Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 Next
Comments 13151 to 13200:
-
fahad at 06:00 AM on 12 November 2018Renewable energy is too expensive
A more fundamental challenge is that renewable generators also impose costs on the broader power grid. The top sites are often far from large cities (on Scottish hillsides, French lakes or American deserts) making them more expensive to connect. Many common kinds of renewable generators only create power intermittently--if the sun shines or if the wind blows. Wind turbines, by way of instance, spin just about a third of the time. That means countries that have a whole lot of renewable generation must still pay to keep traditional sorts of power stations ready to fire up when demand peaks. And energy from such channels also becomes more expensive since they might not run at full-blast.
Higher construction costs may make financial institutions more likely to perceive renewable as insecure, lending money at higher prices and making it harder for developers or utilities to warrant the investment. For natural gas and other fossil fuel power plants, the expense of fuel might be passed on the consumer, lowering the risk associated with the initial investment (though raising the chance of erratic electric bills).But i would like to add another point of view that uses of solar energy are on the rise and countries like Germany, China and Japan are on the top of using it. Wind energy, yes, is on the other side where common man access is still limited.
Also check Barriers to Renewable Energy Technologies for making better arguments regarding cost and usage.
-
nigelj at 17:56 PM on 11 November 2018Climate change science comeback strategies: 'In it for the money'
Alternative measure for economic growth: The NZ well being budget.
-
nigelj at 10:56 AM on 11 November 2018Climate change science comeback strategies: 'In it for the money'
OPOF @9,
I think its important to have an accurate picture of the world, and neither be fooled to think that everything is getting worse or be deluded that everything is getting better. Its more nuanced. Books like Pinkers help as long as people read them critically and don't rely on just one source of information like his book.
I think Pinker has a libertarian leaning. I certainly don't take his book at face value, and he makes excuses for inequality and is a little hyped in his tone and I agree with your points. But its still a good read and has some good data that is sound enough.There are far worse than Pinker, try reading The 12 rules for living book.
The book the Moral Arc is similar to Pinkers book, but is better imho, and more neutral in tone somehow and focussed more just on history. Pinkers book has more of an ideological flavour.
Yes whether poverty has really reduced is debatable, but plenty of things have improved, eg deaths from famine have decreased.
I think yes urbanisation has downsides, but its a separate issue from poverty as such. Rural lives have improved and sometimes simple technologies can halp hugely, like a small solar panel or health clinic. But I think you are right that improvements in poverty reducation can be exaggerated and crude numbers dont tell the whole story.
You have to wonder how urban slum living, or some shoe box apartment is any better than rural living. But as poor people move into a middle class lifestyle things do improve.
Our government is introducing an alternative measure for economic growth that takes wider values into account including happiness, environment and social data. This is the way we need to go.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:13 AM on 11 November 2018Climate change science comeback strategies: 'In it for the money'
nigelj,
As an engineer I learned to seek 'good reasons for improved awareness and understanding and the application of that knowledge'. I had to learn to avoid being easily impressed. Sales representatives are always coming up with ways of pitching their products in ways that make their product look as good as possible. As a responsible engineer I had to be able to see through that and ask the questions the promoter did not want to have to address. I, and other engineers, develop the ability to identify people who are 'in it for the money' to do our jobs well.
Pinker appears to be a promoter doing worse than “missing” some understanding related to his presentations of history of progress, partly because he is a promoter of the belief that created problems will have a technological development 'solution'. He misses the reality that technological developments create problems that need solutions. And many of the beneficiaries of the activity that resulted in the problems do not suffer the consequences of, or have to fully rapidly correct, the problems.
Very tellingly, Pinker does not explain why the USA has not progressed as much as others relative to its amount of wealth increase. He simply notes that that is what the numbers show because it cannot be overlooked.
Pinker also side-steps the reality that environmental impacts are not being neutralized by the wealthier nations, or people who benefit from activity that results in the impacts. Others have to try to limit and correct the impacts (and those others include future generations). And the negative impacts are typically more extreme in areas that the more fortunate people do not have to care about. And that same pattern can be seen to be happening in developing nations. The negative environmental impacts of the ways that the wealthiest enjoy their lives are addressed to minimize the impact on the wealthiest - the ones who are most 'in it for the money'.
Pinker also subscribes to the common misunderstanding that leads to beliefs that the World Bank measures of poverty are legitimate measures of sustainable improvement of living conditions. The most glaring flaw in that evaluation is the lack of assessment of whether the measured perception of improvement is actually sustainable. The unsustainability of perceptions of 'progress' due to unsustainable activity, like the burning of fossil fuels, is not part of the evaluations. And many of the negative impacts of climate change are unlikely to show up in that type of evaluation of “progress”.
The evaluation of progress regarding reducing poverty is also flawed by the incorrect presumption that earning $3 a day in a city with dirty air, dirty water, questionable food, and violence is better than self-sufficient communal rural living with cleaner air, cleaner water, and adequate food (a hard but decent life that the likes of the World Bank measure at $0 a day living). And the negative value of displacement of people from that $0 a day type of life by economic actions that displace them into city slums, or negatively impact their water, air and food quality in their $0 a day living, is not measured by the likes of the World Bank evaluations (Pinker also presents every move to the city as a desired step by the ones making the move).
This is not something that is difficult to understand. But it can be difficult to quantify. And it is easy to mask the understanding with a misunderstanding based on measurements that can be claimed to be comprehensive because they are values that can easily be quantified.
Difficulty monetizing or otherwise 'quantifying' something does not mean that it is irrelevant. A great example of that point is that the key consideration of 'sustainability' has no monetary value and can be very difficult to quantify (and does not really need to be quantified - an activity either is or isn't sustainable, no matter how popular or profitable it is).
-
nigelj at 05:49 AM on 10 November 2018Climate change science comeback strategies: 'In it for the money'
OPOF @7, yes its important to acknowledge up front that some scientists ( a rather small number I think) are probably in it for the money, and I would add some may not have the greatest personal integrity. Its important to acknowldege simple facts, because to claim all scientists have noble motive is absurd and easily shot down. The article failed to acknowldge this clearly enough.
I feel its always important to get the facts up front, or it will be an never ending and absurd argument about whether scientists are good or bad as a group .
However the way science is remunerated suggests the vast majority of research scientists would not be in it for the money, they could earn more in other occupations or working for the private sector, and the way science is done is designed to pick up on errors and cheating. So even if a few scientists are "bad eggs" it won't detract from the findings of large studies like the IPCC studies.
Nobody can show me a better approach to how we do things. Put up or shut up!
It also needs to be pointed out that sceptical climate change studies are also carried out and it can be equally argued that some of their authors may be in it for the money, and given they are renumerated by wealthy fossil fuel companies, they may be more in it for the money than other scientists...
Pinkers book has good data on progress humans have made, and that was my point really. I agree his interpretation of the issues misses the target at times. I'm also a bit cautious that its possible to start celebrating the progress we have made, and it can become an excuse for arguing we have made enough progress and can stop, if you know what I mean. However his book has value because it's important to point out that the progressive era since the 1950s has not actually lead to moral decay as some have argued, quite the reverse if you use objective measures or morality, rates of crime etc, although theres still a long way to go.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:44 AM on 10 November 2018Climate change science comeback strategies: 'In it for the money'
nigelj,
I used the term “Good scientist” rather than the generic term “Scientist” in my comment@4, for good reason.Some scientists deserve to be ridiculed for being “elites and experts mainly in it for the money”. And some scientists need to be corrected for being “elites and experts who choose to pursue unsustainable and harmful activities”. The problem is the generic use of that criticism for all “Elites and Experts”.
It is important to differentiate The Altruistically Governed from The Others, in all categories, not just scientists. And the “in it for the money” attack on climate science is a perfect opening to improve awareness and understanding about Egoism and Altruism.
Unrestrained Egoist competition will result in combative efforts to personally perceive the 'self' to be superior relative to others. History is full of examples of that. And recent psychological research explains the reasons that happens. I have many good reasons to consider “The Enigma of Reason” to be a very good book on the subject. It has helped me improve my awareness and understanding of what is going on and how to help others improve their awareness and understanding.
Altruism is the key term. Egoism may be all there really is. Altruistically governed Egoism would then be the only kind of altruism. And that helpful understanding is what needs to be developed.
Altruistically governed Egoist competition would be - striving to sustainably help others with improved awareness and understanding of what is really going on and the application of that knowledge to develop sustainable better ways of living - Trying to be the best you can be that way.
Very powerful poor excuses (unjustifiable reasons) for unsustainable harmful pursuits are:
- the activity can potentially be, or is, popular and/or profitable
- a person's Ego, self-perception, gets a boosted sense of superiority relative to others if the activity is successful (for as long as it can be successfully gotten away with).
A lack of altruistic governing can develop:
- Progressives who consider any New Thing Good, rather than the required Altruistic Conservative limiting of those New Things to sustainable helpful developments.
- Conservatives who try to defend and protect unsustainable and harmful developed activities and beliefs, rather than the required Altruistic Progressive correction of those unsustainable and harmful developments.
And Moderates is also not a helpful term. A compromising Conservative-Progressive Moderate can be the best or the worse:
- They can conservatively defend existing unsustainable harmful activity and progressively push for new unsustainable harmful developments -Worst
- Or they can altruistically pursue sustainable development and correction of unacceptable developments - Best
What can be seen to be occurring is a battle that includes battles between the Moderates. Egoist driven Moderates vs. Altruism governed Moderates. And for the benefit of the future of humanity, the Altruists, not just compromising moderates, clearly need to be governing all Others.
Some institutions of experts and elites (Political groups, Universities, Businesses) are setting themselves up for having no sustainable future. They are deliberately headed in the wrong directions, away from sustainable development. They have been taken over by egoist selfishness that pushes against altruistic objectives. They are trying to pursue research that will 'make money without limiting those pursuits to sustainably helpful ventures'. They are 'the harmful experts and elites that people do need to be warned about', and many of them are scientists.
Research that identifies the harmful results of developments that people want to benefit from is very important research. And leadership in business and politics that supports that type of research and effectively acts to correct incorrect developments is required for humanity to advance. That is the Understanding of Enlightenment that needs to be developed.
What is clearly required is the development of larger worldviews - awareness of, and focus on, the global future of humanity. Serious problems can be seen to develop as a result of incorrectly governed or directed small worldviews - promotion of local individual interests now (including research by scientists at Universities).
It is almost certain that all there is is the collective of 'local individual actions now' (well explained by Sean Carroll in “The Big Picture”). What is required is Leadership ensuring that those local individual actions are governed by the pursuit of sustainable improvements for the global future of humanity (ungoverned capitalism clearly does not develop that result, it develops the understanding of the need for it to be altruistically responsibly governed, limited and corrected).
People like Pinker seem to have have misunderstood what has been happening. They claim that great things are happening as long as they see evidence of Good Things. Their mistake is the failure to recognize that people developing problems in a system is a problem with 'the system'. And the system is more problematic when it develops resistance to the correction of the developed problems (and resistance to identifying the need to correct the system). Such systems develop problems that can only be corrected by the influence of people who are not immersed in the ways of thinking that are developed by the system.
People, like Pinker does in “Enlightenment Now”, miss the fact that unsustainable and harmful developed activity is seldom self-corrected within the systems they want to defend. And the corrections that did get imposed on the results of the system did not effectively limit the harm done and fully correct the harm done.
Pinker does promote a thing called Effective Altruism. But I suspect he is too enamoured by the potential for “Technological Development” to provide “The Solutions”. The advancement of humanity requires altruistic governed improved awareness and understanding, not New Technology that altruism and improving awareness and understanding has to try to limit and correct the impacts of 'after the fact'.
The burning of fossil fuels is clearly an example of how damaging a New Technology can become, how powerfully it can resist altruistic correction.
Improving awareness and understanding of Who is really 'in it for the money' is very important.
-
Riduna at 14:26 PM on 9 November 2018Climate sensitivity uncertainties leading to more concern
Some very eminent climate scientists have examined ECS and are agreed that it is around 3°C, possibly higher. They note that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are around 406 ppm and continue to rise at an accelerating rate. On this data they conclude that pre-industrial CO2 concentration (~280 ppm) is likely to be double and average global temperature rise 3°C above the pre-industrial average, possibly by 2050.
This is wrong because it does not take into account the significant rise in other, more potent greenhouse gasses. As I have pointed out, anthropogenic methane emissions now stand at 1,860 ppb compared to pre-industrial concentration of ~700 ppb - and methane is x35 more powerful than CO2. I have also drawn attention to continued emission of man-made halogen gasses which are up to x5,000 more powerful than CO2.
Although electrification of transport and stationary machines has made a slow start, net production and use of fossil-fuelled vehicles continues to rise. The result is production of increased emission of greenhouse gases such as Nitrous Oxides. Here again I have drawn attention to the need to rapidly reverse this trend – an outcome which could eventuate over the next decade.
Coal combustion for electricity generation is a major source of CO2 emissions. Its use is not in decline and proposals for significant expansion of its use, if implemented, could see rapid increase in its concentration in the atmosphere. Without an international agreement akin to the Montreal Protocol, with severe penalties for its breach and strict policing, reduction in it’s use to zero by 2050 – required to avoid warming of 2°C – may not be achieved.
The above shows that rather than using likely rise in concentration of CO2 as an indication of future average global temperature rise, we should be calculating and using actual and expected increase in Carbon Dioxide equivalent (CO2eq) as a more accurate indicator of future temperature increase. Why do leading climate scientists ignore this and insist on using CO2 concentration only – ignoring the effect of all other greenhouse gas emissions when estimating future temperature rise?
-
nigelj at 13:16 PM on 9 November 2018How (not) to talk about Climate Change
Markets don't always self correct, obvious examples being environmental problems, the Great Crash of the 1930's, the 2008 financial crash but there are thousands more. The evidence is so obvious even a complete dolt should be able to see it.
The answer is equally obvious: You need laws relating to the environment, human health and safety, some basic labour protections, and the finance sector. In most other ways markets do self correct adequately.
Reality is complex. Simplistic economic theories are mostly doomed from the start.
-
Wol at 06:59 AM on 9 November 2018Climate change science comeback strategies: 'In it for the money'
I'm sure that most on this site will have seen the excellent videos by potholer54 on YouTube, but if you have not he (Peter Hadfield, a respected ex-BBC science correspondent) is well worth watching as he debunks all the usual suspects in humorous, non-confrontational ways.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCljE1ODdSF7LS9xx9eWq0GQ
Moderator Response:[JH] Activated link.
-
nigelj at 06:58 AM on 9 November 2018Climate change science comeback strategies: 'In it for the money'
A good, powerful argument can be made that the world would benefit from more altruism (and cooperation and egalitarian spirit) both morally, economically, socially and environmentally. Looking outwards and helping others diffuses tensions, builds peace, builds economies, and helps people deal with environmental issues.
In fact I would contend the world has become a little more altruistic over the last century as international linkages have improved, open trade has helped dragged poor countries out of poverty and beneffited rich countries as well, and science has exposed that racism is nonsensical and is based on a house of cards. The books Enlightenment Now and The Moral Arc discuss some of the evidence.
One thing standing in the way of more progress is humanities huge conflict between instinct and intellect, with instincts giving us a way of responding quickly to problems, but tending to be sometimes unreliable and leading to hatred, fear, selfishness and bigotry, and dismissal of hard scientific evidence on environmental matters. We have a sort of dual nature.
We need to encourage more intellect, but its difficult when an entire political group relies so much on gut instincts and core beliefs and is anti science and agreed facts, and makes up its own reality. How do we change that?
I don't think theres anything wrong with competition or ego "per se" but it needs to be disciplined within a framework of cooperation and agreed restraints, or civilisation will face economic and environmental collapse as unrestrained personal ambition of some powerful and wealthy business people on the world stage erodes the very fundamentals of life on earth by promoting anti government, libertarian, and anti environmental agendas. In other words, its not scientists who are the problem.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:20 AM on 9 November 2018Climate change science comeback strategies: 'In it for the money'
Another way to address the claim that climate scientists are 'in it for the money' is to point out that the improved awareness and understanding of climate science was not developed by the people who benefited the most from fossil fuel burning wanting to understand if they should continue to try to benefit from the activity.
Pursuers of personal benefit are understandably reluctant to investigate the acceptability of the actions they hope to benefit from. That is primitive human nature.
Socially responsible modern humans be willing to pursue Good Reasons and strive to learn how to avoid harming others and try to effectively help others. They will try to understand what is going on without a bias for personal benefit.
Good scientists will be socially responsible by default. They will simply try to develop the best explanation and understanding of what is going on, regardless of the potential for personal benefits.
As mentioned in the OP, less responsible scientists will be able to make more money in ways other than altruistically performing Good Helpful Climate Science work. They can be observed to be the "spokes-people" favoured by less altruistically (more selfishly) motivated people (people in it for the personal benefit).
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:22 AM on 9 November 2018Climate change science comeback strategies: 'In it for the money'
I recommend a focus on John Cook's point about science (not just climate science). "... helping us build a safer, healthier world." That directly connects to the importance of achieving, and improving, all of the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly the Climate Action Goal since achieving that goal makes it easier to achieve the other goals.
I try to make the point that the purpose of science is to help by improving awareness and understanding of what is really going on. I also extend the point about helpfulness to applying that improved knowledge to act locally now (what everyone constantly does) to help sustainably improve, not harm, the future of humanity (local and global humanity, now and into the distant future). The SDGs are a good guide to helpful local actions.
That leads to understanding that all of that helpfulness is under the umbrella of Altruism. It leads to understanding that serious problems for humanity can develop if altruism does not govern the development of awareness and understanding and the application of that knowledge.
That leads to appreciating that there are many examples of things only getting better when altruism governs and limits human activity. There is a long and continuing history of pursuers of altruism having to step in to try to correct and clean up the damaging developments of less altruistic (more selfish) people. And their efforts can be seen to face powerful resistance to the understood required corrections (because what has developed is popular and profitable, and people do not like to be corrected regarding something they have developed a liking for).
The point is the importance of sustainable advancement of humanity produced by efforts to improve awareness and understanding of what is really going on, and applying that improved knowledge to act locally now (what everyone constantly does) to help sustainably improve, not harm, the future of humanity (local and global humanity, now and into the distant future).
And that argument then opens the discussion up to awareness and understanding of the unacceptability of 'other ways people try to personally benefit'. Which leads to the appreciation that free market capitalism really needs external governance to limit what develops. There will always be people trying to unjustifiably Win more personal benefit or perceptions of superiority. And getting away with behaving less acceptably can be a significant competitive advantage for as long as it can be gotten away with.
And the few climate scientists favoured by the likes of the fossil fuel cabal who make up poor excuses in an attempt to discredit the climate science consensus can clearly be understood to be more like 'those type of people - in it for the money or the unjustified personal impressions of superiority'.
I suggest the following pithy pitches, which apply to almost any important issue.
The Future of Humanity is in Question - Altruism is the Answer
Altruism! What is it Good For? - The Future of Humanity -
Evan at 00:04 AM on 9 November 2018Climate change science comeback strategies: 'In it for the money'
When people choose doctors they often talk about their experience, where they work (e.g., Mayo Clinic), how many of a particular type of operation they've done, etc. I don't ever remember somebody saying they would not trust a doctor because he/she was in it for the money.
Perhaps we should help people apply the same standard to choosing which scientists to trust.
-
WAS at 22:21 PM on 8 November 2018How (not) to talk about Climate Change
As this is your first post, Skeptical Science respectfully reminds you to please follow our comments policy. Thank You!
WAS at 12.14 8 November 2018
The problem with trying to persuade the right in politics about AGW is that they subscribe to a free market model as a fundamental truth and the free market is suposed to be self correcting. If AGW is correct then their model is manifestly mistaken. To accept AGW would mean they have to abandon a lifetimes philosophy. No wonder they are in denial. I fear that only the flooding of New York and London will change minds. Still we must keep trying and facts calmly stated and avoiding emotion and name calling are most likely over time to have an effect.
-
JARWillis at 19:29 PM on 8 November 2018How (not) to talk about Climate Change
I don't agree, Wol. Adult discussions are one approach, but they don't seem to be working, do they. Your better ideas are always welcome as well of course.
I've posted to Facebook and we'll (or rather I'll!) see if anyone responds.
-
joecjo at 18:02 PM on 8 November 2018Climate change and compassion fatigue
Thank you for expressing the feelings that I frequently experience in regards to Climate Change. The idea of keeping such feelings 'locked in a tiny box' resonated very much. When many years ago I first started learning about the potential ramifications for the future it felt completely overwhelming and I was occasionally so saddened by the science I would literally cry. I ended up researching the psychology of climate change and begun a journey of meditation which helped in many ways to come to peace within myself.
I would just comment that compassion fatigue is no longer the terminology used for those in helping professions. It's more nuanced name is empathic distress fatigue (oxfordscholarship.com). Withdrawal and burnout are related to empathy. Compassion is about cultivating the antidote to this (if interested in exploring).
My compassion for the needs of other beings insects, bees, birds, fish, animals has grown more and more because of the science that this website lays out. Each time I log on to Skeptical Science I make a point of noting the Hiroshima Atomic Bomb count. I feel dismay and sadness which makes me want to develop a compassionate response. The discomfort and the science is what sets my intention as I begin another day with the understanding that I have an opportunity try to walk lightly on this Earth. This is not that easy when the culture of waste and consumption surrounds. I cannot do big things but I just try to do something however small. I am not a climate scientist, I have no particular skills of repute, I am not in a position of great power and influence. But still I am walking to work today. I can do that.
John Cook started Skeptical Science which is extraordinary in a way because it educates and inspires change and takes very complicated scientific data and creating easy to use resources for ordinary people like me. Thank you to so many scientists who have contributed also and who I believe are helping to develop a more compassionate world.
-
nigelj at 16:21 PM on 8 November 2018Climate sensitivity uncertainties leading to more concern
And the problem with estimating climate sensitivity using the modern temperature observations since the 1980's - 2108, and subtracting the milankovitch cycle is the modern warming period is its just too short to be 100% certain, some feedbacks haven't fully developed, aerosols distort the record and effects are not 100% certain. But again it still points towards 3 degrees.
-
nigelj at 15:53 PM on 8 November 2018Climate sensitivity uncertainties leading to more concern
William @2, this is my understanding, although Im not a climate scientist.My understanding is climate scientists do look at paleo climate data to estimate climate sensitivity,comparing C02 and temperature and subtracting the effects of the milankovitch cycle, but I would guess the trouble is you also have past volcanic activity, sometimes at scale, and the energy output of the sun has changed on long term time scales. There are also limits in the fossil data they use.
Some of this stuff is not known with great reliability, so this might explain the quite wide range of climate sensitivities, even those from studies based largely on paleo climate data.
Although such data still suggests 3 degrees is the most likely sensivity, possibly more but not less. Personally I would put my money on the paleo climate data rather than other ways of estimating sensitivity.
Climate sensitivity can also be estimated with modelling and more recent observations. The following articles describes different ways used to calculate sensitivity: Explainer: How scientists estimate ‘climate sensitivity’
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:58 PM on 8 November 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #44
JayCharles,
The global surface temperature record is the 'Temperature Record' addressed by the SkS myth debunking item you refer to.
The ocean heat content is a related matter. However, any correction or new learning regarding ocean heat content would not change the global average surface temperature data.
I hope that helps you better uderstand this issue.
What is undeniably unethical is for a portion of any current generation of humanity to personally benefit from an unsustainable activity that undeniably harms others, particularly an activity that harms future generations (generations that will not be able to continue to benefit from the activity because it is unsustainable - the burning of buried ancient hydrocarbons has a finite future).
Gradually making the unacceptable activity more expensive, a progressively increased fee on the carbon, is actually a slower correction of the harmful activity than the future generations would prefer to see. It is an action that makes the harm to future gemerations larger than it would be if more aggressive corrective actions were implemented.
And the longer and slower the correction is, the more jarring a future desperate correction may need to be, with even more future harm done. Especially if global geo-engineering action is thought to be the way to address a future emergency that was avoidable, but was not avoided because so many people in the previous generations had developed a powerful greedy resistance to being corrected.
And the less fortunate do need to be helped, but excusing fossil fuel burning is not helpful.
Moderator Response:[DB] The poster you refer to is one of 3 dozen fake account sock puppets run by user "cosmoswarrior". No further responses to it are warranted, as it's sole purpose for existence is to waste the time of as many as possible, for as long as possible.
It's posting privileges have been revoked (like all that came before it), as will those of future similar, ignorant iterations.
-
JayCharles at 13:13 PM on 8 November 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #44
Well, Well! It seems that the SkS "myth" titled Temp record is unreliable is really not a myth at all according to the third paragraph which states:
In the scientific realm, the new findings help resolve long-running doubts about the rate of the warming of the oceans before 2007, when reliable measurements from devices called “Argo floats” were put to use worldwide. Before that, differing types of temperature records — and an overall lack of them — contributed to murkiness about how quickly the oceans were heating up.
So despite the fact since the 1980s, the AGW community has preached the importance of heeding the "experts" with their "overwhelming evidence" and 97% consensus about human-caused global warming, reliable temperature measurements did not exist before the year 2007. This is by their own statements and not those of the contrarions. Therefore, the science concerning climate change is not settled and it would be grossly unethical to impose more taxes and regulations on the citizens of any nation under the pretense of saving the planet from AGW. This is especially true considering the fact that despite all of this global warming, people in the northeastern and midwestern US have seen record low temperatures for the past three or four winters. They simply cannot afford another tax on top of their already high heating bills.
Moderator Response:[JH] Sloganeering snipped. By the way, the heat content of the ocean is an entirely different subject matter than the temperature of the atmosphere at the surface of the Earth. You can use this site's Climate Science Glossary to learn what each term means.
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.
-
nigelj at 05:48 AM on 8 November 2018Climate change science comeback strategies: 'In it for the money'
Good but too wordy and defensive. How about this:
The accusation is scientists are only in it for the money. Just reply "Of course scientists do their job for the money. Everyone needs to earn a living. Whats wrong with that?
Next accusation is they exaggerate the problem to get attention and research grants. No. Too much chance of being caught and humiliated by egotistical colleagues. Scientists play safe.
Another answer: Multiple studies and temperature data sets are used to help uncover mistakes and exaggerations. Science self regulates.
-
william5331 at 05:04 AM on 8 November 2018Climate sensitivity uncertainties leading to more concern
I can't get my head around this one. Is climate sensitivity determined by comparing the observed rise in temperature with the observed rise in Carbon dioxide. Should we be using the temperature rise above what it would have been if only the Milankovitch cycle has been in play??? Puzzled.
Moderator Response:[JH] The final paragraph of the OP contains the phrase "climate sensitivity". If you click on it you will see the oficial IPCC/WMO definition of climate sensitivity.
-
MA Rodger at 23:50 PM on 7 November 2018Greenland is gaining ice
Sarmata @23,
Your question is a little silly as there cannot be less ice if the analysis is conducted across "ice-free Greenland" and the annual average trend in Land Surface Temperature (LST) presented by Westergaard-Nielsen, et al (2018) is not "overall cooling" but overall warming through the period 1986-2016. The latter half of the period (2001-15) shows neither warming nor cooling at an annual level but does show a warming trend through summer (July) and a cooling trend through autumn (Sept-Dec), a situation which could still result in increased ice melt (if there were any ice to melt). The paper specifically proposes a link between the rate of ice-free Greenland LST warming and the Greenland Blocking Index (rather than the "cold blob" suggested by scaddenp @24).
-
scaddenp at 12:09 PM on 7 November 2018Greenland is gaining ice
The ice-free part of greenland is only the southern/south-western edge which happens to be on edge of the North Atlantic "cold-blob" (see here for maps and further discussion of cold-blob). On the other hand, the ice-covered part of Greenland continues to warm and shed ice. Your reference was about the observations on the ice-free part.
-
Wol at 09:30 AM on 7 November 2018How (not) to talk about Climate Change
I'm sorry, but I could only manage half that infantile video: it's heave-inducingly awful, and does a great disservice to those who accept the problem is real. I was expecting an adult discussion, not second form banter.
-
nigelj at 06:28 AM on 7 November 2018Climate impacts
More cases in point:
Economic models significantly underestimate climate change risks
We are almost certainly underestimating the economic risks of climate change
-
nigelj at 05:53 AM on 7 November 2018Climate sensitivity uncertainties leading to more concern
The evidence points towards medium to high climate sensitivity, and didn't the recent research paper finding increased ocean heat content also point to high climate sensitivity?
Yet the sceptical lobby are still claiming otherwise, and claiming no warming since 1998 (despite recent record temperatures since 2015 staring them in the face). It's beyond human comprehension.
-
nigelj at 05:06 AM on 7 November 2018How (not) to talk about Climate Change
citizenschallenge, nothing will change lindzens mind, he is a full time professional scientific crank. 10% of people still think tobacco is harmless. All we can do is try to convince normal people who might have some normal healthy scepticism.
-
citizenschallenge at 01:50 AM on 7 November 2018How (not) to talk about Climate Change
I'm curious how would one apply this method to counter the malicious science by slander and retortic that Dr. Richard Lindzen has been peddling with such success for decades now (though his general thesis hasn't changed one iota)?
-
Sarmata at 01:12 AM on 7 November 2018Major PAGES 2k Network Paper Confirms the Hockey Stick
THen why so many papers about so many places measurements shows no unusual warming or cooling?
Could you elaborate on that?
Moderator Response:[JH] Please read Those 80 graphs that got used for climate myths by Ari Jokimäki, Skeptical Science, July 11, 2018 and post any further comments on that thread. Generally speaking, No Tricks Zone is not considered to be a reliable source of quality scientific information.
[PS] On other hand, many readers were so confident of the misinformation being fed to them that they bet real money on temperatures not rising. That hasnt gone well so far.
-
Sarmata at 00:06 AM on 7 November 2018Greenland is gaining ice
Contrasting temperature trends across the ice-free part of Greenland (25 January 2018)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-19992-w
"less than 36% of the ice-free Greenland has experienced a significant trend and, if any, a cooling is observed during the last 15 years (<0.15 °C change per year)."
"Warming trends observed from 1986–2016 across the ice-free Greenland is mainly related to warming in the 1990’s. The most recent and detailed trends based on MODIS (2001–2015) shows contrasting trends across Greenland, and if any general trend it is mostly a cooling. The MODIS dataset provides a unique detailed picture of spatiotemporally distributed changes during the last 15 years."
So why is there less ice if it's overall cooling?
Is it because of algae and lowwer albedo? Any impact of delayed mechanisms, sea currents maybe?
-
MA Rodger at 22:10 PM on 6 November 2018CO2 limits will harm the economy
Sarmata @110,
You have evidently done a lot of reading, although I am pretty sure it is not a well-rounded reading list you present here (which your commenting at SkS recently also managed, here & here, although these earlier comments were questioning the references), and as such your references lead you to what are obviously poor conclusions .
Rather than address the various references you make, perhaps it would be best if you set out your own position on AGW mitigation (ie emissions reduction strategy).
You write "The asnwer is a gradual transition with replacing coal and oil with lowwer emission of CO2 with natural gas and in long term strategy building power plants..." these 'long-term power plants' being described as renewable, eco-friendly, economically viable and efficacious in every way.
So what do you consider to be the time-scales of this "gradual transition" and this "long term strategy"? I ask because the timliness of AGW mitigation is important. We cannot be shutting th stable door after the horse has bolted.
-
citizenschallenge at 10:46 AM on 6 November 2018Climate impacts
Case in point:
"We’re probably undervaluing healthy lakes and rivers
Economists often ignore the human health benefits of keeping water bodies clean"
BY LAUREL HAMERS, OCTOBER 14, 2018www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-public/were-probably-undervaluing-healthy-lakes-and-rivers
-
nigelj at 06:21 AM on 6 November 2018How (not) to talk about Climate Change
Something related: "Apocalyptic Climate Reporting Completely Misses the Point. Recent news commentary ignored the UN climate report’s cautiously optimistic findings."
The point the article makes is too much doom and gloom might be counter productive causing people to switch off. Not enough media attention is given to the considerable successes of renewable electricity generation for example and other opportunites to improve things.
However I think its important to still look at the climate problem and how serious it could be. Its probably a tricky balance of getting the message home that this climate thing is big, and with a very clear way out of the problem given equal media attention. You have to give people hope and a plan.
However worst case scenarios need an evidential basis. Like hothouse earth has a good evidential basis. When scientists make excessive, highly speculative apocalyptic claims I dont think that helps.
I think one of the biggest sticking points is people probably just can't get their head around how a degree or two is all that much of a problem. But the simple fact is a couple of degrees is capable of a climate shift of considerable proportions, more than that and the shift could be frightening. Everything changes, weather patterns the whole lot. Look at how the jet stream is already changing. This is a powerful influence on weather systems. I digress. Apologies.
-
Sarmata at 06:11 AM on 6 November 2018CO2 limits will harm the economy
"CO2 limits will harm the economy"
So you claim it doesn't harm economy? All ideas for shifting posted requires state interventionism, socialist taxation - all of them alone are harming economy.Taxes lowwers poor people income, consumption, bought production so less adaptable to changing climate. Tariffs damages (as we see now) competition on the market and so increasing local prices and lowwering local companies competitiveness on global market (and tariffs cause countertarrifs). Only competition and free market builds growth.
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/2/334
"our estimates reveal that these countries also experienced an average reduction in GDP per capita growth rates of around 1–2 percentage points relative to non-Annex I countries."
1-2% GDP is a hell lot of growth slowing both economical and technological development.
Germany is the best example of how emissions trade and radical transition into renewable energy based economy ends with failure
a) not meeting lowwer CO2 goals b) breaking ecological standards, taking space, reshaping terrain in ugly way, damaging ecosystems and animals c) adding new costs for citizens and so taxes, failing in sustaining stable electricity supply when it's needed
a) https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-germany-emissions/
b) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/08/26/red-light-spells-danger-bats-near-wind-turbines/
https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/eek-squad/wind-turbines-kill-more-600000-bats-year-what-should-we-do#page-3"by 2030. It will, however, also have varied effects on the macroeconomy, with GDP losses of 1.54% to 2.5%"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0973082618304101Increase in food prices
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421517306341
But the real problem is not in lowwering CO2 emissions - which can't as any radical transition of economy not come with a big costs. It is these socialist antifreemarket policies that comes with it in package and lack of economical realism brings bigger costs for economy, especially for economies based on fossil fuels. In Europe emissions trade was a political tool of decreasing competitiveness of Eastern Europe which was already burdened with hard adaptation to new reality after fall of communism and prices of electricity are surging there. This was a taxation of Emerging Markets by Developed Markets.
So please don't fool people with 0 costs retoric. You probably already can see these costs in everyday bills in grocery store, taxes and electricity bill.
The asnwer is a gradual transition with replacing coal and oil with lowwer emission of CO2 with natural gas and in long term strategy building power plants which: a) provides ecological, sustainable 24h a day, cost-effective, competitive energy, friendly for economy, b) doesn't require great interference in environment and ecosystems, doesn't harm animals, or placed close to houses doesn't affect human health c) and so creates a real acceptance for such a transition without polarising society and risking the backfiring effect like in USA.
Climate might be on the edge of collapse in future but the global economy after years of such irresponsible anticapitalist, economically ineffective and to radical policies is on the edge of collapse already (what similar central planning showed earlier in Soviet Union and as similar will be seen in China also ). EU the vanguard of this revolution is the best example of how patetic effects it has. Japan still uses nuclear power and it's the only way they could keep CO2 reduction course, otherwise would be economically forced to reversing progress.
And also why nobody speaks about adding reforestation programs? Every country could meet CO2 reduction goals by increasing it's capacity to bind CO2 from air in plants and rebuilding it's old ecosystems and wildlife (also adding renewable resources as wood). And FYI there are other alternative technologies like controlled coal burning underground - what makes CO2 filtering, storage easy and cuts any pollution to zero.
Moderator Response:[PS] Please read and comply with the comments policy, this is not the place for political sloganeering. Labelling something that Milton Friedman would agree with as "socialist" is not conducive to constructive discussion. Data demonstrating that revenue-neutral fee-and-dividend is harmful would be more welcome. "nobody talks about reafforestation" is a strawman - it is key part of many countries Paris plans and gets a whole chapter in IPCC WG3 report, including the limits. Leave the rhetoric behind if you are going to post here.
-
nigelj at 05:19 AM on 6 November 2018How (not) to talk about Climate Change
Yes ok good, sound advice, but some real gaps of understanding as well. So the question is why is it hard to discuss climate change? One of the biggest impediments is it has become politicised and a sign of tribal identification, and theres an old saying "you dont discuss politics and religion in polite company". Things can get very bitter. Sport is safer ground so people avoid discussing the climate issue.
Climate change science is identified with the liberal tribe (ridiculous though this is) and the conservative tribe has adopted a negative view of climate change as a weapon of political combat and a core tenet.
However I think it has to be discussed anyway and de politicised somehow. I think rather than preach, ask people what they think of the climate change issue and keep discussion light and humorous. Don't get angry if people raise badly informed arguments. Keep it intelligent, free and easy like a student discussion between equals. Of course it all depends on the nature of the group and the context.
This article is good: How the science of persuasion could change the politics of climate change. It gets into how the issue has become politically tribal, and some potential solutions to this.
Personally I think theres also potential in focussing more on solutions to the climate problem and their advantages in addition to the science. This helps depoliticise the issue to some degree.
Facts are obviously important in convincing people, but facts alone are insufficient. We know this. We know some people simply don't connect with facts and data or dismiss them as lies or politically tainted. Facts can also be a bit dry for some people.
You need to put discussion in a human interest setting and a personal setting and connect with emotions. This is basic communications skills. Emotions and human interest can be convincing, just look how politicians use them in argument. The thing is emotional argument can be over done so some care is needed. Avoid the manipulative, preachy and guilt inducing rhetoric.
Its "horses for courses". Its not "either or". Personally I connect better with facts and data but not everyone is like that. I feel good discussion and books on climate change would probably benefit from a mix of facts, graphs, emotion, personal stories and human interest perspectives. But this mix is rare in my experience.
-
william5331 at 04:32 AM on 6 November 2018Canada passed a carbon tax that will give most Canadians more money
The level of the carbon tax is far less important than the fact that it increases each year by some predetermined formula. Trudeau could have started with a far lower tax but with an arithmetic (X1,2,3,4...) or geometric (X1,2,4,8,16....) formula for increasing the amount year by year. It is sad that he put a cap on the maximum amount. An open ended price would have sent investors scrambling to get out of carbon based fuel and into renewables befor they lost their shirts. It would have happened long before it was strictly economically necessary.
-
MA Rodger at 00:07 AM on 6 November 2018IPCC overestimate temperature rise
Samata @65,
The Monckton YouTube video you link to appears to be the 'work' presented in Monckton et al (Unpublished) which remains unpublised because it is total nonsense. You ask for the mathematical errors. There may be many but the central problem Monckton has is his insistence that climate sensitivity can be calculated on the back of a fag packet in the following manner:-
If the black body temperature of a zero GHG Earth is 255K and there is, according to Monckton, enough forcing pre-industrial to add 8K to that temperature directly from those forcings (giving a temperature without feedback of 263K), then if the actual pre-industrial temperature with feedbacks is 287K, the feedback mechanisms have raised the temperature by 24K. Monckton then calculates the strength of these feedbacks as a portion of the full non-feedback temperature (287/263-1) = 0.09. [This, of course, is a big big error.] Thus ECS(Monckton)= 1.1K x 1.09 = 1.2K.
(See Monckton's explanation of his basic method at Roy Spencer's, a climate denier who refutes Monckton's methods).
The big big error is in attributing pro-rata feedback to all the black body warming. It is also an error to run with these back-of-fag-packet calculations all the way to zero LL-GHG (what Monckton calls NOGS) but not as dreadful a mistake as using them pro rata all the way down to absolute zero.
His back-of-fag-packet calculation should be saying that 8K LL GHG-forced warming results in 33K of warming at equilibrium, thus ECS = 1.1K x 33/8 = 4.5K, a value that is high but not entirely implausable.
A more sensible analysis would not consider that ECS is a constant value over such large temperature ranges. And there will be feedback mechanisms operating without LL GHGs being present. But they will bear no resemblance to the feedback mechanisms facing a world at 288K.
-
nigelj at 11:24 AM on 5 November 2018Climate impacts
The Washington Post: Article on food scarcity in general and it's history of causing armed conflicts and riots, and examples of recent impacts of climate change on the issues.
-
MA Rodger at 09:29 AM on 5 November 2018Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
Sarmata @265,
His (that is one Harry Dale Huffman) claim is that "Venus's atmosphere DOES absorb 1.91 times the power that Earth's atmosphere does" only holds if the reflectiveness of Earth & Venus are identical. The webpage does in an up-date acknowledge reflectiveness (albedo) and sets out to correct for it but makes the mistake of assessing albedo as being "the same fraction (f)" on both Venus & Earth. Yet they are not even similar as this NASA Fact Sheet shows. Venus receives 2601.3Wm^-2 solar radiation and Earth 1361.0Wm^-2, a ratio of 1.91-times. But the albedo's are vastly different, Venus 0.77 and Earth 0.306. This means the absorbed solar radiation is 601Wm^-2 on Venus and 948Wm^-2 on Earth (these values over the disc of the planet). The true ratio is thus not 1.91-times but 0.63.
And the fancy use of the 1.91 ratio (which is wrong so has no merit) only works over the Earth's troposphere and a portion of the Venus atmosphere. If it were some grand theory, you would expect it to work throughout these atmospheres and indeed throughout all atmospheres. So Jupiter the Harry Dale Huffman theory would give a 1bar atmospheric temperature on Jupiter of 55K (that's ignoring albedo which is similar to Earth's) and not the measured 168K.
-
michael sweet at 09:28 AM on 5 November 2018Climate impacts
Ttauri,
As I pointed out, one of the principle causes of the Syrian war was climate change.
Wholesale distruction like this is caused by declines in food production. Over 1 million refugees headed to Europe. Climate change is causing much of the migration to the USA from Central America. A small decline in food production can cause hundreds of millions of deaths.
If you think that is no big deal OK. I think that will be a problem.
-
Sarmata at 08:04 AM on 5 November 2018IPCC overestimate temperature rise
What about how he debunks this equation here:
"Monckton's Mathematical Proof - Climate Sensitivity is Low"
What errors does he do in this math there?
-
citizenschallenge at 04:35 AM on 5 November 2018Climate impacts
The author summarizes what some think: "One possibility is that the global economic impact will indeed be relatively small, even if the climatic and ecological changes are large.”
How’s that work? Our economy isn’t created by spreadsheets and computer algorithms fine tuned to profit making. It’s a vast interdependent network fueled by exploiting and consuming Earth’s valuable resources, this includes farmland, forests, fishing.
I don’t think economists recognize the Earth has entered a one way climate regime shift.
The course of the near future is determined and it’s a game of global Weather Roulette. Increasingly extreme and destructive weather events will happen. Where they strike is the Global Economic wild card, location, location, location.
Seems that all too few recognize the depth of the complexity and interdependencies, nor vast variety of cascading consequences of AGW will inevitably trigger. Economy needs energy, energy production needs cooling water, river water or coastal ocean water. River waters are warming, rivers are drying, sea water is warming and sea levels are rising, increasingly intense storm surges and flooding are to be expected.
Healthy global agriculture, communication and transportation networks likewise are absolutely dependent on relatively moderate and predictable weather patterns for any number of reasons - yet most seem to have no appreciation for the myriad of interdependent linkages. Worst, seems most couldn't care less.
-
Sarmata at 03:42 AM on 5 November 2018Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
Hello there :) Does it also debunk this theory here? It also take into account pressure and distances ratio beetween sun and venus, earth, also claiming no greenhouse effects.
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
His claims "Venus's atmosphere DOES absorb 1.91 times the power that Earth's atmosphere does, as their temperature ratio shows--and that ratio is precisely that predicted simply from the ratio of their distances from the Sun"
I'm really curious about your opinion. Is there an error in his math?
PS I suppose this is the right place to ask this question if not direct me to the proper one please.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 12:46 PM on 4 November 2018Climate impacts
"A few percent"? As if that wasn't a big deal ?!!!!??
If that is anything between 2 and 6, it's going to plunge the majority of Western countries in stagnation or steep recession. How is that not a problem? And we're not even taling about the rest of the World.
-
nigelj at 08:10 AM on 4 November 2018Climate impacts
Amplifying a couple of points. The article says that economists estimate climate change will reduce economic output "by a few percent" implying costs are low. If only this were true, but is it?
In fact some reports find about 3% or so, The Stern Report thinks 5%, but if a wide range of impacts is included it says it would be 20% of gdp. This is not small. Its is not rhetoric or sloganeering.
For some background information: The Stern report is on wikipedia, and an article " economic impacts of climate change " is on wikipedia and it is written around what the research has found.
The problem is threefold. Firstly economists have a terrible record of prediction of future economic scenarios in general. They are "data driven" but tend to understimate problems and over estimate growth scenarios. This suggests on balance that their projections of changes to total economic output, ie costs are likely to be innacurate, and likely to be underestimates. This is not rhetoric or sloganeering. Their poor record is well documented.
Secondly yes I take the point that things have to be "data driven" but it depends on what data they are looking at, so their range of focus. As the article states changes to economic growth are generally ignored in many studies, and there's evidence from various reports that climate change will decrease growth on balance. It also appears from the wikipedia article that the problems and costs of sea level rise and migration, refugees and potential conflict are largely ignored (as I suggested in comment 1). This casts doubt on the usefulness of economic studies.
Once you get above 3 degrees heatwave problems become intense something not terrribly well captured by the economic studies from what I have read.
In other words the economic studies tend to focus only on hard data that is very certain, and for very modest warming scenarios, and ignore the difficult stuff, yet that difficult stuff looks to be a huge potential component with few upsides.
Three, estimating climate impact costs is difficult because of uncertainties.
Another problem is the use of economic output as a metric. This measures repair costs as economic output, so disguises an obvious problem that we are repairing things, not moving forwards in a useful way.
The economic studies find interesting things on agriculture and wildly different results, but on balance most studies do find a negative effect but with huge regional variations with lower latitudes generally harder hit as pointed out by commentators. But the IPCC still finds a problem in Europe at just 2 degrees. This would be greater at higher levels of warming from what I have read. Even a moderate sized problem in Europe would just so obviously have significant effects not easily captured in typical economic analysis. It will certainly hurt poor people who spend a lot of their available income on food. It doesnt take much to tilt economies into recessions and crashes.
It appears climate change could well cause economic growth to slow from various studies. But this growth is slowing anyway. Anyone that thinks robust economic growth going forwards will continue and save us from the costs of climate change is frankly delusional, because none of the data suggests we can maintain high rates of economic growth in the future.
And thirdly to reiterate a couple of points. Economic output does not capture anything like the full effects of climate change on human beings and ecosystems and plenty of evidence and data suggests huge problems.
-
TTauriStellarBody at 06:37 AM on 4 November 2018Climate impacts
So this
"B5.3. Limiting warming to 1.5°C, compared with 2ºC, is projected to result in smaller net reductions in yields of maize, rice, wheat, and potentially other cereal crops, particularly in subSaharan Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central and South America"
Is your justification for this:
"If agriculture were to collapse that would not mean the GDP would drop 2%"
You are saying a drop in yeilds is a collapse in agriculture.
We know the low latitudes will be disproportionately hit. But we also know that the mid lattiudes are where the bulk of the worlds GDP is generated.
The opening post asks why is it that GDP seems to be so slightly affected by 1.5C and 2C. Once we get beyond the sloganeering and rhetoric few seem to have built cases on data.
-
michael sweet at 04:14 AM on 4 November 2018Climate impacts
TTauri,
From your link to IPCC-SR15:
"B5.3. Limiting warming to 1.5°C, compared with 2ºC, is projected to result in smaller net reductions in yields of maize, rice, wheat, and potentially other cereal crops, particularly in subSaharan
Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central and South America; and in the CO2 dependent, nutritional quality of rice and wheat (high confidence). Reductions in projected food availability are
larger at 2ºC than at 1.5°C of global warming in the Sahel, southern Africa, the Mediterranean, central Europe, and the Amazon (medium confidence). Livestock are projected to be adversely
affected with rising temperatures, depending on the extent of changes in feed quality, spread of diseases, and water resource availability (high confidence). {3.4.6, 3.5.4, 3.5.5, Box 3.1, CrossChapter Box 6 in Chapter 3, Cross-Chapter Box 9 in Chapter 4}" my emphasis.I already mentioned revolutions partly caused by failure of the wheat harvest in Russa. The Syrian war was caused by agricultural failure due to unprecented AGW linked drought. In locations like Egypt where many people live on $2 per day and buy all their food, a small increase in the price of food results in severe problems.
Your post seemed to suggest a maximum decline in GDP from severe agricultural effects of a few percent. I wanted to point out that agricultural effects can be much larger than the current percent of GDP. People require food. Currently in developed countries food is cheap. If agriculture strains cause food shortages the price will rapidly increase. AGW related drought in Texas a few years ago killed 20% of cattle. Several years of that would cause an increase in food costs.
I am not sure what you want from me with respect to the OP. Your question is not clear to me.
I have seen economic forecasts that sugest minor changes from AGW when climate forecasts include large land areas being rendered too hot for humans to live there any longer. The economic forecasts cannot consider the climate forecasts in detail.
-
Xulonn at 02:05 AM on 4 November 2018Climate impacts
Predicting a "sea change" in complex, chaotic systems like climate and economics is extremely difficult, and disastrous change can occur much more quickly than most people realize. I do, however, agree with others in this conversation that the science of climate research is on much more solid footing than that of modern economics.
I remember reading many years ago about someone who challenged an American meteorologist (weatherman?) on next-day forecasting. By simply predicting every next day to have the same weather as the current day, he won - because the meteorological predictions of change in the day were so inaccurate. That matches my feelinga about our current global capitalist system - as long as governments cater to the ultra wealthy and corporate sectors, they believe that the good times and exponential growth can go on forever.
Another factor in overly rosy economic predictions is that people don't want to hear bad news about the future. Often, any predicted change in a negative direction that does not come to fruition leads to people no longer believing the source -unless you are Donald Trump. The U.S. president is a master at telling his fans just what they want to hear - and it is almost always based on falsehoods and inaccuracies. Even when his words are immediately debunked, his fans refuse to accept the truth. Following this surrealistic phenomenon leads me to believe that a similar psychology leads to the stubborn denialism that refuses to accept the reality of the looming disasters that will be precipitated by AGW/CC.
Economists do the same thing as Trump without overtly lying, but simply refuse to consider and include all of the obvious possibilities and their liklihoods in their calculations. Their theories, hyphtheses, and calculations may be mathematical marvels, but the "garbage in garbage out" maxim applies here.
Reading this post and its replies prompted me to go to Google to look for "economic prediction failures" - and I was a bit surprised at how the first page of results was filled with exactly what I was looking for. It looks like I've found some very interesting information to peruse over the next few days.
I see two possibilities for the next few decades - either modern civilization and its global economy will hit a wall - or drive over a cliff. And either one will likely be at full speed with "the pedal to the metal."
At age 76, I probably will not be around to see it. Many of my contemporaries are already gone, and unlike me, did not live long enough to see even the real beginning of the global "tragedy of the commons" surfacing so obviously. The current path of modern technological civilization will likely lead to its end. The focus on "saving the earth" was completely wrong. The earth will survive and life will continue to evolve - just not in the way we humans with out collective monumental hubris expected.
-
Eclectic at 19:24 PM on 3 November 2018Climate's changed before
Waterguy13 @ #614 ,
What source do you base your comment on? The earlier mainstream climate models have done a fairly good job with their projections during the past 30 years or so. They can be criticized for minor inaccuracy, in that they A) somewhat overestimated the tropical mid-trospheric "hot spot" , and B) underestimated arctic warming, and C) underestimated sealevel rise.
But on the whole, they have done quite well. In comparison, Dr Lindzen's model has done appallingly badly [he predicted cooling!] . . . and Lindzen still has difficulty acknowledging the reality of the actual ongoing global warming.
Waterguy13 , you very much need to explain your strange comment.
Prev 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 Next
