Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 Next
Comments 7851 to 7900:
-
John Hartz at 13:43 PM on 2 March 2020Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Recommended supplemental reading:
Current climate warming is rapid and occurring on a global scale, unlike past periods of regional climate fluctuations, Edited by Katy Dynarski, Climate Feedback, Feb 21, 2020
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:38 PM on 2 March 2020Different Crises: Coronavirus & Climate Change
There is a similarity between responses to COVID-19 and 'Climate Change due to Global Warming due to Increased CO2 levels due to Human Activity'.
Some people want to minimize the potential for negative impacts on perceptions of wealth in the economic games, especially changes that lower the perceptions of wealth and power of 'people who are perceived to be wealthy and powerful'.
The initial comments regarding COVID-19 were along the lines of 'this is not likely to be easily transmitted'. Some perceived to be wealthy powerful people are still trying to claim it is 'Not a serious concern'.
And as this BBC News Item shows the air in China has become rapidly cleaner, which can help people understand that the machinery of prosperity had been seriously affecting them. And NOx is just one of many harmful products of burning fossil fuels.
Hopefully this side-effect of COVID-19 will help more people become more aware and understand that there are many more reasons to stop burning fossil fuels. The dead-end burning up of buried ancient hydrocarbons creates more harmful consequences than excess CO2. And those impacts are immediately affecting people everywhere the stuff is burned (and where it is extracted and processed into fuel for burning), no matter how convenient and popular it is or how wealthy it makes some people appear to be.
-
scaddenp at 11:35 AM on 2 March 2020How much would planting 1 trillion trees slow global warming?
Joez, I am not much interested in how fast land is taking up carbon (because an equilibrium will be reached), but how much carbon per hectare total. On scale of hundred years, it doesnt matter too much what state the forest is in (if you clearfell, I think regrowth will suck CO2 from air faster than timber will release it) - what matters is how much in land is permanently allocated to forest as opposed to other land uses.
There can be plenty of reasons other than CO2 sequestration to keep foresters from felling forests however. I wonder how many fights are really about that and CO2 sequestration is excuse?
So again question is, in managed forest, how much carbon per hectare at point where forest is harvested compared to your "old growth" forest.
Situation here (NZ) is very different. We have large plantation forests of tightly managed exotic trees (mostly Pinus Radiata which can be ready for harvest in under 30 years in our climate) but also large areas of slow growing native forest, much of it virgin. Native forest is largely protected with very limited amounts of forestry. Plantation gets clear-felled and immediately replanted. Very selective logging (sometimes with helicopter) is norm in native forest.
Mature native forest contain 258 tonnes carbon /hectare compared to 192 tonnes per hectare for plantation at maturity. Radiata however sucks up carbon far faster than native so much preferred for carbon farming.
-
takamura_senpai at 07:30 AM on 29 February 2020Different Crises: Coronavirus & Climate Change
Coronavirus has a potential drop CO2 emission on 1-10%. Coal burning in China drop approx 1.5 times, oil like the same. Soon in other countries in the stage.....
So Don't worry, be happy
Don't worry, be happy nowOh, ooh ooh ooh oo-ooh ooh oo-ooh don't worry, be happy
-
JoeZ at 23:00 PM on 28 February 2020How much would planting 1 trillion trees slow global warming?
Scaddenp, it all depends. A true old growth forest (we foresters don't use the term virgin forest) might not be adding any carbon, it might be adding carbon in the soil if not in the trees (since some will be dying or decaying internally), it might be losing carbon (if old trees are dying frequently). Young forests will be sequestering carbon but it depends on the type of forest, where it is, how healthy it is. In the US northeast it might be roughly 1 ton/acre/year not counting soil carbon. From what I read in forestry literature- the forests of North American have been gaining carbon for decades faster than the carbon losses from harvesting and natural mortality and the frequent decay in living trees and conversion of forests to other uses. I don't have access to the current research. I have a lot of old text books but I'm too lazy to look up what they say. In summary, there is much less carbon in the forests now than pre-European times but despite a thriving timber industry and forests being lost to other uses the total amount of carbon in the forests is increasing. If forests are managed properly with concern for increasing carbon- we can harvest wood products while still increasing carbon. Meanwhile, there is a movement now happening (especially here in Massachusetts) to lock up all the forests so that their only purpose is sequestering carbon. No consideration is given to where we'll get wood for construction, furniture and paper producs- no consideration that using cement and steel for construction and plastic for furniture will have a higher carbon footprint. Major political wars are now occuring over how to manage or not manage forests- it's not just about protecting the rain forests. One huge battle which I've been caught up in is over woody biomass for energy. Massachusetts is the epicenter of that battle. One last comment- there is now a movement to build very tall structures with wood and not steel. It's called cross laminated timber- https://www.thinkwood.com/products-and-systems/mass-timber/cross-laminated-timber-clt-handbook
-
MA Rodger at 21:20 PM on 28 February 2020Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”
YTeddy @45,
You are correct in that there are no satisfactory answers posted for Lassesson @2.
I'm not sure what is being asking regarding 1865-70 but the "huge peak arond 1880" was the 1877-78 El Niño which appears in the extended MEI record, its impact on the global temperature records (both BEST & HadCRUT cover back to 1850) being excentuated by the preceding and succeeding La Niñas.
The article you link-to is describing the work presented at the 2017 AGU Fall Meeting ' El-Niño Grande and the Great Famine (1876-78) '. Looking at the citations the paper gained here, I don't see any response to the paper from climatologists although it does receive attention for its analytical method.
-
YTeddy at 16:37 PM on 28 February 2020Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”
Lassesson at 18:25 PM on 21 October, 2011
What happened around 1865-1870 in figure 3 and where did the huge peak around 1880 come from?I don't see the answer posted. The answer to your inquiry is almost certainly the very large, perhaps largest in recent history, El Nino Event, 1876-78.
https://www.insidescience.org/news/historys-greatest-el-ni%C3%B1o-may-have-caused-severe-19th-century-famine
-
scaddenp at 10:53 AM on 28 February 2020How much would planting 1 trillion trees slow global warming?
Interesting info JoeZ. Do you have a source for carbon sequesteration per hectare in managed forest compared to virgin forest?
-
JoeZ at 01:10 AM on 28 February 2020How much would planting 1 trillion trees slow global warming?
Scaddemp said, "Not according to US Forest Service. Current forest looks to be 75% of what pre-European coverage was." There is less acreage of forest but each acre has more trees than in pre-Euro times. In the US northeast, in pre-Europ times each acre may have had 40-100 trees per acre. Now most have several times that. The trees are much smaller and the total volume of wood is far less but it's growing fast and overall, US forests are sequestering more carbon than is being lost to harvesting, storms and fire. Trees are seldom planted in the northeast. In the US southeast, forests are intensely managed and trees are planted after most harvesting- more trees than will survive to the "final cut" due to periodic thinning.
I posted a comment in the new version of this thread. I'm certainly not qualified to debate climate science but I do know American forests.
Joe Zorzin
MA Forester License #261
-
DantetnaD at 20:55 PM on 27 February 2020How deniers maintain the consensus gap
@MA Rodger it was on 20min.ch, it's one of those quick news sites (lots of garbage on there).
I was just astounded by the numbe of people commenting stuff like "Yeah! Finally an anti-Greta, you go girl!". Sigh.
I'm pretty sure that if Greta was a 30 year old without aspergers (I believe it's what she has, don't quote me on that though), you'd have the same people calling her out on other things to discredit her.
@Eclectic indeed it is a form of insanity, but I wonder if the root cause isn't also to be found somewhere in the education system. I did not grow up in the US so correct me if I'm wrong, but the fact that in some states creatonism is being taught gives us a hint about this. Not that we don't have our share of negationists over here too though...
And yes, the other issue is the way our modern society works. We are still immensly dependent on fossil fuels for pretty much everything. The reallity is that there are many powerful and rich people that benefit from this, and they don't like the idea of this getting disrupted. Reallity will hit them at some point, as fossil fuels will get depleted at some point anyway.
-
scaddenp at 09:36 AM on 27 February 2020How much would planting 1 trillion trees slow global warming?
"there are at least as many now as the pilgrim days or more."
Not according to US Forest Service. Current forest looks to be 75% of what pre-European coverage was.
-
scaddenp at 09:14 AM on 27 February 2020How much would planting 1 trillion trees slow global warming?
Manwichstick - the carbon is sequestered so long as the area planted remains in forest. Undisturbed, old trees are replaced by new one and the carbon sequestered by hectare of forest approaches an approximately stable equilibrium. Even if harvested or burnt, so long as forest regrows, then it is only temporary blib in the carbon stock.
-
JoeZ at 07:33 AM on 27 February 2020Planting a trillion trees will solve global warming
I doubt many people think "Planting a trillion trees will solve global warming"- not even Trump. I heard his speach and I don't think he said it's going to solve the problem. He wouldn't say that because doesn't think there is a problem. Regardless, it might help. What's missing in this tree planting idea- is that existing "commercial forests" that are managed or mismanaged- could increase their carbon sequestration if managed better. I'm most familiar with the forests in the U.S. northeast- most of which were severely abused in the past half century (high graded where they took the best and left the rest). Such forests are loaded with deformed, diseased and defective trees- often of slow growing and short lived species- instead of the more vigorous species that probably dominated most forests in the region- oaks, maples, pines. Improved forestry practices (which I believe is called for in IPCC documents without explaining what it means)- could remove the unhealthy trees that are slow growing in favor of fast growing, healthy specimens. How much of an improvement this would make- I don't know- I'm not aware that any forestry researchers are working on this- but I've seen estimates that if such improved forestry practices became common- the additional carbon sequestration would be substantial.
Joe Zorzin, Massachusetts Licensed Forester
-
Manwichstick at 06:23 AM on 27 February 2020How much would planting 1 trillion trees slow global warming?
Isn't the other problem with tree planting that it is only temporary carbon storage for a period of time that is equal to the length of time the tree lives?
It falls and rots and returns all the carbon. -
One Planet Only Forever at 01:44 AM on 27 February 2020How deniers maintain the consensus gap
DantetnaD @22,
As someone who tries to expand my awareness and improve my understanding and apply what I learn to try to help develop sustainable improvements for Others including the future of humanity, I see the Anti-Greta as a young actor-activist, potentially brain-washed by a tribe that desires to maintain beliefs and perceptions of status that are understandably harmful and incorrect, unsustainable.And what I know is that one of the main attacks on Greta has been claiming that she has been brain-washed by adults and is just being used as an 'actor-activist'.
And the groups that do that type of thing have a history of trying to accuse others of misleading marketing that they actually are the perpetrators of.
And it isn't just USA Team Trump. There are the harmful likes of Hungary's Orban - claiming their harmful promotion of selfish nationalism to mask deplorable actions that harm Others is justified because 'People Should be Proud of Their Pats, Those Things they developed a Liking for that everyone can actually understand are harmful unjustified attitudes and actions needing to be corrected'.
The real problem is indeed a system problem. The developed socioeconomic systems produce undeserving powerful and wealthy people who abuse misleading marketing to Get More Undeserved Winning and resist being corrected, resist losing their undeserved perceptions of superiority relative to Others.
Correcting the system is required. And that is easily powerfully resisted in many regions where the corrections of the system would be easily understood to reduce undeserved developed perceptions of status and opportunity.
I also see this where I live in Alberta. The resistance to expanded awareness and improved understanding is Strong among the Fossil Fuel Exporting Dependant portion of the population. The result has been the election of a Authoritarian, nearly police-state (more aggressive legal actions on protesters), leadership desperately doing anything it can get away with to push for more fossil fuel export. That claimed to be Conservative-Libertarian type of leadership is now expressing interest in having Their Government meddle more directly in the marketplace. They suggest that public money should be investing in business interests that investors are choosing to walk away from (a way of using public money to compensate investors for their bad bets). The Federal Government of Canada did this when they bought the Transmountain Pipeline Expansion Project, so the national system is also tainted, not just the more easily tainted Provincial level of Government.
-
Eclectic at 23:44 PM on 26 February 2020How deniers maintain the consensus gap
Moderators : I note that since the recent "down time" of this website, a double line spacing is appearing between paragraphs.
Is this intended?
Moderator Response:[BW] Thanks for letting us know! We'll check it.
-
Eclectic at 23:38 PM on 26 February 2020How deniers maintain the consensus gap
DantetnaD , you are correct that the science-denier movement is an example of what is in effect a type of intellectual insanity. It is based on emotion & consequent Motivated Reasoning (cherry-picking, and self-deception) . . . and/or on the emotions of tribal thinking (the sort of "them and us" division which has been so harmful to humanity through the ages).
Interesting that this politicization tendency seems greatest in the USA and to a lesser extent the other Anglophone nations. That may be because for the USA, the Right Wing contains many people who don't like to see any change in their current lifestyle ~ they are resentful of and fearful of the gradual sociological "erosion of privilege" (perceived, if not actual . . . and including a dollop of racism, too). Such a group is also fertile soil for the propaganda seeds implanted by the overt & covert manipulation from the Fossil Fuel lobby, which aims to turbo-charge all such concerns.
Not a pretty picture. Eventually things will get bad enough that more and more voters will press for stronger climate action ~ but this voter activity will not happen fast enough to stop a lot of preventable damage.
BTW, a few weeks ago, I did catch up with the "Anti-Greta" video by the German girl. It is not worth seeing. IIRC it was about 5 minutes long, and contained nothing substantive ~ no factual scientific arguments: just vague rhetoric and complaints that she didn't like being patronized or being called a denier. Only a fond mother (or a climate denialist) could see any virtue in it.
-
MA Rodger at 23:08 PM on 26 February 2020How deniers maintain the consensus gap
DantetnaD @22,
Perhaps your article on the 'anti-Greta' could be this one in yesterday's Guardian about Naomi Seibt. I note in the linked YouTube that her contribution is no more than a pantomime - "Oh no it's not!!"
I'm not sure that her association with Heartland makes Naomi anything more than an advertising tool for that particular pack of numpties. An actual Naomi quote from the linked YouTube (which contains a lot of editing breaks suggesting Naomi can't speak fluently about numptyisms, at least not in English) runs:-
"We at the Heartland Institute, we want to spread truth about the science behind Climate Realism [cut] which essentially is the opposite of Climate Alarmism [cut]. ... [Cut] I don't want you to panic. I want you to think."
Of course, if folk do as Naomi asks and engage their brains and think, then the lies set out by Heartland are all pretty obvious.
-
DantetnaD at 20:54 PM on 26 February 2020How deniers maintain the consensus gap
This is what scares me.
There was an article yesterday about this new "anti-Greta" german girl which basically says climate change isn't as bad as it looks. Go in the comments and you see the sheer ignorance of a vast majority of the folks out there, even in our "first world" countries.
Just a whole bunch of hateful comments against Greta and a whole lot of people who have a complete lack of intellectual capacity to understand and analyse scientific evidence.
I don't have a scientific degree per say, but my parents both had scientific degrees. I work with computers which gives me the capacity to understand complex systems. And what I do see out there, is that a lot of people don't understand how systems work in general. They don't understand that it is all about an equilibrium of a large number of factors that, when they work together, make a stable system. When you start to tinker with a parameter, the system will eventually become unstable and crash. Simple example: raise the frequency of a CPU without increasing the cooling capacity and you computer will overheat and crash.
What annoys me most about deniers, is that they completely dismiss scientific evidence. They will go at great length to find data, studies or any piece of news (often not verified for that matter), that comforts them in their own bias. When you tell them that there is a consensus of actual scientists that do state that global warming is real and probably accelerated by humans, they will throw this "30'000 scientists say it's not true" idea in your face without even fact checking that these people are actual climate scientists.
It honestly doesn't take a genius to read the reports. To look at the data. To look at the charts. And from their on, extrapolate to what is potentially going to happen.
The real problem in the end, is that human induced climate change has been politicized. Suddenly you're either pro or anti climate change. Why does everyone fail to understand that this should not be the case? How is it that we cannot understand that we all need to work together to do something about it? What's the worst that can happen? We make a better home for ourselves?
Have we regressed so much that we are, once again, dismissing science in favor of "beliefs"?
-
RedBaron at 14:36 PM on 26 February 2020How much would planting 1 trillion trees slow global warming?
@2
US started planting trees in the 1920's and there are at least as many now as the pilgrim days or more.
What is different is the prairies. Most of them have been plowed under, especially the tallgrass prairie.
You can look on Google Maps all you want, but just because you see an area without trees doesn't mean there was a forest there before. In most cases it was prairie.
This is important because grasslands are the planets cooling system, not forests.
You are seeing the reason why right now in Australia. Above ground biomass always returns to the atmosphere eventually either by decay or my fire.
Whereas a large % of the carbon (~40%) fixed by grasslands is stored deep in the soil profile. And a high % of that carbon (~70%) enters the geological long cycle and does NOT enter back into the atmosphere for thousands or even millions of years.
Then there is also the albedo effects, where trees absorb much more radiation and grasses reflect more due to averaging a much paler green coloration.
The US easily plants as many or more trees than they log and have been doing this for about 100 years. So already many trees planted have already grown up and been logged again, and replanted again.
However, as I said before, this does not mean the US isn't contributing to AGW. They certainly are. But the primary ways are because of fossil fuel emissions and plowing up and destroying the biome responcible for cooling the planet...grasslands.
-
scaddenp at 10:26 AM on 26 February 2020Climate's changed before
Bruce. Hard to know where to begin.
CO2 does not reflect sunlight - the gas is transparent to the frequencies of radiation coming from sun. However, the gas absorbs infrared radiation leaving the surface. So GHG lets energy in but slows energy going out.
A warming ocean will emit CO2 (melting permafrost and temperate wetlands are other sources of GHG as temperature rise), but the oceans will not become net emitters of CO2 for hundreds of years. Currently they are absorbing CO2 (and becoming less alkaline).
The situation at the end of an ice age is different - the changing distribution of sun energy (milankovitch cycles) result in summer melt in high northern latitudes reducing the albedo (and thus the amount of sunlight reflected directly back to space from ice). The warming releases GHG by the various mechamisms and as a result whole planet warms.
-
takamura_senpai at 08:27 AM on 26 February 2020How much would planting 1 trillion trees slow global warming?
USA NOT plant 800 million trees per year. This is manipulation, trick, fake, just lie. Finland good in planting, China in some part, others... But USA cut several times more than plant. We can look on google maps and see this.
How many % from this "800 million" are still alive after 10, 20, 30 years?Plant 1 trillion trees - what about reality?
-
Philippe Chantreau at 08:10 AM on 26 February 2020Climate's changed before
Bruce Monk, the nature of both your questions and remarks clearly show that you are nowhere near the level of knowledge and understanding that you would need in order to formulate any kind of opinion that could be of interest to others. There is plenty to learn on this site and it refers other sources as well; you have lots of reading to do if you want to contribute.
-
Bruce Monk at 07:21 AM on 26 February 2020Climate's changed before
This is may first post and I am not able to repeat the 823 POST chart. What ir says to me is that changes in temperature clearly ocurr in advance of changing CO2 levels. Which makes sense since with warming teperatures the ocean will release CO2.
Does CO2 in the atmosphere reflect the sunlight? Similar to clouds. If so then the greater effect orf increased CO2 is to cool the Earth because there is much more energy reflected toward space than toward Earth.
This is a simplistic view, but CO2 from the ocean and from decompostion of organic matter are so dominant, does it not make sense? Also, man has done awful things to the ocean so mightened this contribute to the warming and therefore the CO2 release. "See this: Is CO2 causing climate change?"
Moderator Response:[DB] Hyperlinked source that was breaking page formatting.
-
scaddenp at 06:41 AM on 26 February 2020Climate's changed before
"Does not show any evidence of direct ...for a direct GHG temperature relationship"
Physics and chemistry predict that temperature will correlate with GHG for milankovich forcings. The data supports that prediction.
Here they are from Epica directly overlain.
And here is a correlation plot, though the GHG forcing instead of CO2 concentration since there is non-linear relationship between CO2 concentration and forcing.
Shows a pretty good relationship if you ask me - or statistically calculate it. I dont think you are articulating your problem with the graphic well enough.
"The lack of correlation between temperature and GHG in the presence may be due to a lag of the temperature change since the last couple of years."
I suspect English is not your first language, but I cannot parse your meaning here. "a couple of years" is not something discernable on UoC graphic. If you mean present time, (since say 1970), then climate (not weather) is strongly correlated with GHG levels. Even more strongly correlated with total radiative forcing (taking into a account all influences on climate). Note of course that decadal-level variations in temperatures are not driven by GHG. Claiming that science predicts constant, temperature/GHG relationship is a straw-man fallacy.
-
theSkeptik at 04:48 AM on 26 February 2020Climate's changed before
Wow, I am overwhelmed by all this aggression, I never intended to offend anyone and I don't dare to imagine what would have happened if I said that I don't believe in anthropogenic climate change - which I haven't so far.
Please understand that I am no longer able to respond to every comment in detail. Especially I won't comment any postings from people who are apparently not able to formulate a single argument.
My second point was that the graphic from the University of Copenhagen does not show any evidence or even indication for a direct temperature GHG relation. I explicitely stated that there may be other evidence for that apart from the graphic. The simple question "what information can be derived from the graphic" obviously can and must be answered only in the context of the graphic. Just assume that I agree with you about the direct causal relationship between GHG and temperature. Would it change the meaning and information of the shown data? Certainly not within the boundaries of science.
I noticed one single argument related to that question so far. The lack of correlation between temperature and GHG in the presence may be due to a lag of the temperature change since the last couple of years. It therefore doesen't show up in the graphic. Well, fair enough. But that even more so underlines my point: It's something the graphic does not show. So my statement "why presenting that data which does not show what the article intends to" stays unchallanged.
Moderator Response:[DB] Inflammatory and baiting rhetoric snipped.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is probably best. Electrons are plentiful and abundant.
NOTE: T his user has requested to recuse themselves from further participation here.
-
michael sweet at 01:51 AM on 26 February 2020Climate's changed before
Skeptic @813:
I am astonished that you will not consider conclusions over 100 years old. It is no wonder that you conclude that the scientists over generalize their conclusions when you restrict discussion to only the data in their paper. I note that the paper provides no evidence that the Earth is round, that matter is made of atoms or that the Sun will come up tomorrow. Normal scientific discussion includes data previously gathered. Your claims that only the data in the paper can be considered is in contravention to all scientific and normal conversation.
You make no attempt to provide a scientific justification for your wild claims. Since many others are commenting to you I will withdraw to prevent dogpiling.
-
MA Rodger at 19:49 PM on 25 February 2020Climate's changed before
theSkeptik @813,
Such is the composition of your specific responses (not least to my comment @810) that I feel you should be made aware of how far you are from grasping the reality of the climatology you criticise. This makes addressing the substance of your comment (which actually has some merit) an impossibility.
Thus (& specific to you reply to my comment @810), what you call my "first argument" is correcting your error @808 by pointing out the well-known situation that the CO2 measured from ice cores is measuring trapped air. You move on from this 'correction' and on to the so-far-unmentioned-by-you problem of the difference between the age of the ice and the age of the air entrapped within the ice which as you correctly say is not addressed in this SkS post. It is addressed on a different SkS post which is linked within the above SkS post. "Unfortunately" you are unable to cope with that situation.
Similarly, you use part of what I present within what you call my "second argument" to begin anew with a different argument that an absence of Antarctic warming is equivalent to there being no global warming. (Actually if this were the issue, more up-to-date temperature data, so for instance the warming below -70ºS measured by GISTEMP, records a great deal of Antarctic warming over recent years.)
Finally you are flat wrong to suggest that you "do not make any claims about any relationships between GHG and temperature or other related parameters." Whatever your experience in "just looking for unbiased information," do not deny that you yourself come here with "overinterpreted data and conclusions driven by preoccupation," and I would suggest your two comments @808 & @813 show you are more pre-occupied than those you criticise.
The SkS post above, addresses the nonsense myth set out by denialist Richard Lindzen that "climate is always changing" and thus "wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever present climate change is no substitute for prudence." You may be unsatisfied that this SkS post properly addresses Lindzen's denialist argument. And I may agree with you on that specific-but-narrow point. But such a deficiency does not, as you attempt to argue, make the underlying thesis wrong. And you failure to present consistent and trustworthy analysis suggests proper discussion of all this likely a little pointless.
-
JohnSeers at 19:36 PM on 25 February 2020Climate's changed before
@theSkeptic 813
"At least it's not obvious to me that a gas in a concentration of only several hundreds of ppm is likely to have such a significant influence on global temperature."
It was not obvious to anyone until the work had been done and the conclusions drawn. A skeptic, of course, asks the question is it possible that a small amount of a substance can have a large effect? And then researches it.
Looking around we can see hundreds of examples in the real world where small amounts have a large effect. For instance the cascade effect in the body of a small amount of hormone triggers reactions very speedily. I doubt you would eat fuga fish if you felt the chef had done less than a stellar job preparing it.
You are an experienced R&D scientist. So why are you not more skeptical?
-
James Charles at 19:30 PM on 25 February 2020Catching up with the Younger Dryas: do mass-extinctions always need impacts?
The Undesigned Universe - Peter Ward
“ . . . it
62:26 is these ocean state changes that are
62:28 correlated with the great disasters of
62:30 the past impact can cause extinction but
62:35 it did so in our past only once that we
62:38 can tell whereas this has happened over
62:40 and over and over again we have
62:42 fifteen evidences times of mass
62:45 extinction in the past 500 million years
62:48 so the implications for the implications
62:51 the implications of the carbon dioxide
62:52 is really dangerous if you heat your
62:55 planet sufficiently to cause your Arctic
62:58 to melt if you cause the temperature
63:01 gradient between your tropics and your
63:03 Arctic to be reduced you risk going back
63:07 to a state that produces these hydrogen
63:11 sulfide pulses “ -
Eclectic at 11:34 AM on 25 February 2020Climate's changed before
OnePlanetOF @816 ~ well stated, sir. I also admire the droll delicacy of your final sentence.
Like you, I enjoy the obfuscatory sophistry that "TheSkeptic" is employing . . . and reading between the lines of his own comments, it appears that he enjoys constructing these obfuscatory sophistries.
TheSkeptic ~ sir, when you have finished with your footwork, would you please make a straightforward presentation of how, where & why you consider the modern mainstream science to be wrong in matters of climate. ( I would like to think you have something definite in mind . . . and are not just trying to bluff while holding a completely valueless hand of cards.)
Moderator Response:[PS] Thanks. Fixed.
-
scaddenp at 10:11 AM on 25 February 2020Climate's changed before
"The article claims it supports the assumption that there is a causal relationship between the GHG and global temperature"
It does, but you cannot isolate the diagram from the rest of physics and I do not believe the article purports to do so. The claim is not that "because CO2 levels move lock step with temperature, ergo CO2 is causing temperatures to rise", which would indeed be a misstep. The claim is more that these observation support what we would predict from the underlying physics and chemistry at work. The tricky thing with iceage cycle is that it is strongly correlated with insolation at 65N. While the forcing at that latitude is strong, the forcing globally is weak (can be antiphased in southern hemisphere). However, the feedback loop that change the GHG composition with temperatures at in high northern latitude easily accounts for converting a local change into a global event.
I would also say, that if you are a physicist, do you go with your gut or do you do the maths?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:48 AM on 25 February 2020Climate's changed before
TheSkeptic - It is amusing to see a self-professed scientific-minded individual claim that "I will surely have a closer look at this matter in due course" in reference to The Key Apsect of the Issue being discussed.
How is it you have developed so many thoughts on this matter without first developing a robust understanding of its most fundamental basis?
-
Climate's changed before
theSkeptic - See also the Argument from Incredulity regarding CO2 concentrations.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:01 AM on 25 February 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8
JoeZ,
Please share specifics about all of the major fossil fuel corporations that are not in debt to lenders or to shareholders and not looking for financing (note that share values do not fund new projects, new shares being bought would be required). I am sure they exist. I am not sure there are that many of them, but you claim to know, and I am open to learning.
Also, please share details of how such an entity purchasing a failing competitor would be 'Their go to strategy for New Investments to sustainably grow the corporation'. Note that the key issue I am asking about is Sustainably Growing the Corporation.
Admittedly, there has been an unsustainable rash of success by people buying up businesses and unsustainably 'optimizing the value extracted'. But there is no actual future for that type of operation. The pursuit of 'opportunities to benefit that way' are being seen to be creating harmful consequences, in addition to being unsustainable ways of creating impressions of wealth and status.
"Winners Take All - The Elite Charade of Changing the World", by Anand Giridharadas is a thorough evidence-based presentation of many unsustainable harmful things that have developed, particularly since the damaging disruption of the likes of Reagan and Thatcher in the 1980s. The most damaging development is the way there is now a reluctance to actually understand how harmful the pursuits of benefit actually are. The harmful pursuits/pursuers are excused by claiming that they "reduce poverty, or allow really rich people to charitably give back some wealth to Help as they see fit", failing to admit the harm done and failing to admit that the activity is unsustainable.
-
Climate's changed before
theSkeptik - Please see How substances in trace amounts can cause large effects regarding increasing the ppm of CO2. Raising the primary greenhouse gas concentration by more than 30% has a very significant effect.
And those unusually high greenhouse gas concentrations are exactly the issue - based upon simple spectroscopy, supported by direct empirical measurements of surface and orbital temperatures and radiation, and by examining all physically plausible temperature forcings (observed changes in natural forcings would have cooled the climate over the last 50 years, only anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases have warmed it).
So yes, the change in greenhouse gas concentrations which that graphic displays is hugely significant.
-
theSkeptik at 06:48 AM on 25 February 2020Climate's changed before
@michal sweet, MA Rodger and KR:
First of all I very much appreciate your quick comments on my post.
to 1) yes, I realize now that ice core measurements have been taken in the antarctica (not arctica) which I assume means it's about CO2 from the atmosphere, not the sea water. The shown direct relationship to the temperature is therefore plausible to me.
to 2) I am discussing solely the meaning of the presented data from the University of Copenhagen. The article claims it supports the assumption that there is a causal relationship between the GHG and global temperature. Don't get me wrong, there may be other evidence for that claim but that's not my point here.
@michael sweet
The predicion you mentioned about the global warming 100 years ago is outside the scope of the discussed data. Apart from that, there are only two possible outcomes from such a prediction: a) It can turn out right - temperatures are rising or b) it can turn out wrong - temperatures are falling. So even with an uneducated guess one would have a 50% chance to be right. Finally, the graphic doesn't even show any evidence of global warming, though it does show a very significant raise in methane and CO2 in the last decades.
@MA Rodger
I see your first argument is in line with another claim of the article that recent data show a phase shift in GHG and temperature. Since 2012 GHG movement is said to no longer lag behind temperature data. I agree this would be an indication of a significant change. Unfortunately this data is not shown in the article and it can't be seen in the presented graph. Your second argument just seems to support my concern: Global warming can't be seen in the antarctica according to the chart so far. It is possible that it shows up in the future, but the shown data gives no evidence to that assumption.
Finally I do not make any claims about any relationships between GHG and temperature or other related parameters. I am just looking for unbiased information and constantly come across overinterpreted data and conclusions driven by preoccupation. If one claims a causal relationship between two parameters its up to them to give evidence, not to me to proof otherwise.
@KR
As a physicist working for several decades in RnD companies I am not easily convinced of simple models describing the behaviour of complex reality. At least it's not obvious to me that a gas in a concentration of only several hundreds of ppm is likely to have such a significant influence on global temperature. It might not be impossible and I will surely have a closer look at this matter in due course. However, as I mentioned before this is not my current point. I am discussing the presented graphic which seems to support nothing of the claims about global warming apart from unusual high greenhouse gas concentrations.
-
nigelj at 06:29 AM on 25 February 2020How much would planting 1 trillion trees slow global warming?
"Their analysis inflated soil organic carbon gains, failed to safeguard against warming from trees at high latitudes and elevations, and considered afforestation of savannas, grasslands, and shrublands to be restoration."
In addition, most grasslands are already used for cattle farming, so turning them into forests has considerable consequences, and we have the Red Barons of the world mentioning that grasslands can be a useful carbon store if properly grazed. I just think the study on forests looks wildly optimistic, and is full of such obvious omissions you wonder what planet they were on when writing it. Of course forests do have some significant potential, just not the inflated potential some politicians like to portray.
As to carbon capture and storage and its "economics" needing further analysis, according to this article "Plunging Prices Mean Building New Renewable Energy Is Cheaper Than Running Existing Coal". How can carbon capture and storage possibly compete with that?
-
scaddenp at 06:02 AM on 25 February 2020Climate's changed before
What has happened in the past is easily accounted for within our current theory of climate. No unexplained physics though there are unfortunately plenty of underconstrained problems (where more than one possible cause for observations and insufficient measurable to distinquish).
What we can say with confidence is that increasing GHG will increase the amount of radiation received at the surface because we can unambiguously measure it. Unless you can dream up some other way to account for the observations, then I dont see how you can dispute this.
Now, if the sun increased its output so that an extra 4W/m2 reached the surface, do you think the planet would warm? (If you dont think so, then I am fascinated to hear your theory of seasons...). If you accept that, then why dont think an extra 4W/m2 from GHG would also warm the surface.
-
Climate's changed before
theSkeptik - " I would assume that both greenhous gases and temperature are correlated to other parameters"
Well, yes, because physics. Long lived non-precipitating greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (CO2, CFCs, Methane) reduce IR emissions to space from the top of the atmosphere, which causes an imbalance of energy in the climate against incoming sunlight, and the climate therefore warms until radiated energy once again equals incoming.
Along the way there are feedbacks both (mostly) positive and (some) negative which on the whole amplify the temperature response, such as changing CO2 solubility in the oceans, changing Earth albedo by melting snow over darker landscapes, methane releases from warming permafrost, and as a fast response changes in absolute humidity due to warm air holding more water vapor (itself a greenhouse gas, although as a feedback, not a driver).
Physics comes first - correlation analysis to determine the exact amplitude of the response between drivers and the climate comes later.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:32 AM on 25 February 2020How deniers maintain the consensus gap
JoeZ @8 (and other points),
First - Do you have anything to share about my point regarding the rather deliberately harmful behaviour of the supposedly smart likes of Crichton?
Then - "I suggest that it's wrong to think that all climate skeptics are "deniers" who don't believe the climate is warming and don't believe CO2 is a GHG. I suggest most skeptics think the likelihood of change is on the low end. They do understand that the climate is warming and that CO is a GHG. Maybe they can't provide proof that the change will be on the low end because most skeptics aren't scientists. It's just that most skeptics don't think it's anything to freak out over."
The ability to collectively develop expanded awareness and improved understanding and apply that shared learning to develop improvements, from the personal-today level up to the future of global humanity level, is what has produced everything that can be seen to be sustainable improvements of humanity.
It is indeed true that humans can simply fundamentally behave like selfish animals. But humans have the ability to lean to be helpful and avoid being harmful. And sustainable animal life even requires animals to limit their actions to what is required for their survival as a part of the robust diversity of life on this amazing planet.
As an engineer with an MBA I offer the following advise: do not expect to get rich through unsustainable harmful actions. Some people have definitely gotten rich that way. But expanded awareness and improving understanding is developing to the point where more and more of these types of people are 'losing some of their undeserved perceptions of success and opportunity', as they should because the future of humanity requires that they be disappointed and penalized.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:15 AM on 25 February 2020How deniers maintain the consensus gap
nigelj,
Another good book on the subject is "Winners Take All - The Elite Charade of Changing the World", by Anand Giridharadas. It is a detailed and evidenced based expose of how harmful the Carnegie Gospel of how the Rich need to be allowed to be Richer any way they can get away with because they will be the best at applying all their excess personal wealth to fix the problems of human societies (the problems that were created by the way they got so wealthy).
The Koch philanthropy of supporting a Ballet Company to "Look like a Good Rich Person" is an example. It unjustifiably impresses the peers in the undeserving wealthy powerful pool, deflecting from questions about how the perceptions of superior status were obtained.
-
MA Rodger at 22:19 PM on 24 February 2020Climate's changed before
theSkeptik @808,
You refer to the plot of CO2, Methane & temperature found in the 'intermediate' OP which is derived from Antarctic ice cores.
(1) The CO2 and Methane data is obtained from the content of air bubbles so is not a measutre of ocean CO2 but of atmospheric CO2.
(2) You compare the increase in CO2 through recent ice age cycles with the modern anthropogenic increase and, given the larger temperature swings plotted through the ice ages you suggest "we would expect a much higher temperature in the present in contrast to what we see in the chart." Do note firstly that the climate forcing from GHGs through the ice ages still exceeds the modern anthropogenic forcing which have had little-enough time to act and that GHGs were not the sole forcing agent through the ice ages. Secondly, the temperatures plotted are from the Antarctic which hasn't regionally seen as much warming as there has been globally, and that despite polar amplification which would have 'amplified' the ice age temperature swings in Antarctica.
You also dismiss CO2 and methane as significant forcers of climate because you "assume that both greenhous gases and temperature are correlated to other parameters." What are these other 'parameters' you talk of and their means of 'correlation' to GHGs and to temperature?
-
michael sweet at 19:17 PM on 24 February 2020Climate's changed before
The Skeptic:
1) Your question is hard to read. Indirectly proportional means as one variable goes up the other goes down. Directly proportional means as one variable goes up the other goes up.
We expect that as ocean temperature goes up less CO2 will be dissolved. The CO2 goes from the ocean into the atmosphere. We see in the Copenhagen graph that as temperature goes up, CO2 also goes up. That is exactly what was predicted by scientists decades before the ice core was obtained.
2) Scientists first predicted that increasing CO2 would result in increasing temperature in around 1855. The ice core measurements made over 100 years later confirmed this prediction. A prediction made over 100 years in advance of the data is not the same as "assum[ing] there is a direct causal relationship between the greenhouse gases and temperature". Validation of predictions is strong confirmation that the theory is correct.
The ice core data end before the start of the industrial age. Note that the first line on the timeline is 50,000 years ago. You need to look at the Hocky Stick to see the changes due to the industrial age. That data shows a clear link between dramatic increases in temperature and release of CO2. This temperature increase is known to cause sea level rise, unprecedented wild fires and extreme weather.
-
nigelj at 17:13 PM on 24 February 2020How deniers maintain the consensus gap
Regarding Philippe Chantreaus comments. The relevant book is Dark Money. The same people who said the global financial crash couldn' t happen, and when it did they made excuses for the culprits are the same people involved in climate denialism, eg The Koch Brothers, The Bradly Brothers etc.
They are business leaders at the libertarian ideological fringe, and perhaps many of them have sociopathic tendencies. Their two biggest hates are 1) taxes and 2) government regulations (apart from when it helps their business interests. These people are utter hypocrites. )
The Kochs and their supporters started a libertarian political party to push their cause a couple of decades ago, but it tanked in the polls, getting less than 1% support, so they adopted a different strategy, to fund a huge network of think tanks, and lobby groups and they have huge influence on the GOP through this and political donations, and some influence on the Democrats.
So if you want to know why federal level climate policy is mostly a failure in the USA, this would be the main reason. This sounds a but conspiratorial, but in this instance the evidence is overwhelming.
These people will stop at nothing to undermine things like a climate change consensus.
-
theSkeptik at 16:24 PM on 24 February 2020Climate's changed before
Especially the meaning of the chart from the University of Copenhagen remains unclear to me:
1) CO2 has been measured in the ice of the antarctica. It should therefore reflect the CO2 content of the sea in the past. Warmer oceans can dissolve less CO2. Wouldn't we then expect a CO2 content in the ice indirect proportional to the temperature?
2) It is a common fallacy in science to assume a causal relationship between two parameters just because they show a similar behaviour over time. If we assume there is a direct causal relationship between the greenhouse gases and temperature, we would expect a much higher temperature in the present in contrast to what we see in the chart. Looking at the graphic from an unbiased perspective I would assume that both greenhous gases and temperature are correlated to other parameters. According to the data CO2 and methane don't seem to have a significant influence on temperature therefore.
All in all, temperatures in the antarctica seem to be rather unobtrusive with no visible deviations since the industrial age.
-
scaddenp at 14:07 PM on 24 February 2020How deniers maintain the consensus gap
". It is not human nature, however to think in crappy ways."
(quick glance at news) Evidence would suggest otherwise.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 12:22 PM on 24 February 2020How deniers maintain the consensus gap
scaddenp,
OK, that'd be the more general version. It is not human nature, however to think in crappy ways. Just today I met a young nursing student who gave a kidney, without being asked, just to make some other person's life possible; the recipient happened to be even younger than her.
Competition for high power positions and for material wealh tends to select favorably those with sociopathic tendencies, so it is possible that they are found in higher concentrations in these circles than in the general population.
If the general population was to acquire a understanding of the situation unpolluted by falsehoods and propaganda, they would decide to do the right thing. The desperate storm of denialism that we are witnessing is owed to the fact that the small groups who profit from the current situation are well aware that, would the full reality of AGW be accepted by the majority, they will have no moral case whatsoever, so they'll loose. What is hard to understand is the ferocity of continued pursuit of wealth coming from those who are already richer than most of us can imagine and enjoying a level of privilege unprecedented in humanity's history.
-
Eclectic at 12:05 PM on 24 February 2020How deniers maintain the consensus gap
JoeZ , I am pleased to see you have returned to multiple-thread posting at SkS after a brief "hiatus". Perhaps you were confused when you said that SkepticalScience had given you "a warning that ... [you would] be locked out!" . I haven't seen any evidence of such a warning ~ so presumably it came on some other website where you currently post.
Readers at SkS like to see science and fact-based opinions, rather than mere truculent denialism. So I am hoping you can provide some reasonable comment on the scientific consensus, even when you are struggling to come to terms with the future spending of "trillions" of dollars in dealing with the global warming problem. ( I would be interested to see - on another thread, please - a more precise budgeting of your projected "trillions". Trillions [over 30 years] are sometimes a figure thrown about, but AFAIK they are not offset by the trillions that would otherwise ordinarily be spent on upgrading & routine replacement of coal-fired power stations, and the routine replacement of ICE cars & so on, and on medical health costs & loss of productivity from air-pollution/particulates, nor the high [dollar] costs associated with big numbers of climate refugees . . . going to Boston etcetera. Nor the many other costs arising from a warming world. Human compassion aside, for those who are purely concerned with the dollar bottom-line, it seems a bargain to spend up-front money in tackling climate change.
.... and a minor comparison, the APPA expenditure figures project a total spend [over 30 years] of one trillion dollars on pet food. And that's just for the USA, alone. )
-
scaddenp at 11:46 AM on 24 February 2020How deniers maintain the consensus gap
Philippe - I would more have thought the argument boiled down to "Its human nature to think in crappy ways, therefore it is ok". Thinking better is hard work.
Prev 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 Next
