Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 Next
Comments 11001 to 11050:
-
Philippe Chantreau at 01:28 AM on 30 April 2019There is no consensus
"A couple of variables." Who cares? Splitting hair about the consensus is likely the least useful way one could spend time on climate change (except for reading WUWT perhaps). Anyone with a functioning brain and some critical thinking skills looking at the science will quickly see where the weight of the evidence resides. There are now some much more pressing imperatives than quantifying and/or qualifying the consensus. The lack of scientific consensus is just another defunct lie from deniers. The rest is details, of truly little interest.
-
Eclectic at 01:12 AM on 30 April 2019There is no consensus
Pl @793 ,
< "Consensus" can mean either the proposition itself, or the fact that there's an agreement. For me, the former is rather clear ("AGW is a thing"), the quantification of the latter is what I'm commenting. > unquote .
"Consensus" is potentially a very large Venn Circle indeed, and we would do well to define it more closely and pragmatically. (Semantic confusion can easily be a Black Hole that swallows up any effectual discussion.)
"AGW is a thing" is far from correct. AGW is much more than "a thing" in the colloquial sense ~ AGW is a physical reality. Likewise, choosing to label the Consensus as a proposition, is a choice of even more nebulous terminology.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, for climate purposes Consensus is essentially a term for the established science. (There have been rare occasions when the established non-climate science has been overthrown or enormously modified - think Newtonian/Einsteinian physics of motion - but the established climate science is the product of a century of work by countless thousands of modern scientists, not the work of a single English genius in the 17th Century . . . and the chance of the mainstream climate science being seriously overthrown by startling new insights, is such a vanishingly small chance, as to be ridiculously fanciful.
#
In looser terminology, "Consensus" is often used in climate matters as a type of numerical proxy for the scientific position. It is this latter meaning which gives rise to public confusion/uncertainty about the actual underlying science (a confusion magnified by numerous propagandists who injected much deliberate obfuscation).
The purpose of the Cook et al., 2013 study was to achieve an improvement over earlier studies/surveys : to achieve a more definitive figure for the numerical consensus, and to greatly reduce the scope for any [as you yourself quote:] "lines of attack from deniers". The Cook study was very clever - and award-winning - and produced the very widely cited 97% figure, which has become notorious (and which has become infuriating & nauseating, to all the science-deniers).
As might be expected, the denialists' fury has resulted in massive eruptions of Motivated Reasoning. The gigantic brain of Lord Monckton (and cronies) has produced very "creative accounting" which has variously redefined the Cook 97% figure down to 33% or 13% or 4% or similar absurd figures. Yet that's hardly surprising, coming from intellects which are in full denial about the physical properties of CO2.
As I mentioned earlier, the 2013 Cook study is now quite dated ~ centered on approximately 2005. More modern studies [e.g. 2014] show a consensus well above 99%. And more importantly, the "contrarians" have still produced nothing valid in the way of support for their skepticism. Nothing at all.
Pl , the 2016 link you gave earlier (to Cook and other consensus investigators) is merely a meta-analysis.
#
"Circling back" to your original comments ~ Pl , I had hoped I had already answered your "two examples" ; answered them directly as well as en passant. If that is not so (in your own mind), then perhaps I have not expressed myself clearly enough. Or perhaps you are doubling-down on your "Devil's Advocacy". Either way, you will need to state your objections in a far more precise & thorough manner.
At the same time, you might care to expand on the "non-binary nature" you mentioned ~ although once you have eliminated the obscurity, it might well be that we find it rather off-topic for this thread.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:28 AM on 30 April 2019Rebellious Times
A significant point is that all of the "Civil Disobedience Disruption" by XR protests was done without any angry violence.
Groups like the Yellow-Vesters in France could learn from that example.
There have been cases of deliberate planting of violent agitators into peaceful protests that become too effective. At least in Britain there is little chance of the likes of Russian Cossack gangs attacking the protests. The USA is not as likely to have XR protests be free from that type of attack.
Hopefully XR will have enough vigilant trained peaceful protest monitors in every location they act to effectively safely maintain their Peaceful Civil Disobedient Inconvenient Disruption Protests. Like the leaders of the construction industry say "Safety First: There is no reason for anyone to get hurt. Everyone needs to participate in ensuring that is the reality at the end of every day." (Of course many construction industry companies still try to maximize their profit by getting things done quicker and cheaper at the expense of safety, but they do not really have a future).
-
Postkey at 23:28 PM on 29 April 2019The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
'However, new research published in Science by Hebrew University of Jerusalem Professor Daniel Rosenfeld shows that the degree to which aerosols cool the earth has been grossly underestimated, necessitating a recalculation of climate change models to more accurately predict the pace of global warming.
And, they discovered that aerosols' cooling effect is nearly twice higher than previously thought.
However, if this is true then how come the earth is getting warmer, not cooler? For all of the global attention on climate warming, aerosol pollution rates from vehicles, agriculture and power plants is still very high. For Rosenfeld, this discrepancy might point to an ever deeper and more troubling reality. "If the aerosols indeed cause a greater cooling effect than previously estimated, then the warming effect of the greenhouse gases has also been larger than we thought, enabling greenhouse gas emissions to overcome the cooling effect of aerosols and points to a greater amount of global warming than we previously thought," he shared.' -
Kevin C at 20:50 PM on 29 April 2019Rebellious Times
The response to the XR protests looks very much like the response to the women's suffrage movement or the civil rights movement. If you can't credibly attack a protestor's claims, then attack their methods.
But if you look at the structure of the attacks, it soon become clear that the only acceptable method of protest, according to the critics, is ineffective protest. People are welcome to protest as long as their protests cause no inconvenience or discomfort to anyone else; in other words if the protests are ineffective.
In the case of the suffrage movement and the civil rights movement, the critics also found themselves on the wrong side of history.
-
Eclectic at 19:24 PM on 29 April 2019The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Ddahl44 @142 ,
Fortunately for your self-respect, I count myself among the least intelligent of the semi-regular commenters here at SkepticalScience [ SkS ]. So you yourself are probably way smarter than me. (But I can still walk & chew gum at the same time.) So relax and be happy !
My answer to your questions would be :-
(A) Each individual molecule of H2O or CO2 or other "radiatively active" chemical compound is capable of absorbing an infra-red photon from a narrow range of IR wavelengths. The energized molecule (now vibrating faster internally) then almost immediately collides with a neighbouring molecule (highly likely to be a nitrogen or oxygen molecule) and propels that to a faster speed . . . and subsequent chain collisions have the effect of warming the neighbouring air.
For comparison purposes : the exact amount of energy absorbed by an H2O / CO2 / etc molecule is proportionate to the inherent energy of the IR photon (which energy ~ is a function of the photon wavelength).
So that is not very useful info at a macro scale. I should imagine what you are more interested in is the relative real-world contributions of H2O / CO2 to the Greenhouse Effect.
But the answer to that question is very complex.
In the back of my own head, I remember the (very simplistic) contribution figures : 60% from H2O ; 30% from CO2 ; 10% from minor GH Gasses.
The correct answer is way more complex than that ~ for it could be argued H2O is closer to 80% , if you add in the effect of clouds . . . also the H2O, CO2 and other gasses can be assessed at somewhat different figures if you allow for IR band overlaps and/or assess the various compounds acting separately or in various combinations with other GH Gasses.
An important point to remember (and you will find various threads discussing this aspect) is that H2O can condense out of the atmosphere (unlike the noncondensable gasses) . . . so, in effect H2O is the tail being wagged by the CO2 dog (so to speak). That's why the scientists speak of CO2 as the "control knob" for temperature (along with changes in solar output, of course).
(B) Moon surface temperatures are a complex topic. And as you say, the moon has a much lower rotation speed, so it is even less relevant for comparison with Earth.
-
Eclectic at 18:38 PM on 29 April 2019The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Ddahl44 @143 , the answer comes in two parts.
To give perspective : consider the case of a major volcanic eruption which shoots large amounts of sulfate aerosol (and other) particles up into the stratosphere. These sulfates etc act as a partial mirror, reflecting away the short-wave radiation which is coming from the sun. The result is a reduction of average global temperature for 1 to 3 years. All fine & dandy ~ but the underlying mechanism of ongoing global warming (i.e. the modern excess of Greenhouse gasses) has still been operating. And so, once the sulfate particles have settled out, we soon find ourselves at the new higher temperture . . . being pretty much the same as it would have been without the volcano. In other words, there has been a slight postponement of hotter climate ~ but not by very much at all.
A similar thing happened with the increased industrialisation after World War 2. Over the period of (roughly) 1945 - 1975 , the air pollution particles had a temporary masking effect which seemingly gave some pause in AGW . . . but with cleaner air later, the AGW effect showed its underlying strength.
Global surface temperatures vary up and down a bit, but are still rising and rising overall. In particular, the ocean is still warming (the ocean absorbs more than 90% of the excess heat "caused" by AGW.)
Unfortunately, air pollution particles (from dirtier air in China, India, etc) can never be the cure for global warming. You would have to peddle faster and faster, with more & thicker dirty air, to mask the underlying Greenhouse AGW effect ~ since you produce the dirty air by burning coal/oil (and thus creating more and more CO2). You would be repeatedly shooting yourself in the foot, with a larger and larger gun.
So, not at all a "fix" for the basic problem.
-
Ddahl44 at 13:55 PM on 29 April 2019The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
I forgot - the posts here seem to suggest by improving air quality by removing particulates from the atmosphere what with the Clean Air Act, we have actually accelerated global warming. Is that correct?
-
Ddahl44 at 13:46 PM on 29 April 2019The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
I realize I am very late to the game. I ended up here after a Google search interested in 1)how the absence of an atmosphere/GHGs affects temperatures on the moon and 2)since day/night temperatures vary so much in the desert and this is attributed to water vapor, how do H2O and CO2 compare in heat trapping efficiency/ability in both a relative (molecule to molecule basis) and absolute (realizing cloud cover/relative humidity variability). After reading the introduction and the posts, I further realize: 1)you all are way smarter than me 2)I might be in the wrong place - if so please direct with links to where I should head. One question I have regarding what I have read here - In Mr. Cook’s Introduction, he uses the moon as an example where an absence of GHGs explains the moon’s huge day to night temperature swings. In all due respect, might the moon’s 13 Earth day long night be the main contributor to these swings rather than absence of GHGs? I respectfully thank you all in advance.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:26 PM on 29 April 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #17
I find it helpful to describe Climate Science Deniers as “People trying to deliberately delay the correction of harmful unsustainable beliefs and actions that many humans have developed a liking for”. They do not care about eventually being proven wrong. And they may need to be externally motivated to behave decently. They see the required Climate Action corrections as personal Losses. Every year that they can delay their perception of personal Loss is tragically seen to be a “Win” from their developed narrow perspective of concern.
The stories that 'get believed' are the 'perceived reality for each person'. In games able to be ruled by the 'majority of passionate public opinion (opinions of those motivated to and able to vote) in the moment of an election', misleading marketing and other political tactics (gerrymandering, voter suppression tactics) can be successfully abused to limit the influence of correct understanding.
The popularity of incorrect beliefs and the profitability of related incorrect actions can be hard to Over-Power, hard to correct. The Inconvenient Stories that need to have increased awareness and support are the ones exposing that there is no Real Sustainable future for any society that fails to accomplish the harder task of correcting and limiting the development of harmful beliefs and actions in its population.
Developed perceptions of superiority are only 'Really Sustainable', only have a future, when they are based on an improving understanding of what is going on that is being applied to sustainably develop benefits for the future of humanity.
Based on that understanding this story is encouraging and discouraging.
My expectation was that when a person developed an improved awareness and understanding of an important issue like climate science they would be very unlikely to be tempted to change their mind about the need to help rapidly end the harmful unsustainable use of fossil fuels.
The author and his father did not appear to have sustainably developed an improved awareness and understanding of climate science and the related required corrections of what has developed. Perhaps they had not accepted that it was unacceptable for already fortunate people to try to continue to benefit from fossil fuels.
The father was easily tempted to toss away his previous understanding. And the author's initial impression was to accept and even like the incorrect “Inconvenient Facts” book. The author of the article deserves credit for being curious enough to independently and thoroughly investigate and refute the claims made. But it does sound like he initially accepted what he should have seen as an incorrect story. And the father gets credit for changing his mind based on someone else, his son, putting the effort into improving his understanding.
But the question remains “Have they sustainably developed an improved awareness and understanding, or are they still hopeful that they will be able to excuse continuing to try to benefit from fossil fuels?
Tragically, competitions for perceptions of prosperity and status based on popularity and profit cause many people to develop to be more Egoist than Altruist. Being Egoist is easy to do and easy to be rewarded for. Consciously limiting your behaviour and choosing to be helpfully Altruistic is harder work and can even be penalized.
As a result, many people unquestioningly go with their first impressions of what they like/dislike. If they put effort into considering their initial impressions they often do the following simple math:
What is my benefit if what I like, believe and do is proven later to be incorrect?
minus
What is my cost if what I like, believe and do is proven later to be incorrect?A key unstated aspect of that consideration is 'later' being cared about less than Now. A related unstated aspect is that if the consequences are late enough I will not suffer the cost. And that 'consideration' also dismisses or diminishes fundamental concerns about being correct rather than incorrect Now. In fact, the evaluation many people develop a tendency to make is more like:
“What is my benefit if I can get away with not correcting or changing what I have developed a liking for believing and doing? (combined with) What are the chances that I will get away with what I like believing and doing?”
minus
“What is my penalty for getting caught not correcting or changing what I have developed a liking for believing and doing? (combined with) What are the chances that I will face that penalty for what I like believing and doing?”That can be a powerful motivation to obtain maximum personal benefit by supporting efforts to delay the correction of understanding that would lead to effective efforts to correct what people are doing Now, including effective significant penalties for acting incorrectly Now. A related motivation is dislike of efforts that would improve understanding and passionate dislike of efforts that would correct incorrect behaviour.
Recently I have seen many reports of politicians making sound-byte marketing claims based on one or both of the Two main points identified by MacDonald: "1) climate change is happening, but it’s not human-caused so there’s no point in modifying our behavior; and 2) global warming is, in fact, a good thing because historically human societies perform better in warmer climates, crops grow better with more CO2, and because it will help counter the next ice age."
And the political affiliations of the people making and liking such claims appear to be strongly Right Wing. But the attitude can also develop in someone inclined to be more left wing. Someone tending to the left wing can still like some right wing stuff.
The root of the problem appears to be that competitions for popularity and profit are an environment that misleading political actors thrive in. There is little perceived down-side for them choosing to make misleading appeals to a diversity of incorrect beliefs and desired actions. There is no penalty for attempting to resist efforts to helpfully progressively sustainably limit or correct the things that people have incorrectly developed a liking for.
-
nigelj at 08:00 AM on 29 April 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #17
Some other benefits of renewable energy from the union of concerned scientists.
-
There is no consensus
Eclectic @790,
"Consensus" can mean either the proposition itself, or the fact that there's an agreement. For me, the former is rather clear ("AGW is a thing"), the quantification of the latter is what I'm commenting.
The paper I was linking to is also "Cook et al", but from 2016, so perhaps an updated and upgraded version.
Where our views may differ is your last sentence, where you consider measure of consensus "essentially irrelevant". I may agree that it is not absolutely essential in case of AGW, where it's rather obvious that a widespread consensus exists. I still think it is relevant, especially as questioning the consensus is one of the lines of attack from deniers.
Generally speaking, measuring consensus as a concept of skeptical thinking is also very relevant, but I think it's pretty obvious.
So circling back to my original comment, I still don't see couple of variables influencing the measure (I have given two examples) being addressed.
In addition to the two examples, there'd be more. I already alluded to natural non-binary nature of scientific claims. Skimming through the Cook 2016 article, I also didn't find it explicitly addressed. We would probably agree that it's something completely different to claim "90+% of scientists agree, that the probability of AGW is above x" when the x is 50% compared to say x=99%.
-
william5331 at 06:24 AM on 29 April 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #17
Perhaps explain to the Monktons and other climate change deniers that even if they are right that climate change is not happening, or it is happening and we are not causing it or, it is happening and it will be good for us, there are other compelling reasons to wean ourselves off of fossil fuel. https://mtkass.blogspot.com/2010/10/forget-climate-change.html
-
jzk at 05:46 AM on 29 April 2019Global warming hiatus claims prebunked in 1980s and 1990s
@Art Vandelay,
What was Phil Jones "worried" about? If global warming were to stop, why would that cause someone to "worry?" Why wouldn't they "celebrate?"
-
Johnboy at 02:38 AM on 29 April 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #17
Not only does Whitestone lop off temperature data at 2012, he also deceives by starting his chart at 1998, whichat the time was the warmest year on record, due to El Ninõ. El Ninõ years aside, global temperatures are clearly rising since 1970. This deception is similar to that depicting warming starting at the Maunder Minimum.
-
cpske at 23:37 PM on 28 April 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #17
So, I went over to Amazon to see how "Inconvenient Facts" was playing and it was quite shocking. A summary of the reviews went something like this: Thank God you've finally told us the truth about Global Warming.
I posted a review and referenced Willard MacDonald's rebuttal, but not having purchased the book from Amazon they may not publish my comment.
Still, since this is a battle of the lay books, I thought of starting a Global Warming book club and read and discuss such books as "The Uninhabitable Earth" by David Wallice-Wells.
-
Hank11198 at 21:42 PM on 28 April 2019Is the grid ready for electric vehicles?
alea @ 17 "No, and the reason is that gasoline is an energy dense fuel for motor vehicles, so a full tank will last a while." I understand that gasoline powered cars can go further than electric cars at this time. But that doesn't change the point I was making. As long as the storage capacity of electric cars is more than a round trip to work there is no necessity for charging the battery at work. And electric cars easily have that storage capacity for a large majority of American workers.
-
nigelj at 10:40 AM on 28 April 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #17
John Hartz, fwiw I think MacDonald’s rebuttal of the book is well written, appears to cover all the main points, is scientifically accurate, polite but hard hitting, engaging, about the right length. Bear in mind I haven't read the book, but enough is quoted to get the gist of things.
It managed to cover both the facts and logical fallacies. Perhaps it could have covered the later in more specific detail. But overall I dont know what else one could do in terms of a rebuttal.
-
michael sweet at 10:35 AM on 28 April 2019Should a Green New Deal include nuclear power?
Joe Rohm describes the Trump administration's decision to allow nuclear plants to ignore flood risks here. I have seen similar reports elsewhere.
The article describes efforts made to reevaluate flood risks to nuclear power plants after the Fukushima disaster. It was found that 90% of nuclear plants were not built to withstand current flood risks. The Trump administration overruled the NRC staff and decided not to require the plants to build new defenses against flooding.
Of course we already know that the nuclear industry does not care who they harm.
-
John Hartz at 08:24 AM on 28 April 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #17
nigelj: What did you think of MacDonald's rebuttal of the entire book?
-
bjchip at 07:25 AM on 28 April 2019Empirically observed fingerprints of anthropogenic global warming
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%29017%3C3721%3ACONAAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2#
Moderator Response:[DB] Thanks for that. I rebuilt the links and images and all should work now.
-
bjchip at 07:23 AM on 28 April 2019Empirically observed fingerprints of anthropogenic global warming
Link to Meehl, 2004 paper (source of graphic) is now broken. I briefly looked for it on the CSIRO site without success.
http://cawcr.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff/jma/meehl_additivity.pdf
-
David Kirtley at 07:22 AM on 28 April 2019Is the grid ready for electric vehicles?
alea @17: "One comment I have heard from doubters of electric vehicles is that if they became widespread in the UK, the government would lose a lot of tax revenue through fuel tax (which is high in the UK), how would they compensate for this deficit?"
I touched on this in this comment to my post about my personal EV experience. Here in the US many states require EV owners to pay an extra yearly fee/tax which is supposed to offset the fuel taxes not paid. Here in Missouri the yearly fee is $75. I calculated that if I were driving a gas car the same number of miles as my EV, then I would only be paying about $49/year in fuel taxes to Missouri and $52/year to the Federal gov't. So Missouri is actually getting more money from me, but the Feds are out of luck. If/when(?) our Federal gov't ever rises to the level of basic competence again(?), then perhaps they will come up with some logical way to raise taxes for highway maintenance from EV owners.
-
nigelj at 07:03 AM on 28 April 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #17
Gregory Whitestone is a climate denialist author who has written a misleading book, and he is a geologist with interests in the mining and petroleum industy.
Just remembered Ian Plimer is a climate denialist who wrote the book heaven and earth attacking climate science, and its a misleading book, and he has interests in the mining and petroleum industry.
I detect a pattern here....
-
nigelj at 06:26 AM on 28 April 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #17
Gregory Wrightstone has very substantial involvement in the petroleum industry. CV here.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:53 AM on 28 April 2019Climate Adam Explains Extinction Rebellion
nigelj,
Awareness and understanding of the process for writing the 'consensus' IPCC reports explains why the reports 'appear to understate or obscure' the risks of climate changes caused by human impacts.
The leadership of the moment in each participating nation gets to have political-minders, 'working with' that nation's science representatives, 'compromise' the presentation of the scientific understanding to their desired limit of reasonable representation of what the science indicates. Everyone has to 'agree to the wording'. The 'political-minders' can't have the report state nonsense. The statements in the report must be scientifically supportable. But the political-minders can push things as far as possible from the reasonable currently developed understanding of what is going on.
I use the term 'compromise', but the people liking the result of the influence of the political minders would claim it is just allowing 'everyone' to participate in the 'negotiation' of what gets presented.
Why is the presentation of the science 'up for negotiation'? Why it mainly the Conservative leadership likes of Harper in Canada, and Bush/Trump in the USA who use (abuse) mechanisms in efforts to restrict and control the communication of 'science'? Why do the fans of such people like being misled that way?
There are winners of leadership who want the presentation of the certainty and risk of climate change due to human impacts to defend and maintain their incorrectly developed perceptions of prosperity and status. Improving awareness and understanding is contrary to their developed interests. And their fans are easily impressed into sharing that interest in resisting being corrected in ways that are contrary to their developed liking.
-
Eclectic at 18:04 PM on 27 April 2019There is no consensus
Quite agree, KR @791 . . . and longish post follows.
There are probably rather more than four categories of denialist . . . but the madness/badness of the human psyche is so commonplace, that it would be tiresome for you (or anyone) to allocate further mental effort to refine categories beyond your four !
As you say, KR, science-deniers (and here I include some well-educated scientists who nevertheless deny climate science directly or indirectly) have a tendency to occupy more than one category.
Perhaps they start off in a single category, and then some amplification or or positive feedback process causes them to swell and overflow into neighbouring categories? Do you know of any psychological study which quantifies the TCLS (Transient Climate Lunacy Sensitivity = number of years until Climate Lunacy has doubled in an individual denialist) . . . or quantifies the ECLS (Equilibrium Climate Lunacy Sensitivity) ?? Though I suspect that the ECLS is a difficult matter to quantify, because ECL is only reached at the moment of death.
If I am permitted to name names which fit primarily into your fourth category, it would be easy to pick Richard L and Judith C ~ being scientists who in earlier decades have made some contribution to climate science, but whose contribution history has been more ordinary than illustrious. Yet they are only human, and doubtless enjoy the perks & celebrity status awarded by the general denialist community (who have a desperately thin field of champions to choose from).
Now a "Fourther" who has puzzled me is Dr Koonin ~ does he justify a fifth category, or is it merely a case of "opportunism"? Perhaps he suffers from LDS (Limelight Deprivation Syndrome) as he moves out of public life . . . but then again, LDS would also explain some of the motivation of emeritus professors & other retirees who occupy category 4.
Returning more closely on topic : we have the multi-category award winner Mr Monckton. Lord M has been lauded by (Mr Watts and his cronies at) WUWT website, for his innumerate [in both meanings!] and strenuous denunciations of the consensus demonstrated by Cook et al., 2013.
Now, at various times I have touted the excellent Youtube video series produced by science journalist Potholer54 on climate matters & climate myth debunking. In particular, Potholer has an amusing 5-part video exposure of the mendacity of Lord M. (Look for "Monckton Bunkum".) And I gather that Potholer also posted on WUWT, to show the utter falsity of Lord M's positions & calculations (especially regarding Consensus figures) . . . and before very long, Mr Watt banned & expunged Potholer from the website. I did not witness these events ~ but I know that Potholer makes a point of always being civil or showing icy politeness. So it seems Mr Watts was infuriated by the relentless logic provide by Potholer . . . and Lord M's denunciations of Consensus are still extant on WUWT (or were so, last time I looked).
-
There is no consensus
I'm going to be blunt here, and I hope that this doesn't cross any moderation lines. The voices that most loudly and most often deny climate science seem (in my very personal opinion!) to fall into four categories, often several at once.
Lobbyists, loons, ideologues, and opportunists.
Such people show up repeatedly in the few surveyed papers objecting to climate science consensus, often cross-referencing other deniers or just themselves.
Lobbyists are self-evident; often residing in 'think tanks' that receive business funding. Loons hold obviously counter-factual positions, ignoring the majority of data in deference to their pet theories. Ideologues include for example libertarians, Randian capitalists, and others who object to climate science because they view any response to climate change as increasing the role of governments - not an objection to the science, but rather to the correction methods implied. That also includes teleological religious types who feel that the world was made for us to use, or who think a Rapture is imminent and why bother with the ecology. Opportunists are simply folks who find it more personally profitable/rewarding to object to climate science, rather than pursue more mainstream (and factually based) approaches - the average scientist doesn't get invited to travel around the world, or provide frequent Congressional testimony.
There's just no hard science making sustainable objections to the consensus climate views. None that I've seen, at least, and I've been looking. I won't name names WRT the preceding classifications, but I think that most people following the 'debate' can find a few loud climate deniers who fall into one or more of those categories.
I would gladly read anything with a scientific basis that supportably points out issues with the climate consensus - it's not a joyful outlook, sad to say. But I just haven't seen anything that holds up to examination.
-
Is the grid ready for electric vehicles?
Personal experience follows.
I have a plug-in hybrid (Chevy Volt, unfortunately discontinued, due to cancellation of the Cruze base vehicle), which I chose over then-available pure electrics due to frequent 400km trips visiting family. If I didn't have a frequent 100km round trip for work we would only need gas once a month.
Plugging it in weeknights, and about once a weekend, has just become a habit, very easy to do, and this particular vehicle doesn't tax our electrical supply (240V 16A). If we were fully charging a couple of vehicles like the Nissan Leaf, which draw 30A apiece, it would be more of an issue - our older house supply is limited to 160A, more modern houses in the US are generally capable of around 200A max. That's a significant infrastructure limit.
Not cheap, though. Numbers: if we limited ourselves to 120V, we could just run an extension cord and use the cars charger, but our 18KWh battery (~90km on electric alone) takes 13 hours to charge at 12A. That's not a feasible charging rate for a full electric car with a larger range. We installed a 240V charger, which ran ~$500 for a 40A capability (for future use), and another ~$1K to run a pair of 50A lines to a post next to the driveway. Not everyone can afford that. And if you live in an apartment complex it falls to the landlord to set that up, to absorb the cost.
There are going to have to be some adjustments along the way.
-
michael sweet at 11:09 AM on 27 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Thinkingman,
Recently nuclear power has received over a billion dollars is subsidies in the us source. these subsidies are primarily going to plants that are profitable but cry poor to politicians (and give the politicians lots of money). This means the plants generate more profit for the company but no additional carbon free generating is built. It also subsidizes inefficient plants.
Fossil fuels and nuclear receiive way more in subsidies than wind and solar.
-
nigelj at 10:28 AM on 27 April 2019Climate Adam Explains Extinction Rebellion
I will rephrase my comment at 2 slightly. There are some elements of the last IPCC report where it is too conservative, but the equal problem is the way the summary for policy makers communicates things.
There's much to praise about the report as well. The information that is there is generally high quality, meticulously organised and comprehensive.
-
michael sweet at 10:27 AM on 27 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Thinking man,
Wikipedia has this graph:
As you can see, after 10 minutes stationary reserve can be engaged. 15 minute wind forecasts are very accurate and tell operators if they need to engage gas peaker plants in the future. As a practical matter, over a large area, like several wind farms, the wind changes slowly so you have plenty of time to engage peaker plants if they are needed. Grid operators in Texas have no problems with keeping power steady when the wind changes.
The same Wikipedia reference states: "Most power systems are designed so that, under normal conditions, the operating reserve is always at least the capacity of the largest generator plus a fraction of the peak load" my emphasis.
The spinning reserve is to account for major, very rapid changes. If a nuclear power plant detects a radiation leak it immediately shuts down completely with no notice. Coal plants also have emergencies where they shut down with no notice. The spinning reserve deals with those shutdowns which happen frequently (once every year or two).
The equivalent problem with a wind farm is a single turbine goes out. Since many thousand trubines are running at the same time the loss of one is trival. If a transmission line goes out that can call on spining reserve but that applies to all power sources.
-
scaddenp at 10:14 AM on 27 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
On further note, both wholesale and retail prices in SA dropped in 2018 (remember a big battery?) and AEMC expect prices to drop further over next 2 years as more renewables and storage come online.
-
scaddenp at 10:05 AM on 27 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Thinkingman - I am puzzled. The reason I analysed the South Australia article was to demonstrate to you that you are relying on sources that cannot be trusted. Pundits like Leading Edge have happily quoted their source, but it does not support their claim. Like certain well-known denial sites, they know that if the message is what their readers want to hear, then they wont bother to check the source.
If you are continuing to insist that sources like FR are accurate when public data trivially demonstrates that they are not, then I cannot see how discussion can be continued. If you are not willing to look at analyses from reviewed sources that contradict your viewpoint, how can any discussion occur? If you bother to read the material provided by myself and others on storage, then you wouldnt be insisting on spinning reserves.
-
nigelj at 08:26 AM on 27 April 2019Climate Adam Explains Extinction Rebellion
The extinction rebellionwebsite has a good video on the tab labelled the truth.
However I dont think the IPCC reports are too hugely conservative as such relating to the science. The problem for me is more related to the summary for policy makers. It is good in terms of the science, but badly written in terms of style and presentation, and creates a very understated, conservative impression and it's this document that politicians will read.
For example it talks about things like good certainty of more extreme floods and heatwaves and sea level rise of up to one metre by 2100, etcetera, but I would say most policy makes looking at this will conclude this isn't too terrible, we can adapt.
What is missing from the summary for policy makers are some terse statements that warming could exceed 4 degrees as we go beyond 2100, multi metre sea level rise will occur beyond 2100, heatwaves could become deadly even this century, and we are getting near tipping points. Much of this information is buried in the body of the report, but policy makers will not be reading this.
Of course most of the summary for policy makers is meticulous, accurate and well written, but it could be better in terms of getting the seriousness across and still be accurate. I have not read every word of the IPCC report and stand to be corrected, but this is the impression I get.
Perhaps the summary for policy makers gets watered down by politicians who have to sign the thing off. I don't know. But if so then climate scientists need to be speaking out more. And yes they sometimes come up against a corporate owned, hostile media, but do what you can.
-
Eclectic at 08:13 AM on 27 April 2019There is no consensus
Pl @789 ,
I would certainly not wish to overstate your claims.
At the same time, it would be best if you clarified your claims far more precisely than you have in post #789 and prior. Otherwise, we are mutually tackling a Hydra-headed creature called a consensus, and doing so in an uncoordinated manner.
From my position as somewhat of a "naive realist", the primary meaning of (climate) consensus is in the basic sense of : the scientific consensus of our modern knowledge of climate physics. In other words, the current understanding of the science (of climate). In essence, the science is found in the (summation of) scientific papers published in reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals. Twas ever thus !
That is why a number of studies (including the very clever Cook et al., 2013 with its notorious 97% ) have looked at what is found in the many thousands of published papers. BTW, the Cook study was outstandingly excellent, because it cross-checked its findings by asking the actual authors what they considered their own papers showed. And yet it is important to remember that the Cook paper of 2013 was centered on a median paper "age" of approximately 2005 date ~ and the "consensus" has moved on by a considerable amount in the 12+ years since then.
Some other studies were even older than that.
However, it is even more important to remember that the scientific consensus (on climate matters) is the science itself ~ and that it is not a vote or a percentage or an opinion poll. (As you yourself have implied, we can easily end up in a futile tangle of shades of definition, if we are merely assessing "opinions" by scientists of all stripes.)
A survey of opinions is only a proxy of the scientific consensus. Taking a vox pop of scientists shows (as we would expect!) that "the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science" [Cook et al., 2013]. Obviously here, Cook is using consensus in its loose meaning of "opinion". It is understandable that the non-scientists & politicians of this world would have a desire to deal with a brief proxy of the complex science of climate ~ and a "percentage consensus" is a handy first approximation. But it is only a proxy, and we should never mistake it for the underlying science.
As your linked 2016 reference (to the IPCC) states: "human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century." That is a fair summation, though expressed in an overly-conservative manner. And - as you yourself say - "stamping a specific number with % sign to a consensus is [a] non-trivial task". To which I would add: it is both non-trivial and essentially irrelevant.
-
nigelj at 07:50 AM on 27 April 2019Is the grid ready for electric vehicles?
alea @ 17
"With my car, I can go in excess of 500 miles from one full tank, equivalent to two return visits to distant family or five weeks of commuting. I know of no electric car that comes close to this, at least without costing as much as a cheap house."
How often do yo need that? I would say it would be rare for most people, because most long trips have petrol stations along the way. By analogy its like saying my Ferrari can go 300 kms hour. People seldom use that ability.
Owners of electric cars could hire a hybrid or petrol car for the occasional long trip that doesn't have recharging stations along the route. Range of the latest electric vehicles is also pretty good, even for the cheaper ones.
"One comment I have heard from doubters of electric vehicles is that if they became widespread in the UK, the government would lose a lot of tax revenue through fuel tax (which is high in the UK), how would they compensate for this deficit?'
The government could put a road user tax on electric vehicles based on distance. You pay it when you pay for a warrent of fitness. There would be other ways as well. It's a non issue, and only becomes significant when uptake of electric cars becomes substantial.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:30 AM on 27 April 2019Is the grid ready for electric vehicles?
alea@17,
The Tesla Roadster has a 1000 km range. But it is the pricy Tesla (but not as pricy as other high end sports cars ... so maybe every owner of a high sports car (priced at or higher than the Tesla Roadster) who doesn't also own a Tesla Roadster should be heavily taxed for their incompetence as a leader of society.
The more affordable Tesla Model 3 and soon to be available Model Y have ranges near 500 km. On a long road trip that means planning to stop for coffee and maybe a snack or meal while a 30 to 45 minute recharge is completed (30 minutes at a Tesla Supercharger station provides another 270 km of range).
And many other electric cars have ranges beyond 300 km that make long distance travel practical with reasonably frequent rest stops (which every driver should be taking). However, many of those cars are not built to be recharged as rapidly as Tesla Superstation recharging.
Canada's NRC has developed a handy resource for learning about the energy efficiency of every type of vehicle available to Canadian buyers - NRC Fuel Consumption Ratings Search.
As for the end of revenue from a fuel tax, the revenue from the much larger Carbon Pricing that will be applied to help achieve the required rapid corrrection will also end. Smart sensible leaders would already be working on the transition, rather than trying to figure out how to be popular by making up excuses for making bigger problems for future leaders.
-
alea at 06:14 AM on 27 April 2019Is the grid ready for electric vehicles?
11: "Maybe I’m missing something but I don’t know many people that get gas every time they go from home to work. "
No, and the reason is that gasoline is an energy dense fuel for motor vehicles, so a full tank will last a while. With my car, I can go in excess of 500 miles from one full tank, equivalent to two return visits to distant family or five weeks of commuting. I know of no electric car that comes close to this, at least without costing as much as a cheap house.
One comment I have heard from doubters of electric vehicles is that if they became widespread in the UK, the government would lose a lot of tax revenue through fuel tax (which is high in the UK), how would they compensate for this deficit?
-
There is no consensus
Eclectic @786,
I think you made some of these points above already, you are somehow overstating my claims, I think my two points are more subtle in their supposed effect.
To be clear, I like playing devil's advocate more than preaching to the choir, so you can take that context into account when responding.
Re motivation of scientists - that's probably more complex, my guess would be that the primary driving factor is usually interest in the topic and natural curiosity, so not necessarily fame and pursuing contrarian views. But this is a bit off topic, so I'll leave it at that.
Let me focus on your last question - what do I think of when writing "the method of determineng the level of consensus":
I've skimmed through one of the papers linked above, you can see they are discussing such methods in length. They don't seem to address the two points I made above (attractor theory and peer influence), unless I missed it in the text.
Stamping a specific number with % sign to a consensus is non-trivial task. For example, processing abstracts using some simplistic method may potentially skew the result a lot, so I would personally prefer surveying scientists, allowing non-binary response, weighting the data by their level of expertise in the field and ability to critically think... - which would be very difficult, if not impossible to pull off.
Therefore my question(s) in first comment I made. The paper I linked to don't seem to address that and I'm lazy to study all consensus survey papers on my own, so I was hoping someone who knows the answers may chime in.
-
ThinkingMan at 23:25 PM on 26 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Mr. Sweet,
With regards to your 23 Apr. comment disputing the need for spinning reserves: How do you propose large electrical systems cope with the huge swings in wind turbine output within 1, 2, 3 hour and other short time spans? Ditto, fluctuations in the frequency of electricity generated by wind turbines.
The above is a sincere question, seeking to build on your acknowledgement that wind turbines must be supplemented with other sources of electricity.
-
cpske at 23:16 PM on 26 April 2019Climate Adam Explains Extinction Rebellion
Climate Adam did a good job explaining Extinction Rebelian.
As for Extinction Rebelian itself, I recommend they 'market test' the results of their campaign of street protests and see if it helps them meet their stated goals. For example, does disrupting someone's commute make them talk about global warming, or does it just make them mad at some hippies?
Here in the US, what's the first rule of global warming? Don't talk about global warming. The topic is taboo. Try this at a cocktail party and see what you get.: "Hey, if we continue business-as-usual, the mean wet bulb temperature will rise to 35C, and humans will no longer be able to cool themselves, therefore become extinct." Thud.
You are up against slick marketing technologies, so I suggest you reply in kind. Start by reading "Don't Even Think About It" by George Marshal, or "Merchants of Doubt" by Conway, et al, or more generally "Made to Stick" by the Heath brothers.
I also suggest you target the media first. For example, during the Vietnam war, Johnson knew the jig was up when Walter Cronkite started reading the names of the dead on every broadcast.
-
ThinkingMan at 23:02 PM on 26 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Hopefully, this post will enable readers to view sources referenced in prior comments.
SOUTH AUSTRALIAN ELECTRICITY PRICES:
For the Financial Review article, and similar articles, in Bing, please search the phrase "australian-households-pay-highest-power-prices". The search results should yield the FR article, and you should be able to see the entire article. Some links limit one to the first paragraph.
www.statista.com/statistics/418078/electricity-prices-for-households-in-germany/
www.statista.com/statistics/418075/electricity-prices-for-households-in-denmark/
PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF RENEWABLES:
www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/How-Electricity-Gets-Bought-and-Sold-in-California#gs.7f8mt4
www.massclimateaction.org/recs
www.maine.gov/mpuc/greenpower/faq.shtml
www.50hertz.com/en/Transparency/GridData/Windpower
WIND GENERATION DATA:
For TX: www.ercot.com/gridinfo/generation
For New England: www.iso-ne.com/isoexpress/web/reports/operations/-/tree/daily-gen-fuel-type
-
ThinkingMan at 22:40 PM on 26 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Pls ignore the earlier 26 Apr. post. Its sole purpose was to test adding links, and the test failed.
This post tries again. www.afr.com/news/australian-households-pay-highest-power-prices-in-world-20170804-gxp58a.
-
ThinkingMan at 22:29 PM on 26 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
www.afr.com/news/australian-households-pay-highest-power-prices-in-world-20170804-gxp58a
-
Hank11198 at 20:47 PM on 26 April 2019Is the grid ready for electric vehicles?
nigelj @ 15 our solar panels were $30k but got a $10k tax deduction so effectively we paid $20k. We looked at solar panels for a long time and kept seeing the price was dropping every year. But last year we decided it was a good enough payback period to go ahead and purchase. Like I said it truned out much better than we expected.
-
Eclectic at 12:24 PM on 26 April 2019There is no consensus
Pl @787 ,
of course you are quite correct that there are institutional pressures towards conformity. As well as the genetically-inherited tendency of humans to "team up" in a tribal manner : just witness the current mindless tribalism in political matters ~ "full steam ahead and damn the facts!" ;-)
But your question suggests you are insufficiently aware of the drive towards contrarianism by scientists as individuals. The up-and-coming scientist seeks not money, but reputation / respect / fame / prestige. Yes, a Nobel Prize may well be awarded in 10 years' time or more . . . but scientific acclaim this year is a powerful inducement for publishing clever / innovative / iconoclastic work. And the competition is fierce !
Similarly, there is no shortage of respected journals that are ready & willing to publish novel dissenting papers (always provided the ideas have some reasonable evidentiary backing . . . and are not just fruitcake speculation.) A journal gains in prestige by being the first to publish groundbreaking work.
Between the scores of journals and the 10,000+ climate-related scientists, there is really nothing for you to fear that any worthy contrarian idea will be suppressed.
Yes, there are a few real scientists who speak against the mainstream climate science, but they have no actual evidence to back up their viewpoint ~ and if you look more closely at them, you find a sorry collection of crackpots / religious nutcases / political extremists / and a few aging "emeritus" types (even a rare Nobel Laureate) whose maverick-inclined personalities have become warped by the early changes of senility. [ I myself know a once-respected researcher, PhD equipped etc, who is a member in good standing of a local branch of the Flat Earth Society.]
But let's not get bogged down in Ad Homs ~ however apt & amusing. The basic problem is that the climate contrarians are still fighting last century's battles ~ and they have no facts to support themselves.
All they can muster is rhetoric & the unjustified "soft claims" you mention . . . in their attempt to sway the susceptible.
( btw, since the consensus of climate experts is extremely close to the 100% mark, I am wondering what you can mean by "the method of determining the level of consensus". What can you be thinking of ? )
-
There is no consensus
Eclectic @786,
My comment was mainly about the method of determining the level of consensus.
Point 1 ("attractor" theory) addressed my assumption, that the method includes statistics about numbers of articles - which can be strongly biased by such "attractor". If there was another attractor in rather distant past, it has little to do with this argument. However, I also assume that such bias may have been controlled for - I'm simply asking for brief explanation how.
Point 2 (peer influence) - I know in the ideal world, scientists have such characteristics as you claim, in real world they often follow direction or advice of their more senior peers, topics are to significant extent determined by projects / programs, etc. Again, I'm not saying this is a big issue, but it's most likely not totally negligible either. I'm interested in how such bias was / would be addressed when determining the level of consensus.
On a related note - a foot soldier of science may find it more productive to focus on particulars rather than spending time questioning consensual claims. I'm probably not the only one seeing a bit of positive feedback loop in there.
Regarding lack of valid alternative theories - I fully agree. There are softer claims than that though - "the field is young, it's not established science yet, the link to human activity is not conclusive yet" and similar. Only miniscule part of general public is able to determine that themselves, so I find preaching the importance of scientific consensus probably the most effective way. I.e. the arguments for it (specific consensus and it's level in climate science) better be airtight. Therefore my original comment.
-
nigelj at 06:10 AM on 26 April 2019Is the grid ready for electric vehicles?
Hank @13, car bonnet covered in solar panels has been done in photo here. However it's a prototype, so no doubt specially reinforced and expensive like Ger says. Not pretty either, but early days yet.
An acquaintaince of mine has a solar panel powered house with a tesla battery pack, which has allowed him to go about 90% off grid. His house is passive solar design so built with good insulation, and to maximise heat gain in winter with big windows and the floor as a heat sink, and solar curtains in summer to refelect as much heat as possible. External shutters would be better.
The panels and battery are an expensive up front investment, with break even in 15 years from memory. I guess government subsidies would help.
However the panels and batteries are not hugely expensive to my way of thinking. Together they are about the cost of 15sq metres of floor area in New Zealand.
However it's not clear to me which is better: Centralised solar plant or residential roof top solar. I haven't been able to find any clear article or research, and its not clear which governments should promote the most. Does anyone know?
Of course being independent off grid is a nice feeling, and you have no more power bills, or minimal power bills. Residential solar power does clearly suit rural communities especially in poor, rural based countries where its not easy to supply such communities from a centralised power station.
-
Eclectic at 01:10 AM on 26 April 2019There is no consensus
Pl @785 ,
1. The original "attractor" theory (held up until the 1930's) was that the Earth's climate was self-correcting i.e. homeostatic within narrow limits. But that was disproven, as experimental & observational & paleo-climatic evidence mounted up. Satellite-based evidence has re-inforced that, too.
2. "Peer influence" is not a problem ~ because genuine scientists have a natural tendency to be contrarian & genuinely skeptical.
The consensus is pretty much unanimous for climatologists, because nowadays (unlike 50 or 100 years ago) the evidence for "CO2/AGW" is conclusive. There are no longer any "alternative theories" that hold any validity ~ the plausible alternative have been disproven (e.g. GW from variation in cosmic ray intensity; homeostatic cloud formation as an "Iris Effect"; long-cycle ocean current effects).
If you take time to learn more about the mechanisms influencing global climate, you will recognize that the (mere handful of) "dissenting" climatologists are offering only empty dissent . . . because they have nothing valid to back up their dissent. They are just running on automatic . . . such as the well-known retired Professor Lindzen, who has an Old Testament religious belief that the Earth has been designed to remain close to the Garden of Eden climate status. A few others suffer from extremist political beliefs, motivating them to cherry-pick / ignore the plain evidence.
Please note that the respected scientific journals welcome dissenting views provided that there is reasonable supportive evidence. (Journals and scientists gain prestige & fame by demonstrating valid contrarian evidence.)
But alas, every contrarian idea has failed the validity test, and there are extremely strong reasons why no "undiscovered" factor exists.
Prev 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 Next
