Recent Comments

Prev  173  174  175  176  177  178  179  180  181  182  183  184  185  186  187  188  Next

Comments 9001 to 9050:

9001. scaddenp at 09:30 AM on 28 November 2019
      Ice age predicted in the 70s
      

      "At middle altitudes between the ground and the stratosphere,"

      ie the troposphere. You appear to continue to get confused about difference between O3 in stratosphere versus effect in troposphere. Again the ozone hole is about lose of stratospheric ozone around poles, especially Antarctica, and no, it still doesnt let the heat out and cool climate.

      In the stratosphere, ozone causes warming of the surrounding air through its interaction with incoming UV.

9002. barry17781 at 09:24 AM on 28 November 2019
      Ice age predicted in the 70s
      

      michael sweet states

      I have never heard of significant heat being let out.   #70

      "As Scaddenp states, your two comments conflate stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone. These are two different subjects and treating them as similar suggests that you do not understand atmospheric chemistry." #76

      No it does not  Again Sweet comments in #76

      "According to this RealClimate post, the decrease in stratosheric ozone caused by human pollution will result in approximately -.15 w/m2 of cooling. The CFC's released by humans have caused approximately +0.34 w/m2 of heating due to their greenhouse properties. Thus the result of CFC pollution is a net warming of the surface"   Sweet

      Actually ozone accounts for up to 0.6 W m^-2

      "We all know that ozone in the stratosphere blocks harmful ultraviolet sunlight, and perhaps some people know that ozone at the Earth's surface is itself harmful, damaging people's lungs and contributing to smog.

      But did you know that ozone also acts as a potent greenhouse gas? At middle altitudes between the ground and the stratosphere, ozone captures heat much as carbon dioxide does.

      "In fact, pound for pound, ozone is about 3000 times stronger as a greenhouse gas than CO2. So even though there's much less ozone at middle altitudes than CO2, it still packs a considerable punch. Ozone traps up to one-third as much heat as the better known culprit in climate change. "

      http://www.aoas.org/article.php?story=20080522125225466

      I think that a third of that of CO₂ is significant --others have it as high as 40% but sweet 

       

      #70 sweet states  Grade school teachers are not really atmospheric experts.  Neither are secondary teachers Those that ca do those that can't teach 

      Moderator Response:

      [DB] Inflammatory snipped.

      Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

      Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
       
      Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

      Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.

9003. scaddenp at 08:26 AM on 28 November 2019
      It's cooling
      

      I would also add that glaciers take time to come into equilibrium. Our longest glacier, the Tasman is in rapid retreat. However, even if warming stopped now (temperatures stayed about same), you can see that many more kilometers of the glaciar are basically deadmeat. The lake will continue extending up the valley but it will take a decade or so for that to happen.

9004. nigelj at 08:21 AM on 28 November 2019
      Harnessing gamification to defeat climate misinformation
      

      In my experience the climate denialists who claim on internet forums that mitigating climate change will increase poverty are often the same people who downplay poverty on other forums, and who oppose government level solutions to poverty. People with inconsistent views generally  aren't that bright, or they have an undisclosed personal agenda.

9005. scaddenp at 08:19 AM on 28 November 2019
      It's cooling
      

      I would be wary of the claim "if the Earth is hotter then ever before ". Where did you find this claim? I think we can say with very strong certainty that the earth has been hotter before. Just going back to the Pliocene would be hotter but potentially other interglacials may have been warmer than now. (But note that it can take near a thousand years for earth to come into equilibrium with forcings - ocean mixing rate).

      Reconstructions of past climate would suggest that it is likely we are warmer globally than any time in the holocene - the last 12000 years. It is less certain whether the Northern Hemisphere is warmer than past times in the holocene  (esp NH Holocene climatic optimum).

      The real concern about climate change is not what the temperature is, but how fast it is changing compared to any other time in the past. Rapid change creates adaptation stress for both the natural world and our manmade infrastructure like cities and agricultural systems.

9006. michael sweet at 06:47 AM on 28 November 2019
      Antarctica is gaining ice
      

      Hi,

      This myth is a little old now.  Five or more years ago for a few years there was relatively high sea ice in the Antarctic.  The record is not very long, only since 1979.  Deniers claimed that since sea ice in the Antarctic was high, warming could not be occuring.  In the past four or five years the ice area in the Antarctic has collapsed to the lowest in the record.  This myth has gone out of fashion since now Antarctic sea ice is low.  Land ice is also melting in the Antarctic.

      To answer your question:  It is believed that sea ice area in the Antarctic is strongly affected by winds.  If there are a lot of offshore winds then new ice freezes near shore as existing ice is blown out to sea.  Strong winds thus increase sea ice area.  Around 2010 the winds in the Antarctic were stronger offshore than they had been before that time.  It is not completely clear why the winds were stronger.  It may have been due to natural variation or it may have been due to some climate change affect or the result of the ozone hole affecting wind.  Now the winds are more similar to what they used to be and warmer ocean temperatures are melting more sea ice.

      The land ice in the Antarctic is most strongly affected by the temperature of the ocean.  As AGW warms the ocean the land ice melts faster where it enters the sea.  This affect is slow to start because the ocean is warmed in the Tropics and then currents slowly move the warm water all the way to the Antarctic.  Currently, especially in West Antarctica, the ocean is warming and melting the great ice sheet.  The warmer ocean does not affect the sea ice as much as the wind did.

      So if you have strong offshore winds the sea ice increases while increasing ocean temperatures melt the ice sheet.  In general, the ice sheet is more important since if it melts hundreds of millions of people will be flooded, including much of Florida and other coastal states.  Sea ice does not affect sea level.

      There are more complications if you look more in depth.  Warmer air causes snowfall to increase.  If snowfall increases enough the East Antarctic ice sheet (which is much bigger than the West Antarctic ice sheet) may increase in size even as the edges melt faster from the warmer ocean.  It is difficult to measure the exact balance of the East Ice sheet because it is so remote and cold and big.  An error of a few centimeters per year would be significant. 

      Wunderground (weather blog) has had a series of blogs on measuring the snowfall in East Antarctic here is the last one.  Currently it is believed that the East Ice Sheet is very slowly losing mass but that could change (either up or down) depending on how much CO2 is eventually emitted.

9007. scaddenp at 06:15 AM on 28 November 2019
      Antarctica is gaining ice
      

      Hi. While the current situation has seaice decreasing, it is entirely possibly to have increased melt from ice sheet and increasing sea ice. This was the situation a few years ago. Drivers for both sea and land ice are different between Antarctica and Arctic due to the major geogeographic difference - Antarctica is a continent, 2000m high at pole, surrounded entirely by ocean whereas the arctic is a landlocked sea. Sea ice in the Antarctic responds to a complex set of factors which have quite a lot variability. See this post for more detail. We could easily have a return to increasing seaice. However, the very long term trend is likely to be reduction as the warming sea temperature dominate,  over wind-driven dispersal and decreased saliinity. The decrease in ozone loss should also reduce wind dispersal.

9008. Philippe Chantreau at 04:22 AM on 28 November 2019
      Antarctica is gaining ice
      

      Hi,

      How did you get the impression that sea ice is increasing?

9009. Philippe Chantreau at 04:20 AM on 28 November 2019
      It's cooling
      

      Hi,

      your comment indicates a lack of familiarity with paleoclimate data and what the science shows for the the more recent times. The moderator's suggestions are good places to start.

9010. Hi18763 at 03:49 AM on 28 November 2019
      It's cooling
      

      I have a question, if the Earth is hotter then ever before, then how come there are tree stumps underneath the Juneau icefield? For the tree stumps to be there, the icefield couldn't been there since trees don't grow in ice. And for the trees to grow there, the Juneau ice field must have formed after the trees grew, then left the trees stumps there after freezing the area. So back then it was hot enough, then the Earth cooled forming the Juneau ice fied. Meaning that this is NOT  the hottest period in the Earth's history. Right?

      Moderator Response:

      [DB]  The Earth is not in radiative balance with forcings and will continue to warm for some time yet until that balance is reached.  Beyond that, warming is uneven.  Further, current levels of the warming of the globe likely exceed those found both in the Holocene and in the previous interglacial, the Eemian.

      Alaska glaciers have only been recently declining, reversing a 8,000 year period of growth and expansion:

      Per McKay et al 2018 - The Onset and Rate of Holocene Neoglacial Cooling in the Arctic

      "Arctic summer temperatures have decreased for the past 8,000 years, before rapidly warming over the past century. As temperatures cooled, glaciers that had melted began to regrow throughout the Arctic, a phenomenon and a time interval known as Neoglaciation.

      This study seeks to understand the nature of this cooling and whether or not this indicates a tipping point in the climate system. Specifically, we use a large database of records from ice cores, lakes, ocean sediment, and more paleoclimate archives to detect patterns of cooling. We investigate these patterns, and climate model simulations, to determine what parts of the Arctic experienced Neoglaciation at the same time, how rapidly it cooled, and what climate models indicate about the causes of cooling.

      We find that the Arctic did not cool simultaneously, but different regions cooled at different times and that the climate models perform well when simulating both the timing and amount of Arctic cooling."

      Further, recent climate warming in the central Yukon region has surpassed the warmest temperatures experienced in the previous 13,600 years.

      Porter et al 2019 - Recent summer warming in northwestern Canada exceeds the Holocene thermal maximum

      

      Warming to match forcings takes time.  Be patient.

       [TD] See also this post. And then this one. And finally this one. Note that some of those posts have Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced tabbed panes.

9011. Hi18763 at 03:36 AM on 28 November 2019
      Antarctica is gaining ice
      

      How can sea ice increase and land ice decrease at the same time?

      Moderator Response:

      [DB]  Both Arctic sea ice and Antarctic sea ice daily extents are currently well-below the long term average of all decades prior since 1979.  Land-based ice continues to be lost with losses increasing in recent decades.  See here, here, here, here and here.

      

      

      

9012. One Planet Only Forever at 03:22 AM on 28 November 2019
      Harnessing gamification to defeat climate misinformation
      

      To be even clearer regarding my comment @5,

      Every action that increases the acceptance and support for expanding awareness and improvement of understanding among the general population is helpful.

      This particular course of action is brilliant, but it needs to be understood to ultimately be limited when it comes to getting the required corrections of developed economic activity and the related corrections of developed attitudes in the population.

      It is becoming clearer that it will be necessary for Government intervention in the economy, especially limiting and correcting misleading marketing, especially political marketing. A focus on achieving all of the Sustainable Development Goals can highlight the problem by exposing how many Leadership Contender actions are contrary to achieving those essential objectives, and highlight which groups and individuals are the worst offenders.

      What needs to be understood is that the requirement is to develop enough support, a tipping point of support, for Leadership that is willing to disappoint a significant very vocal, easily angered, and very 'sure to vote' portion of the population.

      A significant number of people have been tempted to develop a powerful liking for winning by behaving in an understandably incorrect and ultimately unsustainable way. Competing for status based on impressions of popularity and wealth will develop those harmful ways of thinking and acting.

      Critical thinking skills and expanded awareness will not change those type of minds (as examples, think of the people with relevant scientific credentials who still gleefully play on the side of the delayers). Their lack of interest in responsibly self-governing their behaviour means that they will need to be Governed in ways that Limit their ability to do what they would like to do.

      Significant Government Intervention in the economy is required, particularly significant corrective actions regarding misleading marketing, especially political marketing, even if those actions may be claimed to be harmful restrictions on Freedom of Action or Freedom of Belief.

      Leadership is the challenge of deciding who to please and who to disappoint. It is harder to properly Lead when a significant portion of the population have been easily tempted into benefiting by believing what they want to excuse doing what they like. They will readily claim that anything contrary to their interests is an unjustified restriction of Freedom, even if they have developed critical thinking skills and are exposed to expanded awareness and improved understanding.

9013. One Planet Only Forever at 01:35 AM on 28 November 2019
      Harnessing gamification to defeat climate misinformation
      

      Efforts to reduce the ability of people to be misled regarding climate science are helpful. But the influence is limited and may not solve the problem.

      A significant reason that people do not accept the expanded awareness and improving understanding of climate science is that they have developed a powerful desire to personally benefit from being incorrect. As I mentioned, even engineers who make a living through critical thinking and pursuing expanded awareness and improved understanding can be powerfully resistant to learning about climate science.

      That harmful selfishness is so powerful that the deniers of climate science have moved on to claiming that forcing the reduction of fossil fuel use, rather than just letting the economy do what it will do with minimal external governing interference, will cripple the reduction of poverty or social improvements and cripple environmental protection actions.

      Those arguments about the 'Good being Done' make the incorrect claim that it can only happen because of fossil fuel use. And since it is simple to know that fossil fuel use will have to end, and that poverty reduction can occur in regions where there is very little fossil fuel use, there is a large percentage of the population who appear to be willing to benefit from getting away with being wrong.

      The developed socioeconomic-political environment is what is developing those powerful desires to benefit from being wrong. People who will not helpfully self-limit their behaviour, people who will not willingly be less harmful to Others, require external governing contrary to their desires.

      Correction of the developed socioeconomic-political systems will be hard work, but it is really what is required in order to accomplish the degree of climate action that is now required because of the success of selfishness through the past 30 years. Leaders will have to be very unpopular in a Helpful Corrective Way, like the Australian Leadership that put a significant Helpful Corrective dent in Gun Culture in Australia.

9014. Nick Palmer at 01:10 AM on 28 November 2019
      Harnessing gamification to defeat climate misinformation
      

      Of course, the denialosphere have been using cartoons for years, in particular those of 'Josh'.

9015. Eclectic at 22:46 PM on 27 November 2019
      There is no consensus
      

      Klmartinson @844 ,

      Unfortunately the study you mention (of the AMS/ametsoc) is of a much lower quality than other "consensus" studies . . . so it is difficult to draw much of a conclusion from it.

      I am not sure where you got the 52 (versus 97%) figure from.  From the chart of stated results, "52" is simply not an accurate representation of the views of the AMS members who participated in the electronic survey.

      ##   Did you yourself read the report ~ or are you only passing on a hearsay version of the survey?

      The other failings of the survey are many :-

      #1.  Only a voluntary survey, and with only a 30% return (Doran, for example, had only a 30% return . . . but the AMS survey returns contained a considerable number where only part  of the survey was answered).

      #2.  The authors admitted a blunder, in that they had asked about causation of global warming over 150 years . . . and a significant number of respondents later made contact to say they would have upgraded their answer if the question had been for the most recent 50 years.

      #3.  The survey was taken in 2012 . . . and a great amount of change has happened in the 7 years since then e.g. the so-called Pause has disappeared, and record high temperatures have followed.

      #4.  The survey was (per definition) limited largely to Americans ~ a nation where there is strange & bizarre percentage of the population who are so influenced by Motivated Reasoning, that they reject plain evidence about AGW, evolution, age of the Earth, etcetera.  So is rather far from representative of meteorologists or scientists worldwide.  You will also notice that only 89% of respondents acknowledged any global warming at all . . . in other words for 11% their beliefs were at the Flat Earth level of science denial.

      #5.  The authors themselves pondered the observation that controversy (at the political/partisan level) had caused a percentage of AMS members to "disengage" with the AGW issue during the (then) recent years, and to express themselves less definitely about the scientific facts.  Sad to see such a defense mechanism!! ~ but it did seem to "tone down" the definitiveness of answers given to the survey.  One would like to think that the meteorologists of the AMS are more courageous in 2019 ~ and I have heard hints that is so . . . but of course that won't show up in the 2012 survey !

      In all, it was an overly-simple survey of 4 main points.  Even so, it was like the other "consensus" surveys, in that it showed that the greater the climate scientific expertise (of the meteorologists) the greater the agreement with the scientific mainstream.

      Klmartinson, you will find much more reliability from consensus surveys such as the contemporaneous Cook et al. 2013 survey, where the "return rate" was in effect about 100% ~ and the clever design of Cook eliminated the influence of bias (bias from personal and social factors) . . . and giving a robust 97%.  (Actually more than 99% consensus, based on recent years' evidence).

9016. Wibblefish at 22:30 PM on 27 November 2019
      It's the sun
      

      Reading though the comments, there are mentions of the cooling/warming effects of El Nina/Nino. Looking at this from a marine biologist perspective, I'd like to bring up the effects of climate change on tropical coral, particulary in the indian ocean and south pacific and how examining coral biodiversity records could be used to support AGW. Coral live between a fairly narrow temperature range. Extreme rises in temperature lead to bleaching and usually coincide with el nino events where vast bodies of warmer become trapped in the indian ocean and southern pacific. What we are seeing is a decline in biodiversity and massive bleaching events in the last 30 years, notable events in 1998, 2005 and 2017. Studying in the Maldives, there was evidence of coral recovery but ONLY for a few species compared to what can be found in historical records. Then the whole system got hit again in 2017 so back to square 1. To me, it is apparent that such a delicate ecosystem can be thriving for thousands of years and then hammered by prolonged, frequent, intense  el nino events in a short space of time is a smoking gun. The reversal of trade winds seems to hinge on a delicate energetic balance in the atmosphere. I don't know why it's difficult to comprehend that insulating energy would change the dynamics of a system.

9017. klmartinson at 18:09 PM on 27 November 2019
      There is no consensus
      

      I would like to know how this survey of Climate Scientists in the USA , which says that 52% think that human activity is warming the planet, relates with the 97% study. Surely, this is a big difference.

      https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

9018. Doug_C at 15:29 PM on 27 November 2019
      Harnessing gamification to defeat climate misinformation
      

      My experience with climate deniers both directly in my life and others I've met in impersonal formats like online forums is they attach the climate change issue to emotion and personal identity. It is hard to reason with someone when first of all what you are saying causes an emotional reaction, it doesn't stimulate a critical thought process. And secondly when what you are presenting threatens their personal identity.

      Something like this would seem to open a back door into the discussion where people stop reacting with emotion and feel like they are being threatened. Instead of a cold analytical description of a complex crisis we have a game designed to allow a much freer flow of accurate information on multiple issues.

      Something like this offers multiple benefits as it is effective across a broad spectrum of groups especially younger people. And it will be almost impossible to counter by the climate denial campaign as more and more users become skilled in identifying the denial techniques.

      Impressive, I'd say.

9019. One Planet Only Forever at 14:37 PM on 27 November 2019
      Harnessing gamification to defeat climate misinformation
      

      nigelj,

      I share your concern about the repetition of Fictional claims being a significant mechanism for developing and strengthening the popularity of the belief.

      Learning critical-thinking to spot misinformation will help, but it requires more of the non-Fiction details to be readily available. It also requires a person to want to seek out the non-fiction and use it to more quickly spot misinformation on an issue.

      That desire to expand awareness and improve understanding appears to be lacking in the populations of the supposedly most advanced nations. I even found it lacking among fellow engineers when it came to climate science, even though an engineer can only properly perform their job by expanding awareness and improving understanding and applying critical thinking - no gut reactions allowed.

      What I see as a bigger problem is that the general population is not exposed to the Non-Fiction more than the Fictions.

      If the Non-Fiction was seen more often it would be harder for the Fictions to stay standing.

      Many things probably keep the Non-Fiction from being seen more than the Fiction including:

      • the damaging belief by media owners and reporters that they need to present Balance and avoid 'appearing to be biased'. That leads to reluctance to do what needs to be done.
      • The social shift towards Quicker: It takes longer to properly present the Non-Fiction.
      • The social shift towards Image/Impression rather than Reasoned Substance: An incorrect but passionate gut response can win over a detailed evaluation of the evidence.
      • The dominance of Self Interest: It negates concern for Others, especially Others in the future generations.
      • The social technological shift to 'not have to see or hear what you don't care to see or hear'.
      • The pursuit of status being measured by popularity or profitability. How harmful the pursuit is will be irrelevant if it succeeds, even just regionally, temporarily, on election day.
9020. nigelj at 08:18 AM on 27 November 2019
      2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #47
      

      Excellent video on climate economics. From economist Professor Steve Keen.

9021. nigelj at 07:01 AM on 27 November 2019
      Harnessing gamification to defeat climate misinformation
      

      Imho this critical thinking and teaching awareness of logical fallacies is such important work if we want people, especially young people to be informed and make good decisions. I was lucky enough to stumble across a book on logical fallacies while quite young. It's sad that more people weren't talking about all this in the early years of the climate issue, but better late than never, and it will help with many issues beyond the climate issue.

      The denialists are in many cases a core group of professional hired guns with no ethical scruples about what they say. It all radiates from there to member's of the public who repeat what they say, all well documented in books like Dark Money and Merchants of doubt.

      However there's another perplexing problem discussed in this article. " Repetition is what makes fake news work, too, as researchers at Central Washington University pointed out in a study way back in 2012 before the term was everywhere. It's also a staple of political propaganda. It's why flacks feed politicians and CEOs sound bites that they can say over and over again. Not to go all Godwin's Law on you, but even Adolf Hitler knew about the technique. "Slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea," he wrote in Mein Kampf."

      This seems like a difficult problem for people to expose and unwind, because every time we discuss some fake statement it repeats the fake statement. Yet its also important to expose falsehoods or they gain traction. It's a perplexing issue.

9022. michael sweet at 05:40 AM on 27 November 2019
      Ice age predicted in the 70s
      

      Barry,

      As Scaddenp states, your two comments conflate stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone.  These are two different subjects and treating them as similar suggests that you do not understand atmospheric chemistry.

      I will address your comment at 71 on stratospheric ozone first.  According to this RealClimate post, the decrease in stratosheric ozone caused by human pollution will result in approximately -.15 w/m2 of cooling.  The CFC's released by humans have caused approximately +0.34 w/m2 of heating due to their greenhouse properties.  Thus the result of CFC pollution is a net warming of the surface. 

      The total warming caused by CO2 pollution is much larger (about 1.7 W/m2 in 2011).  Larger amounts of CFC pollution would result in more warming, not cooling as you suggest.  Dr. Hansen's 1989 projections, especially the high emission pathway, overestimated warming somewhat because the Montreal protocol resulted in CFC emissions being lower than he projected (more emissions mean more heating). 

      Your comment at 72 addresses tropospheric ozone.  Everyone except you knows that ozone is a greenhouse gas.  It causes warming when increases in trophospheric ozone occur.  Ozone is not even on the table in my reference above.  The contribution of CO2 is much greater because CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere over time while ozone is destroyed and does not accumulate.

      I stand by my comment that " I have never heard of significant heat being let out."  The Realclimate post I linked starts out "One of the most common mistakes that we have observed in discussions of climate and atmospheric change is confusion between the rather separate concepts of ozone depletion and global warming."  When I taught High School students often confused climate change and ozone depletion.  As Realclimate states, they are different problems, although they are tangentially related.

      The original question from post 69 was "They told me when I was at school we were heading steadily for another ice-age and the cause was CFCs".  The answer is scientists have never said that CFC's would cause an ice age to occur.  The person who asked the question was either misinformed or attempting to mislead others with a false question.

9023. One Planet Only Forever at 00:53 AM on 27 November 2019
      Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments
      

      In my final edit of my comment @24, made while re-watching the video, I failed to pick up that the following bullet does not apply.

      "And it is further out of bounds to to say that the uncorrected data is “... the chart that the BOM used previously ...”."

      That bullet does not apply since the comment was an accurate reference to the chart of adjusted data before the latest adjustments were made. It was one of the few 'correct statements made'.

9024. One Planet Only Forever at 00:45 AM on 27 November 2019
      Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments
      

      To be clear, my comment @24 is regarding the video clip link in prove we are smart's comment @21.

9025. One Planet Only Forever at 00:40 AM on 27 November 2019
      Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments
      

      I drafted this earlier, but then had errands to run, and MA Rogers has provided a great reply.

      However, applying the advice of other wise commentators at this site I had a little fun making fun of this. So I am sharing it.

      Also, the parts at the end of my original draft (still there) about the guy needing to get a new job leads me to suggest a possible action that could be helpful.

      In Canada every business with a broadcasting licence can have complaints about inappropriate content result in regulatory actions from the CRTC, the Licence Governing body. In addition, the Advertising Standards Council acts on complaints about misleading advertising. If similar Institutions exist in Australia, you could submit parallel complaints to the Licence Governing body and the Advertising Standards Council about this specific episode being inappropriate content that is also misleading advertising.

      You could also use MA Rogers points to help your friends improve their awareness and understanding by pointing out the many gross errors made by this Guy in this episode.

      No Copyright on this comment. Like any comment I make here, it is offered for all to improve, correct, and use as they see fit.

      Here are the Key Points presented sort of as they come up during this entertaining, though admittedly annoyingly incorrect, presentation (unlike some entertainment, even vaguely educational, except as a Bad Example). Think of it as similar to a Sportscaster's Play-by-play, or Game Bloopers bit.

      The entire game played was a Massive Miss regarding Global Warming evaluation. The global warming trend is best seen in the global average of surface temperature data, not selected local data sets. And that data needs to be reviewed and adjusted for things like changes of conditions at the monitoring locations that affect the temperature measurement at that specific location, including improvements to the monitoring equipment set-up or the local relocation of the monitoring equipment.
      The reasons for adjusting the raw data is explained by Australia's BoM here.

      But let's play along anyway:

      • Melbourne is not 'the hot spot of Australia'. And even though Adelaide, or other locations, may be thought of as a similar location, the history of data for Melbourne would be the only relevant data set to review when discussing the hot day in Melbourne (why are other locations like Glen Innes and Lismore near Brisbane not Melbourne, brought up later instead of Melbourne).
      • That makes it a clear offside to then leap to talk about data for all of Australia.
      • And it is further out of bounds to to say that the uncorrected data is “... the chart that the BOM used previously ...”.
      • The guy then attempts to fool the fans by claiming that the previous adjusted data chart, before the more recent better understood and applied correction, indicates more very warm days earlier compared to current years. It actually appears to have more hot days in the recent years, yet he says the opposite, without any explanation. Then he brings up the totally unadjusted data presentation as if it is relevant.
      • The item by item descriptions of the 'corrections made to the raw data' are essential. This fiction pitcher dismisses the importance of detailed understanding, because it would shatter the illusion he is trying to create.

      Then there is More:

      • Another Big Miss in understanding is the importance of presenting how much warmer than 40 C each of the days noted as warmer than 40 C actually was. 40.1 C is incorrectly counted as being the same as 45 C. So, the entire babble about how difficult it is to figure out the number of days warmer than 40 C is another attempt to fool the fans that JoNova happily plays along with. The truth is that such an exercise in an exercise in irrelevance, and someone like JoNova probably knows that.
      • Then, on top of the pile of mistakes so far, he makes the massive leap to questioning the legitimacy of a politician who says they understand that global climate change is happening because of the science.
      • He then cherry picks 2 location data sets, and makes claims about them, without rigorous proof of the claims (as MA Rogers covers), or any consideration of what may have been regionally going on in Australia's past compared to what was going on globally (like the much warmer than global average 1930s and 1940s in the USA).
      • He then makes a Blind Leap of Faith that Fails to Land, by jumping to assertions that unusually cold snowy weather, climate change, cannot be the result of global warming. He appears unaware that the global average has only increased by 1.0 C since the 1800s and that most of that warming was in the Arctic. And an added blindness of his is that the nights are warming ore than the daytime (the minimums that MA Rogers mentions) everywhere. That means that the increase in average daytime highs everywhere other than the Arctic is less than 1.0 C, which questions the legitimacy of the argument that some cherry-picked regional data shows very little sign of increased daytime highs.
      • He also fails to compare the frequency of record highs being set vs. record lows being set.
      • So, on top of all the other inaccuracies and misleading claims, the evaluation should be done on the average of day and night temperatures, not the maximum day temperature.

      His presentation shoots and missed on so many counts. So much Missing. Someone should be 'changing his career' (his team manager needs to do that because this guy appears to be clueless). Maybe a letter could be sent to his bosses questioning his ability to correctly interpret and report information. It appears he lacks the ability to properly Report evidence-based understanding. Maybe Sports would be 'his thing' (sportscasters are the Entertainers of Information Reporters, even more so than Entertainment Reporters).

      The Sportscasters might welcome him, but I doubt that. Even a Sportscaster has to get the scores and statistics correct, and know what game they are talking about.

      Most important, anyone trying to claim they won based on this guy's reporting would be in serious trouble. Claiming to win of a bet with a friend based on this guy's reporting should seriously affect the friendship, hopefully by the friend having pity and trying to help educate the fooled one. Trying to get paid by a bookie based on this guy's reporting would be worse. Bookies are not interested in Helping Others, and bookies base their actions on a detailed understanding of the facts.

9026. scaddenp at 12:14 PM on 26 November 2019
      Ice age predicted in the 70s
      

      It might also help discussions if you explained why you think ozone depletion reduces stratospheric temperature (or perhaps more to point, why ozone warms the stratosphere).

9027. scaddenp at 11:45 AM on 26 November 2019
      Ice age predicted in the 70s
      

      Ozone is a powerful greenhouse gas in the troposphere.

      However, your paper was on stratospheric cooling and looking at the effect of stratospheric ozone.  It did not seem pertinent in any way to Michael sweet point. ie the wierd idea that hole in ozone layer was going to cool the earth. I am asking what you think the relevance of your quoted paper on stratospheric cooling is to this question. The ozone in the stratosphere is generated by UV interactions in the stratosphere. It is not a pollutant coming up from the troposphere.

9028. barry17781 at 11:06 AM on 26 November 2019
      Ice age predicted in the 70s
      

      scaddamp,

      It is often quoted that many gases such as carbon dioxide , methane and water heat up the eath by allowing visible light to enter and block the infrared radiation coming out.

      Amongst these gases ozone is often included for it too is purportedly acting in a similar way.

      Are you therefore suggesting that Ozone in the troposphere does not have such an effect?  I think the Climate Kids would dissagree with you.

      "Close to the ground, ozone acts as a greenhouse gas and can be formed by burning gas in cars and factories"   Re The climate kids!

      https://climatekids.nasa.gov/greenhouse-cards/

9029. scaddenp at 09:28 AM on 26 November 2019
      Ice age predicted in the 70s
      

      Barry, how do you understand stratographic cooling affecting surface climate? Note that one the big fingerprints for GHG warming is surface warming but stratispheric cooling. However, changes in ozone muddy the picture so detecting the GHG effect means separating this from O3 changes.

9030. barry17781 at 08:59 AM on 26 November 2019
      Ice age predicted in the 70s
      

      Mr sweet,

      This may enlighten you

      Cooling of the Arctic and Antarctic Polar Stratospheres due to Ozone Depletion

      William J. Randel and Fei Wu
      National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado

      "The Antarctic data show strong cooling (of order 6–10 K) in the lower stratosphere (∼12–21 km) since approximately 1985. The cooling maximizes in spring (October–December), with small but significant changes extending throughout Southern Hemisphere summer. "

9031. prove we are smart at 08:59 AM on 26 November 2019
      Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments
      

      MA RODGER @22, thanks for chasing down those facts and good advice. I have commented on that right wing, disinformation site in the past and linked to this climate science blog. Wilfully ignorant people are enablers of political corruption.. 

9032. MA Rodger at 06:17 AM on 26 November 2019
      Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments
      

      prove we are smart @21,

      The muppet in the video simply combines a number of weak or falacious argument to support his grand "there is no AGW" delusion.

      The first bit of it is feeding off this weblog at denialist site http://joannenova.com.au. There are genuine reasons for adjusting temperature data but the usual nonsense from denialists is that such adjustments are fake, or at least they are fake when the raw data is more favourble to their delusions.

      The Mayor of Glen Innes featured in the denialist video says nothing about what data is used to establish AGW. I'm sure if the number of +40ºC daily maximums was how to measure AGW, we would have debunked that particular denialist argument many times before.

      The Glen Innes Annual Max data for the period 1907-2012 doesn't show any significant warming trend, although when combined with the Annual Min data, the Annual Average data 1907-2012 does. And over the period 1975-2012 the Average data is running at +0.15ºC/decade although the noise reduces the statistical significance (+/- 0.12ºC/decade at 2sd). The Annual Max also shows a reasonable warming trend but the noise makes it statistically insignificant at 2sd +0.12ºC(+/-0.21)/decade.

      And the various reports of cold winters are not incompatible with AGW although it is wise not to listen to other swivel-eyed climate deniers unless you are happy broadcasting fake news. So the blather about a cold winter ahead for the UK is nought but blather. "Claims that the UK is set to face the chillest winter in a century and even a white Christmas have been dismissed by the Met Office."

      And arguing against a swivel-eyed loon in full flow isn't for the faint hearted. Unless you have history with the guy, or you can succinctly debunk his nonsense, I would suggest you let this Rowan Dean make a fool of himself. He appears not to always be careful with what he spouts.  For instance, I see last year that he proclaimed that "A growing number of scientists now believe solar activity is the real culprit behind so-called climate change." This is the sort of nosense that can be addressed assertively. "A growing number of scientists"? What are their names? Put up or shut up!!

9033. prove we are smart at 21:02 PM on 25 November 2019
      Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments
      

      I always enjoy reading your replies Nigelj and One Planet Only Forever, we never stop learning and no-one knows everything..Thats not a criticism. I had a quick look at Australian Sustainable Goals, at some projects..

      https://sdgs.org.au/projects/

      I guess mostly positive stuff there but the Glencore " ad " of rehabilitating of 1000+ hectare of mining land and also doing this..

      On 6 March 2019, it was revealed by The Guardian Australia that Glencore, aided by consulting firm CT Group, had engaged in a large-scale, globally coordinated lobbying campaign to promote coal use "by undermining environmental activists, influencing politicians and spreading sophisticated pro-coal messaging on social media."[93] The campaign was started in 2017 and ran until 2019, when it was shut down in February, according to Glencore.[93]

      certainly brought out the cynic in me about the tenth largest company in the world..

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glencore

      But what i really would like to know is how to argue against this..

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEXC2k4iiXc

      That website is certainly not my info goto, but how this right wing conservative has twisted our meteorlogicals stats has me beat...

9034. One Planet Only Forever at 14:17 PM on 24 November 2019
      2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #47
      

      I agree it would be counter-productive to argue about the specifics of climate change impacts. The Fiction writers and Fans will see any discussion as a basis for claiming that nothing is certain enough to require serious corrective action "by Them".

      However, my mind was putting together the extremely high winds and dry conditions in California that combined to start more than one fire, last year and this year, by blowing down power lines. That seems to be new fire-starting behaviour due to the change of climate in California.

9035. nigelj at 13:04 PM on 24 November 2019
      2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #47
      

      OPOF @4

      "Climate Change may be causing changes of conditions that make it 'easier' for the 'Fire-starters' you mention to actually start a fire".

      I did wonder about that, and its technically correct, but surely it's of little consequence and so it means the article detracts from the most important facts about climate change causing larger areas to burn . The warming we have seen so far seems unlikely that it would cause many more fires to start. The temperatures and moisture levels in the fire season are very different to winter enough to make a significant difference.

      It's a similar issue as to whether climate change causes a particular weather event. It does sometimes but its a difficult thing to prove and it distracts from the key fact that climate change causes more intense or frequent events, and this is easier to substantiate.

      Yes maybe its not the main point, but it just annoys me. I also wouldn't underestimate how much climategate pushed things backwards even although it was about specific denialist talking points. But I agree we need a more general philosophical awareness raising circuit breaker so people can see through all the smoke and haze. Pun not intended.

9036. One Planet Only Forever at 09:31 AM on 24 November 2019
      2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #47
      

      nigelj @1,

      Climate Change may be causing changes of conditions that make it 'easier' for the 'Fire-starters' you mention to actually start a fire, as well as making the resulting fire spread quicker and do more damage.

      If that is the case then Climate Change does 'cause' forest fires that would not have started without the change of climate, or causes a more damaging fire to occur.

      The people fighting to resist the required corrections of the global economy, and the resulting corrections of perceptions of prosperity and superiority, will create harmful misleading Fictions no matter how the expanded awareness and improving understanding is presented (they will harmfully fight their losing battle against improved awareness and understanding to the bitter end).

      The key is getting the expanded awareness and improved understanding presented more than all of the many Fictions that are created to try to fight against it. Being confronted with the Non-Fiction often enough should cause many people to Correct their Understanding and stop believing the Fictions. They should also stop supporting or excusing the Fairy Tale Tellers and their remaining Believers.

      Once expanded awareness and improved understanding causes a person to stop believing the Fiction, they become immune to being tempted to re-Believe.

      And that will lead to a tipping-point that needs to be reached - the point when the harmfully correction resistant all end up Governed and Limited against their Wishes.

9037. JWRebel at 08:49 AM on 24 November 2019
      2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #47
      

      What nobody wants to acknowledge in calculating the "costs", is that beyond certain tipping points, we may no longer have the wherewithal to put our energy supply on a more permanent basis. Even if there were no CO² problem, fossil fuels will run out and we need a more sustainable basis for energy supply, so little is lost by investing in it earlier.

      How likely are we to engage in negative CO² emissions without stable renewable sources of energy?

      We should be diverting all global military spending to making progress on this front, since it is an inevitable obstacle, even absent climate change.

9038. Jonas at 07:41 AM on 24 November 2019
      2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #47
      

      News Roundup back again! :-))) (thanks, John!).
      I read new research and news roundup regularly and share often.
      Both help to broaden my view so much ..

      Moderator Response:

      [JH] You're welcome Jonas. The hiatus in publication of the News Roundup was caused by a 30-day stint I recently spent in Facebook jail.  

9039. nigelj at 05:46 AM on 24 November 2019
      2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #47
      

      The Guardian article is their usual good quality,  except this could have been worded better: "You can tell because there’s half as much ice in the Arctic, and because forests catch fire with heartbreaking regularity and because we see record deluge. " Climate change isn't causing forest fires, thats caused by lightening strikes, arson and felling forests whether legal or illegal. Climate change just makes for hotter and drier conditions and possibly more intense winds that lead to larger than normal areas being burned.

      Don't give the denialists such easy mistakes and targets to attack.

      Moderator Response:

      [JH] Technically speaking, the Editor's Pick is not a "Guardian article" Rather it is an opinion piece written by Bill McKibben and published by the Guardian in its Comment is Free Section. 

9040. michael sweet at 22:21 PM on 23 November 2019
      Ice age predicted in the 70s
      

      James Charles,

      The issue with the ozone hole is that harmful UV radiation is allowed in.  I have never heard of significant heat being let out.

      If "they told me at school" was that college, high school or elementary school? Was it in a Science class or an English class?   It is unlikely that it was college.  Grade school teachers are not really atmospheric experts.  Do we rely on experts or grade school teachers? 

9041. Eclectic at 07:57 AM on 23 November 2019
      Climate's changed before
      

      Thanks, MA Rodger.  It was mysterious to me, where he ( Jkss97 ) had gotten the 4500ppm figure from.  As you say, a future  4500ppm level would require the decomposition of vast amounts of carbonate rock, or maybe some other almost unimaginable cataclysmic event.

      And yet if he had meant to type 450ppm, then this figure is easily achievable by mankind continuing "business as usual" ~ and probably will be reached in a few decades' time.

      But with so many typo errors (and scientific errors) in his post #804 , there was a great deal of uncertainty about what he was on about.  ( I gave a marking of nine errors there . . . though a stricter assessment might have scored thirteen errors, not counting the 4500 and the scientific errors).

      It is less than 24 hours [now] so it is just possible that #804 might not be a room-temperature-level typical "drive-by" comment: and Jkss97 may return and explain what he means.  

      My other thought was of some translational difficulties perhaps ~ but then again, a non-native English speaker would likely be too careful in his typing to make such a large number of typographical errors . . . and also, the peculiar grocers' plural - volcano's - is an error unlikely to be made by a foreign learner of English.

      We shall see.

9042. James Charles at 02:33 AM on 23 November 2019
      Ice age predicted in the 70s
      

      As this is your first post, Skeptical Science respectfully reminds you to please follow our comments policy. Thank You!

      Is this 'a new one'?
      " They told me when I was at school we were heading steadily for another ice-age and the cause was CFCs.
      I’ve asked in here more than once what happened to the hole in the ozone layer that would inevitably grow and grow and let all the heat out. Nobody will tell me."

      www.craigmurray.org.uk/forums/topic/climate-change-hysteria/#post-48853

      Moderator Response:

      [TD] Sort of, here.

9043. MA Rodger at 00:22 AM on 23 November 2019
      Climate's changed before
      

      Eclectic @805,

      I think the reason for the 4,500ppm is probably that such levels of atmospheric CO2 have been found in studies for the early Phanerozoic, indeed perhaps higher. And if all the fossil fuels were burnt [they reckon coal reserves are perhaps 1,000Gt(C) with oil & gas perhaps another 500Gt(C)] you'd 'only' raise CO2 by some 350ppm with perhaps natural feedbacks adding as much again. So mankind would be hard pressed to 'achieve' a 4,500ppm level of CO2 by fossil-fuel-use alone.

9044. Eclectic at 18:57 PM on 22 November 2019
      Climate's changed before
      

      Jkss97 @804 ,

      did you really mean 4500 ppm ?!?!

      I ask, because you made nine other errors/typos in your four lines.

      And that's not counting your major scientific errors.

      Please improve your climate science education !

9045. jkss97 at 18:24 PM on 22 November 2019
      Climate's changed before
      

      Its a matter of history that as global tempatures rise evaporation increases and so dose plant matter that ends up traping it in soil or algea or bactria humans are a small pawn in this game. they only real major contributor to co2 is volcano's there is no way humans will ever elvate co2 levels to 4500 ppm

9046. One Planet Only Forever at 14:50 PM on 22 November 2019
      New report finds costs of climate change impacts often underestimated
      

      In my comment @7 I obviously failed to include all the other harmful unsustainable economic activities that need to be corrected to achieve and improve on the SDGs. Rapidly ending fossil fuel use is a keystone action, action that makes it easier to achieve and improve on the other SDGs.

9047. One Planet Only Forever at 14:44 PM on 22 November 2019
      New report finds costs of climate change impacts often underestimated
      

      The only sustainable economic benefit is the new sustainable economic activity that has to be developed consistent with achieving and improving on the Sustainable Development Goals.

      And the more rapidly the corrections of economic activity are developed the better it will be for everyone, except the people who want to continue to get away with harmfully benefiting from fossil fuel use.

9048. One Planet Only Forever at 14:40 PM on 22 November 2019
      New report finds costs of climate change impacts often underestimated
      

      Actions to 'adapt to climate change' will distract Leadership from, and direct wealth and effort away from, acting to sustainably improve the lives of the less fortunate.

      And failing to limit the climate change impacts, by failing to rapidly end the use of fossil fuels, makes it harder to maintain any developed perceptions of reduced poverty that have been developed to date. And since fossil fuels are non-renewable, any perceptions of reduced poverty 'because of fossil fuel use' will not be sustainable.

      And how does humanity 'build an adaptation' to climate impact losses of robust diversity of life in the Seas, Lakes, Rivers, or on Land?

9049. One Planet Only Forever at 11:51 AM on 22 November 2019
      IPCC human-caused global warming attribution confidence is unfounded
      

      dogmatico @1,

      It can be stated that all that exists is the opinions that each person develops and the actions that they take.

      The future is the accumulated result of everyone's developed Opinions and Resulting Actions, including updating Opinions based on expanded awareness and improved understanding applied to help develop sustainable improvements for humanity.

      I await a thoughtful explanation of what is wrong with the content of this post on this website that this comment is made on "to help develop sustainable improvements for humanity".

9050. nigelj at 11:41 AM on 22 November 2019
      New report finds costs of climate change impacts often underestimated
      

      William is right mitigating climate change could be a huge economic stimulus, but I would say in the short to medium term while infrastructure is being built at a heightened pace. In the longer term climate change will degrade gdp growth or at least what growth could be achieved.

      But remember a climate related infrastructure programme will tend to borrow resources form other parts of the economy, so its a little bit of a zero sum game, but not entirely - because a big infrastructure build will promote innovation, new mineral discoveries, and some greater efficiencies. This would certainly add up and increase total economic output and it would help profitability and employment.

      A good analogy is the wartime economy during WW2 where gdp growth and productivity growth improved, and unemployment fell dramatically, although some of this was bounce back from the economic depression of the 1930's. All easily googled.

      But the other interesting thing is inflation and interest rates are is quite low right now, and there is a surplus of global capital, so its an ideal time for enhanced infrastructure building. Many media articles have discussed this in relation to the general economy.

Prev  173  174  175  176  177  178  179  180  181  182  183  184  185  186  187  188  Next