Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 Next
Comments 9651 to 9700:
-
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."
-
Bob Loblaw at 05:19 AM on 15 September 2019CO2 effect is saturated
PringlesX:
Let me try to explain from a slightly different approach. First, keep track of the point that a coefficient of 0.95 means IR radiation is more easily transmitted through a single layer that when the coefficient is 0.9. So the 0.9 curve is the one with higher absorbing gases.
In the graph I posted in comment 529, moving from left to right tells you the probability of a photon being transmitted through to layer #x. After 20 layers:
- with a coefficient of 0.95, the probability is 0.397
- with a coefficient of 0.9, the probability is 0.135
Another way of thinking about it is the absorption. By layer 20:
- with a coefficient of 0.95, the probability of being absorbed before reaching the top of layer 20 is 0.603
- with a coefficient of 0.9, the probability of being absorbed before reaching the top of layer 20 is 0.865.
Now, iet's think about what happens to a photon that is emitted upwards from high in the atmosphere, 20 layers from space. What are its chances of either being absorbed in those 20 layers, versus its chances of being transmitted to space in one step? We can get that from the graph, too, because the graph gives us both the probability of absorption and the probability of transmission:
- with a coefficient of 0.95, the probability of transmission through 20
- layers (i.e., reaching space) is 0.397
- with a coefficient of 0.9, the probability of transmission is 0.135
Getting back the the "saturation" argument, we can see that decreasing the transmission coefficient from 0.95 to 0.9 (increasing absorption, due to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations) reduces the chance that IR radiation from a height 20 layers from space will be lost directly to space. So, the IR radiation that does reach space is more likely to be emitted at a higher altitude (close to space).
The "fact" that the whole atmosphere (200 layers) is "saturated" (no direct transmission) misses this important feature.
Does that help?
-
Curtain Eater at 21:40 PM on 14 September 2019What will Earth look like in 2100?
This is basically just curiosity regarding science, (I'm a high school chemistry student so I apologize if this comment seems really stupid) but salt lowers the freezing point of water, right? So when ice melts and sea levels rise, would that make it less likely for example, for ice caps to re-freeze at a hypothetical future time? And if in our future there's some wild devised way to "clean" air, where would the pollutants go? Like let's say, hypothetically, a device is created that "scrubs" air of pollutants, what would be done with it? Sort of like when you shampoo your carpet and get rid of the dirty water afterwards I guess. I'm really just spitballing if I'm being honest, because with ADHD I have so much natural curiosity. But could that "dirty water" scrubbed from the air be put in some kind of small, pressurized capsule, and released into space? How do pollutants affect a vacuum? I don't know how that really works.
Additionally, if ways to regress are eventually devised, still hypothetically speaking, how much of a "comeback" could even be made? If any? Some people have claimed that we're already past a "point of no return" but I don't know if that's credible. Can there even be a point of no return? What determines "no return"?
-
Zoli at 20:39 PM on 14 September 2019Climate denier scientists think these 5 arguments will persuade EU and UN leaders
Sorry but deniers don't need to persuade leaders. See climate action tracker, it tells everything.
-
Human 2932847 at 19:44 PM on 14 September 2019The North Atlantic ocean current, which warms northern Europe, may be slowing
Thank you for taking the time to help again.
Point taken about about the global effects of an AMOC shutdown. I was just thinking about Europe, or rather the bit where I live, just for simplicity.
Would a slowdown/shutdown of AMOC directly affect sea level on UK coasts ?
(BTW I wouldn't say a debunk means the final and definitive answer or end of disagreement. eg. Flat Earth has been debunked but the controversy and disagreement continue).
-
nigelj at 09:59 AM on 14 September 2019Climate denier scientists think these 5 arguments will persuade EU and UN leaders
Postkey @15
“If the predictions of Nordhaus’s Damage Function were true, then everyone—including Climate Change Believers (CCBs)—should just relax. The 8.5% decline that Nordhaus predicts from a 6 degree increase in average global temperature (here CCDs will have to pretend that AGW is real) would take 130 years if nothing were done to attenuate Climate Change...We should all just sit back and enjoy the extra warmth.”
ROFL. Noble words, but have you ever done any research into the reliability of economists predictions of gdp? Maybe even a simple google search? Economic predictions of this sort have proven to be virtually worthless, because economics is based on absurd assumptions about human behaviour.
Economists can't even predict gdp growth reliably a decade ahead much less in a century due to climate impacts. Economists can't see the next recession coming and 99% of them didn't see the GFC coming, by way of a simple example of their uselessness. In fact economists have a terrible record at predicting anything as below:
fivethirtyeight.com/features/economists-are-bad-at-predicting-recessions/
www.theguardian.com/money/2017/sep/02/economic-forecasting-flawed-science-data
Therefore humanity can take no comfort from anything Norduas says on economic growth. All we can say for sure is the impact of climate change on economic growth won't be good, and could be catastrophic. Nordhaus totally ignores the very real possibility of run away climate change that leads to disruption so severe that our civilisation and its institutions and economic systems collapses entirely, taking any economic growth down with them, and / or refugee crises totally destabilise the system.
It's also important to consider that economic growth is only one small part of what climate change does to the economy, one that totally ignores specific yet crucial effects like disease and food security. You can have reasonable economic growth, but be facing dire problems in critical areas.
Instead it is better to look at impacts a changing climate would have on the economy from a more holistic and wholistic and science based perspective as below:
www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/376708/dire-warning-on-us-climate-change-impacts
Economists have some use for analysing costs, but Nordhaus makes a total mess of this, refer the link I posted @11. Many assumptions are made and many problems are ignored or have token costs awarded to them. How can we even put a price on species loss?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:07 AM on 14 September 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #36, 2019
doug_bostrom@3,
In addition to pitching fossil fuels for emergency energy needs, I would add that lots of easy to access fossil fuels could be incredibly helpful in the future for humans to mitigate the harmful effects of a natural extreme cooling event.
In fact, that could even be pitched to a religious person as part of God's plan, for humans to figure out how to use the fossil fuels to off-set or limit harsh natural climate changes. God's plan could have been for humans to figure out the natural climate cycles and find and figure out how to extract fossil fuels, and save them in the ground for such a future emergency use. Humanity may even be able to use them in the event of an asteroid striking the planet.
-
Postkey at 08:17 AM on 14 September 2019Climate denier scientists think these 5 arguments will persuade EU and UN leaders
If?
“If the predictions of Nordhaus’s Damage Function were true, then everyone—including Climate Change Believers (CCBs)—should just relax. An 8.5 percent fall in GDP is twice as bad as the “Great Recession”, as Americans call the 2008 crisis, which reduced real GDP by 4.2% peak to trough. But that happened in just under two years, so the annual decline in GDP was a very noticeable 2%. The 8.5% decline that Nordhaus predicts from a 6 degree increase in average global temperature (here CCDs will have to pretend that AGW is real) would take 130 years if nothing were done to attenuate Climate Change, according to Nordhaus’s model (see Figure 1). Spread over more than a century, that 8.5% fall would mean a decline in GDP growth of less than 0.1% per year. At the accuracy with which change in GDP is measured, that’s little better than rounding error. We should all just sit back and enjoy the extra warmth.”
-
PringlesX at 07:21 AM on 14 September 2019CO2 effect is saturated
OK, i see what you mean after i reread your post. But the graph description also says Beers Law decay. Is that curve really applicable for energy transmitted into space for each layers?
If yes, what coeffecient is 400 ppm corresponding to, compared to 800ppm? -
PringlesX at 07:12 AM on 14 September 2019CO2 effect is saturated
I am sorry for perhaps making a basic question (my first post). But in that last submitted graph the first layer is numbered to the left where most of the effect is happening. So shouldnt that left side be seen as the surface of the earth? And the right side be seen as space?
-
nigelj at 06:23 AM on 14 September 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #36, 2019
Grid reliability with renewables is a non issue that can be easily resolved. More and more renewables will push the system to the limits, which means storage will be required, such as battery storage or pumped hydro, and if the economics of this are problematic at scale, nuclear power can provide some of the storage function by providing stable baseload at moderate cost (not that I'm much of a nuclear power fan, but its an option) or limited use of gas fired for emergency shortages like DC says. The point is we have options going forwards.
-
Doug Bostrom at 02:06 AM on 14 September 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #36, 2019
"...our species will survive but never again at todays advanced level."
In the developed world we sit at the apex of a very fragile pyramid, our tap-and-swipe Eloi indolence supported by a spindly web of free market optimization. Earlier this year a 13 minute unscheduled power outage in Japan caused multi-month stoppage of some 1/3 of the world's NAND flash memory production, this manufacturing being highly concentrated, lacking redudancy but also extremely sensitive to disruptions.
One way to pitch fossil fuel preservation to folks who can't or won't understand its other problems might be to pitch it as a robust and easily exploited backup energy source for the case of another "Carrington Event." Ideally combustion of fossil fuels would be an exceptional activity, reserved for cases of emergency need.
-
prove we are smart at 17:38 PM on 13 September 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #36, 2019
I often wonder what have we got to lose? If we reduce our reliance on fossil fuel use,everyone and the environment will benefit..if we continue with fossil fuel use and catastrophic postive feedback loops develop with no way to stop them getting worse, why take that chance? The status quo has to change or were dooming ourselves along with our currently rapidly accelerating 6th extinction event. I think our species will survive but never again at todays advanced level..
-
prove we are smart at 17:19 PM on 13 September 2019Climate denier scientists think these 5 arguments will persuade EU and UN leaders
The bogus claims from these hundred+ climate denier scientists ..Is it too simplistic/harmful to name and shame in a BIG way these 2% ...
-
prove we are smart at 17:05 PM on 13 September 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #36
Mal Adapted @ 8 & 10, an interesting discussion accompanying those 2 charts and how best to understand them , thanks for the links. A quote from Mark Twain i use on my signature from another forum seems applicable here.." Travel is fatal to bigotry, prejudice and narrow-mindedness ".
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:02 PM on 13 September 2019Climate denier scientists think these 5 arguments will persuade EU and UN leaders
nigelj@11,
One of the most grossly inaccurate assumptions made by the likes of Nordhaus is the belief that perceptions of prosperity and success that are based on unsustainable actions harmful to the future of humanity (not just fossil fuels), can continue and improve.
GDP per-capita has increased significantly yet desperate-poverty still exists. And one of the twisted stories about poverty is that a self-sufficient farm family is counted as being in poverty, but a city slum-exister earning $3 a day is not in poverty. And any perceptions of poverty reduction that are the result of fossil fuel use are likely not sustainable.
Humanity's economic history cannot be continued. Resource depletion and accumulating negative impacts require corrective constraints on economic activity. What has been developed is already recognized as unsustainable. It is like a Stock Market or Housing Market bubble. It is destined toward a Pop and Correction.
And if it is dealt with like past bubbles (just letting things get sorted out in the business and political marketplaces of popularity and profit), the expected result is a bigger more harmful boom than necessary and massive resistance to the corrections required to minimize how harmful the system is in(to) the future.
How many less fortunate people will suffer horribly, and how many undeserving more fortunate people will become even more fortunate, is all a matter of the objectives of the developed socioeconomic-political systems. Currently those systems are not governed by the objective of improving awareness and understanding to achieve a sustainable improving future for humanity. And any evaluation based on the fairy-tale that the Developed Systems are Good (like the Nordhaus evaluation) is destined to be unsustainable, no matter how precise or complete they are regarding the 'cost considerations' in the evaluation.
The expectation of continued economic success from a starting point of a massive amount of unsustainable and harmful economic activity is very unrealistic.
-
nigelj at 08:20 AM on 13 September 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #36
Something predictable: Trump suggests 'nuking hurricanes' to stop them hitting America – report
-
scaddenp at 07:54 AM on 13 September 2019CO2 has a short residence time
RDG - yes. The most well known efforts would be the Geocarb models, but that builds on decades of research.
Large scale release of CO2 from carbonates was one of the hypotheses studied for PETM. There is a large literature here. Perhaps a overview here.
-
nigelj at 07:05 AM on 13 September 2019Climate denier scientists think these 5 arguments will persuade EU and UN leaders
One thing that stands out in the denialists letter is they hammer their 'claim' that natural cycles are behind the recent warming trend, and the letter does it in several different ways, for exampe in the first two points they make. Imho this is their key lever for creating doubt used throughout the denialosphere because if they can convince the public "something else is responsible" (or could be responsible), they dont need other arguments too much. It's using a scapegoat just as certain politicians do on various other matters. Therefore its really important to shoot down this argument and make it the number one priority.
In that respect the response made in the article is good, but rather wordy and rhetorical. If we challenge the denialists, its important to get the message across very succinctly and clearly that scientists have looked in extreme depth at all the natural cimate cycles, such as sunspots and ocean cycles and they have been in neutral or cooling phases for the past 50 years so cannot adequately explain the warming trend, while the increasing greenhouse effect does.
-
nigelj at 06:42 AM on 13 September 2019Climate denier scientists think these 5 arguments will persuade EU and UN leaders
markpittsusa @8
"Nordhaus, who just won the Nobel Prize for his work on the economics of climate change, advocates a target of 3C of warming."
And plenty of nobel prize winners have got things wrong over the years. You are engaging in the fallacy of the Argument from authority. "An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of defeasible argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion."
Many robust and well informed accurate criticisms have been made of Nordhaus views on the economics of climate change, for example here.
Briefly stated, there are many things Nordaus simply omits form his calculations and he makes over optimstic assumptions about economic growth, just for starters.
-
CO2 has a short residence time
Has anyone looked at/studied the affects natural CO2 sequestration within the various forms of carbonate deposition over time, and if it has any correlation to temperature swings? -
One Planet Only Forever at 04:44 AM on 13 September 2019Climate denier scientists think these 5 arguments will persuade EU and UN leaders
markpittsusa,
I hope you do not continue to believe that your claims about Nordhaus are 'unchallengeable'.
It appears you have not read, or maybe did not understand, the responses I have presented to your earlier presentations of Nordhaus as 'The correct evaluator of the acceptability of current day humans benefiting through actions that are unsustainable and are also detrimental to future generations'.
As a minimum, please develop a more nuanced understanding of the differences between the evaluations performed by the likes of Stern and Nordhaus.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:00 AM on 13 September 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #36
A serious consideration related to misleading divisive story presentations is the way that pursuit of a 'personal better life' can divisively bias a person away from wanting to increase their awareness and understanding to help achieve the SDGs.
'Pursuit of a personal better life' can not only bias a person towards harmful Greed. It can bias them towards unjust dislike of Others who are 'Different'.
Competition for perceptions of superiority relative to others can lead a lot of people to allow Selfish Tribalism (Harmful reactive instinctive human behaviour like Greed and Intolerance) to overpower improving awareness and understanding that would help achieve a sustainable improving future for humanity (Helpful thoughtful and considerate human behaviour).
Thoughtful consideration regarding the future is a significant part of what distinguishes Humanity from Barbarism.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:45 AM on 13 September 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #36
Mal Adapted,
Thanks for the links to the evaluations of media 'positions'.
Evaluating L-R political bias is not really helpful. It is more important to be aware of how Helpful or Harmful a media provider is to improving awareness and understanding of the actions required to achieve and improve on the Sustainable Development Goals. For an evaluation of political L-R bias to be helpful the political L-R would need to be understood to be:
- L Helps achieve and improve on the Sustainable Development Goals, helps develop a sustainable improving future for humanity, helps achieve and improve on the SDGs.
- R resists improved awareness and understanding and the related corrections required to achieve and improve on the SDGs.
Though there is generally a correlation of L-R in those directions, a L-R evaluation does not accurately do what needs to be done (distinguish how Helpful or Harmful a media is to the future of humanity).
In the required evaluation, misleading presentations of any type are poorer than more accurate and more complete presentations. However, misleading or less complete presentations that help achieve the SDGs, breaking the correction/learning resistance of harmful developed popular and profitable attitudes and actions, are far better than misleading presentations that are detrimental to achieving the SDGs.
Understanding how misleading a media source is being in its pursuit of promotion of its political bias is more important, including the type of things they allow in their presented "Opinions" (perceptions of balance can be very misleading). That can best be determined by people applying critical thinking while reading the ways that a diversity of media 'present their versions of a story'.
Of course, personal 'preferences' for news sources bias people away from a diversity of story presentations that they could apply critical thinking to evaluate. A good book on that topic is "The News" by Alain de Botton. It includes and good presentation of how social media driven news feeds can divisively isolate people from a diversity of story presentations, allowing them to be ignorant of (less aware) or misled regarding important issues.
-
SirCharles at 23:47 PM on 12 September 2019Climate denier scientists think these 5 arguments will persuade EU and UN leaders
Looking like the same old army of "scientists" touting the same old shyte...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZzwRwFDXw0
-
markpittsusa at 23:39 PM on 12 September 2019Climate denier scientists think these 5 arguments will persuade EU and UN leaders
No informed person would consider your comments on cost of adaptation as “science.” Your source of info is a 2015 article in The Guardian (journalists), who in turn rely on bankers who do not reveal their methods.
Nordhaus, who just won the Nobel Prize for his work on the economics of climate change, advocates a target of 3C of warming.
-
AdamAb at 22:02 PM on 12 September 2019Climate denier scientists think these 5 arguments will persuade EU and UN leaders
BillyJoe, there is the link and more info about end of fossil fuels
-
MA Rodger at 22:02 PM on 12 September 2019Climate denier scientists think these 5 arguments will persuade EU and UN leaders
The OP suggests this silly denialist letter to the EU "represents the best case that climate deniers can make against the existence of a climate crisis." I feel that needs some qualification as it is a small set of denialists who came up with the silly five point 'oh-no-it's-not' rebuttal.
At the end of January we hear of a large number of academics writing to the Belgian "federal and regional governments." I cannot see the actual letter sent but it did result in swivel-eyed denialists from the Netherlands responding with a point-by-point counter-argument which was quickly translated for the English-speaking deniosphere.
(The authorship of the denial is given as the Climate Intelligence Foundation which is described as "a new Foundation that is funded by worried wealthy citizens. The Foundation focuses on independent public information. She does that by telling the entire climate story." somewhat similar to the nonsense spouted by the UK's GWPF who make out they are an educational charity (& thus trouser taxpayers money to fund their lies). The odd thing with this authorship for an OP posted 1st Feb 2019 is the Climate Intelligence Foundation (soon gaining the name CLINTEL) was not started until the end of March 2019, according to one of its co-founders. who says in this video that it will be set up "tomorrow" with the launch seemingly a couple of days later.)
The point-by-point counter-argument of early Feb runs to seven points. The first five of these present identical argument to the silly denialist letter, although the letter has hardened the message a bit. The first five Feb points were - (1) Climate has always changed with warming from 1850, (2) Calling recent warming 100% anthropogenic is unscientific, (3) There is no discernable trends in floods & droughts & plagues of frogs, (4) Models are hypersensitive to CO2 so any warming CO2 causes will be mild and nature can cool as well as warm. (5) The cost to Belgium & Holland of AGW mitigation is massive for "negligible and immeasurable" gain.
(These five from February are pretty-much the same as the five in the silly denialist letter of August. The February version adds (6) AGW mitigation is not more cost-effective than doing nothing, (7) They mix up a clean environment, which all agree with, with AGW mitigation.)
So the grand denialist message is no more than a knee-jerk response to a letter from Belgian academics supporting stronger action on AGW. That it has folk like Richard Lindzen signing-up to it when he disagrees with parts of it is presumably more a mark of solidarity than a mark of wholehearted agreement.
-
abostrom at 19:14 PM on 12 September 2019Climate denier scientists think these 5 arguments will persuade EU and UN leaders
You would think the authors of this letter might feel foolish regurgitating these stale , long debunked myths. But then, I suppose it's difficult to understand what they're paid not to.
-
MA Rodger at 18:59 PM on 12 September 2019The North Atlantic ocean current, which warms northern Europe, may be slowing
Human 2932847 @27,
We have been going round & round on this for some time now.
The idea of a "debunk" being delivered by Seager et al (2002) suggests there is no disagreement today, yet that is surely not correct. The results of Seager et al (2002) are at variance with other more recent work, for instance Lui et al (2017).Consider the quantative results of Seager et al (2002). These were that the removal of the AMOC shows (his Fig 12) would drop "at most 2 degC ... south of 60ºN and about 3–6 degC ... between 60ºN and 70ºN." The major AMOC warming is seemingly pushed north to impact only Scandanavia. And if that is compared with the graphic from the Lui et al research up-thread @14, the UK is presented as 2ºC cooler and Scandanavia 3ºC cooler.
This however is not Lui et al concuring with Seager et al. Far from it.The difference is that the values in the graphic @14 are in a 2xCO2 world on top of being without the AMOC. The northern hemisphere should therefore have warmed perhaps 3ºC and exhibit even more warming at the poles due to Arctic Amplification. Further, the temperature difference between the eastern coasts of the Pacific & the Atlantic are not "maintained" as in Seager eta al Table 1, but vastly increased.
And do note that both these works Seager et al (2002) & Lui et al (2017) pre-date Lozier et al (2019) 'A sea change in our view of overturning in the subpolar North Atlantic'. (There is coverage of the paper by CarbonBrief.) If the AMOC shutdown were shifted eastward as the measurements set out by Lozier et al (2019) suggest, it would surely make a bit of a difference to the resulting change in European winter temperature. But this is all an area of active research so definitive results should not be expected right away.
Finally, do note when proclaiming that an AMOC shutdown would "not be as catastrophic as once thought, but still problematic" - its impacts extend beyond a cooler Europe. The 1 metre SLR along the eastern US coast would be a bit more than "problematic" as would the drying of the Sahel.
-
nigelj at 18:57 PM on 12 September 2019Climate denier scientists think these 5 arguments will persuade EU and UN leaders
Billy Joe @1, yeah fair comment and I know that. I was just paraphrasing the general situation, and I threw in a relevant link I came across recently. Didn't have time to really do much more.
-
nigelj at 18:56 PM on 12 September 2019Climate denier scientists think these 5 arguments will persuade EU and UN leaders
My link @1 doesn't work, it goes back to this page so its a problem with this website. The full link is:
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/peak-coal-will-the-us-run-out-of-coal-in-200-years-or-20-years#gs.38xwbx
It's quite a good article. Probably not what the American Administration wants to hear.
-
BillyJoe at 12:44 PM on 12 September 2019Climate denier scientists think these 5 arguments will persuade EU and UN leaders
nigelj @ #1
You link doesn't work.
But the quoted headline says something different to what you said. I'm pretty sure that what they are saying is that the recovery of fossil fuels will become un-economical long before the world runs out of fossil fuels. In fact, the world will never run out of fossil fuel because some of it is not actually recoverable.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 08:50 AM on 12 September 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #36
No harm done :-)
-
nigelj at 08:23 AM on 12 September 2019Climate denier scientists think these 5 arguments will persuade EU and UN leaders
The same old people making the same old mistakes, probably deliberately. The world will run out of fossil fuels soon enough anyway, leaving no choice but to find other sources of energy. "The U.S. is rapidly approaching the end of economically recoverable coal".
Moderator Response:[BW] Updated the link
-
nigelj at 08:01 AM on 12 September 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #36
Mal Adapted, thanks for that chart and it coincides with my own views. I've seen several attempts to rank media bias, and they all look pretty similar, so whatever methods they use one might almost say there is a 'consensus'.
-
Mal Adapted at 02:34 AM on 12 September 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #36
Philippe with one 'l', sorry 8^(.
-
Mal Adapted at 02:33 AM on 12 September 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #36
Thank you, Phillippe.
Here's a somewhat different chart of the same phenomenon. IMHO, a degree of subjectivity in such a project is ineradicable, although it may still be reducible.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 02:19 AM on 12 September 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #36
At first glance, the chart corresponds very exactly to my experience with the organizations that figure in it, so I'm tempted to say it is a sincere and effective effort. However, I agree with Mal Adapted that more needs to be done to verify and corroborate, and I'd like to know more about the methods.
-
Mal Adapted at 00:50 AM on 12 September 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #36
On the highly salient topic of media credibility: I recently became aware of patent attorney Vanessa Otero's media bias chart. Some of you may also be intrigued. The current version 4.0 is the product of a well-documented team effort. I'm still skeptical (i.e. not yet convinced, but willing to be) of the chart's intersubjective verifiability, so I'll study the documentation some more.
-
nigelj at 10:18 AM on 11 September 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #36
prove we are smart @4
Fair comments. The thing to do is understand how the mainstream media are biased and when they are unreliable, and use that as a filter when you read it.
Most mainstream media is owned by corporate leaning interests and investment funds, with the sort of bias that brings. Mass media also exaggerates some problems to get attention, but probably not so much the climate issue. The media wont want to annoy their advertisers many of whom have vested interests in fossil fuels. So the mainstream media does have some fake news, but not of the sort Donald Trump alleges.
Of course alternative sources of information all have their own biases, mostly. But you know that. So have the critical thinking skills switched on!
Non partisan, non aligned think tanks can be useful.
Prev 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 Next
