Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 Next
Comments 10951 to 11000:
-
scaddenp at 10:24 AM on 17 May 2019CO2 lags temperature
For more about problems with contamination of greenland CO2 by organic molecule reactions, see here. Antarctic cores have fewer issues.
-
David Kirtley at 09:44 AM on 17 May 2019CO2 lags temperature
Oops forgot to add link to previous post:
-
David Kirtley at 09:43 AM on 17 May 2019CO2 lags temperature
It's interesting that the CO2 readings from the Greenland cores don't match the readings from the Antarctic cores. One of the studies pointed to by scaddenp @595 says this in the abstract:
Both Greenland cores show high CO2 values for rather mild climatic periods during the last glaciation, whereas CO2 records from Antarctica do not show such high CO2 variations during the glaciation and, furthermore, the CO2 values in the early Holocene are about 20-30 ppmv higher in the GRIP record than in Antarctic records. There is some evidence that the difference could be due to chemical reactions between impurities in the ice leading to an increase of the CO2 concentration under certain conditions. If in situ processes can change the CO2 concentration in the air bubbles, the question arises about how reliably do CO2 records from ice cores reflect the atmospheric composition at the time of ice formation. The discrepancies between the CO2 profiles from Greenland and Antarctica can be explained by in situ production of excess CO2 due to interactions between carbonate and acidic species. Since the carbonate concentration in Antarctic ice is much lower than in Greenland ice, CO2 records from Antarctica are much less affected by such in situ-produced CO2.
Just shows how carefully the scientists look at these things. They really do try to think of everything.
-
scaddenp at 07:41 AM on 17 May 2019CO2 lags temperature
A quick look at the paleoclimate archives shows CO2 data for GRIP and GISP2 though the records are nowhere near as long as those in Antarctica. I am not really sure that I understand the question about the end of the ice-age. The Milankovich forcings that control the broad timing ice ages are not synchronous between hemisphere. Furthermore the events mentioned are regional discursions thought to be driven by combinations of icesheet melting dynamics and oceanic processes. The processes are local not global. That said, the causes of D-O and Heinrich events is not settled science.
-
knaugle at 06:27 AM on 17 May 2019Fox News made the US a hotbed of climate denial. Kids are the cure.
#1
Nigelj, your link also tells me that what was 40 years in the making will take more than the 2020 elections to fix. This is a long haul decades task we face. ... and yes, you may not know much about Fox News, but you certainly know something about Rupert Murdoch and his media presence in Great Britain and Australia.
-
MA Rodger at 06:11 AM on 17 May 2019CO2 is just a trace gas
Rovinpiper @24,
Answering your two questions, (1) yes non-GHG gases are transparent to the Earth's infrared and (2) O2, N2 & Ar which comprise 99.95% of the dry/clean atmosphere are non-GHG gases, so yes, presumably to infinity and beyond! But note that O3 (ozone) absorbs IR of 9.6micron wavelength and so oxygen in the form of O3 is a GHG.
-
Rovinpiper at 05:40 AM on 17 May 2019CO2 is just a trace gas
So are the non-greenhouse gases completely transparent to infrared?
Would an infrared photon go through an infinite amount of an oxygen, nitrogen, and argon atmosphere?
If so, I guess adding GHGs would definitely have an effect, regardless of the size of the atmosphere in question. If not, then the non-GHGs present would have an effect, and the GHGs could prove redundant. -
John Mason at 21:20 PM on 16 May 2019Rebellious Times
Annoyingly, Youtube have taken down the Attenborough documentary, linked to in post 3, upthread. BBC have complained about copyright. Normally I'd see their point, but on a subject as important as this, it seems like bad form to me.
-
MA Rodger at 19:32 PM on 16 May 2019CO2 was higher in the past
Warend @78,
Ancient evidence can obviously come with uncertainties that can be very large. However you are wrong to suggest that the argument that CO2 levels dipped in the Late Ordovician rests solely on "large uncertainties" or in other words "we don't know that it didn't dip."
There is evidence cited (Young et al 2008) in the Intermediate version of the OP above showing that, prior to the Late Ordovician, CO2 was high due to high levels of volcanism but not very high due to high levels of rock weathering. And the evidence shows the high levels of volcanism stopped before the rock weathering ended causing CO2 levels to drop to below 3000ppm, a level which would allow glaciation with the weaker sun. This is the "coincidence of conditions" mentioned in the OP summary.
And the scientific work has continued through the years allowing a more detailed understanding of the events that created the Late Ordovician glaciation. See for instance Ghienne et al (2014) or Pohl et al (2016). Past uncertainty is today reduced to the point of no-longer being uncertainty.
-
Warend at 15:33 PM on 16 May 2019CO2 was higher in the past
I am skeptical of the authors conclusions: the argument is that "coincidence of conditions" counteracted the CO2's warning effect at such high levels, at the period in question. But the levels of CO2 are being doubted due to large uncertainties in the extremely ancient evidence, yet the same, if not more, uncertainties exist for the "coincidence of conditions" due to the extremely old evidence. There's lots of evidence to make one skeptical about climate science assertions, not the least of which is all the hysteria around the subject.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 11:46 AM on 16 May 2019Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented’; Species Extinction Rates ‘Accelerating’
ilfark2 and nigelj,
My understanding is that the global awareness and understanding of what should be valued (encouraged and rewarded) and what should be devalued (discouraged and penalized) has to become what ilfark2 has stated. And the portion of humanity that understands that has to become large enough to over-power the correction resistant powers that have been developed.
Without rigorous and effective external referees, the competitions for appearances of status based on pursuits of popularity, power, and profit will likely only develop more damaging results (that is what the climate science challenge has proven - resistance to correction resulting in increasing harm done).
The resistance to correction of popular and profitable activity is undeniable. The result is harmful consequences developing until slick misleading marketing appeals encouraging people to be more selfish and greedier fail to mask the damage being done and who is responsible (everyone resisting correction, or being a bystander, is responsible).
That developed reality is Unacceptable for the future of humanity. It has turned the climate challenge of the 1980s into the current Climate Emergency that the developed socioeconomic-political systems are continuing to develop into a More Damaging Climate Disaster (and the same can be said of the Biodiversity Disaster that has developed and resists correction).
Clearly, the theory that 'competition in the marketplace will effectively self-correct and self-police' has been proven to be fatally flawed. Correction is required.
Concerned caring people outside of the damaging whirlwind of competition for profit and popularity appear to be the only ones really trying to correct the undeniably harmful results developing in the fatally flawed socioeconomic-political systems. Everyone inside the whirlwind plays a game that includes claiming they will behave better if someone else develops a way for them to behave better that is cheaper and easier than what they can currently get away with (but don't restrict or increase the cost of fossil fuels, or subsidize the alternatives, to make the alternatives more appealing - because the 'supposedly concerned caring people inside the whirlwind' will get angry and vote against who ever does that).
Without a powerful correction of the system, things are likely to get worse, not better. There is no reason to believe that 'the next winners in the energy delivery market will be sustainable and not harmful'. Without considerate people refereeing what develops the result is likely to just be popular and profitable activity that is as unsustainable harmful as can be gotten away with.
The systems are undeniably fatally flawed, including democracy and capitalism. They are almost certain to not self-correct in a way hta minimizes the harm done. And as SkS, and many other climate science communication groups have identified, misleading marketing is a key aspect of the developed problem.
Less consumption and less impact is what is required, particularly by the supposed leaders of society (the wealthiest and most influential setting the examples for everyone else). It is almost certain that will 'not' become popular and profitable 'in' the current developed systems. The current systems have developed powerful resistance to correction that would alter developed perceptions of what deserves to be valued, primarily because misleading marketing can be gotten away with.
Effectively penalizing misleading political marketing appeals that are contrary to the achievement and improvement of the Sustainable Development Goals will likely be required. That will likely require an international institution that will be able to step on National Sovereignty when required, because people within a nation may not be effective at self-correcting (international intervention happens in other areas of concern - though harmful 'claimed to be required extra-national corrective actions' are still unacceptably popular and profitable)
Developing International monitoring of climate impacts and effective penalty systems is the direction that things are headed. And the correction resistant have been fighting against that improvement because they understand how much they deserve to lose.
-
nigelj at 08:53 AM on 16 May 2019Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented’; Species Extinction Rates ‘Accelerating’
ilfark2
"The odds of a profit driven system remaining just and sustainable for any length of time requires very strong referees. As we've seen repeatedly, the referees are always bought, sooner or later."
I agree, but it may be our only realistic hope to try and make it work. The alternative communities you mention sound great, and deserve some respect, but most of these communities fail for all sorts of reasons, and they don't attract many people. So are they any more likely to be viable than capitalism in some form? I realise a few seem to work to a point but thats a long way form a viable global model.
Likely the only sustainable system would be democratically planned, owned operated with "always in my back yard" strictly adhered to.
Would it be strictly adhered to? Human nature might decide otherwise.
I agree with your other points.
-
ilfark2 at 04:13 AM on 15 May 2019Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented’; Species Extinction Rates ‘Accelerating’
The odds of a profit driven system remaining just and sustainable for any length of time requires very strong referees. As we've seen repeatedly, the referees are always bought, sooner or later.
Likely the only sustainable system would be democratically planned, owned operated with "always in my back yard" strictly adhered to.
With current tech, there's not reason we couldn't provide food, shelter, healthcare, education to all while spending very little time providing for these things (consider the large swaths of current society that do nothing material except drive in large carbon emitting circles).
As far as population goes, as many studies have shown, education works very well.
For ways we might go about this, give it a think as well as look places like zcomm.org, Murray Bookchin, Paris Commune, Free Catalonia, Rojova the Zapatistas (not to mention the large communerian movement in Venezuela) among others.
But yes, it has to be democratic and peaceful to be societally sustainable as well as ecologically sustainable.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:38 AM on 15 May 2019Inspiring, not depressing, film fest messages
I agree that the "problem" is the making of excuses because the problem being created will be "some other generation's problem".
A similarly unacceptable making-up of excuses is the 'ever popular' Tragedy of the Commons or Prisoner's Dilemma type of problem developed by beliefs that "someone else should fix the problem", or "My maximization of my immediate benefit, the benefit that I can most likely be sure to benefit from (future benefits are so uncertain especially if they depend upon what Others will do), justifies (is the reason for excusing) what I want to do, even though it is understandably harmful to everyone including me - as long as I pursue maximizing my benefit All Is As Good As Possible".
Until that gross misunderstanding is reduced in popularity to the point of having no significant influence, there will be no meaningful reduction of harm done to the future of humanity. That reduction of harm is the important First Step towards Helpful effective corrections and redirection required to achieve and improve on the Sustainable Development Goals.
Effective application of penalties for misleading political marketing that promotes such harmful gross misunderstandings may be necessary in order to achieve the required corrections.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:28 AM on 15 May 2019IPCC Updates Methodology for Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Hopefully the likes of the 'Correction Resistant Conservatives' will not have significant influence on how the New Rules are established, monitored or enforced.
The methods for reporting GHG impacts by nations will always be improving. Hopefully, in the near future satellite data will be able to be reliably used to verify what nations 'report'.
The following articles refer to a Canadian study that used data from air plane flyovers of the Alberta Oil Sands operations as a 'top-down' test of the reported values of impacts that were 'bottom-up' calculated following the existing 'Rules'.
CBC News: "Oilsands CO2 emissions may be far higher than companies report, scientists say"
Digital Journal: "New study: Canada's oil sands emissions are higher than reported"
Many people, particularly Conservatives, are inclined to be 'Rule Followers' as long as the Rules work in their favour. When rules are not in their favour, the worst among us resist correction. They will try to make-up the rules as much in their favour as possible. If they can't get the Rules to be in their favour they will try to win the ability to limit the chances they will be caught or penalized for breaking the Rules.
The United Right Conservative leaders in Canada are continuing to do anything they can get away with to oppose the reduction of climate change impacts. Their history of actions included promotion of efforts to discredit climate science and earlier denial of Climate Science (they now say climate is changing, but try to discredt climate science understanding of why it is changing). Today, their actions include abuse of misleading marketing power to popularize the dislike of Carbon Fee and Rebate programs (calling them a Carbon Tax that will Do Nothing, and claiming they will hurt the Poor when the reality is that the poorer peopl get more rebate than their carbon fees).
The 'correction resistant', can be expected to oppose any correction of GHG impact reporting that reduces their chances of getting away with their developed desires to benefit from understandably harmful and unsustainable activity.
Hopefully, the Harmful New Correction Resistant Leaders of the United Right, who incorrectly get supported by people who mistake them for being deserving Conservative leaders, will not have significant influence on the latest improvements of the rules and their enforcement.
-
Daniel Bailey at 23:28 PM on 14 May 2019CO2 lags temperature
In what published scientific research did you read that?
-
Evan at 22:55 PM on 14 May 2019Inspiring, not depressing, film fest messages
We've had wild fires and extreme weather for a while now, and I hear the same old tired denier arguments from people who have not been personally affected.
If we all have to be personally affected by these extreme events before we take action there won't be anybody to help us out.
-
Sokrates Wonders at 21:19 PM on 14 May 2019CO2 lags temperature
Is there an ice core record from the Greenland glaciers showing the CO2 concentrations and temperatur?
I haven’t found any so far. Anyone who has seen some comparison?
-
Sokrates Wonders at 20:52 PM on 14 May 2019CO2 lags temperature
Why would there be a time lag of thousand years between the end of the ice age in Antarctica compared to on the northern hemisphere?
There is obviously an Oldest Dryas, an Allerød-Bølling, a Younger Dryas and a Holocene in the world temperature records and in the ice core record from Vostok Antarctica but they are shifted by about thousand years which is a really long time period. Why would there be such a slow response to the increased CO2 levels on the northern hemisphere? It looks rather as if the dating of the Antarctica ice core temperature and CO2 records not are in agreement with the other global temperature records. I have been reading that the stratigraphic dating of the ice cores can differ from other dating methods by a millennium. -
nigelj at 07:15 AM on 14 May 2019Inspiring, not depressing, film fest messages
I suspect it will be wild fires and more extreme weather that really starts to motivate climate action. These things are very serious and life threatening, and happening more frequntly right now so are more likely to get peoples attention than sea level rise. Hopefully the climate influence in these things gets highlighted more in the media.
Sea level rise is obviously serious, but a little bit longer term and easier to dismiss as gradual and some other generations problem. Humans Wired to Respond to Short-Term Problems
-
Daniel Bailey at 08:49 AM on 13 May 2019Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
Global sea levels are indeed rising, raising concerns about human safety. Some excerpts from the 2018 National Climate Assessment, Volume 2, validated and approved by the Trump Administration:
"Global average sea level has risen by about 7–8 inches (about 16–21 cm) since 1900, with almost half this rise occurring since 1993 as oceans have warmed and land-based ice has melted. Relative to the year 2000, sea level is very likely to rise 1 to 4 feet (0.3 to 1.3 m) by the end of the century.
Emerging science regarding Antarctic ice sheet stability suggests that, for higher scenarios, a rise exceeding 8 feet (2.4 m) by 2100 is physically possible, although the probability of such an extreme outcome cannot currently be assessed."
"Over the first half of this century, the future scenario the world follows has little effect on projected sea level rise due to the inertia in the climate system.
However, the magnitude of human-caused emissions this century significantly affects projections for the second half of the century and beyond.
Relative to the year 2000, global average sea level is very likely to rise by 0.3–0.6 feet (9–18 cm) by 2030, 0.5–1.2 feet (15–38 cm) by 2050, and 1–4 feet (30–130 cm) by 2100.
These estimates are generally consistent with the assumption—possibly flawed—that the relationship between global temperature and global average sea level in the coming century will be similar to that observed over the last two millennia.
These ranges do not, however, capture the full range of physically plausible global average sea level rise over the 21st century.
Several avenues of research, including emerging science on physical feedbacks in the Antarctic ice sheet suggest that global average sea level rise exceeding 8 feet (2.5 m) by 2100 is physically plausible, although its probability cannot currently be assessed."
"Regardless of future scenario, it is extremely likely that global average sea level will continue to rise beyond 2100.
Paleo sea level records suggest that 1.8°F (1°C) of warming may already represent a long-term commitment to more than 20 feet (6 meters) of global average sea level rise; a 3.6°F (2°C) warming represents a 10,000-year commitment to about 80 feet (25 m), and 21st-century emissions consistent with the higher scenario (RCP8.5) represent a 10,000-year commitment to about 125 feet (38 m) of global average sea level rise.
Under 3.6°F (2°C), about one-third of the Antarctic ice sheet and three-fifths of the Greenland ice sheet would ultimately be lost, while under the RCP8.5 scenario, a complete loss of the Greenland ice sheet is projected over about 6,000 years."
https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/
Figure 12-4a is the salient figure, for expected SLR to come (click for bigger image):
(a) Global mean sea level (GMSL) rise from 1800 to 2100, based on Figure 12.2b from 1800 to 2015, the six Interagency GMSL scenarios (navy blue, royal blue, cyan, green, orange, and red curves), the very likely ranges in 2100 for different RCPs (colored boxes), and lines augmenting the very likely ranges by the difference between the median Antarctic contribution of Kopp et al. and the various median Antarctic projections of DeConto and Pollard
-
michael sweet at 08:30 AM on 13 May 2019Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
MathiasEgholm,
I looked at both graphs and they seem to read as you describe. One is from 1990 first IPCC assessment and the other is from the 2007 fourth IPCC assessment. It appears that the estimates of sea level rise have changed over time. As more knowledge is gained estimates of some things change.
Current estimates are higher than those in this article because much more understanding of the Antarctic Ice sheet has been obtained in the past 5 years.
It is not clear from your post what question you are trying to answer. If you say what you are interested in we may be able to provide a recent assessment that addresses your concerns. I suggest using the most recent estimates of sea level rise because more is understood every year.
-
MathiasEgholm at 07:26 AM on 13 May 2019Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
Hi there. I am a new user, but hope you can help me. I am trying to confirm the "figure 1" in this article, but ran into unexpected problems...
When I look up in the 1990 IPCC report (https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf) I find the graph of best estimates of sea level projections on page 277. If I try to read from the graph, I get model predictions between approximately 4 to 12 cm's of sea level rise in 2010.
Doing the same on figure 1 in this article gives IPCC model predictions aprox 1,5-6,5cm sea level rise, - or about half the sea level rise that I can find in the original 1990 IPCC report...
I know reading graphs is not very precise, but still... - I must have misunderstood something...???
-
bjchip at 04:07 AM on 13 May 2019The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
Broken Link to Adler.
New link at
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=faculty_publications -
nigelj at 06:48 AM on 12 May 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
Spending 25% of the EU budget on climate change mitigation sounds a lot but the EU budget is only 2% of total public spending, so if anything 25% is miniscule, and the EU budget could perhaps do with a total increase given the climate problem.
I can't get this number out of my head. We could hit 8 degrees or more above pre industrial baselines by 2200 - 2300 according to research. This is unthinkably serious and cannot be allowed to happen. We cannot count on sucking this CO2 out of the atmosphere, because the impediments to such ideas are huge.
-
nigelj at 06:23 AM on 12 May 2019Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented’; Species Extinction Rates ‘Accelerating’
Wol @15,
I don't think capitalism absolutely needs a growing population. It does benefit from a growing population, but it's not essential.
Capitalism is broadly defined as private ownership plus the profit motive and these don't suggest a fundamental need for a growing population. Several capitalist countries have shrinking populations and their economies work fine, the problem is more about demographic imbalances.
Economic growth does not depend on a growing population either, because it is defined as an increase in the rate of production of goods and that could happen in a shrinking population using robotics, and assuming people wanted more goods.
I think its more accurate to say capitalism and economic growth likes a growing population, or benefits from it.
But you are right there is a conflict between capitalism and the need to reduce numbers. Capitalism wont like it, yet appears somewhat powerless to stop it because some capitalist countries already have shrinking populations (Japan and some european countries) and even although their governments are trying to boost numbers, it isn't working very well! In other words once people decide to have small familes below replacement rate, its hard to convince them otherwise.
Yes it might still come to war, disease and starvation, but let's hope not.
-
nigelj at 06:04 AM on 12 May 2019Fox News made the US a hotbed of climate denial. Kids are the cure.
I do not know too much about "Fox News" since I don't live in America, but a quick google search turned up a lot of hits from various media scrutiny organisations finding they lean strongly to the right, and are the most biased and inaccurate media outlet, or one of the most biased and inaccurate. One might almost say there is a consensus.
I like the saying "if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. Origins of quotation here.
-
John Hartz at 02:27 AM on 12 May 2019Fox News made the US a hotbed of climate denial. Kids are the cure.
Recommended supplemental reading:
Young Republicans Aren’t Going Along with Fox on the Green New Deal by Jeremy Deaton, Nexus Media, May 10, 2019
-
John Hartz at 00:53 AM on 12 May 2019Fox News made the US a hotbed of climate denial. Kids are the cure.
Wol: I stopped watching Fox News years ago when I ran out of barf bags.
-
MA Rodger at 19:56 PM on 11 May 2019Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
shveydaxx @102,
The image you present (bar the highlighting) originates with contrarian Steve McIntyre a decade ago. At the time Keith Briffa rebutted the rather silly accusations of McIntyre and that may be helpful to you in depacking McIntyre's silliness or other silliness that his interventions have spawned.
-
Wol at 19:22 PM on 11 May 2019Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented’; Species Extinction Rates ‘Accelerating’
Nigelj @ 12
>>Do we really need 10 billion people, or 5 billion?<<
The capitalist system - which I understand has given us in the first world a growing standard of living - DOES need a steadily increasing population, since economic growth depends on it.
It's very much a matter of opinion as to what a sustainable world population might be, especially starting from where we are now with many resources already scarcer. I have sen figures from 2Bn to 5Bn, but certainly it must be far less than the 10Bn projections.
So there is an inevitable clash between the capitalist need for growth at all costs and the requirement to reduce numbers - quite apart from climate change - and I find it difficult to believe there will be a solution that does not include the usual population-reducing elements of disease, war and starvation.
Please don't shoot the messenger.....
-
shveydaxx at 18:02 PM on 11 May 2019Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
Is it maybe dumb question, but had Briffa in hand all these data below? And did he used only the YAD061, or not?
Thank you.
-
BillyJoe at 17:04 PM on 11 May 2019State of the climate: Heat across Earth’s surface and oceans mark early 2019
The legend on the last graph incorrectly states "Arctic and Antarctic" sea ice extent.
-
Wol at 08:11 AM on 11 May 2019Fox News made the US a hotbed of climate denial. Kids are the cure.
We watch Fox News for the unintentional comedy it provides.
The in-your-face bias in all subjects is so blatant it is laughable.
An example is the way that a couple of years ago just about every programme brought up the expletive "ObamaCare" regardless of subject.
Long may Fox News live!
-
Eclectic at 16:07 PM on 10 May 2019Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Jake S @370 , yes it is quite evident that you "skimmed" the Cook paper . . . and that you skimped on thinking it through ( +/- a prompter ).
As for the shape of the Earth being "universally accepted by scientists and rational laypeople" [your quote] . . . it is interesting that you fail to use that criterion for AGW (which has a similar weight of evidence supporting it).
Clearly, Jake S , you need to educate yourself about climate science.
And if I may hint [not prompt!] ~ you will find that all science is advanced through peer-reviewed scientific papers in reputable journals. ( Not by Op-Eds in Breitbart or the WSJ or FoxNews ). The heart of the matter for this particular thread, is that the "Consensus" is the result of that science. And FYI, the reputable scientific journals are very keen to publish contrarian papers provided the papers seem to have valid supporting evidence ~ indeed, a number have been published, but every such paper has later been found to be faulty/invalid by subsequent scientific research.
You will not find climate science in journals such as Energy Policy (a journal which explicitly describes itself as being about "Political, Economic ... and Social Aspects of Energy" unquote). Many of the articles in Energy Policy are open-access and not peer-reviewed. Possibly you know what that implies !! You referenced Energy Policy re a "short communication" by Dr Richard Tol ~ the same Richard Tol who later backed off his Consensus criticism, and admitted that in his opinion the Consensus was more like 90%. ( Not 33% or 13% or 4% or whatever is the latest fantasy of Lord Monckton his WattsUpWithThat colleagues.)
Jake S , to be more accurate, I should point out to you that the 97% Consensus was based on scientific papers centered at about the year 2005. The consensus in say 2014 was well over 99% , as judged by the scientific papers published over a 59-week period [why 59 not 52 weeks?] . . . a study of [IIRC] around 2,200 papers showed only 3 [three] papers that were "contrarian" [and each of those 3 was rubbish].
Education, Jake S. And you will find that there are close to zero actual climate scientists who take a contrarian viewpoint about AGW . . . and you will find absolutely zero who can supply any valid evidence to support their position(s). (All they have is rhetoric and religious beliefs.)
#
My apologies, Jake S , for mentioning Lord Monckton, in post #369 ~ it is just that he is a prominent speaker (not a scientist in the slightest) who is remarkably innumerate & ignorant in actual climate science, and who typifies many denialists by asserting that AGW is a hoax invented by (worldwide) scientists who are plotting to set up a Communist World Government. 'Nuff said, about his intellect.
But it is interesting, Jake S , that you raised the matter of lobotomy (perhaps you meant leucotomy) . . . which has prompted me to think of a Monckton nexus there. It would explain much.
#
Jake S , as for your list of "many refutations" of the 97% consensus figure . . . there seem to be few, if any, that are scientifically peer-reviewed papers. And much worse, they present no valid argument. And your list includes Dr R. Tol in Energy Policy (!) ; and Breitbart (!!!) . . . not to mention American Thinker (!!) and 3 from ClimateEtc (!) and 6 from JoNova (!!) .
And 15 (fifteen) from WUWT blog (a favored home of Monckton) which is mostly a blog of remarkably puerile propaganda, with comment columns half-filled by commenters who are in full denial of the physical properties of CO2. (Mr Watts says they are quite wrong . . . but he encourages them to rant. It's that sort of blog / echo-chamber. Almost no rational laypeople and almost no real scientists.)
In short, Jake S , you have provided nothing in the way of rational reasons.
-
william5331 at 15:31 PM on 10 May 2019Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented’; Species Extinction Rates ‘Accelerating’
We need to rewild as suggested by George Monbiot in his TED talk on the wolves of Yellowstone and the whales of the world's oceans but are we going to only be ambitious enough to rewild to the level of what Europeans saw as they reached each new continent. Or are we going to try to rewild to the level that was present before the first people landed in a new area. Think the huge fauna of marsupials in Australia or the animals that existed in North America before the end of the most recent glaciation.
-
Jake S at 11:49 AM on 10 May 2019Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Eclectic I have not read the entire paper. I read the abstract and skimmed the rest. Also I can think without prompting, but thanks for the advice.
The subject of the earth being an oblate spheroid is a terrible comparison to the cause of climate change. The shape of the earth is universally accepted by scientists and rational laypeople, based on thousands of years of observations, photography from orbit, orbits themselves and a number of other undisputed facts.
For this reason there is no point in astronomers or earth scientists mentioning this obvious fact in any papers, except where it's relevant or necessary, such as when Copernicus was advancing his heliocentricity theory.
The cause of climate change is not universally accepted among scientists. How could it be? Studying the last 100 years of global climate without our pollution contributions is impossible, and studying future implications is impossible beyond simplified projections and computer models.
This cherry-picked study is the best attempt at quantifying such a consensus. And since the Cook study is being used to establish the belief in a human cause for climate change science and the public, this is definitely a case where proof of an real consensus would be required.
Your point seems to be: a human cause of climate change is true because it's true, despite any inconvenient facts to the contrary. It sounds like the authors even went back and offered the scientists a chance to clarify their positions, so likely if the 2/3 who were excluded for having the wrong opinion actually believed in a human cause, they would have mentioned it.
I have not mentioned Monckton — and didn't know who he was until I looked it up just now — so I'm not sure why you brought him up or disputed his ideas: this sounds like a straw man argument.
And I have not mentioned emotions, so I'm not sure why you tried to dismiss my arguments with this topic. I fully believe in evidence and logic, which is the reason I'm disputing the circular logic of this study and yourself. On the contrary, it sounds like you are arguing orthodoxy rather than facts or logic.
This is the danger with science: bad ideas and methods can continue for long periods because dissenting scientists realize that contradicting the status quo can mean the end of their reputation and career. This is why Moniz won a Nobel prize for the terrible idea that is the lobotomy, despite the tragic side-effects of this procedure.
Similarly, climate change scientists testifying before Congress have discussed the pressure to conform to human cause ideology, and the understanding among their peers that papers suggesting a human cause are much more likely to be published, including letters from prominent scientists suggesting it's better to go along with the program. If scientists must be pressured to conform, this shows that educated people do not in fact universally support the human cause hypothesis.
Here is a list of some of the many refutations of this silly 97% study by peer-reviewed journals, independent organizations and the media:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html
Moderator Response:[PS] Stepping close to the line on sloganeering. Present evidence of cherry picking for instance. I think you can safely say that anything you read on climate change at poptech will be wrong, but certainly take time to check it yourself. However, it is impossible to have a sensible discussion about a paper you havent read. Attacks on this paper (and others) have generally asserted things about the paper that are not true. Dont accept what you have read about the paper elsewhere without actually checking.
Of course, if you have pre-determined that you dont want to believe there is a consensus, then this is not the site for you.
-
Eclectic at 08:31 AM on 10 May 2019Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Jake S , it sounds like you have not actually read the "consensus" paper (by Cook et al., 2013) or given it serious thought.
Take your time. Read the Cook paper - both parts - then think about it. Think it through.
Or we could say that more than 99% of geophysical scientists have not suggested the Earth is Round, and their stated consensus leans more toward the "Flat" conclusion. That is, if we were to use the logic of the good Lord Monckton.
But Monckton says anything he pleases ~ and then often contradicts himself at a later date. That's one of the perils of nonsensical thinking. When you tie your thinking into a pretzel, it is possible to come to any conclusion at all. Easily done, apparently, if your emotions would have you believe there is no such thing as evidence & logic.
-
nigelj at 07:38 AM on 10 May 2019Fox News made the US a hotbed of climate denial. Kids are the cure.
The reason conservatives respond well to working through climate issues with their children is conservatives place trust of family and their "in group" very high. Refer moral foundations theory on wikipedia
-
nigelj at 06:34 AM on 10 May 2019Fox News made the US a hotbed of climate denial. Kids are the cure.
Good article, however this is what we are up against:
In America’s Science Classrooms, the Creep of Climate Skepticism. Conservative groups are working hard to challenge the teaching of mainstream climate science in schools. In Florida, they’ve found a winning strategy.
Politics has invaded America’s classrooms since Trump. 7 teachers describe the new reality.
Idaho Stripped Climate Change From School Guidelines. Now, It’s a Battle.
-
nigelj at 06:15 AM on 10 May 2019State of the climate: Heat across Earth’s surface and oceans mark early 2019
In addition to shale oil and gases negative environmental impacts, the methane problem and tendency to cause small earthquakes, it is still not a very profitable industry. Some references here and here.
Briefly fracking is an expensive operation "scraping the bottom of the barel", and so needs oil at about $100 barrel to be truly profitable and is marginal at oil around $50 barrel and of course global prices fluctuate a lot. The industry still isn't very profitable, and is very sensitive to global oil prices (so much for energy independence!).
Imho it looks like fracking is surviving almost like a ponzi scheme, by increasing production and pulling in investors, while barely breaking even. Its all based on promises of future profits. This has been going on too long, and cannot continue forever and makes it susceptible to a crash like bitcoin.
The whole fracking issue is also driven by geopolitics and energy independence more than economics. But if America truly wants energy independence that is sustainable on all levels, build solar, hydro and wind. While some materials may have to be imported, it's not on a scale comparable to importing oil and doesn't cause the problems of oil and gas.
-
Jake S at 05:53 AM on 10 May 2019Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Eclectic you haven't addressed any of my concerns about the conclusions of this study, merely made a meaningless analogy. Your comment suggests that there is one valid opinion to have, and any other ideas must be based on stupidity or ignorance. If this is true, prove it, don't imply it.
If the study conclusions are that 97% of scientists publishing papers in the field of climate change accept the conclusion that humans are causing climate change, I would expect the study to show this, not imply that they must agree. Otherwise the study is begging the question: do the writers of the 8000 studies which were excluded actually hold this view?
A more literal interpretation would be that among those who have taken a position on the matter, 97% suggest it is caused by humans.
Or we could say that about 67.5% of climate change scientists have not suggested it is human caused, and their stated consensus leans more toward the opposite of the stated conclusion of this meta-study.
The way they combined these two true statements into a third conclusion which the meta-study didn't actually show is deceptive in my opinion.
-
Eclectic at 04:18 AM on 10 May 2019Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Jake S @366 , yes it certainly is disturbing.
Disturbing to realise that, in this modern age, more than 99% of our geophysical scientists are in consensus that the Earth is Flat ~ or possibly only slightly rounded. They must hold that opinion . . . because more than 99% of their published scientific papers fail to assert the Round shape of the Earth.
Or so your line of argument goes, Jake S.
-
Jake S at 01:53 AM on 10 May 2019Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
So to summarize: you studied 12,000 abstracts, arbitrarily rejected the 8,000 which didn't take a position on whether humans caused the observed degree of climate change in the past 100 years, and interpreted this to mean 97% of climate change scientists think humans caused this trend?
That seems pretty disingenuous. In my opinion, a more rigorous interpretation would be that 97% of 33% — or 32.01% — of climate change scientists have taken the position that this trend is being caused by humans.
You attribute this lack of consensus of causality to conservative language choices by the academics, and arbitrarily stuck those who haven't taken a position firmly in the "humans caused it" camp.
Can you show this is the case without assuming the motivation of these academics? How about the possiblilty that they agree the planet is warming slightly, but think the cause is a moot point due to the limitations of our models and understanding of a very complicated and chaotic system, so believe it wouldn't be scientific to publish spectulation?
This seems like a meta-study designed and interpreted to produce desired results, rather than arriving at a conclusion based on impartial interpretation of all the results.
And the fact that so many media outlets are quoting this study without mentioning how many academic abstracts were rejected to arrive at the 97% figure is disturbing.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:39 AM on 10 May 2019Fox News made the US a hotbed of climate denial. Kids are the cure.
The next generation is indeed the cure. But unfortunately a lot of damage can be done before enough of the 'cured kids' 'mature cured' and out-vote the developed status-quo opposition to helpful sustainable correction and improvement.
And people who want to benefit from impeding progressive sustainable improvements, and even want to benefit from permanently damaging the future, understand that (and their leaders understand how damaging they are).
The most recent political winners in Provincial elections in Canada are groups that are led by people wanting to win by abusing misleading marketing to encourage people to be greedier and less tolerant (basically wanting to un-mature the population). They understand that their best chance of winning is to establish only one choice for anyone who considers themselves to be Conservative who will therefore identify with and vote for the biggest party calling itself Conservative (they Unite the diversity of Right Wing groups under one banner and fight to resist correction of all of the unacceptable unsustainable things the many far-right want to resist correction of).
And the new United Right winners of leadership in Alberta and Ontario have declared that they will undo the progressive improvement of the education of kids that had been developed by 'Those Other Leaders before the likes of the United Right regained control'.
Specifically in Alberta, the recent winning UCP had been in opposition to the education curriculum updates occurring when 'Those Others' were the leaders of Alberta's government. During the election campaign the UCP generically declared that the update was done in secret even though it was a totally open presentation of drafts asking for on-line input with a large team of educators involved in developing the final curriculum.
Specifically in Alberta, the recent winning UCP had been in opposition to the education curriculum updates occurring when 'Those Others' were the leaders of Alberta's government. During the election campaign the UCP generically declared that the update was done in secret even though it was a totally open presentation of drafts asking for on-line input with a large team of educators involved in developing the final curriculum. The UCP also claimed that the new curriculum was driven by Political Ideology.
On this point they were, as is common with misleading marketing, partially correct. Political Ideology was indeed an issue. The stated guiding objective for the Social Studies curriculum was the following: “Social studies provides opportunities for students to develop the attitudes, skills and knowledge that will enable them to become engaged, active, informed and responsible citizens. Recognition and respect for individual and collective identity is essential in a pluralistic and democratic society.”
That objective of Social Studies education clearly threatens the future success of the Political Ideology of the United Right. And in the USA the Trump Administration is also meddling with education policy as are the Republican controlled State legislatures.
The next generations can only be a cure if those who want to un-mature them by meddling in their education, and tempting them to be greedier and less tolerant of diversity after school, are kept from having significant influence.
It needs to become common sense that Altruism must be the objective that governs and limits Egoism.
Without that correction of what has developed there will be no sustainable cure for humanity. Humanity will continue to suffer from pretty bandages that create the appearance that things are getting better (artificial unsustainable developments that look like improvements to anyone wanting to think that incorrect way).
Without that correction, the anti-mature will continue to be successful at unjustified sticking of scary bandages onto people who try to improve the awareness and understanding of the general population. And some of those bandages will continue to be across the mouths of people who try to helpfully improve the awareness and understanding of Others to sustainably develop a better constantly improving future for a diversity of humanity fitting sustainably into a robust diversity of other life on this amazing planet.
-
SirCharles at 00:15 AM on 10 May 2019State of the climate: Heat across Earth’s surface and oceans mark early 2019
Just to give you a clue what modern fracking means. George Mitchell pioneered the technology used today known as high volume slickwater horizontal hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in the late 1990's in the Barnett Shale play of North Texas, just outside Fort Worth. That technology was not perfected and used on a commercial scale until around 2005, give or take a year. Prior to around 2005, the technique the industry referred to as "hydraulic fracturing" consisted of drilling a vertical well bore, perf'ing the production casing, then injecting about 50,000 gallons of fresh water with sand or Pearlite as a proppant using about 3,000 psi to fracture the well and perform "enhanced recovery." This was usually used to try to stimulate existing wells that were producing lower than in the past and the attempt is being made to bring them back to life.
Flash forward to today. In the Barnett Shale wells averaged about 5 MILLION gallons of fresh water plus about 50,000 gallons of toxic, neurotoxic and carcinogenic chemicals that include endocrine disruptors, BTEX chain chemicals and many other injected hazards in addition to those unearthed by the very process of drilling the well! Barnett wells capped around 9-10 million gallons per well for a single frac job. The Eagle Ford averaged 9 million gallons per well and ranged up to 13 million gallons per well. Some wells in Michigan required up to 35 MILLION gallons of fresh water for EACH frac job! That is water which is permanently destroyed and disposed of by deep injection to "permanently" remove it from our hydrologic cycle, and THAT cost is not even being considered at all. NOTHING living on this planet survives without the abundance of clean, fresh water!
There is NO similarity, other than name, between "hydraulic fracturing" from 1950's until 2005, and what has taken place since Mitchell's process has been implemented.
-
SirCharles at 00:04 AM on 10 May 2019State of the climate: Heat across Earth’s surface and oceans mark early 2019
Also remarkable is the rapid rise in atmospheric Methane since the fracking boom took off in the USA.
Fossil methane is 87 times as potent as CO2 on a 20-year time scale.
More on this specific subject:
=> Global spike in methane emissions over last decade likely due to US shale
=> Research shows that natural gas no better than coal for mitigating climate change
=> US oil and gas methane emissions equivalent to 14 coal-fired power plants
=> Oil and gas is sector top source of US methane emissions, ahead of agricultureA gas well remains a gas well, even when production is long ceased, the well is just being plugged. As shale gas exploration needs an ever growing amount of wells being drilled just to keep production flat, we will see an ever growing amount of gas wells. 5% of gas wells leak from day one. After 14 years, 50% of the wells are leaking. So it’s only a matter of time when methane will be released into the atmosphere.
=> Why gas wells leakRobert Howarth, PhD, concludes that the global increase in methane over the last 10 years is largely driven by the oil/gas industry. His updated estimate for average, full-cycle methane leakage rate from natural gas operations is 4.1%. Leakage rates above 2% means natural gas is worse than coal for the climate!
=> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NPuYr1LGMIThe same applies to the methane called "by-product" at shale oil fields.
=> Methane emissions from oil production up to twice as high as estimated
=> Methane from gas and oil wells found to travel farther than expected underground
=> Studies reveal extent of methane emissions from Canadian oil and gas operationsThere are some 1.7 milion active oil and gas wells in the US. One well per 200 capita. Doesn't that sound insane?
-
nigelj at 14:18 PM on 9 May 2019Fox News made the US a hotbed of climate denial. Kids are the cure.
The following article seems relevant and convincing to me: How Republicans came to embrace anti-environmentalism. The deep roots of conservative opposition to the environmental state, explained.
-
Art Vandelay at 14:16 PM on 9 May 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #18
Michael Sweet@6, the Greens are not travelling too well, due to leadership issues as well as a few poor candidates who have managed to damage the Green's brand. However, they will likely still attract 9% of the primary vote, in spite of the fact that the Labor party has alos moved into their space and vowed to move aggressively on climate change, with a pledge to decarbonise 50% of the economy by 2030, which is double the rate committed by the current Liberal / National coalition government.
A Labor government appears a fait accompli, however it's the makeup of the senate that will ultimately determine climate policy, and that's likely to be problematic for the incoming Labor party. Labor's higher taxing / higher spending / wealth distribution policies are likely to create a voter backlash on the basis of risk, and noting too that none of Labor's climate action policies have been costed or subjected to a cost benefit analysis.
-
nigelj at 07:21 AM on 9 May 2019Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented’; Species Extinction Rates ‘Accelerating’
And while some minerals are scarce, this article is based on proper research and suggests to me we have more than enough mineral resources for renewable energy infrastructure, (imho provided population growth slows and ultimately falls and we don't over consume). Reality is a complex thing.
Prev 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 Next
