Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Comments 801 to 850:
-
cctpp85 at 18:48 PM on 18 January 20242023's unexpected and unexplained warming
Hello,
I replied recently to Daniel Bailey because he thought I was a beginner.
My first message was about NCEP "strange" reanalysis outputs and the fact that everyone left them out of recent discussion, which maybe has some link with the "strange" outputs. My natural curiosity leads me to look for more details about that story.
This is just a technical point, of second order importance, but many articles here are also technical points.
-
Eclectic at 08:59 AM on 18 January 20242023's unexpected and unexplained warming
Cctpp85 @1 and @3 :
Please clarify the main points that you wish to make. Casual readers - such as myself - like to improve our knowledge about important aspects of climate.
When considering matters of analysis and re-analysis, we like to "cut to the chase" and find out the practical end result of it all.
Somehow, I am reminded of an apocryphal story by David Attenborough, about a man who encountered a tiger in central Asia. And while the man was pondering whether it was a Bengal tiger or a Siberian tiger . . . . he "got et".
[ Excuse the Attenboroughian pronunciation. ]
-
michael sweet at 00:41 AM on 18 January 2024What role for small modular nuclear reactors in combating climate change?
I linked a paper on SMR's on another thread. Here is another link. Short summary: they will never work. Too expensive.
nuclear is too expensive and the materials do not exist.
-
michael sweet at 00:37 AM on 18 January 2024Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
This peer reviewed paper fron 2021 in IEEEaccess reviews the issues with small modular reactors. They conclude that SMR's will be at least twice as expensive as large reactors and the rest of the claims by SMR supporters are simply a bunch of stuff. It is unlikely that more than a very few demonstration reactors will ever be built. Those that are built will be paid for by governments. I note that the nuclear indusry has made many claims over the past decades that were a bunch of stuff.
-
cctpp85 at 19:35 PM on 17 January 20242023's unexpected and unexplained warming
Hello,
I know what is a reanalysis. The departure from observation-based analysis is not an argument because reanalyses consider observations as probabilities and are allowed to depart from observations if probabilistic optimization supports it.
Do you know about the details proving that all NCEP probabilistic optimizations are flawed?
In a multi model ensemble analysis, any model which is "often lower quality" but not clearly flawed participates nonetheless to the final probabilities. Otherwise it is not a multi model ensemble strategy and no final probabilities can be given.
-
Daniel Bailey at 07:24 AM on 17 January 20242023's unexpected and unexplained warming
cctpp85, one answer is that it's the difference between theory-based calculations (reanalysis products) and direct observations.
Parker 2016 - Reanalyses and Observations: What’s the Difference?
-
cctpp85 at 23:44 PM on 16 January 20242023's unexpected and unexplained warming
Hello,
Why have NCEP reanalyses been ruled out of the all time record estimate for 2023 in WMO and many others' articles?
Evidently NCEP reanalyses changed the SST source near 2020 which brings some complexity but I do not have more details.
-
BTGovier at 08:43 AM on 15 January 2024Statistic of the decade: The massive deforestation of the Amazon
Additionally, you'd need roughly 2 acres per head.
-
BTGovier at 08:38 AM on 15 January 2024Statistic of the decade: The massive deforestation of the Amazon
The cost of jungle land is much less than that (yeah, I'm Brazilian). Some of it comes free formland grabbers. Most of the land where cattle is has first been grabbed, the. harvested for timber, then burnt, then used for cattle.
-
Just Dean at 03:35 AM on 15 January 2024Skeptical Science New Research for Week #2 2024
I found that this article by Dr. Robert Rohde at Berkeley Earth to include some factors that Zeke did not speak to or emphasize. In particular, the anomalous warming/natural variability of the North Atlantic.
"We believe that natural variability in the North Atlantic and other regions is largely responsible for the surge in global mean temperatures in the middle of the year, well before the 2023 El Niño event had gathered strength."
This observation is consistent with an earlier report/article by Dr. Nicolas Gruber, Ref.
-
BaerbelW at 21:12 PM on 14 January 2024Polar bear numbers are increasing
Please note: the basic version of this rebuttal was updated on January 14, 2023 and now includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @ https://sks.to/at-a-glance
-
michael sweet at 06:18 AM on 14 January 2024Skeptical Science New Research for Week #2 2024
Zekie Hausfather posted a summary of 2023 on Carbon Brief today. He put a summary of the temperature record on Climate Brink. The Carbon Brief article contaiind more data about sea level rise, climate records, sea ice and glacier melt and a few other things. They are written for lay people to read. They are very informative. The Climate Brink article is shorter.
He says that the reason that 2023 was so not is not known. The predictions of the 2023 temperature from a year ago were much too low. He says he thinks the volcano and aerosols have too small an effect to account for 2023 but so does a typical El Nino. We will have to wait for more data to find out the scientific reason.
The Climate Brink article would make a good OP here at SkS. The Carbon Brief article is longer than OPs usually are here.
-
gerontocrat at 05:24 AM on 14 January 2024Skeptical Science New Research for Week #2 2024
I recommend this paper....
World scientists’ warning: The behavioural crisis driving ecological overshoot
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/00368504231201372?utm_source=nationaltribune&utm_medium=nationaltribune&utm_campaign=news
-
John Mason at 03:31 AM on 13 January 2024At a glance - Plants cannot live on CO2 alone
Elevated CO2 has all sorts of effects, but I think you have read this at-a-glance with too much expectation. It's designed to be highly accessible and readers who want more will go on to Further Details, or possibly Intermediate or Advanced.
Grew Swiss Chard in big pots this year (with soil and 'organic standard' bagged compost) and had to really coax them, indeed requiring such a fertilizer as you describe. Some years ago I had a garden swap (for about 8 years) and there when I started out the 'soil' was sharp slate scree with a bit of interstitial leaf-mould. The solution was to dig out a decades old lambing barn (stratified dry sheep poo almost like chipboard!) to start things off - but also because I live near the coast, working a few tons of seaweed a year into the beds, after every Atlantic storm. That made a huge difference. In the best year some of the chard plants were close to a metre high! Never had to add anything else. Just one man's experience.....
-
PSBaker at 20:27 PM on 12 January 2024At a glance - Plants cannot live on CO2 alone
I think this explainer needs a bit of work.
In the first place it’s not necessarily true that plants in containers struggle without expensive liquid feeds. Provided the mix of soil and organic matter is adequate, in a reasonable sized pot, most vegetables can be grown quite easily, with some additional fertilizer as required. This can be a simple NPK fertilizer dissolved in water and will cost a few pennies per application.
https://www.rhs.org.uk/vegetables/containers
https://www.rhs.org.uk/herbs/growing-bags
On the other hand, growing in some soils can be problematic, in some/many locations they may be sandy/compacted/acidic etc. and will need considerable work to improve.And while it’s true that atmospheric CO2 increases have led to ‘global greening’ which has helped ameliorate warming (https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/146296/global-green-up-slows-warming) trying to figure out how things will continue in the future turns out to be very complicated (https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108/ ; https://ripe.illinois.edu/press/press-releases/photosynthesis-unaffected-increasing-carbon-dioxide-channels-plant-membranes ; https://botany.one/2021/08/rising-carbon-dioxide-concentrations-are-making-the-worlds-most-destructive-toxic-weed-more-toxic/ )
Elevated CO2 has a strong impact on the other aspects of C3 plants' physiology, especially nutrient metabolism which can be attributed to:
• increase in the biomass of plant leaves results in a lower mineral concentration via a dilution effect,
• reduced transpiration cause reduced mass flow in the soil, and hindered nutrient translocation via the xylem sap,
• reduced photorespiration & production of NADH, leading to a decreased NO3 assimilation,
• disturbance in the regulations of root N uptake and signaling.
https://www.cell.com/trends/plant-science/fulltext/S1360-1385(22)00247-3 -
One Planet Only Forever at 13:33 PM on 12 January 2024Skeptical Science New Research for Week #2 2024
Greenwashing and sustainable finance: an approach anchored in the philosophy of science, by Lagoarde-Ségot, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, presents an interesting evaluation of the ways that a business-finance focus, a belief that economic interests are the most important consideration, can be understood to systemically create harmfully distorted perceptions of reality, perceptions that really have no future (like the evaluations that significantly discounted the future costs of climate change, and did not fully account for the future impacts, to excuse more economic benefit obtained today by being more harmful).
It is fundamentally flawed to consider ‘economic financial interests’ to be more important, to govern over, social or environmental concerns (especially having economic finance interests govern over concerns that can be seen to be ‘costs to the economic system without appearing to maximize the benefit for investors’)
A related flaw is to be focused on what can be empirically observed and measured like:
- only what can be monetized ‘really matters’
- monetized items are valued even if the perceptions of value are distorted, unreliable, or mythical
- and if something can’t be monetized, or is not chosen to be monetized, it doesn’t really matter
The following quote is part of the Introduction
This paper employs a critical realist lens and contends that the mainstream finance paradigm is based on several flawed hypotheses regarding the nature of reality. These inaccurate ontological hypotheses frame controversies in finance within a specific worldview by shaping and limiting the range of acceptable questions, acceptable methods, and acceptable answers. They have far-reaching implications for greenwashing, to the extent that corporate and financial executives, as well as policymakers, see the world through the distorted lens of financial theory. For instance, corporate and financial executives typically consider environmental, social and governance (ESG) ratings as another causal variable in their quest for short-term financial ‘materiality’ rather than adjusting their mission to tackle the social and ecological crisis. Similarly, sustainable finance policies lead to a further expansion of financial markets (through the increased commodification and financialization of nature) rather than embedding capital accumulation within planetary and social justice boundaries.
The last paragraph in the section headed “The (social) world is not flat” includes the following:
The science of business administration, where theories function as instruments of managerial control, clearly belongs to such a structure 5••, 25, 26. In particular, the mainstream belief that unfettered financial markets could reveal the ‘fundamental’ (monetary) value of the Earth System has accelerated the financialization of nature.
And the conclusion is as follows (highlighting the need for systemic change to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals – which requires ‘no successful greenwashing’.
Conclusions
This paper has made two claims. First, the growth of green financial markets2 in recent years does not necessarily imply that the economy will become ‘greener’. Green finance does not protect global commons but accelerates the inclusion of nature and society within financial logic, narratives, and interests. The mainstream finance paradigm is a powerful structure that accelerates the financialization of nature by providing a ‘software of the mind’ to corporate and finance actors as well as regulators. Senior professional investors indeed typically consider ESG simply as ‘another data set’ 1, 45, 46, 47.
As pointed out by Chiapello [49], the ‘green’ financial industry has been pushed by so many policy and corporate actors as a solution precisely because of its subordination to the mainstream paradigm. This entails considering nature and society as the next frontier for capital market development, when the current context requires us to turn the order upside-down and re-embed global capitalism within planetary boundaries [44].
Second, we have argued that the mainstream’s empirical and reductionist biases prevent financial economists from addressing sustainability issues, with unfortunate consequences for the design of sustainability policies. It follows that placing the financial sector under the control of society to hit the Sustainable Development Goals would imply a scientific revolution in finance. In this process, we contend that critical realism could provide a consistent metatheoretical alternative to the mainstream paradigm.
By approaching their study object through the lens of critical realism, progressive financial economists could inquire into the real processes by which global finance shapes social and ecological conditions; and gain a fresh understanding of how the latter retroact against economies and societies, at various scales. This research agenda project should then pave the way to identifying new global collective institutions and binding rules ensuring global prosperity and resilience in the 21st century.
-
John Mason at 14:56 PM on 11 January 2024At a glance - Is the CO2 effect saturated?
When I first sat up and took notice of global warming was when I started reading palaeoclimate studies (a very long time ago now). As a geologist trained to read 'what rocks have to tell', I quickly realised we were heading straight for trouble. Big trouble.
-
Just Dean at 09:44 AM on 11 January 2024At a glance - Is the CO2 effect saturated?
I think this is where data from paleoclimatology can help as well. Three recent studies have looked at the earth's temperature vs CO2 during the Cenozoic period, Rae et al., Honisch et al., and Tierney et al. . Each of those show that the temperature of ancient earth continues to rise as CO2 increases. As I understand it the first two are based solely on proxy data while the Tierney effort includes modeling to try and correlate the data geographically and temporally.
All of these are concerned with earth system sensitivities that include both short term climate responses plus slower feedback processes that can take millenia, e.g. growth and melting of continental ice sheets. Both Rae and Honisch include reference lines for 8 C / doubling of CO2. In both cases, almost all the data lie below those reference lines suggesting that 8 C / doubling is an upper bound or estimate of earth's equilibrium between temperature and CO2. Also notice that there quite is a bit of spread in the data.
In contrast, when Tierney et al. include modeling they get a much better correlation of T and CO2. They find that their data is best correlated with 8.2 C / doubling, r = 0.97. Again, this represents an equilibrium that can take millenia to achieve but does to my way of thinking represent "nature's equilibrium" between T and CO2.
In these comparisons, the researchers define changes in temperature relative to preindustrial conditions, CO2 = 280 ppm. For Tierney's correlation then on geological timescale, the temperature would increase by 8.2 C at 560 ppm. At our present value of 420 ppm there would be 3.7 C of apparent warming potential above our 1.1 C increase already achieved as of 2022, i.e., global warming in the pipeline if you will.
Bottom line, based on paleoclimatological data, there is no apparent saturation level of CO2.
-
nigelj at 06:49 AM on 11 January 2024At a glance - Is the CO2 effect saturated?
The sceptics claim that the CO2 warming effect is already saturated or is close to being saturated is clearly false. It seems to originate with the assertion that the surface receives about 3.7 W/m2 more energy each time CO2 is doubled ie: a logarthmic curve. This means eventually it would take a huge volume of additional CO2 (presumably over a long time period) to add an extra 3.7W / m2. Which they suggest means the effect is essentially then saturated, but without specifying a precise number (how convenient of them).
I see that the article mentions that this assertion about a logarithmic relationship may have been proven false by He et al. 2023, (?) and it also depends on emissions trajectories and other factors, but assuming the logarithmic relationship is simplistically true a look at radiative forcing versus CO2 concentration below and a bit of maths and its obvious the warming effect is not saturated and we are not yet near saturation:
skepticalscience.com/why-global-warming-can-accelerate.html
My back of envelope maths: In 1960s CO2 was 320 ppm ppm so doubling would be 640 ppm at around roughly year 2100 assuming BAU emissions. This coincides with the IPCC warming projection of 3 - 5 degrees C by 2100.
The next doubling is from from 640 to 1280 is a larger volume of CO2 and would presumably take longer to around year 2300 assuming the same BAU CO2 growth trend and other things being equal. Projections of warming by the IPCC by 2300 are not surprisingly around 8 - 10 degress C for this further doubling of CO2. Such a quantity of CO2 is large but may possibly be feasible given reserves of fossil fuels and uncertainties arount that.
The next doubling from 1280 to 2560 would lead to something like 15 degrees C and is a huge volume of CO2 that would take many centuries and would almost certainly exhaust reserves of fossil fuels, and most probably well before 15 degrees is reached. We could say this is the point of saturation in a practical sense. Its of no comfort because we would have had at least 5 degrees of warming and probably more, and not even factoring in tipping points.
Someone check my maths its very rough, but the sceptics claims are clearly false and meaningless.
-
Evan at 02:08 AM on 10 January 2024Scientific Consensus with Dr John Cook
Ben@1 and nigelj@2, I tend to agree with both of you, but would defer to someone with deeper knowledge of the IPCC than I have.
My understanding is that Ben is correct in terms of historical IPCC predictions, but that Nigel is correct in terms of the latest report, which now does include more extreme predictions than previously included.
But the other message that I keep hearing in videos and reading in text is that the climate is responding/changing faster than many climate scientists expected, and by my reading, this sentiment is not refleccted in the IPCC reports.
-
nigelj at 05:04 AM on 9 January 2024Scientific Consensus with Dr John Cook
Ben Laycock @1
I disagree that the IPCC only include the most conservative estimates of warming and SLR. Firstly the most conservative estimates for warming are roughly 3.0 degrees C by 2100 at BAU (business as usual emissions) and on SLR are roughly 0.6 M this century. The IPCC sixth assesssment report also includes warming projections of up to 5 degrees C and and SLR projections of 1 - 2 metres this century ( which look very possible to me). So clearly the IPCC does not include only the "most conservative" estimates.
You can google the IPCC reports. They are free to download.
A small number of scientists like James Hansen have written studies with higher estimates of warming and SLR but they are not included as the IPCC presumably decided the science was not quite convincing enough. The IPCCs job is to review all the science and decide which is most credible. That also includes reviewing studies claiming the planet is about to enter a long cooling period. They dont include those because they lack any credibility.
However IMO the Summary for Policymakers could do a better job of highlighting the worst case scenarios and their implications.
Its true the IPCC do lean a little bit conservative on the science generally. However this is how science has worked for decades and its to help avoid mistakes and loss of credibility. It may be frustrating at times but the alternative sounds worse to me. Policy makers also presumably realise there is a certain conservative leaning or reticence and take that into account.
And remember there is nothing reassuring about SLR projections of up to 2 metres this century. This is obviously very serious and if anyone can't figure that out I doubt that a higher estimate of 3 metres would make much difference to them.
I agree that we have to be cautious interpreting the meaning of low possibility high impact events like 5 degrees warming this century or 2.0M SLR. Firstly as you say they can still happen. Secondly they are assigned a low possibility of occurence but that is probably a "conservative" leaning evaluation or probability. Thirdly the impacts are so incredibly serious that even although the possibility is low we need extreme caution and should therefore be mitigating the climate problem. There are many activities that have a low possibility of harm but very serious outcomes, that sensible people avoid like driving on worn tires that are just slightly below warrent of fitness standards.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:38 AM on 8 January 2024Cranky Uncle with Dr. John Cook
Ben Laycock, Some observations and feedback ...
The evidence appears to clearly indicate that it is incorrect to believe that "... every single government ... is ... blissfully unaware that economic growth is the primary driving force of the climate catastrophe."
There is enough evidence from the COP interactions, and so much more, to establish a consensus understanding (a legitimately justified 'common sense' as opposed to a harmfully misled developed 'common sense among a portion of the total population') that people wanting to benefit from harmful unsustainable developed perceptions of advancement, success and superiority are the fundamental problem, not just regarding climate change impacts.
The 'government representatives' acting for the benefit of harmful unjustified pursuers of benefit are likely 'well aware of how harmfully misleading they are being' when they fight against more rapid ending of fossil fuel use. Even the 1.5 C target limit of harm done was a harmful compromise. But, because of the unjustified success of harmful pursuers of personal benefit since 1990, the more justified compromise of 1.0 C limit of harmful impact was 'no longer an available option' in 2015.
As for the solution being 'crash the economy', in addition to the points made by Eclectic and Rob Honeycutt, I offer the following thoughts. I agree with crashing the economy if:
Crashing the economy is => Leadership actions to increase awareness and improve understanding of what is harmful and how people can be more helpful to others, especially to future generations.
That type of leadership would result in:
- a very rapid ending of harmful unsustainable developed aspects of the economy (stuff that should be excluded from measurements of economic success). The rapid ending would be assisted by leadership encouraging a reduction of unnecessary harmful activity, especially by the richest.
- a very rapid increase in the development of less harmful more sustainable economic activity (with the harmful impacts properly and fully subtracted so that there is no misunderstanding regarding the value or merit of an economic activity while harmful activities are cleared out of the system)
That 'crashing of those aspects of the economy' would be Good for the future of humanity. And it would most negatively affect the people who want to be more harmful and less helpful (also a Good Thing).
Of course, if the status quo powers continue to get their way, including being able to significantly compromise leadership actions, the harm suffered would most likely be severely experienced by those less powerful who do not deserve to be penalized - you know - the undeniable status quo history of humanity. And those less powerful 'easy to harm' people include the future generations of humanity (They have no vote, marketing, or legal power).
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:48 AM on 8 January 2024Climate news to watch in 2024
An additional point,
When comparing the results of actions by nations the 'history of per capita impacts by nation' should be presented along with the presentation of total national impacts. China's per capita impacts are still significantly lower than USA per capita. And that presentation would also highlight the impact risks of a nation like India developing up to the higher per capita levels 'the supposed more advanced nations are setting as the examples to be aspired to'.
Also, the national total and per capita impacts should include the impacts of all consumption in the nation and other actions that the population of the nation benefit from, especially the impacts of imported items. A nation should not be able to mislead about how harmful the actions of its population are by having the harm ignored or excused because it occurred outside their borders.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:33 AM on 8 January 2024CO2 limits will harm the economy
PollutionMonster,
Take as long as you need. I appreciate it will take some time. Learning by putting in the extra effort to read books (and full research reports, and magazine length articles) from sources that you learn are biased but are not significantly misleading is one of the recommendations by Timothy Snyder in On Tyranny. (Note: All presentations can be claimed to be biased, which includes a non-misleading bias towards increased awareness and improved understanding of what is harmful and how to be more helpful to others).
I will be interested to see your feedback regarding increased awareness and improvement of understanding on this issue. I am always open to improved understanding and better explanations based on all of the available evidence.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 08:09 AM on 7 January 2024Cranky Uncle with Dr. John Cook
Ben... I think crashing the economy wouldn't be a wise approach to avoiding disaster. You can't rationally trade one form of human catastrophe for another. Crashing the economy would potentially be as bad or even worse than the path we're currently on.
I would note there are no researchers (that I am aware of) suggesting crashing the economy as a solution to the climate change crisis. My suggestion for you is to consider the idea that deployment of carbon-free energy is operating on a exponential scale. That could actually bring us in line with zero carbon goals, if we can achieve that. Probably the bigger concern is resource limitations to carry out exponential deployment of renewables.
-
Eclectic at 08:07 AM on 7 January 2024Cranky Uncle with Dr. John Cook
Ben L @1&2 ,
you are very Droll. (Is that "plan D" ?)
If plan C = Crash the economy
and plan B = Blowing past 3 degrees
. . . do you not have a plan A = Acceptable political compromise?
or are you hell-bent on plan G . . . the Genghis-Khan method?
(Asking for a Friend.)
-
Ben Laycock at 07:18 AM on 7 January 2024Cranky Uncle with Dr. John Cook
We must crash the economy!
-
Ben Laycock at 07:17 AM on 7 January 2024Cranky Uncle with Dr. John Cook
I have collated some important climate data that might come in handy when trying to counteract disinformation.
It is not rocket science, but it is science.
As Cranky Uncle might say, it is just plain common sense.
Every single government in the whole world, bar none, is desperately trying to increase economic growth, blissfully unaware that economic growth is the primary driving force of the climate catastrophe. We point the finger at the evil fossil fuel merchants and their enablers in government, but they are just struggling to keep up with our insatiable demand for more stuff!
Since 1990 global clean energy generation has increased 1000 fold, but our emissions have been going up at the same time, by 60% since 1990. We have burnt more fossil fuels since we learnt about climate change than all the rest of history put together! Our emissions have been rising by about 10% every year since 1950, though the rate has slowed a bit lately, which is encouraging.
The reason they keep going up is because the global economy keeps growing. The economy grows by about 4% per anum. So clean energy must replace emissions at the same rate, just to break even. Clean energy generates 17% of our global energy needs. So to replace 4% of
CO2, it must increase by 18% every single year. If we are to achieve Zero Net Emissions by 2050 we must reduce our CO2 by another 4% p.a. every single year for nearly 30 years. That means increasing clean energy by another 18% p.a. So we must increase our clean energy by 36% every year. Last year we our clean energy went up 10%, a shortfall of 26%. So this year that 26% gets added onto this years target, bringing it up to 62%. Next year it will be 88%, and so on.
If you know anyone who thinks that is even remotely possible, please refer them to a psychiatrist!
There is only one solution to this predicament.Ben Laycock
-
Ben Laycock at 07:12 AM on 7 January 2024Scientific Consensus with Dr John Cook
Whilst it is reasurring that the information in the IPCC reports is reached ia consensus, it can gie us a false sense of security because only the most conservative estimates are included. The most alarming possibilities are left out because they are deemed unlikely. So the possibility of global temperatures reaching an insufferable 4 degrees higher is not something we should be concerned about because it is not very likely to happen.... until it does!
-
BaerbelW at 00:31 AM on 7 January 2024It's waste heat
Please note: a new basic version of this rebuttal was published on January 6, 2024 and now includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @ https://sks.to/at-a-glance
-
PollutionMonster at 21:12 PM on 5 January 2024CO2 limits will harm the economy
@ One Planet Only Forever 123
Reading a bunch I am now using a reference management software called Zotero to try to keep track of everything, though I am still new and making mistakes. The Sks website can be difficult to navigate with so many articles with almost identifcal names and topics.
I am still investigating and understanding the sources you mentioned earlier the Taylor and Francis Group for example. I am also going through the all sources of the books you mentioned trying to read the primary source, often the books mention other books in their work cited.
I will get back when I am finished.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:20 AM on 4 January 2024Climate news to watch in 2024
Having read the entire article it is clear that the term 'pollution' regarding 'global heat-trapping' is implied to be an annual rate value. That 'short-hand' makes it less clear that the required end objective is the rapid ending of the ‘addition of global heat-trapping pollution’ with a 'now almost certain' need for increased unproductive corrective effort to be expended 'by others in the future' to 'remove excess pollution' and attempt to ‘repair climate change caused damages and adapt to the more harmful climatic future created by excess accumulated global heat-trapping pollution'.
However, the accumulated pollution is the continuing problem. And even the best actions by a Democrat controlled USA government are likely to be 'more harmful and less helpful than they could be' because the USA leadership is significantly compromised by the popularity and profitability of being more harmful, by protection of the incorrect and unsustainable developed perceptions of 'living a better life'.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:47 AM on 4 January 2024Climate news to watch in 2024
I have not finished reading the article. But the following statement triggered a need to comment.
"Despite all that bad news, many countries are making progress toward reducing their climate pollution, and the outlook for 2024 is encouraging. In fact, 2023 may turn out to be the year in which global heat-trapping pollution peaked and began to decline."
The first part of the statement is consistent with all the available evidence and is encouraging news.
The second part of the statement appears to be incorrectly over-optimistic. A more realistic statement would appear to be: In fact, 2023 may turn out to be the year in which the rate of increase of global heat-trapping pollution peaked and began to decline."
That revised statement is encouraging news. But it is not a certainty.
Improvement is occurring. But the the problem continues to get worse due to resistance of correction by people who have developed impressions of advancement and superiority based on unjustified and harmful over-consumption and the related unsustainable harmful desire for 'more personal benefit faster'.
-
MA Rodger at 21:14 PM on 2 January 2024Skeptical Science New Research for Week #26 2023
Just Dean @11,
I would not agree that the Holocene paper Osman et al (2021) co-authored by Tierney is the sole reason behind what has become the “Holocene temperature conundrum.” Other studies also found an absence of a Holocene Thermal Maximum, eg Kaufman et al (2020) or Bova et al (2021), or a very weak one, eg Kaufman & Broadman (2023), or regional differences, eg Cartapanis et al (2022).
Chen et al (2023) [ABSTRACT] characterises it as a model-proxy thing with these methods needing to sharpen their game if the conundrum is to be resolved.
-
Eclectic at 09:38 AM on 2 January 2024Skeptical Science New Research for Week #26 2023
Just Dean @11 :
Yes, the Osman study shows a slightly different "shape" to the subsequent millennia following the Holocene Optimum of (very roughly) 7,000 years ago. And yes, that is of innate interest, but it makes little difference with respect to the rocket-like rise of global temperature which is progressing during the current industrial era.
In golfing metaphor, it is the consideration of how past holes were played . . . compared with where the ball is sited right now ~ and what we need to do playing the ball right now.
With or without climate models, we know enough about the angle of the grass slope & the wind's strength/direction, to make a reasonable judgement on how to strike the ball. Lack of Will, is our problem.
-
Just Dean at 07:26 AM on 2 January 2024Skeptical Science New Research for Week #26 2023
Eclectic @10.
I have been following Dr. Tierney's work for sometime. I think Dr. Tierney's work is underappreciated. I think the combination of proxy data with modeling is cutting edge for paleoclimatogy. For instance, I think her paper in Nature with Osman may ultimately redefine the shape of the "hockey stick," REF .
Also, look at the quality of the fit for the Cenzoic age, this research really might start to constrain the climate models for predicting future temperatures for different emission scenarios.
-
Eclectic at 05:14 AM on 2 January 2024Skeptical Science New Research for Week #26 2023
Just Dean @9 :
Thanks for the J.Tierney video reference [not yet viewed by me].
I note the name Osman listed in the video credits, and also note that the video is marked as having had 135 views in 2 months. So, not yet setting the the world on fire [apologies to Secretary-General Guterres of the U.N.].
Just Dean ~ broadly speaking, the paleo record conforms with the present-day understanding of the climatic actions of CO2. Is there a special point that you are wishing to make, regarding the paleo climate?
-
Just Dean at 01:24 AM on 2 January 2024Skeptical Science New Research for Week #26 2023
I am also leery of single author papers.
If you are interested in the some of the latest thinking in correlations between ancient CO2 and T, I recommend this presentation by Dr. Jessica Tierney, REF .
If you are interested in just the bottom line, you can skip to the time marker around an hour into the presentation. If you look at her plot of GMST vs CO2 (ppmv) introduced at 1:04:08, you might imagine how if you wanted to play fast and loose with the data and do some cherrypicking you could make the correlation look fairly poor.
-
Wol at 15:08 PM on 1 January 2024I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned
I took about a couple of minutes of that video.
The quantity of FUD regarding EVs is astonishing until you consider what is going to happen to the FF industries in just a few years and how much money is being pushed into the doubt industry.
I've no real skin in the game - no children - but what looks like the future isn't pretty so my investment in an EV three years ago is probably altruistic!
Take care, y'all and HNY!
-
Rob Honeycutt at 12:59 PM on 1 January 2024Skeptical Science New Research for Week #26 2023
If I'm not mistaken, WJ Davis' PhD and primary area of research is sports physiology.
-
Eclectic at 10:27 AM on 1 January 2024Skeptical Science New Research for Week #26 2023
Just Dean @6 :
The 2017 study you link [by W. Jackson Davis] is quite bizarre. And overall, is a waste of time for anyone to read.
Red flags can be seen in the Author's voluminous Conclusions. Such as his statement: "... that other, unidentified variables caused most (>95%) of the variance in [temperature] across the Phanerozoic climate record" <unquote>
Variables unknown to modern science, apparently?
In his final paragraphs, he seems to have a political axe to grind. Indeed, his whole extensive paper shows much Motivated Reasoning ~ a triumph of weakly-based statistical analysis over logical analysis.
I rate his paper as 10/10 for length and 0/10 for scientific substance.
-
Just Dean at 08:32 AM on 1 January 2024Skeptical Science New Research for Week #26 2023
I was looking for recent articles on paleoclimatogical data for CO2 vs Temperature and happened to this posting about the work of W. Jackson Davis. Based on a previous work of his claiming that CO2 concentrations did not cause temperature changes in ancient climates, REF , I would definitely advise caution when considering his works.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:56 AM on 1 January 2024I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned
I hope next year (or this year for those already there) continues to see sustainable improvements from leadership.
I can wrap up this year with a positive perspective regarding the hoped for response to the growing need for direct air carbon capture.
The segway to that positive perspective from my comment @19 will be the following NPR article: “The rules of the road are changing, but not fast enough for everyone”. The story is a tragic result of the systemic problems developed by competition for perceptions of status based on popularity and profit. The system developed to promote faster motorized personal vehicle use - contrary to the convenience and safety for pedestrians and cyclists.
The developed dangerous and inadequate transportation infrastructure, from the perspective of cyclists and walkers, is the result of pragmatic politicians compromising the undeniable safety concerns of pedestrians and cyclists to appeal to the popular and profitable interests of ‘motorized personal vehicle enthusiasts’ wanting to go faster. A similar pragmatic political compromising has been delaying the reduction of harm from fossil fuels to the detriment of many current day people and the future generations of humanity.
The positive perspective is that harmful compromising by leaders is becoming less excusable and harder to hide.
The transition away from leadership that pragmatically harmfully compromises the development of sustainable improvements and corrections of harmful developments, including the development of direct air carbon capture and the reduction of need for that action by transitioning away from fossil fuel use, is happening slower than it should ... but it is happening.
-
BaerbelW at 21:33 PM on 31 December 2023CO2 effect is saturated
Please note: the basic version of this rebuttal has been updated on December 31, 2023 and now includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @ https://sks.to/at-a-glance
-
Rob Honeycutt at 16:58 PM on 31 December 2023I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned
I have this notion of getting a VW ID.Buzz when they come to the US. I want to do a wrap on it with images from Hieronymus Bosch's paintings... therefore making it an "Hieronymus Bus." That, or a "VW Bosch."
And I will end 2023 on that note. ;-)
-
Eclectic at 07:48 AM on 31 December 2023I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned
Michael @21 : no problem at all, with the spelling mistake. The classic term Eclectic often gets mangled by Autocorrects which were programmed without a Classics education ! Probably it's an Oxford English versus Merriam thing.
Now, if the Autocorrect had substituted Celtic for Rangers . . . well, them thar would have been Fighting Words . . . in Glasgow. (Excuse such a feeble football joke, which is only justified by today's date being on the cusp of Hogmanay.)
Back on topic ~ For context, I am saddened that Santa didn't give me a Tesla Model Y with an LFP battery [the Long Range model with 4wd . . . when Elon gets around to that combo ]. Mind you, even that EV would fall a bit short of my "local" Supercharger non-network. But I am hopeful things will be a lot better in 10 years.
Meanwhile, I am trying to understand Santa's symbology in leaving a lump of coal on my mantelpiece. Was it a hint? An SkS insult?
Happy New Year to all !
-
michael sweet at 05:40 AM on 31 December 2023I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned
Eclectic, sorry about the incorrect name, autocorrect spelling.
-
michael sweet at 05:39 AM on 31 December 2023I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned
Celtic @16:
my Tesla has a computer screen between the front seats that usually displays a road map. If I press a button and say "show superchargers" it will show the ten closest Tesla suoerchargers. It says how many are in use or free, what the power of the station is and if I have enough charge to get to them. A warning comes on screen if I try to drive with low charge. If I go on a long trip the car will tell me where I need to stop to charge for the entire trip.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:56 AM on 31 December 2023I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned
I agree with, and I am entertained by, the comments.
I am adding what I hope is educationally entertaining.
In my travels through developing regions of Asia decades ago I saw workers at 'fuelling stations' pedalling a stationary bike to pump fuel.
Pedalling a stationary bike to 'fuel up an EV' would be more effective than a hand pump. However, it likely would take significantly less pedalling energy to pedal-power a smaller lighter vehicle than pedalling to 'refuel an EV'.
A key 'efficiency' consideration is the 'reduction of energy demand'. Delving into that thought process leads to appreciating that 'less technology use is often more efficient, no matter how efficient the technology becomes'. The obvious easy way to limit climate change harm is to get people to significantly reduce unnecessary energy use.
Technology that helps people sustainably be less harmful and more helpful to others can and should be developed. But the developed marketplace systems of competition for perceptions of status (perceptions of living and being better than others) clearly motivates a focus on 'meeting the wishes and interests of those perceived to have higher status’ to the detriment of 'the needs of people who live less than basic decent lives'.
I agree that things like battery technology needs to be improved, in addition to promoting the understanding that less personal vehicle driving is an important part of the transition to a sustainable improving future for humanity. The following CBC article highlights aspects of the 'Battery problem' "The environmental costs of EV batteries that politicians don't tend to talk about"
The article mentions the following problems:
- the lack of plans for recycling of batteries, the harm of waste rather than recycling
- the environmental impacts of obtaining raw materials
- the ways that some indigenous populations impacted by mining may be tempted to support the environmental damage if they get to have perceptions of higher status (the common harmful developed affliction and addiction among people immersed in competition for perceptions of status)
An issue that is not mentioned is the benefit of developing less demand for batteries. In addition to the need for full recycling of batteries to be developed now with the cost of recycling being fully paid up-front by the buyer and user of a battery (and the understanding that less demand makes it easier to achieve full recycling of the used batteries). In addition, the full costs of truly neutralizing all other impacts associated with batteries, like obtaining raw materials to make batteries, should be paid up-front by the buyer and user.
Having to pay up-front for all of the costs of 'sustainable' battery use would powerfully motivate the 'sustainable' improvement of technology. Without that 'high and full cost up-front' the marketplace can be expected to develop 'more harmful - less sustainable' things that are perceived to be improvement because they win the competition for popularity and profit.
Admittedly, that systemic change would result in a much higher cost for batteries. But that 'cost signal' (something that the economic-political systems failed to have, and continue to inadequately have, regarding fossil fuel use) would provide the added benefit of reducing the amount of battery demand. However, that systemic change would be a 'big win for the future of humanity’, admittedly to the detriment of people like JC (initially pointed to by prove we are smart) who have tragically been tempted to try to earn 'click bait money' by entertaining 'personal motorized vehicle enthusiasts'.
-
Eclectic at 22:40 PM on 30 December 2023I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned
Rob H @ 17 :
Actually, for emergency use, a hand-pumped EV charging station might come in useful (especially in cold climates).
The muscular gentleman in your photo could well achieve 0.05 KW of DC charging . . . which would take yer average Tesla battery from 20% to 80% in around, ahh, six weeks? A tad longer, if a few hours of nightly sleep were included . . . and also ignoring any parasitic drain in the car's electrics.
OTOH, might be quicker & easier simply to push the Tesla to the next town. On a sealed flat road, that is.
