sorry, I didn't get the point of your comment. Could you be more clear?
70075. barry1487 at 13:57 PM on 19 November 2011
       Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
       The Nth verification that even with the uncertainties it's an issue "worth addressing". As aggravating as Muller's positioning is, the result is probably useful. AFAIK political momentum on carbon policy has been stagnant in the US, so while Muller's skepticism made little difference on that front, the well-publicised BEST results, and Muller's own take on policy have probably tipped the scales towards action.
70076. Eric (skeptic) at 13:20 PM on 19 November 2011
       Lone Star State of Drought
       Our resident 'skeptics' will no doubt take comfort in pointing to those areas and saying 'nothing different here.' I would point out that light blue is ok too.
70077. muoncounter at 12:43 PM on 19 November 2011
       Lone Star State of Drought
       Manwich#19: "our local soil moisture content is to DECREASE over the next 100 years" Can you reference any of those presentations, or at least the presenters so readers here can look them up? The relatively new concept of 'flash drought' seems relevant here. Drought is usually thought of as a slow-onset disaster, but much like flash floods, drought can develop very quickly. During summer, if evapotranspirtation (ET) – loss of water from the soil and plants to the atmosphere – is high, soil moisture can be depleted rapidly producing drought conditions even when precipitation departures are not all that extreme. In addition to soil moisture status, ET is affected by temperature, relative humidity, solar radiation (sunlight) and wind. Any one of these can contribute to higher-than-normal ET rates, but when several combine the results can be disastrous. These conditions existed in Oklahoma in 2000 and of course Texas/New Mexico 2011. The Oklahoma Climatological Survey makes a key point: It is interesting to note that for the year as a whole, the summer months (June - August), and the fall months (September - November), the seasonal statistics do not necessarily indicate that the state experienced a severe drought because heavy rains preceded and followed this dry spell. In the US Drought Monitor archives, one can see how quickly the 2000 Oklahoma flash drought came up.
70078. Tom Curtis at 12:32 PM on 19 November 2011
       Lone Star State of Drought
       Manwichstick @19, that is a genuine concern. The east coast of Australia, for example shows little change in Precipitation - Evaporation, but that is because increased flooding during La Nina events is expected to compensate for more frequent, and more intense drought during El Nino events. The compensation, of course, is entirely in the long term average, not in the farmer's paddock where there is a loss of productivity under both conditions.
70079. Tom Curtis at 12:14 PM on 19 November 2011
       Lone Star State of Drought
       Sphaerica @18, I find brown band over the Iberian peninsular, France, Italy and the Balkans more concerning, if only because of the much higher population density of those regions. Also concerning is the drying over much of southern Africa, where the inhabitants do not have the economic resources for effective adaption.
70080. RW1 at 12:08 PM on 19 November 2011
       The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
       Thanks, DB. I appreciate it.
       Moderator Response: [DB] You're welcome; glad to help.
70081. Manwichstick at 11:58 AM on 19 November 2011
       Lone Star State of Drought
       Hi, I've been to a few presentations by experts in climate modelling, and where I live around Lake Ontario the image shown twice in this thread by Lamont-Doherty has my area depicted as "light blue" - or to receive more rainfall. This coincides well with other analyses I have seen. What surprised me is the claims I have heard that despite greater rainfall, our local soil moisture content is to DECREASE over the next 100 years because of increased evaporation and rain coming not in a drizzle-form but more in storm spurts - icreasing run-off. This is worrying if it is hoped that the growing drought areas will be supplied with crops by the areas that may receive more rainfall; only to find out the "wetter" areas will actually have diminished crop yeilds - potentially - because of the surprising decrease in soil moisture content.
70082. RW1 at 11:45 AM on 19 November 2011
       The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
       Hugo, The link to your paper has expired. Are you planning to re-post it?
       Response:

       [DB] Thank you for letting us know.  I've emailed Dr. Franzen about this.

70083. Ivoryorange at 10:51 AM on 19 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
       Saul Alinsky would argue that people learn through experience. Literally. And that people wont truly learn something if they have no experience of it, and so you either have to (somehow) place it in their experiences or create an experience for them....
70084. tmac57 at 10:48 AM on 19 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
       Ian, Thanks for the comment.That pretty much addressed what I was wondering about.Now I don't need to read Part 4.Just kidding. Sphaerica makes a good point about emotional arguments,gang mentality,and piling on.Whenever I encounter that sort of behavior,it immediately raises a red flag of irrationality,and unfortunately,I have seen this sometimes coming from people that I agree with,and it makes me cringe. I generally try to maintain a civil debate with those that I disagree with,although I am not above a snarky retort if I sense someone being disingenuous or intellectually dishonest in their comments.
70085. John Hartz at 10:33 AM on 19 November 2011
       Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
       “It’s politically dangerous for prominent Republicans to acknowledge climate change is real and that human activity plays a prominent role,” he said. ”It could be that Gingrich is just trying to play a political game and stick with the political orthodoxy to keep himself from being vulnerable to attacks.” – Jim DePasso, the policy director for Republicans for Environmental Protection Source: “Gingrich Defends Shifting Statements on Climate Change” ABC News, Nov 18, 2011
70086. Bob Lacatena at 08:55 AM on 19 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
       19, Ian, That last point, that seeking out and arguing against weak opponents can serve to reinforce one's own point of view, is an interesting one. I wonder, too, if that same paradigm works in a sense with false but emotional arguments, and if it is also aided by a "gang" mentality. That is, a frequent behavior I see on poorly moderated sites (WUWT, Nova, etc.) is that when they either cannot follow the reasoning behind an argument or cannot formulate an adequate response, they instead fall back on insults. Generally, several people will then pile on. The atmosphere turns into a sort of group "look at the fool who's not one of us and doesn't get it" attitude, and all meaningful dialogue screeches to a halt. Taking this from their point of view, the reinforcement becomes "everyone else is laughing at this guy with me, so we're right and he's wrong, despite the fact that he's proved his point."
70087. Grignr at 08:08 AM on 19 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
       Nice overview of the research idea, and it’s fun to read the comments here. As the lead author of the study described in the post, I’ll try to add my thoughts to the comments above. The effect we highlighted in the studies – that in the absence of specific information to the contrary, people assume that vaguely familiar statements are true – has some limits. The most important constraint for this discussion is probably that it tends to happen when people don’t have either extensive background knowledge on the topic, or motivation to call a statement true (or false). For example, someone with little knowledge about vaccinations might accept the statement “It’s a myth that flu vaccines cause the flu” when they first hear it. For this person, as time passes the “myth” designation will fade from memory, but the core of the proposition will still be familiar, making the statement “Flu vaccines cause the flu” seem true. This change in memory representation won’t affect an expert in vaccines, however, because they can draw on relevant background knowledge to assess the statement. Similarly, someone strongly motivated to argue that the vaccine is harmful will always call it harmful, even if the opposite statement seems vaguely familiar to them. The upshot is that many people who come to this site probably won’t be adversely affected by the “Myths” organizing structure in the sidebar. People most at risk for the “illusion of truth” effect are those who have little knowledge of the topic other than what they read here. If they intend to read up on the topic, detailed knowledge will probably end up overruling any inference based on experienced familiarity. There are exceptions, but this seems like a reasonable generalization. The second point that the comments bring to mind is that there are many routes to false or inaccurate beliefs, some of them cognitive, some motivational, and some a combination of the two. For example, sometimes people seek out weak counterattitudinal information in order to argue against it, which gives them practice in taking down weak arguments. The effect is that exposing themselves to opposing points of view sometimes “inoculates” them against countervailing information, rather than modifying their perspective. Thanks, I look forward to seeing more of these posts.
       Response: [DB] Thank you, Ian. And Welcome! to Skeptical Science.
       
       [JC] Welcome also from me :-) Our treatment of the Familiarity Backfire Effect is deliberately quite brief and simplified in the Debunking Handbook - our aim is to provide a short, practical guide. I am also working with Stephan Lewandowsky and a few other scientists (including your co-author Norbert Schwarz) on a more thorough, scholarly review of research into misinformation.
70088. skept.fr at 08:04 AM on 19 November 2011
       World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
       Post scriptum : I must add that I’m skeptic about how precisely our economy models deal with the inputs of energy. I’ve read a very interesting book from Robert Ayres and Benjamin Warr on this subject, The Economic Growth Engine. How Energy and Work Drive Material Prosperity (Edward Elgar 2009). They are economists and specialized in the energy-economy question. The conclusion of their model (Linex adjusted) is that a large part of economic growth for the last century is due to technological improvments of energy (more precisley exergy, useful work from energy). According to Ayres and Warr, the neoclassical models (eg Solow-style) acknowledge that long term growth is due mainly to technological innovation rather than capital or labor (75% for the first, 25% for the others). But technology is vague : these models fail to identify in what way technology precisely stimulates this growth. The economy is about transforming nature to produce goods and services, and energy efficiency gain is the first factor of growth in this process, due to technological innovations' effect on useful work. (As Bartlett observations about illusions of exponential growth, Ayres and War conclude that future long term growth is by no way guaranteed because of limits in ressources and modest pace of technology innovation in efficiency, as we approach the thermodynamical limits in many process). Fortunately, a large part of climate mitigation will come from gain in energy efficiency with ambitious policy. But it leaves the problem of substituting efficient energy by less efficient ones (biofuel versus oil, solar PV versus coal, etc.), and producing a sufficient total amount for all human needs, even in an HDI-approach. If Ayres and Warr are correct (that I don’t know, but I mention this kind of debate in economy-energy literature), energy change is not just a ‘static’ affair of 2 or 4 points of GDP, but a core factor of economy dymanics on long term.
70089. Bob Lacatena at 06:03 AM on 19 November 2011
       Lone Star State of Drought
       16, muoncounter, Except that the yellow/brown below that narrow band looks to make all of the Southwestern US (a region of recent population explosion) a rather inhospitable place to live. Bad times ahead.
70090. Bob Lacatena at 06:01 AM on 19 November 2011
       Lone Star State of Drought
       13, muoncounter, Yes. That's exactly what I'm talking about, but in the context of this particular drought, I'm questioning whether or not these effects are already being felt and working (which could be the case), or if this is only the tip of the melted-ice-berg and "you ain't seen noth'n yet." For a global context, I think this other image from the Lamont websites is good to see: Click for full scale image.
70091. muoncounter at 05:58 AM on 19 November 2011
       Lone Star State of Drought
       Looking carefully at the projection in the figure here, there is a narrow zone between tan and light blue where the change is forecast to be close to 0. Our resident 'skeptics' will no doubt take comfort in pointing to those areas and saying 'nothing different here.'
70092. Bob Lacatena at 05:57 AM on 19 November 2011
       Lone Star State of Drought
       Oh, BTW, I didn't intend to be entirely Northern-Hemisphere-centric -- obviously the expansion of the Hadley cells will have similar dire consequences to those near arid regions in the Southern Hemisphere... meaning some in South America (the Amazon), central Africa, and Australia. In fact, it's hard to find an area of the globe that is not heavily populated and civilized and in serious danger of major and insurmountable precipitation changes due to this particular side-effect of global warming. And we're only somewhere around 0.6˚C right now. Imagine what this will mean if we actually hit 2˚C, or even just the 1.4˚C to which current CO₂ levels appear to have us committed.
70093. Bob Lacatena at 05:51 AM on 19 November 2011
       Lone Star State of Drought
       Arkadiusz @6&7, re the response by Albatross at 9, Let me say that I am deeply offended that you engaged in such quote mining. I am not at all surprised, but it really gets tiresome when deniers go through papers and make what is obviously a clear effort to misrepresent the content of the paper and refashion it to say the exact opposite of what it really says. This to me is reprehensible and indefensible behavior on your part. I for one will hesitate to accept anything you say without studying it in great detail, and all other readers are strongly advised to do likewise -- your credibility in all discussions is now severely in question and you will have a very hard time regaining anyone's trust. And please don't insult us all with obviously questionable statements like this:

       It is not my intention being always a skeptic - to AGW, “the policy” is foreign to me ... My intention is a higher level of discussion on this website - just Science.

       Demonstrate this through your actions and actual statements, not through loud protests of innocence and nobility.
70094. skept.fr at 05:51 AM on 19 November 2011
       World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
       Tom I’m sorry but it’s truly hard for me to understand point 1 and 2. Maybe because I’m not native-english or unfamiliar with concept agility it demands. (More generally, it’s very hard to write my message, I’m not fluent in your language, and I’m desperate because debates are very interesting here). You say: ‘Having critiqued a pragmatic response to climate change - the production of biofuels - because of its ethically undesirable consequences, you now pose as being concerned only with pragmatic solutions to the issue of climate change’. But my initial point was rather from a more simple or pragmatic point of view, and in #2, I wrote : ‘we do have examples of such adverse effects in reality’. So basically, are there yes or not ‘adverse effects’ from biofuel uses in the observed world (and not in an hypothetized or idealized world)? Anyone who answers ‘yes’ can imagine solutions to counteract these effects, and you propose some alternative issues for the crop price problem. You must after that deal with other problems : water-use, pesticide, deforestation, etc. All that is purely pragmatic in my mind. If you have a fuel ‘solution’ that produces a low quantity of energy with a large surface use, and brings diverse problems needing other reforms, I just call it a poor solution, unlikely to be successful. But you conclude what you want. For point 4, I disagree with your statement : ‘The issue, beyond political will, is a purely economic question of the relative cost of electricity if we make the switch. That cost may be anything from a slight reduction in costs, to a significant increase - but that significant increase will have a small economic impact overall, because energy is a small component in the total cost of our goods’ Energy is just a small amount of the cost of our goods because all the energy infrastructures are already installed – that is, you don’t need to create ex nihilo all the industrial chain from extraction of the ressource to production of objects for the final use passing by the distribution, transformation, etc, it’s already there. Have a look at real energy transitions in history : even if a new ressource have a better energy density, it took decades for it to gain a significant (>20%) share of the primary energy production, and that’s true for coal, oil, gas or nuclear (see Vaclav Smill, Energy transitions, Praeger 2010 for a full discussion of history, requirements and prospective of such transitions). So, for energy sources with a worse energy density, it’s strange to imagine the transition will be easier and faster. You have had 164 scenarios running for the WG3 SRREN 2011 report and trying to model the part of renewable in 2050. What was the conclusion : 'In scenarios that stabilize the atmospheric CO2 concentrations at a level of less than 440 ppm, the median RE deployment level in 2050 is 248 EJ/yr (139 in 2030)'. Unless you cherrypick optimistic models (exactly as some persons cherrypick optimistic CO2 sensitivity, but they are not serious for that reason), you have a higher probability of modest contribution of RE in the future energy mix : about 50% of the primary energy we consume now, but in 2050 there will be 9 billions humans to feed, heat, educate, etc. and we hope in better conditions than now. Most of these models depend on nuclear, biofuel, CCS coal, etc. So, and for the ethical debate from a consequentialist point of view, if I’m abruptly asked for example : ‘do you accept to stabilize climate at 2 K (best estimate of models for 450 ppm) if we are obliged to stabilize energy production at 450EJ/y for 9 billions humans (50GJ/hab/y)’, my answer would be negative. Because in known conditions, such a low energy rate would imply a vast loss of welfare, and a likely more important loss than a more than 2 K warming induced counterpart in a high-energy scenario (which allows adaptation). At least, I would ask the person that brings me in this moral moral dilema to list the probability of casualties in each case, not a fuzzy promise that we can live collectively very well with 50GJ each year. I'd like to be sure this option of a low energy future is realistically excluded : unfortunately, IEA model is not for free, so I cannot compare all their assumptions with what is said elsewhere in the literature. PS : there are a lot of things to do for climate mitigation. Fortunately, the 20-20-20 energy plan of European Union for 2020 is not centrally based on biofuel. But as you know, European Union isn't exactly sure to be alive next year, so it's energy future is a bit more complicated than an ideal production from sun, wind or wave... Sorry to be so pragmatic!
70095. muoncounter at 05:49 AM on 19 November 2011
       Lone Star State of Drought
       Sphaerica #8: "poleward expansion of the Hadley Cells due to climate change." More from the Lamont websites on this subject: As the planet warms, the Hadley Cell, which links together rising air near the Equator and descending air in the subtropics, expands poleward. Descending air suppresses precipitation by drying the lower atmosphere so this process expands the subtropical dry zones. At the same time, and related to this, the rain-bearing mid-latitude storm tracks also shift poleward. Both changes in atmospheric circulation, which are not fully understood, cause the poleward flanks of the subtropics to dry. full scale Or as quoted previously, dry areas drier and wet areas wetter. That is not an ENSO-driven effect.
70096. dhogaza at 05:45 AM on 19 November 2011
       Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
       Technically, they've not classified pizza as a vegetable, just the tomato sauce on the pizza, making the pizza itself a "vegetable dish" :) Congress works in mysterious and subtle ways ... Great summary of the hearing.
70097. Bob Lacatena at 05:43 AM on 19 November 2011
       Lone Star State of Drought
       11, Albatross, I have that issue of Sci Am, but don't remember reading the article. I just dug it out and will read it over lunch, then try to track down a copy of the Sachs paper. I've always pointed out (with deniers/skeptics who want to argue that higher temps must mean more precipitation) that the shifting Hadley cells may well carry one of the greatest dangers of climate change, because the effect is both predicted and recognized in observations, and it specifically carries huge and continuous precipitation changes -- and Texas and the whole southernmost US, as well as current Mediterranean countries like Greece, Italy and Spain, may well be very, very dramatically and adversely affected. The deserts of the world will grow as the Hadley cells grow. Anyone who lives north of a desert needs to worry a lot. I'm just wondering now are those effects already being felt, or is that still not really in the equation yet (i.e. any climate change impact on this drought is limited to increased evaporation due to increased temperatures impacts on more dynamic precipitation patterns, potentially due to more dramatic La Nina effects exacerbated by climate change -- but not yet to Hadley cell poleward expansion).
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Try here:

       http://faculty.washington.edu/jsachs/lab/www/Sachs-Myhrvold_A_Shifting_Band_of_Rain-SciAm11.pdf

       [Sph]

       For the record, DB's link is to an online copy of the article. This link here is to a copy of the 2009 paper by Sachs, Southward movement of the Pacific intertropical convergence zone AD 1400–1850

       Is it poor form to "moderate" one's own comments?

70098. shoyemore at 05:14 AM on 19 November 2011
       Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
       The fact that no Republican Congressmen attended this hearing is depressing, and indicative. What are they afraid of? It is not long since Dr Richard Muller was the "Great White Hope" of denialism. Here is a short clip of Muller's testimony from Huffpost - he draws a clear distinction between "scepticism" and "denialism". However, it is clear he classes Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre as "sceptics". He is in for a shock. He also appeared on US TV, where he admitted blogosphere reaction was "volatile", something which got a laugh. Richard Muller at Congress Clip Richard Muller on "Morning, Joe" US TV
70099. Albatross at 03:42 AM on 19 November 2011
       Lone Star State of Drought
       Sphaerica @8, That is a plausible hypothesis. There has been paleo research that has shown poleward shifts in the ITCZ in response to warming in the past has been associated with dramatic shifts in precipitation. Check out this work by Sachs and Myhrvold (2011): "Multiyear drought conditions in the southwestern U.S. could persist as that area becomes more like the semiarid region of northern Mexico."
70100. tmac57 at 03:36 AM on 19 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
       What part does the person's previous mindset play in all of this? For example,if a climate change skeptic is reading a blog post on WUWT, that is debunking a 'myth' as defined by them,what is the likelihood that it might influence the reader to believe the 'myth'? It seems unlikely to me. I would have to assume that the fence-sitters are the ones to be most concerned about,but maybe we should worry about further entrenching AGW skeptic's belief in myths as well.
       Response: [JC] we look at the relevant cognitive processes in Part 4.

Prev  1394  1395  1396  1397  1398  1399  1400  1401  1402  1403  1404  1405  1406  1407  1408  1409  Next