Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 Next
Comments 7351 to 7400:
-
Eclectic at 04:37 AM on 22 May 2020Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Whari @408 : Sorry, but I am confused by the wording of your question. Can you re-state the point you are discussing?
Am I right in assuming you are talking about the upward Infra-Red radiation spectrum detected by satellites? Or something else? The satellites can detect reflected radiation (visible and near-visible light) or they can detect IR radiation emitted from land / sea / clouds / atmospheric gas (H2O; CO2; CH4; etcetera).
From a GreenHouse point of view, the satellites are detecting upward IR radiation from the upper troposphere (so-called TOA - Top Of Atmosphere - which is at an altitude of approx 3 - 10 km, depending on which latitude and which of the GreenHouse Gasses you are considering). The upper atmosphere is a swirling mix of air (averaging of horizontal winds and vertical convections) and so is not directly connected to the ocean or land surface below.
Heat is lost upwards from ocean & land, by means of air convection & evaporation/re-condensation & Infra-Red radiation (from molecule to molecule in the air).
My apologies if I am misunderstanding you.
-
Whariwharangi at 02:46 AM on 22 May 2020Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
My question is about greenhouse radiation spectrum. Is the radiation spectrum different at surface of blue water ocean and surface of land?
Any spectrum curve I've seen that has location is over land. If there is a difference then the amount of energy available to be absorbed by CO2 would be significant in the discussion.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:30 AM on 21 May 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
nigelj, the final sentence in your comment @8 has led me to more reasoning.
"Hard to see how anyone of sane mind could argue against being helpful."
The Root of the problem is Self Interest being deemed to be an acceptable basis for humans to base their actions on. Humans have evolved and succeeded as Social Beings planning for the Future, not as Individuals acting in the Moment.
What can be understood is how people who are intellectually competent, well-educated, "sane" people could incorrectly argue for being harmful to Others by claiming the supremacy of being Helpful to Themselves or Their Tribe, arguing for Limited Consideration of Others.
It is True that Absolute Altruism is not an appropriate expectation for human behaviour. But Altruistically Helping others by pursuing expanded awareness and improved understanding should be everyone's aspiration combined with diligent effort to ensure no harm is done to Others, no matter how beneficial a harmful action may be perceived to be.
People who will not Self-Govern that way will need to have their actions Externally Governed and Limited. Their Self Interest based arguments can include denial of harm done or a claim of Net-Helpfulness from their perspective. They can even argue that harm only exists if a current living person can prove that they were harmed by the actions of another currently living person or Tribe of People (with those Tribes being any organized group of people - like: nations, states or corporations). That is what often limits legal actions these days, a living person has to prove that the actions of Other living people harmed them. And it is what allows all manner of environmental impacts as long as they are remote from influential people.
The basic argument of Self Interested people is that self interest is a rational basis for determining the acceptability of actions. They can argue that risks and concerns about counter-actions against them by Other Self Interested people will result in no one trying to Help Themselves or Their Tribe in ways that are Harmful to Others. Simple observation of what actually happens can be seen to disprove that claim, not just the Tragedy of the Commons Concept.
Derek Parfit presented a robust evaluation showing the unacceptability of Self Interest as a basis for Morals or Ethics in his book Reasons and Persons (the Wikipedia page on Derek Parfit includes a summary of the book but is not as good as reading the book). His presentation met a barrier to the consideration of future generations that he called the Non-Identity Problem. The problem is the way that the reasoning struggles to address Future Humans because until they actually exist they are not Certain Persons. The actions of current humans affect who the specific future Persons are. So future humans never count as Persons because they are not certain to be the people in the future. It is a rather twisted barrier to consideration of future generations.
I consider the Non-Identity problem to be an incorrect logic artifact that is the result of starting the argument from the Perspective of an Individual Person. Parfit starts his arguments from the Self Interest basis and builds out the argument from that basis. Starting from the Individual Perspective, which Parfit successfully shows to fail to be reasonable, ends up unreasonable regarding future generations.
Instead of Self Interest, the starting point for the arguments needs to be consideration of the entire future of the entire potential of Humanity. From that starting point the basis for Ethics and Morals becomes something like "Pursuing expanded awareness and improved understanding applied to resist harm being done to Others and aspiring to help Others, with Others including all potential future humans on this planet, or any other planet"
That pulls the understanding of Helpfulness out of the Self Interest realm where it can tragically be argued that "A person is Justified to pursue an action based on their perception of how helpful it is to themselves vs. their perception of how harmful it is to Others". The selfish perception becomes the root cause of the problem. It can allow Utilitarians to argue for very harmful actions. And it allows people to argue for Their collective actions to be allowed to harm Others by considering things from the perspective of Their Tribe or Collective.
If the perception of the Tribe becomes the entire human population, now and eternally into the future, then the perception of self interest benefit from actions by any sub-set of that massive total population can be easily seen to be nullified by the need to consider the total harm done to all Others.
Applying that to climate change impacts leads to understanding that "No amount of perceived benefit by the current beneficiaries of activities that contribute to rapid climate change, or breaching any other planetary impact boundaries (regionally or globally), can match the total harm done to all the Others Today and into the far future, unless consideration of the future is Discounted (which I argue is reasonably obviously an incorrect thing to do).
-
howardlee at 23:49 PM on 20 May 2020PETM climate warming 56 million years ago strongly tied to igneous activity
William - the focus is now very much on what feedbacks added to, or reduced, the PETM warming. As you can see from the quotes here, some scientists see a larger role for feedbacks than others, but the Jones et al and Gutjahr et al papers point to a modest role for them in relation to the igneous-liberated methane and the volcanic CO2. This hinges on very high emissions - but is in line with a new paper for the end-Triassic mass extinction: https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/05/12/2000095117
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:52 PM on 20 May 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
nigelj,
The total global population will not be 2 billion at any point in the foreseeable future. And it is likely to be peaking at or above 10 billion soon and be declining slowly after the peak.
The real issue is the Total Impacts of human activity being sustainable. And the Planetary Boundaries are a pretty well developed understanding of where human total impacts are, and where they are headed.
Wikipedia is not my favorite Reference resource. But the Planetary Boundaries presentation on Wikipedia is quite well done.
All identified areas of impact can be understood to be getting worse, with some impacts already beyond the sustainable levels of impact. And some, like Climate Impacts, are not at the limit yet but the developed understanding is that exceeding many of the Limits will be Locked-In soon unless there is a very rapid correction of the socioeconomic-political systems that promote, develop and defend harmful drivers of human behaviour.
Back in the 1970s when the 1972 Stockholm Conference was held there was still time for the gradual implementation of corrections of many harmful things that had developed, but not the Ozone Layer.Though the Ozone layer problem was fairly successfully addressed, a significant response to the larger understanding of required corrections was the Reagan/Thatcher 1980s with their declaration that Government Helpfully Governing and Limiting what could be done was Evil.The elections of leaders like Bush, Inhofe, McConnell and Trump in the USA are the result of the social devolution and related resistance to improved understanding that was promoted, encouraged and defended by that grossly harmfully incorrect ultimately unsustainable belief that Government could not be Helpful. -
Doug Bostrom at 08:32 AM on 20 May 2020PETM climate warming 56 million years ago strongly tied to igneous activity
A terrific series, Howard. Science encylopedia quality, but not as dry and dusty in the exposition. :-)
Thanks so much.
-
nigelj at 07:08 AM on 20 May 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
OPOF @6,
"a Sustainable Total Population
with Sustainable Total Consumption
and Sustainable levels of Total Waste and Other Negative Impacts.
with the most fortunate setting good examples for everyone else to aspire to develop to and helping the least fortunate live basic decent lives."This is good but needs development. The 12 billion total global population quoted in the research as sustainable is a maximum. No reason is given to maximise population. Like you say a smaller population could have a better standard of living, all other things being equal. We should be looking at a minimum sustainable population and research suggests 2 billion people as below (just a couple of examples form a quick google search, not suggesting they are perfect examples).
news.stanford.edu/pr/94/940711Arc4189.html
www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/apr/26/world-population-resources-paul-ehrlich
Obviously this reduces all enviromental pressures other things being equal, and provided we can also encourage people to stabilise or reduce consumption. I fear it will be very difficult to rely 'purely' on hoping people reduce consumption to fix environmental problems, and may not be sufficient anyway, hence the need to consider population size.
Imho sustainable total consumption might be defined as 1)living within the ability of the biosphere to regenerate and 2) not wasting and squandering non renewable resources and 3) defining robust and generous minimum acceptable areas for natural resources, eg the Amazon rainforest.
Sustainable waste might be to aim for zero waste while recognising some things cant be recycled, and can be disposed of in landfill if its done safely.
Hard to see how anyone of sane mind could argue against being helpful.
-
nigelj at 06:47 AM on 20 May 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
OPOF @6 and anyone interested. New article in our media on climate change, population growth and consumption.
-
william5331 at 06:15 AM on 20 May 2020PETM climate warming 56 million years ago strongly tied to igneous activity
If, during the PETM, the ocean acidified, a further feed back loop could have been the suppression of the growth of various marine organisms that sequester Carbon dioxide as Calcium carbonate. Such 'organisms' as coral reefs, oysters, Pteropods may all have been suppressed, removing a sink for the extra Carbon dioxide. In addition, methane, as a short time green house gas is about 140 times as powerful as Carbon dioxide so this may have had an effect as well.
https://mtkass.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-real-strength-of-methane.html
Moderator Response:[DB] Self-promotional advertising snipped.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:56 PM on 19 May 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
nigelj,
We do agree on the majority of the issue. But I still perceive an important difference of understanding.
Getting people to give up the incorrect over-development of harmful wasteful consumption that the dominant socioeconomic-political systems have encouraged to develop will require fundamental aspects of the developed systems to be corrected.
Another Objective based way of identifying the Root Cause is - Sustainability of the Total of Human activity Everywhere Now and Forever is essential. And that requires every human to at least be living a basic decent life in ways that limit Harm to Others (and the future generations are Others deserving Equal consideration). The future consequences of failing to achieve that objective are well understood. Even military strategists recognize the risk, the potential for harmful regional abuse by misleading appealing Political Actors, of failing to achieve that. So that means:
- a Sustainable Total Population
- with Sustainable Total Consumption
- and Sustainable levels of Total Waste and Other Negative Impacts.
- with the most fortunate setting good examples for everyone else to aspire to develop to and helping the least fortunate live basic decent lives.
There is no absolute number for the ideal population, just an upper planetary resource limit. And the current understanding is a population limit of about 12 billion. A lower total population does indeed allow a better way of living for the least fortunate (and everyone else). But at 12 billion it is possible for everyone to live a decent basic life with many living with More than their basic needs being decently met.
The current global development is Off-Course in many ways (and way off-course in some ways like fossil fuel use), especially the ways that the majority of the Richest and Most Powerful, and the many admirers who want to be Part of That Gang, have developed a liking to Act. And that development off-course has been happening long enough to create many harmfully unsustainable perceptions of How To Live A Good Life, massive harmful wasteful Over-Consumption.
Liking harmful unsustainable activity, and a failure to appreciate the importance of Being Impressed and Contented with Pursuing Actual Sustainable Improvements, is the Root Cause of Climate Change. That change of attitude will be required to achieve the required limits of climate change harm to future generations.
The required course correction, the return down from the incorrect over-development, involves altering the Driver. Being impressed by flashier, fancier, more enjoyable, cheaper and quicker ways of doing things, and being impressed without understanding if there are harmful results of what is Impressive is a serious problem - a root cause of many harmful developments (and harmful resistance to giving up incorrectly over-developed ways of living).
The current dominant Driver of "Competing for Perceptions of Superiority in poorly governed and harmfully unrestricted games of Popularity and Profit" must be Governed and Limited by the Helpful Objective "All human activity being Governed and Limited by the pursuit of expanded awareness and improved understanding to correct the harmful likings that have developed and help develop sustainable improvements for Humanity."
That is "Learning to be Helpful", which is not quite the same as Morals or Ethics but related. Learning is open to change and correction. Many people consider Morals or Ethics to be Fixed Rules which is a very unhelpful way of thinking about Moral or Ethics (it can lead to attempts to Game or Cheat The Rules).
That Alteration of the Driver will not be easy. Some people will learn to Responsible Self-Govern, even older people can learn that. But many people will try to get away with Behaving More Harmfully, Less Helpfully. A lot needs to be corrected and the resistance to correction is very powerful. There is so much Personal Perceptions of Benefit at Stake (those middle class likings you refer to). But there is no lasting improving future for humanity without that Driver Change occurring.
The developed systems that prolong or increase the Incorrect Driving Behaviour are ultimately the Root Cause of almost all Human Caused problems. Anything that is not Human Caused is a Challenge for Humans to Learn to Adapt to. Any Human Caused Problem requires Correction even if the correction is Unpopular or Unprofitable.
-
michael sweet at 02:50 AM on 19 May 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Alea,
Sorry about that. For anyone else here is the correct link.
Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part I:
Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure,
and materials
Mark Z. Jacobson a,n, Mark A. Delucch -
One Planet Only Forever at 15:01 PM on 18 May 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
nigelj,
Many Human activities, not just fossil fuel use, are contributing to Climate Change. And all of them need to be corrected.
Some of them, like fossil fuel use, need to be stopped (to be replaced by energy generation that is sustainable).
Other activities that need to be stopped are ones that also produce ghgs like cement and steel production (to be replaced with materials or methods of production that are sustainable).
And other activities, like cutting down and using trees, needs to be done sustainably, which includes being done in ways that do not increase ghgs.
So the root cause of climate change and many other harmful developments is the unsustainable ways of living that humans have developed a liking for, and resist correcting.
-
alea at 08:33 AM on 18 May 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Michael@28 The link doesn't work but I have found the paper and downloaded it. I will read it as it sounds like I could learn something from it, if not give me a bit of hope.
-
nigelj at 06:42 AM on 18 May 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
Pie chart of USA emissions profile here.
-
nigelj at 06:41 AM on 18 May 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
OPOF @2
"The root cause of climate change is the Total Impact of Human activities."
No, with all due respect. The root cause is typically defined as "A root cause is an initiating cause of either a condition or a causal chain that leads to an outcome or effect of interest. The term denotes the earliest, most basic, 'deepest', cause for a given behavior; most often a fault." I think that implicit in this is identifying one singular cause if possible, or as few root causes as possible. Total impact of human activities are just contributing causes. Fossil fuels fits the definition of root cause best.
In the USA 90% of emissions come from transport, heating, industry and electricity and almost all of that comes from burning fossil fuels. 10% comes from agriculture. So the root cause of climate change is predominantly fossil fuels, with agriculture added on as a smaller root cause. If we had not discovered oil and coal, and had nuclear power or renewables, electric transport etcetera, climate change would not be a significant issue.
Reducing our consumption and population are just tools to combat the climate problem because renewables are unable to do the job alone in time. But its serendipitous because reducing consumption and population growth have other obvious benefits as well.
"However, simply reducing the Total Population or Total Consumption, even dramatically doing that, is not a Good solution. A smaller population with more harmful but 'lower' consumption could be much worse."
Agree with this and the rest of your comments. A smaller population could also consume more per capita, especially as the resources might become available. So smaller population is a necessary but insufficient condition. Humanity just needs a change of mindest away from rampant materialism. Maybe its a moral issue ultimately?
But we have to be realistic, and its hard for me to see people giving up basic products that are an established part of middle class life. They might however give up on things that are just for show and cost a lot of money like big SUV's and big flashy homes. Either way, because of these unknowns and difficulties, it seems prudent to use several tools to attack the climate problem.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:26 AM on 18 May 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
nigelj,
The root cause of climate change is the Total Impact of Human activities.
Over-consumption is a significant factor in the Total Impact. The Total Human population and the ways of living that the Total Population aspire to Enjoy is also a signficant factor.
However, simply reducing the Total Population or Total Consumption, even dramatically doing that, is not a Good solution. A smaller population with more harmful but 'lower' consumption could be much worse.
The solution is to reduce the Total Negative Impacts. And that does require dramtically reducing the harm done by the ways of living that have harmful impacts (which can be related to Over-Consumption). That requires all of the Leaders and Winners, not just the sub-set who choose to care, to set the examples and improve the understanding of the ways of living that everyone can aspire to develop to enjoy, and help the less fortunate advance to better ways of living.
The most significant required correction is the ending of the harmfully incorrect belief that 'Better Results will develop if people are freer to believe whatever they want to excuse doing whatever they develop a liking for'.
The Best Future Result is achieved if All Human Actions are Governed and Limited by 'Expanding awarenss and improved understanding of what is going on pursued and applied to reduce the harm done and to help develop lasting improvements for humanity'.
-
nigelj at 08:03 AM on 17 May 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
Most of these look like great books.Thank's.
"Christiana Figueres and Tom Rivett-Carnac paint two side-by-side visions of the world in 2050: a hot, pollution-choked hellscape rife with water wars and nationalist paranoia, and a hopeful, forested world of high-speed trains, energy efficiency and community-based agriculture."
To me this gives clear choices, a useful realistic solution, and hope.
"We won’t get there with solar panels and electric vehicles alone, he says, criticizing those as market-based mechanisms that reinforce the status quo. Instead, success requires a political and economic revolution"
To me this is empty hand waving. Solar panels and EV's have been around for ages. The first silicon based photo voltaic solar panel was developed by Bell Labs in 1954. The first working electric motor and electric vehicle, a small locomotive that used two electromagnets, a pivot and a battery, was built by Thomas Davenport, an American from Vermont, in 1834 or 1835.
Its true the recent expansion of solar panels and EV's are products of markets, and market friendly mechanisms like cap and trade, but virtually everything we consume is a product of "the market". I doubt that the governmnet should build solar panels, and I doubt that the writers provide an alternative to the market that can be implimented in time to fix the climate problem, and that is going to gain wide traction. You are better to look at sensible interventions in the market, and the scandinavian model that combines market with some government action.
"The end of the book touches on several big interventions that might curb climate change, ...., but Jahren argues these won’t fix the root cause of climate change: overconsumption. "
I thought the root cause was burning fossil fuels, actually. Even if we only burned them at half current levels we would arguably still have a climate problem, just delayed. However reduced consumption is obviously one helpful tool in mitigating climate change. What you have to think about is how much the average person would be prepared to reduce consumption, and plan the total mitigation strategy around that, and then have a backup plan in case people don't reduce their consumption. You also need a backup plan in case we dont build renewables fast enough, although its clearly gaining a life of its own as prices have tumbled.
-
michael sweet at 07:31 AM on 15 May 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
The Solutions Project (Jacobson runs it) has plans for most of the countries in the world. The UK solution projects Percentage of United Kingdom Land Needed for All New Wind, Water & Solar Generators
0.80% Footprint area 0.99% Spacing Area. That is hardly half the land in the UK. Offshore wind is about 33% of power. Perhaps a different method of measuring the area is used in the two sources.The area used by renewable energy was a big argument 12 years ago when your book was printed. After Jacobson 2011's calculations it has been rare to hear this issue raised.
-
michael sweet at 07:06 AM on 15 May 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Alea,
Jacobson 2011 includes calculations of how much land will be occupied by the required generators (primarily wind and solar). In most of the EU, more wind will be used since they are so far north. For the UK there is a large wind resource off shore which would use up zero land, only fill ocean space.
In general the land area used turns out to be realtively small. From the abstract of Jacobson 2011
"Such a WWS infrastructure [producing all power from renewables] reduces world power demand by 30% and requires only 0.41% and 0.59% more of the world’s land for footprint and spacing, respectively." my bracket
For onshore wind the foot print of the generators is very small. The land in between generators can be used for farming or other uses. Currently strip mining renders a lot of land unusable.
World power demand is reduced because renewable energy is much more efficient than fossil power. For example to generate 1000 watts of electricity from a coal burning power plant: 10% of the power in the coal is used to mine and transport the coal to the power plant. Thermal generators are about 40% energy efficient (the remainder is waste heat). To generate 1000 watts of electricity you need to mine 2800 watts of coal. If you use solar panels to provide 1000 watts of electricity to the grid you only need to generate 1000 watts of electricity at the panels (essentially 100% efficient). Electric cars save even more power because ICE motors in cars are only 20-25% efficient.
-
alea at 01:34 AM on 15 May 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
MA Rodger @26
Page 114: "We've established that the UK's present lifestyle can't be sustained on the UK's own renewables (except with the industrialisation of country-sized areas of land and sea).
Figure 28.2 on page 215 shows a map of renewable energy generation with a bit of nuclear and clean coal thrown in. As mentioned several times in the book, the land area required is huge, nearly half the land in the UK.
He shows plans that might work which include importing renewable energy from overseas, such as solar farms in deserts, and geothermal from Iceland.
It is a bit unfortunate in the UK that the places which have the highest potential for renewable energy generation also have the lowest population density (Scotland), and vice versa (SE England).
Since the book is out of date and so is overly pessimistic regarding renewable energy potential, I will have a look at some of these research papers that say transitioning to renewables is easy.
-
MA Rodger at 22:40 PM on 14 May 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Alea @24,
You say of the book you cite ('Sustainable Energy - without the hot air' by David MacKay) "The conclusion is that Britain cannot live on its own renewables" but this is surely not the message presented by the book. The book shows the task is possible but not easy with the conclusion saying:-
32 Saying yes
Because Britain currently gets 90% of its energy from fossil fuels, it’s no surprise that getting off fossil fuels requires big, big changes – a total change in the transport fleet; a complete change of most building heating systems; and a 10- or 20-fold increase in green power.
...
We need to choose a plan that adds up. It is possible to make a plan that adds up, but it’s not going to be easy.
We need to stop saying no and start saying yes. We need to stop the Punch and Judy show and get building. -
michael sweet at 21:19 PM on 14 May 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Alea,
There are hundreds of peer reviewed papers that show that it will be easy to transition to renewable energy. The transition to renewable will result in more jobs, cheaper energy, much less pollution and increased health (primarily from decreased pollution). The book you cite was never close to accutrate even 12 years ago. Further advances and decreases in cost of renewable energy since then make it all the more absurd.
-
alea at 19:19 PM on 14 May 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Has anyone read the book "Sustainable Energy Without The Hot Air"?
The author calculates the energy usage of the average British resident per day, and goes through a list of renweable energy sources using observational energy density (power generated per sq km) to see whether they can meet the demand. One primary message that comes out is that renewable energy is very dilute, so you need huge land (or sea) areas for solar or wind electricity generation. The conclusion is that Britain cannot live on its own renewables. Admittedly the book was written about 12 years ago so maybe the energy density of renewables has increased (but so has energy consumption).
http://www.withouthotair.com/c4/page_32.shtml
http://www.withouthotair.com/c6/page_38.shtml
http://www.withouthotair.com/c8/page_55.shtml
http://www.withouthotair.com/c10/page_60.shtml
http://www.withouthotair.com/c12/page_73.shtml
http://www.withouthotair.com/c14/page_81.shtml
http://www.withouthotair.com/c16/page_96.shtml
https://www.withouthotair.com/c18/page_103.shtml
http://www.withouthotair.com/c25/page_177.shtml
http://www.withouthotair.com/c30/page_231.shtml
-
scaddenp at 07:12 AM on 14 May 2020Climate sensitivity is low
Climate theory is most certainly not based on climate modelling, but observation including the measurable increase in surface irradiation from increased CO2. If sun increased output by 4W/m2 then you would surely expect earth to warm (if not, what is your theory for seasons), but somehow increase from GHG wont cause warming. Climate models are our best guide as to how the future might look. Far from perfect but lightyears ahead of reading entrails or believing nothing will change. I remain stunned that people insist the consensus reported by the IPCC is wrong while obviously having never even opened it the WG1 reports.
-
RedBaron at 06:52 AM on 14 May 2020Climate sensitivity is low
@381 Deplore This. Everyone has seen this argument. It was a well known published "merchant of doubt" argument full of logic fallicies and false premises designed to mislead people like you... which unfortunately it seems to have worked so far. However, if you are honestly seeking a University level course, I suggest you change your google search terms to "statistical modeling" and /or "statistical modeling of climate change" and you will find a whole lot of universities in the world can help you.
And yes sensitivity is a factor in all of them. In some as a constant and in a few papers there are calls for sensitivity as a variable to fine tune accuracy.
However, the statement, "The theory is based upon modeling climate sensitivity to CO2" is false. Called a false premise logic fallacy.
Actually global warming is based on empirical evidence.
Moderator Response:[DB] The user to whom you are replying has recused themselves from further participation here.
-
Deplore This at 03:36 AM on 14 May 2020Climate sensitivity is low
I am an anthropogenic climate change denier because I have never found any scientific evidence that supports it. The theory is based upon modeling climate sensitivity to CO2 and as you state: “In truth, nobody knows for sure quite how much the temperature will rise”.
We hear regularly from the media that 90+% of scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change but my question is how many scientists are actually trained and practice climate modeling?
I’ve looked at the undergraduate and graduate curriculum for the top US environmental science universities and have found only one course on climate modeling. Penn State offered METEO 523 in Spring 2020 and only 6 of 30 seats were filled and the course has been since dropped. So what course is available in climate modelling so I can learn the science?
Given the lack of curriculum on climate modeling it is apparent that all climate science curriculum is based upon the assumption of anthropogenic climate change without providing any scientific evidence or expertise. This isn’t science, it’s group think. So the opinion of those 90+% so called scientists is based upon blind faith rather than science. This isn’t science it’s a hoax.
I remain interested in finding a quality course in climate modeling.
Moderator Response:[DB] Please start off by reading this thread and this thread. Then proceed to this post, which discusses the empirical evidence for AGW. Skeptical Science has dedicated posts on pretty much every point anyone would think to contend with the science of climate change on, just use the Search function to find the most appropriate thread, read it including the comments, and only then if you still have questions, post them there, and not here.
Off-topic and Gish Gallop snipped per the Comments Policy, which you should also read. As this is a moderated forum, you should also ensure that future comments are constructed to adhere to it.
Moderation complaints and sloganeering are unacceptable.
-
nigelj at 07:01 AM on 13 May 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
Scaddenp @9, yes I know what William is saying. However using dunite as enhanced weathering to essentially capture carbon might be a little bit quicker than you think. I mentioned it because this is a sort of general news page.
Depends on how you define quickly I guess. This article suggests that if broken up and spread thinly and scaled up, it has the potential to capture 20% of our yearly emissions, so one years emissions in five years, ten years of current emissions in 50 years, which is a significant sized chunk of what's in the atmosphere. It just surprised me a bit because I thought it would be slower.
It's expensive, but without some of the tricky problems of other approaches. Might make for an interesting article. Its not even remotely a replacement for renewable energy, but could be useful technology.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:39 AM on 13 May 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
The BBC item I linked to @10 is a comprehensive presentation that is based on the information sources MA Rodgers has noted and a little more.
-
MA Rodger at 18:44 PM on 12 May 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
William @5,
Regarding the effect of a Covid-19-induced reduction in CO2 emissions & the impact on atmospheric CO2, there is a CarbonBrief article by an impressive list of guest authors on this very subject. They suggest that atmospheric CO2 (as measured at MLO) would have shown a BAU increase of 2.80ppm (± 0.57) but, with the reduction in global CO2 emissions due to the Covid-19 crisis, estimate at 8% for the year with the implied atmospheric CO2 increase being 0.32ppm less or 11% smaller.
As a rule of thumb, we need to reduce CO2 emissions by roughly 50% to put a halt to increasing atmospheric CO2 (and this a temporary halt without continued cuts in emissions). However, under BAU we are still seeing small increases in CO2 emissions (Global Carbon Project numbers averaging 1% increase per year in recent years, down from 3% a decade ago but still an increase.)
-
One Planet Only Forever at 15:01 PM on 12 May 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
william @5,
As scaddenp has indicated the CO2 production reduction during the COVID-19 restriction of activity should not be expected to result in a reduction of atmospheric CO2 levels. Even if no more new CO2 was being generated by any human activities, the process of CO2 removal is rather slow. More important, the reduction of fossil fuel use has not been a full shut-down, not even close.
Check out this recent BBC News Item.
The reduction of production of new CO2 is very significant. And the COVID-19 Dip could help achieve the globally agreed limit of harm to future generations, harm being done by portions of the current generation continuing to desire to benefit from harmful fossil fuel abuse. But the real test will be if there is actually an increased awareness and improved understanding that it is unacceptable for people to only care about their personal opportunities for benefit and risk of harm.
Will more people realize that the fact that they are not the only human requires that they strive to Not Harm Any Others, and try to help develop sustainable improvements for the future of humanity? That is what the COVID-19 restrictions are all about, personal limits of behaviour to reduce the risk of harming Others.
-
scaddenp at 14:01 PM on 12 May 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
Nigel, I understood William to be asking about Covid-related CO2 reduction which I dont think could reduce atmosphere CO2. Even if emissions went to zero, natural CO2 removal cant happen fast. Dunite and other enchanced-weathering based solutions are very slow. And emissions havent stopped, just slowed.
-
nigelj at 10:33 AM on 12 May 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #19
Excellent recent national geographic article on reducing waste and the circular economyhere.
-
nigelj at 09:48 AM on 12 May 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
Scaddenp @7. One word. Dunite.
-
scaddenp at 07:24 AM on 12 May 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
William - I dont see much of possibility for decreaing CO2 in atmosphere. How would that happen so fast? I do think it should heavily (and temporarily sadly) reduce the rate of increase for this year.
-
nigelj at 06:40 AM on 12 May 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
OPOF @4, thanks appreciated. NZ did implement various measures to try to stop the spread of the virus to the pacific islands. Our government is led by a left leaning party which has always been sympathetic to the needs of the pacific islands, however there is also a conservative party in the coalition with an equal commitment to their interests. NZ has always had a close economic, and immigration relationship with the pacific islands
New Zealand has just exited a very severe lockdown, but one I feel made sense to curb the spread of the virus.The severe lockdown seems to have worked because new numbers of infections are down to about two per day. Its hard to gauge the economic consequences, but at this stage unemployment numbers are much lower than America on a per capita basis. But its been very tough on business and too early to really say.
The fact we have got the numbers of infections right down was probably because we entered this lockdown very early, when infection numbers were very low. Leave it too late and its hopeless.
I do not wish to come across as complaining about the lockdown. It hasn't been too horrendous, time to catch up with some reading etc, and the government has carefully considered the economic implications. However I find suggestions that lockdowns show that its possible to make truly huge reductions to energy use a bit shallow as previously pointed out. But we can clearly make some reductions without pain, for the good of the planet.
-
william5331 at 06:21 AM on 12 May 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
If the reduction in CO2 emissions due to C19 does not show a decrease in atmospheric Carbon dioxide, it might mean that we are already in a tipping point and are unlikely to be able to control the situation.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:28 AM on 12 May 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
nigelj,
I am impressed by the extraordinary measures taken in New Zealand to limit the risk that COVID-19 would be spread to the South Pacific island states that New Zealand is the portal to.
I appreciate how much of a restriction and sacrifice that was, just for the benefit of people on other islands that few people in New Zealand ever visit and that New Zealand and the rest of the world receives no significant economic benefit from. I compare it to Canada's Leadership responsibility to indigenous populations. That is something that Canadians are waking up to. However, some prefer to fight to keep on Dreaming about Making Canada Great Again, like when it's Leadership did not care so much about Others who they may be able to make Disappear with actions tantamount to Cultural Genocide - a recent conclusion of what Canadian Leadership had done in the past because the majority of the colonizing population had developed a liking for that type of leadership, leading to the need for Truth and Reconciliation (imagine that - colonizers liking what they could get away with, and their future generations having to break free of the tragic thinking and try to make amends for it).
The recent spread of measles to those South Pacific islands connected to New Zealand was a tragic wake-up to the many ways that more fortunate nations have responsibility for protection of the populations that are less advanced (and may actually be more advanced socially) but are able to live decent lives without the extravagance and distraction of industrial consumerism.
I visited the Cook Islands many decades ago. It was an incredibly relaxing, enjoyable and educational week. In my MBA, my Critical Thinking course, an Option, included the presentation of many challenging alternative Real ways that economic activity occurred around the world in the 1980s. The way that Cook Islanders lived was refreshing, though even they were succumbing to the temptations to get new technology devices they really didn't need, steps onto the slippery slope towards immersion in harmful industrial consumerism.
-
James Charles at 20:17 PM on 11 May 2020IPCC human-caused global warming attribution confidence is unfounded
“We don’t look for absolute proof, as that can never really exist in science, we look for what the preponderance of evidence tells us. There is no absolute proof for Gravity, Evolution, Quantum Mechanics, Particle Physics, insert your discipline of choice. There is only what the weight of evidence tells us. Climatology is no different.”
scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/05/there-is-no-evidence/
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:48 AM on 11 May 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
It is easy to be angry and disappointed by the restrictions of Freedom that were required to limit the rate of spread of COVID-19. After all, the vast majority of the benefit was the limiting of Harm Done To Others. Many people were willing to Personally Risk Their Chance of Getting the Disease rather than limit how they lived and behaved to reduce the Harm Done to Others. And many people decided to believe that the recommended actions did not actually Reduce the Harm Done to Others, or tried to claim that there needed to be a "balance" (code to disguise a push for a Harmful Compromise), of their personal benefit with the harm done to Others by their actions. And some of them, like a Texas Leader declared that Older people should be happy to experience an early death from COVID-19 if that would Help preserve and protect the economy for Others.
I think there is a Good Understanding that can be taken from the COVID-19 experience that relates to the pursuit of limiting the Harm of Climate Change and more rapidly achieving and improving on all of the Other Sustainable Development Goals. The developed socioeconomic-political systems have caused a lot of people to develop powerful motivations to resist "Limiting and correcting their developed and liked behaviours to reduce the Harm Done To Others".
"Developing a liking for activity that is understandably harmful to Others and resisting being limited or corrected" cannot be defended as being helpful. It can only be excused (and it is a poor excuse) as Human Nature Focused on Pursuit of Personal Interests with the consideration of acceptability, the thinking associated with self-governing and self-limiting of actions, being restricted to Personal Perceptions of Benefits and Risk of Harm. That thinking pursues benefit even if there is some personal risk of harm. And that type of thinking can exaggerate or incorrectly perceive benefits and be dismissive of, diminish, or misunderstand the risks.
In addition to the Individual Focus on Benefit and Harm being misleading, as soon as a person is living as part of a community of Others, even just a community of 2, that Individual limit of thinking about self-governing and self-limiting needs to become Limited by the requirement to "Avoid acting in ways that Harm or increase the risk of Harm to Others", and "Aspiring to act in ways that are Helpful to Others".
And each sub-community of a larger community must also Govern and limit its collective actions to Avoid Harming Others, and Aspire to Help Others (a fundamental understanding of many Religions that many people claiming to be Religious seem to deliberately miss).
Expanded awareness and improved understanding applied to Help develop sustainable improvements for all of Humanity, everywhere today and into the far future, leads to learning about the unacceptability of the Socioeconomic-political systems that have developed and the many undeserved perceptions of Superiority that have developed.
The Harmful potential of Selfishness, and the fact that all humans have the ability to learn to limit how Harmful they are to Others and increase how Helpful they are to Others is what Everyone needs to Learn from the COVID-19 experience. That understanding makes people Less Easily Impressed which enables them to more accurately identify who deserves to have Higher Status.
-
Joel_Huberman at 23:44 PM on 10 May 2020PETM climate warming 56 million years ago strongly tied to igneous activity
Thanks, Howard Lee, for another of your interesting explanations of the conflicting hypotheses behind mass extinction events. I'm looking forward to parts 2 and 3.
-
nigelj at 16:37 PM on 10 May 2020The Conspiracy Theory Handbook: Downloads and translations
Eclectic @14, ha ha very true, except I'm making the lizard stuff up as I go along, although I vaguely recall reading about the theory a few years ago, is to by David Ickeman? Apparently the royal family are prime suspects.
Hilarious isnt it. I find it the least interesting of conspiracy theories, because its so totally insane. Maybe it started as a joke.
But by sunbathing I just meant to raise their body temperature. Curiously enough my garden has been invaded by small lizards recently...
Yes the denialists final argument is its all lies, or all a conspiracy. Its all something, but whatever it is don't expect us to accept the science or do anything, and don't even think about taxing us, and giving the dividend back, or slightly taking away our freedoms, we would just die. It would be awful.
-
nigelj at 15:36 PM on 10 May 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
The covid 19 lockdowns are brutal causing massive unemployment, economic depression and hardship. Only a fool would promote anything like that to mitigate climate change. And the results mostly don't look durable. New Zealand left a very severe lock down about 10 days ago, and there was virtually a stampede back to normality. (Semi normality to be accurate)
But there might be one positive spinoff for the climate. The covid issue has shown the ability of governments to act robustly and decisively (America possibly excepted) when lives are at stake and so people might now be more receptive to strong government climate initiatives.
The flip side is that lock downs have had pretty horrible economic consequences, so might put people off government climate mitigation.
The one thing that might remain is more working from home, which might have some long term impact on emissions. The reason I say this is most organisations seemed to have been able to work from home quite effectively. But only time will tell.
And the other positive spinoff might be that covid 19 has woken people up to the fragility of our civilisation, and might get them thinking more about climate problems.
-
Eclectic at 15:26 PM on 10 May 2020The Conspiracy Theory Handbook: Downloads and translations
Nigelj , you are well ahead of me ~ obviously you are at the Advanced Level for detection of Lizards. I can only stand in awe of you, and your courage. But I do hope you are postponing your "kissing technique" until after the Coronavirus Social Distancing regulations are revoked. Or do you surreptitiously inject Them with bleach, first?
Nor had I heard about the Lizard Overlords' sun bathing habits. Is it true that their skins will tan to a slight orange, after only minimal sun exposure? It would explain something that I had been wondering about! It would also explain all the "speaking with forked tongue", which has become ever more prominent in certain political circles. Though older journalists will say that twas ever thus for politicians . . . which might well indicate that the Overlords have been in charge for much longer than we imagined.
By "thermostat settings", presumably you mean that the Lizards like hot conditions. Conspiracy-wise , this would also explain why most politicians talk the talk . . . but are hardly lifting a finger to counteract Global Warming. See, it all fits into place!
More seriously : Conspiracy is always the last refuge of the climate scoundrel ** .
** Climate Scoundrel sounds better, IMO, than Climate Skeptic ~ but as a label, I rather doubt it is going to take off.
Whenever you push a pseudo-skeptic into a corner, by relentlessly using logic & evidence . . . eventually the pseudo-skeptic won't admit that he is wrong, but will play his last card : Conspiracy. It is all conspiracy ~ every climate scientist in the world has joined a conspiracy to fake all the data. And why no whistleblowers among these millions of scientists? . . . okay, that just points to a Whistleblower Conspiracy as well.
-
nigelj at 13:03 PM on 10 May 2020The Conspiracy Theory Handbook: Downloads and translations
I suppose it had to happen. A conspiracy theory movie on covid 19 circulating on youtube claiming its all a conspiracy by big pharma and the government to force people to use vaccines. The cheerleader for the moronic rubbish is Dr Mikovitz, apparently "once a practising medical researcher, spent five days in jail for allegedly stealing material from a lab and had her research on chronic fatigue discredited in 2011." she is also a prominent anti vaxer. Newspaper article on the movie here.
Eclectic, you just have to look at the suspected lizard shape shifters sun bathing habits and thermostat settings and on kissing them check for a forked tongue.
-
Lawrence Tenkman at 09:48 AM on 10 May 2020Greenhouse effect has been falsified
Of course, the moon getting so cold and staying so cold all night has a lot to do with the length of the lunar night too, and many more things I'm not an expert on.
Someone recently tried to tell me the greenhouse effect can't matter b/c the moon which has no CO2 gets hotter than the earth. But that graph was impressive how the temp seems to sit near the Nadir most of the night... and shows that the moon is WAY colder than the earth.
Thank you!
-
Lawrence Tenkman at 09:35 AM on 10 May 2020Greenhouse effect has been falsified
It sounds like the moon equator average temp is a lot colder than the mean of 130ºC and -110ºC (reference in 163). But the mean of those 2 numbers is not, not 20ºC (said in 162), it is 10ºC.
Thank you MA Rodger. The graph in Figure 9a mentioned in 163 shows that you can't just average max hot and max cold to get the average lunar temperature. One can see how fast a planet cools when there is no atmosphere to retain heat nocturnally. The overall temperature average is so much closer to the maximum cold temp, b/c it spends so much more time there. While it takes so much time to heat to max temp during the lunar day (it's only at this max for a short while), max cold temp is reached almost as soon as night falls and it stays at that max cold all night.
-
Eclectic at 09:32 AM on 10 May 2020IPCC human-caused global warming attribution confidence is unfounded
Very well expressed, Philippe and MA Rodger.
What is the probability that the poster @3 will return to admit his mistake in logical thinking? Or will he fall back and use Curry's technique of vague rhetorical blather ~ so sadly deficient in critical analysis.
-
Eclectic at 09:13 AM on 10 May 2020The Conspiracy Theory Handbook: Downloads and translations
Nigelj @11 , sorry, but it is no use trying to identify our shape-shifting Lizard Overlords.
They walk among us, and we can have no idea how many they are, for they are so convincing. Just when you think you have spotted the blink of a nictitating eyelid membrane . . . they explain it away as being just their contact lenses.
-
MA Rodger at 09:12 AM on 10 May 2020IPCC human-caused global warming attribution confidence is unfounded
Deplore This @3,
As set out by Philippe Chantreau @5, in the time of Galileo there wasn't much of a process which could be today called a "scientific community's acceptance" to allow us to understand how far Galileo's contemparies accepted his work. All we hear is that the Pope famously got very 'trumpy' with his work. But if you roll the clock on 50 years and you find the likes of 'Entretiens sur la pluralité des mondes' or 'Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica' so in 50 years there was established complete acceptance.
And so for comprison, 50 years on from, say, the likes of John Sawyer setting out the scientific case for saying:-
"The increase of 25% CO2 expected by the end of the century therefore corresponds to an increase of 0.6 °C in the world temperature – an amount somewhat greater than the climatic variation of recent centuries."
50 years on we see there is a very strong consensus that such a finding is correct. And spelling-wise, "Judith Curry" is correct although so much of what she writes about climate change is unsubstatiated nonsense.
-
alea at 08:53 AM on 10 May 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
The pandemic is temporarily good for the environment, but I'm a bit uncomfortable about trying to use it as an example of how a low carbon way of living could be, and how it isn't that difficult. The article seems to focus purely on the emissions from the reduction of transport and industry, which is all well and good, and yes, it does show to a point there are better ways of doing some things, but a skeptic might ask what is the point in having a better environment if you can't go out and appreciate it. If getting our emissions down involves slashing our freedom of mobility, cuts us off from distant family relatives, destroys our social lives, stops us enjoying our hobbies (like hiking in my case), and results in a deterioration in mental health because people can't enjoy physical connection with their friends and loved ones, is that really a better way of living? We have to hope, and advocate, that this pandemic could lead a way of having the same environmental benefits as the without the major downsides. I'd like to think we can, if I take a train to Scotland, spend a week point to point backpacking around the highlands, then get a train home, is that really so environmentally evil? I hope not, because it is really beneficial for my mental health.
Prev 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 Next
