Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  210  211  212  213  214  215  216  217  218  219  220  221  222  223  224  225  Next

Comments 10851 to 10900:

  1. New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change'

    @scaddenp,

    Yes Scaddenp. I also know about that one too. But keep in mind this exact quote from the paper I referenced:

    Carbon sequestration in grasslands can be determined directly by measuring changes in C pools and indirectly by measuring the net balance of C fluxes.

    The conclusions you posted are based indirectly on models, and the paper I gave you is directly measuring pools. Same goes for my previous papers I referenced.

    Now the results from each would be perfectly fine if the simulation model  was accurate in simulating holistic managed land, but as Dr Jones noted, the Roth C model being used to project these fluxes is inadequate to simulate the LCP, while still being perfectly good at simulating O-horizon fluxes primarily caused by saprophytic micro-organisms.

    This is the reason for the dichotomy

  2. Ari Jokimäki at 16:05 PM on 27 May 2019
    New research, May 13-19, 2019

    Thank you both! :-)

  3. New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change'

    Interesting for its studies in cooler European environment. Following the cites are interesting too and we find that the author (Soussana) has some caveats in a later paper.

    "Sequestration of C in grassland soils by changing management practices is widely seen as a way to offset CO2 emissions. However, previous studies indicate that the projected increasing frequency of drought and heat wave events may turn grasslands into C sources, contributing to positive carbon-climate feedbacks (Ciais et al. 2005; Soussana et al. 2007). In addition, the combination of long-term effects of drought with high atmospheric [CO2] could decrease soil microbial biomass (Loiseau and Soussana 2000; Pinay et al. 2007) and promote shifts in functional microbial types (Barnard et al. 2006), thus leading to changes in biogeochemical cycles and C sequestration. Moreover, Conant et al. (2005) showed that even when improved management practices result in considerable rates of C and N sequestration, changes in N2O fluxes can offset a substantial portion of gains by C sequestration. Policies intended to offset GHG emissions using C sequestration must therefore consider impacts on other biogenic GHGs like N2O and CH4."

  4. New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change'

    I found yet another confirmation that the range measured by Dr. Jones (5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr) was completely independantly repeated.

    Mitigating livestock greenhouse gas balance
    through carbon sequestration in grasslands

    This time between 7.3 and 7.9 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr

    Approximately 8 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr is the target number concerning land currently in food production. That's not even counting the vastly larger area of degraded land destroyed by mankind that Savory has proven can be restored to fertile grassland by proper management.

    So yet again it is not Savory being refuted, it is this article by Seb V.

  5. There is no consensus

    JoeZ @801 ,

    Yes, there are "scientists who aren't part of the consensus" ~ but there are hardly any climate scientists who would fit in that category.   That is why the Consensus is only 99+% , not absolutely 100%  .   Far worse for your unstated position, JoeZ, those very few scientists had all produced hypotheses which have been thoroughly disproven (see Svensmark, Lindzen) . . . and worse again, they contain a high percentage of religious crackpots who are not strictly scientific in their mode of thinking.

    Are they "stupid"?   Well, stupid is a rather elastic term.   I myself know a fellow who has a PhD and spent decades in scientific research [but not in climate-related matters] and yet he is a member of the local Flat Earth Society.  Unsurprisingly, he is also in denial about global warming.

    Is he stupid?  He is pleasant, sociable, and intelligent ~ but that doesn't stop him from being quite wrong about important issues.   Just like Lindzen & his comrades who are over-influenced by irrational religious beliefs or extremist political beliefs.   They put their ego ahead of scientific thinking.

    Also rather like your Mr Alex Epstein (who is an author, not a philosopher) who chooses to write a book, not submitting his ideas to the point-by-point criticism which would occur in the process of peer-review in a scientific paper.   JoeZ, it is easy to write a book and have your unbalanced rhetoric sweep your ill-informed readers into a state of intellectual submission & adulation . . . just as it is easy to make a "documentary" film about a subject [ here, "The Great Global Warming Swindle" comes to mind ] where severely-doctored graphs and fallacious logic are employed.  The general reading/viewing public are not to know how fake it all is, unless they take the trouble to apply critical thinking and to educate themselves on the basics of the issue.

    In the end, JoeZ , it all comes down to evidence.   And evidence is the thing lacking in the positions taken by those "non-consensus" scientists.  The climate consensus exists because of the climate evidence.   

  6. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960

    From the essay at the top, "Tree growth is sensitive to temperature." I've been a professional forester since Nixon was in the White House and I know that there are  many variables that influence tree growth. I wouldn't place too much faith in the relationship between tree growth and temperature. Other factors include soil moisture, age of the tree, competition with other trees (is the forest dense or has it been thinned either naturally or by cutting?), pathologies which  may be temporary like gypsy moth, air pollution and the level of atmospheric CO2. Some research shows trees growing faster with higher levels of CO2.

    Moderator Response:

    [PS] Funnily enough, the importance of other factors is well known and using tree rings as proxies requires careful selection. See here for example and more detail.

  7. There is no consensus

    I have a few quotes from the article to comment on.

    "Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing." But the arguing continues. When it stops you have orthodoxy and heretics.

    "But the testing period must come to an end." I suspect a lot of testing and improved model building is needed which should keep the testing going.

    "That’s why those who oppose taking action to curb climate change have engaged in a misinformation campaign to deny the existence of the expert consensus." Hey, that's quite a claim. Maybe they believe what they say?

    I don't have a fixed position yet on global warming. I have been looking at some of the scientists who aren't part of the consensus. I hope it's not considered dangerous to look at their views- do we get excommunicated for doing so? Whenever I mention any of the non conforming in other forums- the biggest comeback is that they're all on the take from the fossil fuel industries or they're just stupid. I don't really care who pays them and I'd hardly consider anyone with a Phd as stupid.

    Aside from the many non conforming scientists- I've found one interesting guy, Alex Epstein, a philospher by training who has published his book on the subject, "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels". I watched him debate Bill McKibben back in 2014. It's on YouTube. I think he held his own in that debate. I don't think it's fair to instantly dismiss such thinkers. He admits upfront that he's had connections with that industry- so no need to point that out. He has a very interesting perspective- worth looking at, even by those convinced of the existential threat of climate change. It doesn't hurt to see what the opposition is up to. I found his book so interesting I'd like to get a discussion going on this forum, if that's possible- but it probably isn't.

    Moderator Response:

    [PS] This thread is for discussion of consensus studies. Please take any discussion of a moral case for fossil fuels to the weekly roundup thread.

  8. One Planet Only Forever at 08:42 AM on 27 May 2019
    2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #21

    Here is an article from March this year that relates to the Editor's Pick this week. It is from the BBC Future section, dated March 19, 2019. "Why we need to reinvent democracy for the long-term"

    The problem of a lack of leadership interest in correcting harmful developments and developing sustainable improvements for the benefit of the future of humanity requires socioeconomic-political system change.

    Ethically and Morally, every future human deserves consideration (and future humans massively out-number any current day population). Based on 'proportional consideration (equality and fairness)' there would be no justification for any unsustainable or harmful pursuits of personal interest, especially pursuits that are detrimental to the future of humanity in ways than are worse than just reducing future access to non-renewable resources (burning buried ancient hydrocarbons reduces future access to that resource).

    Financial evaluations that discount future harm done then compare that reduced value (probably significantly low-balled before discounting), to evaluations of current day lost opportunities if the harm is not done (probably significantly over-estimated), is an example of improper consideration of impacts on the future.

    Sustainable activity being improved by the development of better sustainable activity is the required objective (achieving and improving on the Sustainable Development Goals). That means that Negative future consequences are simply unacceptable.

    Until that system correction is any developed perceptions of progress, including technological advances and supposed 'fixes' to developed problems, will continue to be fatally incorrect, just making the future worse.

    The recent surge of populist United Political Right groups is likely connected to an attempt by the greedier and less tolerant (more selfish) leadership (wealthy influential people) to impede the development of the required socioeconomic-political corrections. They want a Status-Quo that undoes much of the progress of humanity that has been occurring, and that resists any other Progressive improvements. Tragically, they are able to mobilize support from less fortunate desperate people who can collectively have influence.

  9. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle

    For details on contribution of the gases to the overall GHE which keeps us from freezing, see this paper here. I dont see how cloud seeding would help - the amount of water in the atmosphere is dependent on temperature (Clausius-Clapyron relation) hence water vapour acts as a feedback to any other variable that is changing the temperature.

  10. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle

    @Ddahl44 @149

    No, that is not correct. Just looking at the static concentrations does not give you the answer you want. It is the change in conditions that you should be looking at. CO2 concentration has increased so that has led to a rise in the temperature. In turn that has led to an increase in the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, which results in even more of a rise in the temperature. So there is a feedback effect. 

     

     

  11. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle

    Oops - the above should say “H20 60%|CO2 30%”

  12. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle

    So a molecule of water can trap heat equally  well as a molecule of CO2? A web search tells me H2O makes up about 2% of the molecules in the atmosphere. So shouldn’t water contribute 70x of the warming of CO2 based on atmospheric  concentrations? Where are the numbers quoted in the above responses (H2O 60%/CO2 20% as relative contributions) derived? Warmer earth, more water evaporation, warmer earth, etc. Are we headed towards cloud seeding?

  13. New research, May 13-19, 2019

    Me too Ari.  Thanks for the help

  14. 2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #21

    The relevant article from the economist.com. "Economists are rethinking fiscal policy". 

    You can get five free articles a month by registering.

  15. 2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #21

    Regarding the excellent article "The UN calls for enlightened self interest...."

    Seems to be in very short supply.

    "the UN chief stressed that “climate change cannot be stopped by the small island countries alone, it has to be stopped by the rest of the world” and that this requires the political will for “transformational policies in energy, mobility, industry and agriculture”.

    So much has to be done in parallel. Who is supposed to lead the way?An uprising of school children seems to be the only thing happening. They are seeing the problem clearly, probably due to being taught the science and not brainwashed with the denialism like their parents. But its going to take more than kids protesting.

    "Mr. Guterres echoed the “three urgent messages” to world leaders that he had “consistently conveyed” throughout his visit to the Pacific, beginning with shifting taxes from salaries to carbon. “We need to tax pollution, not people,” he reiterated. "

    Yes taxing pollution is the economically sensible option, and may be viable in Europe, but carbon taxes are not proving popular in America even with a dividend scheme. All talk, no consensus, no action. It's due to taxes being regarded as a dirty word and the associated political tribalism that has developed.  And emissions trading schemes seem to be just as hard to get through congress.

    In America it might have to come back to something closer to the Green New Deal, where the government finances or subsidises climate related mitigation projects like the electricity generation and industry with deficit financing or money creation (Modern Monetary Theory is becoming a talking point lately). These things might be perceived to be less ideologically divisive and impactful on the public.

    We have seeen money creation with quantitative easing and it hasn't lead to problems. Given the GOP is happy to run high deficits, it's going to be hard for them to take the idea off the table. Some evidence is emerging that deficits and government debt are not as problematic as once thought (refer to the economist.com). Not saying I personally love this thinking, but its what this respected website is saying.

    "Second, he flagged that countries must stop subsidizing fossil fuels."
    Yes to that. Pure commonsense. But people like Donald Trump have done a great job of convincing (brainwashing) his core voters that such subsidies are good for them.

  16. michael sweet at 20:54 PM on 25 May 2019
    New research, May 6-12, 2019

    More good news on electric vehicles.  

    China is rapidly converting its bus fleet to electric.  They are cheaper than ICE overall because maintenance is cheaper but initial cost is still higher than ICE.  They are buying electric to reduce pollution in cities.

    Here is the link for Norway electric cars.  It is currently the most read link on the BBC.

  17. michael sweet at 20:47 PM on 25 May 2019
    New research, May 6-12, 2019

    This BBC video discusses electric cars in Norway.  The government taxes ICE cars so electric are cheaper.  59% of cars sold in one month were electric!!  It is possible to convert to electric if people are motivated.  And electric cars are cheaper to maintain.

    The video says they need more charging statiions.  I imagine the grid will have to be upgraded to transmit more electricity.

  18. New research, May 13-19, 2019

    Ari,

    I'm sorry to hear that you won't be continuing this feature.  It's been very useful to me, especially the palaeoclimate listings, and I thank you for your work.

    Regards,

      Synapsid

  19. Introducing a new citizens initiative for carbon pricing in Europe

    And we have also degraded soils with intensive poorly managed dairy and livestock farming,  and some potential exists to increase the ability of soils to sequester carbon if livestock farming is done in particular ways. I hear what RB says.

  20. Introducing a new citizens initiative for carbon pricing in Europe

    Grazing livestock on open plains have been carbon neutral in the past because the methane they release breaks down to CO2 and is absorbed by natural sinks. My understanding is the problem is humans have increased the numbers ahead of what natural sinks can absorb, and those natural sinks including forests are disappearing. I stand to be corrected if someone posts links to better information.

    I think the bottom line is we need to get livestock numbers down to a manageable level, and eat less meat, but getting rid of all livestock does not appear to make much sense, and thinking the whole world will become vegetarian looks unrealistic to me.

  21. johnthepainter at 01:47 AM on 25 May 2019
    Introducing a new citizens initiative for carbon pricing in Europe

    @2wilddouglascountry

    The claim that animal agriculture causes more greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels is wildly inaccurate.  The New York Times finds that "Worldwide, livestock accounts for between 14.5 percent and 18 percent of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions," with US livestock emissions only about half that amount.   https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/climate/cows-global-warming.html

  22. Introducing a new citizens initiative for carbon pricing in Europe

    @10 cpske,

    The even lower low carbon lifestyle, (only pasture raised animal products, lots of local vegetables, and biking around) is even more healthy for you.

    This could provide incentives enough for citizens to switch. But if the dividend were paid to farmers for verified tonnage of carbon sequestered yearly in soils, food would be even cheaper and the reduction of greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere several orders of magnitude faster.

    This is the folly of a emissions only approach.

    It turns out that while much of the “pulse” of extra CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere would be absorbed over the next century if emissions miraculously were to end today, about 20 percent of that CO2 would remain for at least tens of thousands of years. 

    Common Climate Misconceptions: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

    Meanwhile biology can remove that CO2 much much faster. In fact at the astonishing rate of 5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr if it includes the unique symbiosis between mycorrhizal fungi, perennial grasses, and the vast herds of herbivores that evolved on them.

    You don't need to eat those herbivores since you are a Vegan. But they do have a biological function that includes the ecosystem service of soil creation and nutrient cycling... and yes that does also include removing excess CO2 from the atmosphere. So we do need them to heal the planet.

     

  23. Introducing a new citizens initiative for carbon pricing in Europe

    The low carbon lifestyle, (no animal flesh, lots of local vegetables, and biking around) is a lot healthier (and cheaper) for you. This should provide incentives enough for citizens to switch. Had my cholesterol checked the other day and it was 120 and I am no longer obese. If all citizens followed my lead, we would put 90% of all cardiologists out of business. Heart disease and diabetes would effectively end as scourges to humanity.

    And as a side benefit, I'd rake in the dough from this sort of revenue-neutral carbon tax.

  24. Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"

    'Others' 'selfishly based on benefiting from fossil fuels.'?

    "Australia is the latest democracy to discover that climate emergencies are incompatible with neoliberal inequality. In a repeat of the 2016 Brexit and Trump votes, all of the polling for last week’s general election predicted that a strong environmental platform would propel the Australian Labor Party into government. Instead, in defiance of the opinion polls, the Liberal/National coalition was re-elected with what the BBC reported as a “miracle” majority."

    consciousnessofsheep.co.uk/2019/05/20/divided-down-under/

  25. One Planet Only Forever at 14:05 PM on 24 May 2019
    Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"

    nigelj @34,

    Thank you for clarifying what you meant by "...as long as we dont attack their world view in the process."

    I had indeed taken it as saying you can't question or challenge a worldview.

    Sadly, my experience, as a engineer and trying to promote improved awareness regard Sustainable Development Goal related issues like climate science, has been that when it comes to dealing with people who are actually 'wrong about something' the people with higher developed perceptions of status can be much harder to correct.

    And as a resident of Alberta, Canada, I encounter many people with worldviews selfishly based on benefiting from fossil fuels. That incorrect worldview makes it even harder to get them to correct their understanding of climate science because of the clearly required global economic corrections it has identified. They also refuse to recognise the reality that a Carbon Fee and Rebate program is helpful. They ignore the Rebate part and call the Fee a Tax. And they have been indoctrinated by Right Wing propaganda to believe that Tax is a four-letter word.

  26. Introducing a new citizens initiative for carbon pricing in Europe

    What RedBaron said, but 2018 picture. Energy transport beats agriculture hands down.

  27. Introducing a new citizens initiative for carbon pricing in Europe

    Carbon pricing is indeed good news. One thing thats interesting is some of these European countries have cap and trade schemes, so this new scheme seems almost like a tacit admission they haven't worked. I have certainly not been able to find evidence they have achieved much.

    The problem is the existing cap and trade schemes have weak settings and are opaque processes between the corporates and governments hidden from public view, and so open to capture by the corporate sector. They are dangerous because the public probably assume they are fixing the climate problem when they are not.

    Carbon fee and dividend schemes seem more transparent and in the public mind, and will be more obvious in their impacts. The settings can be ramped up over time.

  28. Introducing a new citizens initiative for carbon pricing in Europe

    @3 Swampfox,

    Livestock production has about a 5.4% +/- of total carbon emissions footprint. 

    World Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2005

     

    That paper is a little old, but I like the graph on page two, as it explains the breakdown in easy to understand catagories.

    As has been pointed out elsewhere on this sight, the claim that animal agriculture is the biggest Greenhouse Gas Emissions is completely false. It's just a propaganda ploy. Fossil fuels is the biggest issue because that is fossil carbon that wasn't part of the short term carbon cycles before we started using them in the industrial age.

    I am sympathetic to your point however. While animal agriculture may be only about 5% of the cause, it could be changed to become at least 50% of the solution. This is because changing agriculture to regenerative carbon farming techniques average 5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr.

    Liquid carbon pathway unrecognised

    However, it is important to get the facts correct and precise. The issue is too important to state incorrectly.

    “The number one public enemy is the cow. But the number one tool that can save mankind is the cow. We need every cow we can get back out on the range. It is almost criminal to have them in feedlots which are inhumane, antisocial, and environmentally and economically unsound.” Allan Savory

     

  29. Doug Bostrom at 05:37 AM on 24 May 2019
    Introducing a new citizens initiative for carbon pricing in Europe

    The mere fact that this is under discussion is solid progress.

    It almost goes without saying that there'll be a lot of waffling, inefficiency, misdirection, groping for blinkers, cowardice and other human behaviors on display. Even more time lost in that process, and of course it's not a perfect solution in any case. 

    But meanwhile consitutents will gain familiarity with all of the reasoning behind the effort. That's a win, regardless of whether this particular attempt succeeds or fails. 

    We could wish that we acted better in concert but there are unattactive possibilities there as well, as we've seen. Bumbling and flailing is our modus operandi for worse and better. Let's hope there's time for SOP to work. 

  30. Introducing a new citizens initiative for carbon pricing in Europe

    BTW, the initiative has only got 2512 sigatures on it so far, including mine

  31. Introducing a new citizens initiative for carbon pricing in Europe

    This is excellent news. Giving the markets, manufacturers and consumers a 'financial signal' is a very powerful thing to achieve change efficiently and quickly. Extending the carbon fee/dividend concept to other areas such as general pollution, habitat degradation, resource exhaustion etc can harness the enormous power of the free market to fix things rather than wreck them! There are fields of economics which address these areas - environmental/ecological/full cost economics which include the 'externalities' mentioned on the financial bottom lines of corporations.

    Briefly: dirty, polluting, damaging or resource hungry methods, and the items and services they create, get made more expensive to use than cleaner, greener methods which become cheaper and more affordable.

    Strong legislation is not needed - people will always choose the cheaper option...

    Economically, because these techniques do not remove money from the economy, they are neutral but as many lower income people and  environmentally conscious people use fewer materials and energy than the more profligate, the 'fees' they pay can often be less than the dividends they receive back. They receive an income. The system acts as a form of redistribution of capital from the wasteful to the responsibly frugal.
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics

  32. Introducing a new citizens initiative for carbon pricing in Europe

    Animal agriculture is a bigger contributor to GGEs than fossil fuels, so without significant reductions of GGEs in that sector, we are wasting time

  33. wilddouglascounty at 01:15 AM on 24 May 2019
    Introducing a new citizens initiative for carbon pricing in Europe

    #1 True, Jose; the fee and dividend proposal is primarily a financial signal for manufacturers and consumers to transition from fossil fuel dependent technologies, transportation and housing options to low carbon, using the marketplace for folks to acquire low carbon options. It does not preclude top-down research, innovation, regulations and subsidies to speed up the process; indeed it is quite compatible with those strategies. It's not either-or, rather all-of-the-above is most likely going to be needed. But it seems to me to be a very valuable tool to help move things along.

  34. José M. Sousa at 23:19 PM on 23 May 2019
    Introducing a new citizens initiative for carbon pricing in Europe

    I serioulsy doubt that a carbon fee of 120$ /ton CO2 to implement until 2030 (in 10 years) will matter much for the climate emergency we are facing and the consequent energy revolution we need.  And it is not true that all scientists agree with it as the best way to go forward.  

  35. Deep sea carbon reservoirs once superheated the Earth – could it happen again?

    There is an additional possibility.  As mentioned, both Carbon dioxide and Methane form clathrates and their formation depends on both temperature and pressure.  For instance, a methane clathrate can form up to about 25 degrees C with sufficient pressure and a liter of fully saturated methane clathrate can hold over 150 liters of methane (measured at STP). 

    Picture a one to three mile thick contenental ice sheet forming over land that contains deeper deposits of shale, coal and liquid hydrocarbons.  The weight of the ice deforms the crust of the earth and probably opens up cracks with the uneven loading as the ice sheet begins to flow into new areas.  Even without such loading, many such deposits vent some CH4 and CO2 all the time. 

    At the bottom of deep ice sheets the temperature is around zero degrees C and there is liquid H2O.  As methane and/or CO2 vents into this water at the pressures at the bottom of a one to 3km ice sheet it would form Clathrates. Without an ice sheet, these gasses would be absorbed into the biosphere but now they are stored up until the ice sheet melts and the pressure released at which time they will suddenly come out into the atmosphere, accelerating the warming of the atmosphere and hence melting more ice, releasing more gas. 

    We need a close look at what is at the bottom of our remaining ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica.  This could be the sleeping giant.

  36. Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"

    OPOF @33, you are probably taking things a bit the wrong way. Imho  "attacking someones world view" in the context of discussing climate science might go along the lines of "and you self centred, scientifically illiterate change opposing conservatives need to wake up". Perhaps thats rather a crude example, but the essence is categorising a person and their group as wrong and bad which will always get a defensive reaction even if its true.

    What you are saying is a rather more subtle, respectful and analytical, and I have no problem with it in general terms. And we have to be able to discuss world views providing the context is right. Its difficult territory to navigate, and I would say content is most important but it needs a few PR skills as well. 

  37. One Planet Only Forever at 02:16 AM on 23 May 2019
    Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"

    niglej @31,

    The future of humanity undeniably has to matter most. I am open to considering arguments explaining why it doesn't. But I have spent enough time considering and debating this point to be fairly confident it is correct (though unpopular), and therefore unlikely to be successfully argued against (though many will try).

    A strong supporting point is that "Nobody Has to do something that is harmful to the future of humanity - because if Having to do something harmful was True then the future would Have to be worse." That does not fully end an argument about climate science and the required corrections of developed human activity. But it can establish a Helpful framing for the discussion.

    On matters that matter to the future of humanity, such as climate science and the related improved understanding of the required corrections of developed human activity, incorrectly developed worldviews must be 'challenged to be corrected'. The actions of every person Add Up.

    In many cases, on many issues, people cannot be allowed to believe whatever they want and do whatever they please (contrary to harmful popular opinions and the harmfully profitable pursuits those opinions can encourage and excuse). And as the BBC item you pointed Ikaika to presents, most people will 'get over being corrected' even though they will initially 'kick up a fuss'.

    However, the BBC item “The best way to win an argument” that is referred to in the article you pointed Ikaika to is potentially more important. It is part of the reason many of my posts are so long. I try to more thoroughly explain my thoughts, learning in the process and from feedback.

    A fundamental understanding is that to achieve Sustainable Good Results (to achieve and improve on the Sustainable Development Goals - all of them), actions need to be governed by 'The Principle Objective of Being Helpful, Not Harmful' considered in the widest possible sense.

    The widest sense is consideration for all life now and into the distant future. It requires Governing to limit harm to Others (which includes Other life and all future humans), with the understood restricting objective being Do No Harm to Others (No excuses allowed for harm done to Others), and the inspirational objective of aspiring to maximize Helping Others (which can be reasonably limited, but not eliminated).

    That will require expanding and correcting the worldviews of people for them to be more Helpful to any and all Others (many worldviews, like spiritual ones or desires for personal entertainment, are not necessarily harmful, but may also not be as helpful as they could be). More important, worldviews that are understandably harmful, impede the required helpfulness, will need to be corrected. People holding viewpoints that impede the required Helping need to be challenged to explain how their desires are Helpful. And those who persist in resisting correction rather than changing their mind will need to be limited in their influence until they learn to change their minds.

    It is inevitable that some people may perceive those required improvements of worldviews as attacks. However, that potential perception cannot be allowed to compromise the efforts to correct harmful worldviews or limit their influence.

    A narrow application of the Help/Harm participle can be undeniable unacceptable. It would be Helping yourself and protecting yourself from Harm without any consideration of how your actions help or harm others. And extreme examples of that uncorrected or unlimited Egoist worldview would be actions like:

    1. As part of a group that is partying you over-consume and over-react because of self-perceptions that it maximizes your enjoyment and image/status. In addition to leaving none of the consumables to be enjoyed for future parties your actions create a mess including you having 'enjoyed' participating in damaging the party place (and you would not participate in finding replacements for the party consumables or repairing the party place, you would seek a different party to crash).
    2. As part of a group that is struggling to survive for a day to travel to safety and has sufficient food to do that, you eat all the available food to maximize your chance of getting to safety and refuse to expend any energy to help any others, and if you know a quicker safer way to safety you secretively leave the group and pursue it without telling any of the others (after eating all the food), because travelling with those Others may slow you down (and you will call for, and expect, help if your way turns out to not be quicker or safer).
    3. To defend against a perceived threat you attack other people.

    A slightly wider version that is actually more important to correct would be acting those ways as part of a Tribe or Gang (more important to correct because a larger group can do more harm).

    Entertainment performers and fans, especially the passionate sports ones, can generally be left 'unchallenged' and 'unlimited' because entertainment is generally rather irrelevant (as Douglas Adams brilliantly had interstellar travel guide researcher Ford Prefect update the description of entertainment saturated and distracted Earth in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy from “Harmless” to “Mostly Harmless”). But even such potentially benign issues as sports can 'get out of hand, become unacceptably harmful, and require governing to limit the harm done (by fans, players, and particularly by any pursuers of status - image or wealth, popularity and profit).

    Therefore, there probably is no limit to the matters that the Help/Harm Principle needs to be Governing. It even needs to govern the making-up of and enforcement of Laws in order for the Rule of Law to be Helpful rather than Harmful.

  38. Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"

    Just to put some numbers around it. If you could imagine at situation (eg a katabatic wind?) where you could get a temp diff of say 10C between surface and say a few meters above in atmosphere, then you could get maybe 2-3W/m2 of conductive heatflow. (Fourier law). In practise conductive heat loss is much lower.

    By comparison, radiative heat flow from the surface at desert night time temps would be 300-400W/m2 (Stephan-Boltzmann equation). That is what is measured too at sites like Desert Rock so easily verified.

  39. Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"

    Ikaika 

    You are right many people have become very fixed minded over the climate issue. Basically some people are excessively worried the science could lead to so called big government and taxes, so they attack the science. It's also become politically tribal to take certain positions.

    However like OPOF there is a more open minded group in the middle, and as you say there are young people.

    And people are not quite so rigid as you might think. Facts on climate change can change at least some peoples minds, as long as we dont attack their world view in the process. Read the followingarticle.

  40. Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"

    RBFOLLETT misses the obvious because he has convinced himself that he has caught out the climate scientists.

    While he is correct about sand being such a very effective radiator*, and he is also correct that conduction and convection transport heat up into the atmosphere, he misses the fact that conduction and convection can not transport heat to space. Only radiation can do that, be it directly by the hot sand or by the air that has been heated by the sand. (*The word “radiator” is a rather obvious clue here.)

    What he misses is that conduction and convection also dry out the sand and the air above the desert, and since water vapour accounts for around 85% of the natural greenhouse effect, much of the sand’s heat is radiated directly to space instead of being absorbed by H2O on the way out. Same for the heat carried aloft by convection since the natural greenhouse effect is so greatly reduced above a sand desert.

  41. One Planet Only Forever at 04:34 AM on 22 May 2019
    Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"

    Ikaika @26,

    Agreed that any presentation is meaningless to a fundamentally made-up mind. And the already well informed are already well informed.

    The issue, as Climate Adam mentions, is how to get the attention of people who are not in either of those categories.

    My suggestion related to this clip is to point out that what people are seeing is likely taken out of context. Hopefully that will get them to watch the entire John Oliver segment which could improve their understanding.

    And regarding the Planck quote: Adults are not 'lost causes'. They just have more incorrectly developed preferences to over-come.

  42. michael sweet at 04:24 AM on 22 May 2019
    Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"

    Rbfollett:

    I am not a geologist.

    Scaddenp asked several simple questions in post 9.  You have not answered them.  I have vised many deserts that were rock or gravel with little sand.  Your speculation does not describe the effects there.  

    It appears to me that you are just an old crank who likes trying to Poe us.  If you are serious you must answer Scaddenp's questions.  I suggest Rbfollett's posts be blocked until he answers the questions that test his wild suggestions.  His claim that he alone knows the correct answer does not ring true.

  43. Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"

    I think when it comes to AGW, it is best to try a educate the young and realize just as Max Planck understood:

    ”A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

  44. Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"

    One Planet Only Forever @23

    You missed my point.  These videos or comedy/news segments are meaningless to those already dug into their position.  I found you can provide all the research data and evidence necessary for your argument. Those in denial will simply revert to their talking points and dig in deeper to in their corner.  BTW, I watched the entire segment.  Th

  45. One Planet Only Forever at 03:00 AM on 22 May 2019
    Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"

    cpske @20,

    My understanding from the entire John Oliver segment is that in the final clip Bill Nye is putting on an act of frustration with 'adults' who want to be 'entertained' rather than pay attention and actually become better educated.

    Everyone becoming frustrated by adults 'wanting to be entertained rather than educated' could be helpful, but may not be what your comment intended to hope people would become.

  46. One Planet Only Forever at 02:28 AM on 22 May 2019
    Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"

    cpske @20,

    Watch the entire 20 minute John Oliver segment, then share your perception. BTW, in that segment you will see how desperately in despair those opposing the improving understanding of 'climate science and the required corrections of what humans do' are.

  47. One Planet Only Forever at 02:25 AM on 22 May 2019
    Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"

    Ikaika @21,

    Have you watched the entire 20 minute John Oliver segment? Like other John Oliver presentations it is a very well researched and detailed presentation of the actual facts of the matter, with some comedy scattered in to try to lighten the mood.

  48. One Planet Only Forever at 01:51 AM on 22 May 2019
    Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"

    Regarding the side-show discussion about 'Desert things':

    An additional point is that water vapour is a powerful GHG. And as has been noted, deserts have less moisture (less water vapour GHG) in the atmospheric blanket above them. That lower amount of GHG above deserts may be a more significant factor influencing how quickly a desert cools at night than air circulation among the grains of sand.

    But the consideration of GHGs has already been 'robustly dismissed and discredited' by RBFOLLETT as narrow-minded thinking - So I must be mistaken.

  49. Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"

    I think it makes little difference whether Bill Nye had tried a reasonable tactic, one with less colorful language and less angry or the one he used on this program.  I think most people have pretty much gone to their corners on this issue.  Those of use who already understand and trust the scientific method will find it amusing and those that deny the science will simply dig in deeper and use echo chamber terms to ridicule Bill Nye and John Oliver.  The issue of AGW is a slow enough moving train wreck that little can be done to convince anyone either on the fence or dug in on their denial.  So, this is simply comedy and that is how I see it.  Unfortunately the issue at hand is far less comedic and cannot be resolved at the 11th hour as so many things in our society seemed to be pushed to that extent.  

  50. Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"

    Kubler-Ross‘s model of grief has as its first two steps denial then anger. Bill is obviously past denial and is now in at least anger. We should be so lucky that the rest of the sleepless public gets to where Bill is.

Prev  210  211  212  213  214  215  216  217  218  219  220  221  222  223  224  225  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us