Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 Next
Comments 83251 to 83300:
-
Eric (skeptic) at 11:03 AM on 9 June 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
From that abstract: " ocean warming off the east coast of Tasmania at 3-4 times the global average is the result of intensification of the East Australian Current." A complex current with natural http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0485%282001%29031%3C2956%3AMTEACI%3E2.0.CO%3B2 and AGW http://eprints.usq.edu.au/1070/ factors. There's no simple explanation of the consequence of CC because the driving forces for the current are not simple. I still think mitigation is plausible since there is an well defined upstream source for the warm water. -
Bob Lacatena at 11:03 AM on 9 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
23, apiratelooksat50, Sounds good. I will e-mail you later. -
Riduna at 10:39 AM on 9 June 2011Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
#8, 9, and 10 make the point that climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is not a constant and will vary depending on changes of other factors such as albido. Are they right? I think not. Surely the ability of CO2 to absorb and radiate energy is a constant which is not affected by such externalities. Ergo, ceteris paribus, the effect of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere will be constant. Average global temperature is affected by the level of CO2 in the atmosphere but obviously externalities such as slow feedbacks, particularly release of Arctic methane and diminution of albido due to melting of snow and ice, also have an effect, as indeed do clouds and aerosols. The net effect of these changes may be greater than that arising from a doubling of CO2. The point to be made – and made well by Hansen – is that a CO2 concentration of 450ppm is unsafe because is causes slow feedbacks to accelerate beyond human control. Indeed, that point has already been reached and nothing short of a reduction in atmospheric CO2 can change it, hence his call for a reduction to 350ppm. Hansen tells us that we are fast approaching the Pliocene temperatures, when sea level was 5m. higher than to-day, simply warns us of what lies ahead if we aim to limit CO2 concentrations to 450ppm – disaster and dangerous, uncontrollable climate change. It is a shame this message and its implications escape the comprehension of our political leaders and the general public. None of them can claim they were not warned! Few can claim they did their best to respond. -
Stevo at 10:38 AM on 9 June 2011Tony Abbott denies climate change and advocates carbon tax in the same breath
Tom Curtis @27, Thanks for bailing me out there, Tom. I'll keep searching for where he said,"I'm not across the science". The words stuck in my memory, just like they did with yours it seems. Now to find that link....... -
John Hartz at 10:25 AM on 9 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
@apiratelooksat50 #23: As they say, the proof is in the pudding. Afterall, I am probably responsible for you being here because of the plethora of SkS articles I referred you to. -
apiratelooksat50 at 10:14 AM on 9 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
Badger @ 22 Give me a chance, please. Sphaerica @ 9 Thank you for being reasonable and please excuse me for being brief, but we are in the last day of high school and I am swamped. Seriously, let's open a dialogue on CO2 and the human component. This email here macdonald29623@yahoo.com is anonymous for me, but I would love to converse with you outside the bounds of this site. I would like to discuss with you privately my reservations. Once I feel I can establish trust with you, I will even supply my consulting company's website address. Thanks -
Chemware at 10:03 AM on 9 June 2011Imbalance in US TV Media Coverage of Greenhouse Gas Regulation
@6 Patrick Kelly I don't think you are living in the same Australia as the rest of us. The media, in particular Murdoch's News Corp, has been virulently anti-AGW and anti-Carbon Tax. Even dear old Auntie shows a strong bias against AGW, with their "The Drum" opinion section almost becoming the publishing arm of the IPA. -
Tom Curtis at 10:02 AM on 9 June 2011Tony Abbott denies climate change and advocates carbon tax in the same breath
Stevo @23 & 24, The correct link is to a Lateline interview with Tony Jones on November 11, 2009. I notice that the same interview is the source of two quotes in the main article, but the link is dead in that article. Another myth Abbott trots out in that interview is the Roman Warm Period/ MWP grapes in England myth:"If you look at Roman times, grapes grew up against Hadrian's Wall - medieval times they grew crops in Greenland. In the 1700s they had ice fairs on the Thames. So the world has been significantly hotter, significantly colder than it is now. We've coped."
I would not be too quick with the apology. I seem to remember Abbott explicitly saying that he was "not across on the science", although I cannot source the saying. I may be confusing the incident with when he said he was not across on the NBN on Q&A (I believe). -
actually thoughtful at 10:01 AM on 9 June 2011Imbalance in US TV Media Coverage of Greenhouse Gas Regulation
pdt - I think the general public perception of a market forces solution like a carbon tax, compared to the "heavy hand of government" is more favorable. There are loud voices that protest both, but many economists have pointed out that letting millions of individuals maximize their own economic well being is a more powerful force than banning the burning of carbon fuels by fiat. And I think the first reaction to any carbon reduction strategy is that people are going to increase what they burn - wood, car tires, furniture that isn't bolted down - there WILL be unintended consequences, but overall we need the reduction as soon as possible, and just burning stuff won't be a viable long term strategy. -
Bob Lacatena at 09:56 AM on 9 June 2011Tony Abbott denies climate change and advocates carbon tax in the same breath
Mod, Stevo just missed his ending quote in his href in post 23. If you could just fix it for him... -
Bob Lacatena at 09:55 AM on 9 June 2011Tony Abbott denies climate change and advocates carbon tax in the same breath
22, Martin, Certainly if he's starting from the "CO2 is heavier than air" (probably the single most ignorant argument out there), then he probably has much too far to go to ever get anywhere. If I were you, once he understands and accepts, and sees how the solution can be resolved (i.e. through straightforward calculations of molecular velocities or meters of CO2), I would work on the general idea of "See how you were fooled? Really smart people have spent lifetimes on this, and all they get out of it is a $75K a year teaching position at a university." I know that's an appeal to authority, but quite honestly, that's no different from trusting a doctor or a dentist or a lawyer. If he won't buy that, well, you'll never step him through every single denial argument, if he's starting from the heavier than air nonsense. -
newcrusader at 09:54 AM on 9 June 2011Imbalance in US TV Media Coverage of Greenhouse Gas Regulation
The American Media has basically been told 'what to say' about AGW by the powerfully rich fossil fuel companies and the Koch Industries. Anyone who thinks there is a free and open press and media in the USA is lost in a dream world OF make believe- there is none. When the problems of AGW become so severe- the prostitutes of the the US media will be as responsible as the fossil fuel and energy titans. -
pdt at 09:00 AM on 9 June 2011Imbalance in US TV Media Coverage of Greenhouse Gas Regulation
"I subsequently explained, EPA regs are harder on the economy and less effective at reducing emissions (at least the currently planned regulations) than a carbon pricing mechanism. A pricing mechanism gives the market more incentive to find low-cost alternatives. There's more of a financial motivation." Why would there not be a financial incentive to provide people with alternatives to the services fossil fuels provided as fossil fuels are regulated out? Why would people not choose the lowest cost solutions? I don't see the logic. You have made statements of fact without logical or data-driven arguments to support them.Response:[dana1981] I said there's less of a motivation with regs, not no motivation. With regulations, polluters just have to stay below a certain emissions threshold. There's no incentive for them to go lower. In a market system like cap and trade or carbon tax, they can profit from reducing emissions even further. Plus in those systems, revenue is generated through the carbon price, some of which is then funneled into low-carbon tech R&D. So there's both more motivation and more opportunity to create low carbon technologies with a carbon pricing system than with carbon regulations.
-
Stevo at 08:55 AM on 9 June 2011Tony Abbott denies climate change and advocates carbon tax in the same breath
Sorry folks, for my ham fisted first attempt at posting a link in #23. I also lost the bit where I apologised for misquoting Abbott in #11. He did not use the words, "I am not across the science" but in the course of the interview it is quite clear he is not. -
actually thoughtful at 08:54 AM on 9 June 2011Imbalance in US TV Media Coverage of Greenhouse Gas Regulation
But, but, but we are TOLD there is a main stream/leftist news media conspiracy to delude "We the Sheeple"! Surely it can't be the case that the deniers are selectively choosing the uninformed to pontificate on climate change? Surely there is an arsenal of well trained, professionals with a consistent theory that disproves AGW? Why else would there be all of this self-rightous protest of making a relatively minor change to how we price carbon to protect the future of humanity on earth? The skeptics must have VAST stockpiles of peer-reviewed papers and a complete, logical, intellectually satisfying alternate explanation that we just haven't seen yet. I'll turn on FOX - I am sure it will be here any day now. -
Stevo at 08:52 AM on 9 June 2011Tony Abbott denies climate change and advocates carbon tax in the same breath
Moderator #11. Here's the link to the Tony Abbott interview on ABC Lateline. My apologies for misquoting in my earlier posting. Abbott did not say the actual words, "I'm not across the science" but from the interview it is plainly the case that he is not. When asked if he had read the science or IPCC report he responded, "No, I don't claim to have immersed myself deeply in all of these documents. I'm a politician. I have to rely on briefings - I have to rely on what I pick up through the secondary sources". He then went on to quote Plimer and some cherry picked short term data and claimed that it was valid because the numbers came from the Hadley Centre.Moderator Response: (DB) Fixed link. -
pdt at 08:32 AM on 9 June 2011Imbalance in US TV Media Coverage of Greenhouse Gas Regulation
"It's worth noting that EPA regulation of greenhouse gases is not the best solution to the climate problem." I don't understand why this is stated as a fact. Regulations worked very well for NOx and CO emissions. I personally like the idea that when something is known to be bad, people are simply not allowed to do that thing. The market should work well to find the lowest cost alternatives.Response:[dana1981] I subsequently explained, EPA regs are harder on the economy and less effective at reducing emissions (at least the currently planned regulations) than a carbon pricing mechanism. A pricing mechanism gives the market more incentive to find low-cost alternatives. There's more of a financial motivation.
-
adelady at 08:04 AM on 9 June 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
Eric, Good to see the Tasmanian marine protected areas are doing their job. For climate impacts of the warmer current going south there's this. And that's pretty well word for word from the abstract - full paper paywalled. Good for sea urchins. Not so good for the seaweed areas they invade. -
John Hartz at 08:03 AM on 9 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
@Sphaerica #9: Kudos on your response to apiratelooksat50. Having conversed with him a couple of years ago on commnet threads to articles posted in a local newspaper, I was curious to see if he would respond to your invitation to continue a dialogue. The fact that he has not done so, does not surprise me. He is a classic example of the "Mr. nice guy" denier persona.Response:[DB] We will judge people fairly, based on their bahavior displayed here, not in other venues.
-
scaddenp at 07:42 AM on 9 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
I have no problem assigning a cost Eric to airport. We are currently serviced by 747s so reducing us to hilltop airstrip to service a city of 120,000 seems like we are taking a loss caused largely by action of others. Why is this exempt from legal remedy? "What I am looking for from you is a discussion of the external costs without which a libertarian solution is impossible." Okay, I dont follow this so perhaps that is my problem. What do you mean by external costs? You so far havent commented on liability, air pollution control or what happens if coal is always cheaper unless its environmental cost is taken into account. My impression is that you are implying that a solution cant be found by reduction in government, then a problem cannot be solved inside your value system. Clearly, if say 500ppm of CO2 would unequivocally kill us, that would not be case. Also, I notice you appear to prefer geoengineering to emission reduction. What I dont like about this, is that costs of geoengineering would have to be borne by people taking the loss (eg tourist operators and fishing industry for reef damage) instead of the people creating the problem in the first place (the emitters). Certainly lets also have discussion of scientific points in the appropriate threads. -
Eric (skeptic) at 07:38 AM on 9 June 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
adelady, from "Changes in fish assemblages following 10 years of protection in Tasmanian marine protected areas": "Notable results include a statistically significant increase in abundance of Latridopsis forsteri and large fish (> 300 mm) when examined across all reserves relative to controls, and a 10-fold increase in the abundance of large fish and a doubling of per site species richness of large fish within the Tinderbox Marine Reserve relative to controls." No mention of climate in the abstract. On the reef, from what I read my solution of water temperature is too simplistic for the inshore reef, mainly because of the proximity to land, shallow water next to land and effects of runoff which will make it difficult to prevent temperature spikes. Offshore there is the East Australian Current most responsible for many temperature fluctuations. -
scaddenp at 07:29 AM on 9 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Cadbury here has denied that he is the same person as posting on those sites. If in fact he is the same person, then posting a downright lie should be reason for exclusion in my opinion. -
scaddenp at 07:24 AM on 9 June 2011There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
No. That is not a toolbox that I have heard of. I seldom need that kind of statistical analysis and would look to R instead of MATLAB for the tools if the statistics Toolbox wouldnt cover it. (That said, it does have multivariate tools but I have never used them). However, that's the approach of the Benestad paper. -
Bob Lacatena at 07:04 AM on 9 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
39, JeffT, Hmph. Speaks volumes. And for whomever has been complaining about moderation at SkS, versus the "WUWT is an open forum!" declarations I've seen, note the comment shortly after his, where his comment wound up in moderation, and the mod talked about all of the outrageous posts that wind up getting deleted. -
okatiniko at 07:04 AM on 9 June 2011Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
DM#29 : precisely I doubt the validity of this assumption since the various forcing have different spatial repartitions - or more precisely I haven't seen any strong justification for this assumption. Concerning my thought experiment, it is undoubtedly a change of solar energy input , so it has exactly the same effect than the possible influence of solar activity, or a change of albedo. My point is that the temperature can be higher with a lower energy input, so there is nothing like a simple relation T(F) : it must be T(F, x, y...) where x, y.. are parameters describing for instance the repartition in latitude, the oceanic circulation, and so forth. So there is also nothing like a single derivative dT/dF . It could be a partial derivative ∂T/∂F |x,y... but this coefficient depends on what you choose as the "other coordinates" x, y, to be held constant. Again nothing like "one" single sensitivity valid under any circumstances. -
Martin at 06:24 AM on 9 June 2011Tony Abbott denies climate change and advocates carbon tax in the same breath
Sphaerica@7, dana@8, Doug@9 and Tom@13, Thank you all very much for your answers to my question. I wish I had thought of what Spaerica wrote. My own arguments were pathetic in comparison. I just said that wind and weather would mix everything just fine. I particularly like Tom’s graphs. But I think I will try Doug’s calculations because it is simple and direct. My colleague is no Dirk Nowitzky so I’m sure he couldn’t survive 3.1m of CO2. He has studied physics, so he shouldn’t have any problems following the arguments plus I’m not quoting a scientist who gets money from the state and (in his eyes) is therefore corrupt. I’m afraid that although he might just possibly concede this single point, I won’t be able to convert him from the dark side. He only accepts what EIKE publishes (the next little ice age will start in 10 to 30 years, etc.). But then Lord Mockton is listed on this “institutes” board, so what can you expect. Unfortunately my colleague’s English is not very good otherwise I would have simply directed him to this site.Response:[DB] The main skeptic arguments and the debunking thereof are available in multiple languages, including German. If that helps, that is.
-
adelady at 05:53 AM on 9 June 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
Duh! That would be the western Pacific next to eastern Australia. -
adelady at 05:51 AM on 9 June 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
Eric(sk) "...cooling the water upstream when it gets too warm." Upstream? Where on earth is upstream for warm water in relation to the GBR? If you know a way to cool any significant portion of the eastern Pacific ocean currents that warm the GBR waters, everyone would like to hear about it. (Tasmania would like to hear about it too, because their fisheries are also affected by warmer waters.) -
adelady at 05:35 AM on 9 June 2011Imbalance in US TV Media Coverage of Greenhouse Gas Regulation
Patrick, "...surveys of public opinion show a trend towards scepticism." Not any more. Check out this SMH report from last Friday.Response:[dana1981] Good news there!
-
actually thoughtful at 05:05 AM on 9 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
Paulm - no disagreement here. I just take every chance I get to urge people to take personal, visible action to fight climate change. Peer pressure/shame is probably the only effective lever we have to affect the conversation/attitude of humanity. As many people point out sarcastically, people are sheep. Let's herd them (by our actions) towards climate change avoiding behaviors. We can keep the fact that they are saving money, saving resources and saving the earth as a happy place for humans to ourselves. Actions do in fact speak louder than words. -
Eric the Red at 04:57 AM on 9 June 2011Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
Okatinko, Yes, T(A) > T(B). The greater land mass in the NH would result in significantly more heat being absorbed by the surface. This is one of the premises in the Milankovitch theories. These changes are thought to be responsible for the ice ages. -
Paul Magnus at 04:55 AM on 9 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
AT, The realization of what a warmer world means based on our emissions becomes a moral issue. Once one realizes that emissions are causing deaths and will cause the disruption of our kids then decisions become much more straightforward. This is why it is important to convey to dire effects accurately and honestly to the public. Its the personal connection and realization of the consequences of our actions that mold our behavior in a moral world. -
Eric (skeptic) at 04:41 AM on 9 June 2011Imbalance in US TV Media Coverage of Greenhouse Gas Regulation
Thanks Tom for that link. Looking through all of the responses, that question has very clear support for "yes". -
Patrick Kelly at 04:31 AM on 9 June 2011Imbalance in US TV Media Coverage of Greenhouse Gas Regulation
The situation you describe is the mirror image of that prevailing in Australia, where media representation of Climate change has been overwhelmingly in the AGW, science is settled vein. The surveys of public opinion show a trend towards scepticism. Media coverage has tended to follow public opinion rather than driving it. -
Dikran Marsupial at 04:30 AM on 9 June 2011Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
okatinko@28 Hansen is assuming that climate sensitivity (dt/df) is essentially the same during the last ice age as it is in the current interglacial, so dt/df \approx dt(A)/df(A) \approx dt(B)/df(B). This means you can reasonably approximate dt/df as the ratio of the change in t and the change in f between the two scenarios, in other words, sensitivity = dt/df \approx [t(A) - t(B)]/[f(A) - f(B)] If we take the limit as A goes to B, then by the fundamental definition of the derivative the approximation becomes exact. The second paragraph was dealt with in my earlier reply. The difference in your thought experiment is not a difference in forcing, and hence is irrelevant to a discussion of climate sensitivity. -
Albatross at 04:28 AM on 9 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
JeffT @39 and moderators, Wow. Thanks for that. In light of these astounding revelations I motion that Cadbury (and any of his sock puppets) be banned from SkS. This is a site for serious scientific discussion, education and learning. Now back to the science.Response:[DB] I have been aware of Jay's comments, at WUWt and RC alike, for some time now. His posting privileges here will be determined by his adherence to the Comments Policy of this site. But I well understand the frustration...
-
Jeff T at 04:18 AM on 9 June 2011Websites 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.
-
actually thoughtful at 04:17 AM on 9 June 2011There'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). -
KR at 04:16 AM on 9 June 20112nd 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. -
J. Bob at 04:07 AM on 9 June 2011There'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? -
Eric (skeptic) at 04:03 AM on 9 June 2011Coral: 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. -
okatiniko at 03:54 AM on 9 June 2011Christy 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. -
Tom Curtis at 03:50 AM on 9 June 2011Imbalance 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. -
dana1981 at 03:49 AM on 9 June 2011Imbalance 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. -
Eric (skeptic) at 03:19 AM on 9 June 2011Imbalance 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. -
Tom Curtis at 03:19 AM on 9 June 2011Coral: 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. -
Paul Magnus at 03:10 AM on 9 June 2011There'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 -
Bob Lacatena at 03:02 AM on 9 June 2011There'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." -
Bob Lacatena at 02:37 AM on 9 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
14, Shoyemore, Good post. I couldn't find one perfect for your Cartesian grid, but still:
-
Bob Lacatena at 02:27 AM on 9 June 2011Christy 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.
Prev 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 Next
