Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2379 2380 2381 2382 2383 2384 2385 2386 2387 2388 2389 2390 2391 2392 2393 2394 Next
Comments 119301 to 119350:
-
Jacob Bock Axelsen at 17:30 PM on 15 May 2010Are we too stupid?
embb Obviously the measure to punish a defector should hurt the economy of the particular state in proportion to the violation. On the other hand, there is no point in causing major disruption, since the example of Greece shows that the neighbors will have to bail them out anyway. The example of CFCs is also helpful. Not only did the EU start by banning CFCs on their own, but in addition to the Montreal protocol there was a monetary fund set up to help developing economies. I think that makes tremendous sense, which is also why it was decided at COP15. Make the weak economies robust to destabilizing fluctuations during the transition. The developing countries are also not the biggest carbon polluters, while they will feel the biggest impact from global warming. Going to zero CO2-emissions need not cost domestic businesses anything: tax/dividends makes consumers demand less while keeping profits, cap and trade will enable monitoring and force a certain amount of emissions reductions, energy efficiency will increase from labeling appliances, insulating houses and regulating transportation and finally sustainable sources are established on different timescales. We have plenty of examples to back it all up in the real world. I also recommend Peter Sinclair's latest videos, where he mentions that Denmark being the most advanced country in renewable energy is also voted by Forbes to be the best country for business: -
citizenschallenge at 17:17 PM on 15 May 2010Vote for Climate Denial Crock of the Week at Brighter Planet
Yea, too bad we're only given three votes. John, thank you for the heads up on this - was happy to vote for one of my true heros I hope he gets the grant - do let us know. -
yocta at 17:11 PM on 15 May 2010Species extinctions happening before our eyes
I'm playing gramarian again... Last sentence:This lead the authors to conclude that that lizards have already crossed a threshold for extinctions.Response: Thanks, fixed the typo. Is 'gramarian' spelt with one m? :-) -
Doug Bostrom at 16:47 PM on 15 May 2010Species extinctions happening before our eyes
Chris' comment is probably the most poetic minimization I've ever read. Congratulations, Chris ;-) -
Riccardo at 16:42 PM on 15 May 2010Species extinctions happening before our eyes
chriscanaris, the problem is not the interest on any particular specie nor the fear that nature as a whole won't be able to cope with it one way or another. It's the signs and consequences of global warming and if we humans will fare better or worse. -
chris1204 at 15:42 PM on 15 May 2010Species extinctions happening before our eyes
I love lizards. In fact, I prefer them to polar bears. They're much more user friendly and much less likely to maul you if you accidentally intrude on their territory. However, extinctions are a reflection of natural selection without which evolution would not occur. More adaptable organisms thrive - the less adaptable decline or occupy specialised ecological niches and are hence vulnerable as conditions change. Extinctions have always happened and will always happen even as new species gradually appear. While the contribution of AGW is undesirable, we should be wary of excessive reliance on what is ultimately an emotive invocation of romanticised illusions about nature. For my part, I'm always fascinated by nature's resilience in the face of the ugliest of human structures - clumps of ferns and moss growing between the bricks of a prison wall spring to mind as does the blue tongue lizard which found a comfortable home underneath a concrete slab in our garden.Response: People have died naturally in the past but that doesn't make murder okay. Just because bad things happen naturally doesn't absolve us of responsibility when we're the cause.
Re nature's resilience, the empirical evidence from this study and past periods of dramatic climate change find that many species simply cannot adapt fast enough when temperatures warm too quickly. -
chparadise at 14:37 PM on 15 May 2010Species extinctions happening before our eyes
What's too bad, is that lizards aren't as photogenic as polar bears or other endangered species. So they can't be used as a mascot for "stop the warming" campaigns, but the best evidence now does suggest that they are in direct danger. -
Marcus at 12:58 PM on 15 May 2010Vote for Climate Denial Crock of the Week at Brighter Planet
Seriously Arkadiusz, if the "skeptic" arguments are so precise, then why have all the major skeptic arguments been so easily debunked? Don't believe me? Well consider: Urban Heat Island effect-debunked (several times). Ocean Oscillation effect-debunked (this one didn't even last long enough for the ink to dry on the original paper). Sunspot Activity-debunked (the paper I read was actually really excellent in showing past correlations between sunspot proxies & temperature proxies-& its to his credit that the Danish researcher behind this paper was one of the first to correct his error regarding the last 30 years). Medieval Warm Period-not debunked, but no-one pushing this has been able to show why natural warming in the past somehow negates the possibility of man-made warming in the modern age-especially given the lack of natural forcings, & how much faster the modern warming period has been. Indeed, I'd argue that the tendency of "skeptics" to rely on ad-hominem attacks & publicity stunts like Climate-Gate & ambit criminal prosecutions highlights the lack of precision in their arguments. Meanwhile, in spite of constant & increasingly ruthless attacks by vested interests, the simple theory that greenhouse gases trap outgoing long-wave IR radiation has stood up strongly-even in a country like the US of A! -
NewYorkJ at 05:34 AM on 15 May 2010Vote for Climate Denial Crock of the Week at Brighter Planet
I first noticed Peter Sinclair when Anthony Watts tried (and failed) to have his videos removed from Youtube by erroneously asserting copyright infringement. Sorely lacking in the public sphere are good science communicators - those who can present science accurately and concisely to the public. The public domain is littered with dubious contrarian material, severely out of whack with the peer-reviewed literature. Textbook example of a non-sequitur by Arkadiusz: Public opinion on scientific issues is a result of good precise analysis? If only! Creationists must be engaging in good precise analysis that stimulates logical thinking, unlike those propaganda-pushing evolutionists with their simplistic peer-reviewed voodoo science, and elitist academic cred. http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm -
Philippe Chantreau at 03:47 AM on 15 May 2010Vote for Climate Denial Crock of the Week at Brighter Planet
Arkadiusz, WUWT comes to mind; as if the carbonic snow thing wasn't enough, now Goddard is arguing that Venus atmospheric temperature is due to pressure instead of GH effect. Some analysis. A comment in the thread compares that with a hair dryer, which, as we all know, heats up the air by compression (!). Precise analysis is raging indeed... -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:31 AM on 15 May 2010Vote for Climate Denial Crock of the Week at Brighter Planet
I think Peter's doing a great job taking up the cause of defending science. He really deserves all our support. -
johnd at 03:01 AM on 15 May 2010Heat stress: setting an upper limit on what we can adapt to
re "Moderator Response: As Chris mentioned"........ I understand, ironically these particular off topic exchanges began in response to Chris himself introducing and following up the subject of these exchanges on this particular thread, and for me to post my initial, or any response in another thread may also have effectively tucked it away. Is there any way such initial posts and any replies can be transferred to an appropriate thread by the moderators so that there is no loss of continuity in the debate? I've seen that practised on other forums. -
Steven Sullivan at 01:53 AM on 15 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
It was submitted to NYT as an op-ed, not a letter. -
Steven Sullivan at 01:50 AM on 15 May 2010Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
Berenyi Peter: #46 "What are the timescales involved? I understand slow feedbacks are supposed to operate on timescales from hundreds to thousands of years. But how fast are fast feedbacks? Days? Weeks? Years? Decades? " See, here's where, crazy as it seems, *reading the paper* might help. The term 'fast feedbacks' as used by Lunt et al. is defined in the first paragraph: "[Climate sensitivity] is usually defined as the increase in global mean temperature owing to a doubling of CO2 after the ‘fast’ short-term feedbacks, typically acting on timescales of years to decades, in the atmosphere and upper ocean have had time to equilibrate5" Ref5 is Hansen, J. et al. in Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity (eds Hansen, J. E. & Takahashi, T.) 130–163 (American Geophysical Union, 1984). HTH. -
tobyjoyce at 23:52 PM on 14 May 2010Vote for Climate Denial Crock of the Week at Brighter Planet
JMurphy #10 Arkadiusz Semczyszak #3 I agree with #10. I regularly dip into WUWT and Climate Audit, but I cannot ever find anything like what you would call "a more precise analysis". Pick anything, like Arctic Sea Ice, or Urban Heat Island effect, and you will find the analysis is more obscurantist than precise. Arkadiusz, give us some examples of where the denialist analysis is "more precise" than (to take one) this blog. Here is some more discussion on environmental opinioni polls. http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/13/opinion-polls-underestimate-americans-concern-about-the-environment-and-global-warming/ "... when asked, “What do you think will be the most serious problem facing the world in the future if nothing is done to stop it?” 25 percent said the environment or global warming, and only 10 percent picked the economy. In fact, environmental issues were cited more often than any other category, including terrorism, which was only mentioned by 10 percent of respondents." Meanwhile, I am off to vote for Peter Sinclair. -
JMurphy at 23:37 PM on 14 May 2010Heat stress: setting an upper limit on what we can adapt to
Erosion of Lizard Diversity by Climate Change and Altered Thermal Niches I suppose some would say that it doesn't matter or that they will cope somehow ? -
johnd at 22:43 PM on 14 May 2010Heat stress: setting an upper limit on what we can adapt to
chris at 22:04 PM, just to add to my post, one positive outcome from these FACE trials conducted over the last couple of decades, is that varieties that exhibit poor responses to enhanced CO2, such as identified in the trials you referred to, and those that exhibit better responses, perhaps such as those used at Horsham, which interestingly were winter wheat varieties, are able to be identified ahead of time.Moderator Response: As Chris mentioned, these comments on CO2's effects on plant growth really belong in other threads: It’s Not Bad or CO2 Is Not a Pollutant. The valuable info in comments go to waste if other people can't find them. Someone looking for info on CO2's direct effects on agriculture are unlikely to find your comments when they are tucked away in this other thread. And people interested in heat stress (the topic of this thread) must read around your comments on CO2. -
johnd at 22:33 PM on 14 May 2010Heat stress: setting an upper limit on what we can adapt to
chris at 22:04 PM, the length of the Horsham study, 6 months happens to be the life span of wheat from planting to harvesting something that was mentioned, but should have been obvious without it having to be pointed out. I am interested in how the trials you referred to managed to expose wheat to enriched CO2 levels for longer periods, years apparently, and even if they did, what is the relevance to the real world of wheat production? Anyway what is more important protein produced per kilo of wheat or protein produced per hectare? If I am not mistaken, the trials you refer to were conducted with batches of a dozen wheat plants each in sealed plastic boxes all housed in a controlled environment lab and grown hydroponically, thus are hardly comparable to the FACE trial where the plants must interact with the complex soil processes in order to take up the nutrients required for growth. -
JMurphy at 22:30 PM on 14 May 2010Vote for Climate Denial Crock of the Week at Brighter Planet
Arkadiusz Semczyszak wrote : "Skeptics (especially recently) are more effective - increasingly more efficient (use more precise analysis - instead of propaganda - public relation)." Where is any of that 'precise analysis' ? Can you give some examples ? And you don't believe they use propaganda ? Come off it - you're not being serious, are you ? Or don't you read WUWT ? As for the Gallup poll you refer to (with quotes from ACCUWEATHER ?), a majority still agree that global warming is real (79% say the effects of the problem have already begun, will do so in a few years/within their lifetime, or will happen to future generations); that the warnings are correct or underestimated (49%); that it is human-caused (50%), and believe that most scientists accept that it is a human-induced problem (52%). All those are down, of course, but, after a cold Winter and the efforts of all the so-called skeptics, those figures could have been a lot worse. -
chris at 22:04 PM on 14 May 2010Heat stress: setting an upper limit on what we can adapt to
johnd at 21:38 PM on 14 May, 2010 That's not ncessarily a very helpful study johnd. And it hasn't been published. A problem is in the very short period of their study (6 months). Short term enhanced growth under raised [CO2] reduces over time (desentization or aclimitisation). So longer term FACE experiments in several important crop species shows that initial gains aren't sustained. e.g. to quote from the paper I linked to above: (refering to continually rising atmospheric CO2 levels; my highlights):"Plants could mitigate these changes through photosynthetic conversion of atmospheric CO2 into carbohydrates and other organic compounds, yet the potential for this mitigation remains uncertain. Photorespiration is the biochemical pathway in which the chloroplast enzyme Rubisco catalyzes the oxidation of the high-energy substrate RuBP rather than catalyzes the carboxylation of RuBP through the C3 carbon-fixation pathway (2). Elevated CO2 (or low O2) atmospheric concentrations decrease rates of photorespiration and initially enhance rates of photosynthesis and growth by as much as 35% in most plants (C3 plants). This enhancement, however, diminishes over time (days to years), a phenomenon known as CO2 acclimation (3, 4). Most studies suggest a strong link between CO2 acclimation and plant nitrogen status [for example, (5)]."
and:"In this study, five independent methods affirm that CO2 enrichment inhibits NO3– assimilation in wheat and Arabidopsis plants. The predominant form of N available to plants in most environments is NO3– (6); therefore, CO2 inhibition of NO3– assimilation would lead to lower organic N production. Indeed, this could be responsible for the 7.4 to 11% decrease in wheat grain protein (15, 16) and the 20% decrease in total protein content of A. thaliana (Columbia) (17) observed under CO2 enrichment in FACE (free-air CO2 enrichment) experiments. Because the influence of CO2 enrichment on leaf organic N contents is highly correlated with its influence on photosynthesis and growth (5), it is reasonable to assume that CO2 inhibition of NO3– assimilation and the resultant decline in plant organic N contents play a major role in the phenomenon of CO2 acclimation, the decline of photosynthesis, and growth of C3 plants after long exposures (days to years) to CO2 enrichment."
-
Ned at 21:54 PM on 14 May 2010We're heading into an ice age
mginaus writes: The biology of this planet is good at adapting to changes. That's true, but that adaptation process involves lots of losses (e.g., lots of species go extinct during time of abrupt change). Just because "life as a whole" survived the K-T impact doesn't mean we as one particular species should welcome catastrophic climate change. In addition, we have a huge investment ("sunk costs") in technological and cultural infrastructure built around a relatively stable climate. Here in the US (where I live), a small but long-term change in patterns of precipitation could be hugely expensive, dwarfing the trivial costs of things like the Iraq war or health care. Look at economic impacts of the 1993 or 2008 Midwest floods, or of similar drought years. The West Coast would (will?) incur immense costs if snowpack in the Sierras declines and the regional water infrastructure has to be completely reworked. Etc, etc, etc. As for willingness to change, we're going to have to change anyway, due to the conflict between increasing demand and decreasing availability of oil in the coming decades. Nuclear would help but can't replace oil by itself, at least not in the near future. Switching back to coal will incur huge health and environmental costs, and if continued for the long term it would drive the climate into absolutely disastrous conditions. mginaus concludes: I believe all of us in the scientific community need to [...] start working out what we know and what we still need to know - then we will actually be able to move forward intelligently. Hear, hear! I agree with that, more or less. I'd just add that we know enough already to justify starting making changes now (actually, we should have started 20 years ago...) -- I think John Cook and all the others who contribute to this site have done a great job of summarizing what we do know and what we still need to figure out. -
johnd at 21:38 PM on 14 May 2010Heat stress: setting an upper limit on what we can adapt to
chris at 20:43 PM, as mentioned in the findings of the Horsham trials, such real world trials found increased wheat yields for the CO2 enriched samples averaging 31% with protein levels declining from 18% to 17.3%. Food quality in terms of % protein content may be down, but it is the amount of protein produced per hectare that matters when it comes to feeding the worlds population. -
chris at 20:43 PM on 14 May 2010Heat stress: setting an upper limit on what we can adapt to
JMurphy at 20:09 PM on 14 May, 2010 Yes that's right. To quote from the paper I linked to above:"As atmospheric CO2 concentrations rise and NO3 – assimilation diminishes, crops will become depleted of organic N compounds (see Fig. 3), including protein, and food quality wll suffer. Increasing nitrogen fertilization might compensate for slower NO3 – assimilation rates (Fig. 3), but such fertilization rates might not be economically or environmentally feasible."
-
embb at 20:37 PM on 14 May 2010Are we too stupid?
Jacob Let us focus the discussion a bit. There is one simple question for me. According to the bill: "We also set up a tough, WTO-consistent border adjustment mechanism so that there won't be any "carbon leakage" of companies manufacturing things overseas in countries that don't manage their emissions. Imports from those countries will have to pay a fee at the border." Translated to practical terms this means that any country not having carbon tax will be punished by a hefty "fee at the border" or to put it another way by a high customs duty. What will the impact of this be on the economy of these states? On the smugglers? On the US economy? "The funny thing is that economists had nothing to do with it. It was originally thought out by a physicist. How about that?" I can completely understand this. :)) -
JMurphy at 20:09 PM on 14 May 2010Heat stress: setting an upper limit on what we can adapt to
johnd wrote : "The conclusion of the abstract from the paper you linked states the obvious, and what has always been known, that being, if you want plants to produce more then you must feed them more." Doesn't that mean extra problems of time, labour and money ? -
chris at 19:46 PM on 14 May 2010Vote for Climate Denial Crock of the Week at Brighter Planet
tiny error in the top post. Should be Michael Mann (not Micheal Mann). I'm also going to vote for Peter Sinclair whose videos are very straightforward, truthful and impactful (and also quite funny sometimes). -
apeescape at 19:08 PM on 14 May 2010Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
Will, Human civ., which started ~10000 years ago was largely established thanks to the climate. I think a 2C decrease would also cause a lot of problems. Here's a nice graph, although I'm having the hardest time pinpointing the source. Maybe Fig. 1.3 of Climate change and human health : risks and responses. Editors : A. J. McMichael et al. WHO. 2003.
-
mginaus at 18:49 PM on 14 May 2010We're heading into an ice age
gary4books might be right. both sides of the argument seem to be afraid of the possibility of change. EVERYTHING CHANGES! The biology of this planet is good at adapting to changes. "Positives and negatives of global warming" is a ridiculously one-sided attempt of trying to purport to have a balanced view. (of course there are more papers on scary outcomes than on positive outcomes - no one funds/reads rosy pictures) Even with all the evidence in the world nothing is going to make energy companies let go of the status quo in time to make a difference, nor will it make enough people CHOOSE to pay more for energy. I believe all of us in the scientific community need to stop trying to WIN the argument and start working out what we know and what we still need to know - then we will actually be able to move forward intelligently. -
Riccardo at 18:37 PM on 14 May 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: navigation, comments and Thai translation
quokka, i like your idea, but it's a lot of work. Maybe it could be feasible if limited to the acronyms and if someone else, not John, takes care of the compilation (you? :)). -
Riccardo at 18:29 PM on 14 May 2010Vote for Climate Denial Crock of the Week at Brighter Planet
I'm one of those who really like Sinclair approach to the problem. I find it stimulating critical thinking, he always shows a denialist claims and contrast it with the science. It's very efficient in showing in an easy yet rigorous way both what science says and the errors, and sometimes the flat lies, of the AGW deniers. This should be contrasted with the approach used by many denialist blogs, where the they use fake science to push their agenda. No critical thinking, not a tiny drop of skepticism despite they like this word (not its meaning) a lot. They only act as amplifiers of a propaganda probably elaborated elsewhere with the support of professional PR. This is why they're so efficient, they are not forced in the narrow lane of reality. In mathematical terms i'd say that the two are incommensurable. -
quokka at 18:14 PM on 14 May 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: navigation, comments and Thai translation
Here's one more suggestion for the site. A glossary would be quite useful, especially for readers less acquainted the science. I'm thinking particularly of acronyms such as SST, TOA etc. It could be simply a link to for example the RealClimate glossary or something more elaborate with links in posts etc.Response: This is a good idea. How I'd approach it is to set it up as a database where others can edit it, wiki style. That way, it's not too much of a time sink for me - just the initial set up time. The main thing I'm wondering is to whether to make it open access or just limited access. I welcome thoughts. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 17:56 PM on 14 May 2010Vote for Climate Denial Crock of the Week at Brighter Planet
"Since its launch a year ago, CDCW has gained an enthusiastic audience and inspired praise from scientists and professionals in the field around the planet." And for me CDCW are too simplistic, does not stimulate the logical thinking process, circumventing the problem too complicated. Skeptics (especially recently) are more effective - increasingly more efficient (use more precise analysis - instead of propaganda - public relation). For example, in the U.S.: "To no surprise, the American public is less worried about the threat of global warming than at any time in the past 13 years. According to Gallup's global warming poll, 48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, which is up from 41% in 2009 and 31% back in 1997. Also, 19% of Americans say that the effects of global warming will never happen, while 16% stated that the effects of global warming will not happen in their lifetime." "In a sharp turnaround from what Gallup found as recently as three years ago, Americans are now almost evenly split in their views of the cause of increases in the Earth's temperature over the last century," according to Gallup. 50% of Americans believe that increases in the earth's temperature over the last century are due more to human activities, while 46% say it is due to natural causes. These numbers were 61% and 35% respectively back in 2007. [??? ...]" -
Svatli at 17:27 PM on 14 May 2010Vote for Climate Denial Crock of the Week at Brighter Planet
Just remember that there are 3 votes for each voter - I used my 3 votes on Peter Sinclair, he is doing a great job :) -
James Wight at 17:19 PM on 14 May 2010What causes Arctic amplification?
I recently read a post on WUWT which I thought misinterpreted this paper, so I added the argument to your list. I think this post could probably double as a response to that argument.Response: Thanks for the suggestion. I've added the new skeptic argument Melting ice isn't warming the Arctic. Curious that Steve Goddard accuses the paper of not investigating physical mechanisms - I wonder if he even read the paper. -
yocta at 17:07 PM on 14 May 2010Vote for Climate Denial Crock of the Week at Brighter Planet
Already voted on Monday! When do we get to vote for your site? Type...you have: “Brilliant job… among the ?nest, most reasonable stuff I have seen..” It should be “Brilliant job… among the finest, most reasonable stuff I have seen..”Response: Fixed, thanks for the tip -
Ed Seedhouse at 10:46 AM on 14 May 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: navigation, comments and Thai translation
Kernos, you may feel free to disagree, and so am I, but the authority if their is one is the W3C who designed the html/css standard and, as it happens they agree with me. I have done html both ways, and my experience is that your way is much harder and leads to worse web pages. The way you word your reply suggests that you haven't really understood the alternate, so maybe you should find out what all the fuss is about before you condemn it out of hand. I know from experience that the approach using valid semantic html, separation of concerns, and CSS to define presentation and layout is just ever so much easier. But it does require you to be willing to put away some of the erroneous things you have learned about how to do web pages. You seem to be saying something like "I know the best way and have made up my mind and am unwilling to change it even if the evidence says I should change it." Remind you of some of the global change deniers on this site? -
quokka at 10:26 AM on 14 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and NY Times all refused to print this letter. What a disgrace. MSM Rejects Letter from 255 Scientists -
johnd at 09:21 AM on 14 May 2010Heat stress: setting an upper limit on what we can adapt to
chris at 07:37 AM, this FACE wheat trial conducted at Horsham Victoria in 2008 do not support your assertion of increasing problems. Nitrogen uptake increased 20-30%. Limitations due more to soil processes than plant inability to uptake. Higher plant yields but lower protein content should be benchmarked against area planted, not solely plant biomass. http://anz.ipni.net/ipniweb/.../FLRC%20Elevated%20CO2%20Norton%202010.pdf As happens in everyday cropping, yields can vary enormously within short distances and slight changes in conditions. Wheat yields and protein are often the inverse of each other meaning these problems have always existed. The conclusion of the abstract from the paper you linked states the obvious, and what has always been known, that being, if you want plants to produce more then you must feed them more. -
chris at 07:37 AM on 14 May 2010Heat stress: setting an upper limit on what we can adapt to
Likewise, increasing [CO2] is increasingly identified as a a problem for agricultural production. A paper in today's Science shows that increased [CO2] (of itself, and not heat related) results in reduced nitrate assimilation in wheat and Arabidopsis. (This also could be moved to arguments about effects of increased [CO2] and global warming on agricultural prodution). -
chris at 07:29 AM on 14 May 2010Heat stress: setting an upper limit on what we can adapt to
Of course, while these analysis relate to extreme temperatures that would likely only be achieved with another few hundred years of unlimited fossil fuel burning, the effects of relatively small temperature increases can have very large effects on species survival.....even in lizards. A paper describing warmth-induced extinctions in lizard species is described in today's Science (also an accompanying commentary). These papers also relevant to arguments about adverse effects of global warming and effects on species survival. -
Jacob Bock Axelsen at 07:10 AM on 14 May 2010Are we too stupid?
embb, Do you see any electricity company begging for a carbon tax? The carbon regulation made companies beg the consumers to use less energy. The dividend/tax made that happen and Schwarzenegger finalized the legislation. The funny thing is that economists had nothing to do with it. It was originally thought out by a physicist. How about that? "I said that (OPEC) did not succeed, so what is your point?" That it is a bad example for an international coalition that worked. OPEC worked in the 1970s to cause almost total collapse of the world economy. They were using reciprocity, so it was actually a very good example that you brought out. Thanks a lot! "Please point to studies that show that geo-engineering will pose a smaller risk than reducing emissions of CO2." Did anyone ever do a comparative study? You do not need it. Geo-engineering may aggravate the environmental problems, since nobody really knows what could happen. Climate science is already disputed by the policy makers who wish to maintain the status quo, so how can they argue that geo-engineering is less risky? What is the science? No science, no policy. Global warming plus all the unwanted - and, mind you, very expensive - sideeffects is guaranteed to be mitigated by stopping the use of fossil fuels. You have a stake in maintaining the status quo because you think geo-engineering is too risky No, I have consistently argued for changing the status quo by mitigating climate change. You argue that stopping the use of carbon is too expensive, which it is not, but if you get your way then either climate change or the risky geo-engineering will affect us all economically and perhaps physically anyway. There is no escape in your logic. That is the dilemma. It leads to tragedy of the commons. The fittest fig wasps survived and cooperate because the tree uses reciprocity. (...) this is a benign example of reciprocity Tell that to the dying larvae and their mother... The non-cooperating wasps were punished with extinction because the fig tree used reciprocity" . translated to human terms it would mean to eradicate the non-cooperating states - surely less then a benign solution. Which is it: benign or eradicate? Pick a choice. I have certainly never suggested eradication or anything of the sort, because it seems to defy all reason, so I am not sure what you are talking about? a "comprehensive" agreement makes sense (...) in order to get that you need to make every major player cooperate - and that there is no benign way of achieving. You are mistaken. The examples of CFCs, asbestos, lead in gasoline etc. clearly disproves it. So, in the end you are arguing for a (trade)war against defectors. I will never and have never argued for real wars. If a trade war is the only way to coerce a state to cooperate, which it is not, it is of course relatively benign. By the way, nobody would go to war to defend burning coal. However, many may go that way to defend resources that have gone scarce due to unmitigated climate change. The Pentagon even acknowledges that it can "fan the flames of war". That is a real danger? you can call threatening and blackmail indirect reciprocity if you prefer (...) but it is still what it is. If you keep emission goals and you issue warning and subsequently restrict imports from someone who defect then it is fair punishment as agreed in the treaty. Calling it blackmail and threats is therefore clearly a mistake, as it is usually between criminal offenders. "The US may start already this year..." and this is for the present discussion almost totally irrelevant. When will China, India and Brazil start - this is the question. China is already leading in sustainable energy investments, and in your logic, they are sadly rendering their entire production apparatus uncompetitive. And yet the US is scrambling to get ahead as they too are blind to the obvious? Brazil has had some problems, but they have had the intention to get off oil since the 70s in spite of the tragedy of the decision to grow sugar canes in deforested lands. They will get it right now because China and the US will lead the way. Once the US, China, Brazil is on track, the democratic India will follow suit. I have extremely smart collaborators in the US, China and India so these countries know what is the right thing to do. Maybe you`ll care to explain just how the US will use "indirect reciprocity" to get them on board without causing a global catastrophe? The US would cause a global catastrophe to avoid a global catastrophe? Seems futile doesn't it? (..) WTO-consistent border adjustment mechanism(...)" Care to explain how this is going to be managed? No, because I have explained that numerous times already. Look it up. -
Kernos at 06:27 AM on 14 May 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: navigation, comments and Thai translation
I disagree. Tables are perfectly valid for layout. CSS is considered more 'modern' by those who were in school this century. Fads come and go. Where CSS is useful is with DHTML, but that's another story. -
apeescape at 06:23 AM on 14 May 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: navigation, comments and Thai translation
Hi John, I think it will be useful (especially for people who only speak 1 lang.) to have contact info. of translators on the Translations page and/or at the footer of each translation article. I second tadzio's suggestion to show a widget that tracks the reader composition (e.g. Clustrmaps). Currently I have no idea if my translations are read by anybody :) -
KR at 04:37 AM on 14 May 2010Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
RSVP - you stated that the radiative model doesn't take into account nonlinearity of IR vs. temperature - I would have to beg to differ, as ALL models do take this into account. Any model using the Stefan–Boltzmann equations, as all radiative models do AFAIK, incorporate the fact that the power radiated scales as the 4th power of the temperature. Incidentally, if all humans disappeared at once, it would be quite some time before the CO2 forcing (and all the feedbacks) backed off, allowing temperatures to lower. I believe a number of people have modeled that already. But removing CO2 emissions would definitely change the forcings on temperature! -
Alexandre at 02:59 AM on 14 May 2010Heat stress: setting an upper limit on what we can adapt to
About earlier hot periods: One important thing to remember is the speed of change. Even very fast warming events like the PETM were something like 6ºC in 10,000 years, or even slower. The world did not reach the high temperature of the Cretaceous as fast as that. Give us a couple million years to genetically adapt to global warming and new ecosystems will flourish - provided we do enough conservation in the meantime. But we´re talking about some 6ºC of warming in a century or two. That´s too fast even for many species´ moving capabilities, let alone genetic evolution. -
Ed Seedhouse at 02:59 AM on 14 May 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: navigation, comments and Thai translation
Kernos, the idea that it is "tables vs. CSS" is just false. Tables are perfectly useful html constructs when used to mark up tabular information. If the information is indeed tabular in nature it is an abuse *not* to use them. BUT they are not designed for layout and shouldn't be used for that. I agree with your remarks about fonts and font sizes, being visually challenged myself. But valid semantic html with CSS for layout is in fact the solution to this problem. Alas, there are many myths about html/CSS going around and a real scientific skeptic should be wary about falling for them. Unfortunately many do. I will admit that it is far more important to apply skeptical thinking skills to climate change as John does at this site. But it is still rather sad that he does not apply it also to the site itself, because that could make it so much better while consuming less time and effort. -
Kernos at 01:14 AM on 14 May 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: navigation, comments and Thai translation
Being one of those stuck on slow dial-up, I appreciate your text menus and everything else that minimizes bandwidth. Your site is one of the fastest loading I frequent. RE: Tables vs CSS. I consider this a bit of arrogance by those deeply involved in CSS. Most do not do it properly. I have old eyes, and use a default font of 18 pt, and still have to increase font display 2 or 3 times on most sites in order to read easily. CSS usually gets messed up with overlapping and truncated text. Up with tables! They work in all browsers, are much faster to create and load! Thanks you for your effort! Bill -
Ed Seedhouse at 01:08 AM on 14 May 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: navigation, comments and Thai translation
"Response: I actually did use CSS mark-up to layout SkS but am actually transitioning back to tables. I just find it too time consuming to get the results I need using pure CSS layout. It's not as 'pure' as tables but sometimes tables just get the job done quick and dirty when I don't have much time." Actually I think you'll end up doing a good deal more work for poorer results. It is, unfortunately, true that there is a learning period to go to the "correct" methods. I am sure you have much to do and I'd much rather have your site with the bad code practices than not at all, much much rather. But in my opinion by sticking to these out of date methods you are losing much more time than than you would gain if you used correct ones. IF you could find the time to learn to do it right you'd end up saving a lot more time in the end. Using CSS is not the big solution, though. There are plenty of sites using CSS whose designers end up with worse results than if they just kept using tables. For good results with CSS you need to understand how to write valid and semantic html first, before you do any CSS work at all. Validity is easy, because validity can be checked by computers, and a few hours or days working with the free on line validators, or with browser attachments that can also do it, can teach you how to do it right with little effort. Semantic coding methods, however, require a different understanding, and the machines can't help you much, you have to grasp the basic idea and understand why it works. But it really isn't that hard and can be understood in just a few days. If you write valid and semantic html without regard, during the markup phase, to layout or presentation, then it makes the whole process much much easier and make producing a good page much easier and faster once you learn it. Applying CSS to a properly marked up valid and semantic html page is a doddle. Trying to apply it to old fashioned pages using tables for layout is a right pain. Once again, I'd rather have your present content (and more please!)in a badly designed page such as you have now, than a well designed page without the content. Content rules! -
Tom Dayton at 00:17 AM on 14 May 2010Climate sensitivity is low
Details about Riccardo's point about Spencer's papers are provided by chris in an excellent comment on another thread. -
Riccardo at 00:00 AM on 14 May 2010It's satellite microwave transmissions
Actually both of you have the numbers wrong, it's neither 1 W/km2 nor 0.01 MW/km2 (had model299 used the same numbers): 5 MW/ 530 M Km2 ~ 10-2 W/km2 = 10^-8 W/m2 = 10 nW/m2 the conclusions of the post stand a fortiori.
Prev 2379 2380 2381 2382 2383 2384 2385 2386 2387 2388 2389 2390 2391 2392 2393 2394 Next
