Recent Comments

Prev  1657  1658  1659  1660  1661  1662  1663  1664  1665  1666  1667  1668  1669  1670  1671  1672  Next

Comments 83201 to 83250:

83201. Jeff T at 04:18 AM on 9 June 2011
       Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
       It's not likely that Jay Cadbury is here for serious discussion. Below are excerpts from a comment posted at WUWT. Finding the full comment is an exercise left to the Googler. It's time to stop feeding the troll. "Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. says: February 18, 2011 at 1:12 pm ( -Snip- )
       Response:

       [DB] What Jay has posted on other sites is not germane.  What matters is his conduct here.  All posters will be judged by their conduct here (or lack thereof).  And Jay will be judged by his.

83202. actually thoughtful at 04:17 AM on 9 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       Paulm - how do we communicate that there is a world of good to do prior to ending/reducing/changing flying? If everyone would address non-travel CO2 in the next 20-30 years, we would buy ourselves time to figure out travel (which can actually be handled easier than most deniers are willing to acknowledge). See the US military's work on biofuel (one of many, many examples). Note that I am all for individuals taking action, and if the action that makes sense to you is curtailing flying - that is strictly to the good and a very effective personal action to limit CO2. It is also generalizable (it would still be good if everyone did it). The immediate required reduction can all be achieved through picking the low hanging fruit - solar heating/cooling, conservation, solar PV, no new coal plants, more efficient vehicles, wind, etc. Let's worry about how we get to the next stage when we are at least well on our way through the first stage. Right now we are faced with a population that doesn't want to take the first (or any) step. Apirate I am lookin' at you (said with a smile).
83203. KR at 04:16 AM on 9 June 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       RW1 - "Let me ask you this, where in the diagram is the return path of latent heat in the form of precipitation? Surely, you agree evaporative latent heat of water and precipitation is a major surface -> atmosphere -> surface circulation current, right?" You don't understand latent heat transport? The fact that it's one-way? I'm, well, I'm appalled. Learn some high-school physics before critiquing those who have spent their careers with this material. P. Curtis - My compliments. Folks whose ages are significant integer multiples of yours seem strangely unable to understand what you have done so clearly.
83204. J. Bob at 04:07 AM on 9 June 2011
       There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
       scaddenp @20, you say "All variables are varying at the same time so you need multivariate tools". True, I had a feeling I should have kept my MATLAB & System Identification Toolbox. Used it several times. Have you ever used it?
83205. Eric (skeptic) at 04:03 AM on 9 June 2011
       Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
       Tom, do you believe that the reef tourism industry would be unwilling to consider ideas that could save their reef from sporadic heat events? Also the "fossil fuel industry" and tourism industry have a lot of overlap, so the tourism industry is responsible for their direct and indirect emissions which come from shore tourism industry, airlines and other CO2 emitters. The solution can be organized by a consortium of operators. There should be no secondary effects since I am simply proposing cooling the water upstream when it gets too warm.
83206. okatiniko at 03:54 AM on 9 June 2011
       Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
       DM#21 : but as I understand it, Hansen compares temperatures in two different situations A and B, which may not be as different as in my extreme example, but are nevertheless different : because glaciations are due to astronomical variations that do influence the local repartition of solar irradiance, and because the change of forcing due to ice coverage doesn't have the same spatial distribution of, for instance, GHG gases. So he is really evaluating something like (tA(fA) - tB(fB))/(fA-fB) , and not local variations with "the same situation" dtA/dfA or dtB/dfB. Is it not a concern to assimilate global differences with local derivatives ? as I said, "global differences" between boreal winter and summer would yield a negative sensitivity if computed in the same way as Hansen seems to do it.
83207. Tom Curtis at 03:50 AM on 9 June 2011
       Imbalance in US TV Media Coverage of Greenhouse Gas Regulation
       Eric (skeptic) @3, to the question:

       "How convinced are you that climate change poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity?"

       and given the option of answering 1 to 7, with 1 rated as "Not at all" and 7 rated as "very much", 34.59% of climate scientists answered 7, 27.84% answered 6, and a further 16.49% answered 5, for a total of 78.92% of climate scientists who believe climate change "poses a very serious and dangerous threat". Of the remainder, 10.81% where uncertain (4) and 10.27% think global warming will probably not be "very dangerous". Amongst those, just 2.162% give no credence to any risk from global warming. That is a consensus in any man's language. Note that there is an ambiguity in the question. Does an answer of "4" indicated that you are moderately certain that global warming will be very dangerous, or as I have interpreted, as indicating that you no more think it dangerous than you think it not dangerous. The former is the more natural interpretation, given which the consensus is much stronger than I indicate, but given the possibility of the other interpretation, I have interpreted the results in the weakest way possible. Survey question is question 22 from here.
83208. dana1981 at 03:49 AM on 9 June 2011
       Imbalance in US TV Media Coverage of Greenhouse Gas Regulation
       Eric, it's pretty much a given that global warming is dangerous, the only question is how dangerous.
83209. Eric (skeptic) at 03:19 AM on 9 June 2011
       Imbalance in US TV Media Coverage of Greenhouse Gas Regulation
       Dana, your first sentence talks about "dangerous global warming" but the link points to "scientific consensus for global warming". This is not the right thread to argue whether global warming is dangerous, only that the link you chose does not support that claim.
83210. Tom Curtis at 03:19 AM on 9 June 2011
       Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
       Eric (skeptic) @58, I have to admit that I am disappointed with your response. To start with your first step was to argue that the scenario was "not realistic". I do not know your qualifications as a marine biologist, but as I am going to have to take somebodies word on this, I'ld rather take that of genuine experts rather than some random guy on the internet. What is more, your two arguments are respectively irrelevant and wrong. The diurnal and seasonal fluctuation in pH is irrelevant for much the same reason that diurnal and seasonal fluctuation in temperatures are irrelevant to the threat posed by rising temperatures. Certainly they vary over a large range, but the increase in pH between the industrial and preindustrial means the lower range in pH values enters adverse extremes more frequently. In contrast, your argument from aquarium practise appears to be simply wrong. Googling on the issue shows that CO2 is used to dissolve aragonite into water to enhance coral growth, but that it is important that the CO2 is not allowed to enter the aquarium itself. This advice is:

       "Be careful not to inject excess CO2 directly into you tank as it can act as a fertilizer and help create an algae bloom. The effluent (liquid coming OUT of the calcium reactor) may have some residual CO2 in it. Its best to "blow it off" by letting it drip through something above the water where the CO2 can be exchanged for O2. We actually run our calcium reactor effluent into our mud filters where our macro algae is growing. That way any CO2 that makes it out of the reactor is rapidly used up by the macro algae, typically Chaeto sp., before it makes it into our main systems. You don't want CO2 to enter you main tanks, as it is acidic and will rapidly lower your pH."

       (Source) So while CO2 is helpful for dissolving aragonite (exactly the problem for coral reefs), enriched CO2 in the main tank causes decreased pH and algal blooms. More concerning is your indication of the libertarian solution to the problem. You first invent the existence (without any papers demonstrating feasibility or lack of adverse secondary effects) of a relatively cheap technical solution. And then you require the funding of that solution from the economic activity associated with the reef. In real life, if such a relatively cheap technical solution exists (a very big if), it is probably true that the fisherman and tourism operators on the reef will bear the financial burden of implementation. It is hard, however, to see that as a libertarian solution. This cost is imposed on the tourism operators and fisherman as a result of externalities from the fossil fuel industry. Your solution, in other words, allows agents other than those directly effected to impose costs on those directly effected without their permission. This is, in fact, a feature of most libertarian "solutions" I have seen proposed, but it contradicts the purported libertarian principles. Further, given the size of the reef and the number of independent operators involved, the implementation of your hypothetical cheap technical solution will require government regulation in any event, so this is not in anyway a market based solution. Finally, your solution to save the reef requires businesses which are already facing a cut back in incomes because of declining reef quality to take a further cut back in income in an experimental attempt to save the reef which may or may not destroy the reef through secondary effects so that the causes of the problem, the fossil fuel industry, do not need to take a cut in income. Please, I beg you, write to the various fishermen and tourism operators on the great barrier reef outlining your plan to save your income. The political fight to combat global warming in Australia could do with the kind of bolstering your solution would provide it.
83211. Paul Magnus at 03:10 AM on 9 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       Many AVOID the issue because it means a change to their/our whole life concept, style and comfort.... take for instant cutting back on all unnecessary emissions like most flying... https://www.facebook.com/pages/ClimateFlightAction/165484890164497
83212. Bob Lacatena at 03:02 AM on 9 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       FYI, in the above graph you could just as easily substitute the words "political expedience" for "cowardice," and either "ethical need" or "selfless commitment" for "honesty."
83213. Bob Lacatena at 02:37 AM on 9 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       14, Shoyemore, Good post. I couldn't find one perfect for your Cartesian grid, but still:
83214. Bob Lacatena at 02:27 AM on 9 June 2011
       Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
       22, SoundOff, Hmmm. Sorry if I overreacted, but you seem to have very quickly adopted Hansen's thousand year scenario as gospel for us, and hence an argument (whether you intended it as such, or not) for inaction. There are a few problems with that. First, it's only one paper. Second, you stopped reading too early. In the very next paragraph he goes on to say:

       Below we argue that the real world response function is faster than that of modelE-R. We also suggest that most global climate models are similarly too sluggish in their response to a climate forcing and that this has important implications for anticipated climate change.

       Third, your premise silently hinges on the idea that we'd stop at a mere doubling, and climate sensitivity is at worst in the middle around 3˚C. Even then, 60% of that is an uncomfortable 1.8˚C. But if actual sensitivity turns out to be 4˚C, and we go well beyond a doubling, then 60% of say 5˚C is 3˚C, and suddenly it is a lot of suffering for our own children and grandchildren. Fourth, Hansen's time frame estimate is based on runs of a single model trying to project something that's never happened in the history of the planet. I'm not saying this makes it entirely unreliable, but the error bars are logical as well as quantitative. Lord help us if the model hasn't recognized certain elements (such as a potential fast-methane feedback) that are difficult to model properly. I guess, in summary, I'd say that while people might look at that thousand year projection and honestly say "who cares, it's not my problem," I still think any reasonably careful, sane and caring person would look at all of the error bars involved, and then be too responsible to take that sort of risk.
83215. dana1981 at 02:12 AM on 9 June 2011
       Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
       Yes this is going off topic, but I will say that I agree with you that discounting can result in screwing future generations, and thus you can certainly argue that high discount rates are irresponsible (I tend to agree). Most economists don't use terribly high discount rates, which is why the vast majority agree with taking action to reduce emissions now from a purely economic perspective.
83216. actually thoughtful at 02:10 AM on 9 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       John Russell - hey I have been guilty of that form of of denialism. For me it is always - well when I have money I will open those letters/bills (which I do). Thanks for the great insight. I think that is why I have a bias towards action - to avoid the overwhelming "problem is too large". Plus once you take a first step (maybe as simple as changing those proverbial lightbulbs) - the next ones are easier - you have psychologically joined the battle I think. Apirate that is a partial answer to your question. I laid out mitigation twice in the last thread - no response from you. I don't see the value of cluttering up another thread, only to see you ignore the responses again.
83217. Dikran Marsupial at 02:05 AM on 9 June 2011
       Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
       @dana1981 don't worry, I have learned over the years that me not liking something doesn't actually make it wrong! ;o) In cricket when you are batting, you don't leave scoring runs to your team mates lower in the order, you take responsibility and (try to) get the job done yourself. You can be reassured by the solidity of the lower order batsmen, but you shouldn't rely on them. Leaving future generations to deal with the problem seems rather irresponsible to me. Howver this is heading off-topic...
83218. dana1981 at 02:04 AM on 9 June 2011
       Imbalance in US TV Media Coverage of Greenhouse Gas Regulation
       will Fox run a story on their own extreme bias on climate stories? I'm guessing not :-)
83219. shoyemore at 02:03 AM on 9 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       Here's is another form of denial - compartmentalisation, a form of rationalisation to avoid cognitive dissonance. Freakonomics have a good article on this with the example of the Challenger disaster. Morton Thiokol engineers told NASA the space shuttle could explode if launched on a cold day. NASA managers took a "management decision" to go ahead - citing the "uncertainty" of the data (where have we heard that before?) about cold launches. Challenger Shuttle Now, everyone knows the mistakes the engineers made in presenting the data - they could have made a better case. But how often have we heard "It was a military decision" (to order an attack where men died needlessly) or "It was a political decision" (not to support an unpopular but necessary piece of legislation). I think Presidient Obama, to take one example, is making a "political decision" not to overtly support climate change legislation, probably calculating that damage to his electoral prospects would be worse for its chances in the long run. But he is avoiding the strong ethical imperative. These are not easy decisions. The "military decision" to allow a rearguard get slaughtered so that the army escapes total defeat is (possibly) a correct one. But the calculus is difficult, lends itself to opportunism and all-too-easily gets us off the ethical hook. Ethics and policy take place on Cartesian grid where it sometimes impossible to be squarely on the ethical axis. Unfortunately, it often easier to be on the "political advantage" axis at 90 degrees to the ethics.
83220. clonmac at 02:00 AM on 9 June 2011
       History Matters: Carbon Emissions in Context
       I understand where Muzz is coming from. I sort of thought the same thing when I read it. I think the bathtub analogy could've been used a little better. It isn't the fact that the bucket (anthropogenic CO2) was the most recent addition that makes it a concern or the fact that it is a small percentage of water in the tub overall. It is the fact that the water already in the tub (nature's CO2) is accounted for by nature. So maybe you could add to the analogy that the tub faucet is constantly running but that the tub drain is also draining at the same rate that the faucet is running. So if left alone, the tub will never overflow. But if you start adding buckets of water into the tub, then eventually you will overflow.
83221. John Hartz at 01:51 AM on 9 June 2011
       Imbalance in US TV Media Coverage of Greenhouse Gas Regulation
       Kudos to Dana for another inciteful article. Do you suppose Fox News will "run with this story"?
83222. John Hartz at 01:47 AM on 9 June 2011
       Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
       Believe it or not, there are still climate deniers posting on comment threads who apparently believe that sea ice has only two dimensions.
83223. dana1981 at 01:16 AM on 9 June 2011
       Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
       SoundOff #22 - yes you're right, the IPCC equilibrium sensitivity is the same as Hansen's fast feedback sensitivity. My mistake. We may take your suggestion and do a post clarifying these different concepts. Dikran #23 - discounting makes some sense from an economic perspective, but it's a tricky question. There's quite a bit of debate regarding what the discount rate should be. The relatively few 'skeptic' economists (i.e. Richard Tol) think the discount rate should be incredibly high, which thus makes reducing GHG emissions now potentially more expensive than adapting to climate change in the future.
83224. DavidLeeWilson at 00:53 AM on 9 June 2011
       Climate Change Denial book now available!
       ok gents, I finally managed to get a copy, not from EarthScan who are going through some kind of commercial upheaval apparently but ... eventually I just went to Abe's on-line, no cheaper but immediate delivery but I am sorry to tell you that I don't have much positive to say about it, I speak as someone who has been thinking about this issue for decades and more, and not a denier in any degree you write like high-school seniors used to write, there is a word for it - sophomoric - and the evidence is in your paragraph structure which wanders all over the map, and your overall structure of which there is apparently none, and your tone which would be called 'precious', and your copious footnotes which are unfortunately footnoting things which hardly call for footnotes at all you say nothing in this book that was not better said in Clive Hamilton's recent 'Requiem for a Species', and you don't say it as well as he did I'm sorry, and sorry on more than one front too, can you really imagine someone who is not tuned into the issue reading your book? and if someone did read it who was not already convinced would it convince them? ask yourselves. people who use phrases like 'ad hominem' can often find some excuse to put what they don't want to hear into that category - and if that is what you do with this, no worries, be well, David Wilson.
83225. Eric (skeptic) at 00:34 AM on 9 June 2011
       Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
       Tom, thanks for the opportunity. As I said to scaddenp, for an economic solution, the reef and damages to the reef need to be valued. To say most corals and all reefs will be destroyed is not realistic or useful. The drop from 8.2 to 8.1 preindustrial to present is within natural variability (7.5 to 8.5 diurnal, seasonal and other variations), and is within coral tolerance (1 point of pH). There are many sources online about keeping coral in tanks and in most cases, CO2 is added to offset calcium added for faster growth. Predicted drop by 2100 is to 7.8 or 7.9. Temperature is a different story as we will gradually shift into a regime where temperature fluctuates above about 30C which starts to kill the coral. The reef has economic value as you suggested and some of that value should be used for its protection. The simplest solution is to use some of the proceeds from the reef for upstream shading to cool the water. This can be done with the cloud making ships suggested for other purposes or other means. If pH needs to be changed that is also possible although more difficult. What we can do with the reef being a limited and valuable resource does not apply to the atmosphere. Studies (e.g. http://www.arts.usask.ca/economics/faculty/papers/Bruneau_Echevarria_dp_2003-5.pdf) show a positive relationship between environmental quality and per capita income although with a small elasticity of income in the case of global environmental quality and CO2. Enhancing that elasticity requires a global perspective since nothing is accomplished when a consumer substitutes some other coal for Queensland coal. My suggestion, like in the other thread, is to deregulate and privatize coal substitutes and apply taxation and other policy where it can be done reasonably (i.e. keeping in mind the positive relationship between income and environmental quality).
83226. DSL at 00:30 AM on 9 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       Correction: yesterday's NYT.
83227. DSL at 00:29 AM on 9 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       Ugh - I posted that blob of text and then found out that Tom Friedman said much the same thing in today's NYT.
83228. DSL at 00:14 AM on 9 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       It's a very complex situation, very resistant to structuring, categorizing, and defining. One component is visibility. Consider disease. Some diseases express themselves as obvious bodily degeneration involving recurrent or constant pain, tiring, and depression. If the doctor says, "Hey, stop eating this and start eating this, and see what happens," that's easy to accept and perform. With other diseases, that's not so easy. How many lung cancer patients still smoke? How many smokers believe that smoking increases cancer risk massively but continue to smoke anyway? That's addiction, though. In the case of AGW, we have cultural momentum. Some will say that not doing anything is a fundamental human flaw. I disagree. My evidence is that different cultures understand their relationship to the environment in different ways, and this results in different cultural practices. Denial may be a human characteristic, but denial of a specific problem is not. It's possible to develop a culture that promotes a more sustainable relationship, and there is historical evidence that such cultures have existed at various times and in many regions. It is not possible to do this when the basic economic mode encourages--no, requires--unlimited economic growth and the dis-integration of a naturally integrated environment into individual-controlled parcels of resources. And then take into account the culture that has developed within this mode over the last 150 years. The idea that anyone can become an absolute ruler of his/her own destiny is fundamental to the current mode and its culture. The idea of people coming together to work toward a common goal, sacrificing some part of their own perceived individual freedom for the sake of long-term prosperity, is understood as wrong-headed and dangerous--"altruistic." Finally, and paradoxically, the culture encourages the belief that "if you can't see it, it doesn't matter"--a curious attitude for a culture dominated by religion (at least in the U.S.). People within this culture rarely understand the connection between the product they buy and the history of that product--where the materials came from, who designed it, who made it, how it got to the store, etc. Nor do they understand what happens to it when they sell it or throw it away. The culture encourages (explicitly if not systematically) people to think only about consumption, consumption divorced from production, distribution, and recycling. Chalking it up to human nature is just another form of "Oh well, that's life." Understanding the problem as simply cultural, and then saying, "well, we'll just change our culture," is fine, but the culture is going to be resistant unless the primary driver of culture (economy) is addressed.
83229. Dikran Marsupial at 23:41 PM on 8 June 2011
       Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
       soundoff@22 Actually, it isn't a rhetorical question, in economics it is called "discounting", and apparently it is an argument that is genuinely considered in discussions about mitigation efforts. 1000 years may be too long a timescale for you to personally care, but not for others. 1000 miles is enough distance for many not to personally care as well, but does that mean that problems that ocurr in (say) the next decade in the third world due to climate change are not our concern? No. IMHO, the "discounting" argument stinks.
83230. John Russell at 23:37 PM on 8 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       There's a very prevalent type of denial that's very common and which raises questions about how the human mind works when under threat. It occurs when people are in debt and they stop opening their bank and credit card statements as they come through the door. The fact is these people know this is totally illogical; they know what the letters contain but they are so far in the red that they cannot see a hope of recovery and therefore somehow appear to convince themselves that if they don't read the letters they can carry on as normal. Of course, if you confront people in this mess they'll admit how illogical it is and how ignoring the problem is the worst thing they can do; but the really interesting thing is that this mental state is just as easy to find in the intelligent as it is the stupid. It's something about how the human mind works and I believe it's exactly the same condition as results in climate change denial. Worst of all we need to bear in mind that the longer this goes on -- and the more hopeless the prognosis for global climate becomes -- the greater the number of people likely to resort to this state of mind as a defence mechanism. To my mind it's highly likely that this is the reason why the number of people rejecting climate science has increased in recent years.
83231. DSL at 23:36 PM on 8 June 2011
       History Matters: Carbon Emissions in Context
       Muzz, go to the journals if you want pure science. This site never was strictly about science. Look at the site's subtitle. This is about how and why people look at the science and say, "I don't believe it." If the subject were the wing size of albino drosophila melanogaster in the northwest region of Costa Rica, this wouldn't be an issue. Instead, the site deals with one of the more high-consequence situations humans have had to deal with in a while. Understanding why and how people either misunderstand, abuse, reject, or otherwise don't accept the conclusions that are drawn from the broad range of findings is critical in helping both short- and long-term mitigation efforts. Why mitigate? That's a moral/ethical issue. This site obviously does not shy away from defending the need to mitigate. And, by the way, people on this site pride themselves in the relatively dispassionate discussion of the science. Relative to many climate-related sites, the language used here is much less motivated by the need to convince at any cost and much more motivated by the need to explain and explore. But if your implication is that the posters here are politically disconnected, passionless, objective science robots, think again. The passion is expressed in the willingness to persistently take on any sort of argument for "it's not happening," "it's not us," or "it's not bad." The use of 'carbon' indicates that a poster thinks about GW from the point of view of mitigation.
83232. Micawber at 23:30 PM on 8 June 2011
       Poleward motion of storm tracks
       The observed poleward shift of storm tracks was shown in the poleward shift of polar cells from 45-50deg latitudes to 50-55deg. This coincided with the Antarctic circumpolar channel resulting in increased circumpolar currents, upwelled deep water off Antarctica and northward driven surface waters up the Atlantic. See J. R. Toggweiler & Joellen Russell Ocean circulation in a warming climate Nature 451, 286-288 (17 January 2008) doi:10.1038/nature06590 Figure 2 in Togweiler and Russel clearly shows the increased gradient at the top of the troposphere and the poleward shift of the circulation cells. We have sailed our boat in the Irish and North seas for the past 20 years. We always tried to get to port before the equinoctial storms with maximum winds in September. Now, though there are odd days with 30kt winds in August and September, March and April, days with 40kt occur around 6 weeks either side the winter solstice; (17 November 2010 (42kt) and 15 January 2011 (40kt) at Ronaldsway, Isle of Man at the hub of the Irish Sea). The work reported here and by Toggweiler and Russell seems to confirm our observations at 54deg N latitutude.
83233. Bob Lacatena at 23:30 PM on 8 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       7, apiratelookat50, Based on your statements, I would not agree with your conclusion that "I can't be a denier." You seem to be creating a black-and-white strawman, where in one is a denier only if they refute every aspect of climate change. The state of the science, however, does not say that "human activities play a role in climate change." It says that human activities are causing rapid, dramatic climate change at a pace that the earth has quite possibly never seen, and at a minimum has certainly (and dangerously) never been seen during the span of human civilization. The state of the science also does not say "some of that change has the potential to be beneficial, some has no effect, and some..." Current best estimates for climate sensitivity, and the impacts of warming, produce very little long term benefits for humanity, while the dangers are very frightening. So, again, your statement that "I can't be a denier there, either" fails. I offered, on the other denial thread, to walk you through some of these misconceptions. You may pick anything at all that you feel you understand, and causes you to hesitate about mitigating climate change. We can find a thread that discusses causes (human CO₂ as opposed to vague "activities") and how much they "play a role," which seems like a back handed way of saying "not much," versus being the sole, critical driver of extended climate change. If you prefer, we can find a thread that discusses the impacts, and whether or not, in the long run, climate change is going to help anyone other than vineyard owners in Scotland (hint, I doubt there are many, or that they're worth much), and how very much it is going to hurt some people... including everyone in the state of Texas. Please... you seem like you want to be reasonable, like you want to learn, and like you adamantly do not want to be classified as a denier. So don't. Become a skeptic. Instead of expressing your feelings and opinions, come look at facts. Work through the details, so that you don't have an opinion, you have knowledge, and you don't have feelings, you have understanding. The door is open. Just walk through by stating a simple, objective (and unloaded) question. We'll find the right thread and get to work.
83234. Dikran Marsupial at 23:21 PM on 8 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       apiratelooksat50@7 You can accept that human activities play some role in climate change and still be a denier. All you have to do is be vague about what "some" means (as in "some has the potential to be harmful"). By "some", you might mean "a substantial amount", sufficient to justify efforts at mitigating against the consequences of that anthropogenic climate change. Or you could mean merely that in a mathematical sense our mere existance on the planet must have some effect (in the sense of the butterfly effect). The former clearly isn't denial, whereas the second clearly is. Something that is the hallmark of the denier is a lack of willingness to nail their flag to the mast and say clearly and explicitly what they think our effect on the climate actually is. I am trying to put this as diplomatically as I can, but your post looks very much like a post from a "denier" as you appear to be avoiding nailing your flag to the mast by explicitly stating your opinion on how much we are affecting the climate, and instead gave a rather vague statement that doesn't clarify your position at all (beyond not being outright ridiculous). This is intended as useful feedback on presentation. IMHO what makes someone a denier is not actually the position they hold, but their attitude to the evidence that is on conflict with that position (for instance those who are sure climate sensitivity is very low, e.g. 1K/doubling of CO2 or less, when there are multiple lines of evidence that show that is extremely unlikely to be the case).
83235. John Hartz at 23:15 PM on 8 June 2011
       History Matters: Carbon Emissions in Context
       The bathtub analogy is portrayed in an excellent graphic on the National Geographic website: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/big-idea/05/carbon-bath
       Response:

       [DB] Fixed URL.

83236. SoundOff at 23:07 PM on 8 June 2011
       Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
       Don’t exaggerate the meaning of my rhetorical question. I just mean that you aren’t going to make any progress towards mitigation efforts if you talk about something that will happen a 1000 years from now – which is how equilibrium CS is defined by Hansen (my source for such matters). Concern over such a long time frame is beyond personally caring about your children and grandchildren. It’s beyond caring about even your great-great-great-grandchildren, and is into sainthood territory. You may care about the planet’s future in theory, but arguing for benefits that are a millennium away says to me that you don’t really care in practice, or you are quite gullible about how real politics works. Stay focused on what will get action, that’s fast feedback climate sensitivity and its evidence. dana1981, your [IPCC’s?] equilibrium sensitivity sounds more like my [Hansen’s] fast feedback climate sensitivity. Do we have terminology confusion? Maybe we need a whole SkS article (hint) just to clarify all the following, each of which I’ve seen defined differently in literature, sometimes in the same paper … Equilibrium climate sensitivity Fast feedback climate sensitivity Transient climate sensitivity Effective climate sensitivity Long-term climate sensitivity Earth system climate sensitivity Slow feedback climate sensitivity
83237. apiratelooksat50 at 22:59 PM on 8 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       First, I accept the climate is changing, so I can't be a denier. Only a fool would think the climate is static. I honestly don't know a soul who does not agree that the climte changes on small and large scale time frames. Second, I also agree that human activities play a role in climate change. Some of that change has the potential to be beneficial, some has no effect, and some has the potential to be harmful. So, I can't be a denier there, either. Now according to AT (and I am not sure who else agrees with him/her), a person is a denier if they do not support an active mitigation response. Now AT has not provided an actual mitigation plan(s), but I would like to hear them.
83238. Daniel Bailey at 22:24 PM on 8 June 2011
       Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
       If I could but add a bit to the discussion: volume loss trends in the Arctic Sea Ice are reflective of ongoing physical processes. To the extent of change we've witnessed in a variety of converging metrics (declines in area, extent, volume, the northward regression of the sea ice edge in all months of the year, increases in SSTs, etc) we can now add this: increases in heat transport from Pacific waters through the Bering Strait, driving bottom melt throughout the Arctic winter.

       "We suggest the Bering Strait inflow influences sea-ice by providing a trigger for the onset of solar-driven melt, a conduit for oceanic heat into the Arctic, and (due to long transit times) a subsurface heat source within the Arctic in winter."

       [Woodgate et al 2010] These trends are pretty much subsumed in this volume graphic based on PIOMAS: [Source] So the same physical processes that resulted in average winter sea ice thicknesses in the days of the Nautilus of 8-10 meters (with some MY ice 20+ meters thick) have now given us 1.4 meters thicknesses for FY ice (MY ice is about 2.8 meters thickness recently, IIRC). That trend continues to this day. Free fall or death spiral: Your choice...
83239. Bob Lacatena at 22:21 PM on 8 June 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       1068, p. Curtis :D !!!! I was just going to scold you for giving RW1 the answers (don't you know that exchanging answers is academic misconduct?). Then I saw "I'm 14." Thank you. You made my day.
       Response:

       [DB] That one is precocious indeed.  I could not have done similarly at that age (but it was the mid-70s).

83240. MA Rodger at 22:06 PM on 8 June 2011
       Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
       Villabolo @29. In all fairness to Les @26, he was referring to the JAXA Arctic Sea Ice Extent data. Like other Arctic Sea Ice data, it did show the increase in Extent between 2007 & 2008. So in that respect, “...2008 was a short upward 'blip' in line with the overall trend of decline.“ ie a decline in Sea Ice. As for Les @26 recommending a post from 2008 on WUWT, I myself would also recommend that particular website for anybody feeling down in the dumps. It's a website that never fails to make me laugh. I'm not too sure however why this recommended post or website would be considered “right in the money”. Perhaps Les @26 is alluding to some lucrative financial backing which that particular website receives.
83241. Tom Curtis at 21:57 PM on 8 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Eric (skeptic) @440, I have laid down the challenge for you in this post. From the challenge you have made, I assume you are making a challenge to test the ability of libertarianism to cope with the real world. As massive ecosystem loss is certainly a potential consequence of human activity, an argument that the Great Barrier Reef is not threatened, while certainly on topic on the thread of the post, will be an evasion of the issue between you and scaddenp. I therefore request that you accept, for the sake of the argument, that the Great Barrier Reef is under threat as the experts claim. The question then becomes, IMO, can such a loss be valued in a way in which libertarian solutions are possible, but which do not (again, IMO) evade the issue by accepting only dry econometric values, and/or setting discount rates so low that even moderately distant generations are counted as having no worth.
83242. Tom Curtis at 21:49 PM on 8 June 2011
       Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
       Eric (skeptic) issues a challenge to find "... external costs [for] which a libertarian solution is impossible". It is probably a hard challenge to meet in that libertarians are noted for simply not counting externalities as costs. It is likely, therefore, that Eric will simply not count the costs and certainly not the full costs of anything we present. Never-the-less, I would pose any example of major ecosystem breakdown as meeting his challenge. I shall take an example that is close to me, the Great Barrier Reef, although the potential collapse of the Amazon makes an even better example. The Great Barrier Reef is threatened by two climate change issues, rising sea water temperatures and reducing ph levels (acidification). It has been shown that temperature increases greater than 2 degrees above the industrial average, combined with atmospheric CO2 concentrations greater than 500 ppm are likely to lead to the destruction of most corals world wide, and all large reef structures. Disturbingly these effects are expected right on the "safe" threshold of CO2 increase that the international community is targeting, and failing to achieve. Unfortunately, this means the best chance for survival of the Great Barrier Reef is that the scientists studying this issue are wrong. That is, of course, possible. Scientists are wrong from time to time - but you don't get rich by betting against the consensus of scientific opinion. Consequently I think Queensland's largest conventional economic asset (coal) is going to destroy Queensland's actual greatest asset (outside of its population). So, the challenge to Eric is to cost out such a loss in a way that is not transparently undervaluing the reef.
83243. CBDunkerson at 21:35 PM on 8 June 2011
       Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
       Hi Michael. Actually, I'm not sure that this year will be enough to give us a clear indicator. The volume decline has leveled off or even reversed slightly for a year or two in the recent past and thus if it were to do so this year it wouldn't be clear whether that indicated we had 'hit a bottom' in the volume decline or just be a brief pause before further drops. Like you, I think the volume trend is indicative, but we have to put caveats around that since it is based on modeled results which we haven't been able to validate for the past few years... during which the volume has dropped to new lows. The PIOMAS model is computed based on extrapolating actual area and thickness data over the entire Arctic and thus seems fairly robust, but it will be good to have Cryosat results to check it against. They launched Cryosat-2 over a year ago now, so I'm hoping we'll start seeing data soon. The other argument against continued volume declines is the view that it has been driven primarily by export of thick older ice. If true that would mean that the sharp declines should end when the supply of older ice runs out (as it nearly has) and then the Arctic sea ice would hang on for a few more decades along the declining extent curve. However, I question the accuracy of this 'export driven' view given that we have seen large chunks of thick ice melting out within the Arctic basin. Export certainly plays a role, but I think we are also seeing the impact of rising water temperatures melting the ice in situ... which would continue, and indeed accelerate, after the thicker ice is gone.
83244. michael sweet at 21:07 PM on 8 June 2011
       Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
       CBD: Both of your sites are excellent and update once a month. SEARCH is supposed to come out with their first projections around June 10-12 and PIOMAS has been updating around the 15-18 recently. The disparity between volume and area are very interesting. We should see one of your two options start to take effect this year. Which one do you guess? The volume trend looks strong to me.
83245. CBDunkerson at 20:55 PM on 8 June 2011
       Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
       Two additional sites of interest: SEARCH arctic ice predictions - This site collects and displays various estimates of what the September average extent will be. Estimates are posted in June, July, and August to incorporate weather impacts as the season progresses. They are finishing up the June estimates now and will likely be posting the first projection estimates in the next few weeks. PIOMAS ice volume model results - Currently the best available estimate of total arctic sea ice volume. I'm hoping we will start seeing Cryosat-2 data some time soon to double check the PIOMAS calculations. As to the accuracy of predictions... weather plays a huge role and thus getting an accurate result in any given year is mostly luck. However, there have been clearly declining trends in ice extent and volume. What I find interesting is that the volume trend is declining at a much greater rate than the extent trend has thus far. Indeed, if the volume trend continued we'd be looking at 0% arctic sea ice at the end of the melt season some time between 2012 and 2020 (depending on how far back we go in computing the trendline)... while the extent trend doesn't hit zero for a couple more decades at least. Logically this disparity cannot continue much longer: the volume trend will either level off or the extent trend will start plummeting.
83246. skywatcher at 20:43 PM on 8 June 2011
       Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
       Back to Arctic ice (Cadbury's is my favourite brand of chocolate BTW, and one that tends to melt with warming, whatever the cause...). Some interesting measurements of Arctic ice loss showing how the average thickness of ice in April has been observed to decline from 1.7m in 2009, 1.6m in 2010, to 1.4m in 2011. This obviously means that the ice which looked perilously thin by the end of last year's melt will be even more perilously thin this year. That rate of thinning, alongside all the other observational evidence, leaves little to the imagination about the fate of Arctic ice within the next decade. It still makes curiously fascinating watching, observing the daily updates from IJIS or whatever other source, largely because you know a car crash is on its way, and it is simply a case of 'when', not 'if'.
83247. Eric (skeptic) at 20:28 PM on 8 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       scaddenp, maybe the cost of your new airport is beyond your means, but that doesn't mean it can't be assigned a cost. Consider too that there are "airports" in Alaska that service a handful of people at very little expense. The cost for moving people from undeveloped countries is less than in developed countries and those in developed countries usually have the resources to move themselves. What I am looking for from you is a discussion of the external costs without which a libertarian solution is impossible. In a similar vein I owe you a discussion on the estimation of sensitivity in the appropriate thread.
83248. Tom Curtis at 19:20 PM on 8 June 2011
       Tony Abbott denies climate change and advocates carbon tax in the same breath
       Stevo @11, I cannot find a clear wording as to what Tony Abbott said. It appears to have been, and has been reported as: "The science around climate change is total crap!", but also as: "Climate Change is Crap" It was said at a Liberal Party Meeting in Beaufort, Victoria in September of 2009. Reported by The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/the-town-that-turned-up-the-temperature/story-e6frgczf-1225809567009) and the ABC (http://blogs.abc.net.au/victoria/2009/12/climate-change-is-crap-tony-abbot-said-to-the-pyrenees-advocate.html). Originally reported in the Pyrenees Advocate if anyone has back copies. In hosing down the story he has variously said:

       "I think that climate change is real and that man does make a contribution. There is an argument, first, as to how great that contribution is, and second, over what should be done about it."

       (December 2nd, 2009) and:

       " I think what I actually said was that the so-called settled science was a little aromatic. Now you don't have to accept the totality of the science to still think that there is a reasonable argument for taking sensible precautions against possible risk and that's what we're doing."

       In the same interview he said:

       "Well the, I know the intergovernmental panel's findings are now under very serious challenge. There are now a lot of question marks over it. Nevertheless these are serious scientists. And I think we've got to respect that position although..." "... although I don't think we have to take it as gospel truth, which I think has been part of the problem up 'til now."

       (Feb 2, 2010)
83249. Lars Rosenberg at 19:05 PM on 8 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       Beware of too much theorizing. A large quota of denialists are in fact reasonably normal persons playing games. To most people climate is a boring subject, but the debate offers an arena for inventing insults and being provocative as a hobby, a great fun to many. Some players even reach celebrity status, like Monckton or Plimer. The disturbing thing are those populist politicians who adopt the stupidity of denialism to win votes.
83250. Thomas1 at 18:57 PM on 8 June 2011
       Climate Change Denial book now available!
       @jrandomwinner I share your concerns reg the treatment of the nuclear option by some of those who are concerned about climate change. I too believe that nuclear technologies have been unfairly maligned. But from what happened at Fukushima (we now know we are dealing with 3 complete core melts) it would seem that running a nuclear power plant is similar to driving a train that needs a year or more to stop once the emergency brake is pulled, so that the tracks ahead (read core cooling) better be guaranteed to be clear. Even a year after shut down the fuel rods produce in case of Fukushima about 5MW of heat output from decay of fission products for each of the cores. Fukushima shows that guaranteeing the future is a risky business at best. I believe that it is time that we look at the fundamental issue of having to transform from an unsustainable society to a sustainable way of life. Conventional nuclear power does not make a substantial advance into this direction. Decentralized solar power, even if current cost are higher than the nominal cost of nuclear, are the better strategy long term. Plus the current quoted cost of nuclear power stations remains partially ignorant about the true cost of long term safe guarding and waste disposal problems. Decentralized solar power and especially personal roof top generation has the substantial benefit of reconnecting the consumer to the process of generation of electricity in a meaningful way. This will cause substantial energy savings overall as it will stimulate the intelligent use of a limited resource. Far-away big industry generation fosters entitlement thinking and wasteful use of energy. In the end it does not matter what a KWh of energy costs, it matters if we can afford the cost of the lifestyle we are living - including cost to society and future generations. Having to have to make due with 5KW of solar on your roof may inspire positive lifestyle changes resulting in a quality of life that is perhaps better and cheaper than a 20KW grid power supply under current costs and wasteful use patterns.

Prev  1657  1658  1659  1660  1661  1662  1663  1664  1665  1666  1667  1668  1669  1670  1671  1672  Next