Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 Next
Comments 7901 to 7950:
-
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.
-
michael sweet at 11:18 AM on 24 February 2020How deniers maintain the consensus gap
JoeZ, Your claims of "many trillions they're going to spend to solve this problem" is incomplete. Is fossil gasoline and electricity really free where you live?? It is like saying "this Toyota sedan is too expensive at $25,000. I will have to buy the Ferrari instead". In order to make a comparison you need to compare the cost of a renewable system to the cost of a fossil fuel system.
Fortunately this has been done. Jacobson et al 2018 and Connelly et al 2016 have shown that a renewable system built by 2050 will cost about the same for energy as a fossil fuel system. After it is built the renewable energy system will be much cheaper since it will only require maintenance and no fuel.
The savings on health costs alone are more than the cost of the energy system. The savings from less destructive weather is many trillions of dollars. The savings from less sea level rise is many trillions of dollars.
You have been reading uninformed skeptic comments at trash sites like WUWT. In reality, it will save trillions of dollars to switch to renewable energy.
Why do you support the most expensive system?
-
Philippe Chantreau at 09:24 AM on 24 February 2020How deniers maintain the consensus gap
I'll ad this:
The full extension of JoeZ's reasoning goes this far: in 30-40 years, I'll be dead, so what do I care?
Nice outlook
-
Philippe Chantreau at 09:21 AM on 24 February 2020How deniers maintain the consensus gap
What baffles me with the claim about cost is the double standard. The 2008 financial crisis cost the world economy somewhere around 15 trillions. Yet none of the major individual actors who held significant responsibility in this pathetic mix of greed, corruption, fraud and incompetence experienced serious consequences. It was largely brushed off as a somewhat unavoidable side effect of unfettered capitalism. The enormous expense incured brought zero benefit to the world at large.
Nonetheless, the truly interesting thing about this miserable fiasco is how easily it was overall absorbed. Some countries were hit harder than others, and certainly there was some suffering caused even in the developed world, but nothing coming close to the great depression. It shows that the word economy is in fact capable of enduring a blow of 15 trillion over a couple of years without worldwide effects of the truly catastrophic type. If only that gigantic pile of moolah could have been spent on something useful instead of being squandered by egotistic criminals, something like energy transition. But of course, if such an idea was proposed, with a price tag of that weight, it would draw screams peppered with all the right propaganda words.
There is something in common with the cimate disruption, however: when people who knew what they were talking about, and had done careful study of the situation rang the alarm bell on the upcoming disaster, they were dismissed by others who simply denied that anything serious would happen, although they did not know what they were talking about and had not done the work. When some clever ones decided to bank on it, they were received eagerly by all the clowns who thought that they were crazy, the same clowns who would soon beg them to buy their positions back at multiples of the initial price.
We are nowhere near a doubling of CO2 concentration, and not close to equilibrium. Even if we stopped emitting right now, there would be still significant warming to come. yet we are already at 1deg C above pre-industrial. The probability the equilibrium temp increase for doubling will be 1.5 deg could be said to be small enough to be negligible. Is there a way to short the entire world economy on the 40 years horizon?
-
scaddenp at 08:58 AM on 24 February 2020How deniers maintain the consensus gap
Death, taxes and politicians lying are facts of life. What science tells you is different. IPCC WG2 is strong science statement about likely impacts; WG3 is assessment of solutions. I'm up to be guided by those not vague hopes or political preferences.
Ok, you hear about unpopular solutions. Is it reasonable to assume that all uncertainty must in the lower range not the upper range, or that problem cant be that bad if I dont like the solutions?
Or do you look for a solution that is more palatable or compatiable with your ideology instead? (and for which there is strong consensus backing for the effectiveness).
If my actions, which improve my life (eg emitting CO2) are turning somebodies elses life into hell, then I regard it as immoral to continue. I strongly suspect that you would agree if the problems with your lifestyle impacted your local community. What makes it ok then, if it is out of sight? Caring for humanity is what makes for a great humanitarian. You admire that in Carter, why not aspire for that?
-
JoeZ at 06:57 AM on 24 February 2020How deniers maintain the consensus gap
Scaddenp,
"Surely you arent seriously suggesting that if global warming isnt hurting you, then you dont mind if the rest of world going to hell in an handbasket?" Well, now that you mention it..... Let's face it, it's human nature to worry about yourself and the people in your life- your own problems whether it's health, wealth, relationships, whatever. Worrying about the rest of the world seldom rises to the surface. And I suspect if a tornado blasted through my area, the folks on those small islands that are afraid of going under water aren't going to worry about me. Now, having said that, climate science is unlike any other science because of its vast political and economic consequences. We are seeing every day politicians talking about how many trillions they're going to spend to solve this problem when they don't in fact know the extent of the problem. So, it's just natural that many people are getting pissed off about such talk. Maybe if climate scientists- the 97%- were to tell those politicans and the media to "cool it"- no pun intended- that they should be more cautious in finding solutions- then maybe fewer people wouldn't vote for Trump, who is clearly going to win. I'm not going to vote for him because I don't like his personality- though I like some of his policies, especially foreign policies. And I don't like any Democrats either. I did like Jimmy Carter, a nuclear engineer who put solar panels on the white house. And he's a great humanitarian.
Moderator Response:[TD] If you driving a car with the accelerator pressed nearly to the floor, are headed straight at a brick wall, and are sure you will hit the wall, you should take your foot off the accelerator regardless of whether you are uncertain whether you will be going 50 mph or 80 mph when you hit it. See the response to the myth It’s Not Bad.
Your claim of cost is too gross. See the response to the myth It’s Too Hard.
-
scaddenp at 06:50 AM on 24 February 20202019 in climate science: A continued warming trend and 'bleak' research
Ah ok. Thanks for that. Understand the suggestion which makes sense.
-
scaddenp at 06:07 AM on 24 February 2020How deniers maintain the consensus gap
Joez - and what makes them think that likelihood of change is at the low end? Because that opinion is informed by scientific observation or because doing something about it is unpalatable to their politics or not what their identity group believes. Isnt that just another kind of denial? Do you expect to be respected for uninformed hopes?
Instead of cherry picking the good news, wouldnt it be a better idea to evaluate globally the effects and see what the balance is? Surely you arent seriously suggesting that if global warming isnt hurting you, then you dont mind if the rest of world going to hell in an handbasket?
-
nigelj at 05:38 AM on 24 February 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8
Joe Z @3, reduced conventional bank financing to the fossil fuel industry would leave them having to compete for other remaining funds which are a limited resource, thus driving up the cost of those funds, increasing the price of petrol and forcing people to consider electric cars etcetera. This is what is needed.
-
JoeZ at 04:26 AM on 24 February 2020How deniers maintain the consensus gap
response to #7
"And the range of 1.5C to 6.0C actually indicates a consensus of understanding that increased CO2 will result in global warming." 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 liklihood 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. This gets to the critique about the 97% thing. I wonder about the following- what percent of that 97% think climate change is pontentially catastrophic and that we must spend trillions in the short term to prevent the catastrophe? And in case you're wondering- yes- I'm one of those skeptics who KNOWS that the climate is warming because I've worked out doors as a forester in Massachusetts for 47 years and I KNOW it's warmer- and I do agree that CO2 is a GHG. But, I don't know anybody around here complaining about it. Just got a call from my wife visiting friends south of Boston. They're sitting on the porch and she said it's almost 60 F and they're enjoying it very much- no complaints that it's not -20 F.
Moderator Response:[TD] See the post in response to the myth It’s Not Bad
-
JoeZ at 04:13 AM on 24 February 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8
"Many fossil fuel corporations are already in debt." Sure, but many are doing great. When the debt ridden firms go under- those doing fine will buy their assetts. I doubt that J.P. Morgan and some other investment houses turning against fossil fuel industries will make much of a difference. it's a big world with lots of people with lots of money looking for investments. Whether anyone likes it or not I think fossil fuel firms will be around for some time. Especially because a lot of people still want gas for their cars, heating oil for heir homes, etc. I have an electric chainsaw- not to help save the planet but because they're really nice- very convenient for backyard kind of work. Quite and I sure got tired of pulling on the cord trying to start gas saws. But, they'll only work for only an hour or so. I'd hate to be a logger who has to cut big trees all day- because no electric chain saw will do that- so those loggers will want gas. Of course much logging today is done with big machines (feller-bunchers and skidders). I suppose they won't be happy without diesel. Oh, and I plan on buying an electric lawn mower this year- for the same reason- convenience and quite.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:39 AM on 24 February 2020How deniers maintain the consensus gap
MA Rogers @4, In addition to your comment regarding Crichton, in a speech to a US Congress Committee more than a decade ago he also 'questioned the validity of climate science' by declaring that any science that had a 400% range of results could/should be dismissed as unreliable science.
He was likely referring to the 'warming due to a doubling of CO2 being a range from 1.5C to 6.0C'. But he did not include that awareness and understanding. He just mentioned that there was something in climate science with a 400% range of results. That would only seem to indicate unreliability and would be accepted without question by someone who has little interest in learning about what is actually being discussed, especially someone who has developed beliefs of superiority relative to others that would be compromised, be corrected, by actually improving their understanding of the issue.
That acceptance without question also applies to people who liked claims made regarding the illegally obtained emails of climate scientists. They accepted the claims without question. And they still try to tease out some version of questionable comments made by climate scientists - without ever questioning anything said by the likes of Crichton that they instinctively liked, partly because one of the popular New Age Myths is that your Gut Instinct, First Impression is most likely correct about anything and everything. Investigating and thinking about things, expanding awareness and improving understanding only messes stuff up.
And the range of 1.5C to 6.0C actually indicates a consensus of understanding that increased CO2 will result in global warming. A lack of consensus that increased CO2 would result in global warming would look like a range of -5.0C to +6.0C for a doubling of CO2. Also, the range from 1.5C to 6.0C at the time showed that the science was skeptical about declaring a consensus about that aspect of the science. And the recent refinements of the range of climate sensitivity have provided more evidence of robust science and the direction of development towards a stronger consensus regarding that aspect of the science.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:12 AM on 24 February 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8
JoeZ,
New investment is needed to expand the rate of fossil fuel production, and is even needed to maintain it.
And Alberta's fossil fuel export pushing leadership is very concerned that any Canadian decisions to limit new fossil fuel production investment, decisions that add costs or that simply deny the initial low-balled offering of the profiteer developer, low-balled to maximize their profit if it is accepted that way, will send a 'terrible' message to global investors.
Many fossil fuel corporations are already in debt. They have no significant internal wealth to spend on New Opportunities. And some of the traditional fossil fuels firms are transitioning away from that activity as shareholders push to stop such corporations from gambling income on new fossil fuel ventures.
-
JoeZ at 00:46 AM on 24 February 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8
"The study implicitly condemns the US bank’s own investment strategy and highlights growing concerns among major Wall Street institutions about the financial and reputational risks of continued funding of carbon-intensive industries, such as oil and gas." I suspect the fossil fuel industries won't have trouble finding financing and if necessary they'll set up their own banks and financial firms.
-
CzarnyZajaczek at 09:33 AM on 23 February 20203 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
@scaddenp I have error in my comment (60), I meant that "Australia really has one of the highest electricity prices among developed countries" and I've just noticed this omission. Of course Australia is far from having highest electricity prices on the world when comparing to all countries.
Btw it seems that they had relatively high electricity prices before they started investing in intermittent renewables like solar and wind on large scale, so intermittent renewables are unlikely to be main cause of high prices.
-
richieb1234 at 00:52 AM on 23 February 2020Australia's wildfires: Is this the 'new normal'?
Mark Thomas @20
Great stuff! The graphic from Czech Republic is especially enlightening. In a world where global warming is a reality we will all have to live with, mitigating the effects at local and regional levels will require an understanding of other factors. I plan to follow up on the links you provided.
-
Eclectic at 15:57 PM on 22 February 2020How deniers maintain the consensus gap
Libertador @1 , Yes I think sometimes a science-denier deliberately plays "change the goal posts" during a dialogue, as a rhetorical tactic to disconcert his opponent. Though probably more often this tactic reflects the denialist's own intellectual confusion and lack of logical thought about the consensus issue.
PatriceM @2 , and also PhilippeC : in addition there is the point that the denialists confuse & conflate the two separate facets of "consensus" :- being (A) the numerical percentage you get when you discuss/survey the expressed opinions of (climate) scientists, and (B) the numerical percentage you get [99.9%] when you look at the current state of science, as expressed in peer-reviewed scientific papers.
"B" is extremely close to 100% . . . while "A" is slightly lower, owing to some scientists being inhibited by their personal bias (bias of the rather extreme political sort and/or extremist religious beliefs).
MA Rodger @4 , You make a very good point about denialists who (quite often) throw up a Gish Gallop of "historical consensuses being wrong" as though it is a Law of Nature that any/every consensus must eventually & inevitably turn out to be completely wrong. Their arguments are mostly irrelevant to climate, and are totally illogical, but - by the sin of omission - they carefully fail to mention the vastly greater proportion of scientific consensuses which turned out to be right (as confirmed in historical retrospect).
Yet the "But Copernicus : But Galileo : etcetera" line of argument would often sound somewhat valid to the casual onlookers. I can think of only two cards to be played in reply :- That in olden times, the so-called consensus often swung back and forth on a number of occasions before settling on the true scientific conclusion: and yet that hasn't happened with the AGW climate consensus of modern decades ~ where the consensus keeps moving more and more strongly in the one direction, as the scientific evidence has continued to build up. The consensus was about 90% . . . then later 97% . . . and nowadays well over 99% , with absolutely no sign of going the other way.
The second card to play, is your point that (unlike in olden times) the "contrarians" nowadays have no valid evidence to back their "alternative theories". No evidence ~ because all their ideas have proven wrong when tested. (This point means nothing to the committed hard-core denialist . . . but it would have value, in the minds of onlookers.)
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:52 PM on 22 February 2020Australia's wildfires: Is this the 'new normal'?
Mark Thomas,
After quickly reviewing the comment string I have the following observation to share.
Your comment @3 was about the way that regional deforestation in Australia was affecting the regional climate. This is similar to the studies indicating that removing only a portion of the Amazon Rainforest could significantly affect the climate in that region, potentially ending the rain forest supporting climate conditions throughout the region.
However, those evaluations are 'zoomed-in' studies that are difficult to perform, like any scientific investigation of any part of the planet's integrated and complex ecosystem is. The boundary conditions of such a study are difficult to establish. Deforestation, or reforestation, in Australia affects the total global climate system, as well as affecting regional climate. And properly passing that impact out through the boundary of the study and bringing back the global return impacts through the boundary can be done by the complex global climate models, based on the model ability to reflect reality. But the global picture is probably more important to investigate than regional evaluations.
Indeed, it appears that regional climate changes in Australia are the result of deforestation in Australia plus all the other climate changing impacts of global human activity. Determining how much of the changing climate in Australia is due to the regional changes of deforestation vs. the global changes occurring is challenging, and a rather unnecessary. From a high-level holistic look, regional deforestation in Australia should be stopped because of its global impacts as well as the regional impacts.
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:58 AM on 22 February 2020Australia's wildfires: Is this the 'new normal'?
Mark: I don't know if you are still reading this, but...
I was going to suggest Google Scholar, too.
Skeptical Science is a niche web site,specifically geared towards rebutting bad/incorrect climate myths from people that don't accept the mainstream science. There are other locations more sutaiable to general learning.
For general climate stuff, I suggest two links:
- The Discovery of Global Warming (the history of the science, that is...)
- The IPCC reports. Go to the bottom of the list and look at the first one, from 1990. It doesn't cover the current science, obviously (and it is now 30 years old!), but because it was the first it actually covers a lot more general information than recent ones. Much more suitable as a starting point.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 09:21 AM on 22 February 2020How deniers maintain the consensus gap
Science indeed has nothing to do with the consensus, but the consensus has everything to so with science. ONce something has been researched and the results converge and agree, there is a consensus. This is a non-issue. One can wonder, if consensus is not important, why deniers keep on making the argument that there isn't one.
Prev 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 Next
