Recent Comments

Prev  166  167  168  169  170  171  172  173  174  175  176  177  178  179  180  181  Next

Comments 8651 to 8700:

8651. MA Rodger at 23:56 PM on 26 December 2019
      Ice age predicted in the 70s
      

      Dave Evans @84,

      The Wattsupian nonsense from Nov 2018 you ask about doesn't appear to have been de-bunked but the major slight-of-hand employed by the denialist-&-nonsense-author Angus MacFarlane has been de-bunked by SkS.

      The Nov 2018 nonsense purports to itself de-bunk Peterson et al (2008) which is the main evidence base for the OP above. [The co-authors seem to have been overlooked by the OP above who call it Peterson 2008.]  In directly challenging Peterson et al, the Wattsupian denier reclasifies 20% of the surveyed papers cited by Peterson et al  (14 of the 66 re-assessed with 5 Peterson et al citations not assessed) and thus attempts to convert the result from 7 'cooling', 20 'neutral' and 44 'warming' into 16 'cooling', 19 'neutral' and 36 'warming'. This is not greating different and certainly does not support the contention that there was a scientific global cooling concensus during the 1970s.

      To provide more fire-power, the Wattsupian denilaist adds extra citations to the survey - two which he found for himself (again not a level of evidence that would change the Peterson et al result) and an additional 117 papers gleaned from an earlier denialist attempt to debunk Peterson et al. It is only with this extra denialist fire-power from 2016 that anything like the number of citations can be obtained to overcome the Peterson et al result. This 2016 nonsense has been debunked in a two-park SkS post here & here.

      The general nonsense in this 2016 denialist blather is possible best summed up by the denialistical use of the 1974 CIA document which considers the global food supply and within this considers climate as potentially a major factor. Global cooling is presented as a potential increase in risk to an adequate global food supply. There is no 'consensus' being waved that global cooling is expected. Instead they cite HH Lamb but ignore Lamb's view at that time in the mid-1970s that "On balance, the effects of increased carbon dioxide on climate is almost certainly in the direction of warming but is probably much smaller than the estimates which have commonly been accepted." As this may sound itself a little 'denialist' to modern ears, I should all that the 1977 book containing this quote had added into its 1984 preface:-

      "It is to be noted here that there is no necessary contradiction between forecast expectations of (a) some renewed (or continuation of) slight cooling of world climate for some years to come, e.g. from volcanic or solar activity variations; (b) an abrupt warming due to the effect of increasing carbon dioxide, lasting some centuries until fossil fuels are exhausted and a while thereafter; and this followed in turn by (c) a glaciation lasting (like the previous ones) for many thousands of years.” [my bold]

      The evidence-base for the CIA document is set out in its Annex II is based on the work of one scientist, Reid Bryson who did continue to find it beyond his abilities to accept the idea of AGW as a problem that needed tackling. So even though the 1974 CIA document runs with global cooling, a worst-case scenario, there is no scientific consensus backing it up.

      The other study cited by the 2016 nonsense is Stewart & Glantz (1985) which talks of an emerging AGW-warming consensus but itself analyses the conclusions of a 1978 study on climate projection to the year 2000. This 1978 study would presumably have been advised by any 'cooling' concensus had such a thing existed in the mid-1970s. So their conclusions will be of interest:-

      "The derived climate scenarios manifest a broad range of perceptions about possible temperature trends to the end of this century, but suggest as most likely a climate resembling the average for the past 30 years.- Collectively, the respondents tended to anticipate a slight global warming rather than a cooling. More specifically, their assessments pointed toward only one chance in five that, changes in average global temperatures will fall outside the range of -0.3°C to +0.6°C, although any temperature change was generally perceived as-being amplified in the higher latitudes of both hemiipheres."

      So here the 1970s view was more towards 'warming' than 'cooling' although I note the 'warming' opinion prevailed as warming 1975-2000 was +0.5°C. 

      And today we see nothing but blather in that Nov 2018 Wattsupian whittering. It is ever thus there on the remote planetoid Wattsupia.

8652. Dave Evans at 19:25 PM on 26 December 2019
      Ice age predicted in the 70s
      

      By the way... has anyone written a post debunking the Wattsupwiththat article (Nov 2018) on why there was a consensus on global cooling / imminent ice age etc? It is of course riddled with misunderstandings / errors / assumptions. I was going to have a go myself (I am not a scientist) but just in the area of logic and comprehension there are all sorts of problems. 

8653. nigelj at 15:58 PM on 26 December 2019
      The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial
      

      rayates55 @15

      "I think your projection of 1.5% each year in much too optimistic. It is not simply a linear progression, it is more like compounded debt and, in addition, the starting point is now much worse............If we are "ballparking" here I would guess it would take at least 5% GDP per year starting now. For the U.S. that's about a trillion a year. And guess what? We are not going to do that next year, or the year after, or the year after that. By 2022 we will have 28 years left, not 31 and the starting point will be still worse."

      I don't understand why you refer to that 1.5 % of gdp number. I went on to say in my previous comment that "I agree things are worse now than Stern anticipated, so double the 1.5% number if you want. " I mean with respect I have a lot of trouble understanding how you didn't read that. So I did consider that things are worse now, however you are overdoing it a bit. For example I'm sure Stern was fully aware we could be emitting at higher rates now and that population would definitely increase, etcetera, and he would have taken that much into account.

      Now my numbers of 3% of gdp were based on the Paris goal of 2 degrees by 2050, and I think I'm being very realistic. There is talk of targetting 1.5 degrees, then the time frame narrows much more, and 5% of gdp might be realistic. However its still doable if theres a will. America spent far more on the war effort in WW2.

      Not once have you said anything optimistic, or how we could overcome these problems. It just leads me to think you are basically deliberately spreading negativity to discourage progress, so a form of concern trolling. Until your attitude and commentary changes a lot, that will be my conclusion.

8654. rayates55 at 11:37 AM on 26 December 2019
      The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial
      

      nigelj @10 says "The Stern Report is about the costs and speed to replace fossil fuel electricity grids with renewable energy grids and so on. From memory it was based on getting to net zero by 2050, and so costs 1% per year to do that based on a period of about 44 years, and this is now shortened to 31 years, so your 1% number becomes something like 1.5% each year."

      I think your projection of 1.5% each year in much too optimistic. It is not simply a linear progression, it is more like compounded debt and, in addition, the starting point is now much worse. Here are some other numbers to factor in: Since the Stern Report, we have added about 500 billion tons of CO2. We are now emitting CO2 at a rate 23% higher than in 2006, so we have to drop it by that much just to get to square one of the Stern Report, and if that took 10 years (a miracle) we would be starting 25 years too late.

      The atmospheric CO2 level was 380 in 2006 and is now 408. The rate of increase is rising. The earth has 15% more people on it. The goal in Stern was 450-550ppm. But that middle value, 500ppm, that is now recognized as a catastrophic level. Feedback loops are better understood now and are expected to accelerate the rates well before 500ppm.

      If we are "ballparking" here I would guess it would take at least 5% GDP per year starting now. For the U.S. that's about a trillion a year. And guess what? We are not going to do that next year, or the year after, or the year after that. By 2022 we will have 28 years left, not 31 and the starting point will be still worse.

8655. nigelj at 10:19 AM on 26 December 2019
      The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial
      

      Meant to say its like comparing apples and oranges.

8656. nigelj at 10:16 AM on 26 December 2019
      The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial
      

      BeeKing @12, "So lets compare expenditure on green lobbying and support over say a 12 year figure where there are figures - Oil lobby @ $200 mill/year, government funding of $79 billion over 30 years = $2.6 billion/year and green lobbying money $80 billion over 12 years = $6.67 billion/year."

      Blatantly misleading maths. There are other words for it as well. Your oil lobby figure of $200 mill per yr is genuine lobbying money, and by no means all of it, while your $6.7 billion per year green money includes a whole lot of other stuff according to the information you provide, so education, tax breaks, research etcetera. This is not lobbying money. This is not comparing apples and oranges.

      Under President Obama, government agencies have poured tens of millions into non-profit groups for anti-hydrocarbon campaigns.
      No link provided to substantiate this.

8657. plincoln24 at 09:51 AM on 26 December 2019
      The high and low points for climate change in 2019
      

      I see that I wrote here instead of hear and radiacally instead of radically. This is just to correct the errors in my previous post. I don't see that I can edit it now. 

8658. plincoln24 at 09:48 AM on 26 December 2019
      The high and low points for climate change in 2019
      

      I am at a loss to understand Katherine Hayhoe's concern about fear being a problem with respect to solving the climate crisis. I know that there are people out there who fear more than they should (Guy McPherson is a classic example of this and Extinction Rebellion peddles claims which generate unwarranted fear). However, the people who are not flying and not eating meat are having a major positive impact in the following way. They are getting other people to talk about it. I live in Denmark and out here there is a radio program called monopol where people call in to talk about their social problems and try to get help. I frequently here calls about conflicts with planned weddings, family vacations etc where someone is refusing to fly and it is putting a wrench in people's plans. Often the hosts are recommending respecting the wishes of the person who is refusing to fly, because they point out that research is saying that we need to change our society radiacally if we hope to solve the climate crisis. Their positioning is doubtless having a positive impact in ways I could never have predicting and I have a hard time believing that there will be a net positive gain with respect to the climate if we try to calm this fear and "religion". I respect Katherine Hayhoe greatly, but I just don't see how I can agree with her on this point. I am opening to another perspective if there is someone out there he thinks I am wrong about this. Do I have something to learn here? 

8659. BeeKing at 08:39 AM on 26 December 2019
      The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial
      

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/03/25/oil-and-gas-giants-spend-millions-lobbying-to-block-climate-change-policies-infographic/#3fb08487c4fb. This article provides no breakdown or facts to support the claim "US$200 million a year on lobbying to control, delay or block binding climate policy" and so its not possible to tell if the money was spent on what it claimed, but lets take that at face value and presume that all that money is spent lobbying to stop climate change policies.
      Lets look at the other side for comparison to see how much is spent on anti hydrocarbon or towards "Green" policies. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/clean-energy-firms-lobby-congess-as-much-as-dirty-firms-do/. So there is as much money spent on lobbying for green businesses as against them, but lets ignore that.
      The US government spend of $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf. 
      Michael Bloomberg alone is spending $500 million directly on green lobbying https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/06/climate/bloomberg-climate-pledge-coal.html.
      The liberal foundations that give targeted grants to Big Green operations have well over $100 billion at their disposal. That figure is confirmed in the Foundation Center database of the Top 100 Foundations. But how much actually gets to environmental groups? The Giving USA Institute’s annual reports show $80,427,810,000 (more than $80 billion) in giving to environmental recipients from 2000 to 2012.
      The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and found $147.3 million in assets while environmental donor Gordon E. and Betty I. Moore Foundation posted $5.2 billion.
      Under President Obama, government agencies have poured tens of millions into non-profit groups for anti-hydrocarbon campaigns.
      So lets compare expenditure on green lobbying and support over say a 12 year figure where there are figures - Oil lobby @ $200 mill/year, government funding of $79 billion over 30 years = $2.6 billion/year and green lobbying money $80 billion over 12 years = $6.67 billion/year. So the green lobbying groups are expending $9.3 billion/year on average vs oil and gas $0.2 billion/year, or over 40 times more. That does not count the non-monetary assistance of mass media in propagating climate crisis claims, and education campaigns to indoctrinate children into green think whose value would be many billions more in influence, but even on a basic expenditure analysis who has more influence? The green policies with government backing have conservatively 40 times more influence.

8660. nigelj at 06:43 AM on 26 December 2019
      The high and low points for climate change in 2019
      

      swampfoxh @6, not sure what you are saying. Could you clarify that a bit?

      Agree about religion @7.

8661. nigelj at 06:29 AM on 26 December 2019
      The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial
      

      The article really does cover the denialist talking points very thoroughly. They are the same points used to try to rubbish other environmental science and mitigation ideas whether related to clean water, vehicle exhaust emissions, industrial waste etc. I see them all daily in our newspapers.

      They reflect an attitide that short term profit must come first. This is a weakness of the capitalist system, and can only be properly mitigated with government regulation  and penlties, or other devices like carbon taxes.

8662. nigelj at 06:21 AM on 26 December 2019
      The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial
      

      rayates55 @8 says "Yes, it (The Stern Report) said that "cutting carbon emissions so that carbon dioxide peaked in the range of 450-550 parts per million would cost 1 percent of the GDP annually". BUT, this report was produced 13 YEARS ago! Things are much, much worse now. Also, 550ppm CO2 is itself a catastrophic level."

      The Stern Report is about the costs and speed to replace fossil fuel electricity grids with renewable energy grids and so on. From memory it was based on getting to net zero by 2050, and so costs 1% per year to do that based on a period of about 44 years, and this is now shortened to 31 years, so your 1% number becomes something like 1.5% each year.

      1.5% per year is still an achievable number. This is only 1.5% of global economic output each year. Its about what a typical family spends on treat foods and luxuries each year, its about what countries spend on their military, its much less than what is spent on education or healthcare. And it would be easy to find 1.5% of gdp without loss of living standards just by making some efficiencies - if we wanted.

      I agree things are worse now than Stern anticipated, so double the 1.5% number if you want. This is realistic and is still doable.

      Check my maths and assumptions etc, maybe its wrong, but no arm waving please. Provide details.

8663. william5331 at 05:56 AM on 26 December 2019
      The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial
      

      No question that the vested interests of Oil, Gas and Coal are spending huge amounts of money lobbying but not only on lobbying.  The also spend huge amounts of money supporting the election campaigns of politicians world wide, often on both sides of the political spectrum just to hedge their bets.  As such there is a simple, effective, hugely necessary measure we must take to address this and a whole raft of other problems that beset us.  It is dead simple.  Who Pays the Piper Calls the Tune. https://mtkass.blogspot.com/2018/01/wasted-effort.html

8664. rayates55 at 05:32 AM on 26 December 2019
      The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial
      

      The post is a concise description of the areas of climate change denial with some good, hard facts to counter those points. However, the refutation of Economic Denial is exceedingly weak. When will people stop mis-citing the Stern Report? Yes, it said that "cutting carbon emissions so that carbon dioxide peaked in the range of 450-550 parts per million would cost 1 percent of the GDP annually".

      BUT, this report was produced 13 YEARS ago! Things are much, much worse now. Also, 550ppm CO2 is itself a catastrophic level.

      So the cheery pep-talk about it taking only 1% of world GDP is hogwash.

8665. swampfoxh at 00:16 AM on 26 December 2019
      The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial
      

      I think we spend too much time and effort on "blub" style comments. I suggest responding to such material with the words: "unnecessary to comment". In my climate class, " impact of an outlaw species" , I always have a denier or two. Their question is usually, " what can you say that would change my mind about climate change?" My answer is "nothing", followed by my moving on with the lecture. Most of them get up and leave the room to those who want to know.

8666. swampfoxh at 21:46 PM on 25 December 2019
      The high and low points for climate change in 2019
      

      Sorry for the mangled words. I hit the submit button by mistake, but my point should be clear enough.

8667. swampfoxh at 21:44 PM on 25 December 2019
      The high and low points for climate change in 2019
      

      ...the maker of heaven and earth forever and ever"

      This is not helpful.

8668. swampfoxh at 21:40 PM on 25 December 2019
      The high and low points for climate change in 2019
      

      This discussion devolved to religion is unhelpful as well. If it weren't for religion, substantial progress could be made in climate mitigation because religion results in an attitude reflected, generally, by the following. The exact phraseology will differ but the implications are the same: "I'm not worried because the Lord is in control. Jesus will come on a cloud of glory sweeping us up onto heaven to sitting on the right hand of God Th Father Almighty

8669. swampfoxh at 21:31 PM on 25 December 2019
      The high and low points for climate change in 2019
      

      Suspect we are sunk already, but allowing the "less fortunate" to continue engaging in the very behaviors that got us here is unacceptable to me. I'm sorry they missed the "boat of profligacy", but they also missed the Titanic, enabling them to continue living while the some of the profligate rich and famous went to the bottom of the Atlantic. My point is: since the unfortunates outnumber the fortunate about 5 to 1, how can the climate stand to tolerate the "outlaw species" assault on nature while the rest of us sit around our solar powered homes, etc, and expect to turn around global warming's dangers? I'm sorry the unfortunate missed the boat, but they will just have to do without

8670. John Hartz at 10:12 AM on 25 December 2019
      2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #51
      

      OPOF: You may want to peruse this blog article and the ongoing discussion it has generated...

      The never-ending RCP8.5 debate by And Then There's Physics, Dec 24, 2019

8671. BillyJoe at 10:01 AM on 25 December 2019
      The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial
      

      blub:

      "The models are not robust at all between about 2000-2015"

      Didn't you mean 1998-2012? In any case, you are cherry-picking. Why did you not comment on the entire record? Is it because the entire record  shows that the models are indeed robust. At the very least, because of natural cycles, you have to look at a minimum 30 year intervals in order to see the signal from the noise. By picking 1998-2012, you are looking at the noise, not the signal, which is obvious if you look at the entire record. 

      "but have been recalibrated because of the heating hiatus"

      No, there is no evidence for any recalibration at all between 1998 and 2012. If you disagree please show your evidence and your references.

      "This is far from settled science"

      When we say "settled science" we don't mean every detail is settled, only that certain details are settled. And "settled" means that "the vast majority of climate scientists agree that an assessemnt of all the evidence leads to this conclusion". As examples: CO2 is increasing, global tempertures are increasing, anthropogenic sources are almost entirely responsible for the increase in CO2, adverse overall climate consequences are already happening and will get worse especially if we go above 1.5 degrees C. This is all "settled science". 

      "only a handful of "real" climatologists..even understand climate modeling correctly".

      There are not just a "handful" of "real" climatologists who understand climate modeling correctly, and those who do agree that the models are robust. As in every field there are contrarians, and those with fringe on climate science who disagree. 

      The rest of your comment consists, likewise, of cherry-picked links. This is not how science is done. All the papers and all the evidence must be taken into account. This is what the IPCC does and you should avail yourself of the conclusions contained in their reports or distilled by reputable science communicators. 

8672. One Planet Only Forever at 08:52 AM on 25 December 2019
      The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial
      

      Excellent presentation of the current state of affairs.

      In "5. Crisis Denial" I would add an additional point regarding the denier claim that "We will be much richer in the future and better able to fix climate change."

      The global economy will only be able to be better (richer) in the future if it becomes substantially comprised of Sustainable Activity, the sooner the better. Any perceptions of wealth, or poverty reduction, that rely on fossil fuels will fail to continue into the future.

8673. Philippe Chantreau at 08:39 AM on 25 December 2019
      The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial
      

      The graph in the OP clearly shows that temps in the 2000-2015 periods were well within the range of the models. They are now exactly falling on the ensemble mean. As noted by Nigel, blub does not provide details or substantiation of the alleged "recalibration." The link in the OP figure, however, is very informative as to the refinement of the models over time, well worth reading:

      https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-how-do-climate-models-work
      

8674. nigelj at 06:00 AM on 25 December 2019
      The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial
      

      blub @1

      "The models are not robust at all between about 2000-2015, but have been recalibrated because of the heating hiatus during this time. This is far from settled science, but only a handful of "real" climatologists not self proclaimed climate scientists even understand climate modeling correctly."

      Adding a few things. Climate models can never be 100% robust over short time frames of about 15 years, because these timeframes are modulated by ocean variability, and this does not follow a completely regular cycle. For blubs information, you cant ever accurately predict something that is partly random. Climate models are intended to model long terms trends of 30 years and more, and do this well.  Scientists are aware of natural variability and the very first IPCC reports stated there would be flat periods within a longer term warming trend. The slowdown after 1998 was such a flat period.

      Blub claims models have been recalibrated, but provides no evidence of this.

      Blubs claims about a handful of so called real climate scientists are totally unsubstantiated arm waving.

      Regarding the rest of his screed on natural variability. Cherrypicking a couple of scientific papers does not demonstrate anything. Nothing is provided to show there has been wide acceptance of these specific papers, and they do not falsify any of the models.

      Models do reproduce ocean cycles, although not perfectly. However models have proven to have good accuracy at predicting multiple trends including temperatures here and here. Clearly although ocean cycles are not perfectly understood, their affects are overwhelmed by CO2.

8675. One Planet Only Forever at 04:58 AM on 25 December 2019
      Temp record is unreliable
      

      jeffk,

      You may find what you are looking for on this NASA/GISS webpage.

8676. One Planet Only Forever at 04:52 AM on 25 December 2019
      The high and low points for climate change in 2019
      

      I sort of share nigelj's view about Katharine Hayhoe's dislike of the promotion of corrections of how people live being like a religion. But I also sort of share Katharine Hayhoe's dislike of people claiming that being helpful is like a religion, as if being religious about something is a bad thing.

      Being Religious can and should be understood to mean: behaviour that is strictly adhered to similar to what is required by a religion. An example would be an Engineer's 'religious' pursuit of a comprehensive consideration of all that is knowable regarding what they are doing and applying that knowledge to limit the potential for harmful consequences.

      The collective who share the pursuit of 'religious behaviour based on expanded awareness and understanding applied to minimize harm done to others and to help develop a sustainable and improving future for humanity (achieving the Sustainable Development Goals)' can and should be understood to constitute the collective of all moral people - the Highest Level of 'Religious' Understanding and Actions - the common sense basis for Moral Understanding.

      Many sub-groups can sustainably co-exist within that Collective of Moral Understanding including: atheists, agnostics, pagans and polytheists.

      That moral collective understanding (and, given good reason, will improve their understanding) includes the following:

      • To avoid imposing significant harmful climate change impacts on future generations the total global warming impact needs to be limited to 1.5C. Any impacts beyond 1.5C will be worse for the future generations. And even the 1.5C impact will produce climate changes that are very costly and challenging to deal with, including some irreversible negative consequences for future generations like the release of an Antarctic ice field into the oceans thousands of years earlier than it would have otherwise occurred.
      • use of fossil fuels must be ended sooner than 'everyone would freely choose to stop trying to benefit from it'. A portion of the population will have to be externally governed and limited to reduce how harmful they are.
      • the least fortunate need to be helped to sustainably improve their lives. And they should be the only ones benefiting most from the limited fossil fuel use allowed as the global use is brought to an end. And those who are less fortunate will need to be helped to adapt to the already created climate changes and to rapidly transition through the harmful temporary development phase of benefiting from fossil fuel use.
      • the lack of reduction of benefiting from fossil fuel use by the more fortunate through the past 30 years has developed the current tragic reality where a diversity of helpful actions that are unrelated to fossil fuel use are now required to minimize the harm done to the future generations while continuing to sustainably improve the lives of the least fortunate.

      Those points of understanding have all been attacked with misleading marketing because they 'morally' require many more fortunate people to give up developed beliefs and enjoyed ways of living (or be correctly deemed to be immoral). The understandings also result in the less fortunate people not admiring and not aspiring to be like the harmful unhelpful correction resistant among the more fortunate, seeing those people as immoral people who are undeserving of their higher status.

      And that last point is the reason for the diversity of helpful actions like reduced impacts of food consumption which include: revised agricultural practices and reduced meat consumption, particularly reduced beef consumption. These actions have become necessary because of the lack of correction by the immoral correction resistant, those who are not part of the Highest Level of Religious understanding and actions. And adherents to the Moral Religion would aspire to help overcome the harm being done by the immoral correction resistant portion of the population by changing their consumption to help sustainably improve the lives of the least fortunate and future generations which would include 'ending their eating of meat, particularly beef'.

      It is the correction resistant who are making a misleading fuss about the improved moral understanding. They try to denigrate the helpful moral collective understandings by calling it all a Religion as if being religious is bad. They incorrectly claim that encouraging people to be more helpful by eating less meat is a demand that everybody must stop eating meat, particularly beef. Only harmful activities, like the use of fossil fuels and many pesticides and fertilizers, have to be ended. Activity to be aspire to by all who want to be helpful includes: supporting regenerative sustainable agriculture, reducing meat in a meal to 4 ounces, not eating meat in every meal, and reducing how often beef is the meat.

      It is undeniably unacceptable to claim that increasing awareness and understanding that it is helpful to limit unnecessary consumption is a demand to end an activity.

      Sustainability requires more than the climate impacts of the use of fossil fuels to be ended. It also requires the amount of energy and material consumed per-capita by the most fortunate to be reduced. Though fossil fuel use must be ended, other helpful actions need to be aspired to in order to help limit the harm done by the correction resistant who resist reducing their 'unnecessary but strongly desired' efforts to benefit from the use of non-renewable resources, particularly fossil fuels.

      Members of groups like Extinction Rebellion are correct to raise awareness regarding all of the corrections needed to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, not just the climate action goal. And they are also correct to raise awareness regarding changes people can make to try to help counteract the increased harm done by those who will not willingly help limit the harm being done to the future generations. And they are correct to point out that anyone who tries to be dismissive regarding those helpful reductions of harm, including calling the promoters of that improved awareness and understanding a Religion as if it was a bad thing, is being Immoral.

8677. Evan at 01:44 AM on 25 December 2019
      SkS Analogy 21 - Snow on a Hot Tin Roof
      

      Fred@5 Good points. A quick Google search turns up the following papers on this subject that might be of interest (here and here). So yes, it appears that trees have an initial warming effect until they soak up enough carbon to offset the warming they cause by reducing albedo with respect to an open field. I think it safe to say that burning down rainforests has a warming effect, because the release of carbon has a much higher warming effect that the increased albedo caused by replacing mature trees with open fields.

8678. BaerbelW at 00:55 AM on 25 December 2019
      Using fallacy cartoons in a quiz
      

      @agno - #4

      Thanks for your feedback and sorry that I didn't see your comment earlier. The taxonomy used is actually John's and he has been working on it for quite a while and with some critical thinking experts from the University of Queensland. They published a paper in 2018 about how denialist arguments can be taken apart with critical thinking techniques and their supplementary material has definitions for the logical fallacies they found, including most of the ones you list. Does that help?

      Cheers
      Baerbel

8679. KingInYellow at 23:13 PM on 24 December 2019
      The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial
      

       

      The models are not robust at all between about 2000-2015, but have been recalibrated because of the heating hiatus during this time.

       

      Climate is measured over a minimum of 30 years. This ddefinition was arrived at in 1934 by the IMO.

      This is due to the internal variables - the natural cycles - t hat were already known of back then.

      Just because we do not know everything, does not mean we know nothing.

      Science advances incrementally, and the recalibration of the models so they can project shorter poeriods both globally and locally is an example of progress, not uncertainty.

       

      All the best.

8680. Fred Kaluza at 19:32 PM on 24 December 2019
      SkS Analogy 21 - Snow on a Hot Tin Roof
      

      speaking of the albedo effect then, all other things being equal, would a tan and dust-covered planet be warmer or cooler than a dark blue and green colored planet of the same size at the same distance from the sun?  My point is that I think a planet covered with trees will actually get warmer than a bare planet, at least until those trees can soak up a lot of the CO2 and change the atmosphere's ability to trap heat.  My point is that planting trees will actually make it worse...at least in the short run.

8681. blub at 18:09 PM on 24 December 2019
      The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial
      

      "All these arguments are false and there is a clear consensus among scientists about the causes of climate change. The climate models that predict global temperature rises have remained very similar over the last 30 years despite the huge increase in complexity, showing it is a robust outcome of the science."

      The models are not robust at all between about 2000-2015, but have been recalibrated because of the heating hiatus during this time. This is far from settled science, but only a handful of "real" climatologists not self proclaimed climate scientists even understand climate modeling correctly.

      The fast majority of scientists and I would assume public knows that is warming and CO2 has some influence, but it’s the warming cause is not understood entirely and therefore model predictions may be erroneous.
      The following links took me 30min of researching:
      https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00704-018-2387-7
      Quantifying the importance of interannual, interdecadal and multidecadal climate natural variabilities in the modulation of global warming rates.
      https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-019-04955-2?shared-article-renderer#ref-CR12

      Author: Essentially, this work emphasizes the vital role of natural variability in changing the local linear trends which represent the warming rates of corresponding periods. Our results imply that to rightly attribute the climate change and accurately forecast future climate, more attention should be paid to various quasi-periodic natural variabilities, particularly ones at interannual, interdecadal and multidecadal scales. Of upmost importance, the key points to improve the simulation and prediction skills of climate models lie in correctly distinguishing the true anthropogenic warming from natural variability and accurately simulating the phase, period and amplitude of important natural variability, in which the phase is particularly important. Unfortunately, even the state-of-the-art CMIP5 models still confuse the natural climate variability and the anthropogenic warming trend and show low skills for natural variability simulations, which is the primary cause that they fail to simulate the recent global warming hiatus (Wei and Qiao 2017).

      Models are not missing something or are they?:
      Evidence that global evapotranspiration makes a substantial contribution to the global atmospheric temperature slowdown
      https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00704-018-2387-7

      A greening world enhances the surface-air temperature difference
      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969718350733?via%3Dihub

8682. BillyJoe at 17:59 PM on 24 December 2019
      The high and low points for climate change in 2019
      

      Nigel:

      "Unfortunately sensible climate rules have been highjacked to an extent by vegetarians, population control fanatics, extremists, simple living groups, and anti technology zealots. This is distracting from the core climate goals".

      As it happens, my son is a leader of a local Extinction Rebellion group and, according to him, it is a continual battle to keep everyone focussed on the central issue of climate change and avoid diluting the message, and even derailing it, with all these extraneous issues which no one can agree on anyway. He had to eventually threaten to abandon the group if they continued squabbling over these issues.

8683. Darinscoop at 16:04 PM on 24 December 2019
      Models are unreliable
      

      By logic, any model has the potential to be short a certain number of variables.  Yet, without them, it is difficult to grasp functionality of a field of science.

      One of the often missed factors in any scientific study is that we can only assume that what we observe over a long period of time has a consistant variable.  For example, in the early 1970's we observed that polar north migrates at a rate of 7 miles per year towards Russia.  Today, we find that it now is further moving at a rate of 34mpy  (Source:  https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2019/02/05/earths-magnetic-north-pole-has-officially-moved/#f15dce368625).

      It the source provided above, it also provides a model.  Can anyone find something that it's not accounting for?

8684. jeffk at 12:23 PM on 24 December 2019
      Temp record is unreliable
      

      is there a url to all of the raw data used by NASA to come up with the 0.8C global warming figure?

8685. blub at 08:58 AM on 24 December 2019
      Climate models have accurately predicted global heating, study finds
      

      hi people, sorry that it took me so long to reply to this article, which was apparently designated to my comments. I feel a little bit honored ;) to be honest, but I was enjoying the warm weather and life of course for a while. You seem to have not studied confirmation bias since I was gone citing a newspaper article from the guardian, which is a highly politicized pro climate hysteria newspaper (I hope somebody told you that newspapers make money selling you biased hysteria stories? if not I will be glad to give you as much information as you need on this subject.) well, happy xmas to everybody, please enjoy, it might be your last one before climate change really kicks in and as always don’t forget to wory instead of living!
      well here is a fairly recent scientific paper showing some minor MAJOR problems with IPCC models published in non other than NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE:
      Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years
      https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1972

      Moderator Response:

      [DB]  The point of Fyfe was that it found that volcanic emissions could have cooled the earth by 0.07°C compared to projections.  Further, Fyfe used data to 2012.  The world is far warmer now than it was in 2012 with the 5 warmest years being the 5 most-recent (with 2019 on track to being the 2nd-warmest, the 6 most recent years will all be the 6 warmest years).
      
      For actual perspective on Fyfe and the science of the "pause", read this.
      
      

      Sloganeering and inflammatory snipped.

8686. One Planet Only Forever at 06:13 AM on 24 December 2019
      2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #51
      

      John Hartz, Thanks for pointing me to that article (and thanks for not pointing out that I failed to note that I started my comment on this string with a reference to the Editor's Choice article in the Weekly News Round Up #51)

      As an engineer with an MBA I understand that there has been some limiting of human impacts in spite of the competitive disadvantages that are almost certain to be experienced by the people who lead the corrections (it costs more and is more effort to live and financially benefit more sustainably). But it is important to keep the focus on the harmful resistance to correction, not the optimism that something good is happening in a limited way. A significant portion of the global population being able to resist behaving better will not achieve the required result.

      Current day humans are Engineering (application of improved awareness and understanding) the future for humanity with their Business pursuits (maximizing personal benefit and perception of status). In Engineering, harmful resistance to correction cannot be tolerated. In Business (including the business of politics), being harmful gets to be gotten away with for as long as possible. And that harmful personally beneficial attitude can infect Engineering with damaging results.

      I do not share the optimistic view of the self-declared alarmist David Wallace-Wells. It is not re-assuring that the worst possible climate change future is less likely. And he actually closes with an example of the callous attitude of more fortunate people that is related to the unacceptability of discussing the 'reduction of the likelihood of the worst case climate future'.

      The required limit of total impact to avoid imposing serious climate change consequences on future generations (1.5C maximum) is being Optimistically, and unnecessarily, missed. It is tragically easy to get people who have the ability to behave better to believe it is OK for a higher amount of warming to be imposed on future generations.

      Some degree of responsible correction by the most fortunate people is occurring. But the failure of correction by many other more fortunate people is the tragic unacceptable development that attention needs to remain focused on.

      On a technical point, I appreciate the purpose of comparing 'expected warming by 2100' for the different RCPs that are evaluated by climate models. However, the maximum warming of the RCP is what really should be compared, not the amount by 2100.

      A climate tragedy in the future is not better just because it was created a little further into the future. The more important comparison of the acceptability of the RCPs is their peak level of surface warming and resulting climate change.

      Claims that a slower rate of increase would be 'easier to adapt to' also incorrectly Optimistically miss the fact that any adaptation to human induced climate change is a distraction of effort from 'sustainably improving living conditions for humanity'.

      As the likes of Greta correctly point out, the future generations will correctly detest the optimism their harm causing predecessors had for the future generation's ability to be collectively wealthier and brilliantly creative in adapting to and solving the harmful changes and challenges imposed on them, changes they have to try to deal with in a future world that is limited by the elimination of resources that used to be available and could have still been available to them in the future.

8687. nigelj at 17:31 PM on 23 December 2019
      The high and low points for climate change in 2019
      

      takamura_senpai @1, you are engaging in the exact unjustified unhelpful sort of finger pointing dicussed in the article. What's more your accusations about Europe are ridiculous, unjustified, and totally unproven. Europe is leading in provision of wind energy and storage, eg Scandinavia and Germany and the UK.

      Asia is full of corruption, not every country but many. Refer this list which is organised from the least corrupt to most corrupt countries.

8688. nigelj at 17:20 PM on 23 December 2019
      The high and low points for climate change in 2019
      

      “Climate fear is turning into a new religion (because what is religion other than a set of behavioral rules we obey because we believe they will make us right in our own eyes, and perhaps those of others and/or a god?) with a brand-new set of 10 commandments: Thou shalt not eat meat or animal products, thou shalt not fly, thou shalt not use any mechanized transportation, thou shalt not have a child – that we then use to persecute any we perceive to be heretics with the zeal of the Spanish Inquisition."

      Whew! Katherine Hayhoe has blown a bit of a fuse here. Religion is actually a belief in god, while behavioural rules are just a way of bringing order to society. These are not the same thing at all. All we need to do is get the rules right. And we do need to remind each other of the rules,  as long as its not over zealous and guilt inducing, I agree with her about that.

      Unfortunately sensible climate rules have been highjacked to an extent by vegetarians, population control fanatics, extremists, simple living groups, and anti technology zealots. This is distracting from the core climate goals.

8689. takamura_senpai at 16:44 PM on 23 December 2019
      The high and low points for climate change in 2019
      

      " points for climate change in 2019" - CO2 emission rised on 2.5%

      Positive results of all this meetings and agreements = ZERO.
      Because humans are egoists.
      Kioto agreement ended CO2 emission rise. Paris - the same, emissions rised, rise and will rise.
      Europe can reduce CO2 emission as they want, but USA, China, other Asia, India, Africa burn commodities, which not used Europe. And, Europe diminish CO2 emition ONLY for economic reasons and corruption! You need dollars for buy. And Moscow want sell more natural gas, so just buy european politicians, for coal => natural gas. NO climat reasons at all!
      Main fighter with global warming is OPEC.
      NOW, i see the only possibility/chance to avoid catastrophic global warming in solar and wind energy, and storage.

8690. John Hartz at 15:03 PM on 23 December 2019
      2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #51
      

      OPOF: You will also want to read:

      We’re Getting a Clearer Picture of the Climate Future — and It’s Not as Bad as It Once Looked by David Wallace-Wells, Intelligencer, New York Magazine, Dec 20, 2019

8691. One Planet Only Forever at 12:16 PM on 23 December 2019
      2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #51
      

      I appreciate Pete Ogden's optimism. The future of humanity benefits from, and requires, speedier corrections of harmful unsustainable developments. It will also benefit from speedier development of new and improved sustainable ways of living.

      I also understand his concerns. Undeserving powerful people have proven that they can drum up support to resist the expansion of awareness and improvement of understanding required to increase support for achieving the required changes.

      I hope that expanding awareness and improved understanding of climate science and the required corrections of what has developed will more rapidly overcome the efforts to discredit climate science, efforts to deny that the required corrections are required.

      Competitions for impressions of status clearly require governing. Increased freedom for people to believe whatever they want as the basis for doing whatever they develop a liking for has failed to produce the required sustainable developments in a timely manner. Even a focus on popularity and profit has failed to help. In fact, focusing on popularity and profit as measures of acceptability and success is undeniably a major part of the problem.

      Through the past decades many powerful people succeeded at profiting more than their competitors by getting away with more harmful and less sustainable ways of doing things. They resisted limiting the use of fossil fuels. They even tried to benefit by resisting the rate of transition to less harmful fossil fuels. And they still compete to win more by being the last wealthy people to be corrected. Many developing 'powerful people' have been learning that lesson.

      Getting the harmful reality of that lesson learned is clearly required. Achieving essential objectives like the Sustainable Development Goals will require governing and limiting of the competition. Regrettably, many people cannot be expected to responsibly and helpfully self-govern. It is hard to image that there is still any doubt about that. But misleading marketing by undeserving winners of status is undeniably powerful.

      Hopefully the motivated youth will grow in numbers and remain dedicated to pushing for the required corrections. It would be tragic to see the expanded awareness and improved understanding among the youth be over-powered by correction resistant temptations to become more selfish as they age (the Liberal when younger who becomes that type of Conservative as they age).

8692. BaerbelW at 23:17 PM on 22 December 2019
      Getting involved with Climate Science via crowdfunding and crowdsourcing
      

      Updatd the post to include David Borlace's "Have a Think" Patreon project.

8693. RedBaron at 19:36 PM on 22 December 2019
      Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change
      

      Preliminary results from Dr David Johnson

      Development of soil microbial communities for promoting
      sustainability in agriculture and a global carbon fix

      and a better video lecture explaining a holistic mitigation strategy that includes this ecosystem service.

      Managing Soils for Soil Carbon Sequestration: Dr David Johnson on Engineering Microbiology

8694. Doug Bostrom at 05:13 AM on 22 December 2019
      Scientists plan year locked in ice to unlock Arctic climate change data
      

      The article Dr. Seismo mentions failed peer review so it's instead published  in Medium. 

      Peer review: "evaluation of scientific, academic, or professional work by others working in the same field."

      In other words, the paper is not sufficiently useful as an advancement of our understanding of global warming to merit publication, as assessed by people with expertise and ability to discern that.

      Please don't waste our time. 

8695. drseismo at 04:01 AM on 22 December 2019
      Scientists plan year locked in ice to unlock Arctic climate change data
      

      One isolated analysis does not define a trend. Global analyses show no threat of out-of-control global warming. 

      LINK

      Moderator Response:

      [TD] Off topic for this post. Find an appropriate post through the Search field at the top left of this page, or the View All Arguments link below that. And read this thorough debunking of the article you linked.

8696. KR at 06:40 AM on 21 December 2019
      There is no consensus
      

      PatrickSS - WRT those three you mentioned:

      Dyson is a brilliant physicist - but not a climate scientist. Lindzen, who has worked at the CATO Institute, is well known in the field for a series of papers claiming a strong negative feedback; he has never actually addressed actual (and numerous) criticisms of the first 'Iris effect' paper, simply repeating his claims over and over. In the last version I'm aware of he directly invoked 'cloud forcing', when clouds are, rather, a short lived (hours) feedback to temperature and humidity. And as for Happer (also not a climate scientist), he has been documented as writing climate science for pay, with fossil fuel money routed through nonprofit organizations for anonymity. Happer is more properly a lobbyist, not a researcher.

      You might want to look for better references.

8697. One Planet Only Forever at 02:13 AM on 21 December 2019
      It's the sun
      

      scaddenp,

      I share your skepticism regarding the motivations of PatrickSS.

      They do not appear to be interested in expanded awareness and improved understanding.

      Instead of starting with a detailed understanding of the subject, they appear to be seeking excuses to not expand their awareness or improve their understanding (though they sound interested by 'asking questions').

      As an example, in previous comments they present their summary understanding of presentations of understanding by "“consensus” climate scientists" (their term of reference) as "...sunlight comes in, heats the Earth, and the heat escapes from the Earth via IR. Increased CO2 absorbs and blocks more IR, so the Earth gets warmer." They then compare that with what they consider to be more believable presentations by Lindzen, Allen and Curry (they are more impressed by these people than they are by the "consensus" climate scientists that they present an extremely poor level of understanding of).

      In addition they appear to have summarized my previous comments to them regarding pursuit of expanded awareness and understanding of climate science matters as "... assertions that there is "masses of evidence" out there that shows that the Connollys are completely wrong and that I should go and look for it":

      "There is a massive diversity of evidence supporting the climate science consensus understanding that human activities, particularly fossil fuel use, are significantly impacting the global climate in ways that are detrimental to the future generations."

      "Seek out detailed explanations of the incorrect aspects of the claims made by Lindzen, Alley and Curry. There are many sources for the corrected expanded understanding (and a vast amount is available right here on the SkS site)."

      I believe you are correct to suspect that PatrickSS has not read, and is unlikely to read, any IPCC document. I would add that I suspect that PatrickSS filters information for its 'ability to impress them, suit their preferred beliefs'. My comments were an attempt to make them aware of that.

8698. Evan at 01:34 AM on 21 December 2019
      SkS Analogy 21 - Snow on a Hot Tin Roof
      

      Darinscoop@2 The ice-Albedo feedback describes a spontaneous change in Albedo with time, whereas the heat-island effect describes a contrast of Albedo (i.e. cities have lower Albedo than surroundings areas), which does not spontaneously change with time, unless we deliberately cause a change through development or other urban planning.

8699. MA Rodger at 20:14 PM on 20 December 2019
      There is no consensus
      

      PatrickSS @868,

      My appologies for not spotting @856 your referencing of Question 12 in the Climate Science Survey which sets out the data used within Verheggen et al (2014). Your complain was that this Q12 was not featured within Verheggen et al (2014). Were the responses to Q12 as you set out up-thread @856 it may perhaps be considered an omission. You wrote:-

      Now we discover that only 33% of climate scientists are more than "somewhat concerned", and 8.5% are "not very concerned" or "not concerned at all".

      This is completely incorrect. The more than "somewhat concerned" figure (so "very concerned") is not 33% but 67%. More exactly, if the data for the "respondents with more than 10 climate-related peer-reviewed publications" reported by Verheggen et al is gleaned from Figure 12.2, it is 71% who are 'very concerned', 22% 'somewhat concerned' and just 7% who are less concerned than this. To me, here is a 93% concensus.

      Those who may be inclined to peel off the 22% 'somewhat concerned' from this concensus should consider how the question would be answered in 2012. "How concerned are you about climate change as a long-term global problem?" For a climatologist in 2012, a 'somewhat concerned' response could result from a belief that mitigation measures will arrive to to prevent AGW becoming a serious crisis for humanity, or that in the "long term" AGW is not a serious crisis because, whatever the damage through the next century, in the "long term" humanity will survive, the natural world will survive. We are not taking about a humanless or lifeless planet by the end of the millennium.

      The additional comment @868 that various swivel-eyed denialists would have been included in the headline 91% result of Verheggen et al (2014) is firstly incorrect as three of them are not qualified as authors and secondly, while Dickie Lindzen & Judy Curry sometimes try to argue that they would be part of such a consensus gathered from such surveys, their position is not entirely sincere and they surely could not honestly feature in the Q12 result.

8700. bozzza at 17:21 PM on 20 December 2019
      SkS Analogy 21 - Snow on a Hot Tin Roof
      

      Darin, the basically understood idea by the world Government departments is that, yes, the big ice block of the antipodes acts as the worlds airconditioner... and when it's hot we all know that we would prefer to be as close as possible- give or take a few hundred thousand miles lol! Merry Christmas Everyone.... 

Prev  166  167  168  169  170  171  172  173  174  175  176  177  178  179  180  181  Next