Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 Next
Comments 76701 to 76750:
-
scaddenp at 11:47 AM on 23 August 2011It's waste heat
I am pointing out DLR is operating significantly in day time. Your timing argument makes no sense to me. At climate scale, you are looking at annual averages. You think models are based on calculations for a particular time of the day? -
Andy Skuce at 11:44 AM on 23 August 2011Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
RB@15: I was pointing out what the producers' economic motives are. This absolutely does not provide a justification for building this pipeline in my opinion, since none of the externalities, GHG's or the devastation to the Athabaska area, are even considered as costs. Dan, I agree that stopping this project will not do much in the short term to slow down development of the tar sands. But, if KXL is stopped, over the coming decades, development growth will be constrained eventually by lack of transportation capacity. As a BC coastal resident myself, I don't want more tankers sailing through our waters either. Stopping Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan will be the next battle. -
manouchk at 11:27 AM on 23 August 2011Climate's changed before
I was wondering what is the consequence of what and if their is a proof for that... I'm not expert and it looks like a big assumption of all(or most?) sutdies is that the increase of Earth superficial temperatura is a consequence of the increase of CO2. I red once that in the past, the CO2 seemed to be a consequence of Earth superficial temperature increase and that CO2 increase generally occurs after temperature increase. That would be great also if some selected bibliography could be suggested at the end of article. I'd like too know about a good book about past climate, glaciation and atmospheric composition... Even, if I a bit skeptical, the precaution principle makes me still keep on using my bicycle as much as possible to commute...Response:[DB] If a book is what you ask for a book is what ye will receive:
Spencer Weart's: The Discovery of Global Warming
Highly recommended.
-
It's waste heat
mullumhillbilly - A quick search on your moniker indicates that you have been posting on climate topics for a while, complete with heavy use of the term "warmist". I'm not interested in recapitulating the entire greenhouse gas theory to someone who should know it by this point. I would suggest reading through the Science of Doom greenhouse effect pages, then returning if you still have any questions. GHG's warm the climate both night and day, reducing the diurnal temperature variations by reducing the climates ability to dump heat quickly. At the moment you are giving me a very strong impression of being disingenuous, of arguing for the sake of arguing, and of raising silly objections. Just not worth my while... -
mullumhillbilly at 11:16 AM on 23 August 2011It's waste heat
tomCurtis@87. So you are saying humidity and water vapour are NOT part of the GHE? I agree re buffering capacity of oceans, thence maritime climate cf inland deserts, and I was simply using the Moon example to illustrate the overwhelming warming effect of direct insolation vs GHGs. You say "GHGs cause more warming during the day than during the night". Presumably you mean the net effect is significant. (net being gross "trapping" minus emission back to space). Is the surface temperature record reliable enough to show this? As I understand it, most (if not all) of the demonstrated warming has been at night in higher latitudes. I don't think we have the information to say whether that night warming (eg is it based on higher minimum temps, or an integral of degree-hours?) actually reperesents retention of energy in the system. I've already suggested how higher night temps can occur without net gain of energy in a 24 hour cycle. I'm not even disputing that there may be some residual energy accumulating, but the actual amount is crucial to climate sensitivity. -
mullumhillbilly at 11:02 AM on 23 August 2011It's waste heat
scaddenp@86 ?? DLR is highest at night in your diagrams, except for a couple of early afternoon peaks when presumably some clouds passed over. Thermometer in the shade. If it truly was totally insulated from any external energy, of course it would drop to zero, whether on the Moon or on Venus. What's your point? -
Dan Moutal at 10:54 AM on 23 August 2011Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
To be clear I am not in favour of the pipeline, I just think that stopping it will (unfortunately) do little to slow down the growth of the tar sands. There is just too much money to be made there (again unfortunately). And maybe the fact that I would prefer the oil go somewhere other than British Columbia (where I live) is biasing me a little:) One interesting aspect of the pipeline that I read somewhere is that many land owners in places like texas, which tend to be republicans, were very much opposed to the idea of the pipeline because of the fear of a spill. This could be one of the few areas where there could be a genuine bipartisan grass-roots support to stop the pipeline. -
mullumhillbilly at 10:54 AM on 23 August 2011It's waste heat
KR84, Yes GHGs_101 is quite comprehensible thank you, but this really doesn't address the question of time. So less FIR (LWR) escapes to begin with at night, but the surface cools rapidly as the night goes on (frost) and the IR drops well before dawn. Diurnal variation of IR is not a new idea. I'm saying time is important, and you glossed over that. Climate sensitivity is very much dependent on how much of the trapped/delayed IR-sourced energy makes its way to TOA by dawn (incl by convection), and thence is lost to space. -
Tom Curtis at 10:26 AM on 23 August 2011It's waste heat
mullumhillbilly @85, it is true that the diurnal (day/night) difference between warming due to insolation is far greater than the diurnal difference in warming due to GHG. But the GHG cause more warming during the day than during the night. The primary reason the earth has such a small diurnal range compared the the moon is the presence of a liquid ocean which requires the storage or release of very large amounts of energy to heat or cool, thus keeping temperatures relatively constant. The atmosphere, particularly when humid, has a similar but smaller effect. That is quite distinct from the GHE. -
scaddenp at 10:18 AM on 23 August 2011It's waste heat
Consider putting a thermometer in a vacuum in the shade on a sunny day. Do you expect the reading to plummet to sub-zero? Consider doing the same experiment on the moon. Look at the actual measurement of DLR (eg here) and note that DLR strongest in day as you would expect. Your daytime warmth is from both the sun directly and DLR. -
scaddenp at 10:13 AM on 23 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
JD - exactly. So to stop FF use, something about that environment must change. The challenge is what. -
Tom Curtis at 10:09 AM on 23 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
John Donovan @50, it is a reasonable presumption that economic pressures alone will not drive the replacement of all fossil fuel usage by 2050 in the US (or the world) renewables and nuclear power. Given that, saying that the solution is renewables and nuclear does not face the specific problem posed - how, under libertarian principles, can we drive the replacement of fossil fuel use by nuclear and renewable power and a transport fleet powered by electricity or biofuels at significantly faster rates than that transition would be made based on commercial decisions alone? -
skywatcher at 10:08 AM on 23 August 2011A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
#93 Eric, I mentioned no polar bears. You moved the goalposts. I mentioned declining Arctic sea ice, rising food prices, increasing natural disasters, ocean acidification. They're all happening now, not in the future, and none are 'crystal-ball projections'. All in correction to your erroneous statement that "There is nothing bad happening now" (#89). Obviously you feel none of these things are bad - I presume you can afford costlier food, do not fear the next massive drought, bushfire, flood or heatwave arriving at your front door, and are unconcerned about the world's ice cover (or do not rely on snow/ice melt for our water supply), and you don't care about the pH of the oceans. Lucky you. -
Tom Curtis at 10:04 AM on 23 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
KR @49, in response to your respondent: 1) The very obvious point is that the cost benefit analyses have been done, and have decidedly come down in showing that the costs of limiting global warming are significantly less than the benefits; 2) Saying you would act if the cost benefit analysis comes out the right way does not say how you would act. In fact Scaddenp's challenge is this: Assume the cost benefit analysis is clearly in favour of mitigating climate change. On that assumption, what policy is believed by libertarians to both be effective in mitigating climate change and consistent with libertarian principles? Given that, Twodogs' response must be considered an evasion as an answer to scaddenp's challenge, however appropriate as a response to your actual question. 3) In that Twodogs' cost benefit analysis gives no consideration to who bears the costs, and who gains the benefits, it is far from clear his is a libertarian response as distinct from a politically conservative response or a classical liberal response. -
Tom Curtis at 09:52 AM on 23 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
Badgersouth @51, scaddenp has asked a legitimate question. However, there will be no possibility of receiving a legitimate answer if the thread becomes a venue for a slanging match between left and right. As it happens I often find myself biting my tongue on left/right political issues at SkS. I do so because global warming is a far greater threat to the human race than any of the normal left/right antagonisms. Indeed, the only political issues that are more important, IMO, are the retention of the rule of law and of democracy. If, of the other hand, you feel it is more important to score cheap political points, by all means derail the thread. You might, however, want to give consideration to the fact that the plainly inadequate responses of the right on this thread is already scoring a far stronger political point than any consideration of who said what to whom first.Response:[DB] One has to remember the scope of this thread: to see if those of certain ideological leanings can offer up substantive, solution-oriented discourse.
Consider this a Stand-and-Deliver (Put Up or Shut Up) challenge.
-
John Hartz at 09:42 AM on 23 August 2011Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
Here's the text of the NY Times editorial that I referenced in Badgersouth #2. "This page opposes the building of a 1,700-mile pipeline called the Keystone XL, which would carry diluted bitumen — an acidic crude oil — from Canada’s Alberta tar sands to the Texas Gulf Coast. We have two main concerns: the risk of oil spills along the pipeline, which would traverse highly sensitive terrain, and the fact that the extraction of petroleum from the tar sands creates far more greenhouse emissions than conventional production does. "The Canadian government insists that it has found ways to reduce those emissions. But a new report from Canada’s environmental ministry shows how great the impact of the tar sands will be in the coming years, even with cleaner production methods. "It projects that Canada will double its current tar sands production over the next decade to more than 1.8 million barrels a day. That rate will mean cutting down some 740,000 acres of boreal forest — a natural carbon reservoir. Extracting oil from tar sands is also much more complicated than pumping conventional crude oil out of the ground. It requires steam-heating the sands to produce a petroleum slurry, then further dilution. "One result of this process, the ministry says, is that greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector as a whole will rise by nearly one-third from 2005 to 2020 — even as other sectors are reducing emissions. Canada still hopes to meet the overall target it agreed to at Copenhagen in 2009 — a 17 percent reduction from 2005 levels by 2020. If it falls short, as seems likely, tar sands extraction will bear much of the blame. "Canada’s government is committed to the tar sands business. (Alberta’s energy minister, Ronald Liepert, has declared, “I’m not interested in Kyoto-style policies.”) The United States can’t do much about that, but it can stop the Keystone XL pipeline. "The State Department will decide whether to approve or reject the pipeline by the end of the year. It has already delivered two flawed reports on the pipeline’s environmental impact. It should acknowledge the environmental risk of the pipeline and the larger damage caused by tar sands production and block the Keystone XL." -
mullumhillbilly at 09:33 AM on 23 August 2011It's waste heat
DB82, muonc83, OK that was an oversimplification, but my essential point stands I think. GHG are working around the clock but daytime incoming radiation far outweighs any interception of surface FIR, so most of the GHG warming of the atmosphere happens at night. On the bright side of the moon surface temps are +100C, dark side -150C. Are you telling me GHGs make the planet warmer during daytime?Response:[DB] "Are you telling me GHGs make the planet warmer during daytime?"
Think about what you are implying (that molecules somehow "know" what the time of day is).
GHG molecules do their thing 24/7/365.
Like the Terminator, they just...don't...stop...
-
Stevo at 08:48 AM on 23 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
I'd try and sell to the 'right' the business opportunities on offer for those who can make money in the new clean energy technologies. My fear is that those who stick rigidly to reliance on coal and fossil petrochemicals will miss the renewable bus. Companies who invest in renewables now will be at the forefront in 30 years time and by then it will be too late to get on the bandwagon - too late to be a major player that is. A great opportunity to be at the leading edge of both business and technology is being squandered thanks to political ideology holding businesses back by denying science. Go figure. -
Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
I see Andy@6 covered the same point I made in 12. The chances of decreasing fossil fuel usage over the next decade are likely low. The problems facing the U.S. economy are substantial, unlike any post-WW2 recession, and occurring at a time when the world is already grappling with "peak cheap oil" and the resulting higher prices. -
Andy Skuce at 08:21 AM on 23 August 2011Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
To Badgersouth's statistics I would add this quote from The Economist, which highlights the staggering size of the tar sands project:A single engineering project, the Syncrude mine in the Athabasca tar sands, involves moving 30 billion tonnes of earth—twice the amount of sediment that flows down all the rivers in the world in a year.
-
pbjamm at 08:19 AM on 23 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
I have to agree with Badgersouth@27&51 This article seems out of place on SkS and is likely only to result in acrimony rather than discussion of real solutions. -
John Donovan at 08:06 AM on 23 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
To scaddenp @52 I assume it's not happening for other reasons: e.g, because fossil fuels are plentiful and some companies are making a lot of money selling those resources right now. So the other question is: would a technically feasible compromise be politically possible? I hate to say it, but probably not in the current US political environment of "drive-by" legislation. -
John Hartz at 07:53 AM on 23 August 2011Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
Here's a few facts about the Alberta Oil Sands: - Oil sands mining is licensed to use twice the amount of fresh water that the entire city of Calgary uses in a year. - At least 90% of the fresh water used in the oil sands ends up in ends up in tailing ponds so toxic that propane cannons are used to keep ducks from landing in them. - Processing the oil sands uses enough natural gas in a day to heat 3 million homes in Canada. - The toxic tailing ponds are considered one of the largest human-made structures in the world. The ponds span 50 square kilometers and can be seen from space. - Producing a barrel of oil from the oil sands produces three times more greenhouse gas emissions than a barrel of conventional oil. - The oil sands operations are the fastest growing source of heat-trapping greenhouse gas in Canada. By 2020 the oil sands will release twice the amount produced currently by all the cars and trucks in Canada. Source: "Report: Alberta Oil Sands Most Destructive Project on Earth," DeSmog Blog, Feb 18, 2008 To access this article, click here. -
scaddenp at 07:44 AM on 23 August 2011SkS Weekly Digest #12
pirate - so are you going to take the challenge here? -
Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
In this particular case, it is argued that there will be an effect on gas prices because of the price divergence between Brent crude and West Texas Intermediate. Given that energy cost spike has caused a significant economic slowdown, there actually is some economic merit to the argument as James Hamilton of UCSD argues here . At current GDP levels, a price of $80 per barrel of oil is a significant negative influence on the economy and Brent has been trading substantially higher for a while. -
Polar Bear at 07:44 AM on 23 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
If Libertarians wanted small govt they should use soalar /wind then we could do away with lot of governmental agencies that have to watch out for polluters..solar energy,no govt supervision need for the fuel -
CBDunkerson at 07:33 AM on 23 August 2011Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
Thanks dana1981, that certainly explains it. The possibility of getting back down to 350ppm is already remote, and anything which makes gasoline powered cars viable for another 50 years would remove any chance of it. I agree that 'finding ways to use new sources of fossil fuels' is a major problem. I'd said as much a few weeks back when there was a report about the Japanese looking at 'mining' methane hydrates from the ocean floor. That, the tar sands, the work Russia is doing to extract methane from permafrost, and so forth are taking away the possibility that dwindling supplies will push fossil fuel costs up so much that they are no longer economically viable. If so, then the only real hope is to find ways to make other energy sources even less expensive. -
scaddenp at 07:29 AM on 23 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
If the solution is nukes/renewables/whatever, the question isnt really about what is the technical solution - its about the political solution. If the solution is there, then why isnt it happening and what needs to change to make it happen. -
dhogaza at 06:57 AM on 23 August 2011Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
That google aerial photograph is just about what I saw on my last polar flight, which featured obscenely clear skies for a vast portion of the flight over the arctic (PDX to Heathrow via Seattle IIRC). Watching nothingness go by I was suddenly startled when I noticed a huge scar along a river, and it slowly dawned on me that I was seeing the alberta tar sands operation. The immensity of it was boggling as we were flying at close to 40K feet up ... -
dana1981 at 06:52 AM on 23 August 2011Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
CBD - Hansen's comments about the tar sands being 'game over' were based on the full amount of carbon they contain, whereas the EPA estimates are based on how much oil will realistically be extracted in the next 50 years. Plus Hansen is big on 350 ppm, whereas the 1 trillion ton target is 450 ppm. So those two factors account for Hansen's "game over" comment. To me it's an attitude issue. As I said in the post, we need to be looking for alternatives to fossil fuels, not looking for new fossil fuel sources to burn. It's totally backwards, looking for more fossil fuels to burn instead of trying to leave as much fossil fuels in the ground as possible. The signal it sends may be the worst aspect, if the pipeline is approved by the USA's supposedly environmentally conscious president. -
CBDunkerson at 06:39 AM on 23 August 2011Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
Badgersouth #7 - True. Though the steam injection method is much less destructive than the strip mining they were originally using to get at the stuff. Again, not using the tar sands would be a good thing... but so far as I can tell that ship has already sailed. Even if Obama blocks the pipeline AND all the other distribution options somehow fail to materialize I can guarantee you that the next Republican president in the U.S. will see to it that a pipeline gets built. A couple of people have suggested that delay is worthwhile to give alternatives a chance to reduce demand. There is some validity to that, but I don't see a few years delay making much difference. Certainly not a 'make or break' issue for keeping carbon emissions within manageable bounds. If Obama blocks the pipeline or bargains his approval for some kind of concession (e.g. investment in electric vehicle research, offsetting carbon capture, or whatever) I'd say that is pretty good for us. If he approves it without getting any offsetting benefit in return then that's a loss (and rather disappointing)... but doesn't seem catastrophic. -
John Hartz at 06:36 AM on 23 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
Dikran Marsupial: SkS opened a Pandora's box by posting this article. Whether or not Tom Curtis looses his patience over what's being posted on this comment thread is somewhat irrelevant. -
John Donovan at 06:13 AM on 23 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
One obvious solution that might be palatable to both sides is to ramp up both renewables and nuclear. But both have "not in my backyard" aspects that make such new energy construction problematic. Specifically most solar and wind resources, in the US at least, are located pretty much in the middle of nowhere as opposed to where most people live due to noise and aesthetic considerations. Likewise, most nuclear power plants are currently built near to where the energy consumers are, but because we see these plants occasionally have a Murphy's Law melt-down event, people are psychologically (though understandably) reluctant to have a nuke built upwind from them. Here is one solution that I'm sure has been thought of already: build the Smart Grid, including high voltage (up to 1 MV) DC transmission lines for sub continental transmission with minimal losses, to connect the "middle of nowhere" to population centers with both renewable and nuclear energy. Then we could dedicate huge swaths of more or less under utilized desert for renewables (where those solar and wind resources are generally located) and also for new nuclear plants. These remotely located nuclear plants would then not only provide baseload power for the renewable plants next door, but would also not be located near population centers in the event of a technological, natural or terrorist disaster. There is the issue of water for cooling the nukes but that doesn't seem an impossible hurdle to overcome. -
John Hartz at 06:00 AM on 23 August 2011Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
@CBDunkerson#6: No matter how one slices it, the extraction of petroleum from the Alberta tar sands has been, is now, and will continue to be an ecological disaster for North America. -
Andy Skuce at 05:30 AM on 23 August 2011Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
Stopping this pipeline is about more than just preventing the calculated incremental production that will directly result from it. The producers have two main goals here: a) to supply diluted bitumen directly to the Gulf Coast refineries that pay a higher price than the refineries in the mid West; b) to provide diversity and excess capacity in their transportation options. If Obama OKs this pipeline (and I fear he will), this will provide a shot in the arm to the tar sands operators and will encourage further development. If he nixes it, on the other hand, expect the producers to dial up the pressure on British Columbia to provide additional outlets to the Pacific. Currently there are two main options for Pacific outlets. The most prominent option is the Northern Gateway pipeline that will run to Kitimat on BC's north coast. This pipeline is encountering much public opposition, notably from First Nations. BC public opinion is generally very negative towards the idea of having oil tankers on the north coast; a spill there would have unthinkable consequences. The other option is expanding existing pipelines to the Port of Vancouver and dredging the harbor to allow Suezmax tankers. This proposal is currently mostly under the radar of the mainstream media. As Dan@1 said, the best way to prevent pollution from the tar sands in the long run is to stop consumption. But until then, the only option is to try and choke off production. -
muoncounter at 05:23 AM on 23 August 2011SkS Weekly Digest #12
pirate#2 "the cartoon highly inaccurate." You should look at the Heritage Foundation, Heartland Institute and American Enterprise Inst websites; they are against quite a few of the things in the cartoon. Hence it is accurate. Example -- Heartland: Probably two-thirds of the warming in the 1990s was due to natural causes; the warming trend already has stopped and forecasts of future warming are unreliable; and the benefits of a moderate warming are likely to outweigh the costs. Global warming, in other words, is not a crisis. These are inaccurate. And what kind of 'science' makes an assessment that starts with 'probably'? -
robmutch at 05:21 AM on 23 August 2011Newcomers, Start Here
Glad to be here John. And, good to see you on the Climate Show. Keep the faith... "Nature knows no indecencies; man invents them." - Mark Twain's Notebook -
arch stanton at 05:19 AM on 23 August 2011Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
DSL- Man, you had to go and show everyone my pic! Now I’ll have to go back underground. (Sorry mods, I don’t usually respond to being outed but this one was the best yet.) Besides respecting Denning and Gates for the extra effort to cross the abyss I also have extra respect for everyone who uses their real name on the web; think Cook, the one aka as “the Yooper”, and so many others here, all the folks at RC, heck even Tamino (‘cause his ID is no secret.) It’s also the only respect I have for Anthony. -
GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
I have posed this question before on 'skeptic' blogs: If you were to believe (just as a what-if) that our CO2 emissions were going to cause these problems, what, in your political framework, would be the right way to approach the issue? The person I initially asked this of ranted for a while about 'enslavement by the left' and left. Another one or two indicated that they just could not trust any statements claiming that AGW was an issue. But I did get a reasonable response, one that I feel provides an interesting point of view: (JoNova thread) Twodogs: August 9th, 2011 at 11:34 pm KR asks the correct question finally, as to what we would do if human CO2 production was the cause of significant global warming with significant adverse effects. We would act to limit production to the extent that it would negate the adverse effects subject to a proper risk assessment and subsequent cost/benefit analysis. Firstly, the risk analysis would require certainty not only of warming, but to what extent. As such, the positive feedbacks claimed would require the same level of scrutiny as the principle of global warming via human CO2 production, in order to ascertain the impact. This leads into the benefit of mitigating action, to be compared against the cost of doing so. All costs and benefits can be quantified to some extent, so no matter how bad global warming may be at a given extent, any cost is comparable. A trillion $ of benefit still ain’t worth it if it costs 2 trillion $ to achieve it, no matter how warm and fuzzy it makes you feel inside. That said, it’s easy to feel warm and fuzzy inside with other people’s money. --- In other words, balance (spreadsheets and all) costs and benefits of AGW mitigation, and use that to decide on policies. I realize that most of the readers on this site are already quite convinced of the costs of global warming - but I would suggest that focusing a bit more clearly on those costs (as Scott Denning did in his presentation) may be a reasoned approach to discussing matters with the political Right. Not just why, but by how much. -
CBDunkerson at 04:44 AM on 23 August 2011Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
"Over 1 billion tons of equivalent CO2 emissions is a substantial chunk of emissions. We recently discussed The Critical Decade report produced by the Climate Commission established by the Australian government. Their report concluded that humanity can emit not more than 1 trillion tonnes of CO2 between 2000 and 2050 to have a probability of about 75% of limiting temperature rise to 2°C or less." 1 billion / 1 trillion = 0.1% Thus, I'm not sure where Hansen is getting 'game over' unless he is using very different numbers. Yes, not using the carbon from these tar sands would be a good thing... but in numeric terms it is ONLY 0.1% of the target limit. That's the equivalent of a couple of coal factories operating over the same timeframe. Also, given that shutting down the pipeline won't stop the tar sands from being used... and using the tar sands would (by these numbers) release only 0.1% of the target carbon limit... I'm inclined to think we may need to pick our battles better. Heck, if Obama could leverage SUPPORTING this pipeline into anything which reduces carbon emissions at all (which opposing this pipeline... wouldn't) then that would seem like a win to me. -
dana1981 at 04:41 AM on 23 August 2011Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
Dan - I do agree that we have to address the problem from the demand side. But at least in the short-term, there's Canadian opposition to building the infrastructure to transport the tar sands oil to the Canadian west coast (hence the McKibben quote in the intro paragraph). If we can at least temporarily delay things from the supply side here, maybe it will give the demand side the opportunity to catch up. -
CBDunkerson at 04:11 AM on 23 August 2011Polar bear numbers are increasing
Oh look! Willie Soon... so this goes right back to the 'climate skeptics and their myths' thread. :] Setting that aside, the statement that polar bear numbers are impacted by seal populations is amusing... considering that seal populations are also declining due to global warming; Global warming -> sea ice melts earlier in the year -> seal dens on the ice melt away -> seal pups drown -> fewer seals -> fewer polar bears. So again, 'polar bear numbers are not declining due to global warming'... they're declining due to things CAUSED by global warming. :] -
apiratelooksat50 at 03:52 AM on 23 August 2011SkS Weekly Digest #12
I find the cartoon highly inaccurate. I am a skeptic and politically conservative (though I don't vote the party line). It is the old standby ploy of implying that because a skeptic and/or conservative does not believe in taking drastic actions to combat AGW, then they don't care about these other bullet points. I care about all of them. However, it is not that simple. Maybe creating green jobs will balance out the jobs lost in current energy sectors. Hopefully, we can continue improving our air and water quality (I do a lot of work in those areas.) Of course I care about my children and the children of others. And, it would be an unimaginable tragedy should we lose any of Earth's precious ecosystems. The term energy independence is misused. If you are posting to this site, or just reading it, chances are you are dependent on energy. And, you expect that energy to be reliable. Every form of energy known to man has environmental impacts whether direct or indirect.Response:[DB] Actually, I am scientifically skeptical and politically conservative (though I don't vote the party line), too. And I find the cartoon hilarious.
Don't read so much into it; it's a cartoon.
-
Bob Lacatena at 03:45 AM on 23 August 2011Polar bear numbers are increasing
21, Eric the Red, You post comments and links, but you didn't bother to actually follow the link I already gave you which rebuts that particular "study" (which is actually an audit on the quality of the studies used in "....nine government reports were written to help U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service managers decide whether or not to list polar bears as a threatened species." Rebuttal of “Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit” In particular, this study by actual scientists in the field of study found that the study you linked to was "mistaken or misleading on every claim." The "qualified scientists" who authored your paper are: J. Scott Armstrong, Professor of Marketing, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania Kesten C. Green Business and Economic Forecasting Willie Soon, Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics -
Robert Murphy at 03:42 AM on 23 August 2011Polar bear numbers are increasing
Arghh, Dikran Marsupial added to the mod response and stole my thunder! lolModerator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Ooops, sorry! -
Robert Murphy at 03:40 AM on 23 August 2011Polar bear numbers are increasing
"Do you think a social sciences journal is likely to be able to give a competent peer review to a paper on polar bear populations?" There's that and the fact there isn't a polar bear specialist among the three authors. 2 are in marketing/economic forecasting. The other is Willie Soon. -
Eric the Red at 03:23 AM on 23 August 2011Polar bear numbers are increasing
CB, Other studies have found that polar bear populations are largely affected by hunting and seal populations. http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1145&context=marketing_papers&sei-redir=1#search=%22polar%20bear%20seal%20population%20increase%22Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Link activated. Is this article peer-reviewed? It appears to be published in a social sciences journal of some kind. Do you think a social sciences journal is likely to be able to give a competent peer review to a paper on polar bear populations? Do any of the authors have expertise in polar bears (one is an astrophysicist and the other two are in marketing). Are they in a good position to judge whether they have correctly intepreted the previous studies on polar bears? -
Tom Curtis at 03:07 AM on 23 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
Can I note that all this talk about who vilified who first is of topic and unproductive. Can I ask the moderators to clean out the nonsense before I loose my patience.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Reasonable request. From this point on, discussion of how the challenge may be met only. If it will help, imagine only the right actually exists and discuss how the challenge could be met if they had free reign to conduct any policy consistent with their principles. No more recrimination about events in the past; this is a thread about the future. -
Eric the Red at 03:04 AM on 23 August 2011A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
Really Sphaerica, [incendiary comments deleted] I will however take this argument to the appopriate thread.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please both of you moderate the tone of the discussion back to less personal terms. -
Robert Murphy at 02:52 AM on 23 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
"The Karl Rove era (continued brutally today by Fox News) learned how politically valuable it was to sabotage the need to compromise by vilifying one's opponents and painting them as evil instead of simply misguided or wrong on the issues or solutions." I think you make Lloyd's point if you don't realize how much the Left also demonized and vilified the other side during the last ten or so years. I know, I was there, on the Right, and what was being said about the Right often bore little resemblance to most of the people I knew who were Right leaning. You talk about how Rove and Fox distorted things, and no doubt there was enough of it, but my Gods the other side gave as good as it got and them some. The Right is doing it now with Obama, and they are just as blind to their own distortions as the Left was to theirs. As Lloyd said, it is *very* difficult to see your opponents as real people who think they are doing what is best, out of decent intentions. It's a lot easier to see them all as the new incarnation of Karl Marx or some villain from Captain Planet bent on World destruction/domination. Sure, some really are bad, but assuming this to be the case is not a good starting point for a discussion. "Again, you present this as if the left gets together for their weekly strategy meetings and decides to take advantage of the situation." They don't have to, that's the point. It's done reflexively by some, in the same way many on the Right reflexively dismisses climate science. The Left needs to rethink how it presents itself (as does the Right). I don't know, maybe it isn't possible because there isn't a centralized "Left", as you say, anymore than there is a centralized "Right" that speaks for everybody on one side. There are all sorts of divisions on all sides, even if the main one is a fault-line dividing Right and Left. I can't control the deniers on the Right anymore than a climate scientist can really control those on the Left who use the science as a way to get whatever other goals they might have. I know people who couldn't tell you the first thing about the scientific issues involved in AGW, but who nonetheless are adamant that it's happening and it's all the fault of Capitalism, free markets, and so on, because they *already* distrusted those things. They may have come to accept AGW, but not for the right reasons. The right reasons are because of the scientific evidence that points to AGW, not because it happens to be inconvenient to your opponents' ideology. Obviously there are plenty on the Right who never seriously looked at the science either and who reject it out of ignorance. If they have looked, they have not looked to what most scientists are saying but screen things through a denialist mesh provided by *accepted* sources. They might *think* they have a good understanding of the science, and perhaps that is worse than not paying attention at all. After all that typing I don't have any solutions. People have become more entrenched in their positions than they have in a long time. I don't honestly see it getting better any time soon. Maybe I've gotten too damn cynical and pessimistic, and I'm only 40. I hope it's better when I'm 50 or 60. Now I know why I never mention politics on the climate blogs. I'm long-winded. :)
Prev 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 Next
