Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 Next
Comments 10001 to 10050:
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:30 AM on 2 August 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30
nigelj@11,
Society can reduce unhelpful harmful things like planned obsolescence by increasing awareness of the importance of having everything governed by improved awareness and understanding applied to achieve and improve on the Sustainable Development Goals.
Some people are trying to have new electronics like smart phones be repairable or able to be upgraded. But private interests profiting from selling 'new versions' fight against such obviously better ways of doing things. And like the resistance to 'more expensive' renewable energy many consumers also like to resist have sustainable better ways be imposed.
Renewable energy options have only been more expensive because fossil fuels are subsidized, especially by not being required to be totally 'impact neutral' (meaning either having all potential impacts neutralized or having a conservative price imposed for harmful impacts that are not neutralized, including adding conservative costs as new potential harmful impacts are identified that are only reduced if improved understanding reduces the potential upper limit of the harm being done).
-
MA Rodger at 03:14 AM on 2 August 2019Models are unreliable
I note that the Gentlemen Who Prefer Fantasy liked Christy's little talk on May 8th so much that they have published the guts of it as GWPF Note 17 - 'THE TROPICAL SKIES - Falsifying climate alarm'.
(It was actually published 23/5/19 prior to their publishing the transcript of the talk 18/6/19, with the Gentlemen posting it under the headline - "Climate Models Have Been Predicting Too Much Warming")
-
shoyemore at 23:25 PM on 1 August 2019What role will climate change play in the 2020 presidential election?
This is a "wedge issue" for Democrats ... they can use it to capture Independent voters, and perhaps peel away enough Republican voters to swing the elections.
In Pew Research Centre figures, 56% of American support prioritizing policies for the environment and climate change. 27% of Republican or Leaning Republican voters believe climate related policies help the environment, while 40% believe such policies either help or make no difference to the economy.
These policies also stand a greater chance of mobilizing the votes of younger Americans, notoriously the least likely to actually go to the polls on election day.
I think the issue will also embarrass Trump publicly, as he trots out the most egregious, long-debunked myths on the topic.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/19/how-americans-see-climate-change-in-5-charts/
-
franklefkin at 23:03 PM on 1 August 2019What role will climate change play in the 2020 presidential election?
"What role will climate change play in the 2020 presidential election?"
Almost zero! It does not rank as a top priority for American voters.
-
MA Rodger at 22:53 PM on 1 August 2019It's cosmic rays
Aldaron @106,
Tea time has come and gone so I can report back. Yet this report remains incomplete even after two cups.
FIRST CUP OF TEA
My peek inside Flemings book shows he is doing some big calculations using HITRAN data which appears to confirm the AGW impact of CO2. But then through his analysis somehow adopting a rogue coefficient of his own contrivance, Fleming manages to produce a fundamentally different result. Yet Fleming fails to explain this situation and resorts to an incoherent explanation. Indeed, the whole tends to incoherence.
Note that your quote @106 (from Fleming's website) doesn't bear much relation to what his book says.In his book, the Summary of Chapter 11 pp80-82 tells us rather incoherently that if you use a larger deffusion coefficient (of unknown origin) on the HITRAN data, you can calculate the effective level of transparency (this the altitude where the CO2 is radiating out into space and so cooling the planet) as being up at an altitude of 16km. That is up in the stratosphere while the usual analysis, as Fleming also shows, would be lower at 9km in the troposphere. He doesn't say, but were this higher level true the impact of adding CO2 to the atmosphere (CO2 is well mixed up to 50km) would actually be be to cool the planet.
(For the record, a small part of the 15 micron CO2 absorption band does already operate up into the stratosphere and that small part will become bigger with increasing CO2. But the net effect will remain warming as there is much much more of the CO2 absorption bands still operating in the troposphere and they warm the planet with increasing CO2.)Fleming's explanation for his finding of zero AGW effect is entirely incoherent. He tells us the temperature-with-altitude effect is "very strong" and also "the diffuse radiation intensity depletes rapidly over vertical distance" but that also the CO2 temperature-with-altitude effect is "quite small", as is the CO2-effect relative to the whole IR spectrum analysed (1 micron to 30 micron). As I say, this is incoherent and shows no understanding of the AGW mechanism. Plus, even if this explanation could be understood, these reasons are not in any way quantified to demonstrate their significance.
SECOND CUP OF TEA
While peeking into Fleming's book, I also noticed on p82 reference 6 - R.J. Fleming, (2018) "An updated review about carbon dioxide and climate change", Environmental Earth Sciences, vol. 77, pp1-13.
As specifically pointed out by Gavin Schmidt @ RealClimate, this is not a proper peer-reviewed paper as the journal doesn't cover climatology (it covers Geology, Hydrology/Water Resources, Geochemistry, Environmental Science and Engineering, Terrestrial Pollution, Biogeosciences) and shouldn't be accepting a paper so far beyond its speciality.
Now, despite the grand revalation of Fleming's paper allegedly overturning the entirety of clomatology, it has received zero citation since publication in March 2018. I say that as currently Google Scholar lists just four citations. Two are by Fleming himself and of the other two, both are obvious mistakes. One does not cite the paper at all. The other cites it for the exact opposite of Fleming's thesis, its opening line being - "It has been scientifically well established that carbon dioxide (CO2), a major greenhouse gas, is the prime reason for the climate change and global warming phenomena in recent decades" (Fleming 2018)
Fleming (2018) is paywalled and I took a whole tea break looking for a full version on-line and here it is in PDF. I shall have a read in due course. -
prove we are smart at 21:38 PM on 1 August 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30
Michael Sweet@13, I reckon Exon Mobil and their mates would like that..
-
michael sweet at 21:24 PM on 1 August 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30
The Institute for Sustainablle Development has released a report (Guardian article) that says if we eliminate the $US370 billion yearly subsidies on fossil fuels and invest 10-30% of the money saved in renewable energy that woud result in skyrocketing renewable energy use. It only makes sense that removing subsidies on fossil fuels would result in faster uptake of renewables. In addition, countries would have more money to use for other critical uses.
-
prove we are smart at 17:14 PM on 1 August 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30
Nigelj@11, Built in obsolescence can seem good for everyone but is really bad for the planet. I grew up when things lasted better This quadary is similar to the CO2 reduction...The sooner we act, the less painful it will be.Could i/we live with less choices? This word "growth", a measure of success. Can you not grow economies and keep people happy ? but save our dwindling resourses?
-
shoyemore at 16:49 PM on 1 August 2019'No doubt left' about scientific consensus on global warming, say experts
Sam-qc,
Crescenti's letter has had little or no impact in Europe. This was the first I heard of it.
Part of the right and far-right retain climate change denial as part of their DNA, but the recent (relative) success of the Greens in European elections has forced them to dial back. I am not sure if they have the stomach to fight this battle again, which they apparently lost.
The letter reads like a regurgitation of standard boiler-plate denial. I could have been written by Roy Spencer. The inclusion of the name of Fred Switz and the pre-refuted NIPCC Report is a dead giveaway.
However, there is no reason to be complacent. We await the stance of the Johnson UK Government on climate change - his cabinet contains "skeptics", and he has been ambivalent in the past.
-
shoyemore at 16:36 PM on 1 August 2019'No doubt left' about scientific consensus on global warming, say experts
I heard one of Trump's hacks, Myron Ebell. on a video clip parroting all the old discredited rubbish about climate change - there is no consensus, scientists disagree etc. He was pushing Trump's "solution", which he called Energy Dominance.
This pernicious rubbish will have to be opposed into the 2020s, and maybe even beyond. There is no reason to be smug.
-
nigelj at 09:46 AM on 1 August 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30
prove we are smart @7, the consumer choice we have is so huge gives me a headache and wastes time in decision making, however it's a natural result of an open global market economy with many competitors. There was less choice in the 1970's when countries had huge protectionist trade policies, so were reliant on just a few domestic producers, but it's hard to see society going back to that form of trade. Bewildering choice looks like the new normal and does not seem a hugely bad thing.
The greater concern might be built in obsolescence, but how does society change that?
-
michael sweet at 09:21 AM on 1 August 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Sorry, I forgot to link the DIW report .
-
barry17781 at 09:08 AM on 1 August 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
." As MA Rodger points they are already short of uranium". M Sweet,
No he stated that there is enough for 200 years of Uranium, That does not include Thorium who's supply is vasly greater than Uranium
-
barry17781 at 08:55 AM on 1 August 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
"For the average plant worldwide, this translates into a total land requirement per nuclear facility plus mining and storage of about 20.5 km2. The footprint on the ground (e.g., excluding the buffer zone only) is about 4.9–7.9 km2" M sweet
Moderator Response:
[PS] Standing back for a moment. Barry, I believe you are trying to dispute the validity of Abbott's objections. Abbott raises the land area issue (and especially the need for a particular type of land) using Jacobson's figure for area based on plant, buffer zone, mining and waste requirements. Abbott states a figure of as much as 20km2 per plant (ie a maximum of 20km2). Abbott is not disproved by showing some plants are smaller (especially if your examples fail to account for mining and waste area as well). Furthermore, as Michael Sweet has pointed out, the land area is a rather trivial issue in the context of Abbott. I would prefer to see more substantive issues addressed if there is to be a case made for nuclear energy. - moderatorDear moderator, your comments are more apt to Mr sweet;s comments who clearly is diputing the actual areas of power stations, such as hinkley point
-
barry17781 at 08:25 AM on 1 August 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Mr Sweet
You claim without citation
"An empirical survey of the 674 nuclear power plants that have ever been built showed that private economicmotives never played a role. Instead military interests havealways been the driving force behind their construction"
Please could you explain to me where are Canada's , nuclear weapons obtained from its reactors.
Germany since afrter the war has not been involved in nuclear weapons material.
Then we can add Sweden , The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain etc all to countries that have civilian nuclear power but no intention of weapons production
-
MA Rodger at 07:41 AM on 1 August 2019It's cosmic rays
Aldaron @106,
The Schwarschild equation calculates the amount of radiation transmitted through a medium (like the Earth's atmosphere) when there are substances absorbing/emitting that radiation (as do greenhouse gases). The Schwarschild equation tells us that we will have global warming if we increase the GHG concentrations as the more GHG the higher the emission-into-space altitude and the higher you go (in the troposphere) the colder it gets so the less radiation is emitted into space.
Without reading Fleming's book, the quote you provide seems to be saying just that. The surface is warmed by back radiation (from CO2 & H2O) so an enhanced IR flux travels up from the surface through the atmosphere being absorbed/emitted as it goes. But as it rises through the troposphere, the temperature drops. Thus, according to the Schwarzchild equation, there will indeed be a "failure ... to maintain the CO2 longwave radiation intensity achieved in the surface warming." Thus when the density of GHG increases and the altitude at which this IR flux is transmitted into space rises to higher and colder altitudes, the flux out to space which cools the planet will be of yet lower 'intensity'. Less cooling of the planet so more global warming.
Fleming's book appears a recent publication (June 2019) and a whole 144 pages long covering from 'Chapter 2 - Creation of the Universe' to "Chapter 14 - Future Research on Climate and Energy Issues'. It is either very small writing or a very compact theory being presented. But, hey, why should climate be so complex anyway?
There is also this very day a Heatland pod-caste featuring this same Fleming (25 mins long) than may give some inkling of what is proposed but I couldn't cope with the first 20 seconds that simply comprised lift music.
And I note Google have a reviewable entry of the book so may have a go at reading relevant sections over a cup of tea some time.
But until then my judgement is unchanged. Fleming has misunderstood Schwarzchild.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:09 AM on 1 August 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30
prove we are smart,
Another way of identifying the harmful incorrectness of what has developed is to state that 'sustainable' consumer options should not have to compete with harmful unsustainable actions.
Many harmful unsustainable activities have developed because harmful and unsustainable activity (that everyone cannot develop do) has not been effectively excluded from competing for popularity and profit. And the real kicker is the way that popular and profitable actions develop powerful resistance to correction, not even requiring the unjust Propaganda defending the wealthiest as predicted by the Propaganda Model.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:57 AM on 1 August 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30
prove we are smart @7
It is worth considering that a diversity of vehicle types would be desirable as long as each option was sustainable. The competition would then develop even more sustainable vehicles which could grow the economy by pushing to consume even less material in a fully recyclable way that requires even less energy, and that energy would be sustainable and be produced with ever improved material use.
Advertising (propaganda) creating 'wants and beliefs in stories' that are harmful and unsustainable is a serious problem. The Propaganda Model I mention in my comment @8 applies. Creating dissatisfaction with a form of consumer consumption to encourage a new unsustainable consumption is a very damaging development. The result is more fortunate people tossing away perfectly functional things for a 'shinier newer' but harmfully unsusustainable technical development.
-
MA Rodger at 06:55 AM on 1 August 2019Models are unreliable
rupisnark @1125/1127,
You ask if "the heat content of the Earth rather than the ocean relevant?" The short answer is neither of them as a 'total' heat content. The change in ocean heat content is relevant as this is by far the biggest thermal lag holding back global warming and a measure of it gives the easiest measure of the global energy imbalance. Note the change in Ocean Heat Content doesn't relate usefully to 'total' ocean heat content.
But we haven't really the first idea about what Christy is measuring in his talk with the 750M & 6T. Let us assume it is some or other total heat content (down to absolute zero) in joules per square metre of surface and then divided by 3.4 (for his '100 unit' measure although those 'units' are an energy flux not an energy content). It is then as I set out @1119 with the total heat capacity of the atmosphere roughly (mind these are seriously back-of-a-fag-packet-type calculation) equal to 750M. An equivalent value for the oceans would be 80x too small for the 6T value and the planet weighs 4,400x the oceans and is perhaps 10X as hot so the 6T would then be something like (44,000/80 =) 550x too big.
@1125 you asked if such a total heat capacity of the entire Earth was relevant to the climate system. A heat capacity for the atmosphere is relevant because the best part of the atmosphere will be warmed pretty-much by the same amount as any surface temperature increase. This is not the case for the oceans. The ocean depths will warm very little relative to the surface and even in the ocean surface mixed layer there will be less warming than at the surface. And the bulk of the planet is very well thermally insulated from climate with the sort of temperature increase that would be catastrophuic at the surface unable to make any significant difference to the temperature gradient through the Earth's crust.
These figures of Christy's, whatever they ar meant to be, should not be presented in the manner Christy does. They are nought but nonsense eye-candy. Bad Christy!!
-
scaddenp at 06:43 AM on 1 August 2019It's cosmic rays
People with half-baked ideas on physics that they learnt of wikipedia confusing other people who would desparately like to be comforted about their predjudices. This is nonsense and directly contradicted by observations. If observations contradict what someone would expect from accepted theory, especially if not formally taught, then chances are it is the persons understanding of the theory not the theory itself that is wrong. Books on Amazon tell you how many suckers are out there. Dozens of peer-reviewed papers would be another story.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:33 AM on 1 August 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30
nigelj@5,
My point is that the majority of the more fortunate need to be leading by setting helpful sustainable examples for every one else to aspire to achieve and improve on (be even better than). That majority would effectively correct and penalize any peer who failed to care to help set the required example.
The more fortunate people investing in unsustainable pursuits of profit from harmful unsustainable actions by others is almost worse than themselves being the harmful consumers. So a lot of correction of perceptions is required primarily by the most fortunate since the most fortunate are the most powerful influence on the stories that get told and the perceptions that are developed.
Edward Herman presented the Propaganda Model in 1988, with some assistance from Noam Chomsky, in "Manufacturing Consent". That explanation of how free market forces result in media fairly powerfully promoting the lintersts of the wealthy status quo has been show to continue to be valid today even though many things about media have changed. And it important to understand that the propaganda they evalaute happens through news, advertising, TV show, movies and even fashion magazines and things like the flak attacks on any presentation of understanding that would challenge the desired stories that support defend or excuse the powerful wealthy status quo.
The way that improved awareness and understanding of climate science struggles to be popular and is unjustly challenged is a powerful case proving the legitimacy of Herman's Propaganda Model.
-
Eclectic at 06:20 AM on 1 August 2019Models are unreliable
Rupisnark, thank you for that reply. But you still ought to make clear your thinking re "entire earth" ~ for it is (IMO) difficult for readers to understand the central thrust of the ideas being put forward, where brevity and possible ambiguities impede the communication.
Brevity is the soul of wit. But not always the soul of clear & transparent communication. Perhaps you are not meaning to: but in the present case you seem to be giving the impression that you are striving at "the Hot Spot gnat" while disregarding the main substance i.e. the overall context.
-
rupisnark at 05:47 AM on 1 August 2019Models are unreliable
Eclectic @1126
Sorry, all I was trying to do was get a response to my post @1120 where the point refering to the 6tr has not been answered (and I presumed the answer would have been a simple one). Obviously the Ocean Heat Content is important, the question is looking at the effect of that vs the heat content of the entire Earth.
If Christy were correct about the high altitude atmosphere of the tropical zone it would lead a reasonable person to believe that changes may need to be made to climate models and to understading of what is going on overall.
Moderator Response:[PS] Questions about the "hot spot" should be addressed here. See also comments and papers here. Good review of controversy here. Basically Christy's methodology is inadequate for observation he is claiming whereas hotspots shows as per model in better methods. Further confirmation in recent works (eg here). Christy is practising on the unwary and is notably absent from addressing the issues raised in the peer-reviewed literature as far as I am aware. Any further discussion should be on thread indicated.
-
Eclectic at 05:45 AM on 1 August 2019'No doubt left' about scientific consensus on global warming, say experts
Sam-qc @13 ,
what do you consider the Uberto Crescenti's important points which you think might require answer or rebuttal? It would save much time for readers, if you would pick out 2 or 3 of his points which (maybe) disprove the mainstream climate science.
The OISM petition was a laughable travesty. But I (and probably most people) haven't seen the Italian (or English translation) petition you mention. It doesn't appear to be making worldwide headlines in the news (as one would think it ought to deserve, if it truly overthrows modern science).
-
Eclectic at 05:23 AM on 1 August 2019Models are unreliable
Rupisnark @1125 ,
I would be grateful if you would clarify your first paragraph. Specifically: "Is the heat content of the earth rather than the ocean relevant?"
Possibly you were aiming to cut corners, to shorten your post. But the effect is both extraordinary and ambiguous. ~What do you mean by "the heat content of the earth" as opposed to the concept of OHC (Ocean Heat Content) ? Are you referring to totality of radioactive molten core & mantle etc., or referring to surface rocks/soil ocean and air . . . or some subcomponent?
The relevance of the OHC is so hugely important to climate, that, in comparison the tropical tropospheric Hot Spot [per radiosonde measurements, rather weaker than many climate models had projected] is verging on triviality in the overall context of AGW.
Almost needless to say, the climate models' crucial aim is to predict/project future climate (as it affects our biosphere) of land, ocean, and lower troposphere ~ and "not so much" the 200-300mB high altitude atmosphere of the tropical zone (as Dr Christy seems to focus on).
-
Sam-qc at 05:11 AM on 1 August 2019'No doubt left' about scientific consensus on global warming, say experts
Are you aware of any answer or rebuttal for Uberto Crescenti and his fellow italian scientists declaration ? Would you treat it as was done with the OISM petition?
This seems to be the original post, but many english translations are suggested on climate skeptiks sites. I assume it is fairly easy to find.
http://www.opinione.it/cultura/2019/06/19/redazione_riscaldamento-globale-antropico-clima-inquinamento-uberto-crescenti-antonino-zichichi/?altTemplate=Stampa&fbclid=IwAR1YAoqulAKKXJTY-uzRfSEaX-G6NRpVOckp3nVE7iiTAgOQu8DMHGUxRnE
-
Aldaron at 02:50 AM on 1 August 2019It's cosmic rays
In his recent book, Rex J. Fleming asserts that "CO2 has no impact on climate change", or, as he summarizes on his website:
There are now over a dozen books available on Amazon.com that point out the various fallacies of the CO2 climate theory – but none of these have zeroed in on the heart of the issue – the failure of the Schwarzschild radiation integrations to maintain the CO2 longwave radiation intensity achieved in the surface warming by H2O and CO2. The resultant Planck radiation intensity is severely depleted in the upper atmosphere. The result is the CO2 molecules merely pass their remaining small residual heat to space un-impeded. CO2 has no impact on climate change.
This claim seems to contradict some basic physics.
Is Fleming correct that the "failure of the Schwarzschild radiation integrations to maintain the CO2 longwave radiation intensity" means that "CO2 has no impact on climate change"?
-
rupisnark at 23:43 PM on 31 July 2019Models are unreliable
MA Rodgers @1121
Thank you for your post. The second part of which was useful.
On the first part, the reason I keep up questions is to try to pin down the areas of disagreement. From that point it is possible to proceed. The fact that you will not clarify certain points raises to progress the discussion when I expected that you could have put to bed the issue is slightly concerning. Is the heat content of the Earth rather than the ocean relevant?
So if you could please respond to all my points raised in @1120 Re response to @1117, I would be grateful.♣ We cannot use the surface temperature, because the surface temperature record was used in the development of the model.
->Whatever else Christy says he and McKitrick are right on this point. In numerous fields I have seen models developed based on past data which were no more than data mining. Once inspected the models and they are often nonsense. If this is what the climate models are doing, then they have a long way to go before they can be relied on to make sensible predictions.
The 4 general conditions laid out in McKitrick & Christy in the introduction seem sensible. Would any of the 102 climate models pass them?
♣ (The actual abilities through the decades of the various models at projecting GAST is briefly reviewed by CarbonBrief.)
->This link does not appear to work.
♣ And Christy in not addressing uncertainty plus other failings is considered by this 2016 post at RealClimate.)
->This is an excellent post. Very helpful and can be understood in 5 minutes. The graphs he generates give a very good picture of how wide the potential disagreement would be, (if it weren’t for the other potential issues you have made about Christy's argument).
-> One thing that neither side of the “debate” see is that people on the other side genuinely believe what they are saying is true and do not believe they are being influenced by issues such as their reputation and previous statements/papers, financial incentives (whether big oil money or academic research grants) or peer pressure. As an example, issue (2) is the sort of thing that many people on both sides of this debate might do inadvertently to save time or deliberately to strengthen their arguments. If doing inadvertently and the result went the other way to the way they wanted, they may well notice the issue and correct it.
♣ See this SkS post of 2009.
->This will need a few re-reads as not as well written as the Real Climate post.
♣ And the "tropical hotspot" isn't a marker of AGW but of warming generally.
-> Just to be clear, is it or isn’t it a prediction of the 102 warming models? [Perhaps on the third reading of the SkS 2009 it will be clear to me – Apologies if I missed something obvious but at second reading it appears to be saying that the hotspot is NOT the key marker, but that the models do predict it].Does the following summarise the position correctly?
1) Tropical hotspots are said to NOT be a signature of AGW (as opposed to global warming generally) BUT they occur in the output of most/all of the climate models.
2) There is some uncertainty as to whether the hotspots exist, although the majority of the evidence suggests they do.
3) If the hotspots do not exist, then climate models will need to be refined, possibly need a greater re-work. (This does not mean their outputs are completely wrong)
♣ His choice coincides with the long contentious "tropical hotspot" which has been argued over for decades.
->Isn’t the period Christy has chosen a little longer than this? [Again, happy to be shown to be wrong]
♣ Christy attempts to use the uncooperative "tropical hotspot" as some sort of essential failing of CMIP5 models and by implication as an essential failing of all models. As set out above, such attempts are poorly contrived and to-date even a corrected argument is far from unconvincing.
->From what I have seen so far (a long way to proper understanding), his argument while not totally convincing is not entirely without merit. -
michael sweet at 21:33 PM on 31 July 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
A recent report from the DIW (a German economic reaserch institution) foound that nuclear plants are not economic. From the abstract:
" An empirical survey of the 674 nuclear power
plants that have ever been built showed that private economic
motives never played a role. Instead military interests have
always been the driving force behind their construction. Even
ignoring the expense of dismantling nuclear power plants and
the long-term storage of nuclear waste, private economy-only
investment in nuclear power plant would result in high losses—
an average of five billion euros per nuclear power plant, as one
financial simulation revealed. In countries such as China and
Russia, where nuclear power plants are still being built, private
investment does not play a role either. Nuclear power is too
expensive and dangerous; therefore it should not be part of
the climate-friendly energy mix of the future" my ephasisNuclear plants are not economic.
-
prove we are smart at 18:36 PM on 31 July 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30
Seeing this is my first comment, may i congratulate the people behind this webpage. I finally feel emboldened to challenge some of the anti agw / climate change people i mix with..Here in Australia, the election is over and in one state all the candidates were agreeing to open a new coal mine. The issue was jobs in a low employment area.If you were against it you were never in the race. Human nature will have to change and quickly, education, media concensus and to slow down growth,so we use less. With the standard of the political leaders here and worldwide, pushing their own agendas, or not facing reality, or are they playing the only tune the people want to hear?. You just have to see a whole aisle of toothpaste choices or another with pet food choices to realise the craziness in our lives. When i see car ads on tv i often think there is the very symptom of whats wrong, to me there should only be 5 models. The city car, the people mover, the sports, the 4wd/suv and the trades van/ute. You can pick colours or a few other custom features but all made by one or two companies and made to last with simple features. Will people go without electric adjustable seats, electric mirrors,heated seats adnausium? It will take a suicidal politician to close the car plants, the coal mines, and what ever wasteful indulgence the consumer driven western world provides. ..Now to finish on a positive, i hope some clever people can gear up to use the disenfranchised workers to now produce the solar or wind or perhaps any of the clean energy we are to need.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 12:14 PM on 31 July 2019Climate's changed before
About the "2 sides of athe argument" thing: there is really no such thing when considering all the aspects of climate science studied, the weight of the evidence leaves no doubt. I remember a video clip by James Hansen in which he expressed the problem in the simplest possible visualization: imagine a square meter of the Earth, put a little candle on it, close to one watt of output. Seems like a very little thing. Now put one on every square meter of the planet's surface: every square meter of every ocean, every square meter of the Arctic, Antarctic, every square meter of every city, and of every desert, every square meter of the mountains, plains, every single square meter of the surface of our home planet. This is so staggeringly enormous that it defies the imagination. We humans are not well equipped to think about tis kind of thing and prioritize our other silly preoccupations down.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 11:41 AM on 31 July 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30
Thanks for picking up on the Sutherland et al paper, it didn't elicit much response in the thread when I initially mentioned it. The findings, however, are nothing short of astounding: 2 orders of magnitude! I hope there is some follow up research.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:31 AM on 31 July 2019'No doubt left' about scientific consensus on global warming, say experts
As for surface changes, one of the earliest papers I know of is:
Anthropogenic Albedo Changes and the Earth's ClimateBy Carl Sagan, Owen B. Toon, James B. Pollack
Science21 Dec 1979 : 1363-1368
Link to origfinal source is here:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/206/4425/1363
but the full text requires an account. Google Scholar will point you to freely-available copies.
Short version: climatologists have been aware that surface changes can affect climate for at least 40 years.
P.S. Don't forget to look at the IPPC 1990 report, too...
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:26 AM on 31 July 2019'No doubt left' about scientific consensus on global warming, say experts
For a less intense introduction to climate change, I often suggest the first IPCC report from 1990. It covers a lot more basics that are simply assumed in later reports.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar1/wg1/
In the contents of the Executive Summary, the first section lists:
What factors determine global climate?
What natural factors are important?
How do we know that the natural greenhouse effect is real?
How might human activities change global climate?
In the main table of contents, Chapter 1 is titled "Greehouse gases and Aerosols". It covers five specific gases, plus ozone and related trace gases, and then aerosols.
Chapter 2 is titled "Radiative Forcing of Climate". Its sections cover greenhouse gases, solar radiation, direct aerosol effects, indirect aerosol effects, and surface characteristics.
So much for the idea that the IPCC does not consider other factors besides fossil fuel emissions. This is so easy to look up.
-
Daniel Bailey at 09:15 AM on 31 July 2019Climate's changed before
For my small contributions, you are most welcome.
"i have looked at a lot of evidence from both sides of the argument"
If only there were actual sides. Because that would imply that both "sides" were roughly equal.
In the discussions around global warming and its anthropogenic causation, there are those who focus on the science using the scientific method and logic, seeking reproducible evidence that best explains what we can empirically measure. We call them scientists, the real skeptics.
Then there is everyone in the extremely small but vocal minority, those who ignore the above in favor of slander, innuendo, unsupported assertion and character assassination in favor of promulgating false equivalence to support the ephemeral facade of "debate" and "sides".
But it is not about the science, the bulk of the science was settled, decades ago. Deniers posing as skeptics set up a charade tableau of false equivalence to poison the well of public acceptance of that science.
A parsimonious harping at the font of stolen, out-of-context and context-less emails proven not germane to the science is continuing on in the prosecution of the agenda of denial.
Truth, science and reputable journalism all sacrificed to the unholy alter of false equivalence under the guise of promulgating a fallacious "debate".
There is no debate. All that remains is the informed and the uninformed.
Those professing the false equivalence of "both sides" are the journalist in this story.
Moral, dear readers: Don't be that journalist.
The discussion surrounding the science of climate change and its human-causation are a Möbius strip comprised of 170 years of evidence from hundreds of thousands of scientists from virtually every country on the planet. Meaning that from an evidence perspective, only one side exists, because only one side uses evidence.
Even the petroleum extraction companies researched the subject themselves and affirm the unassailable facts, physics and evidence of AGW.
Per the oil companies, which admitted it in court, under oath:
"The issue is not over science. All parties agree that fossil fuels have led to global warming and ocean rise and will continue to do so, and that eventually the navigable waters of the United States will intrude upon Oakland and San Francisco. "
The People of the State of California vs BP PLC et al (page 6, line 6).
-
nigelj at 08:39 AM on 31 July 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30
OPOF @3, yes upper middle class and rich people could be called over consumers, often owning multiple cars and televisions, and having huge homes etc so some scope definitely exists for them to reduce consumption. I should have mentioned that, but didn't really have time.
I fall into that upper middle class category, and I choose to live reasonably modestly in terms of consumption. Similar to you in fact. However Im not prepared to live like a pauper, and we are nibbling away at the edges of the problem.
The rich also have most of their wealth invested or its on loaned to other people, so their over consumption of material resources is just their immediate posessions. This is a significant factor, but its the consumption of other classes of people which is largest. Virtually everyone owns basic technology and uses transport of some sort and the impacts add up, so the scope for working classes and lower middle classes to reduce consumpotion is limited. So population is a huge part of the issue and potential solution.
-
Daniel Bailey at 08:29 AM on 31 July 2019'No doubt left' about scientific consensus on global warming, say experts
"all that concrete and pavement absorbs the sun rays, creating a giant heat sink"
While urban areas are undoubtedly warmer than surrounding rural areas, this has had little to no impact on warming trends.
"The Urban Heat Island effect is real. Berkeley’s analysis focused on the question of whether this effect biases the global land average. Our UHI paper analyzing this indicates that the urban heat island effect on our global estimate of land temperatures is indistinguishable from zero."
http://berkeleyearth.org/faq/#question-15
"Time series of the Earth’s average land temperature are estimated using the Berkeley Earth methodology applied to the full dataset and the rural subset; the difference of these is consistent with no urban heating effect over the period 1950 to 2010"
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/UHI-GIGS-1-104.pdf
For more info:
https://skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect-intermediate.htm
-
nigelj at 08:13 AM on 31 July 2019'No doubt left' about scientific consensus on global warming, say experts
Hoipolloi.., cities are indeed absorbing some solar energy, but they are less than 0.1% of the earths area, so its just not enough energy to account for the vast warming seen in the oceans for example. This is basic stuff to calculate, and is not reliant on computer modelling.
-
william5331 at 07:38 AM on 31 July 2019'No doubt left' about scientific consensus on global warming, say experts
Have you ever tried to argue a creationist out of his point of view. The most extreme case of cognitive dissonance I have come accross is a geologist I met who was a creationist and argued that a 500 plus series of gravel, sand, clay, gravel sand clay was the result of the great bibical flood. It is the same with climate change deniers. No amount of evidence short of a total disastrous flip of the climate is likely to convince them. The real problem, though, stoping effective action is the financial support of politicians by vested interest. Sort this one out and we will begin to gain traction on all the things we must do to avoid a disaster.
-
scaddenp at 07:19 AM on 31 July 2019Models are unreliable
Strange comment. Models predict that climate is changing fast so I dont see how rapid change makes them wrong. However, no climate modellers is claiming that models are 100% accurate. Not even close. They have no skill at decadal level prediction but do at climate (30 year average) level. Climate sensitivity estimates are still too wide for comfort (2-4.5), however, they remain the best tools we have for predicting further climate.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:45 AM on 31 July 2019'No doubt left' about scientific consensus on global warming, say experts
Hoipolloi... I get the idea that you've never read the IPCC reports because they most certainly do not claim that FF's are the "sole reason" for climate change. There are extensive sections on urbanization and deforestation as well as dozens of other related issues, including changes in solar forcing, volcanic influences, etc, etc.
You also seem to be under the mistaken assumption that the IPCC does computer modeling. They don't. The IPCC only does a report on all the published science related to climate change. The science cuts across a very wide range of fields of research and their purposes is to pull all that disperate information together into a single report.
My suggestion for you would be to spend at least an hour purusing through the IPCC reports. I don't even need to post a link. They're very easy to find and they've updated the website to make the reports very easy to navigate.
Have fun!
-
Hoipolloi at 03:43 AM on 31 July 2019'No doubt left' about scientific consensus on global warming, say experts
Even if you believe in catastrophic climate change, no mention is made of the basis for this "consensus." Antropogenic warming of the earth may well be happening but for different reasons than what the IPCC would have us believe........
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) would have us believe that fossil fuel emissions are the sole reason for climate change. But what about urbanization and deforestation? A study by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs states that the urban population rose from 750 million in 1950 to 4.2 billion in 2018. We don’t need the IPCC’S hugely complex computer models to know that cities are hotter. All we have to do is walk from a paved sun-heated street lined with concrete buildings to a grassy park. Rather than reflecting the sun’s rays back to outer space, all that concrete and pavement absorbs the sun rays, creating a giant heat sink. Likewise, deforestation is turning vast tracts of cool African and South American jungles into heat- absorbing barrens. The U. S. EPA summarizes the combined effect, “Processes such as deforestation and urbanization … contribute to changes in climate.” Trying to deal with any problem without considering all possible causes is both a foolish and dangerous strategy.
Moderator Response:[DB] At Skeptical Science, the onus is on each person posting (in this case, you) to be able to support their statements and assertions with citations to the credible literature. Please read the Comments Policy and construct future comments to comport more fully with it.
"Trying to deal with any problem without considering all possible causes is both a foolish and dangerous strategy"Scientists already have. Scientists have evaluated all natural forcings and factors capable of driving the Earth's climate to change and it is only when the anthropogenic forcing is included that the observed warming can be explained.
Natural vs Anthropogenic Climate Forcings, per the NCA4, Volume 2:
Changes in the sun's output falling on the Earth from 1750-2011 are about 0.05 Watts/meter squared.
By comparison, human activities from 1750-2011 warm the Earth by about 2.83 Watts/meter squared (AR5, WG1, Chapter 8, section 8.3.2, p. 676).
Sloganeering and fake terms snipped.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:23 AM on 31 July 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30
Another way to respond to concerns about total population is to point out that 'population' and climate change impacts are both included in the comprehensive Sustainable Development Goals. And all of the SDGs need to be achieved and improved on. And because of the lack of correction of the incorrect directions of development that have occurred, not just powerful resistance to climate change impact corrections, some developed perceptions of wealth or superiority relative to others will have to be given up to correct what has incorrectly developed.
The coal barons of today are poorer than they were thought to be. The same fate will need to be forced on the oil barons, the natural gas barons, and all the other pursuers of perceptions of superiority relative to others whose actions are not developing sustainable improvements for the future of humanity. Those people cannot all be expected to sacrifice their harmful and unsustainable pursuits of perceptions of success and superiority. In many cases the rule of law will have to be developed in ways that effectively correct them, just as it has developed to limit other harmful unsustainable human activities.
This also means the typical person will also have to be 'externally' encouraged to behave better, meaning having responsible leadership take actions like imposing carbon fees to correct their behavior.
Anyone wanting to believe that their developed perceptions of prosperity 'must be preserved' is destined to be disappointed (the future of humanity does have to win, the sooner the better), but those resisting correction will regrettably be able to be harmful until facing that deserved corrective disappointment.
Global understanding that needs to be developed for sustainable development to happen is that everyone's actions can impact the future of humanity, and everyone is a part of global humanity and are only free to do as they please if what pleases them helps develop a sustainable improvement of the future of humanity. Tribalism is fine Within That Limit. However, diversity of people within that limit needs to be encouraged (acceptance of that diversity is another required correction that some people resist and they can be seen to partner up politically with those who want to powerfully resist the economic corrections that climate science has exposed are required - resisting improved understanding and resisting the related corrections of developed perceptions that are required to achieve sustainable development beneficial to the future of humanity is what they have in common).
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:37 AM on 31 July 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30
The proper description of the concern is this sustainability of how humans are living and whether sustainable improvements are being developed.
And the undeniable understanding based on abductive reasoning in pursuit of the best explanation of what is going on is that competition for perceptions of superiority relative to others with popularity and profit as measures of merit has developed unsustainable human activity that is detrimental to the future of humanity and has developed powerful resistance to correction.
Growth of the total population is a concern. But the real concern is the total impacts of the total population. And everyone should be expected to aspire to being deserving of merit and living like the perceived leaders/winners.
With that understanding it is clear that the problem is the example being set by the perceived winners. The developed competitions are rewarding unsustainable and harmful behavior.
What is required is for the winners to be required to be proven to be deserving based on the helpfulness and sustainability of that helpfulness to the future if humanity. What is currently developed as methods of evaluating the merit of actions, and the people doing the actions, is failing to properly determine what is deserving of merit (popularity or profit).
The growth of consumption and harmful results of human actions is what needs to be curtailed, not just the growth of the population. And the highest consuming and highest impacting people are what needs to be targeted for correction. Reducing total population while allowing total consumption and impact to continue to grow is No Solution.
The developed ways of living of the highest impacting and consuming among the more fortunate today can only be understood as harmfully unsustainable. Significant incorrect overdevelopment has occurred. Correcting it is challenging. It requires people to accept a sacrifice of their developed perceptions of merit and ways of living.
It would be nice if sustainable alternatives existed that were as easy and cheap for those benefiting from them as the currently developed activity is. But that is not likely a reality. That is likely a tragic fantasy.
As for what I do. I drive as little as possible and drive a hybrid (because the power generation in Alberta is so bad that there is more impact from an all electric than there is from a hybrid, lots of coal burning to produce the electricity). I also consume very little that is not food or water. I also seek out Fair Trade goods or sustainably produced goods.
-
MA Rodger at 01:18 AM on 31 July 2019Greenland is gaining ice
Molsen @40,
You say that "it seems that a little more than 99.99 per cent of it does not melt in even a bad year." That is actually wrong. It is about 99.93% that annually "does not melt." The ice sheet averages something like 1,500m in depth and the melt is about 1m of that. What you appear to ignore is the annual +800mm precipitation of snowfall which must be added to the net Ice Mass figures to give the total annual melt.
However, I will assume you are interested in net Ice Mass as that has been your interest up-thread and that would be roughly equal annually to 0.01% of the total ice mass. The statistical significance of the net ice loss is not in any way dependent on the total mass of ice suffering the loss. Rather it is a matter of whether the measurement of Ice Mass is noisy enough that the negative trend could be purely a product of the noise. This can be determined statistically.
In the case of the GRACE data of total Greenland Ice Mass graphed repeatedly on this web-page, the negative trend is a long long way from being statistically insignificance. A quick linear regression through the data with the annaul cycle removed (2003-2015, the data which was readily available) gave a trend of -273.4Gt/yr +/-7.3Gt/yr(2sd). So the Confidence interval would be -266 to -281, all a long way from zero.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 23:46 PM on 30 July 2019'No doubt left' about scientific consensus on global warming, say experts
Kuidaskassikaeb... This would just be yet another hockey stick. The first hockey stick was done by Mann, Bradley and Hughes back in 1998/99. It was merely a collection of local and regional temperature data series all combined that stretched back over the past 1000 years to show the changes in global temperature. Since then there have been lots of newer studies with refinements and the same answer comes back: human activities are rapidly warming the planet. And all that is merely a confirmation for what scientists already expected going back through 100+ years of science.
-
SirCharles at 23:32 PM on 30 July 2019'No doubt left' about scientific consensus on global warming, say experts
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467617707079?journalCode=bsta
-
Kuidaskassikaeb at 23:26 PM on 30 July 2019'No doubt left' about scientific consensus on global warming, say experts
This is just a question. How is this different from the famous hocky stick?
-
richieb1234 at 23:18 PM on 30 July 2019How could global warming accelerate if CO2 is 'logarithmic'?
MA Rodger: Great stuff! Thanks
-
Evan at 23:01 PM on 30 July 2019'No doubt left' about scientific consensus on global warming, say experts
"This paper should finally stop climate change deniers claiming that the recent observed coherent global warming is part of a natural climate cycle."
I doubt this will silence the critics. When have credible facts ever guided POTUS? I expect the only thing that will move the deniers is evidence outside their windows.
But hopefully it will move some of the fence sitters into greener pastures.
Prev 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 Next
