Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 Next
Comments 12101 to 12150:
-
Mal Adapted at 09:02 AM on 8 February 2019A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals
Sunspot @21:
Without population reduction and the complete overhaul of our economic system to eliminate the need for growth, every suggestion here is useless. We can, and will, outgrow the benefits of them all.
Over the long (centuries) term I agree with you, but in the long term you and I will be dead. In the short (decades) term OTOH, AGW is a clear and present danger. I don't know about you, but I'm planning to live at least another 30 years, and capping the warming by then will at least buy us more time to solve the underlying problem.
Thankfully, a significant reduction in the rate of warming can be accomplished without overhauling the global economic system, merely by internalizing some fraction of the marginal climate-change cost of fossil fuels in their market price. If the price of FFs is set high enough to make carbon-neutral alternatives competitive, consumer thrift and the profit motive can then build out the global carbon-neutral economy. That will requires collective intervention in the 'free' (of collective intervention) market for energy. That, in turn, 'only' requires eough votes in the US Congress to enact a revenue-neutral Carbon Fee and Dividend with Border Adjustment Tariff. There are some encouraging signs of growing bipartisan support for just such a measure. See citizensclimatelobby.org for more info.
-
Wol at 08:23 AM on 8 February 2019EV’s: Crucial to Reducing CO2 Emissions
>>Globally the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, probably exceeding 40%, is the internal combustion engine (ICE), widely used by the transport sector for propulsion ......<<
But, acording to:
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions
..all transport (which includes aviation) emits some 20% of CO2.
I suppose we are all getting used to wildly varying figures in the emissions debate, but it doesn't help discussion with deniers when they can point to different numbers and you can't counter them.
-
rxrankings at 07:17 AM on 8 February 2019Climate's changed before
"With modern technology, the survival numbers would likely be higher than 10,000 but the mortality rate (the percent of humanity who perish) would be infinitely higher." — How can you say that?Show me a climate event in the past 30 years that has killed at least 1 million people directly. Even in severe droughts we have most people dying from poverty and unable to afford food, NOT lack of food. I can make a bold statement and say ALL climate related deaths in the past 30 years are due to lack of technology awareness or poverty or being careless. There has not been a storm that concrete and steel cannot handle. So my question is, with all the warming we have had in 30 years, no one has died, why should I believe you when you say another 5 degree rise in temperature will kill billions??
Moderator Response:[DB] Please note that at Skeptical Science there are thousands of active discussion threads on just about every topic related to climate change science. As such, users are encouraged to confine comments to the topic of the thread on which they are place. Further, it is incumbent upon those making hyperbolic assertions to then support them with citations to credible sources.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
Off-topic snipped.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 07:10 AM on 8 February 2019Climate's changed before
MA Rodger,
I am aware of the Toba bottleneck theory, but there is considerable debate as to the true impact of the event. The genetic bottleneck around that period is a relaity nonetheless, and is found in several other primate species.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 07:08 AM on 8 February 2019Climate's changed before
rxrankings at 635 "Russia, able to grow wheat in Siberia (previously) thought impossible"
This is false. The chief crops of neolithic Siberia (8000 BCE and after) included millet, wheat, barley and hemp.
-
MA Rodger at 06:56 AM on 8 February 2019Climate's changed before
rxrankings @635,
When you first use the phrase @632 "in the recent past" (which I quote @633) you are referring to humanity "demonstrat(ing) extrordinary resilience to (abrupt) changes in the recent past." I assume growing wheat isn't the sort of "abrupt change" that would provide this "demonstartion (of) extraordinary resilience" you speak of.
And in terms of "demonstrating" stuff, you demonstrate a poor grasp of the energy requirements needed to melt the Antarctic ice cap. Today's global energy use (132,000TWh) is enough to melt 1,600 cu km of ice. Antarctica has 26,500,000 cu km of ice so melting it in 10 years would be an interesting project. What's your plan for obtaining this level of energy in the next 10 years? -
MA Rodger at 06:49 AM on 8 February 2019Climate's changed before
Philippe Chantreau @634,
Toba has been associated with the genetic bottleneck theory in which proponents see the human population dropping to less than 10,000 people. With modern technology, the survival numbers would likely be higher than 10,000 but the mortality rate (the percent of humanity who perish) would be infinitely higher.
-
rxrankings at 06:10 AM on 8 February 2019Climate's changed before
By recent past I meant the examples I gave: "Saudi Arabia, being a desert and able to grow wheat"; "Russia, able to grow wheat in Siberia (previously) thought impossible and probably able to grow enough in the whole country to feed the entire planet". Dinosaurs and Mammoths couldn't grow wheat or travel in Ships to warmer climates, they used to die if it became too hot/ too cold or too dry. Humans book a ticket, crank up the AC, turn on the heater or eat wheat instead of meat. Tomorrow if the whole of Europe turned into an oven and Antarctica melted, it would take less than 10 years for a continent wide migration and resettlement. If we have enough fossil fuels, humanity could survive for centuries on a desert filled planet. Show me the impact of Global warming and I will show you the current technology that can handle it.
-
funkymystic at 06:08 AM on 8 February 2019There's no empirical evidence
Hey all, I need some help. Could you please help me debunk the following denial arguments?
http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/scientists-refute-manmade-global-warming/?fbclid=IwAR29INEysNzz0Zqr-A2yfruHB7jhgfSX_-U1VW9T8-4Ol7UX-fTP5dkE-iE
http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/manmade-co2-output-global-warming-hoax/?fbclid=IwAR0a1eoZpXe8xpoVTOT37HZXEahSY6smLHackdy2nX2EPkgmHyGGKh83Yrg
https://youtu.be/AFOGUrNsadM
Thank you
Moderator Response:[PS] Looks like gish-gallop of long-debunked stuff. Use the search function on top left to find your way through the myths. (eg enter OISM). Even a google of "David Evans" will find articles on his failed predictions. However, if you are trying to convince someone whose denial is based on idealogy, (as the web side would suggest) you are likely to only get motivated reasoning and more denial. Ask your antagonist what data would change their mind. If they cannot answer, then you are dealing with a faith position and scientific reasoning will not help.
-
nigelj at 05:11 AM on 8 February 2019EV’s: Crucial to Reducing CO2 Emissions
Electric cars in cold climate and heaters draining the battery. Double glazing can reduce heat loss by up to 80%. This would mean less need to use the heater. Could be an optional extra.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 02:59 AM on 8 February 2019Climate's changed before
MA Rodger, I think that the worst that happened in human times was the Toba eruption, but I could be wrong. Humans and other mammals show evidence of genetic bottlenecks in the wake of that event although there is controversy as to the true global effect of it. In any case, it was a far cry from anything like major object impacts or large igneous provinces.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:54 AM on 8 February 2019EV’s: Crucial to Reducing CO2 Emissions
As a follow-up to my comment@3, it would appear that EVs are better than OK compared to ICE vehicles in cold climates.
In very cold climates diesel engines are never turned off because the combustion cylinders need to be warm to start them again. That would not be a problem for an EV, though the increased range of a hydrogen fuel cell system may be the better option in that sort of condition.
-
Evan at 00:55 AM on 8 February 2019EV’s: Crucial to Reducing CO2 Emissions
Regarding the appeal of EVs, a great orator once put it this way.
"Resistance is futile."
If you drive one, you will want one. A few cons, yes. But many more pros!
-
MA Rodger at 18:58 PM on 7 February 2019Climate's changed before
rxrankings @632,
When you say "we have demonstrated extrordinary resilience to such changes in the recent past," you presumably do not consider the Triassic as "the recent past." So what "such changes" are you referring to?
-
rxrankings at 15:44 PM on 7 February 2019Climate's changed before
"Those abrupt global warming events were almost always highly destructive for life, causing mass extinctions such as at the end of the Permian, Triassic, or even mid-Cambrian periods."
This is the weakest part of the argument. Why should humans fear abrupt changes when we have demonstrated extrordinary resilience to such changes in the recent past? The future looks even brighter, we have the capability to grow food for two or three earths, Saudi Arabia is growing wheat, Russia will soon be able to grow enough wheat for the entire planet. There were just a handful of deaths due the 'polar vortex'. El Nino and La Nina are just weather channel jokes countered by cranking up the AC or the heater. Just what is this event which we cannot handle? Show us from recent past.
-
michael sweet at 12:31 PM on 7 February 2019SkS Analogy 18 - Cliff jumping and temperature changes
It appears that the NCDC temperature records page is down due to the government shutdown. My previous numbers were probably incorrect.
The NSIDC had this to say about the "record cold" during January:
"Conditions in the upper US Midwest were colder than any previous winter period in the past two decades. Low temperatures in northern Minnesota and all of Wisconsin on January 30 and 31 were in the -27 to -35 degrees Celsius range (-17 to -31 degrees Fahrenheit). Large areas of Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, and the Dakotas reached temperatures below -20 degrees Celsius (-4 degrees Fahrenheit). However, few all-time low temperature records were set during the cold snap. Very mild [hot] conditions followed the cold snap in early February." My emphasis. source
Some "record cold", a few records and then warm weather. The deniers crow about normal cold and the mass media follow along. In the 1920's this would have been cold but not exceptional. People have forgotten what cold weather was. Cliff Mass was right.
-
LarryCorbett at 12:19 PM on 7 February 2019Welcome to Skeptical Science
Thanks, Climate Change is real I believe. Now what can we do about it or what have we done to make it worst. I don't think it matters we need to invent a better Mouse Trap or we want be able to do anything about it. The real truth is if Fossil Fuel has made the Climae change worst than we have to replace it with something Better or we want be able to make any differents. If we have to go back to Horses we would have more Gas poluting the air than now as everyone would have to have a Horse. Plus the problem with Poop building up Mountains of Poop every where.
-
Riduna at 11:20 AM on 7 February 2019Earth’s oceans are routinely breaking heat records
What concerns me is the implications for carbon sinks.
The land surface is warming at twice the rate of oceans warming and this is already having an effect through drought and fire which is destroying significant areas of forest.
What will be the effects of ocean warming on the ability of oceans to (a) absorb (b) retain carbon?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:49 AM on 7 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #4
nigelj,
The thinking of the likes of William Nordhaus is harmful.
It presumes that perceptions of wealth and prosperity derived from unsustainable and harmful activity can continue to increase in value into the future.
And it essentially says it is OK for the current generation to do harm to the future generations based on comparing the harm done to future generations with the 'cost for the future generation to not harm the future'.
That is like saying it is OK for a neighbour to do something that harms their neighbour as long as they can come up with a claim that 'their cost, or lost opportunity for benefit, if they do not harm their neighbour' would be more than the amount of harm they figure they have done to their neighbour.
But it is worse because the costs to the future generation are often 'discounted' by people doing these types of incorrect evaluations.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:41 AM on 7 February 2019A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals
nigelj,
Obama focused on Healthcare for Americans and climate action corrections for the benefit of the future of humanity. But his priority was health care for Americans and he got it done during the first 2 years.
With the loss of Democrat control of the House after the 2010 election (and the further loss of Senate control after the 2014 election), there was less that Obama could do on climate action.
I think the priority on health care was also as a legacy for future government. Note that the Republicans in control of all parts of the governement could not undo health care (they easily undid every climate action that Obama had initiated).
A significant portion of the American population has developed a lack of concern for the future of humanity. It is possible to get some of those people to support actions that they, or people they know will directly and immediately benefit from now and into the future. But it is difficult to get them to sacrifice in a way that benefits no one they know.
That is a very narrow worldview. And it is tragic that the supposed leading nation of the world has failed to correct how it develops the attitudes of its population, has failed to lead the development of a population that is focused on improving the global future of humanity.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:25 AM on 7 February 2019EV’s: Crucial to Reducing CO2 Emissions
If the free market competition for popularity and profit had correctly responded to the initial indications of the unacceptability of fossil fuel burning (way back in the 1970s), we would not be needing to have this discussion today. EVs would be very common. And public transit systems powered renewably would be the more common modes of transportation everywhere.
However, we are not yet discussing the required corrections today. We are still having pointless arguments with people who want to resist any correction of what has developed that would not personally benefit them, and especially not wanting corrections that would reduce the incorrectly developed perceptions of status for themselves and 'their tribe'.
A significant portion of the popuation in the most advanced nations still do not share the understanding that all human actions need to be governed by the Universal Objective of improving awarenss and understanding and applying that knowledge to help develop sustainable improvements for the future of humanity (doing no harm to the future of humanity, no matter how popular or profitable the harmful activity may be for a portion of humanity).
Because of the successful efforts of those who have been resisting correction of understanding and actions through the past 50 years, humanity now needs to collectively force correction to occur at a more rapid pace (with actions like significant government interventions), which just makes the resistance to correction 'hotter' because many of the 'undeserved larger perceptions of status relative to others' that have developed during those 50 years will have to be more significantly corrected.
Some rich and powerful people do not deserve their status. And all of the rich and powerful people know it, and know who the undesrving are among them. It is just a matter of time until enough of the rest of the population clearly understands who among the rich and powerful are undeserving to make the required corrections occur.
The undeserving among the rich and powerful can be seen to be abusing every psychological marketing trick in the book to delay that inevitable corected future reality. Tragically, they are still able to Win power in supposedly more advanced regions of the planet.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:01 AM on 7 February 2019EV’s: Crucial to Reducing CO2 Emissions
The CBC has an item about EV owners in a very cold place, Winnipeg, Manitoba. It not only dispells the myth that EVs are not suited to cold climates.
It points out that the need to use the battery power to heat the vehicle reduces the range between repowering. But they never have to worry about their car starting in the cold (ICE vehicles need a block heater and almost new batteries to be sure to start after being in the colkd for a few hours).
And there is a side benefit for owners of EVs like Teslas who can have a toasty warm car when they get into it after something like a restaurant visit on a cold winter day (they can start the interior warming by using their phone, no engine starting required).
-
MarshallC at 06:32 AM on 7 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
As this is your first post, Skeptical Science respectfully reminds you to please follow our comments policy. Thank You!
I have been a longtime reader but have never posted on this site from my other email registration. John Cox has long been a hero of mine for his commitment to spreading and defending the science of climatology.
-
nigelj at 06:05 AM on 7 February 2019EV’s: Crucial to Reducing CO2 Emissions
Yes the slow uptake of electric vehicles has been due to price, range, recharging and possible fears about technological redundancy, but I think there are a couple of other equally important factors:
1). The cheaper electric cars have had terrible body styling, (and the Prius was not great either). Appearance and style is really important to consumers which was probably a key reason the Iphone was so successful. It might not say much about the priorities humans place on things, but its a powerful factor.
2) The car companies haven't really marketed and advertised electric cars, possibly because they are reluctant to retool their production lines for electic cars and retrain staff. Governments should force them, or alternatively do the promotional job for them.
3) There has been media spin that that electric cars are unreliable. They aren't.
4) Lack of a good enough network of recharging stations. People will not tolerate being stranded, or having to hunt around. However most recharging is actually done at home.
If you look at smartphones, growth became exponential quite quickly but certain things had to come together for this to happen, and it looks like this included affordable prices with the android phones in particular, good looks, reliability, and functionality. The interesting thing is they took off despite needing to be recharged basically every day, so functionality is clearly more important, and electric cars have multiple advantages in this area, and it will probably just be a matter of a little more time for people to fully digest the advantages.
-
nigelj at 05:08 AM on 7 February 2019A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals
OPOF @35, I work in infrastructure design, and we have codes of practise based on objectives, performance criteria, prescriptive solutions and acceptable design methodologies. Probably you are the same. As a result I also instinctively gravitate towards having a few key objectives like sustainability. It gives a clear focus, and an agreed goal by which all other rules and peoples actions can be judged and developed. Unfortunately this sustainability goal didn't appear to be very prominent in the Green New Deal.
We cannot compromise or bury the word sustainability simply because it might annoy a certain political group, or part of that group. That would be a total sell out. And without an over arching goal detailed provisions whether carbon taxes or rules etcetera become rather hard to analyse, and its hard to sort out what is best.
The problem is really with America. The Green New Deal would be viable in Europe complete with both the climate the socio economic provisions because the social provisions would have broad political support even with conservative parties. Although I think the climate provisions need amending. But America has the GOP who are very antagonistic to things like universal healthcare (sigh). While I dont like it, The Democrats might be better to remove things like universal healthcare and focus more on the climate and sustainability goals. But one assumes the Democrats do plenty of public polling to test acceptability of social provisions with different political groups. It may or may not be a problem and it would be unwise to assume anything.
-
michael sweet at 03:28 AM on 7 February 2019Earth’s oceans are routinely breaking heat records
Kate,
Current high estimates for sea level rise are 4 meters by 2100 and 5-7 meters per century after that. It will take a very long time to reach 65 meters of sea level rise.
For Miami, Shanghai, the Mekong delta, Alexandria and other low places a rise of 1 meter would render the city uninhabitable so thinking of the absolute worst case is not necessary. Current expert opinion is 1 meter by 2100 is likely.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:19 AM on 7 February 2019A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals
I understand that the wording of the letter could be improved. But the statement that “Fossil fuel companies should pay their fair share for damages caused by climate change, rather than shifting those costs to taxpayers”, is a valid criticism of a Carbon Tax (even with a dividend) or Cap and Trade. These mechanisms do not 'penalize the investors and executives' pursuing profit from fossil fuel burning. Profit and bonuses would still be made in those industries which would incorrectly motivate resistance to the understood required corrections.
Some people also criticize statements like this letter, particularly social statements of the need for the corrections to be done in ways that improve the conditions of living for the least fortunate, as being divisive because the statements made are not acceptable to everyone. That presumes that everyone needs to accept that everyone else is justified in their beliefs, that no beliefs are incorrect or harmful. That is clearly a potentially harmful 'systemic' misunderstanding that can be related to the incorrect belief that Good Results will develop if everyone is simply freer to believe what they want and do as they please without being governed to ensure their actions do no harm to any others.
There have been many documents published through the decades exposing how 'free pursuit of personal interest' has developed damaging results, including the development of powerful resistance to correcting the damaging developments.
I have read: the letter, this article regarding the letter, the New Green Deal, and the Leap Manifesto (an understanding developed by Canadians that is similar to the New Green Deal developed by Americans).
I see them all being closely aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which I have an understanding of, including understanding their origin.
The SDGs are the result of global development of improved awareness and understanding. That effort has led to many things including the understanding of the need to create the League of Nations, which was eventually understood to be failing to achieve the objective that was understood to be required. The failure of the League of Nations resulted in the creation of the UN. And the UN's first major effort succeeded in creating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
It has been a struggle to have that understanding honoured by global Winners. And, in many other ways the UN has struggled to achieve the understood to be required objective. However, in spite of those struggles the UN has persisted. And it has succeeded in continuing to develop improved understanding of what is required to achieve the required objective. And one of the most recent presentations of that improving understanding is the SDGs.
A particularly important element of the SDGs is reducing the harmful climate change impacts on future generations by current day human activity. More rapidly reducing the rate of impact reduces the magnitude of negative impact on the future generations. And reducing the negative future impact makes it easier to sustainably achieve many of the other identified required goals (SDGs) for the benefit of the future of humanity.
The missing link in 'debates that get nowhere' regarding the corrections required that have been identified by climate science is a lack of common sense regarding the Universal Objective of human activity. In spite of a potential robust diversity of views it is possible for debate and discussion to result in Good Conclusions as long as all parties have a shared common understood objective and a desire to improve awareness and understanding (their own and of others).
My developed understanding (open to improvement by Good Reasons) is:
The Universal (Highest level) Objective is:- Improving awareness and understanding and applying that constantly improving knowledge to develop a sustainable constantly improving future for humanity.
- The understanding of the viable sustainable future for humanity is: A robust diversity of people sustainably fitting in to the robust diversity of life on this, and other, amazing planets.
- Another way to understand the Universal Objective is from the perspective of Future Generations: What sustainably helps the future generations into the distant future?
That understanding does not care what any individual's personally developed desires and interests are. It only cares that every individual's actions do not harm Others or the Future of Humanity. And the aspiration is that people would strive to help Others and the Future of Humanity. A logical conclusion would be that the more rewarded a person is (in status relative to others) the more they would be expected to be helpful, the less acceptable it would be for them to be harmful.
That understanding requires corrections of many developed world-views or perception of image/status. Resistance to the losses of impressions of image or status that the corrections would produce is not a reason to water-down or compromise the presentations of understandings from that perspective. Compromising that understanding would be like misrepresenting climate science in order to increase the popular support for what is being claimed.
As an engineer with an MBA who has been paying close attention and tries to understand what is going on, I have learned the importance of maintaining a Universal Objective that limits the options for people pursuing personal interests (all that happens is people pursuing personal interests developed by the socioeconomic-political environment they experience). I understand the need to set hard limits on what is acceptable, not allowing potential popularity or profitability of an alternative to compromise the Universal Objective. And I understand that some engineers have allowed temptations for popularity and profit to compromise their adherence to the Universal Objective. So I understand that even being taught the importance of always being governed by the Universal Objective (and improving understanding related to the Universal Objective, including improving the Objective) is no assurance that people will care to be governed by it (many will dislike it intensely- because it imposes limits that are contrary to their developed personal interests).
So I understand why people who should 'Know Better' can deliberately resist improving their awareness and understanding in ways that would limit their ability to justify doing what they have developed a desire to do. And I understand that everyone can be easily motivated to improve their image or perception of status relative to others (including defending the status of a tribe they associate with), and try to enjoy their life any way they can get away with, including ways that are understandably harmful to Others (just finished reading “The Opposite of Hate” by Sally Kohn which reinforces and improves that understanding).
I understand how easy it can be for undeserving Winners to gather popular support for understandably unacceptable pursuits of personal interests of their “In-Group” - their tribe (or collection of tribes as is the case with a political party that Unites the Right Tribes, with Right being understood to be tribes resisting correction of unacceptable things that have developed). So I understand how important it is to not compromise the understanding of the Universal Objective just to 'get along' with someone who resists being governed by that Universal Objective.
-
Doug Bostrom at 02:50 AM on 7 February 2019EV’s: Crucial to Reducing CO2 Emissions
Leaving aside for a moment that anybody who must drive and can afford an EV has a moral obligation to adopt this modernized approach: once you've driven an EV you'll never want to return to a "thrasher" with all the attendant noise, stink and tragically elliptical path from the energy source to the wheels.
It's like getting a faster computer, or finding a better roast of coffee. There's no going back; the old way suddenly seems completely unacceptable.
-
KateAllatRaIPM at 15:56 PM on 6 February 2019Earth’s oceans are routinely breaking heat records
Experts have calculated that if the entire ice cover melts, the sea level will rise by at least 60-70 meters, which will be equal to a global disaster. Melting glaciers also stimulate volcanic activity. Is it really something we are going to face any time soon? What is heats the Earth and Oceans so quickly?
Moderator Response:[DB] "What is heats the Earth and Oceans so quickly?"
In a nutshell: human activities. A good summary post is here.
-
KateAllatRaIPM at 15:41 PM on 6 February 2019Earth’s oceans are routinely breaking heat records
The question is, why is all of this happening? What causes it?
-
AbsoluteZer0 at 06:24 AM on 6 February 2019The Methane 'Time Bomb': How big a concern?
I lose a bit of sleep over it. The melting has already started... Even if all emissions stopped now; I fear it may melt anyways. We have already lost about a third of Arctic Ice by surface area in the past 3 decades.
We have to stop emissions, but even when and if so, the Greenhouse Gas ppm is still increasing as this ice and permafrost melts. And we lose the albeido effect with every sq inch of ice gone.
Sleep is a pretty finicky thing anyways.
-
sauerj at 02:01 AM on 6 February 2019A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals
To michael sweet (#33) or admin person: Please add Mr. Sweet's 2nd link (missing from his last sentence), and then delete my comment here. Thanks!
-
Joe Wiseman at 00:10 AM on 6 February 2019Earth’s oceans are routinely breaking heat records
Anybody who isn't worrying by now needs a medical checkup. Inability to face reality is a symptom of severe psychological impairment and may require medical assistance.
-
2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #5
I suppose this rates as news. John Christy, well known climate denier, has apparently been appointed to the US Environmental Protection (EPA) Agency Advisory Board.
Sigh.
-
nigelj at 11:57 AM on 5 February 2019Earth’s oceans are routinely breaking heat records
Ocean anoxia is becoming a problem:
news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/01/climate-change-suffocating-low-oxygen-zones-ocean/
If quantity of heat is increasing per unit volume, would that lead to more intense el ninos?
-
jef12506 at 10:53 AM on 5 February 2019Earth’s oceans are routinely breaking heat records
Well I'm sure that warming oceans won't effect the methane clathrates as they are frozen so we don't have to worry.
-
michael sweet at 03:24 AM on 5 February 2019A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals
This post by Ecoquant at Tamino's gives a well informed discussion of Climate Smart Agriculture with several peer reviewed references from major journals.
He says "The scientific consensus is pretty consistent. Improved practices can help, but this far from the kind of “magic bullet” stuff you hear some proponents espouse."
A different point of view from that discussed here.
-
Swayseeker at 02:31 AM on 5 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Re the ski resorts, etc: To cool a city or ski resort and so on one could use wind power to run a heat pump. You can let the cool air out over the ski resort or city and the warm air around the condensation site of the heat pump will rise, taking the heat away from the lower levels. Likewise air conditioners in cities cool the buildings inside and the warm air around the fins rises by convection.
-
sauerj at 00:16 AM on 5 February 2019A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals
Red Baron @27: Thanks. I read the linked Quora article. I don't have a Quora account; and, for some reason, my computer was blocking me from signing up (probably my ad-blocker stuff). I appreciate your points as sustainable farming is extremely important. I will keep all of that in mind. Thank you!
-
learn at 21:24 PM on 4 February 2019There is no consensus
Both sides of this argument seem to be exagerating their own subjective evidence and the weight of support for their views. This indicates a lack of real certainty. It seems also that many on both sides have a vested interest. In the majority of scientific experiments, before a conclusion can be drawn there needs to be a control. There is no 2nd planet Earth without man made co2 to make an accurate comparison of climate change. Therefore, even if the 97% consensus claim is true, it can hardly be considered credible.
Moderator Response:[PS] Sloganeering. please provide evidence to support your assertion that science is exagerating subjective evidence. Your claim that science has some kind of vested interest is verging on a conspiracy theory. Vast areas of science do not work the way you suppose (eg geology) so it would be better to learn how the scientific method actually works. In essence, you predict the outcome of an observation from known physics, make the observation and compare to prediction. This is been done in countless ways to build modern climate theory.
Nothing is certain in science - but a scientific consensus, particularly when strong is the only rational basis for policy.
-
Art Vandelay at 21:22 PM on 4 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Re, "Why Cant' rich people save winter".
Actually, in Australia they have been doing just that for many years now. The largest ski resorts are all very reliant on snow making facilities, which makes the sport significantly more expensive than it was to begin with. Some people claim that it's actually a poor man's sport now, because that's how avid ski buffs end up after a 2 week holiday. Back in the 90's our CSIRO predicted that the resorts would be unviable for skiing by now, but with snow-making facilities the season length has only shrunk by about 10%, and peak season reliability has actually increased a bit.
-
Art Vandelay at 17:26 PM on 4 February 2019New research, January 21-27, 2019
nigelj@5, a bit OT, but just coming out of another record breaking January here in eastern Australia, it seems to be largely driven by a lack of cloud cover over the tropical north of the continent. Clouds are obviously a component of global albedo, but regardless of whether global albedo is increasing or decreasing it's possble that there are long term trends with regional specificity.
-
nigelj at 12:38 PM on 4 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Source of copy and paste quote: The Uninhabitable Earth
Famine, economic collapse, a sun that cooks us: What climate change could wreak — sooner than you think. By David Wallace-Wells -
scaddenp at 12:35 PM on 4 February 2019A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals
RB - I would say that list of goals was proof that left-wing pollies are as stupid as the right. How to guarantee no bipartisan support. Emigrate.
-
nigelj at 12:02 PM on 4 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
The article paints a grim picture of the future if we do nothing, and I find it compelling and reasonably stated. Others have suggested Wells is scaremongering too much, and this could cause people to be overwhelmed and mentally switch off. I did a google search on the effectiveness of using fear to motivate people to change behaviour.
This meta study looked at impacts of using fear based health campaigns and found they do have some modest effect on changing behaviour, provided the fear component is balanced with good efficacy. In other words it has to be based on good evidence, so perhaps articles like Wells are valuable provided the science is right, and not exaggerated, and probabilities are discussed openly. A couple of his claims have been criticised by no less than M Mann. Other scientists have supported Wells and stated the criticisms are quibbles.
This is another interesting excerpt from Wells article:
"But no matter how well-informed you are, you are surely not alarmed enough. Over the past decades, our culture has gone apocalyptic with zombie movies and Mad Max dystopias, perhaps the collective result of displaced climate anxiety, and yet when it comes to contemplating real-world warming dangers, we suffer from an incredible failure of imagination. The reasons for that are many: the timid language of scientific probabilities, which the climatologist James Hansen once called “scientific reticence” in a paper chastising scientists for editing their own observations so conscientiously that they failed to communicate how dire the threat really was; the fact that the country is dominated by a group of technocrats who believe any problem can be solved and an opposing culture that doesn’t even see warming as a problem worth addressing; the way that climate denialism has made scientists even more cautious in offering speculative warnings; the simple speed of change and, also, its slowness, such that we are only seeing effects now of warming from decades past; our uncertainty about uncertainty, which the climate writer Naomi Oreskes in particular has suggested stops us from preparing as though anything worse than a median outcome were even possible; the way we assume climate change will hit hardest elsewhere, not everywhere;..."
-
RedBaron at 08:36 AM on 4 February 2019A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals
@28 Sauerj,
I wrote up a formal reply on Quora and as was once asked of me before, rather than bog down this website with repeating the same things, I will instead direct the conversation there where we can debate it and drum up support. I tried to provide better citations there too.
But first seriously consider that the change between our positions should not be a deal breaker. I am only suggesting a relatively minor change that doubles the efficacy at 1/2 the cost and also saves billions off the farm bill too! Not to mention a dozen other benefits, including but not limited to, helping us out of the trade war without damaging our economy. All without loosing the durability and fairness you spoke about. Everyone must eat. So be sure lower food costs and food security helps everyone just exactly the same as a dividend share.
-
MA Rodger at 07:20 AM on 4 February 2019New research, January 21-27, 2019
blaisct @4,
You present a strange argument.
I think your molecular cross-section of CO2 is far too low for 15 microns, your photon path-length too long, and it is not so simple as this because of line boradening at higher pressures.
That aside, the photon path length will indeed halve with a doubling of CO2 concentration (and ignoring that temperature is not fully defined by radiative effects), there will be a temperature gradient mechanism (warming the upper atmosphere) due to CO2 at the lower warmer atmosphere being able to shoot more photons (transmit more energy) up than the cooler higher atmospher cane shoot back down. But thus mechanism will be balanced by convection to maintain the lapse rate. Mixing is very minor (as is convection) in the atmosphere outside major storms.
The energy absorbed will rise with a doubling of CO2 as will the ability to shoot away photons. The temperature will rise as the population of photon-not-shot-away will be higher, adding energy to the air about and this balanced by increasing photon shooting in all directions - the extra absorption of photons under double CO2 has then to be balanced by increased temperature to allow these extra photons to be shot away.
The "other 2 wavelengths of CO2" (presumably wave-bands) are not major IR absorbers within today's atmosphere.
The ability to shoot photons into space is dependent on the concentration in the atmosphere-above allowing gaps to exist. Any increase in CO2 concentrations will close these gaps so increase absorption, increasing the height at which photons can escape. This height-rise means lower temperatures at which photons are shot into space (this while the point of escape is still within the troposphere) and so being cooler, less photons will be shot into space at that wavelength, reducing this global energy flux. This is the major mechanism of CO2 warming across the 15 micron waveband. The higher the concentrations of CO2, the shorter the photon path length and the denser the absorbing events and the higher the escape altitude.
Given you seem to them proceed assuming "CO2 and water cannot be any part of the observed gw" which is simply wrong, I don't think it woud be helpful to point out any further mistaken logic. -
nigelj at 06:23 AM on 4 February 2019New research, January 21-27, 2019
blaisct @4
With respect your understanding of the principles isn't correct. Therefore whether the logic is right or wrong is irrelevant.
The Beer Lambert Law is the linear relationship between absorbance and concentration of an "absorbing species". Not all gases absorb equally. Gases like oxygen molecule only absorb UV and break down in the very upper atmosphere above 80kms, and lower down its CO2 which absorbs long wave energy, and this is causing global warming near the surface which is what is relevant to us.
eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation_hays/
Shortwave radiation from the sun heats surface features. It explains some warming over the early part of last century, but not enough to set in motion some feedback effect causing hugely reduced albedo.
Regarding human caused changes in albedo since 1900. This doesn't explain global warming either. Urbanisation reduces albedo, but less than 1% of the world is urbanised. Deforestation increases albedo! So things essentially cancel out. Refer article below for a fuller review of the albedo issues:
www.skepticalscience.com/earth-albedo-effect.htm
Therefore greenhouse warming is the prime cause of global warming since the 1980's, and this in turn leads to reduced albedo in terms of reduced ice cover, and so some warming from SWR.
You say: "Albedo is a powerful variable in climate change. It is what causes all our weather, evaporates water and moves almost all weather systems for west to east."
I don't think so. I have only done some university geography, so not a climate scientist, but I was taught weather was caused by redistribution of heat from equator to poles etcetera, water evaporated if it was above zero degrees so is just basically due to the sun or greenhouse changes, and the flow of weather systems west to east was the coriolis effect and pressue differences. I guess the textbooks are all wrong and you are right (sarc). Or was your comment deliberate satire?
-
nigelj at 04:53 AM on 4 February 2019A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals
Red Baron @27, a carbon tax with all the money distributed as subsidies has some technical merit, but just isn't politically viable. The concept has to work in the real world. The GOP have indicated they want a scheme that is revenue neutral, and so where money doesn't accumulate in governments hands to be spent on whatever schemes, and commonsense would suggest the general public will not be amenable to a tax with no dividend because it would be very harsh.
It is also not necessary to subsidise renewable energy any more because it is already becoming cost competitive, and a carbon tax will promote further development obviously which is the whole idea. Nuclear power should stand on its own merits in the market place and should not be given special treatment by governments above what other zero carbon energy strategies receive.
The dividend is likely to be spent on a range of things including electric cars etc, and will not produce a fixed spending pattern over time. As renewable energy becomes more cost effective it will become more attractive.
The one area that does need a subsidy is negative emissions strategies, which suits your perspective. Companies have no strong reason to build such technology unless they get assistance. I think one possible version of a carbon tax would give about half back as a dividend and subsidise negative emissions technologies, soil sequestration etc. This limits subsidies to a narrow essential band. This might be politically feasible.
-
blaisct at 04:34 AM on 4 February 2019New research, January 21-27, 2019
I may be off base on my logic – please respond. Let me throw another law in to the works: Beer- Lambert (Absorption of light in a substance is a product of the distance, concentration, and absorption coefficient). Using published CO2 absorption coefficient of 20.2 m^2/mole (at 15um) the distance at which 99%+ of this wave length is absorbed at 400ppm CO2 is 16m. If the concentration is doubled (800ppm) the 99% distance lessens to about 8m. Since the energy (temperature in a fixed volume) is proportional to the light absorbed the air below 8m would be hotter in the 800ppm air. But this effect would only last as long as the air did not mix. But it is a gas and it will mix. Since the energy absorbed is the same at 400ppm or 800ppm the temperature of the mixed gas will be the same. The temperature (energy) comes from the radiation not the gas. The other 2 wave lengths of CO2 have slightly different coefficients but will result in the same mixed effect.
For any gas in the atmosphere there is a concentration at a specific wave length where all the light is absorbed before it escapes from the atmosphere. Gases with concentration above this escape concentration will not absorb more light (energy) if their concentration is increased (saturated gas). Gases with concentration below this escape concentration will absorb more light (up to the saturated concentration). CO2 and water are examples of saturated gases. Methane and SO2 most likely are unsaturated. Therefore CO2 and water cannot be any part of the observed gw. They are just good greenhouse gases that absorb all their wave length of light in the lower atmosphere. Only a change in the light they can absorb will cause a temperature change. Albedo can make the light they can absorb change.
A simple look at albedo’s contribution to gw: Using IPCC’s correlation of global temperature rise of 0.5’C/watt/m^2. The entire temperature rise from 1870 to present is 0.8’C, the IPCC says this is equivalent to 1.6 watt/m^2. Using solar radiation reaching the earth of 960 watt/m^2. Doing a simple proportion shows that only a 0.17% change in total earths albedo since 1870 would be needed to account for all the temperature change (about 0.7% if just land mass albedo). On an annual bases we would need a detection method that could see 0.005%/year change in albedo. What’s the possibility that man has added enough roads, roof tops, parking lots, and burned enough rain forests to account for a 0.7% change since 1870? Statistical correlation show about a 2’C higher temperature in urban measurements since 1900. Albedo is a powerful variable in climate change. It is what causes all our weather, evaporates water and moves almost all weather systems for west to east.
Prev 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 Next
