Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 Next
Comments 9051 to 9100:
-
prove we are smart at 08:59 AM on 26 November 2019Climate 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..
-
MA Rodger at 06:17 AM on 26 November 2019Climate 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!!
-
prove we are smart at 21:02 PM on 25 November 2019Climate 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...
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:17 PM on 24 November 20192019 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.
-
nigelj at 13:04 PM on 24 November 20192019 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.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:31 AM on 24 November 20192019 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.
-
JWRebel at 08:49 AM on 24 November 20192019 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.
-
Jonas at 07:41 AM on 24 November 20192019 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.
-
nigelj at 05:46 AM on 24 November 20192019 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.
-
michael sweet at 22:21 PM on 23 November 2019Ice 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?
-
Eclectic at 07:57 AM on 23 November 2019Climate'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.
-
James Charles at 02:33 AM on 23 November 2019Ice 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.
-
MA Rodger at 00:22 AM on 23 November 2019Climate'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.
-
Eclectic at 18:57 PM on 22 November 2019Climate'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 !
-
jkss97 at 18:24 PM on 22 November 2019Climate'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
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:50 PM on 22 November 2019New 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.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:44 PM on 22 November 2019New 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.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:40 PM on 22 November 2019New 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?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 11:51 AM on 22 November 2019IPCC 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".
-
nigelj at 11:41 AM on 22 November 2019New 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.
-
Eclectic at 10:48 AM on 22 November 2019IPCC human-caused global warming attribution confidence is unfounded
Dogmatico @1 ,
never have I encountered a bias or a website claiming to be "sceinctific" [sic]
. . . perhaps you would be kind enough to explain (in English) ?
So far, the readers here can have little (or low) confindence [sic] that you have any idea what you are on about.
-
william5331 at 10:39 AM on 22 November 2019New report finds costs of climate change impacts often underestimated
On the other hand, climate change could provide a huge economic stumulus. A bit like an arms manufacturer. They have to have someone expending ammo and the faster the better. Then they keep raking in profits. Imagine the stimulus of all the buildings on Manhatten Island being flooded and rendered useless. You have to tear them down, rebuild them somewhere else, turn the island into a park. Jobs created without end and velocity in the economy accelerated (speed with which money circulates)
-
BaerbelW at 06:39 AM on 22 November 2019It's cosmic rays
Please check out the new video in the further viewing section above. It was published on Nov. 17, 2019 by "Have a think" and provides some more and current explanations of why GCRs do not play a role in current global warming.
-
nigelj at 06:18 AM on 22 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Climategate has been investigated to death and the people concerned have been cleared of any form of scientific fraud. I must admit after first reading about climate gate I was immediately suspicious of the claims of wrong doing, because the idea of some climate conspiracy to fake data etc seems too far fetched to be plausible, so I had a closer look at a few articles and it was obvious the denialists took things out of context , and were being misleading. However I already knew about the hide the decline terminology, and anyone not already knowing this term would be justified in being a bit suspicious, and possibly saw the explanations as an ad hoc attempt to make excuses, even although they are robust explanations. The whole leak was damn rotten luck for the mainstream science community, but climate change has marched on and helped vindicate the scientists involved.
The thing is why would denialists be less than honest? It seems to me people are sometimes less than honest when they feel threatened in some way. For example whether it be they are afraid of having to change their lifestyle, give up things they like, pay money, or if their politics and world view feels threatened, or they feel caught out in some way, or are forced to admit to themselves they were sucked in by something ( a lot of denialists probably feel this way). Lots of reasons = lots of denialism.
-
invicta at 21:06 PM on 21 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Not long after the email hack that became Climategate I had a discussion about global warming with my brother a self confessed petrolhead and realised I knew nothing about the subject. I went online and did some basic research and the subject of Climategate came up. It took me less than 45 minutes from logging on to realise that one side of the argument was being far from honest. I have no scientific knowledge beyond O level physics 50+ years ago but I could identify a liar when I saw one.
This lead me to various sites but SS in particular and with the help of John Cook, Dana and the many other brilliant people on the site I was able to become that boring old uncle always banging on about climate change, except I was the one telling my nieces nephews grandchildren etc to wake up.
The big thing I learnt from Climategate and subsequent research is that you have to be wilfully ignorant to be a climate contrarian. (perhaps coupled with a little mendacity).
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:59 PM on 21 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
shoyemore @6
Climate-gate and Clinton-gate also have a similar and sinister look when viewed from the perspective of the pursuit of expanding awareness and improving understanding of what is really going on and the application of that learning to develop sustainable improvements for the future of humanity (achieving and improving on all of the Sustainable Development Goals).
From that perspective both -gates appear to be harmfully successful misleading efforts by people with powerful interests that are understandably contrary to a sustainable improving future for humanity. Many powerful people today still support efforts to prolong the misunderstanding of Climate-gate without suffering any negative personal consequence. And they can maintain support for their ability to benefit more from fossil fuel use through other misleading marketing without penalty.
And, from that perspective, it also becomes clearer that harmful misleading powerful people also try to punish or threaten anyone who develops, or discovers and exposes, information that the general population really should be more aware of. Think of how people are sought out and persecuted for exposing truths that harm Private Interests, including hard to justify National Leadership Actions that are hoped to be kept Private or Misunderstood. Compare that to the efforts to find and punish the Climate-gate misleaders who have undeniably harmed the future of humanity.
From that perspective "Russia" becomes an inaccurate term of reference. Many people in Russia, potentially the majority, are not the problem. And "Right-Wing" is also an inaccurate term of reference. Many people with Right-wing beliefs, but potentially not the majority, are not the problem (same goes for religious people).
The appropriate reference is to 'the global collective of people who have developed powerful interests that are harmfully contrary to the development of a sustainable and sustainably improving future for humanity'.
Every nation and every political classification (including religions), has people in it who are part of that harmfully self-interested collective. However, within each identifiable group there are significant differences in levels of acceptance of harmful actions, actions that are contrary to expanded awareness and improving understanding of the corrections and new directions of development that are required to develop a sustainable improving future for humanity.
Identifying the people who are promoting harmful misunderstanding is what is important. And it is important to know that they can be trying to hide inside any identifiable group or nation. The hard part is helping groups (like Nations, Political factions, Religions) realize that they have been compromising their Brand Identity by allowing themselves to be misled, and that any perceptions of superiority relative to others that are developed that way are unsustainable.
Tragically, many people do not care very much about the future. They myopically have faith in their ability to maintain their beliefs. The most damaging people get angry when their developed beliefs and deceptions become indefensible. They fight harder to not be corrected, including making-up things like Climate-gate and Clinton-gate.
-
nigelj at 08:55 AM on 21 November 2019New report finds costs of climate change impacts often underestimated
The discount rate its use for the climate problem needs considerable scepticism. A high discount rate assumes most of the problem can be solved easily enough with adaptation, which is a very high risk premise A low discount rate makes more sense.
The purpose of the discount rate appears to be to put an ideal price on carbon when what we should be doing is putting 'a' price on carbon that the market can bear, so a moderate price, and then ramping this up as quickly as we can to reduce use of fossil fuels to zero, commensurate without causing massive inflation within the economy. There is no acceptable level of continued fossil fuel use.
-
nigelj at 08:21 AM on 21 November 2019New report finds costs of climate change impacts often underestimated
Economists like Nordhaus obviously do some useful work, but they make themselves look stupid with their work on climate change. I'm not an economist, but I had most of these problems with the typical economic models figured out years ago, and have mentioned most of them on this website, as do others like OPOF.
It's not that hard, so it makes me wonder what head space economists are in, and whether their personal interests and investments, and their obession with economic growth has introduced a bias into their work. For example its patently obvious that a warmer world must degrade economic growth because the problems climate change introduce outweigh the benefits and economic growth is a function of many things including the climate.
Apart fom that, economists who think 3% economic growth can continue forever are deluded because this growth is based on mineral reserves that are being depleted fast to the point where extraction costs will become more expensive longer term, and theres no way of changing that. To think otherwise is magical thinking.
Rates of economic growth has been on a declining trend in developed countries ever since the 1970's to 2019, despite massive attempts to boost this with tax cuts and money printing, and so its absurd to think we can boost these rates or maintain them indefinitely. All signs are that this downward trajectory will continue in developed countries. No doubt growth will continue or might increase a bit medium term in developing countries, but growth will follow the downward trajectory of wealthy countries eventually. Economists need to get real.
Economists need some proper worst case scenario models, and fast.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:58 AM on 21 November 2019New report finds costs of climate change impacts often underestimated
Regarding economic analysis getting it wrong because of: "...questionable assumptions about continued economic growth, and from an inability to account for non-monetized values."
The reason that the economic models are failing to get it right is most likely because the powerful people with unsustainable developed perceptions of status have the ability to powerfully fight against 'the understanding of sustainability' becoming the expanded awareness and improved understanding of economics.
Given that humanity should expect to be able to inhabit this amazing planet for about 1 billion more years, with some naturally occurring challenges through that time, it is easy to understand that unsustainable human activity cannot be continued.
And given that a sustainable and improvable future for humans will require a robust diversity of humans to be fitting into a robust diversity of life, it is understandable that any actions compromising the robust diversity of life cannot be priced. The robust diversity of life is Invaluable.
Continued economic growth can then be understood to only be possible through the continuation of Truly Sustainable Economic Activity and the replacement of developed activity that is unsustainable with Truly Sustainable Economic Activity.
Sustainable Growth is understandably only achieved through effective governing of human activity to ensure that the focus is on developing Improved Sustainable Economic Activity.
The current system of allowing unsustainable activities to compete for popularity and profitability then, understandably, has no future. Unsustainable actions are almost guaranteed to be Cheaper, Quicker, and Easier. So a system that allows those types of activities to compete will almost certainly be a declining cycle of unsustainable activity especially if misleading marketing is allowed. And it can be understood that in addition to developing unsustainable activities, such a fatally flawed system will develop powerful resistance to the correction of those activities because of the desires of people to maintain developed perceptions of status and prosperity.
One of the most insidious aspects of the current reality is that developed perceptions of reduction of poverty are potentially unsustainable. That will be especially true if undeserving Winners get to keep their undeserved Winnings as the unsustainable reality becomes more obvious, harder to ignore or dismiss. And the slower the corrections are today, the more challenging it will be for the required corrections of economic activity to be built out of the crumbling ruins of a massively unsustainable developed global economy and its resulting increased negative future impacts.
The solution is the achievement and improvement of the Sustainable Development Goals, all of them, the sooner the better, especially (but not exclusively) the Climate Action Goals. Admittedly that may require many current day Winners to become Losers. But many of them will remain the wealthiest after their deserved loses, if they sustainably deserve it.
-
shoyemore at 00:55 AM on 21 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
The parallels between the Climategate e-mails and the Clintongate e-mails in 2016, from Russian Intelligence via Wikileaks, is spooky.
- Both hacks originated in Russia.
- Both released the e-mails at key moments: The run up to an international conference, the run-up to an election, while the favoured Russian candidate was struggling with a "locker-room talk" sex scandal.
- Both strangely well co-ordinated with right-wing media, who leaped on the stories gleefully.
- Both trapped the "good" media into a fake story that turned out to be a ball of smoke e.g. the DNC e-mails contained nothing negative about Clinton's campaign, the "Climategate" e-mails were minor blemishes.
Coincidence?
No smoking gun, of course, but if the truth is ever allowed to emerge, it will be a strange and mysterious story.
-
MA Rodger at 23:31 PM on 20 November 2019Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Dukester @380,
My back of fag packet calculation puts the energy used by shipping at roughly (300Mt/year x 43 GJ/t / (8766 x 3600) = 400 GW. That is certainly billions of kWh/year. But as a global forcing it comes to 400e9W / 510e14m = 0.0008Wm^-2. As of last year NOAA AGGI puts the forcing from CO2 at 2.044Wm^-2 with a total positive GHG forcing of 3.1Wm^-2. Burning fossil fuels does result in much energy release but, depending on the fuel, the resulting increase in atmospheric CO2 will be heating the planet by the same amount over the following 9 to 18 months, and again for following periods of that length. The combustion energy release thus quickly becomes a trivial value relative to the GHG forcing.
Moderator Response:[PS] no more comments about this on this thread please. Take it to the waste heat thread.
-
Chaz at 22:36 PM on 20 November 2019Canada's ClimateData Web Portal: Normal Science, Not Fake
Yikes, I was wondering why they tacked most of the word "Spline" onto the anagram "ANUSPLIN", then I read a little closer.
Apologies, I'm still getting through my first morning coffee.
-
Dukester at 11:38 AM on 20 November 2019Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Firstly let me say how much I have enjoyed reading this topic, oh and I had better add I have no doubt that mans activity is warming the planet, but I am a little at odds with the how....
I must confess that I am more than a little surprised that in everything I have read there is no mention of the heat component thats mans activity is adding to global warming?
I we take the ocean for instance a throw a few thousand ships in it pouring billions of Kw of heat in to the ocean for say the last 70 odd years, and more than 1 or 2 reactors in subs spewing heat in to the oceans. The ocean is not infinite, so all of this hot water must go somewhere, right?. Where are the calculations that determine what percent of the oceans warming is by the heat released by mans "industry"?
And again if we take the worlds population and distribute it evenly over the globe for the sake of back of the napkin math, tabulate the daily fuel burn, heat released by reactors, exothermic process in industry, heat released by electrical appliances driven by wind and hydro, (some fair guesses can be made here) and apply it to our 1 square km model. Throw a bit more water vapor in to the atmosphere, as after we are burning fossile fuels, stand a coloum of air on the top of this heat source about the dimensions of the atmosphere with a large heatsink at the other end and you come up with some really interesting numbers. Certainly they are big enough to be, well not nothing.....
My back of the napkin math suggests that the heat being produced by mans industry at the very least needs to be incorporated in to any greenhouse model, and the sun is not the only significant source of heat. I suspect that greenhouse gases are not nearly as efficient at trapping heat as we give them credit for and the petawatts of heat being liberated in to the atmosphere by man are a much bigger part of the "full" picture, especially when the wavelength of wate heat is considered....
Is it just me or has this work been done already? Or am I simply wrong?
Moderator Response:[PS] Please see the "its waste heat" myth and post any further comments on that thread please, not here.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:22 AM on 20 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Questions regarding Dr. Roy Spencer include:
- "Why is he still able to be perceived to be a pursuer and professor of expanded awareness and improved understanding?"
- "How is he able to still have his work funded, given the history of misunderstanding he has presented, including the many misleading presentations of the results of his manipulations of satellite data?"
It appears that the developed socioeconomic-political systems have become so corrupted by selfish pursuit of personal interest that Popularity and Profitability have been able to get significant control over "The direction of Thought". And that harmful selfishness is able to drive Thinking away from the pursuit of expanded awareness and understanding and the development of sustainable improvements for the benefit of the future of humanity.
-
nigelj at 06:09 AM on 20 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Roy Spencer is in charge of a group doing upper atmosphere temperature analysis. If his group were the only group doing this there would be a good case to discontinue his funding, given the misleading comments, sour grapes comments, and straw men he comes out with in the quotes mentioned @comment 3. Anyway his comments are also completely unscientific.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:10 AM on 20 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
The careful deliberate deceiver Dr. Roy Spencer continues to present more evidence of how deliberately deceptive he continues to be.
His take on the 10th anniversary of Climate-gate opens with the following gem: "... the unfortunate truth is that fewer and fewer people actually care about the truth." He relates that to his set-up point that a believer of Truth would be a "...skeptic of the modern tendency to blame every bad weather event on humans".
He follows that misrepresentation set-up with a doozy of Fictional Tale built on his carefully selected bits of Non-Fiction. His New Fable makes the initial Climate-gate Fiction appear almost Non-Fiction (less Fantasy) by comparison.
It opens with the following Fantastically incorrect Fairy Tale claim.
"You see, it does not really matter whether a few bad actors (even if they are leaders of the climate movement) conspired to hide data and methods, and strong-arm scientific journal editors into not publishing papers that might stand in the way of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) mission to pin climate change on humans, inflate its seriousness, and lay the groundwork for worldwide governmental efforts to reduce humanity’s access to affordable energy."
And his fans and the lovers of WUWT will fervently passionately belief the Fairy Tales. That is an expected result of developing a powerful personal interest in benefiting from an understandably harmful and ultimately dead-end activity like fossil fuel use.
Future generations cannot continue to benefit from burning fossil fuels, they are non-renewable. All the future generations get is the increased challenges and harmful results created by what the previous generations 'choose to continue to do'. That Non-Fiction cannot be acknowledged in the Fantasy-Fiction-Filled made-up minds of the likes of Spencer and Watts.
The Sustainable Development Goals are like Garlic or Sunlight to the Vampire-like fantasy beliefs of the likes of Spencer and WUWT.
-
JARWillis at 02:59 AM on 20 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
I made a blog post about the 'scandal that never was' some years ago - here if anyone is interested.
The real scandal ought to have been the hack, the distortion, and the campaign of deceit itself.
-
nigelj at 05:24 AM on 19 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
The denialists have engaged in a relentless disinformation campaign, using propoganda like in a war, where repeating disinformation often enough and people believe it. Its a manipulation of our understanding of human psychology. This is a ruthless deliberate campaign, and if anything it has been underestimated. Articles like this provide some good push back. Every little bit helps.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:29 AM on 19 November 2019Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments
nigelj@19,
Moncton was an easy target for criticism regarding the use of high discount rates. But Nordhaus is like Moncton in that regard.
The quick way to see the issue is that it is unacceptable for someone to do something that causes a negative impact on Other people.
In the Neighbour example there is no consideration for balance of interest between the parties. The one causing the negative impact on Others has to stop doing that no matter how they might try to justify it by a comparison of negatives (their perceived negative of having to give up their benefit because the way they get it produces the negative result for Others.
The reason it may have been difficult to see is trying to think that using a negative-to-negative evaluation with discount rates is "the way to set a Price on Carbon as the solution to the problem".
Putting a 'calculated' price on carbon can help change attitudes. But, the only way that A Price on Carbon is "The Solution" is to rapidly steadily increase the price until the required rapid ending of fossil fuel use is achieved. And that action should be expected to produce negative results for the portions of the population most heavily invested in benefiting from fossil fuel use, particularly the portion of the already more fortunate who did not significantly reduce their pursuit of benefit from fossil fuels through the past 30 years.
Trying to determine "The Proper Price on Carbon" is a Fool's Game. The Carbon Price needs to increase rapidly to whatever it take to achieve the required result, and the required result can no longer be 'no negative impact on the current developed economies'. And that desired path to the required solution may only have been a possibility if the aggressive correction had started in the 1970s.
And while that ending of fossil fuel use is rapidly achieved, the wealthiest need to continue sacrificing portions of their wealth to help the less fortunate sustainable improve the lives they live.
That is the reality laid out by the Sustainable Development Goals. That is why there is so much resistance to "improving awareness and increased understanding of the need to achieve and improve on the Sustainable Development Goals". Some people perceived to be more successful and powerful people deserve to lose status and also do more to help Others as their status is reduced. And they will fight against that happening, just like a Bad neighbour fighting to be able to keep on negatively affecting Others.
-
nigelj at 17:23 PM on 18 November 2019Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments
OPOF @18, thanks. Your quick way to see it is hard to understand, while your more detailed view is easier to understand and sounds right. I also have a lot of trouble with discounting future negatives, but I had trouble putting this into words.
Of course the aim of the thing is to put a price on carbon, but in so doing it is like they are saying we are allowing a bit of carbon balanced against some adaptation, and to me this is just wrong because no ammount of emissions can be justified.
However the important thing is to just put a price on carbon, and it has to start somewhere, and not agonise over the exact price. If it doesn't produce the results intended, clearly it would have to be altered probably upwards. There's too much policy "paralysis of analysis" and not enough action.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 15:29 PM on 18 November 2019Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments
nigelj,
A brief presentation on discount rates as they apply to the required corrections of what has developed based on the expanded awareness and improved understanding of climate science.
Quick Way to look at it:
Even without discounting the future negatives, a comparison of the current day negatives related to ending the increase of future negatives is a grossly incorrect evaluation. It is like a person saying they should not have to stop producing a negative impact on their neighbour if 'their perceived loss of benefit by stopping what they are doing' is a match for or more than 'their perception of the level of negative impact they are having on their neighbour'. That is an absurd evaluation. They need to stop causing the negative impact on their neighbour, as perceived by their neighbour (not as perceived by them), no matter how much personal benefit they believe they would be giving up.
More Detailed way to see it:
When a business is looking into optional action choices they use discount rates on the future values to select the option they would prefer to experience. And the business evaluation works when the ones making the current investment will be the ones dealing with or benefiting from the future results.
A government considering a benefit for the future population it governs by spending on action today should also use a discount rate to determine the merit of the current expense vs. the future benefit. Though they would not use the same discount rate as a business investment that wants quicker reward. The business decision would generally be based on a higher discount rate, future benefits having less perceived value.
The twist comes when looking at future negatives. An evaluation that uses a high discount rate when the option has potential high future negative results is setting the business up for a future failure. And if a decision like that is discovered soon enough the ones who made that risky bet may suffer the consequence, or they may not.
And a government should seriously question choosing an action that has a potential negative consequence. Its actions should be producing future benefit, not future costs. So, in spite of some cases where government should operate more like a business, when there are negative future consequences it is essential that government not evaluate its options as if it were a business. There should be no discounting of the future negatives.
The lack of responsible correction of developed activity by the more fortunate portion of the global population through the past 30 years has created a bigger future negative impact. And it has developed economies that do not deserve their developed perceptions of success. And as a result it has developed popular resistance to the required correction.
The objective for responsible leadership needs to be ending the creation of the negatives (no discounting of future negatives allowed), even if that means negative current day economic results for the people who unjustly bet on getting away with the activity that needs to be stopped.
-
nigelj at 12:13 PM on 18 November 2019Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments
One Planet Only Forever @16
I must admit I do find some economists extremely annoying. Having ploughed through one of Milton Freidmans books, I'm just not that impressed and sadly this guy has influenced people like Reagon and Greenspan. But people like Friedman are outspoken and at the extreme end of debate. I also found a large group of more moderate economists that make more sense.
Monkton should be the last person politicians pay attention to as far as discount rates and climate science goes. He has an arts degree majoring in literature and a journalism diploma and a long history of misquoting people and worse.
I guess that Stern is trying to do what hes been taught to do. However I'm not convinced the use of discount rates applied to climate is fundamentally wrong in principle. I did read something you wrote on it but only briefly because I was busy at the time so I'm not dismissing your take on it.
However it seems to me the problem is more that it's just too hard to apply a discount rate to an issue like climate and come up with anything meaningful because of the complexities of the issue and the difficulty understanding the full implications of the issue and the strong sense that the negatives are very substantial, and could well be even worse than we think. The most meaningful number would be very low as Stern has ended up with, but even his number doesn't look low enough.
Discount rates work well enough when trying to cost alternative business propositions against just investing money in standard investment schemes, and looking forward a couple of decades, which is all easy enough to quantify, but discount rates look to be at the limit with complex ecological and climate systems problems. So at the limit as to be meaningless.
-
Just Me 77 at 10:54 AM on 18 November 2019Tipping Points: Could the climate collapse?
ilfark2, I would also love to see some of the utopian changes you hope to see someday. If we had a more egalitarian economy, most of us could be 2, 3, or even 5 times better off (economically) than we are now. If these changes happened at the same time we transitioned to a greener economy, then becoming green wouldn't feel like a sacrifice at all.
We don't want to have to do without abundant energy. However, we have to find practical ways to produce this energy without burning fossil fuels. Our cars and trucks can then be adapted so that they use this cheap energy — in the form of electricity or hydrogen — so that they don't burn fossil fuels, either. How can this happen? All we've got to do is to change all our fees, taxes, and subsidies so that they're the opposite of the way they are today: tax fossil fuels at a higher and higher rate, subsidize green electricity production more and more, and it won't be too many years before coal-generated power is a hundred times more costly than solar, wind, or nuclear power. When coal becomes more and more expensive, people will stop burning it.
This would pretty much solve power generation and transport. You could apply a similar method to any other aspect of the economy which also needed to be "greened." For example, if cattle production produces methane at an alarming rate, then tax it accordingly. Subsidize fruits and vegetables to make them cheaper. Soon, only the very rich will be eating beef, everyone can afford healthy food, and another part of the economy will also be helping our planet to thrive.
It's all related to who controls our government and our economy. That's why it's related to the utopian dreams you've had for our future. As long as the very rich are in charge, all they try to do is to enrich and empower themselves still further. They care not a whit for Mother Earth. We already have the technology to solve all our problems — both ecological problems and social problems. I don't know what kind of government or economy would work the best for the people and for the earth. But it's abundantly clear that it would be hard to do worse than the pernicious system we've got now.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:00 AM on 18 November 2019Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments
nigelj@14,
I agree and understand that there is a diversity of understanding among current day economists with many of them seeing the serious problems that are being developed.
I admit to being easily annoyed by the 'popularity' of those who want to make up and maintain fictions rather than face and deal with what should be rather obvious to someone with their level of awareness and understanding. And many of them seem to base their claims on fundamentals like the writings of Smith, admittedly using some fictional license (misleading marketing) when they do that because Smith is not around to set the record straight regarding his points or update his position.
What is disappointing is the way that even the likes of Stern have played the game of 'discounting negative impacts on future generations', though they admittedly use a lower discount rate than the abhorrent likes of Lord Moncton have done. To be fair, Stern may have been wanting to simply show that even using a discount rate, which is incorrect when evaluating the acceptability of a portion of current day humanity benefiting today in ways that impose negative consequences on future generations, indicated that aggressive reduction of fossil fuel use was cost-effective. But to be fairer, I have not see any reporting that that was Stern's intent when he used the discount rate that he did.
-
Eclectic at 06:59 AM on 18 November 2019Why the 97% climate consensus is important
Anodyne @13 ,
You are sadly out of touch with reality
. . . or your huge paragraph was intended as comedy, eh?
But as comedy, you should use more skill in constructing such nonsense.
You don't have to be a Seinfeld, but you do need to work on it more !
-
nigelj at 05:56 AM on 18 November 2019Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments
Rob Bradley @12
"Trump climate policy, and global climate politics in general, is being driven by the economic and ecological advantages of dense energy over dilute, intermittent energies. "
Trump climate policy is ignorant and self serving. He just wants to keep business as usual going because hes used to it.
Nobody disputes that fossil fuels are energy dense, but they present us with a range of problems. It's not just the climate problem, these resosurces are very finite and are running out fast. America has run out of easily extracted oil, read about Huberts peak, and is scraping the bottom of the barrel with fracking. In about 100 years we will have run out of fossil fuels that can be economically extracted, sooner in many places. Just do a simple google search of peak oil etc and read some of the reputable, academic mainstream publications.
It's absurd to claim fossil fuels have ecological advantages. You list none and provide no evidence. Burning fossil fuels releases a whole range of toxic gases and particulates that harm virtually all forms of life. Remember acid rain the the 1970's that ended up requiring complicated filters being fitted to coal fired power? And that still doesn't completely fix the problem.
You should spend less time swallowing fictions and spin by Myron Ebell and more time looking at reality, reading proper scientific history, and thinking for yourself.
Maybe my response isn't very diplomatic. Too bad for that.
We can solve this thing with renewable energy and storage or even some nuclear power. Nothing wrong with a hybrid system.
-
nigelj at 05:37 AM on 18 November 2019Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments
OPOF @13, fair comment. However my point is more that most modern mainstream economists have a largely sensible approach to things. Its not perfect - and we would both find criticisms of them as you have alluded to above, but its more sensible than people perhaps realise. I've scanned a few economics texts and they acknowledge business doesn't always behave ideally. and you have various market failures. They acknowledge the problems you raise but use different words for it. They acknowledge the need for business regulations at an appropriate level and economists are starting to acknowledge the problems of high growth economies.
So what goes wrong? Sadly its business people and politicians who ignore parts of mainstream economic theory they dont like, or who interpret things in bizarre ways, or who gravitate to the extreme schools of economics like the Chicago school and Milton Freidman, or who interpret Adam Smith in a way that suits them much like people interpret the bible. Politicians need to be called out for this behaviour.
In the end we only have so many options to deal with misleading marketing, which is is very real problem. 1) Better government regulation, with more robust penalties 2) spreading awarenesss of the problem 3) public shaming of organisations and individuals who engage in misleading marketing 3) getting some courses in analytical thinking and logic into schools. 4) setting good standards for ourselves 5) not being afraid to criticise our friends and colleagues on occasion (diplomatically).
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:19 AM on 18 November 2019Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments
nigelj@11,
Different opinions of Adam Smith abound. I will try to limit this response to relate to the struggle to achieve the corrections of human activity that climate science has exposed are required.
It is not possible to interview Adam Smith to obtain clarification regarding his position. However, undeniably, Adam Smith was thinking and writing at a time when there was less awareness and understanding of human behaviour, especially in competitions. So, Adam Smith deserves more benefit of the doubt than more recent thinkers who really should know better. (btw, Smith wrote “Wealth of Nations” less than 250 years ago, not 400 years ago).
Charley Dewberry points out many things. But it does not include Smith stating that the government has the responsibility to expand the awareness and improve the understanding of the population regarding what should be supported and promoted or what should be discouraged and penalized in the economic competitions in order to achieve sustainable improvements for humanity. How was that requirement expected to be achieved? Even the points made by Charley Dewberry indicated that Smith did not trust economic competitors to do this.
The list of Adam Smith's government roles presented by the “Economist's View” also makes no mention of how the required expanded awareness and improving understanding to achieve sustainable improvements for humanity is to be achieved. Smith limited the Government role to educating people to being more useful economic participants (more useful to employers and pursuers of profit).
Therefore my main points remain. Adam Smith and those who followed his line of reasoning appear to believe that expanded awareness and improved understanding would naturally win in competitions for status, correcting unjustified Fictions and end up effectively governing all of human activity with no need for external (government) intervention on the competitions regarding that issue (note that the powerful people governing what happens begs the question of not including that activity as a Government Role). The presumption appears to be that the powerful would be more aware and understanding and they would be easily able to govern (that government word again) what happens and make any required corrections happen.
Who would believe that expanded awareness and improved understanding would not easily win over unjustified Fictional Beliefs? Someone who does not acknowledge the damaging power of misleading marketing would fail to understand and admit what can actually happen, and remain a believer of a harmful Fiction. Yet Charley Dewberry includes references that Adam Smith was aware of the power of misleading marketing by unjustly powerful people, but he does not offer anything in Smith's writing about how that misleading marketing is to be governed and limited (those pesky expansions of government intervention to limit economic activity).
Many people, including Adam Smith, appear to fail to acknowledge the need for expanded awareness and improved understanding to govern and limit what humans do, especially governing and limiting the damaging power of misleading marketing.
Greta Thunberg is correct to point out that global leaders should govern based on the expanding awareness and improving understanding, even if it is not popular or if the required corrections are economically negative for some people. Over-development in incorrect fantasy fiction (misleading marketing) driven directions will inevitably have negative consequences. Those negative consequences should be limited to the biggest beneficiaries of the incorrectly prolonged beliefs in the fantasy fictions.
That is fundamentally the basis for global Climate Action. The most fortunate must: lead the ending of fossil fuel use, help all others deal with the already developed negative consequences, and help the less-fortunate develop in more sustainable ways than the incorrectly more fortunate have done to date.
-
Rob Bradley at 03:59 AM on 18 November 2019Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments
Trump climate policy, and global climate politics in general, is being driven by the economic and ecological advantages of dense energy over dilute, intermittent energies. https://www.masterresource.org/trump-on-climate-change/paris-climate-accord-withdrawal-underway-trump-right/
-
Anodyne at 02:28 AM on 18 November 2019Why the 97% climate consensus is important
So Skeptical Science screws the pooch really bad here and it's upsetting to see sheep follow without any pushback. There's a narrative that formed that says climate deniers completely ignore CC and argue against it with no evidence. That's categorically false and only ignorants who stay in their little social bubbles that always recycle the same nonsense say that. This must be one of them. 97% consensus was proven to be an outright lie - that is a BS claim that was made by 1 person and parroted by another and the media ran with it and never questioned it. Forbes did an exhaustive look into the 97% consensus theory and found that the real number was around 81% and showed various alternative numbers but the average was 81% consensus. Then Forbes clarified the word consensus which Skeptical Science doesn't ever do, and shame on everyone who doesn't bother to take 15 seconds to read up on what scientific consensus means. It's not a total agreement and the 81% consensus is as follows: anyone that believes climate change is a natural occurring phenomenon that humans do not impact all the way to people that think humans are the only way the climate shifts at all are all considered in "consensus". If you don't agree I don't care - this is a verifiable fact and I strongly urge everyone to start researching the counter argument to the 97% consensus claim. It's been proven wrong by numerous credible sources. One of my favorites is the Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore who constantly destroys man-made climate change claims with facts and examples in our world today. I'd automatically go Google/YouTube his lectures as they have a swath of evidence and his associates that work with him down not just Ecology but Solar Sciences, Geology, and Meteorology as well. Their counter points cannot be refuted and just be taken into consideration. But saying 97% of scientists agree that clmanmade climate change is real is a load of crap and shame on anyone who parrots that lie. 4/5 scientists agree that climate change is fully real and actively occurring, of those 4 only 1 (generalized estimate) believe humans are making an impact and even within that 1 (so 20% in total) say humans might be making a large impact on the planet's climate. Naomi Oreskes and John Cook, the two ppl that wrote articles claiming a 97% consensus exists on this topic, woefully mislead readers in what consensus meant even though Cook did try to slip in that consensus might not mean total agreement but vague agreement or commonality. Furthermore, more and more scientists are coming out against the idea that man-made climate change is affecting our planet. Just recently there were signatures from 5,000 folks in science fields that threw out the idea publicly in the face of pretenders like Greta Thrunberg. That doesn't mean that now the debate is over, it means that the idea that 97% consensus again isn't sound in the least bit. And what's more aggrivsting is that these extreme climate change advocates want us to make radical shifts now based on forecasting models that have never once in our history been correct. They take the most radical forecasting models and say we're doomed in 100 years if we don't cut carbon emissions now. Only problem is that for two decades we've shown those models never pan out and always exaggerate the reality over time. There are idiots out there who deny based on emotions but the reality is there are very intelligent, well informed people cutting holes left and right in the consensus theory and man-made climate change. Hell, aren't we seeing reportings now that are forecasting a global cooling trend in the next couple decades? Our assumption is that the planet swings in climate and that's how we get ice ages and hot periods. Folks need to take history into consideration and realize that the Earth isn't really above average of anything. The sea levels aren't going up as fast as alarmists say and then they point to places that are literally sinking into the seas and saying "see, the sea levels are rising so fast!". Pathetic. Bill Nye is a joke. Give me someone with a degree not in civil engineering and works in the field actively instead of a children's tv show host whose Netflix series was such a disaster that Netflix immediately cancelled it and scientists lobbed tomatoes at it for it's departure from science.
Moderator Response:[PS] Sloganeering.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
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.
If you want to challenge the science, pick your topic and present data or preferrably peer-reviewed literature to support your position. At the moment, you appear to be uncritically swallowing disinformation that fits what you would like to believe and making laughable projections on how you think the scientific process works. If you want to comment here, you must support your argument. There are numerous other forums (eg WUWT) that welcome your type of "contribution".
Prev 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 Next
