Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 Next
Comments 9601 to 9650:
-
Ebel at 19:04 PM on 22 September 2019The Consensus Handbook: download and translations
Darstellung
Die Mainstreamwissenschaft muß eine populaire kurze Darstellung des Treibhauseffektes bringen. Der Verweis auf Großrechner ist zu wenig.
Ich habe es versucht mit http://www.ing-buero-ebel.de/Treib/Klima.pdf
-
MA Rodger at 16:52 PM on 22 September 2019Medieval Warm Period was warmer
tmillion @263,
The 'work' you link to is actually a piece of denialist 'research' saying it is trying to answer such questions as "How could it have been so warm one thousand years ago when CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were on a low pre-industrial level?" Note the links provide are to WUWT and CO2Science, two well-known denialist websites.
The quote provided at the link @263 is extracted from within the final paragraph of IPCC AR5 Section 5.3.5. Perhaps "quotes" would be a better description as the first half of the quote concerns NH while the final parts of the quote concerns the tropics. As provided at the link, these "quotes" don't make a lot of sense.
-
tmilliron at 12:45 PM on 22 September 2019Medieval Warm Period was warmer
This is fascinating work disputing MWP as localized instead of global https://kaltesonne.de/mapping-the-medieval-warm-period/
-
nigelj at 06:50 AM on 22 September 2019Greta Thunberg is a painful reminder of decades of climate failures
OPOF @7
Jonathan Haidt's list doesn't seem quite right right, or at least it is not very well developed or worded. Please dont take this criticism personally.
Demanding fairness to the self is not a bad thing, and does not crowd out fairness to others because such things are not mutually exclusive. Haidt's simple definition will likely be dismissed by the target audience as absurd. There is not a quantity of fairness to be rationed. One is fair to others as much as is feasible and one has the right to demand equal fairness in return. However demanding fairness to the self can only exist if one is fair to others, because an agreed principle of good behaviour has to apply equally, or its pointless and defeats the purpose of having the principle.
Ditto loyalty to the tribe is not always bad thing, and is intended to form a unified defence against threats. It becomes a bad thing if the threats are imagined threats, ie they are not real threats but are based on blind panic and assumptions not careful consideration, evidence and caution.
Respect for authority within the tribe is not a bad thing, because authority starts at a local level. It is only a bad thing if it excludes the recognition of higher or wider levels of authority.
Purity of beliefs within the tribe is not always a bad thing as beliefs start at a local level. What is bad is if this leads to minds being closed to beliefs outside the tribe, which might be better beliefs. But the tribe is not compelled to accept beliefs coming from outside the tribe, in a democracy.
Liberty is not a bad thing and does not crowd out the well being of others unless it compromises their well being in measurable, physical, and significant ways that are agreed to by the tribe as a whole and which people cannot reasonably escape from.
It would have been better to simply say that virtues such as wanting to be treated fairly must also extend to others in order to make sense, and tribal loyalty must be based on reason and evidence and not fear mongering about others, and obedience to authority must have conditions attached, because or blind obedience to authority in every circumstance can lead to people suffering needlessly.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:11 AM on 22 September 2019Greta Thunberg is a painful reminder of decades of climate failures
prove we are smart,
Here is further understand of how/why harmful and incorrect beliefs and actions become popular and resist being corrected.
As a person allows their pursuit of status or benefit for themselves, or a sub-set of current day humans they identify with, to become more powerful, that desire can overpower their ability or interest in improving their awareness and understanding to pursue sustainable improvements for the benefit of all of humanity, current day and into the distant future.
A robust presentation showing the reasons why self-interest is fundamentally unhelpful and unethical was made by Derek Parfit in his 1984 book "Reasons and Persons". You can read it to have a solid basis for that understanding, but simplistically it is common sense that self interest can get in the way of Helping Others, and can even result in popularity of excuses for acting in ways that are personally beneficial but are undeniably unnecessarily risking harm done to others or are actually harmful to others.
And Jonathan Haidt has identified a set of innate (fundamental) human characteristics. Those characteristsics can amplify a person's tendency to allow personal or Tribal self interest to overpower their ability or interest in improving their awareness and understanding to pursue sustainable improvements. The innate human concern for Caring/Helping (not harming), can be compromised by innate concern for:
- Fairness (from a selfish perspective - fair to me),
- Loyalty (to the tribe a person chooses to identify)
- Respect for Authority (in the Tribe identified with)
- Purity (beliefs of what is Best held by the Tribe identified with).
- Liberty (freedom to believe and do whatever is desired).
Related understanding is that people are not fundamentally unchangeably selfish or altruistic. They can start life with a higher level of selfishness or altruism than others. But the experiences of people can change them from their starting point. And telling stories based on the belief that it is Fundamentally Best for 'everyone to be freer to believe and do whatever they want', having that be the preeminent consideration, can be understood to be an unsustainable and potentially toxic environment for humans to develop in.
-
prove we are smart at 08:37 AM on 21 September 2019The Consensus Handbook: download and translations
Good explanation and easy to understand...I should of read this before writing up my placard from yesterdays climate strike march, easily understood visual exemplars. Very funny the satire mentioned in the Climate Change Debate: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver skit..Here's a link...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg
-
Greta Thunberg is a painful reminder of decades of climate failures
Nailed it Dana! Congrats. Hope it gets spread/replicated.
-
nigelj at 06:54 AM on 21 September 2019Greta Thunberg is a painful reminder of decades of climate failures
prove we are smart
"I am appalled by some of our " redneck-denier" media".
So am I, however these politically motivated clowns are like puffer fish trying to make the sceptical community look bigger than they really are. For example I've just read this article polling climate opinion among local government politicians in New Zealand, and the vast majority think humans are warming the climate, and that local government should play a part in solving the problem, and our local government includes a range of politicians from left to to right.
Of course actually getting meaningful action is the hard part, but its revealing about their views. The main scepticism about the science is in the farming communities, and we have a lot of dairy farming, so no surprise there,
-
Philippe Chantreau at 02:28 AM on 21 September 2019CO2 is plant food
Estoma,
I read this recently: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows
The SciAm article you linked refers to this recent study, which I believe I had also referenced recently after seeing in a French newspaper:
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/8/eaax1396
However, as the SciAm article rightfully reminds us, the greening is largely a red herring.
Whatever benefit may be had from increased CO2 for plant life, it is dwarfed by the most important factor that always has been and always will be water availability. That is water in sufficient but not excessive quantity and at a the appropriate time. Go ask the midwest farmers if the extra CO2 in the atmosphere helped their flooded fields last spring.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:12 AM on 21 September 2019Greta Thunberg is a painful reminder of decades of climate failures
prove we are smart,
The "Propaganda Model" developed by Edward S. Herman and presented in the book and movie "Manufacturing Consent", and recently reviewed and updated by Alan MacLeod in "Propaganda in the Information Age" continues to be one of the best explanations of what is going on.
Summarized and paraphrased: The undeserving powerful people in the status quo who desire more ability to personally benefit from defending and excusing increased freedom for people to believe what they want and do as they please (that Libertarian Free-Market fantasy they benefited from to the detriment of Others), have many ways to get stories told the way they prefer them to be told (and silence any story presentation that they dislike). Note that even science reports are Stories.
And the stories that get told often enough tend to get believed more. And the stories that connect with a passionate developed desire, including desires to resist being corrected, are powerfully believed even if the harmful incorrectness and ultimate unsustainability of the belief is glaringly obvious.
-
prove we are smart at 21:53 PM on 20 September 2019Greta Thunberg is a painful reminder of decades of climate failures
I am appalled by some of our " redneck-denier" media. I was just looking at youtube stuff about the Aussie climate strike day. I wont even link to Sky News Australia, nearly all the comments from their biased reporting/interviews were so similar to Trumpists/ conservative Rep viewpoints, i thought i was reading an American webpage!. So sad to realize some/many? in Australia believe this right wing propaganda..
-
Estoma at 21:48 PM on 20 September 2019CO2 is plant food
In the moderation, the following statement, "That planet is greening is not disputed - you dont seem to be following the detail of the problem." has me a little unsure of how to view this.
I've followed the claim that the Earth has been greening due to the increase of CO2 for at least the last decade. The NASA article I read last spring, as I remember, said that it was mostly due to the planting of trees in China and India. In addition the greening of the Arctic was also in play. It went on to say, as I remember, that it had become greener in the areas that were the greenest due to the increase of moisture. But it said that the browner areas were growing.
Then I recently ran upon this article in Scientific American in which they conclude that the greening stopped 20 years ago. They site two other sources, one of which is 9 years old. I blog quite a bit and feel unsure about engaging on this subject. I've been considering asking you guys about this for a couple of weeks.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-stopped-getting-greener-20-years-ago/
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:07 PM on 20 September 2019Greta Thunberg is a painful reminder of decades of climate failures
Excellent summary of the history.
Some minor additional points about the behaviour of the climate science deniers.
- Micheal Crichton was 'invited to testify' to Congress in 2005. This is not fiction. Part of his made-up rant was to question the validity of any science that has a range of possible results of 400%. He was probably referring to the possible range of warming due to a doubling of CO2 from 1.5 C to 6.0 C. He never mentions those details, just claims the 400% thingy.
- When President Bush Jr. publicly announced that the USA would withdraw from Kyoto he decalred that Americans did not need to change how they lived. Popular then. Maybe more popular now.
Other supporting global developments of understanding worth mentioning are the 1972 Stockholm Conference and all of the improved awareness and understanding that has followed it, and continues to be improved.
-
nigelj at 07:30 AM on 20 September 2019Greta Thunberg is a painful reminder of decades of climate failures
Well said, particularly the very last sentence. This climate war is unfortunately far from over: Trump strips California of power to set auto emission standards.
-
Skeptical Science New Research for Week #37, 2019
The recently published paper that discusses the increased population of lobster without also discussing the now increased population of black sea bass that eat lobsters is clearly not only badly skewed on a large scale but even when it comes to the very species that the paper claims to be concerned with. This isn't "local and ephemeral effects", it's a case of the increased lobster numbers being a blip until their predators increase as well.
Moderator Response:[DB] Hotlinked and shortened the source link.
-
MA Rodger at 23:20 PM on 19 September 2019There are genuine climate alarmists, but they're not in the same league as deniers
An update to #47, concerning the effect of reducing negative forcing when FF-use & its resulting aerosol-causing pollution is cut, CarbonBrief have an item with coverage of recently-published Shindell & Smith (2019) 'Climate and air-quality benefits of a realistic phase-out of fossil fuels' [Abstract]
-
Joe Wiseman at 23:16 PM on 19 September 2019Skeptical Science to join the Global Climate Strike on September 20!
I am walking in Stephenville, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada
-
MA Rodger at 21:02 PM on 19 September 2019CO2 effect is saturated
PringlesX @538,
You link to a particular YouTube lecture which is No 19 of a series of 61. We can see a 7% figure for the CO2-contribution to the total GH-effect as being part of the conclusions reached in Lecture 52. It would be incorrect to suggest this 7% figure is the actual value. It is not. In the absence of other GHGs, CO2 would provide 25% of today's GH-effect. With other GHGs, the actual figure is dependent on the proportion of cloud/clear-sky so cannot be precisely calculated but is not far short of 20%.
There are many video lectures in the lecture series you cite, so which rabbit-holes it dives down to reach its eventual conclusions in Video 61 would take a lot of viewing. Suffice to say, I have seen no indication that the lecturer with all his mathmatical confidence properly understands the effect of CO2 on our climate and his insistence that H2O is the stronger GHG is presented without mention of the H2O only being in that atmosphere in significant levels because of the presence of CO2.
I'm not sure of the source of this graphic below (it features deep in a Clive Best comment-thread) but it is quite instructive, as is this video which uses the same W Pacific IR data, The areas where the IR into space is dropped below the surface temerature S-B line show the size of the GH-effect and the contribitions from different gases.
The 61 iLectureOnline lectures yo cite @538 makes much of how much IR makes it unabsorbed from the surface into space. The GH-effect does not work like that, It relies on the temperature of the atmosphere at the altitude from which IR can make it unabsorbed into space.
Add H2O and this will not effect the 15 micron band. The level of CO2 means the altitude with a clear run at space is far above any significant H2O effect. So that important altitude remains defined by CO2.
Add more CO2 and the important altitude rises and, excepting the small central part that is already up in the stratosphere, such a rise in altitude means a lower temperature at the altitude emitting into space. The lower the temperature, to less the emitted radiation (as per the S-B curves) and the resulting need for the planet to warm until inward/outward radiation are again in balance.
-
nigelj at 16:47 PM on 19 September 2019Skeptical Science to join the Global Climate Strike on September 20!
Related research: A Harvard study identified the precise reason protests are an effective way to cause political change. :)
-
Capistan at 09:29 AM on 19 September 2019CO2 is plant food
Also plants get more nutritious at higher temperatures which would counteract any drop in nutrition due to higher CO2 at the FIXED temps the experiments were done at.
This of course makes sense as the world did not fall to pieces when CO2 levels were higher in the past.
It is kind of like "intelligent design" if you wish, or if you are an evolutionist, plants evolving to cope with whatever life could throw at them. Or maybe the Gaia hypothesis?
Moderator Response:[PS] Sloganeering. You must justify your comment with links to backing research. You continue to behave as if comments policy does not apply to you.
That planet is greening is not disputed - you dont seem to be following the detail of the problem.
Final Warning
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.
-
prove we are smart at 06:56 AM on 19 September 2019Skeptical Science to join the Global Climate Strike on September 20!
Yep, just finished my placard. I regretted missing our huge local anti csg/fracking rally a few years ago. Finally old enough now to say what i feel and not care if others disagree! WAKEUP Australia....
-
citizenschallenge at 00:46 AM on 19 September 2019'Trollbots' Swarm Twitter with Attacks on Climate Science Ahead of UN Summit
Beyond that, everytime I hear such bs diversions I have to wonder:
What does anyone's "hypocracy" (or lack thereof) have to do with the physical reality of manmade global warming and its impact on our weather system and biosphere?
-
Rob1977 at 15:12 PM on 18 September 2019Skeptical Science to join the Global Climate Strike on September 20!
I'll be attending in Perth - hope to see you all there :)
-
DPiepgrass at 12:54 PM on 18 September 2019'Trollbots' Swarm Twitter with Attacks on Climate Science Ahead of UN Summit
I like to remind them what "hypocrite" means. It means not practicing what you preach, and I don't know anybody who is saying you should never use an airplane. We need to reach zero net emissions, but this doesn't mean we can't still have jet fuel. We do need carbon taxes and we need to eventually replace fossil fuel with a combination of biofuels and batteries... so pretty much the only way you could be a hypocrite on this would be to vote for politicians who oppose carbon taxes, oppose biofuels or oppose batteries.
-
scaddenp at 12:52 PM on 18 September 2019Wind energy is a key climate change solution
Falseprogress appears to object to renewables primarily on aesthetics grounds. (And obviously either prefers the look of coalmines or lives a long way from them). Should we be continuing to create climate problems with fossil fuel because we dont like the aesthetic of solutions? Personally, I would rather not have windmills and hydro and frankly like many (most?) with environmental concerns, limit my energy use accordingly. However, society's energy-hunger is unabated, so wind and solar are next best option. It is hard enough to get people to pay any more for energy as it is, let alone pay the cost of nuclear. Continuing to burn fossil fuel is not an alternative option. When you can convince society to drastically reduce energy consumption (and population) or pay a lot more for it, then there is a way to get rid of windmills.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:34 PM on 18 September 2019Wind energy is a key climate change solution
FalseProgress@22,
I agree with the need for "scaling down society", but I disagree with the scaling down being restricted to population.
Achieving and improving on the robustly established Sustainable Development Goals is, realistically, the only viable future for humanity.
There are a diversity of new developments and ways to correct what has incorrectly developed popularity and profitability. But the total impact of the total population is what needs to be corrected to achieve and improve on the Sustainable Development Goals.
The current situation is indeed unsustainable. Limiting the population can be part of the solution, but limiting the impacts of the way people live, how much they consume and how much waste and pollution their actions cause, is the more important focus. Associated with limiting the impacts of the largest consuming and largest impacting people, there is a need to ensure that all of the people actually live at least a basic decent life. Note that Ethically/Morally, competitions for status (wealth, power and image) where everyone is said to have the chance to live at least a basic decent life but many people will suffer through a less than basic decent life is ethically unacceptable.
Current day people living in ways that cannot be developed up to by all others if they wished to, and especially living in ways that simply cannot be continued to be enjoyed by future humans (fossil fuel use is non-renewable), is unacceptable no matter how small the total population is.
-
FalseProgress at 10:00 AM on 18 September 2019Wind energy is a key climate change solution
Attn. Moderator(s):
This will be my last post on this page, but I'd like to ask why you allow images like the first one below, which claim to compare wind farm blight to long-standing blight from mining but only show the latter. The problem under discussion is NEW damage from the world's 355,000+ wind turbines - and growing. One assumes that goes without saying for people trying to understand objections to newer eyesores. This site is supposed to be about education, right?
The image titled "Oh yuck..." (single distant wind turbine) looks like the work of a schoolkid who barely understands the scale of Big Wind. The McDonald's photo (not from this forum) is a blatant attempt to manipulate perspective, and the oil field photo (also found elsewhere) shows not a single wind turbine. If it was honest it would at least show all the diesel trucks that haul them and mine their materials. Intrusions from wind turbines are now visible at far greater distances than mines, and the impact is cumulative, not subtractive. You also have to add rare earth mining scars thousands of miles from actual wind projects.
Below is another form of propaganda that misrepresents wind turbines' scale and context. You don't get this sunny, pastoral aura when collosal machines loom over scenery.
Here's what they really look like, with some solar sprawl mixed in (I'm fine with rooftop solar). Everyone who understands the scale of wind projects should be frank about their moral angle. This is what the Green New Deal wants to greatly expand.
Moderator Response:[PS] Oversized images, rhetoric.
-
FalseProgress at 08:55 AM on 18 September 2019Wind energy is a key climate change solution
Rob Honeycutt at 14:31 PM on 29 July, 2019 "False Progress... Clearly, from your website, it seems you strongly object to the look of wind turbines, but what's your alternative? Personally, it seems to me wind turbines are infinitely more preferable to things like mountain top removal to get at coal seams."
You can't equate scalping and stabbing the top of a long ridge to a newer form of mountaintop removal? Is there some criteria that says a certain amount of rock must be removed? And repeating that countless times still won't be ruining mountains? I'm a veteran of this bleak debate and constantly see moderators who accept almost no criticism of the tallest urban sprawl ever invented. If you tell them they're lying they'll ban you for "ad-homimen" attacks and line-out anything with a source that isn't half-written by the wind industry (eerily similar to working for Trump's EPA and mentioning climate change).
Right-wingers have long called environmentalism a "religion" (never agreed with that) but I think Big Wind is now proving that claim in a specific context. As notable "sustainability" critic Paul Kingsnorth put it, you're "destroying the planet to save the planet." It's beyond my capability to understand why HUGE machines all over landscapes are now considered acceptable. These aren't just any machines, they're visible for dozens of miles, day and night. If you were going to care, you already would. I get it.
As for my alternative, it's a tough sell because it involves scaling down society to a smaller population that might be sustained with nuclear, solar and small wind turbines, but might last only as long as fossil fuels remain to build infrastructure and many other things we take for granted.
The assumption that global economic growth aka bloat MUST be made sustainable is the concept most people won't get past. If you re-frame the question to "Is it MORALLY right to keep destroying nature in new ways?" you get a whole different context. I've found that context impossible to achieve in any pro wind power forum, and have concluded that Big Wind engineers see nature no differently than Big Oil, Gas and Coal. It's just new branding with most of the old elements intact. Same truck drivers, same road-builders, same loggers, same crane-riggers, just less obvious smoke and water contamination.
Moderator Response:[DB] Inflammatory rhetoric and tone are unhelpful in an evidence-based discussion. Please construct comments to advance the discussion, not hinder it.
Please keep image widths at 450 or less. -
nigelj at 08:41 AM on 18 September 2019'Trollbots' Swarm Twitter with Attacks on Climate Science Ahead of UN Summit
shoyemore @4
"A favourite is to accuse anyone concerned about climate of being a hypocrite if they take a trip in an airplane."
Yes I see this repeatedly, although its quite an old one in my experience. The obvious rebuttal is to point out that currently some people really do need to meet face to face and flying is the only realistic option, and that some airlines offer the opportunity to buy carbon offsets.
Such accusations of hypocrisy aren't logical and the denialists know it, but use them because they play to our instincts about right and wrong and inflame our emotions. People need to realise they are being gamed by the denialists. I'm sure most do realise this.
As to the huge lists if lies published about Trump by JH and the media (Washington Post I think) these are well documented and beyond debate I would have thought, but don't seem to deter his "base" which says much about his base, but I suspect the lists of lies will wear down Trumps credibility with middle ground people. He's not polling well in critical states.
-
Jim Hunt at 08:18 AM on 18 September 2019'Trollbots' Swarm Twitter with Attacks on Climate Science Ahead of UN Summit
Shoyemore@4 - I am inclined to agree with your analysis. Here is the first overview paper we'll be referencing in our forthcoming in depth investigation of "Trump as Trollbot":
https://www.salon.com/2019/09/17/donald-trump-king-of-chaos-new-research-on-right-wing-psychology-points-toward-big-trouble-ahead/Donald Trump is the King of Chaos. He has lied at least 12,000 times since becoming president of the United States.
These lies are often obvious and lazy — such as incorrectly claiming that Hurricane Dorian would hit Alabama and then forcing scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to parrot his lies. Trump’s lies are made no less dangerous when they happen to be lazy and obvious.
-
FalseProgress at 08:05 AM on 18 September 2019Wind energy is a key climate change solution
The wind power issue has taught me that purist environmentalists (protecting nature intrinsically) are far rarer than I assumed (maybe 5% vs. 15% as a guess). Today's environmentalism seeks to sustain modern life with sprawling forms of non-dense energy, and nature's physical grandeur is the big sacrifice. There's also a refusal to admit that energy gains and CO2-reduction are very weak in terms of vast acreage needed to create them. I call it Blight for Naught.
Today's "environmentalists" have decided (for everyone else) that scenery no longer matters. They have to know it's being destroyed, but post deceptive photos ("Oh yuck, look......a wind turbine" - never a whole ridge ruined by them) as they claim to illustrate new vs. old scars. They also won't admit that wind turbines only add to visible damage, formerly the domain of fossil fuel extraction, mining, logging, etc. (plenty of logging is done for mountaintop wind). Nothing is being improved in terms of natural aesthetics. We just see more machines, less nature, and corporate lingo like "installed capacity" to describe ruined scenery.
Here's a far more accurate view of wind energy sprawl: mountaintop desecration, ocean views lost, roads & construction
The total human footprint has grown enormously since the late 1990s when Big Wind took off. There are now over 355,000 wind turbines on the planet, and Mark Jacobson & Co. would like to see over 10 times that many, which radically increases today's "acceptable" bird & bat carnage.
The topic of dying bats is dodged several times in these comments, and the species of birds killed by wind turbines isn't the same as what cats take out, but we're told it can never matter because we've got to coddle this thing called "civilization" at any cost. Big Wind supporters have merely sold out to a new industry and gravy train. That's all I ask them to admit at this point.
Moderator Response:[DB] Sloganeering and inflammatory rhetoric snipped.
-
shoyemore at 07:48 AM on 18 September 2019'Trollbots' Swarm Twitter with Attacks on Climate Science Ahead of UN Summit
I noticed this a few months ago - climate change deniers, having been thoroughly trounced in sophisticated scienyific arguments, have moved to simply spreading chaos. A favourite is to accuse anyone concerned about climate of being a hypocrite if they take a trip in an airplane.
This looks like a fairly unintelligent approach, but is actually quite menacing, and is a sophisticated strategy, even if the "arguments" are stupid. It needs a sophisticated counter-strategy. Climate change deniers never had a commitment to the truth.
-
nigelj at 06:17 AM on 18 September 2019'Trollbots' Swarm Twitter with Attacks on Climate Science Ahead of UN Summit
Such is the nature of the internet that one well funded organisation could saturate the internet with climate disinformation. While twitter try to plug leaks to stop this (and they should) other leaks are found and other websites exist. The internet is the greatest propaganda tool in human history, and could be doing humanity more harm than good! Close it down I say....
-
Jim Hunt at 06:09 AM on 18 September 2019'Trollbots' Swarm Twitter with Attacks on Climate Science Ahead of UN Summit
In a strange coincidence over recent days I have been following the exponential growth across a variety of media of a meme alleging that:
A ship carrying passengers who included a group of ‘Climate Change Warriors’ who are concerned about melting Arctic ice got stuck in the ice halfway between Norway and the North Pole.
You can read all about it here:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2019/09/ship-of-fools-iii-escapes-arctic-sea-ice/
Needless to say the "story" is a most egregious example of the current outbreak of "fake news" described above.
One of the alleged trollbots even had the audacity to claim to be the 45th President of the United States of America!
Moderator Response:[DB] Please limit image widths to 450 or less.
-
John Mason at 05:48 AM on 18 September 2019Rebellious Times
Hi Tina,
If you contact us (link at the bottom of every page, RHS) giving your email address, I'll be sure to get back to you. BW - John
-
Tina at 02:30 AM on 18 September 2019Rebellious Times
Hello John, I am a member of XR Brecon group and want to contact you personally regarding the possibility of doing a talk to our community. Do you have an email address, please?
Thanks. Tina
-
Kuidaskassikaeb at 00:55 AM on 18 September 2019'Trollbots' Swarm Twitter with Attacks on Climate Science Ahead of UN Summit
First they ignore you
Then they laugh at you
Then they fight you
Then they send the troll bots
Then maybe you win
-
prove we are smart at 13:18 PM on 17 September 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #37
Yes, i missed the anti csg rally, but this march is well needed. Just need to sort out my placard.. Never started a topic but want to know if this carbon capture process is a useful way to use on a big scale? https://youtu.be/Fdh_j_KOmrY
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:33 AM on 17 September 2019CO2 effect is saturated
PringlesX:
You ask, "Do you have some good sources that made you convinced about the large effect?"
I am reminded of a time, many years ago when we had some construction workers at a research site I worked at, who were quite intrigued by all the instrumentation and such. One asked "what did you do to get a job like this?" I answered, "I have a PhD in Physical Geography". I think that was more preparation and work than he had hoped for.
[My speciality was Climatology.]
There is no one source that "convinced" me. There is a huge body of science behind our understanding of climate, dating back to the 1800s. If you are curous about the history, I suggest reading "The Discovery of Global Warming".
I first started learning about climate as an undergrad in the 1970s, mostly via textbooks. In the 1980s, as a grad student, I was introduced to much of the primary literature (as it was at the time). As such, much of my understanding comes from the primary literature, not web pages or books. Here at SkS, I have on several occasions referenced the following paper:
Manabe and Wetherald (1967) Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere With a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity
The link to the journal is here, and a free copy is also available here. The paper describes a one-dimensional climate model that includes exactly the kind of calculations I have been discussing with you. The fact that this is from 1967 should tell you that people have been working on this for a long time.
Of course, our understanding has improved since then. People often refer to the IPCC reports, which attempt to give a summary of current understanding. For a simpler version, I think the very first report in 1990 is easier to read than the later ones, because it covers the basics to a greater extent.
If you want to focus on IR radiation transfer only, then you can play with a model on-line at this web site. Note that radiation transfer is dependent on things like cloud, temperature, other gases, location, etc., so that web page gives you a lot of options to choose some typical defaults. You can choose an altitude, and direction (up or down). At the very least, playing with that model might help you realize that there is no one single source of information that will convince you (or anyone).
As the discussion continues, be careful with statements like "But still, sorry, i cant see the big difference in insulation effect with the information you are providing." That starts to look like an argument from increduility, which is a pretty weak position.
Scaddenp has already referred to CO2 doubling causing a reduction of 4W/m2 in outgoing IR radiation at the top of the atmosphere. Before you say "gee, that seems small", the climatological question is "what changes have to happen to bring the system back into equilibrium?"That answer was already provided by scaddenp, too: 1.1C temperature rise (global average) without feedbacks, or more like 3C with known feedbacks. You can see some of this in the Manabe and Wetherald paper I reference above. To put it simply, adding 4W/m2 to every part of the surface, for the length of time it takes to readjust, adds up to a lot of energy.
-
scaddenp at 19:55 PM on 16 September 2019CO2 effect is saturated
The straight radiative balance (ie doubling CO2 gives you an extra 4w/m2 of surface irradation) would only raise temperatures 1.1C. It is the feedbacks that lift this to around 3C, in part from increased water vapour as well as albedo and clouds.
-
PringlesX at 17:27 PM on 16 September 2019CO2 effect is saturated
Thank you both.
I believe The 7% figure is the Co2-band area minus the H2O overlap.
But yes, regarding the total effect causing increase in temperature there are different complicated models taking feedback effects into account
that talks about much higher percentage effect."The planetary energy balance is determined by fluxes at the Top Of Atmosphere. "
Yes, that seems to be the case.(The last clips in this series (about 40-61) are explaining how the frequency overtones developes with altitude which could be interesting for those readers not familiar with it.)
https://youtu.be/XIBsjBvRTew -
scaddenp at 14:23 PM on 16 September 2019CO2 effect is saturated
Might also be worth pointing out that Bob's diagrams are worth studying for understanding what is going on, but for real applications (whether GPS, heat-seeking missiles or climate models), you need to do full integration of the radiative transfer equations which funnily enough back the consensus science. Observations of change in radiation as CO2 increases from both earth looking up and satellite looking down match the solutions from the RTE integration with very high precision. See the examples here. My favourite paper working through it all is Ramanathan and Coakley 1978.
I am curious as to where the "7%" came from. This paper which I believe to be the consensus position makes it more like 20%.
-
Eclectic at 12:18 PM on 16 September 2019CO2 effect is saturated
PringlesX , it might be worthwhile taking a step back, to look at the bigger context.
The planetary energy balance is determined by fluxes at the Top Of Atmosphere. But the TOA is a band of altitudes, depending on different radiatively-active molecules. The H2O effect is large — but occurs at lower altitude, because cold-temperature precipitation means that H2O molecules are scanty at the high altitudes (where CO2 is still "going strong").
So despite the IR radiation overlap between CO2 and H2O, the end result is that the CO2's greenhouse effect is disproportionately large for its small presence.
( I'm quite uncertain about the correctness of the 7% figure you mentioned ~ but there are knowledgeable posters here who might be prepared to discuss that particular point. But whether 7% or 17% etcetera, it is the end result of energy balance which matters.)
The other point is that you must consider the lapse rate , in looking at the mechanism of "greenhouse". Very important.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:44 AM on 16 September 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #36, 2019
nigelj@4,
And new developments based on existing knowledge can also help, like the use of radiative cooling to produce power at night, as reported in this Bob McDonald science blog post on CBC News "Generating light from darkness"
-
PringlesX at 07:48 AM on 16 September 2019CO2 effect is saturated
Yes, it has an effect on how broad/diffuse the radiation border is. But still, sorry, i cant see the big difference in insulation effect with the information you are providing.
Also on top of that, CO2 frequency bands not covered by Water vapour is only responsible for about 7% of the energy (?). Decreasing that already very thin transmission border even thinner doesnt seem to be able to do any catastrophic changes in insulation effect by itself.
Unless we could find better curves or explanation. Do you have some good sources that made you convinced about the large effect? -
Bob Loblaw at 06:08 AM on 16 September 2019CO2 effect is saturated
PringlesX:
Please note that the graph I have provided is not an accurate cacluation of IR transmisison in the atmosphere - it is a very crude example of how IR radiation would be transfered in an idealized "200 layer" situation. For real atmospheric transmission, the same Beer's Law applies, but you need to also consider:
- A very large number of specific wavelengths of IR radiation, each with its own absorption coefficients
- A large number of radiatively-active gases (of which CO2 is but one), each absorbing in varying amounts at a number of different wavelengths.
- Each layer in the atmosphere also emits IR radiation (upwards, downwards, and sideways), so the total travelling either upwards or downwards at any height is a combination of the amount emitted in that layer plus the amount transmitted from adjacent layers.
- The emissions or IR radiation depend on local temperature and gas concentrations. (Good absorbers are also good emitters, so adding CO2 makes the atmosphere emit IR radiation more efficiently.)
- Radiation is not the only mechanism moving energy up and down through the atmosphere. Convective motion transfers energy, as either heat or water vapour (evaporated at the surface and condensed at altitude).
So the figure above is a very simplistic version of total IR radiation transfer.
Climatologists have "done the math" on this. (Well, a lot of the radiation theory was extensively developed by the military in the 1960s so their heat-seeking missles could use IR radiation to detect hot items they wanted to blow up.) The math says that adding CO2 will have a significant effect on radiation transfer in the atmosphere.
The math says "the atmosphere is not saturated for IR radiation transfer, for any useful or accurate concept of "saturation". The only "saturation" that occurs is for useless and innacurate descriptions of the process.
The area under or over the curves in my graph simply demonstrates that for two reasonable absorption coefficients, where the start and end points are the same (1 @ layer 0, and 0 @ layer 200, so "saturated" by one definition), you get very different results in the middle. When you see someone arguing that "the CO2 effect is saturated", there are two possibilities:
- They haven't done the proper math and looked at what happens in the middle (or are relying on a source that hasn't told them about what happens in the middle).
- They know that what happens in the middle and are not telling you about it because they know it refutes their argument.
My guess is that most people fall under category 1. If they are relying on a source for their information (rather than calculating it themselves), then most of the time they are relying on a source that can probably be connected eventually to someone that falls in category 2.
-
PringlesX at 03:57 AM on 16 September 2019CO2 effect is saturated
Thanks for your answer.
As i see it, this graph depicts how diffused this transmission border is. And its already thin and very high up in the athmosphere compared to the number of layers the photons have to process.
Isnt safe to say that the areas ABOVE the lines, are the real difference between the CO2 levels from a photon perspective? If that is so, then it can be argued that the scenario is more or less saturated? -
michael sweet at 22:32 PM on 15 September 2019What will Earth look like in 2100?
Curtain eater,
In general it is better to ask one question in one post and make another post to ask another question. Use the search function in the upper left to find posts that address your questions. Often existing posts answer your question. OP's usually have more information than comments.
The ocean is so big that if all the ice sheets melt the ocean will still be the same salinity as it is today. The question is how long it might be before it gets cold enough for the sheets to reform. That may be 100,000 years or longer. Climate changes today are essentially permanent for future people.
There is too much pollution to launch it into space. There are people who think carbon dioxide can be injected into the Earth to get rid of it. Other pollutants would need to be dealt with differently. The job of injecting carbon dioxide into the Earth is so large that many people feel it is impossible. It would at least be very expensive.
The quesion of "no return" depends on how you ask it. If you want to return to the climate of 1900 than it may be too late to do anything in your lifetime. It may be possible to return to 1900 in a few hundred years at great expense. Who will pay for it? If you want to return to the climate of 2015 that would be cheaper (although very expensive).
The bottom line for me is what climate is best. In general, the best climate is the one you are used to. Rapid change in climate is bad because you are not used to it. For example, farmers grow crops that require certain temperatures and rain patterns. If the climate shifts than farmers have to grow different foods and will not have the right equipment for the new crops.
If it gets hot enough many tropical areas will be too hot to live in. Where will all the people who live there move? We may have passed the point where hundreds of millions of people have to move to survive. One million people moving from Syria caused huge problems in Europe. How much would people like seeing 100 million people moving?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:15 PM on 15 September 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #37
"You are such a big country," she says. "In Sweden, when we demand politicians to do something, they say, 'It doesn't matter what we do — because just look at the U.S.'
"I think you have an enormous responsibility" to lead climate efforts, she adds. "You have a moral responsibility to do that."That comment from Greta regarding the USA is stating the long understood ethical expectations/requirements of those who are more able to influence things. But it is not fair to simply name the USA as the required leader. The expectations are for all of the more 'developed nations' to lead the sustainable corrections of the harmful unsustainable developments that have occurred (including increasing awareness and understanding), and help all of the less 'developed nations' advance in less harmful more sustainable ways.
That has been the globally agreed understanding for a long time, since before the Kyoto Accord which presents action expectations based on that understanding.
But it is an understanding that is improved by replacing 'developed nations' with 'fortunate people'.
The result is understanding that embraces all human interaction, not simply the actions of 'Nations'. It includes the actions within nations and within communities (admittedly it does not properly include consideration of future generations). And it more accurately highlights the portion of the population that needs to have its 'worth or merit' evaluated against a high expectation of helpfulness, with the truly most fortunate (in all nations, and in all multi-nationals) required to be 'most helpful' to those who are less fortunate (any more fortunate person found to be less helpful than a less fortunate person deserves to lose status).
That may sound 'radical'. But versions of that understanding have exited for 1000s of years, with powerful groups within the most fortunate portion of the population seen to be consistently fighting against that awareness and understanding becoming more popular, fighting against it developing into a Common Sense.
-
nigelj at 06:51 AM on 15 September 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #36
The following text is from a climate change article at stuff.co.nz which is a large online newspaper in New Zealand. It has a startling admission in a revealing paragraph I have highlighted in bold type:
"We've witnessed that in the reader reaction to Stuff's Quick! Save the Planet project, which aims to make the realities of climate change feel urgent, tangible and unignorable. Today, we've joined Covering Climate Now – an ambitious, week-long global initiative emphasising the paramount importance of the climate story. "
"Covering Climate Now's roster features more than 240 news outlets, including the Guardian, CBS, the Times of India, and Asahi Shimbun. You'll see some of their stories on Stuff this week, alongside our original reporting. A broad selection of New Zealand's mainstream media is on board: 1 News, RNZ, Newshub, the NZ Herald, Newsroom and the Spinoff, as well as Stuff."
"Call it atonement. Collectively – and internationally – we as the media have for years allowed our taste for conflict to create the false impression that climate science was uncertain and a fit topic for debate. But as respectable media outlets increasingly dispense with any last remnants of climate science denialism, we're getting better at reporting this epoch-defining story accurately and constructively."
" During this Covering Climate Now week, Stuff will investigate the impact of trees, introduce New Zealand's climate change power-brokers, talk to trailblazing farmers learning to adapt, forecast what daily life could look like in 2050, and provide crucial information to help you vote in next month's council elections. In a new feature, Climate Lessons, scientists will share the knowledge gained from their research careers, and our ongoing Climate: Explained column will provide answers to common questions."
Prev 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 Next
