Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Comments 1101 to 1150:
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:19 AM on 10 November 2023SkS Analogy 26 - Earth's Beating Hearts
groovimus @2:
Congratulations. Your second post at SkS, and you've provided two incredibly bad arguments in a single paragraph.
First, you're making an "argument from incredulity" I can't believe that people are still making "I can't believe" types of arguments these days. [See how that works?]
Second, you're making an "it's only a trace" argument. Usually people that are making an "it's only a trace" argument are doing it with respect to CO2 concentrations. At least we should give you some points for originality - for making it about the mass of humans vs. the mass of the earth - but you're still only scoring 2-3 points out of 100. If you were really creative, you'd go onto the CO2 is a trace gas thread and tell us how the mass of CO2 is sooo small in comparison to the mass of the earth, instead of the usual comparison with the mass of the atmosphere alone. It would still be a completely bogus argument, but boy oh boy could you really throw around some huge ratios!
Also, you never did go back to follow up your first SkS comment, where you completely failed to provide any argument why anyone should listen to John F Clauser (the subject of the post you were supposed to be commenting on). All you had there was ad hominem rants and insults.
-
Just Dean at 10:02 AM on 10 November 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44
Michael,
I basically read everything Zeke write's including every post at CarbonBrief, theclimatebrink.com, and his October 13th NYTimes article and some of his recent peer-reviewed journal articles.
Zeke has basically been giving his readers and followers a play by play of this, "Staggering. Unnerving. Mind-Boggling. Absolutely gobsmackingly bananas" year.
You may want to remember that we need to wait until 2023 is over before we can plot the average temperature for the year by all the different sources, on the global temperature series . To me it appears that 2023 will be high right in line with the two year duration of the El Ninos of 1998 and 2016 where basically the average temperatures jumped by 0.3 C.
I don't I think I need to read anymore of Zeke's work but maybe you want to consider it.
-
groovimus at 08:49 AM on 10 November 2023SkS Analogy 26 - Earth's Beating Hearts
Kudos bringing the planetary mass into view. Now let's look at the human biomass. In terms of planetary mass it is 5 x 10^-14 of the planetary mass. Such numbers trigger a what's going on here headsmack. Are we really proposing that a biomass can develop the sun amplifying machinery to influence the temperature of a mass 2 x 10^13 larger?
-
michael sweet at 07:28 AM on 10 November 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44
Dean,
I think the explaination of current heat caused by " El Nino, uptick in 11-year solar cycle, Hunga-Tonga and reduction in aerosols due to 2020 phaseout of sulphur dioxide" is not very satisfying.
The El Nino has just started. Usually the effect of El Nino is felt most at the end of the year and the year following. That means we are just now feeeling the El Nino effect. In addition, the current El Nino is described as moderately strong, not extremely strong source. To me that means that only a little of the extrordinary heat of the past 4 months could be attributed to El Nino. Dr. Zeke Hausfather here primarily attributes the current extreme record temperatures to El Nino. I doubt the El Nino has contributed so much heat so early in the cycle. We will see how much hotter next year is. I think El Nino contributes less than 0.1 C.
The solar cycle only contributes about 0.2 C to warming from the top of the cycle to the bottom. While the cycle has increased a lot this year, it is still not peaking out. The solar cycle is not much different from earlier record years. This contribution is also less than 0.1 C.
The volcano is harder to evaluate. Most volcanoes cool the surface but this one shot a bunch of water into the Stratosphere. Since that has not happened before it is hard to estimate. I think the volcano contributes less than 0.1 C.
October was 0.4 C above the previous record year which had a much stronger El Nino, September was 0.5 C above record, August 0.3 C, July 0.43 C higher. These records are usually broken by hundredths of a degree. The past years had stronger El Ninos and the solar cycle was comparable.
Hausfather's estimates of all the forcings do not add up to 0.5C for September. Hansen has been saying for decades that aerosols reduce temperature much more than the models indicate. I fear that Hansen is correct and the unaccounted for warming is coming mostly from the reduction in aerosols. This is due primarily to the change in marine fuels with some coming from polllution controls in China.
If the record heat is caused primarily by the reduction in aerosols it will be permanent. Next year will be hotter because of the El Nino. Future years will build off a new base that is about 0.4 C higher than it was three years ago. Hansen predicted before this year that 1.5 C would be exceeded before 2030. If this year is above 1.5 C becasue of aerosol reduction than by 2030 it is very likely all years will be above 1.5 C and Hansen will be correct. If the volcanoes effects have been underestimated than after next year the temerature should go down for a few years.
Pray that Hansen is incorrect and the volcano caused this years extraordinary temperatures.
Keep strongly in mnd that Drs Mann, Hansen and Hausfather are way more informed about these matters than individuals who post on the internet, including me. I recommend you try to read as many of their postings as possible to determine who you think is being the most consistent.
-
Andrew741 at 04:01 AM on 10 November 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44
@Evan
Your perspective on the Keeling curve and the challenges ahead is thought-provoking. Acknowledging the current upward acceleration in CO2 concentrations and the potential difficulty in even stabilizing them paints a stark reality. Your caution about assuming we can achieve more than stabilization is a call to recognize the Herculean task at hand, balancing hopeful trends with the resistance to necessary change. It's a sobering reminder to plan for the worst while striving for the best, given the uncertainties and the collective will required for significant global shifts, -
Andrew741 at 03:59 AM on 10 November 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44
Absolutely, the discussion around the warming in the pipeline is a nuanced one. It's refreshing to see your optimism amid acknowledging the Herculean task of decarbonization. The pace of clean tech deployment is impressive, and while the road ahead is long and challenging, your belief in reaching the destination is encouraging. Balancing awareness of the challenges without painting it as a lost cause is key. It's a delicate dance, but a necessary one for fostering both awareness and hope in the face of daunting environmental issues.
-
wilddouglascounty at 22:25 PM on 9 November 2023SkS Analogy 26 - Earth's Beating Hearts
This is wonderful. Thanks for connecting the dots in ways I have never considered.
-
Just Dean at 23:59 PM on 8 November 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44
Michael@13, I'm not sure I agree or understand your statement about Zeke's explanations for the recent warming as "pretty weak." He has given it the most thorough treatment that I have seen both at The Climate Brink and at CarbonBrief . Factors include El Nino, uptick in 11-year solar cycle, Hunga-Tonga and reduction in aerosols due to 2020 phaseout of sulphur dioxide.
-
MA Rodger at 21:23 PM on 8 November 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44
This Hansen et al (2023) paper was pre-published back in January and did result in a bit of discussion here at SkS. And there was supposed to be a second paper specifically on SLR.
Hansen et al rattle through a pile of stuff, some of which I would agree has merit and some which I find difficult to accept, some very difficult. The high ECS is one of the very difficult ones. (Perhaps the point that the big part of the difference between high ECS values and the IPCC's most likely value ECS=3ºC, [something the IPCC tend not to identify preferring a range of values as in AR6 Fig1.16]: the difference is due to warming that follows the forcing by a century or more. That time-lag is one of the reasons the ECS estimates are not better nailed down and still has its 'fat tail' . It also would give mankind a fighting chance of dodging it.)
SLR is certainly a big subject of concern. It is a long-term problem, multi-century. The equilibrium position for a +1.5ºC is perhaps 3m and the threat of setting Greenland into unstoppable meltdown at higher levels of warming would triple that. I do tend to get irked by the SLR by 2100 being the sole subject of discussion.
Of course, predictions of that 2100 SLR being massive (5m) is one of Hansen's foibles. The worry is, I think, specific to Antarctica and it is a genuine worry. But to achieve 5m by 2100 would need massive numbers of icebergs bobbing around in the southern oceans and result in global cooling. And there is also the awkward point for climatologists that increased snowfall over Greenland/Antarctica could provide a significant reversal of SLR.
The final issue raised by Hansen et al (2023) is the impact of the reduction of aerosols from our falling SO2 emissions. Quantifying the impact of SO2 emissions is not entirely global a thing, so emissions in, say, China may induce more cooling than, say, Europe. But that said, global SO2 emissions data I identify tends to be way out-of-date. The most recent is this one from a Green Peace publication. This shows the reduction in SO2 is well in hand over the last decade. And the CERES data showing EEI does show a drop in albedo (yellow trace in the 2nd graphic) through that period. My own view of these CERES numbers is that they include a lot of bog-standard AGW-feedback-at-work.
There is also the last 5 months of crazy global temperatures (so post-dating Hansen et al's pre-publication). I don't see these as being sign of things to come. I'd suggest it is casued by the January 2022 Hunga Tonga eruption which threw both SO2 and H2O into the stratosphere, the cooling SO2 dropping out leaving the warming H2O to do its thing before eventually it too dropping out.
And the in-the-pipeline thing. Climatology is/has-been saying we need to halve CO2 emissions b 2030, and following the point of net zero in mid century we enter a century-plus of net-negative CO2 emissions. That would see all emissions 2008 to year-of-net-zero removed by human hand and stored away safely. So that is on top of the natural draw-down of CO2 into the oceans. And if we don't do that, it will not be from ignorance of the situation.
-
nigelj at 05:28 AM on 8 November 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44
I believe Hansen has to be right to the extent there will be more warming in the pipeline due to sulphate aerosols reducing, over the immediate short term future. Aerosols cause a cooling effect so if you cut them you must get a warming effect. However its a question of how much warming would be in the pipeline, and I went looking and found this a few days ago: "Cutting air pollution would not cause ‘near-term spike’ in global warming"
www.carbonbrief.org/cutting-air-pollution-would-not-cause-near-term-spike-in-global-warming/
The study appears to say that if sulphate aerosols were all cut to zero immediately you would get a significant spike in warming lasting about a decade or so, but if they are phased out over several decades (which is the far more realistic scenario) additional warming would be zero or quite small.
We have had a couple of hot years and significant heatwaves and Hansens argument appears to be this relates to reduced aerosols from shipping (?). While I have huge respect for Hansen, I struggle to believe something like that would cause enough warming, and haven't seen anyone come up with numbers on it.
Manns concern appears to be that people will give up on mitigation if they begin to believe a lot of warming is already baked into the system or that we are already doomed. And IMO hes right. Therefore its important to be accurate about exactly how much warming is baked into the system and not exaggerate and speculate unnecessarily.
-
michael sweet at 02:39 AM on 8 November 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44
I don't think Hansen is worried about thousands of years in the future. He has been saying for decades that aerosols are reflecting a lot of energy back into space, cooling the planet. Reducing fossil fuel use reduces aerosols. The loss of aerosols causes rapid warming. Hansen projects that 1.5C will be exceeded by 2030 and 2.0 C will be exceeded by 2050. He is concerned about changes that will occur while people alive now are still around, about 100 years. He is concerned about multimeter sea level rise by 2100. If Hansen is correct about aerosols the next 30 years will have substantial extra heating.
I respect Zeke and Mann but their explainations for the extreme heat the past 6 months are pretty weak. While the current temperatures are inside the error bars for the models, the temperature this year is extraordianrily hot comnpared to all previous years. I note that the IPCC generally emphasizes what a consensus of scientists think is the minimum amount of change in the climate and temperature. That means that a majority of scientists think it will be worse than the IPCC projections.
The scientists who project damages substantially exceeding the IPCC reports are in the minority. It is very concerning to me that they exist at all. Especially since the last 6 months have been so hot and next year is projected to be even hotter. El Nino does not usually strongly affect temperature until the end of the year.
I agree that "it's important to communicate the incredible challenges we face but without instilling in people's minds the idea it's already a lost cause." But politicians still are not taking action seriously.
What is the IPCC defination of "consensus". It has to be a lot higher than 50%. Is it 80%, 90%? They must have it written down somewhere.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 00:59 AM on 8 November 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44
Evan... Yes, we can agree more or less on everything you've stated there. My point is, that is different from the warming in the pipeline discussion.
I will say, though, my perspective tends to be more optimistic than yours. I see quite a lot happening toward decarbonizing society. As you say, it is a Herculean task but the pace at which clean technologies are being deployed is also impressive. It's not yet enough. We have a long hard road ahead in the coming decades. But I think we're going to get there.
I believe it's important to communicate the incredible challenges we face but without instilling in people's minds the idea it's already a lost cause.
On the warming in the pipeline issue, I think Zeke and Andrew get it. If Hansen is discussing millennial level warming in the pipeline as steady concentrations, it's important science to understand, but functionally irrelevant to the challenge of the coming decades.
-
Evan at 23:51 PM on 7 November 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44
Rob@8, can we agree on the following. If the Keeling curve (i.e., plot of CO2 concentration vs year) does no better than level off, then we have warming in the pipeline. Currently the CO2 concentration is accelerating upwards (these are the words that Ralph Keeling himself uses). It is possible that we do many wonderful things to control our emissions and do no better than to simply stop the upward acceleration. In that case, we still have a disastrous situation.
Even if we do much, much better than to stop the upward acceleration, the next big challenge is to stabilize CO2 concentrations. If we do not better than that, then we have warming in the pipeline.
My point is simply that it is prudent to assume that we will never do better than to stabilize atmospheric CO2 concentrations, because getting to that point will require a Herculean task. Yes, there are hopeful trends, but there is also a lot of resistance in the world to the kind of change needed to reach Net Zero emissions. These trends could quickly slow down.
I understand the arguments you and others are making. I just don't believe we have the collective will to do what is needed to make the model assumptions come true. Hence, I will continue to urge people to plan as though current atmospheric concentrations represent our commitment level.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 12:46 PM on 7 November 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44
Dean... Seems the buried lede is here: "... Hansen’s assumptions will not happen. We are not going to keep atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases fixed for thousands of years. We will definitely stop burning fossil fuels in somewhere between a few decades to a few centuries and the concentration of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere will decline after that."
My point here is, you seem to be going off topic talking about the rate of increasing CO2 concentrations (@7) rather than discussing warming in the pipeline.
-
Just Dean at 05:33 AM on 7 November 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44
Rob@8, Zeke and Andrew Dessler take issue with how Hansen is defining "warming in the pipeline." Basically, he is assuming constant atmospheric concentrations and then he is holding it there for millenia to allow slow feedback mechanisms to kick in, Ref. theclimatebrink.com 5/22/23 .
Evan@7, If you wait to see a significant decrease of the rate of increase of CO2, it will be too late. You won't see that until we have made significant progress in reducing man made emissions, see projected CO2 ppm vs emission scenarios, Climate change:Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide .
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:11 AM on 7 November 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44
Evan @7... I believe the rate of increase in CO2 concentrations is a different issue than warming in the pipeline, though. Mann (and Hausfather) are taking issue with Hansen's claim there would potentially be decades of warming even after bringing CO2 emissions under control.
-
Evan at 01:16 AM on 7 November 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44
Dean@6, I hope you're correct. Personally, I will only change my view when there is a statistically significant decrease of the rate of increase of CO2, because ultimately the three facts you cite do not determine how the environment will respond. Collectively they are an important component, but only one component that affects the rate of accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. Noting that our emissions are only about 4% of natural emissions, we only have to affect natural emissions, or sinks, by a small amount to overwhelm our efforts to control the rate of accumulation of CO2.
I am not really arguing against you, but using this forum to remind the readers of other factors involved. I respect that the facts you're quoting are accurate and come from reliable sources. So I am merely noting that they only represent one piece of the puzzle, and noting that we may still be a bit optimistic about how the natural world will respond to what we have already done and continue to do. I think Hansen differs from other because he has a different view of how sensitive the natural world is to our actions.
-
Just Dean at 00:30 AM on 7 November 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44
Evan@5, I understand. I prefer to look to the moderate voices in almost any circumstance. To quote Zeke, I am cautiously optimistic about our future and getting to net zero. We have bent the curve on global emissions and according to the IEA and others, e.g. Rystad energy, we may well hit peak emissons this year or at least by 2025.
I follow the progress of the U.S. electrical sector emissions. Here are three positive facts about our progress.
1. Renewable generation surpassed coal and nuclear in the U.S. electric power sector in 2022, link.
2. Add nuclear to the renewables and emission-free carbon sources account for almost 40% of the generation in the U.S.
3. The specific carbon intensity of the US electrical sector has decreased by 40% between 2000 and 2022, falling from 650 kg/MWh to 390 MWh.
-
Evan at 23:59 PM on 6 November 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44
Dean@4, When the IPCC was just being formed, it was Hansen in 1988 who was sounding the alarm. Hansen has always been at the forefront of climate predictions, preceding the IPCC in his assessment of how severe the climate crisis is and will likely become. The IPCC has always represented a baseline assessment of where we're heading, and not necessrily an accurate assessment of just how bad things could get.
But let's find common agreement, because I've read the paper by Hausfather (read here) where he shows that temperatures will be frozen if we reach Net 0 emissions. I understand the arguments you're making.; But with CO2 concentrations rising at 2.5 ppm/year, and the state of world affairs leaning ever more to the right, it will be a long long time before I hold any hope for reaching Net 0 emissions. I will continue to encourage others to view our warming commitment as corresponding to the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Anything beyond that is contingent on global actions that are still struggling in their infancy. Yes, we have lots of talk and agreements, yes wind power has been increasing, but with CO2 rising at 2.5 ppm/year, apparently we have yet to sufficiently impress the natural world that we're doing enough.
-
Just Dean at 23:31 PM on 6 November 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44
Evan, It is not just Mann that disagrees with Hansen. I believe that Hansen holds the minority position here. Both Zeke and Mann reference the IPCC special report on 1.5C that warming will cease when we get to net zero emissions. To me, the IPCC represents the consensus thinking. There is a recent paper by Dvorak and Armour that reaches bascially the same conclusion, Ref. , and adresses the aerosol effect.
If you follow Zeke at theclimatebrink.com and/or X, he has addressed directly Hansen's pipeline paper and his high estimate of climate sensitivity. Also, Zeke's latest analysis of record breaking temperatures relative to the multimodel averages can be found at theclimatebrink.com.
-
Evan at 11:09 AM on 6 November 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44
Rob, that does not make Michael Mann correct. "No warming in the pipeline is a theoretical concept that requires us to completely restructure society. Hansen cannot be easily dismissed by simply citing a different researcher. I live my life assuming that we are committed to the level of warming reflected by the current CO2 concentration. I think this is a reasonable approach. I hope I'm wrong and that Michael Mann is correct. But I tend to side with Hansen.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:23 AM on 6 November 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44
Evan... Michael Mann is in pretty firm disagreement with Hansen on this issue.
-
Evan at 23:45 PM on 5 November 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44
Hausfather's recent paper (read here) suggests there is no "warming in the pipeline" should we reach net-zero emissions. Hansen's new paper cited in the above article (read here) uses the very provocative title, "Global warming in the pipeline". Given that one of the leading voices in the climate community (i.e., Hansen) releases a paper now with this provocative title, should give pause to the idea that the warming is in our hands and under our control.
It is likely that the environmental system is far more sensitive than we are willing to admit.
-
scaddenp at 13:46 PM on 5 November 2023Increasing melting of West Antarctic ice shelves may be unavoidable
Not to mention, that if you want to postulate that geothermal heat is cause of recent WA melt, then you need to show a mechanism that can suddenly increase the heat flux over a wide area is a very short space of time. Not actually possible with conductive geothermal heat. In short, those fluxes have been present for a very long time.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:38 AM on 5 November 2023Increasing melting of West Antarctic ice shelves may be unavoidable
David-acct @ 1:
Oh, my. A paper that shows that there is a geothermal heat flux of 285 milliwatts/m2 at a site in the West Antarctic ice sheet. And 105 milliwatts/m2 flowing up through the ice sheet!
Your "complete analysis" is no such thing. This sort of argument has been discussed previously here in comments on more than one thread. Try reading some of the comments adjacent to these ones:
-
David-acct at 10:35 AM on 5 November 2023Increasing melting of West Antarctic ice shelves may be unavoidable
Surprising that there was no mention of the geothermal activity in West Antarctica . The article only mentions warming seas as if global warming was the primary cause of the West antarctica sea ice melting.
Far better to provide a more complete analysis
www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1500093
-
Eclectic at 16:34 PM on 4 November 2023Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Thanks, Res01 @41 (and forgive my perhaps over-courteous usage of a capital letter for your moniker ~ that is simply my customary literary style).
Time is precious in this modern age . . . and so, no , have not read the OP's Robertson paper [the link showed as Page Not Found] nor the Stumm paper [unlinked]. Yes, it is quick to read a paper's Extract; and where that is insufficiently informative, still it is usually possible to skim through the body/conclusion of a paper to identify the salient points. But it's even better if one can "Cut To The Chase".
All the same, there is so much information "out there" on the internet ~ that the SkS website staff have created a Comments Policy which requests all commenters to respect readers' time . . . by giving a sufficiently detailed relevant description/summary of (linked) citations. Whether the citation/link is an actual scientific paper or simply a journalistic article.
# That request applies in Spades, to video links (even if the video is only 5 minutes long). As you know, videos can be a great time-waster. That's why a summary of the video's message and significance can be a great help to the flow of the discussion happening in the thread here.
Res01 ~ I particularly ask for your deeper discussion of the essential science of this topic of "CO2 impact" on human (and animal) bodies. That is because I fear that a major mistake is being raised (and I would be pleased to be corrected if I am wrong about that).
Evolution has designed the body to operate at a specific set point (or very narrow range) of acidity/pH. You can temporarily disturb that pH by hyperventilating (to raise the pH) or by re-breathing into the classic paper bag (to lower the pH). But in the long run, it is the kidney (as mentioned earlier) which maintains the body's day-by-day acidity level. Renal function is vital !
And it is (as yet) unclear to me if Robertson / Stumm / and other sources, have made allowance for those basic facts of physiology. Are they making a giant blunder ~ or am I making a blundering assessment of their warnings? Please discuss.
-
res01 at 13:24 PM on 4 November 2023Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Eclectic @40,
Thank you noting my post.
I am not sure if you read the RE Stumm article*, or watched the movie, but the calculations made by Stumm in his article shifts the curve by Robertson over a bit, but generally confirms what is being said here by M. Popkiewicz; the CO2 physiological danger is not being overblown. If we are not already done in by climate change, the direct effects of CO2 on us and other life forms will start haunting us around the end of the century. I suppose it depends on one's age if this is alarmist or not. If you're a senior with no kids like I am who is going to check out in a few years anyways then the whole subject is simply academic. However, if I were a twenty something or younger who may likely otherwise live to see the end of the century, I'd be freaking out right now.
*The R.E. Stumm article unfortunately is behind a paywall. However a preprint that is not too significantly off from the peer reviewed published article can be found at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4500439. Recommend reading as it should answer your questions on CO2 impact on human body physiology.
-
Eclectic at 20:01 PM on 3 November 2023Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Res01 @39 :
Agreed ~ as stated in a number of comments [2014 onwards] earlier in this thread, this whole question of CO2 physiological danger is overblown.
The original research article was of poor quality and poor experimental methodology, and hence poor conclusions. Or so I gather from others' comments [for me, the linked Robertson article showed as Page Not Found]. I would also argue from basic principles of bodily homeostasis, that whatever transient mental incapacitation (minor, I gather) would occur for a few hours at higher ambient CO2 ~ the body would respond (by increased renal excretion of acid) in the longer run, with the effect of raising the blood pH back to the normal range.
No need for any alarm, for man nor beast (nor fish).
Res01 ~ pehaps you might be kind enough to comment specifically on that R.E.Stumm article, and also the "Die Back" video you mentioned. I am unclear whether you mean they are alarmist or not.
-
res01 at 11:38 AM on 3 November 2023Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Not to detract from the general argument, but as noted by other posts, Figure 1from D. Robertson is a little off. What D. Robertson overlooks in his calculations is that arterial CO2 partial pressure in the human bloodstream, as it is in most mammals, is a significantly higher than what it is in ambient atmosphere. That means a percentage rise in CO2 in the atmosphere makes for a much smaller percentage rise of CO2 concentration in the bloodstream. In short at low CO2 levels the effect is a whole lot less. Not until CO2 levels reach about 1000ppm in the does the change become notable in the bloodstream. That means the effects of CO2 will not be notable in the human body until around 1000ppm (ok, maybe around 600ppm for a few canaries among us.) Nevertheless, direct impact of CO2 on the human body should still be a big concern because 1000ppm CO2 in the atmosphere will be what we see by the end of this century if the world keeps on the course that it is presently on. Now consider fish whose arterial CO2 pressures are generally an order of magnitude less than that of mammals. They will see the effects much earlier, and most likely by the end of the century will die off significantly. Also, while plants do thrive on a little extra CO2, with atmospheric CO2 concentrations over 1000ppm they tend to die off. So, what we may see is that fish and plants will die back first leaving humans without sufficient means for sustainment. For a more concise treatment of the subject please refer to, “ Carbon Dioxide’s Direct Impact on Down-Regulating the Human Species”, by R.E. Stumm, published in Science of the Total Environment, 19 September 2023.* *https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37734619/
Also check out the video short “The Die Back” on Rumble** **https://rumble.com/v23ofba-the-die-back-2.1.html
-
Eclectic at 21:17 PM on 2 November 2023Climate scientists are in it for the money
WasAScientist @12 ,
Might be an idea to look at the opportunity costs.
Back of envelope ~ what would the budget be for 10,000 climate scientists, in grants/salaries and support costs? (And possibly they're not all working exclusively on climate-related matters?)
How many birds are killed by wind turbines versus killed by pet cats or by impact with buildings? The answer may horrify bird-lovers.
What proportion of AGW is caused by NF3 ? >0.1% ?
Has the USA budget for pet food & care exceeded $100Billion p.a. ?
Opportunity costs, and resource allocation . . .
A few years back, I heard a panel discussion by a group of various experts ~ their conclusion was that the world could largely eliminate most of the major world problems by the intelligent spending of . . .
. . . wait for it . . .
. . . about 10% of the world's annual military budget.
Hmm.
.
-
WasAScientist at 20:34 PM on 2 November 2023Climate scientists are in it for the money
Eclectic @11
Well, look at it this way. If we did away with those climate science positions, it may actually clear the way to support development of clean energy much better than those wind turbines that are dangerous, expensive, damaging to the land on which they are installed, and a real menace to the aviary population. Also, manufacturing those solar cells involves NF3 gas which has a greenhouse effect about 17000 times as strong as CO2. Furthermore, none of these sources are adequate for heavy industry.
You might also be interested to know that while I was in graduate school, I chose a major field of study in plasma physics and hoped for a career in controlled thermo-nuclear fusion research. That, of course, never happened. But maybe more progress can now be made in this field if we redirect some of these climate change funds.
Moderator Response:[BL] Look at it this way: your repeated violations of our Comments Policy grew tired a long, long time ago.
-
Eclectic at 19:40 PM on 2 November 2023Climate scientists are in it for the money
WasAScientist @10 :
"That human CO2 is causing global warming is known with a high certainty & confirmed by observations."
Dang right !
"it seems that the climate scientists have completed their work and there is no longer any need for their research positions."
Well mebbe so . . . mebbe taint so. Us common folks would sure kinda like a whole lot more idea of zactly how fast this here global warming is gurn on. Could be mighty useful in our plans. Could make a helluva big difference, I reckon.
And cos some of them fancy elites is still a-saying there's no problem in sight and we all should kinda relax and do nuthing . . . well, we'd like a good bit more confirmation about all that, for or agin. If'n that's okay with y'all.
-
WasAScientist at 18:41 PM on 2 November 2023Climate scientists are in it for the money
In the opening statement of this Climate Myth, it is claimed that climate scientists could make far more money in other careers, and I believe it is time they did just that. According to Climate Myth 69 which states
That human CO2 is causing global warming is known with high certainty & confirmed by observations.
it seems that the climate scientists have completed their work and there is no longer any need for their research positions. At this point, people are either convinced of AGW or they are not. If they are not convinced, as is the case with most common folks, it's highly unlikely that more science is going to change them.
In my case, I was a US defense scientist with a Ph.D. in physics when the "End of the Cold War" (or "Outbreak of Peace") terminated my career after just eight years. I was simply told that there was no longer a need for the service I was providing since the former East Block countries promised to behave themselves from now on.
Well, I sure hope the climate scientists have much better luck than I did in finding a new career if their current one vanishes. Whenever I tried to break into anything new, I was always beat out by those with more experience.
At any rate, there is little more the climate scientists can do to get people converted over to carbon-free energy. Instead, what would be needed is a global Gestapo to enforce the no-carbon provisions on folks regardless of the harm they cause, and I know of no nation that would go for that.
Moderator Response:[BL] The return of another sock puppet.
-
scaddenp at 17:44 PM on 31 October 2023At a glance - Climate scientists would make more money in other careers
Should have guessed that level of cluelessness would be our persistent spammer.
-
Eclectic at 11:29 AM on 31 October 2023At a glance - Climate scientists would make more money in other careers
Philippe @3 , @4 :
Your very rational arguments are a real party-pooper.
Moonwatcher builds a house of cards, and you go and pull away the supporting cards at the base.
Another factor, beyond the mental horizon of perhaps half the population, is that a great many scientists are in the job of science because that is what they are interested in doing. Few of them would object to receiving the money attached to a Nobel Prize ~ but the Prize itself is the . . . er, prize . . . rather than the dollars (or krona). And they would do the same job, even if the Nobel did not exist.
Strangely enough, it is evident that most Actors, Artists, Authors . . . through the alphabet to Zoo-keepers, are primarily interested in the work they do in their lives (rather than for a living ). # As a frequent visitor to the WattsUpWithThat blogsite, I find it notable that the overwhelming majority of commenters there seem to have their lives ruled by Dollars and Conspiracies (and worse). They look at AGW, and all they can see is $$$ (or worse).
-
scaddenp at 11:19 AM on 31 October 2023At a glance - Climate scientists would make more money in other careers
And one other note - if you narrow the climate funding to what is spent on climate research (ie where scientists work as opposed to money spent on adaptation, alternative energy etc), then the bulk of money goes on satellites and supercomputers. I'm pretty curious about the oversupply of scientists. Why is it so hard to get staff then?
Financiers might be involved in adaptation, but governments fund research on the whole. Oil companies have plenty of smart scientists and resources (worked in petroleum research for years). If AGW is fraud, then surely they could spend $$ on research to demonstrate. They instead opted to spend money on disinformation - must better bang for buck. The problem being that their own scientists give them bad news.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 10:07 AM on 31 October 2023At a glance - Climate scientists would make more money in other careers
More questions:
What sources report a gross over-supply of engineers and scientists, a term used twice in post #2 above?
I have a little familiarity with the aerospace industry, where many scientists with physics and applied mathematics backgrounds can use their competence, even if they are not specifically trained as aerospace engineers. There is a serious shortage of talent in that field.
I am also familiar with medicine and biomedical applications, where shortage of scientists and engineers are also a problem, easily confirmed by any basic search.
Other sources report a serious shortage of hydrologists, a profession of very high interest for the future.
I'll add this article from the Bureau of labor Statistics. Of special interest is this quote: "A comprehensive literature review, in conjunction with employment statistics, newspaper articles, and our own interviews with company recruiters, reveals a significant heterogeneity in the STEM labor market: the academic sector is generally oversupplied, while the government sector and private industry have shortages in specific areas."
So, once again, how does this constitute a "gross over-supply"?
If anything, with the supply and demand law being what it is and the immense financial means available to private industries, it seems that this imbalance abundantly confirms that there is more money to be made for science majors in the private sector than in research, does it not?
Moderator Response:[BL] The bulk of the comment you are responding to has been deleted, being from a serial sock puppet.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 09:31 AM on 31 October 2023At a glance - Climate scientists would make more money in other careers
Interesting theory.
From the chronological point of view, would it not be possible to observe the emergence of a consensus of research results before the accumulation of investments that resulted from that consensus? If that is the case (it assuredly is), does that not make it impossible for these investments to be the cause of the results, since effects can not precede cause?
What is the source for that 5 trillion figure? This would correspond to a vast array of very diverse and numerous separate "industries" and interests, how do they coordinate their influence on those scientists anxious for their jobs? How can said scientists know where the money is coming from and ensure they say what is expected of them? Once a large number of studies from.many different sources all converge in one direction, is it still reasonable to assume that it is just the result of efforts to satisfy funding sources? How about studies coming from sources that have an interest against belief in AGW that also confirm these results?
What are the criteria to declare that a business existence and success are dependent on "belief" in AGW?
Is there a figure for the level of investment dependent on delaying energy transition policies?
Not that I would engage in deflection but, to pursue the same logic, what level of public opinion manipulation can be expected from a single industry that generates hundreds of billions of profits (not talking about investments here, simply profits)? Would it not be easier to coordinate an effort to manipulate when only a few very large interest groups are involved?
Just asking questions.
-
Moonwatcher at 08:39 AM on 31 October 2023At a glance - Climate scientists would make more money in other careers
The statement that
There are many much easier ways for an intelligent and literate person to make money. If money was the motive, they'd be in another career.
is highly misleading. Those who were educated as scientists simply would not qualify for other careers, except possibly in one-in-a-million exceptions where a rich uncle, for example, was willing to take him/her in and get them up-to-speed. Normally, they are simply told that they don't have the right background for the job.
It is true that while employed, scientists can make a respectable but certainly not extravavent living. With the gross over-supply of scientists and enginners, however, their careers are always tenuous at best. I know because I have been there and have been in contact with others in the same boat.
Now consider the fact that there is already well over $5 trillion (USD) invested in the climate change industry (ie. businesses whose success depends on the general belief in AGW). Put yourself in the shoes of one of the financiers investing that money. Would you tend to grant funds to scientists who speak unfavorably about the AGW theory, thereby jepardizing their clients investments? And, with the gross over-supply of qualified scientists, there will always be some willing to sing to the same sheet of music as the financiers. These are the scientists that we call successful, but are certainly not rich. They do, however, keep their jobs (hopefully!), and are the ones that are polled in establishing consensus figures.
From this relatively small pool of successful scientists, a few climb the ladder to prestigious positions such as scientific advisors to various political, entrepreneurial, and military celebrities. These are the only scientists that come close to being "rich" by most peoples standards.
Moderator Response:[BL} User banned as yet another sock puppet.
-
JockO at 20:40 PM on 30 October 2023CO2 effect is saturated
Please accept my apologies regarding my previous post. It looked initially as if there had been no comments here since 2019. Once I had posted, I saw that there were some more recent pages of comments and I have just seen that this paper has been discussed.
Moderator Response:[BL] Yes, the comments section on this thread is long and convoluted. Navigation is not as easy as we'd like.
Note that Skeptical Science also has an internal search function, available just under the masthead on the upper left of each page. You can use that to find material, and it will search the contents of comments if you follow the button on the results page (which at first only presents hits in our blog posts and rebuttals).
-
JockO at 20:36 PM on 30 October 2023CO2 effect is saturated
In recent interactions regarding the topic of saturation, I have on a few occasions now been directed to a relatively recent paper by Wijngaarden and Happer (Dependence of Earth's Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases, arxiv.org/abs/2006.03098). Now, I know Happer at least has enough history to warrant extreme skepticism and that, if he really had any new insights, this work would probably have had more of an impact. On the other hand, I am not by any stretch of the imagination an expert and am unable to pinpoint what is wrong with what he is saying. Much of what is in the paper seems to be "standard" physics but at some point his conclusions diverge from what I understand from elsewhere. I wondered if anyone here could offer any insight.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 08:52 AM on 30 October 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #43
Ever heard of a "metaphor," Davz?
But, I'm going to assume this is yet another in your long series of drive-by posting, and really, Davz not here, man.
Moderator Response:[BL] Yet another, but the last. Davz won't be here any more.
-
Davz at 08:40 AM on 30 October 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #43
According to the UN "the world is boiling ". Anyone like to tell me where? And shouldn't we all be dead?
Moderator Response:[BL] Past warnings to engage in full discussion are being ignored. As a result, this will be Davz last post.
-
Eclectic at 07:42 AM on 29 October 2023John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist
Rob Honeycutt @58 [re your final sentence and "gish-gallopped"] ~
Indeed, poor Dr Clauser seemingly has left the building.
To confess, I did briefly ponder that TWFA's expansive postings were perhaps the product of one of the newer generations of Chat-GPT. However ~ the topics raised were too discursive, inapt, and self-oriented to be other than of human origin. The depth of knowledge was also not up to Chat-GPT's level.
And the picture formed, of a modern Laocoon (minus sons) struggling with the many large serpents of Global Warming.
TWFA , please struggle with only one serpent at a time (per one thread). Other serpents await you on other threads, in accordance with the house rules of SkepticalScience website. I admire your confidence in tackling your new career of amateur snake-catcher.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:32 AM on 29 October 2023John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist
TWFA... re: Hurricanes
This is another example of the limits of your understanding and your proclivity for motivated reasoning. If you were to actually spend time reading the research on hurricanes you'd find a lot of interesting aspects to this issue.
1) Cyclonic activity has two effects that work somewhat in opposition to each other. Warming oceans provide more energy to spin up large cyclones, but upper winds tend to tamp them down. That physical element of the processes introduce a lot of uncertainty into the natural vs man-made issue.
2) Cyclone data is a real bear to wrestle. Older data is sparse due to the fact that the only information comes from early seafaring vessels and areas with low populations. Even 20th century data lacks a great deal of information about size and intensity of storms. Only in the past 10-15 years have scientists been able to track the total energy contained within individual storms.
The result:
Yes, cyclonic activity is increasing as human activities warm the planet.
Yes, storms are spinning up faster and covering larger expanses when they do.
No, a statistically significant increase in the number of landfall storms isn't yet being obsevered.
Once again, there are a number of well written articles on Skeptical Science on precisely this topic by people better informed on this subject than me. I would highly suggest you take the time to read a few of them before continuing on this topic.
Also, if you have questions or obsevations on that topic, please post in the thread for that article in order to keep your discussion on-topic.
Thusfar, we have gish-gallopped around quite a few topics here in this thread that is supposed to be relevant to Clauser.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:09 AM on 29 October 2023John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist
TWFA... "The climate would and will continue warming at this phase even if man never existed..."
Here, yet again, you literally have no clue what you're talking about but present something as if it were fact.
If you look at the paleo record it is very clear that the Earth was entering a cooling phase due to slow changes in orbital forcings. It's only when humans started burning fossil fuels and substantially altering surface albedo (deforestation, farming, etc) that the planet abruptly changed and entered a steep warming trend.
-
John Mason at 02:06 AM on 29 October 2023John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist
Re - TWFA #55: "The climate would and will continue warming at this phase even if man never existed"
For that to happen a cause is required. Care to set that out with references?
-
TWFA at 01:16 AM on 29 October 2023John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist
Michael, the claim was that the hurricane was the most powerful ever in the East Pacific, not the most powerful recorded or obseved, and frankly I don't know who was recording hurricanes in that region 200 or 500 years ago that never made landfall or how they were measured.
The climate would and will continue warming at this phase even if man never existed, and with warming comes more weather and stronger weather. I assume all here consider NASA to be a creditable source, in this article last year, while making the usual predictions about what will happen when things get warmer, they cite a single study from 2019 that suggests that the current activity may be outside the natural variability:
Since the 1980s, the hurricane record has shown a more active period in the North Atlantic Ocean. On average, there have been more storms, stronger hurricanes, and an increase in hurricanes that rapidly intensify. Thus far, most of these increases are from natural climate variations. However, one recent study suggests that the latest increase in the proportion of North Atlantic hurricanes undergoing rapid intensification is a bit too large to be explained by natural variability alone. This could be the beginning of detecting the impact of climate change on hurricanes, the paper states. In contrast, the frequency of hurricanes making U.S. landfall (a subset of North Atlantic hurricanes) has not increased since 1900, despite significant global warming and the heating of the tropical Atlantic Ocean.
-
michael sweet at 21:32 PM on 28 October 2023John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist
TWFA:
Do you realizr how rediculous your claim that if you wait long enough a bigger hurricane will strike the Pacific coast? We have 500 years of records for that part of the world. Those records clearly show that hurricanes have become stronger the past 20 years. If we look at the entire world the record is longer and there are a lot more hurricanes to compare. The worldwide record conclusively demonstrates to anyone who loois at it that hurricanes are increasing dramatically in strength, spin up much more rapidly than they used to and cause much more damage because they are more powerful. The fact that you have not learned about hurricanes does not mean that they have not become more powerful.
Your entire argument is based on the fact that you are completely uninformed about the dramatic changes that were predicted in advance by scientists and have now been measured worldwide.
It is impossible to counter an argument based on ignorance. You will neve rconvince anyone here about anything. We have followed the changes you deny.
