Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 2096 2097 2098 2099 2100 2101 2102 2103 2104 Next
Comments 104801 to 104850:
-
Stephen Baines at 09:36 AM on 9 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
I have a more rhetorical comment, which may be important as this is the first post in an important (IMO) new direction for the site. I wonder if it's maybe more sensible to refer separately to climate skeptics and solution skeptics rather than lumping them together. Otherwise, your first sentence implicitly equates skepticism about the solutions to climate change with skepticism about the science concerning the effects of CO2 on climate. Uncertainty about how the problem should be solved is not trivial -- it requires breaking new ground technologically and in terms of political cooperation. However, whether one thinks those challenges are duanting or not should have absolutely no bearing on the veracity of the scientific evidence for climate change. We should not perpetuate the confusion by using the same term for these two positions, even if it is true that many that are initially solution skeptics decide to become climate skeptics as a result. It will only hinder the focus of the discussion... -
Argus at 09:34 AM on 9 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
Miles??? Per gallon??? What happened to metrics? Are we really going to move into the future with a mixture of unrelated units, used since the Middle ages or since the Romans; units that were based on fingers, feet, baskets, barrels, the weight of a coin or a seed, and what have you? The metric system was developed 200 years ago, with the purpose of standardizing all units in different fields, and making them connected to each other in logical ways. Let us use 'The International System of Units'! The US is now the only nation in the world that does not officially use the metric system (with the possible exception of Burma and Liberia). -
dana1981 at 09:32 AM on 9 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
Fair enough KeenOn350, but the wedge refers to a goal nearly 40 years in the future. I wouldn't write it off just yet. -
KeenOn350 at 09:20 AM on 9 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
@ Dana1981 re: "biofuels coming from non-food crop sources." I defer here to Fridley's expertise - he suggests that experimental non-food crop sources are a long ways from being scaled up to commercial use - and other factors come into play, such as water use, even for non-food crop sources. The referenced video is quite long - but chock full of information. -
Rob Honeycutt at 09:17 AM on 9 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
forensicscience.... The folks in power in China are no dummies. They clearly see that fossil fuel use is not going to carry them through the rest of the 21st century. Oil is going to be a dwindling resource during a period where they are continuing to try to bring their entire nation up to first world standards. The ONLY way they can to that is by getting off carbon based energy. Honestly, the issue is not just climate change. It's population, resource availability, energy demand, pollution issues, geopolitical issues... all oriented toward a massive crisis. Like it or not, one of the big advantages China has right now is their political system. Their government is not beholden to established energy interests. Ours, in the US, is. -
dana1981 at 09:07 AM on 9 November 2010Skeptical Science moving into solutions
Karamanski - yes, most Skeptical Science articles will probably still center around climate science, as opposed to climate solutions. We'll just have some solutions articles and rebuttals interspersed in there. -
forensicscience at 09:01 AM on 9 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
China may be investing in it all but its still using increasing amounts of fossil fuels too and that is one of the big issues, growth. Growth is measured by the log2=70 so divide any annual growth rate into 70 and you get the doubling time. So lets say presently the annual growth rate of fossil fuel usage is 2% then in 70/2=35 years we will have doubled our fossil fuel usage and more than likely our emissions to 60 billion tonnes of Co2 per annum up from 30 today. Add it all up and in just 35 years time (2045) we will have added another 1.5 trilion tonnes leaving around half of it in the atmosphere. Thats is a lot more than is presently there by humans. Combating it is a time issue as well as a political, economic and technological one. Any unproven technology not demonstrated to be scalable to industrial proportions cant be viable, thats leaves csp, wind and nuclear really at the moment. -
mothincarnate at 08:58 AM on 9 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
Great write-up Dana, One thing worth mentioning as it relates to both 14 and 15 - Cleveland and Townsendm (2006) did an interesting study where they fertilised rainforests with phosphorus (many rainforests are have very limited P). This lead to much of the carbon in litter being lost through CO2 emissions rather than being used by the forest or stored. P fertilisation of agricultural land adjacent to forest has the potential to alter mineral cycles and cause P fertilised forests to become net emitters rather than sinks of CO2. -
Karamanski at 08:54 AM on 9 November 2010Skeptical Science moving into solutions
Will Skeptical Science still post articles about global warming itself even though the blog is shifting to the solutions of global warming? Because I think this is a brilliant blog about the science of climate change. -
dana1981 at 08:43 AM on 9 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
forensicscience - China is investing in green tech more than the USA right now. They see the writing on the wall. -
forensicscience at 08:34 AM on 9 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
All those wedges 16 of them required concurrently to stabalise at 450 ppmv is unlikely considering that a lot of car enriching countries such as China are not doing it now but could with persuasion but capatalism states that you can make money and drive what you like. Can a 2 tonne car do 60 MPG -
forensicscience at 08:31 AM on 9 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
Dana1981, Shale gas is a pipedream regardless of what is said. Its just not sound science to suddenly up the reserves based on a dubious method drilling. -
forensicscience at 08:30 AM on 9 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
Ann, what you are saying is not very reasonable to be fair. Its the we cant do it attitude. Coal can easily go technologically but its the economics and politics that are the issue. Lots of power in coal, its an old industry with lots of political know how and finance to see that its interests are met. -
OPatrick at 08:01 AM on 9 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
I'm sure many on here will already have come across David MacKay's Sustainable Energy - without the hot air. He gives a number of scenarios showing different combinations of sustainable energy solutions. I'd be interested to hear how people think this stands up. The PriceWaterhouseCooper's report showing how Europe could be powered entirely by renewable energy by 2050 is also interesting reading. -
dana1981 at 07:49 AM on 9 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
Ville - assuming that coal power prices will drop is unrealistic. Ville and forensicscience - the reason natural gas prices have been dropping is that more reserves have been identified, particularly from unconventional sources like shale gas. KeenOn350 - that's why I specifically made a note about biofuels coming from non-food crop sources. apsmith - good point, thanks. I just used the numbers in PS04, but obviously that's now 6 years old. Ann - the wedges have to assume some sort of baseline, so they assume all else is equal. Of course if not all else is equal, then the numbers have to be adjusted accordingly. But since we can't forsee every change in response to a wedge action, and human responses are not very predictable, the simplest and best assumption is 'if all else is equal', and in the future we can adjust the numbers as necessary. -
Ann at 07:42 AM on 9 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
I must admit in this area I am very skeptical indeed. The “wedges” idea is based on the wrong assumption that you can change one parameter of the system and keep all the rest constant. I am frankly amazed that climate scientists, who are used to work with complex, chaotic mathematical models seem to think that simple sums suffice to calculate the effect of drastic economic and technical measures on human society. Mind you (before someone reads me wrong), I am not claiming at all that we cannot achieve some of the points that are mentioned. We could for instance produce a substantial amount of biofuel to replace fossil fuels. What I am doubting is the effect such measures will have against climate change, because I think that next to the desired effect (reduce CO2 emissions) there will be a myriad of unforeseen and undesired effects that may very well render the whole operation useless. My skepticism is not entirely unfounded. We have already seen at least one result of this simplistic thinking: the massive promotion of biofuels (particularly in Europe) has lead to rapidly increasing deforestation in many parts of the world, thereby negating any positive effect that could have resulted from using biofuels in the first place. Another example: “improved fuel economy. One wedge would be achieved if, instead of averaging 30 milesper gallon (mpg) on conventional fuel, cars in 2054 averaged 60 mpg, with fuel type and distance traveled unchanged.” The question that immediately comes to mind is: Did improving fuel economy of cars in the past reduce CO2 emissions ? Between 1975 and 1985 the fuel economy of an average car doubled, from 13,5 to 27,5 miles per gallon. Did this reduce overall CO2 emissions ? Of course the trick is the phrase “with fuel type and distance traveled unchanged”. Unfortunately, this is not what is going to happen. If people pay less for their fuel, they will in general drive travel longer distances. Such side effects must be taken into account, instead of setting unrealistic preconditions. I am not advocating despair, but you need more to convince me than this kind of 1+1=2 logic. Climate scientists wouldn’t dream of linearly adding up climate forcings and feedbacks to arrive at a predicted climate change – at least I hope so. Why use this simplistic logic when trying to predict how human society reacts to certain measures ? To evaluate the impact of the proposed measures on human society, a mathematical model should be constructed that is in every way as complex as any climate model. The relevant parameters are at least: population growth, economic rules like supply and demand, total available global and local resources (e.g. food and energy, with food being heavily dependent on energy), etc., economic growth, ecological footprint, government subsidies etc. This should give us some insight in the interactions that exist between abovementioned parameters. And then you could start truly evaluating the actual effects the proposed actions may have on CO2 emissions. -
muoncounter at 07:42 AM on 9 November 2010Climate change from 40 million years ago shows climate sensitivity to CO2
#50: "It is fully accurate to say that cooling oceans CAUSE lower CO2 levels. Much like warming oceans CAUSE higher CO2 levels." Not so fast. If you expect warming oceans to release CO2, then why do we see increased acidity in today's warming oceans? The oceans are absorbing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and this is causing chemical changes by making them more acidic (that is, decreasing the pH of the oceans). ... Calculations based on measurements of the surface oceans and our knowledge of ocean chemistry indicate that this uptake of CO2 has led to a reduction of the pH of surface seawater of 0.1 units, equivalent to a 30% increase in the concentration of hydrogen ions. -- Raven et al 2005 Similarly, warming temperature and increasing ocean acidity during the Eocene --> oceans absorbing CO2. During the most prominent and best-studied hyperthermal, the PETM, the global temperature increased by more than 5C in less than 10000 years. At about the same time, more than 2000 Gt C as CO2 -- comparable in magnitude to that which would occur over the coming centuries -- entered the atmosphere and ocean. -- Zachos 2008 CO2 entering just the atmosphere could be ocean outgassing. But entering both ocean and atmosphere hardly indicates that the ocean is giving up the gas. A controlling factor is the 'carbonate compensation depth,' which can vary considerably with both ocean temperature and acidity. Tripati et al 2005: ... report evidence for synchronous deepening and subsequent oscillations in the calcite compensation depth in the tropical Pacific and South Atlantic oceans from 42 million years ago, with a permanent deepening 34 million years ago. ... suggest that the greenhouse–icehouse transition was closely coupled to the evolution of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and that negative carbon cycle feedbacks may have prevented the permanent establishment of large ice sheets earlier than 34 million years ago. -
scaddenp at 07:37 AM on 9 November 2010Keep those PJs on: a La Niña cannot erase decades of warming
TIS - I see the "oceans are causing it" argument again. If the oceans are cause, then you need to look at the surface temperature trend from say 1975 and reckon what means as an amount of an energy transfer from the oceans (as you see in small scale in ESNO). To prevent a violation of first law, what must that mean for OHC? Got a single published paper that presents a thermodynamically sound model for accounting for that trend by ocean cycles? -
michael sweet at 07:36 AM on 9 November 2010Skeptical Science moving into solutions
I think the division of the Skeptical Science site lends itself to this type of discusion. People read the threads that they are interested in. The moderators will have to learn how to keep the discusion on track and not let one person overwhelm everyone else. There will be a learning curve but it sounds good to me. -
scaddenp at 07:28 AM on 9 November 2010Climate change from 40 million years ago shows climate sensitivity to CO2
TIS - the paper is about a transient event at 40my. The plate reconstruction in the paper infers drake strait had not opened and I am not aware (but could be uninformed) of evidence for persistent ice sheet in the antarctica at that time. I dont see really what you points have to do with this paper. However, you claim that development of ice sheets in antarctica would reduce CO2 and cool the ocean (presumably you mean ocean cooling reduces CO2??). I wonder what you think the mechanism for this is? Ice sheets definitely increase albedo but if you think changes to GHGs are an insignificant element in determining climate, then I am interested to you how the ice sheet development cools the global oceans. Can you make the arithmetic add up? Warming oceans can cause higher CO2 levels (amplifying warming - that is what "sensitivity" is about) but you do know that the elevated CO2 levels at present are from fossil fuel and not from out the ocean? -
KeenOn350 at 07:22 AM on 9 November 2010Skeptical Science moving into solutions
I'm inclined to agree with BillWalker - SS as it is now is a very valuable reference site, in part because it is apolitical. Solutions get complicated - even the question of their " scientific validity". Maybe a related site would be a good idea. -
apsmith at 07:11 AM on 9 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
Some of the numbers are out of date. For example on wind, total world installed capacity at the end of 2009 was 158 GW, of which almost 40 GW was added in that year. That's a factor of 12, not 50, to get to 2000 GW. And by now it should be down to a factor of about 10, not 12. See here for this data: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/02/global-wind-installations-boom-up-31-in-2009 I think a better source than Pacala and Socolow are the various McKinsey studies that also consider the economics, rather than just technical feasibility: http://ww1.mckinsey.com/clientservice/sustainability/service.asp in particular their GHG abatement cost curves: http://ww1.mckinsey.com/clientservice/sustainability/Costcurves.asp and this 2009 report on "Pathways to a low carbon economy": http://ww1.mckinsey.com/clientservice/sustainability/pathways_low_carbon_economy.asp The interesting thing is that the first chunk of carbon abatement actions actually *pay for themselves*: they are worth investing in independent of any government incentives or support. -
KeenOn350 at 07:09 AM on 9 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
[A little PS: Maybe a sister site for solutions would be a good thing - this is going to be a big topic!] -
KeenOn350 at 07:07 AM on 9 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
I would be suspicious of any wedge attributed to biofuels...especially ethanol. There are a number of drawbacks associated with biofuels, not the least of which is the problem of using our agricultural space to feed cars instead of people! The EROI (Energy Return On Investment) is not too exciting, either. Check out this very informative video by David Fridley of Lawrence Berkeley Labs and San Francisco Oil Awareness:"The Myths of Biofuels" There is a thought-provoking comment in the very last seconds of the video, when the use of horses is under discussion. Fridley says "...ultimately they [horses] will be extremely necessary." Kind of makes you wonder where we're going, doesn't it? -
forensicscience at 07:03 AM on 9 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
Natural gas will never sacale to replace coal - coal has to be replaced by nuclear and/or renewables such as wind and/or solar baseload (CSP) as wel as PV. Just replacing coal alone will be the first and easiest target technologically, however politially and economically its going to be a major fight for coal has deep pockets and lobbying is their forte with decades worth of experience in arguing for its future. Replacing oil and the automobile industry is not as easy as getting everyones next car to do 60+ MPG but although many cars achieve that now and more will as oil gets more expensive its going to take politics to get everyone off of em and when it comes ot flying you can forget any presently available replacement regardless. Electric cars are a better prospect that hydrogen but aeroplanes are up for grabs with a new liquid fuel, bio or hydrogen. Replacing gas is another matter completely and herein lies the issues with fossil fuels:solid, liquid and gas can be readily used, transmitted and transported - what else as yet can be except enery carriers such as electricity itself, thats what coal is used or after all, electricity generation so its achieveable technologivally but politicially its a nighmare hence CCS being offered as an olive branch but its too expensive we are told. -
CBDunkerson at 06:44 AM on 9 November 2010Keep those PJs on: a La Niña cannot erase decades of warming
John Bruno #29: Perhaps clarifications like this could be include as 'inline postcripts'; [Note: User XYZ points out in 'this linked comment' that the claim of ABC may be based on this assumption/interpretation... which is problematic because of 123, and see the comments for more info]. That way the original post isn't rewritten and the comments can still be tracked back to the text, but any major issues raised in the comments are covered so people don't have to read the entire comment stream to find out whether they should raise it themselves. Obviously this would only apply to somewhat involved concepts... spelling errors and the like can always just be corrected in the text. -
Paul D at 06:42 AM on 9 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
"Substituting natural gas for coal" I think you mean Substituting coal with natural gas?? The carbon footprint of gas fired power stations is around 500 gCO2/kwh, Coal is about 1000 gCO2/kwh. So you cut some emissions by half. For how long?? In any case it is a short term solution. Here in the UK we are just about out of gas, none left. We are squeezing the last dregs out of the North Sea. -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:36 AM on 9 November 2010Keep those PJs on: a La Niña cannot erase decades of warming
This whole issue gives one pause to think of what might transpire when the next 1998-style El Nino rears it's ugly head. -
Paul D at 06:35 AM on 9 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
"One wedge would be created if twice today’s quantity of coal-based electricity in 2054 were produced at 60% instead of 40% efficiency." How is that proposed (technically)? Assuming you did it overnight (obviously not practical), you gain a 20% advantage. Population growth and cheaper electricity results in more consumerism, the 20% is eaten up by the demand and the building of more power stations. Result, you produce the same amount of emissions as you did before the efficiency improvements, CO2 emissions continue to rise. What you really need is more expensive energy and improved emissions reductions! -
Albatross at 05:48 AM on 9 November 2010The value of coherence in science
Chris @50, "I would prefer to see myself as a member of one tribe only - the human race." I agree. -
CBDunkerson at 05:48 AM on 9 November 2010Climate change from 40 million years ago shows climate sensitivity to CO2
Norman wrote: "Even if Mars had more CO2 than it has currently (which is an assumption...no experimental evidence to support it)" Well... there is the evidence of possible past surface water. :] Look, you said that the only way that Mars could have had liquid water in the past was if the Sun had been hotter then. I have shown that this is incorrect... there are other things which impact the temperature of planets. DID Mars have a thicker atmosphere and liquid water in the past? That is the prevailing theory, but not something I'm advancing as established fact. I was correcting your 'Sun only' assumption... not stating any conclusion of my own. "Carbon Dioxide does not have an unlimited ability to absorb IR and redirect it. It absorbs a percentage of the IR spectrum (mostly at 15 micron range)." See the presentations the moderator and Tom Dayton linked to. Or consider the planet Venus. Further from the Sun, but more than 100 C hotter than Mercury. Pretty much tosses out the 'solar only' and 'limited CO2 warming' claims in one neat package. "In the past the Earth is cited as having a CO2 level of around 6000 PPM." Which would be about 'five doublings' from the pre-industrial revolution CO2 level. So 5 C warming from the increased CO2 and maybe 10 C to 30 C from feedbacks if we were to assume that climate sensitivity then was similar to now (which we shouldn't). Earliest evidence of liquid water on Earth was back when the Sun's output was about 70% of current. Lining those and various other factors (e.g. orbital differences) up gets more than a little involved, but the graph Tom cited seems like a good rough guide. Also worth mentioning that there is some indication that the Earth MAY have frozen over, or nearly so, in the past. Lookup 'Snowball Earth' for details. -
Tom Dayton at 04:50 AM on 9 November 2010Climate change from 40 million years ago shows climate sensitivity to CO2
Norman, there is graph titled "Atmospheric CO2 concentrations required to compensate for reduced solar luminosity in the past,..." in a slide presentation by Daniel Kirk-Davidoff titled "Paleoclimatology: An Introduction." It is Slide 4, Figure 2. You might find the rest of the slides instructive, too. -
dana1981 at 04:23 AM on 9 November 2010Skeptical Science moving into solutions
The idea is not that Skeptical Science will advocate any particular policy solution. Rather the site will examine the scientific validity of various solutions and skeptic arguments against them. -
CBDunkerson at 04:23 AM on 9 November 2010Skeptical Science moving into solutions
I might suggest starting off by limiting solutions discussions to proven technologies. Space based solar, thorium breeder reactors, and clean coal technology are all billed as 'wonderful things which can solve all of our problems'... but none of them has demonstrated that capability yet. There are technical hurdles which we are assured can be easily overcome, but there is no real world data history to examine. Of course, such an approach would knock geo-engineering out of discussion before we even begin... but we could always try to tackle the 'speculative future solutions' later. Anyone who has spend much time here has seen that it is difficult to get people to accept basic laws of physics when they've got a political agenda to the contrary. Moving on to competing technologies with variable results in different parts of the world is going to magnify that problem at least an order of magnitude. Adding in 'emerging technologies' basically reduces it to a pure public relations scrimmage. The best bet there may be to examine each future concept in detail with consideration of the benefits, drawbacks, and obstacles to be overcome. -
Phila at 04:14 AM on 9 November 2010Climate change from 40 million years ago shows climate sensitivity to CO2
RSVP: So you have nothing to fear in that sense, but what one does see is a lot of resistance to inquiry, or what might be considered offensive questioning. Assuming for the sake of argument that one really does see "resistance to inquiry," this may have something to do with the fact that the "skeptical" side relies so heavily on endlessly recycled misconceptions and conspiracy theories (as five minutes on virtually any SkS thread will demonstrate). Perhaps that explains some of the "resistance," along with the fact that extraordinary claims -- like the claim that our understanding of the threat AGW poses is significantly in error -- require extraordinary evidence that "skeptics" never seem to get around to providing. That said, I'd argue that the entire idea of this "resistance to inquiry" is basically false. Apart from SkS, consider the EPA Endangerment Findings, which patiently address nearly every "skeptical" argument in existence, from the plausible to the laughable. "Resistance" to the ignorance and misinformation on display in threads like this one is exactly what we should expect and want to see from scientists. The fact that all these demands for more (and more, and more) "inquiry" tend to come from people who display childlike credulity toward repeatedly debunked anti-AGW arguments makes it even harder to take them seriously. Real inquiry into this subject is happening where it really matters: among experts in the relevant fields. -
Bibliovermis at 04:13 AM on 9 November 2010Climate change from 40 million years ago shows climate sensitivity to CO2
Norman, Mars does have 70x more CO2 in the atmosphere than Earth does. This is because that atmosphere is 95.3% CO2, but the atmospheric pressure is 0.007 times that of the Earth's. However, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. Earth's atmosphere ranges from 0-7% water vapor, while Mars only has 0.03%. The Martian atmosphere also contains no methane. Conditions on Mars: Atmosphere (content, density, sky appearance) NASA - Mars NASA - Earth's Atmosphere Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas (currently argument #25)Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. This positive feedback is why climate is so sensitive to CO2 warming.
-
BillWalker at 03:49 AM on 9 November 2010Skeptical Science moving into solutions
While I agree with you in spirit, I worry about the effect of this change. As it stands now, this site is an amazing resource and helps in convincing skeptics that climate change is real. But as soon as you delve into solutions, it becomes political, and conservatives will then dismiss the site as having a liberal bias. While we certainly need to talk about solutions, I fear doing so here will greatly weaken the ability to use this site to convince political ideologues. -
michael sweet at 03:45 AM on 9 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Peter Lang, your response to me gives Australian estimates to imply Texas is subsidized. That is obviously false. You do not mention the use of Nuclear reactors in Afganistan, Haiti and Zimbabwe. You have not answered my questions, you have avoided them. Provide a link if you have one. Since you have chosen not to answer these questions, it is clear that you feel Texas does not subsidize their wind and nuclear is unsafe in the third world. You have dominated this thread with claims supported only by nuclear industry data. I was neutral about nuclear when I started reading this thread. If your argument is the best nuclear can do, I am now convinced that nuclear is not worth much effort. I am still paying for the unapproved nuclear reactor that will not be on line for at least 10 years. Wind is paid for by the installer in advance and is not billed until it produces electricity. Who is being subsidized by this deal? If nuclear is only economic when they bill 10 years in advance it will never work. Nuclear engineers have been making wild claims for the past 40 years. You seem to be adding to that pile. Provide economic and waste treatment data for the running thorium reactor that you claim is so efficient, not just hopeful designs that have yet to be built. -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:09 AM on 9 November 2010Ice-Free Arctic
Camburn.... There is a huge difference between an ice breaker getting through the Northwest Passage and a 12.5 meter sailboat. The difference is that now we are seeing the NW Passage clear of ice. -
michael sweet at 02:45 AM on 9 November 2010Skeptical Science moving into solutions
You may want to consider modifications in the posting policy. A recent thread on skeptical science came to be dominated by a very few individuals with strong feelings about the topic. It seemed to me that people with other valid views left the thread rather than argue with the dominant people. If you limited the number of posts per day (or per thread) that would allow more people to get in a voice without sanctioning anyone. There were also issues on that thread about what sources were reliable. -
Eric (skeptic) at 00:26 AM on 9 November 2010Skeptical Science moving into solutions
Not peer-reviewed science, but as usual Acres USA has several good articles on ecological crop production (I started subscribing a few months ago). On page 26-32 the author talks about the flaws with large scale monoculture and he describes an alternative. One of his main arguments is that native, perennial crops require a lot less energy than annual crops (energy needed for planting, herbicides/pesticides, etc) An old article by the same author: www.nfs.unl.edu/documents/SpecialtyForest/Shepard.pdf My main nitpick is that these articles are not very quantitative and rely on other qualitative benefits like quality of life (a legitimate argument, but not quantitative). -
Paul D at 00:12 AM on 9 November 2010Skeptical Science moving into solutions
Would it be better to have a sister site? -
Paul D at 00:10 AM on 9 November 2010Skeptical Science moving into solutions
It depends how it is done. There is of course the danger that you alienate the people that support what you are doing. Solutions are a more political and policy issue, which means it is fraught with potential problems. -
OPatrick at 00:08 AM on 9 November 2010Skeptical Science moving into solutions
I like this idea but part of me is thinking you almost need a whole different sister-site for it (Sceptical Solutions?) The problem is, as Alexandre says, the peer-reviewed literature is much more sparse. But more than that - and this is something the 'sceptics' use to their advantage - relying too much on peer-reviewed science in this area skews debate towards the easily measurable. For example how can we measure the response of ecosystems, or even of civilisations, to changes in climate that have never been observed in the past? We end up relying on a few studies that take an empirical approach even if these studies aren't representative of the reality we face. -
John Bruno at 00:01 AM on 9 November 2010Keep those PJs on: a La Niña cannot erase decades of warming
Alexandre at 23:29: I suspect even then and beyond, every La Nina and every local cool spell will induce the Pavlovian "it's cooling!" response. -
Alexandre at 23:29 PM on 8 November 2010Keep those PJs on: a La Niña cannot erase decades of warming
Gosh, will these guys draw the "it's cooling" argument at every La Nina? Even in the middle of a record-braking 2010? In 2050, with the trend firmly upwards until then, there will be guys saying "it stopped warming in 2048". -
Alexandre at 23:26 PM on 8 November 2010Skeptical Science moving into solutions
Great move. It's about time to talk about what to do. Yes, it will be more difficult to stay within peer reviewed literature. Much of it is political, ideological or just new technology that does not reach a level of a published paper. Yes, this will demand new moderating skills... Starting point must always be politeness. -
Norman at 23:03 PM on 8 November 2010Climate change from 40 million years ago shows climate sensitivity to CO2
#58 CBDunkerson, Not dimissing the model. But do you realize how many assumptions you have to make to support your claim? You do understand that the logic to arrive at a conclusion can be valid but the conclusion is still wrong because the initial assumption is not correct. Even if Mars had more CO2 than it has currently (which is an assumption...no experimental evidence to support it) Carbon Dioxide does not have an unlimited ability to absorb IR and redirect it. It absorbs a percentage of the IR spectrum (mostly at 15 micron range). CO2 at Earth's concentration is already far past the linear part of the logrithmic curve. In the past the Earth is cited as having a CO2 level of around 6000 PPM. Can you calculate how faint our Sun would have to be to keep the temp in the range that is cited? Then take that faint Sun radiation and direct it at Mars to see if Mars could have sustained liquid water at this time. One Historic episode where the majority of scientists were wrong was when locals took them meteorites (somewhere in the 1800's). The scientists used perfect logic and there understanding of Gravity. The locals claimed the rocks came from the sky...the scientists refuted this claim with the reasoning that they could not have come from the sky because they could not get up there (gravity and all), they reasoned the rocks were struck by lightning and that is what the locals saw and why the rocks were warm. Even if the logic was perfectly valid, the assumption supporting it was incorrect.Moderator Response: Regarding "Carbon Dioxide does not have an unlimited ability...," see the Argument "CO2 effect is saturated." If you want to discuss that topic further, please do so over there. (Everyone else please respond to Norman on that thread, not here.) -
Ned at 22:57 PM on 8 November 2010Keep those PJs on: a La Niña cannot erase decades of warming
I do not triumph the cooler, wetter weather as proof that no global warming is happening, but accept that it as part of a natural cycle. Yes, it's part of a natural cycle that is superimposed on top of a long-term anthropogenic warming trend. Consider the most recent La Nina episode (2008) -- it was the second strongest since the 1970s. One would normally think of La Nina years as "cold", and indeed 2008 was the coldest year of the past decade ... but it was still warmer than any year before 1997-1998. That is precisely the pattern that you would expect to see with a natural cycle (ENSO) superimposed on a long term rising trend. The troughs of the cycle are now higher than the peaks were previously. -
John Bruno at 22:21 PM on 8 November 2010Keep those PJs on: a La Niña cannot erase decades of warming
MarkR at 18:54 PM "So in a way it's correct, I think your post should clarify the difference. In annual terms it's far smaller, but from an El Nino peak the difference can be 0.6 ° C." Fair enough. I am willing to, although doesn't the comments section sufficiently clarify that? I am starting to view the comments section on SS and on many other sites including skeptic sites as a form of post publication review, like PLoS One does formally and the scientific community does informally. Another example is adelady's point that El Nino and La Nina are not causes of warming/cooling per se, they are defined as warming/cooling as driven by a natural cycle, i.e., they don't cause the phenomena, they are the phenomena, and the proximate causal mechanism is trade winds, etc. Back to broader question: should such (valid) points from any perspective be incorporated into the formal post? Or would that be redundant? (it would also make the comments section confusing, since they would no longer be relevant to the post)
Prev 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 2096 2097 2098 2099 2100 2101 2102 2103 2104 Next
