Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 Next
Comments 8601 to 8650:
-
anticorncob6 at 11:28 AM on 5 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #1
" And over the next decade, the world will decide its fate of whether it can limit heating to within 1.5 degrees Celsius of pre-industrial temperatures."
We have to reduce carbon emissions by an average of 15% every year just to have a 50/50 chance of staying below the 1.5C limit. The world isn't doing that.
-
Nick Palmer at 10:25 AM on 5 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Michael Sweet. Whether you realise it or not, you argue in exactly the same way as denialists do, only in an alarmist mirror fashion. Clearly you are going to continue with your long ill-thought out posts chock full of incorrect assertions and characterisations and I wonder if the moderators need to slow you down a bit. I'll just point out an example of your style: M.S. wrote "I supported William Reese's article advocating allowing people to discuss high danger possibilities of AGW. Currently only low ball projections are publicly discussed"
It is absolutely untrue that only lowball projections are publicly discussed - you just made that up.
M.S also wrote: "You claim without suppport that Cauderia says 6 billion dead is scaremongering crap" Firstly, it is Caldeira actually...
This was extraordinarily easy to check - yet M.S didn't... - again, his aggressive denier/alarmist style shows because he appears to believe that if one don't know of something, that it doesn't exist. Try looking again at the 'Reece article' linked to in the comment#8. In it is this: "Similarly, Ken Caldeira, senior scientist, Carnegie Institution, points out, “There is no analysis of likely climate damage that has been published in the quality peer-reviewed literature that would indicate that there is any substantial likelihood that climate change could cause the starvation of six billion people by the end of this century.”"Which rather proves my point about Caldeira's views and demolishes his insinuation and it also strongly suggests that M.S. didnt read or properly understand the words in the article he referenced!. Only reading headlines or cherry picking articles is a classic denialist/alarmist trait
There is a point which M.S, is fundamentally not getting, which I have addressed several times already - incorrigibly ignoring or failing to understand repeated points is also classic denialist/alarmist think. That is starkly illustrated in his fallacious statement: "You ignore your previous complaints about underprediction and shift the goalposts to a single word Hallam said. You complain about people who discuss worst case scenieros and imply that I discuss worst case scenieros"
The point is that those who campaign and pontificate using 'fear porn' and say worst case low probability things WILL happen, like Hallam, are simply wrong. Get it? WRONG.... They are also highly irresponsible because they give massive amounts of ammunition to the denialist propagandists, who use it to confuse and mislead the public about what the sensible peer-reviewed science says. No scientist worth his salt would support that nonsense, indeed they get angered by it. BTW Michael Mann wouldn't approve of Sweet's postion either! It is the implied certainty in the words of Hallam and his ilk that is dangeously misleading.
I did not 'complain' about people who discuss worst case scenarios at all, all those scenarios are covered in the science and often in restrained magazine articles. It is legitimate to mention low probability outcomes as part of a full risk assesment process. It is not legitimate to tell the public that 'we're all going to die in X years'. Again, I say it is absolute nonsense to say that the very low probablity, worst case scenarios which depend not only on nothing at all being done to fix things but that fossil fuel use, particularly coal, will massively increase in future, which is the R.C.P 8.5 pathway which is next to being abandoned as a possible future, are not being mentioned publicly. However, it's true that climate scientists and policy makers are not 'hyping' them, like the dangerously stupid and irresponsible Hallam's of this world tend to do, for very good psychologcal reasons. Such risks may even be mentioned in the public arena more if only the reporters, fired up by the irresponsible doomers, extremists and alarmists, who create a journalistic hunger for headline worthy quotes about 'worst cases' happening and make them interview as if those were firm, almost inevitable, predictions, didn't need to be corrected so often by real scientists when interviewed.
Those types I do, and did, complain about are those who misrepresent the science and the possibilities to be as scary as they can possibly make them out to be in order to plug their cause or their ideology or whatever motivates them. NigelJ, who is probably one of the most regular commenters here, and who knows his stuff, has already confirmed that trying to scare the public with over the top hype to try and stampede them towards a policy, desired by the scarey pontificator, does not work and is actually counterproductive. People like Michael Sweet seem either unaware of this or ignore itAs Sweet clearly can't acknowledge that others can know stuff he is unaware of, shown by his denier like demands that everything anyone says that he doesn't like be ' proved' - MS: "You provide no data to support your claims", here's a few links that support what I and NigelJ wrote about hyping fear and its countreproductive nature.
Fear won't do it- Promoting Positive engagement With Climate Change Through Iconic and Visual Representations
'Loss-Framed Arguments Can Stifle Political Activism' Adam Seth Levine (a1) and Reuben Kline (a2)
'How Hope and Doubt Affect Climate Change Mobilization Jennifer R. Marlon1*, Brittany Bloodhart2, Matthew T. Ballew1, Justin Rolfe-Redding3, Connie Roser-Renouf3, Anthony Leiserowitz1 and Edward Maibach3https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00188.x
'Fear-Based Climate Appeals Can Be Counterproductive'
https://psmag.com/environment/fear-based-climate-appeals-can-be-counterproductiveModerator Response:[DB] Let's tone things down and take a higher road. For reference, Michael Sweet is a member of the Skeptical Science author team.
Ad hominems and inflammatory snipped.
-
nigelj at 08:50 AM on 5 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #1
"Safety is something we all crave. It’s human nature."
Nope. Quite a few people crave danger. This is probably a factor in all the crazy climate denialism. They are happy to take a risk with the whole planet. Some of the science underpinning risk taking:
www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/science-choice/201508/can-you-be-addicted-adrenaline
www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-main-ingredient/201207/seeking-danger-find-sense-life
The economist William Nordhaus claimed 4 degrees is the safe limit above which human casualties become serious. The trouble is we don't know this with any certainty, and his views are contested, and even a 1.5 degree world could lock in 4 degrees, it cant be ruled out given the understanding of tipping points, so I can't see any safe limit. By the time one is mathematically defined with precision it will probably be too late.
Jonathen Franzen says "We haven’t fixed climate change for 30 years, so we may as well give in to the fact that everything is screwed." This just seems intellectually lazy and defeatist.
-
Eclectic at 08:46 AM on 5 January 2020Clouds provide negative feedback
Hefaistos @255 ,
please comment on the Dewitte et al., 2019 paper you cite.
My first impression of the EEI graph is (ignoring error bars) that it's very noisy.
-
Hefaistos at 07:37 AM on 5 January 2020Clouds provide negative feedback
Interesting paper finds "surprising" results from CERES with a negative trend of Earth Energy Imbalance as well as a negative trend of Ocean Heat Content Time Derivative :
"Decadal Changes of the Reflected Solar Radiation and the Earth Energy Imbalance" by Dewitte , Clerbaux and Cornelis.
Abstract: Decadal changes of the Reflected Solar Radiation (RSR) as measured by CERES from 2000 to 2018 are analysed. For both polar regions, changes of the clear-sky RSR correlate well with changes of the Sea Ice Extent. In the Arctic, sea ice is clearly melting, and as a result the earth is becoming darker under clear-sky conditions. However, the correlation between the global all-sky RSR and the polar clear-sky RSR changes is low. Moreover, the RSR and the Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) changes are negatively correlated, so they partly cancel each other. The increase of the OLR is higher then the decrease of the RSR. Also the incoming solar radiation is decreasing. As a result, over the 2000–2018 period the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) appears to have a downward trend of −0.16 ± 0.11 W/m2dec. The EEI trend agrees with a trend of the Ocean Heat Content Time Derivative of −0.26 ± 0.06 (1 σ) W/m2dec.
...
"The Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) shows a trend of −0.16 ± 0.11 W/m2dec. The decreasing trend in EEI is in agreement with a decreasing trend of −0.26 ± 0.06 W/m2dec in the Ocean Heat Content Time Derivative (OHCTD) after 2000.
The OHCTD over the period 1960–2015 shows three different regimes, with low OHCTD prior to 1982, rising OHCTD from 1982 to 2000, and decreasing OHCTD since 2000. These OHCTD periods correspond to periods of slow/rapid/slow surface temperature rise [16,17], to periods of strong La Ninas/El Ninos/La Ninas [14,18], and to periods of increasing/decreasing/increasing aerosol loading [19,20]. "https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/11/6/663/htm#
-
nigelj at 12:53 PM on 4 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
This article is very relevant. We are seeing the very worst of our scientific predictions come to pass in these bushfires. Note particularly the discussion on the next IPCC report, and the suggestion it will include a section on abrupt climate change. There's a link to the main topics to be included in the report.
-
michael sweet at 11:40 AM on 4 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Another fact and reference free post from Nick Palmer disparaging me.
Let us review the conversation.
At 12 I entered the conversation. I supported William Reese's article advocating allowing people to discuss high danger possibilities of AGW. Currently only low ball projections are publicly discussed.
At 13 you entered calling me a doomer for supporting discussing high danger, low probability issues. You criticize Reese and others who worry about the long, very fat tail of probabilities. You provide no data to support your claims. You quote Reese to support your argument.
At 15 you claim without data that "the majority [of scientists are] saying 'things are proceeding at about the rate we thought'. You claim without suppport that Cauderia says 6 billion dead is scaremongering crap.
At 22 I use the example of gross underestimates of sea level rise in the IPCC reports to support my claims. I point out that Hansen was roundly criticized for his estimates of 5 meters rise 15 years ago. You would have completely censored him. I point out that 5 meters rise is now standard in the fat tail of possibilities. I point out that 600 million people are currently at risk from 2 meters of sea level rise alone (currently at risk, an estimated 800 million at risk by 2100). Here is the paper describing this risk, it was widely discussed several weeks ago. Previous estimates understated the problem by a factor of three.
I then list more 4 examples of underprediction. It would be easy for me to list many more.
At 28 you describe Alleys talk. You complain about Hallam using the word "will" while Alley only says the probability is low. (According to DB the probability has increased significantly since Alley was recorded). You ignore your previous complaints about underprediction and shift the goalposts to a single word Hallam said. You complain about people who discuss worst case scenieros and imply that I discuss worst case scenieros.
At 30 I detail IPCC lowballing of sea level rise with references. I point out that the IPCC numbers are very low ball numbers, far below the scientific norm. I state I believe most people will only respond after problems directly affect them. I state I do not use numbers from the end of the fat tail but support others using what they think is appropriate.
At 31you insult me for supporting extremist views, although that is not my position. You change the goal posts to describe how best to affect public opinion. You state your opinion of the best way to address the public without any citations to support your reasons.
At 35 I detail my claim about IPCC lowballing scientific estimates with detailed citations. I show 2 meters was a reasonable choice, within the 90% percentile. I prove the IPCC AR5 lowballed sea level rise. I provide numerous quotes of scientists complaining about IPCC lowballing. I state that I see no reason to think lowballing issues will get more people to take action than describing extreme problems. I point out that lowballing has had no effect for the past 30 years.
At 38 you shift goalposts again and state that I do not differentiate between what will happen and what might happen, although I have clearly shown that 2 meters is around the 90th percentile of probability for a high emission model. You then shift the goal posts again to discuss RCP 8.5, which I have not discussed at all. You claim that you do not need to cite data since you have discussed this issue with scientists and your recollection of the discussion is enough.
None of us know what will happen after tomorrow. All projections have to be taken with that caveat. In the full video that we discussed above of Dr Alley he shows the entire curve and states emphatically that we must take strong action to ensure the end of the fat tail [15-20 feet] does not happen. (watch the video yourself to find this).
I think lowballing problems as you advocate is bad policy. I try to discuss problems near the 90% area. Hallam goes further up the tail. That reflects on Hallam, not me. People here in Tampa think 0.5 meters by 2100 is the top estimate of sea level rise because the IPCC numbers are so low. That is a disservice to the public and keeps people from taking action.
You have been deliberately offensive. You keep shifting the goal posts when I give examples that you are incorrect. You have not provided a single reference to support your claims.
Moderators: Nick Palmer is sloganeering and deliberately insulting other posters. Please ask him to provide references to support his wild claims and stop insulting me.
I found this reference by Oreskes, Oppenheimer and Jamieson:
Scientists Have Been Underestimating the Pace
of Climate Change (description of book)The problem of underestimating problems is much more complicated than I described and much more widespread.
I think your suggestion that we should all lowball the problems of AGW is a bad idea. It has failed for 30 years. In the next 10 we will see if Hallam's efforts are helpful or harmful. He can hardly do worse than the last 30 years of lowballing. In the past year Extinction Rebellion has gotten more attention for AGW action than traditional sources you advocate.
I note that Michael Mann is making much stronger public statements than he used to. Australia, your country is burning – dangerous climate change is here with you now
-
Nick Palmer at 00:47 AM on 4 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Michael Sweet. You still seem to have a problem understanding that "theres a big difference between claiming what will happen and what might happen".
You quote a blizzard of figures but you don't seem to have understood the original post - about R.C.P 8.5. All of the shock horror predictions that the Hallam's of this world tell people are going to happen, and the low probability 'highball' IPCC projections too, are dependent on what is increasingly seen as an unrealistically high increase in future emissions by the very same scientists whose work is used to formulate the projections of the consequences of the 'what ifs' that are the RCPs.
You may not know but the author of this article - ATTP - is Ken Rice, a highly respected figure in the field and I have been in communication with him (and other noted and noteworthy climate scientists) over some years, so I have the advantage over you of not just knowing what the 'boiled down' IPCC reports say, but also what the scientists behind the scientific papers that are considered by the IPCC say. They're not fond of extremist alarmist and doomers...
Skepticalscience is not an alarmist or doomer site (despite what denialists say on a daily basis...) and anyone giving any sympathy or support to the 'fear porn' rhetoric of the likes of Hallam is probelmatical to keeping intact the integrity of the site as a repository of objective reliable scientific knowledge. -
takamura_senpai at 23:27 PM on 3 January 2020Statistic of the decade: The massive deforestation of the Amazon
There is a simple way to solve a forests problem - declare default. But. This is impossible, because Brazil - is a USA colony
-
takamura_senpai at 23:23 PM on 3 January 2020Statistic of the decade: The massive deforestation of the Amazon
This is a colonialism. USA hang a huge debt on Brazil, just buy polititians. Now USA have woods and goods from Brazil for free - less even than % on debt. Brazil have to cut forests because it is a colony of USA. Debt too big. Brazil have to pay USA aprox 100 billions of dollars every year. EVER. So forest will die.
-
Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
pbezuk: Relative humidity over land has decreased, as predicted by the models; the slower cooling of the oceans has shifted some humidity to the waters. The specific humidity, the total amount of water in vapor form, has on the other hand increased again as predicted, with resulting increases in precipitation and flooding.
Your post is simply wrong.
- Byrne and Gorman 2018 - Relative humidity trends as per models
- Feng et al 2016 - Specific humidity trends and resulting rainfall changes
- How substances in trace amounts can cause large effects - Yes, it's CO2
-
michael sweet at 12:19 PM on 3 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Reviewing my post at 35 I confused the graph with another I reviewed. The light lines on the graph show the 90% confidence interval and not the 95% confidence interval. 95% confidence is much higher.
Nigelj: the graph shows the consensus 90% confidence in 2013 was 1.5 meters. The quote indicates that "global total SLR exceeding 2 m by 2100 lies within the 90% uncertainty bounds" [in 2019]. The consensus 90% value BAU increased over 0.5 meters from 2013-2019.
It is difficult for amateurs like us to keep track of what is going on. Tamino has good posts on sea level rise. RealClimate has a good post every so often. This year had a lot of bad news on sea level rise. Hopefully next year will be better.
-
David Hawk at 08:47 AM on 3 January 2020Skeptical Science New Research for Week #52, 2019
This announces republishing of a book on the subject of control of nvironmental deterioration resulting from industrialization. 90% if tge biij comes from a major project conducted in Sweden between 1975-77. At the end of the research it was proposed that phenomena like climate change would emerge if major change was not undertaken. The project included many companies and governments, where the companies allowed complete access to their research and production facilities. The work ended in a call for a new approach to enviornmental regulations as the research results showed how the usual legalistic approach was not capable of managing systemic phenemena.
The recommendations from the study were ignored for forty years. Climate change will be our future. The book is:
"Too Early, Too Late, Now what?" David L. Hawk, 2019
Moderator Response:[DB] While we encourage people to bring the results of peer-reviewed research to the discussion threads, merely promoting your own book is not appropriate.
-
michael sweet at 08:15 AM on 3 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Nigelj,
We basically agree. I do not like being called a cherry picker. I responded to some of your issues in the post above.
-
michael sweet at 08:08 AM on 3 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Nick Palmer at 31:
Thank you for a post completely lacking in citations so I do not need to go read them.
Long time readers ar Ske[ptical Science might remember a drawing from a scientist (sorry I do not remember the scientists name) which had a large gaussian curve labeled "Scientific Opinion" on one side. At the far right of the gaussian curve was a line labeled "IPCC position. About 10% of the curve was to theleft of the IPCC line. Much further to the left, past the point of no problems, was a line labeled Denier scientists. In the middle of the IPCC line and the denier line was a line labeled "news reports splitting the middle". The news reports line was far to the left of the end of scientific opinion. (If anyone has a link to this drawing please post it below, I have not been able to find it).
The point of the graph was that, exactly as OPOF describes, the IPCC report determines the point where a consensus of scientists agrees "the damage must be higher than this". That means the average of scientific opinion is much more damage than reported by the IPCC. The lowest 10-15% of scientific opinion determines where the line is drawn. Your description of the IPCC linne as the midpoint of scientific opinion is simply incorrect (I note that you have provided no citations to support your claim).
I support my claim with this reference to a RealClimate post. (the data discussed is referenced to a peer reviewed paper at RealClimate). The graph below shows the data from IPCC AR5 and the results of a survey of 90 sea level rise experts.
In the IPCC report the data was only quoted from the 17-83%. Standard data in scientific reports is to the 95%. Thus for RPC 8.5, the I(PCC reported a maximum expected rise of just under 1 meter. The 95% opinion of the experts was just over 1.5 meters.
I call the IPCC claim of under 1 meter low balling.
Just for giggles let us look at a recently published survey of experts:
"We find that a global total SLR exceeding 2 m by 2100 lies within the 90% uncertainty bounds for a high emission scenario." my emphasis
Your position is that I should only say sea level will rise 0.95 meters when expert opinion says there is as much as 10% chance of over 2 meters if we go BAU?? If I am responsible for building an airport I am expected to anticipate it will last 100 years with 95% certainty. That would be well over 2 meters.
According to this RealClimate post, Jason Box, a glaciologist who studies this issue, has said:
"There was controversy after AR4 that sea level rise estimates were too low. Now, we have the same problem for AR5 [that they are still too low]."
Stefan states:
"One statement that I do not find convincing is the IPCC’s claim that “it is likely that similarly high rates [as during the past two decades] occurred between 1920 and 1950.” I think this claim is not well supported by the evidence. In fact, a statement like “it is likely that recent high rates of SLR are unprecedented since instrumental measurements began” would be more justified."
At 27:40 of the video linked above Dr. Alley says:
"The IPCC is way on the optomistic side fo what is possible [for this issue and many others]"
He does not mention 30-40 feet but does say "could be bigger than this [15-20 feet]. they have not done a worst case study"
Prominent scientists complain repeatedly that the IPCC is lowballing the numbers. I think it is acceptable for me to do the same. Can you provide something besides ":this what Nick Palmer thinks" to support your position.
I have not been called a doomer before. Thinking about it, I note that low balling it for 30 years as you advocate has not gotten anything done. Perhaps Hallem of ER will do better with his approach.
-
nigelj at 06:48 AM on 3 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
michael sweet @29
"you can't argue every issue by pointing to what an expert or two said and leaving it at that. Sometimes experts are dead wrong. You are using the "argument from authority fallacy," and also doing exactly what the denialists do when the point at a couple of denialist experts."
Yes I did say this, but at that point I was referencing the claims of Reese that 6 billion people will die by 2100, not sea level rise per se. This is really Reeses opinion, its not in the peer reviewed literature as far as Im aware, its been heavily criticised by several other experts, and like Nick Plamer says theres a big difference between claiming what will happen and what might happen. Reese is feeding the denialists. It's sad if you can't see this.
"Your paper actually supports my posts: 2 meters is a high estimate but within 95% estimates of high sea level rise and 5 meters is within the long tail. You did not read the paper. The paper also states that the consensus of experts has significantly increased since 2013. "For sea level rise the consensus always increases every 5-10 years."
Whatever. I have already stated that I accept some published science (Hansen and others) concludes 5 metres is possible as the most extreme worst case. An incredible numbers of things have to happen for this to occur and some of the mechanisms in Hansens research are none too clear. That's the opinion of plenty of scientists. Not everyone accepts Hansens conclusions. 2-3 metres by 2100 is what is considered more reasonably possible and scares the hell out of me anyway and would be devastating. I don't know why anyone needs to wildly speculate beyond this.
Even Hansens sea level rise predictions that New York would be underwater by date xyz have fed the denialists for decades, and the scientific community has had to do gymnastics to defend them.
If we want to be convincing the public, and using scary predictions towards the upper end, imho we need to be focusing in on a worst case for sea level rise that is strongly backed by evidence, not the off the chart highly contested stuff at the extreme end. I have already made this point so I'm trying again. It's a subtle difference but its important.
Nick Plalmer is right when he says "If you havent seen the clear evidence from psychology that overstating risks not only turns people off, but reduces the credibility of the 'consensus' middle ground of science in the publics' eye then you need to read a bit wider." I have done some psychology, so Im aware of this. Basically fear can motivate change, but the research finds when using extreme and scary scenarious, there has to be a solid evidence base or fear can work in the opposite direction to whats intended.
"Farmers raise crops on all the good land. Only poor land is allowed to go to trees. Virtually all farmable land is already occupied by a farmer. Your gross insensivity to farmers on good, delta land being forced to move to cities is disgusting. Lost good land is not replaced by poor land in the mountains or melted permafrost. All the estimates I used were for 2100. You refer to multiple time periods so it is unclear what you mean. It is clear that you are not up to date on the amount and consequences of sea level rise."
My point was sea level rise will reduce framland, and forests might be cut down to provide more farmland so its hard to see 6 billion people dying by 2100. And it seems plausible, given huge numbers of trees are being cut down in the Amazon rain forest to grow crops and for cattle (unfortunately). Obviously there could well be very increased mortality longer term given seaa level rise wont stop by 2100.
I said nothing about farmers being forced to move to cities. I said nothing about growing trees on mountains or permafrost regions. I don't recall using multiple time periods. I only talked about 2100 or end of this century. I provided you with a reference from physics.org to some of the latest science on sea level rise.
----------------------
Michael Sweet @30
"The rules for the IPCC reports were written by fossil fuel lawers."
Where do you get that from? Not that it would suprise me.
"Lowballing problems as you suggest has not motivated anyone to take action in the past 30 years. "
I don't think problems have been low balled as much as you think. While the IPCC have not highlighted the possibility of multi metre sea level rise by 2100, there is a graph in their report talking about 12 degrees c by 2200 for business as usual. This is not low balling. The media has been full of scary predictions of all sorts.
"I do not support frightening people with 15 feet (Alley actually mentioned 30-40 feet as a maximum in his talk, listen to it again), but having 65 cm in the Executive summary, which is the most you expect people to read, is not accurate."
This seems in total contradiction to all your previous rhetoric!
My position is this and it always has been and I've said it 100 times: The IPCC understate things in the executive summary and are too cautious. The possibility of 2 metre sea level rise should be mentioned, or something like that, because theres good evidence its a reasonable possibility. But making truly extreme claims like 6 metres sea level rise and 6 billion people dead within one hundred years feeds is on shaky ground, and feeds the denialists and could be counter productive.
I think we might be more on the same page than you think.
-
Tom Dayton at 06:41 AM on 3 January 2020Hockey stick is broken
Joris Geelen, their contention is ridiculous. Look up the definition of "average." To expand your knowledge, look up "central tendency" and how it complements "spread." Learn about additional statistics that can be used to further characterize a population. In short, read an elementary statistics textbook. For a specific rebuttal of that particular claim, see the Climate Feedback article. And if you really (?!) need more explanation, see the Rabbett Run post that has links to multiple detailed explanations.
-
nigelj at 05:39 AM on 3 January 2020Statistic of the decade: The massive deforestation of the Amazon
swampfoxh @12, yours is a very gloomy prognosis, however with rates of population growth and economic growth slowing, we might escape the worst of the apocalypse, and the Mathusian trap. Of course its absurd to think all the worlds poor will all have lifestyles equivalent to what people like us enjoy, but that does not mean theres no room for at least some improvement. Call be hopeful and naieve if you want.
-
Joris Geelen at 05:01 AM on 3 January 2020Hockey stick is broken
According to denialists Researchers Question Validity Of Some say it is meaningless to talk about a global temperature for Earth. The globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:04 AM on 3 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Nick Palmer @31 (also applicable to swampfoxh),
Michael Sweet may not have explained in detail why it is correct to refer to IPCC reported summaries of the science as 'low-balling' how serious the problem is. However, it is true that the IPCC methodology for finalizing the wording of its reports, particularly the Executive Summary, results in 'low-balling of the negative seriousness'.
The science continues to be clear. Human impacts beyond 1.5C warming are likely very negative for the future generations. That has not changed. Politicians who have less concern for future generations decided that a 1.5C limit was 'too hard on the current generation' and tried to say 2.0C would be OK. And some extremist economists, extreme in their lack of concern for future generations, have determined and declared that 3.0C would not only be OK, it would be a generous restriction of the harm done to future generations. They say that to be fair the warming limit could be even higher than 3.0C, depending on how much less concern for the negative future impacts (discounting of future costs) is acceptable (even though it is patently absurd to believe that it is acceptable to benefit from actions that create, or risk creating, negative impacts on Others).
The IPCC report writing methodology is for an 'absolute consensus' to be reached among the participants in the authorship of a Report. And each science contributor has a 'political minder from their nation' influencing the way the report is worded. The 'absolute consensus' wording has to meet the desires of the political minders, but can only be pushed to the limit of scientific legitimacy. The result is reports that are pushed to the 'low-ball end' statements of what can be scientifically supported. (Based a my listening to a CBC Radio interview from long ago of a Canadian Scientist who was a participant in the process).
That process has resulted in almost every subsequent Report 'stepping-up' its statement of 'negative consequences'. When you start from a position of 'low-balling how bad things are' it is almost certain that increased investigation will result in a 'higher low-balling of how bad things are'. Even the incredibly frightening most recent IPCC Special Reports regarding Climate Change impacts on Oceans and Land could be understating the severity of the future impacts.
Compromising expanded awareness and improved understanding of climate science has not been helpful at all, from the perspective of the future generations. But nobody 'has to look at things that way' these days do they? - which is the real problem, especially when leaders don't have to see how unsustainable and harmful their choices actually are.
It is correct to understand that some people will rigidly dig-in when faced with an attempt to correct something they developed a liking for believing. But some people are open to continued learning, even as they get older.
The future of humanity requires Sustainable Development, the sooner the better, no matter how angry that makes the 'learning resistant'.
The future will only be better without the 'learning resistant'.
The 'learning and correction resistant' who fight against any of the pursuits of Sustainable Development corrections need to understand that their harmfulness will not be missed by Others. And their collective fading into impotent angrier irrelevance will be an improvement for global society and the future of humanity. Their lack of significant impact on Others would be a welcome improvement. I would prefer that they choose to learn to be more helpful, less harmful, and have their impacts be more welcomed and sustainably admired by Others.
Once a person's basic needs are met, any improvement of their circumstance increases their ability to be helpful to Others. The choice is theirs to make. Hopefully more of them will resolve to become more helpful, less harmful, people.
-
Evan at 03:41 AM on 3 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Nick@31. I like your statements of caution and your presentation of the centrist view. Whereas I agree with your assessment of Guy McPherson as being on the fringe, I respect Kevin Anderson as one of the few researchers willing to call people's attention to just how serious the situation is. He is also addressing the engineering challenges to tackling the problem. Whereas I don't encourage people to listen to Guy McPherson, I do encourage people to listen to Kevin Anderson. I think he has a good message and one worth hearing.
In addition, he is trying to walk the talk, which is also rare these days.
-
Nick Palmer at 02:07 AM on 3 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Michael - it's getting tedious hearing your defence of extremist views. Yo just repeatedly used then term 'lowballing' which shows you do not have a good grasp of the science. The figures from the IPCC represent MIDBALLING, being the most likely figures. Lowballing would be using the figures, again least likely, at the other end of the probability graph.
If you havent seen the clear evidence from psychology that overstating risks not only turns people off, but reduces the credibility of the 'consensus' middle ground of science in the publics' eye then you need to read a bit wider.
Most people, if they have memories, have seen extremist science predictions - or rather how the media report such predictions - fail before. The textbook example is that of Paul R. Ehrlich who famously, in 1968 wrote a book and the original edition of The Population Bomb began with this statement: "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate ..."[20] Ehrlich argued that the human population was too great, and that while the extent of disaster could be mitigated, humanity could not prevent severe famines, the spread of disease, social unrest, and other negative consequences of overpopulation."
I think you will find that although he was a top person in his field at the time he was essentially completely wrong. The inheritors of his mantle today are such as Guy McPherson, Pete Wadhams, Beckwith, Kevin Anderson, Carana, Scribbler etc who all take the far-end-of-the-probability-graph most unlikely forecasts and, in their public interviews, talk as if the least likely is pretty certain. It's just not scientifically valid to do that.
Alley, of course, is a top notch scientist but people have to remember that he is speaking as a scientist using very precise language which unfortunately can be very prone to misintrepretation when reported on by interviewers of lesser scientific appreciation.
Similarly the Hallam of E.R. activist types who spout extremist definitive statements such as "six billion people will die as a result of climate change in coming decades" need to be told to shut up because they are are seriously damaging the credibility of the actual climate science in the public arena. -
michael sweet at 22:15 PM on 2 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Nick Palmer:
The IPCC AR5 Executive Summary gives an expected sea level rise of 65 cm by 2100 for BAU. Media reports often claimed a range of 26-82 cm by 2100. This range was only an 83% expectation. Most scientific papers give 95% confidence intervals which increase the top end to 180cm. Is the public really served by low balling problems this way?
The rules for the IPCC reports were written by fossil fuel lawers. The summaries reflect the lowest end of possible problems.
Lowballing problems as you suggest has not motivated anyone to take action in the past 30 years. Extinction Rebellion has organized numerous rallies world wide since it was formed. I attended my first rally a month ago and Extinction Rebellion helped organize it. Low balling has not achieved anything. Where is data to support your claim that low balling problems gets more people to take action? This is simply opinion. Peoples opinions differ.
In the end I think people only respond when they see disaster actually occur that affects them. The fires in Australia, California and Europe (gigantic wildfires were not predicted by scientists for 2019) will change more minds than any scienttific discussions. Extraordinary heat waves (not predicted) are convincing. Dead trees in my neighborhood are convincing.
I do not support frightening people with 15 feet (Alley actually mentioned 30-40 feet as a maximum in his talk, listen to it again), but having 65 cm in the Executive summary, which is the most you expect people to read, is not accurate.
-
michael sweet at 21:03 PM on 2 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Nigelj,
At 17 you claimed:
"you can't argue every issue by pointing to what an expert or two said and leaving it at that. Sometimes experts are dead wrong. You are using the "argument from authority fallacy," and also doing exactly what the denialists do when the point at a couple of denialist experts."
at 23 you said"
"You are just doing the same thing again. Emphasising the extreme estimate from a small group of scientists, while criticising denialists who do the same. Nothing has happened in the real world to date to suggest 5 metres this century is possible. The very recent trends in the Antarctic and Greenland suggest 2 metres is possible from what I have read."
At 23 you posted a link to a press release. The actual paper is here. It is clear you have not read it. It states that the consensus of experts is a long tail of very high sea level rise just as described in the paper I cited with 18 authors, not "an expert or two". It is not my problem if you are uninformed about the subject we are discussing. You must withdraw your suggestion that I have cherry picked my citations.
We started this discussion because at 17 you claimed 2 meters was an extreme estimate of sea level and at 23 you say:
"I admit I didn't provide a reference for two metres. Yes you are right there are a few scientists predicting far more than two metres sea level rise per century. I forgot that. However its somewhat beside the point I was making, and the thinking of the wider communiry seems to be converging on 2-3 metres per century as a plausible worst case scenario"
Your paper actually supports my posts: 2 meters is a high estimate but within 95% estimates of high sea level rise and 5 meters is within the long tail. You did not read the paper. The paper also states that the consensus of experts has significantly increased since 2013. For sea level rise the consensus always increases every 5-10 years.
In 18 you said:
"Regarding 2 metres per century sea level rise. Although this is possible to me, its not going to happen within a couple of years. It will still be a decades to centuries process, so if it causes food shortgages inland forests will be felled to supply extra land. Duh!"
Farmers raise crops on all the good land. Only poor land is allowed to go to trees. Virtually all farmable land is already occupied by a farmer. Your gross insensivity to farmers on good, delta land being forced to move to cities is disgusting. Lost good land is not replaced by poor land in the mountains or melted permafrost. All the estimates I used were for 2100. You refer to multiple time periods so it is unclear what you mean. It is clear that you are not up to date on the amount and consequences of sea level rise.
You do not advance the conversation if you criticize my posts without reading your own citations.
You should not comment strongly on subjects you are not up to date on. Duh! If you wonder why land does not exist to replace delta land ask a question. I did not comment on dessertification because I do not follow that topic. I note that your references on Hadley cells are over 10 years old and only indirectly relate to dessertification. Did you read them? You have not cited a reference that directly supports your claims there either. The fires currently in Australia indicate to me that dessertification is expanding rapidly and you were incorrect (although I am not current on dessertification).
-
michael sweet at 11:34 AM on 2 January 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
John ONeill,
Do not deliberately insult me on my handle.
In post 120 you claimed:
"Beryllium is not used in any current reactor, or in any presently being assessed for licensing in the USA or Canada, including proposed molten salt designs."
I produced an example to show that your claim was false. Now you have provided additional examples of beryllium use in nuclear reactors to prove your claim was false.
Why should I believe anything you post when you make obviously false claims??
In addition to critical shortages of uranium, there are many other rare and exotic metals used in the construction of a nuclear plant. The nuclear industry has made no attempt to show the materials exist to build out a number of plants, because the materials do not exist. It has been proven that all materials exist for a renewable energy build out.
It currently costs more for operation and maintenance of a nuclear reactor with no mortgage than to build a new solar or wind plant including mortgage. As you point out, nuclear is not economic.
-
Nick Palmer at 09:41 AM on 2 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Alley said '"we don't have the - pound on the table - this is the published refereed literature - that says this rate, but they have not done the worst case scenario." (15-20ft).
He does say that would be the worst case and suggests the probability is low but not zero.
This is a good scientist speaking. Bear in mind that Reece's article said this "But on Aug. 15, in a memorable session of the BBC’s HardTalk, Hallam irritated multiple cultural nerves by claiming, on the basis of “hard science,” that six billion people will die as a result of climate change in coming decades."
Nowwhere does he point out the deceit or delusion in Hallam's words inherent in "will" and that is the problem when figures like Reece over represent the chances of low probabilit events happening. This 'fear porn' is very counter-productive to getting the public on side nad it give enormous quantities of easy 'ammunition' to the denialist movement so those who exaggerate and mislead should not be praised or given airtime but should instead be castigated. -
swampfoxh at 09:10 AM on 2 January 2020Statistic of the decade: The massive deforestation of the Amazon
SteveW. It"s a tough world. The behinders, those poor that you speak of in your post, are just out of luck. You may think it immoral to tell them they cannot pursue First World goodies, but the game changed in the second half if the twentieth century as a result of the Industrial Revolution's egregious exploitation of the planet and the uncontrolled population explosion after about 1901. You can, however, rest in the comfort that the rich and the poor will be marched off to oblivion together and their graves will be erased by an Earth on the mend in about 10,000 years...by then, there is unlikely to be a need for a moral judgement on anything since it is very likely the repositories of morality will be extinct.
-
John ONeill at 08:42 AM on 2 January 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Michael Sweetman - The use of beryllium you cite is just for about 35% of the welding flux ( with zirconium ) to attach tags to fuel rods, and that only for Candu reactors, which make up less than 5% of the global fleet - hardly a serious resource demand. I believe the reference was in regard to finding alternatives for beryllium, because of stricter safety standards for manufacturing. Aluminium, together with other metals, was considered a possible alternative. I knew that the British Advanced Gas Cooled Reactors were originally planned to have beryllium fuel tubes, but technical difficulties prevented this. As a result they were not able to use unenriched uranium, which severely affected the economic rationale for using gas cooled rather than water cooled plants.
World beryllium production in 2018 was only 230 tons, so it could be a constraint on the proposals for molten salt reactors with beryllium as part of the salt mix - 'Flibe' ( Fluoride-Lithium-Beryllium) is even registered as the brand name for Kirk Sorenson's company. However, I think the requirement for Lithium to be isotopically enriched to 99.995 % Li7 is a bigger hurdle, and as far as I remember, most other molten salt startups are proposing different salt mixes.
Your argument for metal shortages preventing large scale nuclear use relies on once-through use of fuel, as at present. If reactors breeding fuel from U238 or thorium are used, fuel recycling will also be able to recycle associated metals. The recycled fuel will have to be handled remotely, so some induced radiation in any tubes or other fittings, or salt, would make little difference. In the short term, which is what we should be focussing on to cut increasing CO2 emissions, the argument is irrelevant. There are enough uranium reserves to replace coal power production for a generation at least; the main roadblock is reactor cost. Costs of manufacture are not set in stone, even for current designs, as shown by the experience in Sweden, France and Belgium - half to ninety percent of electricity supply, built in twenty years, with power costs comparable to coal. Don't tell me those aren't safe enough, they've yet to kill anyone in forty years.
-
Tom Dayton at 06:30 AM on 2 January 2020Sea level rise is exaggerated
See also Tamino's demonstration of acceleration in global sea level rise.
-
apiece at 20:27 PM on 1 January 2020Statistic of the decade: The massive deforestation of the Amazon
So it is obvious the majority of humanity will never change, we have half the world burning with forest fires, then big cities like Sydney and Delli complaining about the smoke and pollution from the fires but then themselves creating even more pollution by having new year firework shows. Hav'nt they noticed anything. I find it disrespectfull to the people who suffered and died from the disasters.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:05 PM on 1 January 2020Statistic of the decade: The massive deforestation of the Amazon
The best way to state the required solution that I am aware of is 'Sustainable Development'. And the first step is already established - achieving all of the Sustainable Development Goals, the sooner the better. And there is a MOOC for that. “The Age of Sustainable Development” MOOC, (Development of MOOC led by Jeffrey D. Sachs, initially offered in 2014). And there is a book that was developed as part of the development of the MOOC: “The Age of Sustainable Development”, by Jeffrey D. Sachs, 2015 Columbia University Press.
A significant problem to be overcome to achieve Sustainable Development has already been mentioned by many others in the comments, over-coming the powerful resistance to being corrected that can be expected from many of the Status-Quo winners. And a powerful weapon of the correction resistant current day Winners is their ability to use the Science of Marketing to get away with misleading marketing, making-up appealing passion-triggering claims that delay the increased awareness and understanding of how unjustified many developed impressions of status actually are.
There is a MOOC to address the misleading marketing problem. The learning from the Denial101x MOOC can be extended to other misleading marketing efforts that attempt to delay the corrections of the many other unsustainable harmful developments that need to be corrected to achieve Sustainable Development.
And the solution is not replacing Freer Capitalism with Socialism or Communism. Any socioeconomic-political system can be compromised by successful misleading marketing that makes unsustainable and harmful actions appear to be desirable and defensible. And a diversity of socioeconomic-political systems is probably a good idea. Competition between systems that are fully governed by the shared pursuit (common objective) of Sustainable Development improvements would be very helpful.
The solution is developing ways of ensuring that everything is governed by the norms (ethics) of the pursuit of expanded awareness and improved understanding and the application of that learning to help develop a robust diversity of ways of being human that sustainably fit into the robust diversity of life on this amazing planet without using up finite resources (reusing them endlessly).
-
Eclectic at 11:34 AM on 1 January 2020Sea level rise is exaggerated
Dr Marohasy is also conflating modern times (the last 200 years) with the sea level changes of the mid & later Holocene (the last 10,000 years). She is confusing the picture, by using deceptive rhetoric to suggest (to the casual reader) that the observed global sea level fall of around 1 - 2 meters is part of the overall pattern of sea level fall and is a continuing fall today (despite all those incompetent mainstream scientists providing all that fake evidence of a 20+ cm rise during the past century).
Despite common sense indicating that current global warming & ice-melt must be causing a rise in mean sea level [as modern tide gauge & satellite measurements do indeed demonstrate] . . . Marohasy is trying to gloss over the reality of modern climate change.
Her comments are quite bizarre actually ~ this confusion of short- & long-term sea level changes. Yes, the MSL fell by 1 - 2 meters [ see Clark et al., 2016 ] in the roughly 10,000 years since the peak of the Holocene warm period (as the world continued to cool very slightly) . . . but nowadays the circumstances have produced rapid global warming, with resultant MSL rise. A rise which Marohasy seems to be trying to conceal with vague & confusing wording.
The more interesting question is :- Why is she undertaking such propaganda-style mendacity?
-
Daniel Bailey at 10:21 AM on 1 January 2020Sea level rise is exaggerated
Marohasy conflates local/regional sea levels with global, a fatal error.
"She appears to be also claiming that sea levels could be falling at the moment"
Not without the copious usage of mind-altering substances. SLR is accelerating as land-based ice sheet mass losses accelerate.
Read the previous dozen comments.
-
Peter Cook at 09:32 AM on 1 January 2020Sea level rise is exaggerated
Jennifer Marohasy has posted a recent blog which claims large sea level falls around Australia over several thousand years. She appears to be also claiming that sea levels could be falling at the moment. I would be grateful for any insights the Skeptical Science team can provide about the validity of these arguments.
See the post at: https://jennifermarohasy.com/2019/12/what-can-you-see-indicating-sea-levels-are-rising/
-
nigelj at 09:13 AM on 1 January 2020Statistic of the decade: The massive deforestation of the Amazon
The core problem is capitalism is based on the profit motive, which doesn't leave much over for environmental concerns. I doubt things will change until companies adopt a wider range of motives, either in a voluntary way or forced by government legislation. Likewise a lot of the onus is on individuals to widen their motives. Its going to be a tortuous path.
-
Bob Loblaw at 07:52 AM on 1 January 2020Statistic of the decade: The massive deforestation of the Amazon
SteveW seems to think that buying the land will prevent deforestation. I don't know about Brazil specifically, but in Canada (and I think the US) public land is often not for sale - only the rights to harvest trees are up for sale.
And if you buy the rights to cut trees, it is for a limited time - and you'll probably lose those rights if you don't harvest. (The same goes for mineral rights - use it, or lose it. And owning the land doesn't mean you own the mineral rights - a land owner often can't prevent mining when someone else has bought the mineral rights.)
Now, if governments were willing to create laws that allowed people to buy land and permanently remove it from logging or mining, I'm sure people would step up. Current laws usualy create a huge bias in favour of development, though. Changing that requires governments that are wlling.
One measure that is possible is a Conservation Easement. The Wikipedia article talks about the US, but they exist in Canada, too.
-
Bob Loblaw at 07:40 AM on 1 January 2020Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
pbezuk:
You've managed to bring at least four errors into a four-line paragraph. That's impressive.
- NOAA publishes many studies. As the moderator has suggested, you aren't going to be believed unless you can point us to at least one NOAA study that says what you claim. Empty assertions don't count for much here. Try this post to read more.
- The 3-dimensional general circulation models that the IPCC summarizes most certainly do not assume that humidity rises in response to CO2. They estimate evaporation into the atmosphere, and they estimate precipitation back to the surface, and they move atmospheric moisture (in all forms) from one geographic location to another (n three dimensions) in response to atmospheric motions. Local (and therefore global) humidity levels are a response to the physics incorprated into the models. Its an output, not an input.
- Refering to the "tiny part of CO2..." is a fallacy. Try reading the following page to see the error in your statement: CO2 is a trace gas.
- "It is all based on humidity" is also wrong. If models are forced to keep constant humidity (yes, this has been done as far back as the 1960s) then warming still occurs. If humidity is allowed to change (not assumed - allowed), then the temperature rise is roughly doubled due to feedback. Try this post for more information.
Please place any follow-ups to any of these points on the appropriate pages.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 07:04 AM on 1 January 2020Statistic of the decade: The massive deforestation of the Amazon
Doug is right on many aspects. We are in a closed system but our basic primate make-up does not equip us, as a group, to deal with that idea.
I have talked to people who have been in business at fairly high levels, and have solid economic backgrounds; the dominant idea is that one does not have to worry about the fact that commodities are finite. I don't know if anyone has ever raised the objection that it is the equivalent of saying that economics is not constrained by thermodynamics.
At any rate, contrarily to what some suggest, commodities are in fact the root of all and every aspect of the economy. Just like the most advanced thought processes in philosophers or scientists heads can not happen without the physical support of that organ called the brain, and the oxygen and energy to make it function, economies can not run without food and water for people, energy for their machines, and materials for their activity.
As removed as some parts of the economy may be from resources and commodities, they are still entirely dependent on them for their very existence because they are the physical support of it, nothing can happen without them. Economies like that of Singapore rely on resources exploited elsewhere. Economies that rely too heavily on resource extraction have their problems too.
All resources and commodities indeed exist in limited supply in our closed system. This places constraints on the total possible number of people at a given standard of living. That is a physical, inescapable fact. No amount of handwaving from macroeconomics can change it. We are just starting to grapple with that fact, as globalization is a phenomenon less than 100 years old. Some very powerful actors with enormous vested interests in the status-quo do not want this reality to be acknowledged and dealt with in accordance with its importance. We are continuing to act like the standard issue primates while we are confronted with a situation demanding we get to the next level: a true cooperative global economy.
Going to the next level means that we must integrate all factors in products' costs, consider full life cycle, generalize the circular models, and quantify the full extent of ecosystem services that we take for granted. It implies, among other things, being cogniscent of the fact that burning coal spreads mercury, other toxic substances and adds CO2 to the atmosphere, which itself has radiative effects. The total cost of doing it should be reflected in the commodity's price. It means that exploiting ocean floor metallic nodules should require operators to return the sludge at the depth it came from. It means that all the costs associated with the complete life cycles of single use plastic products should be reflected in the products' price. It means that we must reconsider our agricltural models, destructive of their own support systems, made possible at the cost of ever increasing energy inputs, and spreading by-products causing serious adverse effects. It means that we have to re-examine the dogma of ever increasing efficiency, which take the human eventually out of every activity. It means that profits, in any line of activity, will be constrained and that no activity will yield very large ones. It means that reducing humans to their exclusive dimension of consumers must be dealt with like the dead end that it is.
There is no sign that we are going to head this way on a scale large enough any time soon. Things will run their course.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 05:25 AM on 1 January 2020Statistic of the decade: The massive deforestation of the Amazon
Brazil is the 9th largest economy in the World with a nominal GDP of $1.87 trillion. Its GDP per capita is close to $9,000, which is rather plush for a so-called emerging nation. It is likely feasible to have a fairly sustainable society with this kind of per capita GDP, but that would require a re-organization of a size impossible to impose to the actors who benefit the most from the current model.
Of course, the reality behind that number consists of vast masses of people in poverty and a few obscenely rich ones. It would probaly be possible to organize the economy in ways that rely less on resource exploitation but resource exploitation is a readily available, easy way to make money, so it will be used until it's no longer available; that's how humans function. Brazil's main problem is corruption. There are signs that Bolsonaro is probably worse than its predecessors concerning corruption.
Brazil will continue to be corrupt and to destroy the forest and its people will continue to be poor because resource extraction does not translate into real economic betterment of the ones doing the extraction; it does, however, enrich the select few who control it.
-
Doug Bostrom at 04:57 AM on 1 January 2020Statistic of the decade: The massive deforestation of the Amazon
We're in a closed system. At some point we'll need to confront facts such as Brazil's bad luck to be freighted with a significant component that is necessary for continued successful operation of the system. It's a legitimate, open question as to whether Brazil has the right to degrade the entire planet, unfair as that may be.
Thinking of the ISS, if the American portion of the station were to see the American astronauts running that part decide to sell off the water reclamation system because "they needed the money" there's a real argument as to whether they'd have the intrinisic right to do so. Loss of the WRC would mean a knock-on deficiency in oxygen, this in turn affecting the health of ISS owner/occupants from other countries. The situation down here on Earth is more stringent— we can't receive replenishment from down below.
-
nigelj at 04:33 AM on 1 January 2020Statistic of the decade: The massive deforestation of the Amazon
Steve W, do you realise Brazils rainforest is one billion acres, so an organisation would have to raise one thousand billion dollars? Not very realstic.
And do you think someone like President Bolsanaro would let foreigners buy even parts of the rainforest only to put them completely off limits for development?
And there are many other pathways to wealth other than cutting down rainforests. Singapore is wealthy and it has almost no natural resources.
-
apiece at 02:41 AM on 1 January 2020Statistic of the decade: The massive deforestation of the Amazon
Its all very well to think you can just go to a country and buy up the land, just because every rag tag and bobtail can buy land in your country does not work the other way, even if it did there are governments who would hapily confiscate the land if they felt like it, and then do whatever they pleased with it.
-
SteveW at 01:29 AM on 1 January 2020Statistic of the decade: The massive deforestation of the Amazon
Well if the land is only worth $1000 an acre then why not organize a movement to buy it all and leave it as jungle rather than just shout about how much you disapprove of these people trying to improve their economic situation?
Brazil is not a rich country and for wealthy 1st world people to tell the poor they must stay poor by not developing their main economic asset is not only ridiculous it is immoral.
Put your OWN money where your mouth is!
-
Evan at 00:52 AM on 1 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
With all of this reassuring discussion, please remember that CO2 concentrations continue to accelerate upwards. Not just increase, but accelerate.
It is difficult to emphasize how far we are from any kind of optimistic projections. Even if we bound the worst-case scenario to RP6 as a more rationale approach to risk management (I am not making fun of your very well-stated arguments MattSq), that is still an unimaginable future.
Let's make our New-Year's resolutions for each of us to continue rapidly cutting our carbon emissions.
Happy New Year and hoping for a brighter tomorrow.
-
pbezuk at 23:48 PM on 31 December 2019Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
The levels of water vapor has decreased since 1948. See studies of NOAA. This is a serious flaw in the models used by IPCC as they assume that humidity increases when CO2 levels increase. This has not been shown. The tiny part of CO2 can't by itself increase temperature it is all based on an increase in humidity.
Moderator Response:[DB] In this venue, claims must be accompanied by citations to credible sources. Please support your claims with those citations.
-
MattSq at 16:12 PM on 31 December 2019The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Not a climate scientist, my background is in managing technology risk, but I'd observe from parallels in the issues:
1. Deciding what's the worst 'credible' risk scenario is invariably contentious because it drives policy debate and usually also has an associated high degree of uncertainty. However you do need to bound it otherwise you start dealing with risk that is effectively infinite.
2. Using a worst possible scenario that is not credible is generally counter-productive due to the so called anchoring cognitive bias. Once you've stated it becomes very hard to argue people away from this scenario (just ask the nuclear safety community) when you figure out that it's not going to be that bad.
3. Retaining RCP 8.5 because it addresses/covers as yet undetermined uncertainties in the physical models about carbon feedbacks is not (I think) a good practice. Better to explicate those uncertainties in the physical model and explore their effects there.
4. If there's uncertainty about the worst credible RCP scenario then model it as a family with associated epistemic degrees of belief and run a monte carlo simulation on them.
-
nigelj at 14:45 PM on 31 December 2019The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Evan @24, and I dont want to nitpick either, but meltwater pulse 1a happened during a period with vast ice sheets over much of the planet so its not directly comparible with todays conditions. Two metres makes more sense to me.
-
Evan at 13:53 PM on 31 December 2019The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Nigelj@23
I don't want to nitpick too much, but I'm sure you're aware that during the last deglaciation that an increase of 1 ppm/100 years was enough to drive sea level up 5m/century for about 3-4 centuries (i.e., meltwater pulse 1A). We are now driving up CO2 at 1 ppm/5 months. It seems to me that 5m/century is very much in line with the paleo record given how hard we're pushing the climate.
-
nigelj at 12:26 PM on 31 December 2019The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
michael sweet @21
"You appear to be arguing that your opinion is more valuable on any topic than experts in the topic that you deem "dead wrong". On this board you need to post links to support your wild claims."
I did supply a reference to the wikipedia article on Hadley Cells, which in turn quoted:
Xiao-Wei Quan; Henry F. Diaz; Martin P. Hoerling (2004). "Changes in the Tropical Hadley Cell since 1950".
Dian J. Seidel; Qian Fu; William J. Randel; Thomas J. Reichler (2007). "Widening of the tropical belt in a changing climate". Nature Geoscience.
I try to provide as many references as I can in the time I have, and I think I do quite well on the whole, and I wont be doing more.
"For example sea level rise. So far you have provided no support for your claims that 2 meters of sea level rise this century is "worst case" or will take "decades to centuries". Evan has provided a link that shows actual scientists think 15 feet is possible (although not the most probable event). "
I admit I didn't provide a reference for two metres. Yes you are right there are a few scientists predicting far more than two metres sea level rise per century. I forgot that. However its somewhat beside the point I was making, and the thinking of the wider communiry seems to be converging on 2-3 metres per century as a plausible worst case scenario, and that was in my mind, for example here:
phys.org/news/2019-05-metre-sea-plausible.html
Its absurd to suggest we could ramp up from current rates of sea level rise to 2 metres in the space of a couple of years, even Hansen didn't claim that. It misses the point anyway. My point was that there will at least be some time to adapt regarding finding more farm land. It will be harder to adapt in terms of physical infrastructure
Yes the IPCC worst case of 1 metre sea level rise looks far too conservative, a "keep everyone happy" sort of estimate and very frustrating. I've thought for ages that 2 metres / century is a very distinct possibility and needs to be in fornt of the public. I think I'm entitled to my opinion. There is good evidence in the paleo climate record for 2 metres per century at around 2 degrees of warming so nobody has to model anything, its a matter of historic record. But when people with a science degree start waving thier arms and saying 5 metres is possible by the end of this century, and that half the world could become a desert I wonder if thats plausible and helpful.
"Fast forward to 2016 and 18 coauthors backed a 5 meter top projection "
You are just doing the same thing again. Emphasising the extreme estimate from a small group of scientists, while criticising denialists who do the same. Nothing has happened in the real world to date to suggest 5 metres this century is possible. The very recent trends in the Antarctic and Greenland suggest 2 metres is possible from what I have read."This is a perfect example of what William Reese was arguing against. I do not think 6 billion people will die by 2100, but there are legitimate scientists who do support that claim. They are left out of the discussion. How can we come to proper conclusions of what path we should choose if we leave out the worst projections because we do not like them?"
They have not been left out of the discussion, because we are discussing them right now! Not that my opinion counts for much.
"You say "[William Reese's] views do not stand the test" but you provide only your opinion to test his against. You must provide data to support your wild claims."
I've provided some data that Reeses claims on vast areas of deserts are nonsensical, as mentioned above. That was my main point and appeared to be his main point. I concede I provided no reference when I mentioned sea level rise (:
"If 600 million people are displaced by sea level alone, along with destruction of prime, irreplaceable farmland, it is not much of a strech to see billions threatened by all of AGW's effects."
Arm waving and speculation. I agree billions would be threatened, but being threatened is not the same as being killed. Some precision is importrant, is it not?
I'm applying the mission statement of this website. "Scepticalscience". Are you?
I was born in 1958 as well.
-
michael sweet at 11:23 AM on 31 December 2019The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Nick Palmer:
You quote William Reese's article's references to Ken Calderia and Amber Reese to argue against him. He is arguing that extreme views need to be considered. The example of sea level discussed above is a perfect example where 15 years ago scientists argued that Hansen's 5 meter projection should not be considered because it was too extreme. Today 5 meters is accepted as a possibility (hopefully a slim possibility). It will not make the IPCC report because the rules for the IPCC mean all estimates are low balled.
I note that Caulderia qualifies his comment as "quality" peer reviewed. Presumably he does not consider 5 meters of sea level rise a possibility because he deems the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics as not "quality" enough. Daniel Bailey's report of his discussion with Alley is very bad news. Hansen has long argued that a fresh water lens could focus heat on the ice sheet.
The example of sea level alone suffices to demonstrate that billions are at risk. We must all work as hard as we can to prevent these disasters from occuring. Leaving out the high end projections while keeping in denier low balls means nothing ends up getting done.
From where I sit, I hear that projections of how much it would heat up have been accurate. Projections of the effect of that heat have often overestimated the amount of heat needed to cause destructive changes. Who predicted widespread wildfires, massive coral bleaching, killer heatwaves and dramatically increased storms at only 1.2C warming?
I have a strong recollection from around 2005 I wondered it I would live long enough to see dramatic effects from AGW before I died of old age (I was born in 1958 so I was about 50 years old, I expect to live to 85 years old). I am now 61 and see dramatic effects all around me. These effects were not described in the IPCC reports in 2005.
10 years ago deniers taunted scientists with descriptions of CAGW (catastrophic AGW). Scientists bent over backwards to say they were not making catastrophic projections. Today catastrophy is in everyones mouth: fires, storms, sea level rise, coral bleaching, forrest death, farm failures. Deniers never mention CAGW anymore. Changes have exceeded expectations.
Prev 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 Next
