Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 Next
Comments 7051 to 7100:
-
Doug Bostrom at 02:52 AM on 20 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
Sauerj: "I would work to leave FB but do so with as much noise as you can."
An excellent point. Ideally FB would be tamed, broken to the will of users. The company needs feedback in order to do that.
The equivocation of MeWe and Facebook regarding bogus information being delivered spontaneously to users is incorrect. MeWe doesn't push content: users have to seek it out. This is a key difference and according to the (excellent) method applied by SauerJ will change the results of the analysis quite radically.
-
sauerj at 12:20 PM on 19 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
There a two major typo errors with the above text (and a number of poorly worded, sloppy errors). The major ones need to be pointed out:
#3 in the Reasons to Stay section: "... readership of SkS on SM would plummet in the meantime if fully leaving moving to FB."
Conclusion section: "The points above in #3 #4 and #5 in the 'Leaving' section should be made clear ..."
-
sauerj at 12:07 PM on 19 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
Reasons to Stay or Leave: 4 Reasons for each group. Rating each 1 to 5 (1 = stay, 5= leave)
Reasons for staying on FB:
1) No One Polices False Information: FB does not self-control (police) false information. Neither does most other media organizations (Fox News), and neither does MeWe. There will still be climate denier groups and individuals all over MeWe, peddling false information within their echo groups, once it gets a full spectrum of users. So, this is a neutral point: Rating = 3.
2) Flow of False Information Likely Only Slightly Less on MeWe: Many climate deniers are not FB users. They get the misinformation from many other sources. Even if everyone moved to MeWe, the flow of climate denial into MeWe will be the same (coming from other media sources). (Certainly the self-amplification of this misinformation within FB will be stunted - see first two points in next section - but I believe this internal amplification is a smaller accelerant of the flow of misinformation on FB compared to the incoming flow of misinformation from other media sources.) So, this is a neutral point: Rating = 3. ... (Although, since the flow of misinformation may be less (if even slightly less), then one could argue this should be a 4 favoring leaving.)
3) Loss of Readership & Loss of Penetrating the Internet w/ Good, Truthful Material: FB users like the "one stop shopping" aspect of FB's news feed. Not having to click around on different sites, just scroll down to see media material from groups & individuals of interest is very fast and convenient. But, there are many other social media (SM) platforms that users do click on, so adding MeWe to the list is only a partial inconvenience. But, until MeWe use builds, the readership of SkS on SM would plummet in the meantime if fully moving to FB. So, this is not a show stopper for leaving, but it is a major reason to stay (for now): Rating = 1.
4) Buy out of MeWe or future change of MeWe: There is no guarantee that MeWe won't succumb to future money interest. So, loss of readership and other headaches could be all for naught in a few years from now. But, this is only speculation: Rating = 3.
Reasons for leaving FB
1) No Profile Specific Ordering of News Feed: FB users can order their newsfeed based on time too (just like MeWe); but they have to click on this feature with every refresh; while, with MeWe, this is built-in. Odds are that only <5% of FB users methodically do this. Therefore, this reduces the "outrage trigger potential" of MeWe compared to FB. This is one reason why the internal self-amplification of false information would be less on MeWe vs FB. Rating = 5.
2) No Profile Specific Ads: FB users can block ads using adblockers (very effective) and hiding the rest (a minor inconvenience). But, only 30% of internet users use adblockers. So, 70% of FB users are getting profile specific ads which potentially feed their "outrage & false information addiction". So, this is another reason why the internal self-amplification of outrage and false information would be less on MeWe vs FB. Rating = 4. (or maybe a 5)
3) Make a Moral Point about the Social Health Fallout caused by FB: Most media publishers get their paycheck off of peddling "outrage" in order to draw readership so to sell ads. Some publishers rely on this to the extreme (Info Wars, Fox News, CNN, FB); others much less so or not at all (AP News, MeWe). Social media (vs older media forms) speeds up the flow of this "outrage quotient" by 1) being constant in time and 2) enabling the viewers themselves to contribute to the circulation of outrage, like a virus. This can take this flow & buildup of "outrage" to socially unhealthy levels of polarization and radicalization which can even overpower the old social stabilizing institutions that, in the past, would keep up with dampening past lower levels of outrage (keeping it in check). So, today's intense flow of "outrage" caused by social media groups, like FB which feeds off of it for its paycheck and purposely is designed to amplify it, is a serious social health issue. However, MeWe doesn't block incoming "outrage" content; but it does thwart the internal self-amplification of this outrage, via #1 and #2 in the above 'Leaving' reasons. By leaving, this is taking a stand against this kind of socially unhealthy pathology against FB's purposeful amplification of outrage for the sake of making a buck. Rating = 5.
4) Make a Moral Point about FB not controlling Climate Denialism: As a climate pro-science site, it would only seem fitting & in keeping with its mission that SkS should make a moral stand against FB's nefarious climate denial inaction. Rating = 5.
Average Rating = between 3.625 to 3.875
Conclusions & Recommendations: Based on this, I would work to leave FB but do so with as much noise as you can. I would try to team up with as many climate action advocate groups as you can (scientists, climate groups, institutions, schools, companies, churches, etc). Then, I would write a mass article, signed by all, to be published in a couple major papers (Guardian, Forbes) so to announce your plans to leave FB on Date = XYZ, unless FB meets specified demands in writing by that date (and spell out your demands in detail). The points above in #4 and #5 in the 'Leaving' section should be made clear (like a social condemnation against FB and how they are nefariously polarizing the world for the sake of a buck). Then, follow thru (in mass) and leave FB if they refuse to meet the demands in full by that date. Give instructions to your readership on how to set up MeWe accounts with plenty of "overlapping" time to ease the transition.I have accounts w/ both FB and MeWe; although I am not a frequent MeWe user yet.
-
Wol at 11:02 AM on 19 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
I don't use facebook for three reasons:
1) It's one of the worst user interfaces on the web (and that's saying something!)
2) I have no need to "communicate" with people I don't want to, nor to be "liked" (is that the word?) by them
3) The fewer sites that harvest my information the better.
-
Doug Bostrom at 06:30 AM on 19 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
Lest anybody wonder and worry about it, we're not going to decamp from Facebook, any more than people are going to change or modify their consumption habits of material things such as fossil fuels because they know it's the right choice.
But it's important that we keep in mind the trades that we're making in being there.
-
John Hartz at 05:03 AM on 19 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
Another comment posted on the SkS Facebook page in response to this article...
Stephen Keeler
Keep publishing. It’s important that your work is read (and shared). Otherwise you are handing victory to those publishing misinformation. -
Doug Bostrom at 03:40 AM on 19 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
Thanks for the tip, Vasco. I'm going to take a look at that. We're spread thinly so part of our problem of course is staffing new beachheads.
A weird feature of this Facebook problem: miles of column inches given over to kvetching about Facebook while failing to mention that there are alternatives, and that using alternatives is the path out of the problem.
The conversation needs to move forward from "it's bad, somebody save us!" Most good luck is made, not found, and here we can make our own better luck with little effort.
And sure, FB has some postives. Neonicotinoids have some positives, seem completely wonderful if one is sufficiently myopic. But is destroying the food chain a worthwhile payoff?
Here's a neonicotinoid-style side-effect of Facebook, a description of the experience journalists encountered when investigating the ad purchase process at FB::
At one point in the process, for example, the automated system asked the researchers if they wished to “INCLUDE people who match at least ONE of the following: German Schutzstaffel, history of ‘why Jews ruin the world’, how to burn Jews, Jew hater”. “Your potential audience selection is great!” it told the researchers. “Potential audience size: 108,000 people.”
Worth it?
-
John Hartz at 02:41 AM on 19 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
Everyone opining on this matter would do well to read the comments being posted about this article on the SkS Facebook page. Here's a typical response:
Marnie Parker
I share articles from or endorsed by Skeptical Science all the time on FB. Some my friends are being educated. Even people who know Climate Change is a big problem still aren't taking it seriously enough. But now several of my friends have liked your FB page directly. Don't discount that we, your readers and supporters, are spreading your information further than you ever could by yourself. -
Vasco at 00:57 AM on 19 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
Have you ever considered having a strong Skeptical Science presence on WT.Social? It is the type of environment amenable to the content and procedures espoused on Skeptical Science itself; and from there you coud snipe at climate change deniers' platforms of choice.
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:20 PM on 18 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
Haliburton:
Don't read too much into the phrase "bums in seats". It derives from the olden days when information or entertainment was spread by filling a room full of people and talking to them/showing a movie/playing a concert, etc.
The "bum" is just a person's posterior. Empty seats dont pay the bills (when people paid for the privilege of sitting there). A 60-thousand seat football stadium does not generate much revennue when it is empty - hence the need to make sure you have "bums" in those seats.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bums_in_seats
(Apparently, it is somewhat of a regional expression. I am Canadian.)
-
John McKeon at 21:31 PM on 18 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
First impressions from article plus comments of readers ahead of me:
I do worry as Doug puts it that for SkS to withdraw from FB just leaves the creepy crawlies to keep confusing the hell out of people re climate science and fossil fuelled climate change.
On the other hand the disinformation would continue whether SkS is on FB or not. But now I also recall Doug's advice ... to stop being an active user of FB. -
Haiburton42 at 20:40 PM on 18 July 2020Category 6 Sets Its Sights Over the Rainbow
"I like to think of the rainbow pictured above as symbolizing the multitudinous human colors and textures that have made this meeting place what it is." Wow. What a refreshing perspective. A "rising rainbow" would be very neat to witness. I'm jealous! And I had no idea that in order to see a rainbow near the horizon, the sun needs to be almost 42° above the opposite horizon.
I guess you learn something new everyday if you're lucky, huh!
Really, though, comparing the climate crisis to a final-exam themed nightmare is perfect. I mean, if you're a student taking 12 credit hours, it's a bit like each course is one of the four horsemen.
Apocolyptic examinations, indeed!
-
Haiburton42 at 20:27 PM on 18 July 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #27
The link worked for me.
"Stop Making Sense"
"It's time to get emotional about climate change"
I really love that phraseology.
I can dig her conclusion, too, "I’m not saying facts don’t matter or the scientific method should be watered down or we should communicate without facts. What I am saying is that now the climate science has been proven to be true to the highest degree possible, we have to stop being reasonable and start being emotional. More science isn’t the solution. People are the solution."
The last sentence is especially powerful. Very spot on.
(Much like my horoscope most days).
-
Haiburton42 at 20:10 PM on 18 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
The point I'd like to make here has already been made in this article but I'm going to rephrase it a bit. . .
FB--at this point--is just a platform users go to that simply reinforces existing opinions and viewpoints. I mean, every fourth (or fifth) post in anyones timeline IS an ad. My newsfeed includes several positive posts/advertisement messages specifically as they pertain to the issue of anthropogenic global warming. Sure, it probably could disillusion the way I think about the world around me if I wasn't conscious or wanted it to. I mean, in that it could make me feel like the world was on my side. (It isn't).
Nevertheless, I've been wanting a reason to deactivate my account and I don't see a problem with supporting SkS's efforts to, for lack of a better term, boycott FB for the reasons listed above. I recieve SkS updates via e-mail and prefer it that way, anyway. So, I'm not necessarily sure I'd go and make a MeWe account so I could re-follow ya'll. And it seems like that's the idea here (unfollow on FB, follow on MeWe). Correct me if I'm wrong?
And then just to really make sure my entire two cents is going to this here jukebox, I think that the comment made refering to FB users as, "bums in seats," is a little whack. I get it, though. It's hard not to :"sh*t talk" on people when you fundamentally disagree with how they're spending their time/investments.
What are facebook users?
People.
What's blue and white and data mines?
The most popular social media website.
-
Eclectic at 11:50 AM on 18 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
Just like Wilddouglas, as a non-user of Facebook, my personal leverage is zero in this matter. Yes, I can (and do, FWIW) recommend less FB usage to friends & acqaintances. My share portfolio does not include (AFAIK) companies that advertise on FB ~ so no room for influence via shareholder meetings. And my political vote . . . well, governments are somewhat fearful of the Press & social media ~ so they might/may/could take action or exert pressure on FB, only when there is a sufficient scandal over FB-mediated influence on elections. But I suspect it will take much more stuff hitting the fan, before all major parties feel it is in their interest to take real action.
My inexpert opinion is not worth much ~ I only give it as some feedback for consideration by the gubernators of SkS. I suspect that a FB "drop-out" by SkS would be lost in the statistical noise at FB. So I am hoping there are other ways of skinning a cat.
Are there disadvantages in SkS having a foot on more than one platform? Could it be that a "partial defection" by user groups (such as SkS) would produce a bigger signal at FB Central, than would simple complete withdrawals? ( It seems almost inconceivable that FB would not intensely scrutinize their rival "David-size" platforms.)
-
wilddouglascounty at 10:47 AM on 18 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
I have never been a Facebook member, and see no reason to ever become one for all the many reasons a reasonable person might list. Nevertheless, I can make a distinction between my personal decision not to join as a data collecdtion point that Facebook can extract identity profiles on me to sell to whomever wants to buy it, vs. having a Skeptical Science presence on Facebook that can be a reliable, vetted source of objective information.
I can even envision that the traffic to your Facebook site might convince the data analytics folks that there might be some profitability in providing a decent platform for science on Facebook.
This does not preclude a presence on alternative sites nor does it preclude criticizing Facebook whenever it tilts the playing surface as it does whenever it gives a pass to vetted information sources.
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:43 AM on 18 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
Doug: I don't disagree that it's users that drive the advertisers. I guess they are more than bums in the seats in the sense that they also provide free content that brings in more bums in the seats. In normal media, they used to pay reporters to do that.
The advertisers want eyes on the ads, which happens when the bums in the seats stare at the screens.
And what the bums in the seats read and type gives Facebook more data to sell.
Fewer bums, less crap typed for others to read, fewer bums, etc. is the sequence that will end it.
-
nigelj at 08:29 AM on 18 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
Governments can only regulate to a certain extent and facebook are bad at self regulation. So yes in the end it might comes down to users. I ended my account ages ago for numerous reasons.
-
Doug Bostrom at 07:41 AM on 18 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
"...moving away from Facebook will only succeed if the advertisers/buyers move away. Users are just bums in the seats (or eyes on the screen)."
Users are why advertisers are on Facebook.
One comes before the other. Users are not "bums in seats," they're workers providing eyeball services to Facebook, which sellls those services to advertisers.
Let's keep our order straight here.
So: fewer users, fewer dollars flowing to Facebook.
A drop in revenue is the only thing Facebook will attend to.
This is all on users.
-
Bob Loblaw at 06:33 AM on 18 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
In another sense, Facebook does what its advertisers (and people that buy data from them) want - they pay the bills, and as long as they are willing to pay, Facebook will continue on the same path.
As a user (which does not include me), moving away from Facebook will only succeed if the advertisers/buyers move away. Users are just bums in the seats (or eyes on the screen).
-
Doug Bostrom at 03:15 AM on 18 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
To put it all less charitably, as a non-user of Facebook who has had a lot of conversations with Facebook users about the societal effects of Facebook and the choice implied by supporting its agenda as a user, I hear the same elusive reasoning employed by alcoholics when they're confronted with the negative effects they're producing.
If you're a Facebook user and you're making excuses for Facebook, think harder.
-
Doug Bostrom at 03:10 AM on 18 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
For many reasons governments don't have the ability to save us from FB. And it would be far from ideal to allow governments to do this work in any case.
The levers of power here are entirely at FB user fingertips. Not lifting a finger, not logging in— that's how FB will be tamed.
As we explain, this isn't an all-or-nothing affair. A modicum of self-discipline on the part of individuals and a modicum of faith that others have the same modest capacity can steer the company.
FB is driven by and feeds on obsessively scrutinized statistics. Inaction will be noticed.
The analogy with the UN is dubious. One organization is charged with the mission of improving the human condition. The other is charged with the mission of collecting dollars for private benefit. One has a track record of doing good works albeit imperfectly, the other a track record littered with concertedly intentional depraved behavior, with imperfection being a key requirement of successful operation.
This job of remedying Facebook requires literally no effort and no cost. But we can't do it? We resign ourselves to fatalism? What a remarkable surrender, and how depressing to think of the same attitude applied to other urgent problems.
If we can't deal with repairing or replacing an entirely optional feature of our lives that has not even been in existence for two decades, we surely won't sort out other more pressing issues, such as climate change. If we choose not to vote on Facebook by not lifting a finger, what effort will we really apply to bigger, harder jobs?
-
Eclectic at 22:40 PM on 17 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
Facebook is somewhat like the United Nations ~ which is far from perfect, but is The Only Game In Town. Withdrawing from the UN is an option with little benefit.
Facebook's AI "engagement algorithm" produces a toxic effect on society/democracy. And, as you know, it is very open to manipulation by outside interests. We can hope that governments & major corporations (of the benign type) will gradually push Facebook in a healthier direction.
Just like we can hope that the UN will improve. [But how to do it?]
Yet the climate-science deniers aren't having it all their own way. They claim persecution [as always, of course!] Several days ago, the marvellous blogsite WUWT posted an article saying that they were being deplatformed by "our hosting provider" per "a big increase in hosting costs". And so, after >2 years, they are moving back to Wordpress. Attached comments were filled with sentiments about "the suppressing of scientific dissent" ; and Conspiracy by the extensive Climate Alarmist institutions ; the "politically biased cancel culture" ; and "cultural Marxism" ; and suchlike.
WUWT will have some temporary disruption of service, and of commenters' postings. And Mr Watts is keeping an extra-tight moderation in place, until the changeover is complete. (It might be amusing, to see the tenor of comments there, once the Usual Suspects are free to let rip about this persecution.)
-
Philippe Chantreau at 00:35 AM on 17 July 2020Everything You Need to Know About Climate Change
Sorry, looks like I should have been more diligent. Someone at Tamino's relayed this from NSIDC:
"On Tuesday, July 14th and Wednesday, July 15th, the following data collections may not be available due to planned system maintenance: AMSR-E, Aquarius, ASO, High Mountain Asia, IceBridge, ICESat/GLAS, ICESat-2, MEaSUREs, MODIS, NISE, SMAP, SnowEx, and VIIRS."
Hopefully will update later today or tomorrow.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 00:30 AM on 17 July 2020Everything You Need to Know About Climate Change
Talking about that, anyone knows why NSIDC has been unable to update the sea ice extent and concentration maps? Showing no data for the past 2 days. This happened early a few days ago then was corrected but now it has been 2 days in a row. I think the extent graph has also not been updated.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:20 AM on 15 July 2020Everything You Need to Know About Climate Change
William's description of the terminology is in agreement with my understanding.
- Ice ages are times when there is long-term ice ice in some locations on the planet, and we currently have such ice in mountainous regions as well as Greenland and Antarctica. We are in an ice age.
- During an ice age, periods with extensive ice are "glacial periods", and periods will relatively little ice are "interglacials". We have much less ice now than during the last glacial maximum; we are in an interglacial.
The mis-use of the term "ice age" is pretty common.
-
william5331 at 07:00 AM on 15 July 2020Everything You Need to Know About Climate Change
Just a wee quibble. The last icy period wasn't an ice age. It was an glacial or glacial period and we are now in an interglacial. I have no problem with calling that period from the Eemian to the Holocene an ice age but we then need a different term for the ice age that we are in the middle of, which started some 2.75m years ago. Is this just quibbling. Well no. A great TV program by Nat Geo suggested that the extinction of the fauna of North America was caused by the change in climate coming out of the "Ice Age". What they should of said was coming out of a glacial period. They ignored the fact that through multiple cycles of glacial and interglacial, those same members of the mega-fauna survived quite well, thank you very much. Using ambiguous, poorly defined terms leads to mis-conceptions.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:34 AM on 14 July 2020Climate 'Skeptics' are like Galileo
Also known as the Galileo Gambit, there are a few good resources on the fallacy:
At Wikipedia, where it is one side of the Association Fallacy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
At Rational Wiki, where they have it mentioned as part of the Arumentum Ad Martyrdom fallacy:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_martyrdom
and also have a specific entry for the Galileo Gambit:
-
scaddenp at 08:59 AM on 14 July 2020Climate 'Skeptics' are like Galileo
The "Galileo strategy" is a strange one. Someone posits (without evidence, unlike Galileo) something that goes against mainstream science. Their reasoning is a joke which is clear to those who understand the science ( but not the wilfully ignorant) and so get rubbished by mainstream science. Ergo, this person must be a Galileo. Pretty hard to discuss critical thinking with someone who makes leaps of logic like this. To quote Carl Sagan. "But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
-
nigelj at 07:35 AM on 14 July 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #28
"Cases of child malnutrition in England double in last six months"
Useful article from the Guardian, but this is not a problem with the food supply chain as such. The article plainly states families are struggling to afford food due to the lockdown situation (job losses, and reduced wages etcetera).
-
Postkey at 20:29 PM on 13 July 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #28
"Cases of child malnutrition in England double in last six months
Almost 2,500 children admitted to hospitals in England suffering malnutrition in 2020"www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/12/cases-of-child-malnutrition-double-in-last-six-months
-
nigelj at 08:03 AM on 13 July 2020Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air
Just to clarify things, I definitely don't advocate rock weathering as a stand alone answer to drawing down atmospheric CO2. There is definitely space for multiple approaches including rock weathering, regenerative agriculture, growing forests where feasible, and possibly carbon capture and storage. I dont think we know enough yet to put all our eggs in one basket, other than to say ideas like BECCS do not seem viable to me.
That said, we know soils can sequester vast quantities of carbon from historical evidence in places like Asia. If all it takes is changing how we farm, and this can be done without big problems and has a range of other benefits, it seems a question of why wouldn't we? But those deep soils took a long time to build up, so soil carbon is unlikely to be a quick fix.
-
nigelj at 07:47 AM on 13 July 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #28
Useful article on covid 19, but I actually thought the global food supply chain generally held up quite well during the covid 19 problem. Nobody went hungry in New Zealand, although some imported foods were off the shelves for a short period. The main problem appeared to be panic buying. Yes America has more infections than us on a per capita basis and closed some meat works due to illness, but I'm not aware of anyone going seriously hungry specifically due to supply issues?
It's true that the globalised system with a lot of imported food might create dependence and problems in a crisis, but if you tried to make your country totally self sufficient in food, and you own internal supply chain failed you would be in an equally problematic situation, and reliant on begging from the globalised system. I'm just saying we shouldn't knock globalisation, and there are certainly ways to ensure countries help each other if we want.
Climate change is arguably a lot worse than Covid 19, because it is an absolute threat to food production and much longer term. Yeah sure genetic engineering may increase food production, and counter some of this but we don't really know, and we are expending effort to fix a climate induced food production problem, effort that could be better directed at other issues.
-
MA Rodger at 07:04 AM on 13 July 2020Climate 'Skeptics' are like Galileo
Edwin Drake @6,
Your reference to educational courses mirrors that of a differently-named commenter of recent days and this leads me to speculate as to whether you adopt the name of the pioneer of oil drilling rather than post with your true name. But let me address the substance of your post.
The evidence you present, which is pretty-much identically sourced to that raised by that differently-named commenter, rests solely on the bold assertions of climate contrarian Judy Curry and also a band of 500 climate change deniers who send a petition to the UN disputing the science which has established AGW (their reasons being generously adjudged as having "very low" scientific credibility. If you look even Judy Curry did not consider it worthy of her support).
Perhaps I should be so bold as to suggest a glaring difference between climate change deniers and Galileo.
The climate change deniers have been bashing on about AGW being somehow based on flawed science since the 1980s but over the following four decades have entirely failed to produce any convincing reason to support their contrarian belief.
Galileo was confronted by dogmatic refusal to accept certain scientific findings yet within the decade this science was being widely published and presented to the world (eg Epitome Astronomiae Copernicanae) and readily accepted as being correct by all those free from the dogma that attempted to gag that science.
Moderator Response:[TD] Indeed, another sockpuppet. Thanks for noticing. Their account has been suspended again. Apparently this person lacks any other hobbies.
-
Ger at 22:17 PM on 12 July 2020Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air
This research lifecycle assessment research located in the region of Sao Paulo gives a good base. As usual transport is a large element in the effect. Perfectly usable provided you have enough rock available close by. I wouldn't startmining to obtain the rock though.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652619320578
Moderator Response:[DB] Activated link.
-
RedBaron at 15:22 PM on 12 July 2020Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air
@Michael Sweet,
I am aware that you are unconvince, as are many who do not understand the significant difference regenerative agriculture can make. It is why I tried to fund a peer reviewed experiment at experiment.com.
Unfortunately the site closed all new launches indefinitly due to the corona virus outbreak just 3 days before mine was to launch.
Without funding, my personal attempt to add to the evidence is just anecdotal evidence and not enough to convince a skeptic from another field of expertise.
So I hesitantly agree with your criticisms. Not that I believe you are correct, but that I agree for a skeptic it is not enough published evidence on most crops. (excepting possibly SRI rice and grazing management which have far more published evidence)
I also agree with the statement "I doubt that you can even begin to get most farmers to utilize the strategies you espouse.", again tentively. Because it wont be from convincing that accomplishes this goal. Only economics can make this happen. This is why I am also working at putting together a "proof of concept" hub using “modular autarky” for a demonstration farm to fork. If it is profitable, people will change.
Ultimately much like solar and wind, the changes will come from market forces when the economics beats the current antiquated systems. In this case it is doable even without subsidies. And with a properly designed carbon market adding to those profits, I believe it can change even faster.
Unfortunately only about 2-3% of the money going to solving AGW is earmarked for these natural sorts of environmental solutions. So far I haven't been able to capture either the research or the business side of these funds to prove my synthesis to skeptics. But the evidense continues to roll in year by year as more and more people begin to seriously consider the evidence that is available.
At some point I am confident the scale will tip, with or without me. Too many others have begun to see it for it to be only in my head. Case in point, William's post above.
-
william5331 at 06:50 AM on 12 July 2020Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air
No argument about the use of rock dust but combine this with so called regenerative Agriculture. The best exposition of this way of farming that I have read is in a book by David R Montgomery, called Growing A Revolution. Drawing down Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere is just one amongst many benefits of this type of agriculture. In a previous book, Dirt, he describes what previous civilizations did to their soil and the results of their mismanagement. It sets the scene for Growing a Revolution.
-
michael sweet at 02:35 AM on 12 July 2020Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air
Red Baron,
Pacala and Socolow at Princeton describe attempting to control AGW using climate "wedges." Each wedge reduces the problem a little and together they amount to enough. You have not provided enough data to support your claims that agriculture alone can provide enough to remove all the carbon released by the soil from poor agricultural practices and all the fossil carbon.
While I am skeptical that enhanced weathering alone can control AGW, It seems to me that perhaps a wedge or two can be tackled with weathering. Than there will be a little less of a problem for the other approaches to solve.
Considering the very long history world wide of farmers destroying the soil they farm, I doubt that you can even begin to get most farmers to utilize the strategies you espouse. Even if you did I doubt agriculture alone can accompplish what you claim. You do not need to provide another copy of your papers, I have read most of them and am not convinced.
-
JWRebel at 21:13 PM on 11 July 2020Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air
NigelJ @2, one of the grand daddies of this approach was R.D. Schuiling, now 88, at the University of Utrecht (fairly close to the earth cone I occupy). He has been at it for a while, e.g., ENHANCED WEATHERING: AN EFFECTIVE AND CHEAP TOOL TO SEQUESTER CO2 (2004).
-
RedBaron at 09:21 AM on 11 July 2020Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air
The fail of this scheme, and quite frankly even in the comments, is in not realising 80% of weathering is biological. Sure you can do some good, but not nearly enough. A far better solution would be to restore ecosystem services over vast acreage currently degraded by agriculture.
You don't do that by physically grinding rock dust or spreading olivine on some beaches.
You do that by restoring biodiversity in the soil, where there are multiple species evolved over hundreds of millions of years all working in symbiosis with each other to a self regulating complex system that removes CO2 from the atmosphere.
-
michael sweet at 07:53 AM on 11 July 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Looking for something else I found this post at RealClimate about Shellenburger's OP-Ad (they describe Shellenburger's article as an advertisement for his book).
One scientist summarizes Shellenburger's OP-Ad as:
"Is this the problem, then? Half-truths, incoherent cases, sound-good arguments that in total don't add up to a coherent case against environmentalism except seemingly on 4-minute between-commercial segments on conservative talk radio but not in thought-out rational discourse?"
— David Appell (@davidappell)
Sounds to me like they don't agree with Shellenburger. The RealClimate post goes into great detail discussing Shellenburger's main points (I didn't read them all).
-
michael sweet at 07:44 AM on 11 July 2020It's only a few degrees
Jasper,
I am surprised that students in the Netherlands are not concerned about sea level rise. In the last ice age the temperatures were about 5C less than the current temeperatures. The sea level was 125 meters lower than it is today! From "only" 5C temeprature change!!! The current IPCC estimate for 2100 is a little over 1 meter sea level rise. Dutch engineers think they can manage 1 meter sea level rise. The high estimates of sea level rise by 2100 are well over 2 meters. That would overwhelm the Dutch dykes! What do farm boys think of that?
Have the students check the estimates for sea level rise from all 5 IPCC reports. Every report the sea level estimate is increased! Currently the temperature response of the great ice sheets on Greenland and the Antarctic is not well understood. Some sea level experts think that 6 meters of rise by 2100 is possible if the ice sheets respond rapidly. (To my students I emphasize the high end of the IPCC. The IPCC estimates are low compared to other scientific estimates). If you post again I can look for other estimates for you.
I had my students (the same age as yours) write me a report on the Arctic sea ice minimum in September. The NSIDC web site is easy to read (unfortunately in English). The summary of the yearly low in sea ice will be posted about October 7. The retreat of sea ice does not raise sea level. On the other hand, it is right next to Greenland which does raise sea level. My students were invariably shocked at the rate of sea ice loss.
I had my students write another report on global temperature using the NOAA web site. This is also easily read in English. The summary of yearly temperature will be posted about January 15 2021 for the year 2020. There is probably a web site in Dutch (any readers know of a Dutch site?) but I like the NOAA web site a lot.
Post again if we can help you.
-
nigelj at 07:24 AM on 11 July 2020Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air
JW Rebel @1, yes I wondered much the same. Came across another similar scheme here for spreading olivine on beaches, where the motion of tides helps tumble the material round and speed up the process of weathering.
-
JWRebel at 05:09 AM on 11 July 2020Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air
Always felt that speeding up weathering is one of the more promising initiatives. Scalable, simple technology that simply speeds up the process that nature uses to draw down CO². There are other approaches than this farmland approach, but many of the others show the same mix of positive economies of use, scalable implementations, available to large swathes of the globe/population without gigantic capital investments, and well within present technical capabilities
-
Tom Dayton at 04:03 AM on 11 July 2020Models are unreliable
ClimateDemon, I will simplify Bob Loblaw's response to you. Here is a set of numbers: 8, 15, 3, 9, 4. Here is a "descriptive statistic" that summarizes the central tendency of that set of numbers, thereby making the set as a whole easier to understand for some purposes, by subsuming its details: The mean of that set is 7.8.
Now look at my second sentence written above. Those five numbers still are there. They did not magically disappear merely because I typed their mean as "7.8." That ability is called "object permanence."Moderator Response:[DB] The user in question has recused themselves from further participation in this venue.
-
Bob Loblaw at 01:14 AM on 11 July 2020Models are unreliable
ClimateDemon @1270:
You mean where Lacis et al use the phrase "If the global atmospheric temperatures were to fall as low as TS=TE..."
Clearly, you have no idea what Lacis et al are saying when they use the symbols TS and TE, even though they explain it in the second paragraph of the paper: "...mean surface temperature (TS = 288 K) and the global mean effective temperature (TE = 255 K)...
That they describe a three-dimensional system by using mean values does not indicate they used a zero-dimensional model.
Frankly, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
-
ClimateDemon at 00:09 AM on 11 July 2020Models are unreliable
MA Rodger @1268
All right, so scrap the entire 1265 posting. I never was very good at guessing games anyway. If you go to the paragraph that starts near the top of the third column on page 357, however, you will see that the authors of the Lacis et. al. (2010) paper do in fact use that zero dimensional model with a single temperature earth to make some prediction on the sustainable amount of atmospheric water vapor in the example they were showing. Their ModelE runs were for something else.
-
Bob Loblaw at 22:50 PM on 10 July 2020Models are unreliable
ClimateDemon:
Since you seen keen on the concept, why don't you explain, in complete and unambigous terms, just exactly what you think you mean by "global thermal equlibrium".
Unless you have a working definition of that phrase, you're just playing games, not doing science.
-
MA Rodger at 21:03 PM on 10 July 2020Models are unreliable
ClimateDemon @1265,
Bar moderator intervention, you are of course at liberty to parade your ignorance here.What do you not understand about "GISS 2° × 2.5° AR5 version of ModelE"? Presumably all of it. (You might find this CarbonBrief article on GCMs useful in raising your understanding of GCMs to a less embarassing level.) And why would the values presented in the paper's Fig 2 throw any light on the complexity of the model used to generate them when, as the Fig 2 clearly states, they present "Global Annual Mean" data? Without there being more than one "globe", such a graph will only have "a single-value global temperature for each time point".
As for your little speech about "inital conditions", perhaps you can give an example of which of these "inital conditions" could be "tweeked" to alter the fundamental finding of Lacis et (2010). (Remember this simple experiment is removing some 30Wm^-2 of greenhouse effect. Such a climate forcing, even without feedbacks, is enough to drop global average temperatures by far more that the last ice age achieved.)
ClimateDemon @1266,
I assume your cunningly crafted question is intended to show that a model of an Earth-like planet's climate in which "the temperature is everywhere uniform" would not capture the topological complexity of such a planet. As Lacis et al did not use such a model, your question is entirely misplaced. -
Eclectic at 20:09 PM on 10 July 2020Models are unreliable
ClimateDemon @1266 , your question must necessarily include a pre-condition ~ How long can this planet maintain equilibrium?
You propose an interesting hypothetical planet. To have a uniform surface temperature, that would require it be evenly surrounded by a sphere of identical suns numbering 40 (better, 100 or more). Unfortunately, the planet's central location would not be gravitically stable, and the planet would drift into one of the suns. So the planet's evenly-distributed temperature would persist until shortly before impact.
The unpleasant scenario would have to include the 40 (or 100) suns gravitically attracting each other, and converging to the original central location including the planet (unless the planet had moved some distance ~ owing to the chaotic & nonlinear wing-flapping of an especially powerful gravitic butterfly).
The Clausius-Clapeyron Equation indicates that the planet's beautiful lakes rivers & oceans would rapidly enter a state of very low relative humidity . . . until reaching the plasma state [a state not describe by the C-C Equation, if I understand your earlier comments].
(Moderators may care to remove this slightly Off-Topic post. )
Prev 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 Next
