Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 Next
Comments 13351 to 13400:
-
MA Rodger at 19:26 PM on 28 January 2019It's the sun
Philippe Chantreau @1259,
The 'hypothesis' is a little off-stage so not directly linked to climate change, instead appearing within the general conspiracy-theory community. See here or here.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 10:32 AM on 28 January 2019It's the sun
SOurce's acknowledgment at 1258 is highly commendable. I am tempted to ask: where did this hypothesis of an abrupt and large change in the Sun's photosphere temperature initially come from?
-
S0urce at 04:42 AM on 28 January 2019It's the sun
michael sweet @ 1256, MA Rodger @1257
Thank you for the answer and linked sources. I've to agree that the scientific evidence is quite conclusive, and that my theory of a color/classification change from yellowish to pale-white metallic or G2 to F-9 doesn't seem to hold.
Moderator Response:[PS] And thank you too for your contribution. Constructive debate happens best when both sides acknowledge errors and misunderstandings, and clearly indicate what they agree with in an opposing argument and what they continue to disagree with.
-
MA Rodger at 22:41 PM on 27 January 2019It's the sun
S0urce @1255,
You are, I feel, asking for a scientific reference which specifically says the colour of the Sun is changed or unchanged since 1975. If there has been no such colour change, there is hardily likely to be such a reference.
The NASA Factsheet for the Sun describes its Specral Type as G2V. We can assume this is the current classification, the Factsheet having been last updated February 2018. The Specral Type of a star is defined by its temperature G2. The roman numeral V defines its luminocity (or size). Indeed, The Spectral Type G2V is a direct indicator of a star's colour as it can be determined from ratio of the star's radation flux of in the visible wavebands 500-600nm and 390-490nm, yielding a value (B-V).
You are asserting up-thread that the Sun's temperature has risen and that it sould now be classified as F9V. The NASA Factsheet says otherwise.
And the Sun's Spectral Type was G2V according to Gray (1992) 'The Inferred Color Index of the Sun' and if that is not early enough for you, Gray (1992) cites Morgan & Keenan (1973) 'Spectral Classification' who also give the Sun's Spectral Type as G2V.
This scientific evidence, I would suggest, is quite conclusive.
-
michael sweet at 11:52 AM on 27 January 2019It's the sun
Sourcer,
As MA Rodger pointed out to you here, the energy emitted by the Sun has remained in the range 1360-1364 W/m2 since 1975 (longer records are available). If the temperature of the Sun changed than the energy received on Earth would change. Ergo the temperature of the Sun has remained constant since 1975 (and actually longer than that).
-
nigelj at 09:55 AM on 27 January 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #4
Arnold Schwarzenegger: Why Trump is 'wrong' on climate change
Arnie makes several good points in this article like this one: "The world leaders need to take it seriously and put a time clock on it and say, 'OK, within the next five years we want to accomplish a certain kind of a goal,' rather than push it off until 2035."
Maybe he has come back from the future to warn us...
-
Skeptical Wombat at 08:56 AM on 27 January 2019Two Centuries of Climate Science: part one - Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930
Sorry that should be Eunice Foote.
-
RedBaron at 06:54 AM on 27 January 2019Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming
@26 Barbara,
It's easy to see that the Lancet links you posted contains papers that show a completely naive and unrealistic understanding of agriculture and the primary food systems of the planet.
It's full of doctors trying to explain to farmers why their food is unhealthy and it is pretty ridiculous actually.
Just for an example[1]:
"(1)
Seek international and national commitment to shift towards healthy diets. The scientific targets set by this Commission provide guidance for the necessary shift, which consists of increasing consumption of plant-based foods and substantially reducing consumption of animal source foods. Research has shown that this shift will reduce environmental effects and improve health outcomes. This concerted commitment can be achieved by investment in public health information and sustainability education, and improved coordination between departments of health and environment.
(2)
Re-orient agricultural priorities from producing high quantities of food to producing healthy food. Production should focus on a diverse range of nutritious foods from biodiversity-enhancing food production systems rather than increased volume of a few crops, most of which are used for animal production."So here they are with the very laudable goal of improving agriculture, but then emediately hamstringing any effort to restore agricultural land by requiring a reduction of animal agriculture. You can't accomplish goal 2 by following goal 1. It sabotages any attempt to actually improve agriculture to sustainable systems.
Agriculture became unhealthy and unsustainable when the animals were removed from the farm and started being raised in CAFOs and feedlots instead. The land degrades because animal impact is replaced with chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Reducing animals even more is not the solution. The solution is returning the animals to the land where they belong.
(3) ...This change would entail reducing yield gaps on cropland, radical improvements in the efficiency of fertiliser and water use, recycling phosphorus, redistributing global use of nitrogen and phosphorus, implementing climate mitigation options, including changes in crop and feed management, and enhancing biodiversity within agricultural systems.
As you can see this fundamental lack of understanding continues in 3 as well. All of the goals presented being far more efficiently attained by animals rather than inorganic chemicals. Which also results in both yield increases and quality increases.
4 has parts equally as bad.
management policies aimed at restoring and re-foresting degraded land
Ignoring the fact that animals are critical in restoring land. This failure to understand biological systems and the requirement for animal impact to restore degraded land is why we have such disasters like the California and Oregon forest fires. It's poor management designed by people who have no idea what they are talking about, and yet they want "strong governmental control"...exactly what caused such disasters to begin with.
I could go on an on, but to summarize:
We can all agree the current system is set up for failure and an important part of the causes of AGW. However, the solutions presented are not a solution at all. In some ways making it even worse.
-
S0urce at 06:48 AM on 27 January 2019It's the sun
michael sweet @1253
In my defence, the photograph(s) were used in the scientific litterature back in the 80's, and I'm pretty sure they were taken out in space. What I am looking for is the color index of the Sun from pre-80's till today, then I would give up the theory. -
nigelj at 06:27 AM on 27 January 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #4
And yes we have to be aware of the link between sugars and carbs and type 2 diabetes, but this could be mitigated by keeping total calorie intake within sensible levels. Asians have quite a high carb diet, but low diabetes, probably because the total calories are moderate.
We could also maximise eating plant based proteins and fibre, so carbs aren't too high.
-
nigelj at 06:16 AM on 27 January 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #4
Regarding "The Way We Eat..." I love a fried or grilled steak sometimes, but I feel there are numerous reasons to go moderate with meat consumption, and I feel this confluence of factors should be what guides our thinking. The sum total of factors is compelling to me. The reasons include more efficient use of scarce land resources, less cancer risk, less heart disease risk, less animal cruelty, possible longer life span, less methane emissions and other factors.
And there is no obvious downside to lower meat consumption, ie it doesnt appear to cause harm.
Mediterranean and Japanese diets are lower in meat than Americans diet and they live longer and have lower obesity and diabetes etc. Of course like the article says, its really hard sorting out cause and effect, but perhaps the point is a low meat diet is not obviously hurting Mediterranean people, and is "very likely" helping them.
We have to make choices , and all we have is the best science available. We may never have perfect sicience, but science is infinitely preferable to gut instincts, unqualified self appointed diet "experts", astrology etc.
Look at the issue another way. Is there any compound in meat and fish that is important to health that we cannot get from plants? Not that I can see. We know there are plants rich in protein, iron can be obtained from certain plants or even mineral supplements, various plant based oils contain saturated fats (necessary to metabolise certain vitamins).
We know vegetarians live longer than meat eaters from numerous studies. Of course this might be because they exercise more, but the point is the plant based diet is not obviously hurting them in some way.
I'm not promoting vegetarianism as such. The new research suggests no more than 600 g of meat and fish combined per week. I eat about 1100 grams of meat and fish combined a week. I could do 800 g I think.
The high meat / saturated fat diets like The Atkins Diet rely on the ketosis theory of losing weight. Ok this appears to be solid science, but other science indicates people find it really hard to stay with the Atkins style of diet long term.
The losing weight issue is different anyway form the healthy diet issue (although they overlap). A really effective diet that helps people keep weight off long term remains elusive, especially if you are very overweight. The body resets permanently at increased appetite levels. I see a lot more stomach stapling operations.
-
Barbara at 05:52 AM on 27 January 2019Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming
Since there is a very much new analysis of the impact of meat eating and dietary choices on global warming perhpas you should update this section: see Lancet https://www.thelancet.com/commissions/EAT Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems
-
sdinardo at 05:31 AM on 27 January 2019SkS Analogy 17 - Lotteries, evaporation, and superstorms
As this is your first post, Skeptical Science respectfully reminds you to please follow our comments policy. Thank You!
William @4: a typo. 5.4 / 0.8 = 6.75 kg of ice.
-
MA Rodger at 01:50 AM on 27 January 2019It's the sun
michael sweet @1253,
As you say, the Sun's colour is dependent on what you are looking through to see it. Out in space, where there is nothing in the way, the Sun appears white as the red and blue parts of the spectrum cancel each other out. This German graphic shows how more of the blue part of the visible spectrum is lost in the clear atmosphere, causing the yellowish colour.
-
Evan at 23:58 PM on 26 January 2019SkS Analogy 17 - Lotteries, evaporation, and superstorms
Thanks for the feedback William. It's nice to know when analogies do/don't click. And your point about the melting of ice from condensation is important because these are the effects that people often don't think about, but which have large consequences. As you implicitly point out, it's not all about whether or not temperatures are going up.
Thanks for the video link SirCharles.
-
michael sweet at 23:43 PM on 26 January 2019It's the sun
Source,
An interesting question to post on a scientific blog. Which is more accurate:
1) Carefully calibrated scientific instruments operated by highly trained specialists over a period of decades or
2) Untrained novices eyeballing 40 year old photographs taken at unknown locations and atmospheric conditions and comparing them to what they see on a randomly selected day outside their home.
I will note that at my home the color of the sun is different at noon than it is at sunset and differs depending on the clouds and air pollution in the sky at the time of observation.
I think the readers here at SkS will be able to reach their own conclusions.
-
S0urce at 21:43 PM on 26 January 2019It's the sun
This is a response to MA Rodger's answer in the Other Planets are Warming.
I failed to finish the comment @1251, but the reason why I found the argument interesting is because everyone can in an easy way, and with rather simplistic material, prove for themselves that the Sun has in a 40 year period gone from being "yellowish" to a pale-white metallic color. This change in color represent a change in temperatur which we can call X. If the data doesn't show X change in temperatur during this period; is the data wrong or is the empiricall method used missleading?
-
william5331 at 17:11 PM on 26 January 2019SkS Analogy 17 - Lotteries, evaporation, and superstorms
That was about the neatest description of evaporation and its consequenses I have read. Very nice. Note that latent heat from ice to water is only enough to raise the same amount of water from zero to 800C. Consequence..... If warm moist air flows accross Greenland, each kg of water that condenses out of the air releases enough heat to melt 5.4/8 = 6.75kg of ice. Makes you think.
-
Skeptical Wombat at 12:46 PM on 26 January 2019Two Centuries of Climate Science: part one - Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930
It turns out that Eunice Brooks identified the importance of Carbon Dioxide three years prior to Tyndal -See Circumstances Affecting the Heat of the Sun's Rays.
Unfortunately Brooks did not have Tyndal's flair for self promotion so her contribution has lain unnoticed until it was recently discovered by Raymond Sorenson.
-
John Hartz at 03:41 AM on 26 January 2019Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
Norm Rubin:
Hot off the press:
4 Climate-Influenced Disasters Cost the U.S. $53 Billion in 2018 by Daniel Cusick, E&E News/Scientific American, Jan 23, 2019
-
SirCharles at 23:47 PM on 25 January 2019SkS Analogy 17 - Lotteries, evaporation, and superstorms
Dr. James Hansen: Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise and Superstorms Video Abstract
-
MA Rodger at 19:53 PM on 25 January 2019Other planets are warming
S0urce @53,
There is usually no dispute that the strength of the Sun has increased over the eons. (So says the Standard Solar Model although the 'weak early sun paradox' does occasionally throw up some contradictary ideas, eg Graedel et al 1991). Yet an increase of 200K in the Sun's temperature over periods of a century or even centuries is in a different league. A rise in temperature from 5800K to 6000K (with theSun unchanged in size) would result in a 14% increase in solar radiation, boosting Earth's insolation from 1366Wm^-2 to 1442Wm^-2. Solar insolation has been accurately measured for 40 years with no sign of such a rise.
And actually, we wouldn't have required such measurements to notice an increase of that size. A rise of 200K in the Sun's temperature would have applied a ~12Wm^-2 forcing to Earth's climate, enough to boost Earth's global temperature by ~10ºC, a bit of a game changer if it happened over a period of a century or so.Moderator Response:[TD] I deleted S0urce's duplicate post in this thread. See the copy s/he posted in It's the Sun.
-
S0urce at 18:37 PM on 25 January 2019It's the sun
The Sun was classified as a G2V main sequence Yellow dwarf star, and oddly it still is. But the fact is it no longer is a yellow star, it's a white star. The once yellowish sun is now a brilliant metallic white, as result of an increase in the average temperature of the photo sphere of approximately 200 degrees kelvin.
It is possible to actually prove this increase in temperature to yourself.
The only equipment and materials you need are an astrophysical publication in book form that predates 1980 and gives the photosphere temperature and classification of the Sun , a camera, and a color/temperature star classification chart . All publications no matter where they originate that predate 1980 will say the Sun is a G2V main sequence yellow dwarf star. with a photosphere temperature of 5600-5750 Kelvin. It will also describe the visible overall appearance of the Sun as "pale yellow", which correlates with that temperature color -wise. There may be an image showing you how the Sun appears, usually just a circle of pale yellow. If you reference a star color /temperature chart you will find this to be true, that 5750 correlates with a pale yellow star.. The Sun as a G2 star was on the upper end of the "yellow" classification, but as it gained 200degrees K to 6000K , it's classification changed from G2 to F-9, which is on the lower end of the "white" star classification temperature and color.Moderator Response:[TD] See MA Rodger's response comment in the Other Planets are Warming thread. Everybody please post further responses here in this It's the Sun thread.
-
scaddenp at 11:41 AM on 25 January 2019Record high snow cover was set in winter 2008/2009
I think Molsen is wanting to pick a shorter time period to make his point (ie cherry pick). When you have a noisy time series (like this one), you dont get to pick arbitary periods (see "the escalator" in right hand column). The amount of variance in the data determines how many points in the time series are needed to determine a significant trend. Climate is defined as 30 year average of weather for a good reason.
-
Daniel Bailey at 11:27 AM on 25 January 2019Record high snow cover was set in winter 2008/2009
That graphic already incorporates 2018 data.
-
Molsen at 11:02 AM on 25 January 2019Record high snow cover was set in winter 2008/2009
Daniel Bailey, if instead of using the trend line that incorporates 2010 data, you use the trend line that incorporates 2018 data, you will see that it has shifted up slightly.
PS, you're right — the answer should be updated to reflect new data. The existing data is misleading.
-
RickG at 10:30 AM on 25 January 2019Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
@bArt 334. "The reason I choose to remain an AGW skeptic at this time is because a series of unscientific but still logical and true facts bring me there by deduction (which is all that readings and models happen to do also)."
I disagree, unscientific is not logical. There is a reason more than 97% of mainstream science says AGW is not only real but a serious problem. And there is absolutely no doubt that the increased CO2 and warming is anthropogenic. Its plain straight forward chemistry shown through carbon isotopes. No ifs, ands, or buts.
-
scaddenp at 06:24 AM on 25 January 2019Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
bArt - your point 4/ raises interesting question. How do you really go about about evaluating an issue. There is a lot about critical thinking versus motivated reasoning here.
One good starting point is to decide what evidence would make you change your mind (and please dont insist on nature doing something that climate science says cant happen like monotonic temperature rise).
You might ask, what would it take for me to decide AGW is wrong and I think this post outlines at the bottom what discoveries would certainly cause me to change my mind.
-
Evan at 06:01 AM on 25 January 2019SkS Analogy 17 - Lotteries, evaporation, and superstorms
nigelj@1 Yes, evaporative coolers are a good example. When I was young we did not have air conditioning in our car. When travellig in the desert we put wet washclothes on our forehead to cool ourselves down. Same principle as an evaporative cooler.
Although evaporation only occurs above 0C, below that temperature the process is fundamentally the same, except it is called sublimation and not evaporation because frozen water is moving to the vapor phase. I enjoy watching a small pile of snow inside our shed in Minnesota slowly disappear in the middle of winter.
-
nigelj at 05:45 AM on 25 January 2019SkS Analogy 17 - Lotteries, evaporation, and superstorms
Very catchy, informative and entertaining analogy. I found myself trying to remember under what conditions evaporation occurs. It could be helpful to include an embedded link to a wikipedia article on evaporation, or a brief summary that evaporation can happen at any temperature above 0 degrees C, and is proportional to temperature, and the vapour pressure of the atmosphere etcetera. Or maybe this is superfluous to the thrust of the discussion, and over complicates it?
Several of the principles noted form the basis of evaporative coolers.
Another consequence of a warming world and higher levels of atmospheric moisture is storms produce more intense rainfall. This was very significant for Hurricane Harvey.
-
Norm Rubin at 05:01 AM on 25 January 2019Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
Thanks folks, that's what I was looking for. More the science and stats part than the ad hominem stuff, since I was raised to be able to learn from a fool, and I also don't mind learning from people who are biased or sometimes wrong I try to avoid tribalism in politics generally, and I find it especially rampant and ugly in the climate wars.
But it will take me a while to get through it all.
Just offhand, of course the US mainland is not nearly the whole world, but it's probably the part that's been keeping the best records of hurricanes for the longest. When you lose your keys in the dark, it may be smart to look first under the streetlights, type thing. Of course, of all possible statistical outcomes, a finding of no significant trend is most easily produced by a too-small sample, so I "get" the criticism.
-
MA Rodger at 20:25 PM on 24 January 2019Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
bArt @334,
While I agree with the comments @335&336, I would say that the meaning of much of what you write is not at all clear. So let me present what I interpret you as saying along with my own understanding of its context.
You accept the world is warming and are open to "new findings and information" (4), but this is an exceedingly low base from which to establish the reality of AGW.
You don't give a hoot about humanity (1) or other biological life (3) as long as you are not too hot and have oxygen to breath. Interestingly Arrhenius thought that a little more heat would be good for the world, he living in Sweden which is a tad cold come the winter. There was even discussion of setting fire to coal mines so AGW could be created without having to mine the stuff before you burn it. If Arrhenius had lived in the tropics (as do 40% of humanity) or a less Euro-centric world, he would surely have thought differently.
Your need for volcanoes (3) remains a mystery.
The failure of science to nail down ECS more exactly cannot really be seen as a reason to ignore the serious nature of AGW. Identifying the upper limits of ECS is always going to be difficult as a high ECS is only different from a medium ECS after 100 years or so. The work of folk trying their hardest to demonstrate tiny values for ECS (or TCR) and thus to diminish AGW, such work doesn't really hold water outside the narrow constructs they set it out within. So yes, in a narrow sense "the science is actually not yet settled" but the bit of science you rest your faith in (2) is narrower than narrow and those wholly engaged in that sliver of science are simply refusing to leave the last-chance-saloon at closing time.
The relevance of your final sentence in (2) is not evident.
-
scaddenp at 19:29 PM on 24 January 2019Sea level is not rising
Whatever the rights or wrongs, post-earthquake changes to the district plan are a long way from "If people are to be forced by law to move away from coastal areas or suffer other penalty due to events that merely might happen". Chch dropped relative to sealevel in the quake and rising seas (currently happening as measured not a future maybe) only exacerbate the situation. I sit on other side where colleagues wring their hands in despair when consents are given to building in a gun barrel. Chch suffered enough from that where developers with deep pockets buys land, and fights their way through to sell it on to suckers. I agree that compensation needs to be looked at but so is the responsibility for diligence. Better if councils sorted hazards before development.
-
bArt17240 at 17:50 PM on 24 January 2019Sea level is not rising
This link shows that CCC over-reached when it wrote the district plan for a coastal strip of land here in Christchurch, New Zealand. https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/107144890/three-lines-left-out-of-christchurchs-district-plan-has-left-a-community-in-despair
Of course they claim it was an honest mistake. I am very skeptical.
I believe that where a rated property has had full occupancy and building rights for several decades, if the powers that be wish to change the rules, then even though they have the right to do that, any property owner that loses amenity of value (due to policy changes) should be compensated.
We are a bit of a special case here in Christchurch after the earthquakes, we have been told so many lies, have been spied on by govt. and generally been ridden roughshod over, that we now are very suspicious of any officials who wish to change things in their favour and at the same time pull the wool over law abiding citizens eyes.
-
scaddenp at 14:22 PM on 24 January 2019Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
Just to further at your point 1. You seem to be stating it is reasonable to be AGW skeptic because prefer warming. In places where death toll in 1000s from heatwaves, then they would rather a cooling trend. Is it logical to for each person to determine the truth of what is actually happening on basis of their preference. Or is it, "I all right Jack" ergo AGW is alarmist conspiracy?
-
scaddenp at 13:50 PM on 24 January 2019Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
1/ You choose your beliefs around your personal preferences? Hardly logical. A logical basis for believe is where the actual evidence points you.
Again, it is not a question of what the temperature actually is, but how fast that it is changing that is the main problems. Rapid change threatens infrastructure and agriculture.
2/"can cancel one another out". I am not aware of any evidence supporting that. Where did you get that from? Cloud feedback is very complicated (is it net positive or negative?) but able to cancel out water vapour feedback? Again, all the actual evidence whether from paleoclimate, models, TCS estimates etc. puts sensitivity in range 1.5 - 4.5 with likely value of 2.8-3.0. You appear to be accepting some hand-wavy arguments in favour of what you would like to believe rather then any actual evidence.
"Both oceans and atmosphere are fluid, dynamic and vast and average measurements can only indicate trends." Not sure what your point is here? The error range associated with measurement of both ocean heat and atmosphere are well documented and I cannot see how they would support your argument.
3. Well that is logical, because biological life contributes next to zero to global warming. Its burning fossil fuel that does the damage.
4. Good, but actually understanding the existing findings and information would be good idea. You seem a little prone to ignoring observations you dont like.
I am still keen to see a response to reply on other thread. Particularly your source for laws pushing people off land on basis projected sealevel rise.
-
bArt17240 at 13:16 PM on 24 January 2019Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
The reason I choose to remain an AGW skeptic at this time is because a series of unscientific but still logical and true facts bring me there by deduction (which is all that readings and models happen to do also).
1. Some warming is preferable to some cooling (humans are warm blooded and do not do well without insulation against the cold (0 deg.C). When I physically begin to feel uncomfortable from the relentless heat, I may then prefer a cooling trend.
2. Positive and negative feedbacks associated with increased water vapor and cloud formation can cancel one another out and complicate matters. The actual balance between them is an active area of climate science research and therefore the science is actually not yet settled. Both oceans and atmosphere are fluid, dynamic and vast and average measurements can only indicate trends.
3. As long as terrestrial and deep ocean volcanoes exist, and as long as I do not have difficulty breathing (O2 supply) then I am not going to worry about how much "heat" biological life (see above) contributes to global warming.
4. I remain open to new findings and information and accept that a GW trend is currently occurring.
-
michael sweet at 12:50 PM on 24 January 2019Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
Norm Rubin,
The RealClimate link that Bob Loblaw has above shows that using only landfalling hurricanes reduces the available data by a factor of over 1000. They specifically argue that this is an inappropriate method of data analysis because it allows the noise to overcome the signal. It appears that the paper you cited has been prebunked. I seem to have been too kind in my post.
Bob,
Thanks for the great links. I see your posts on other sites. Always well informed.
-
Bob Loblaw at 12:26 PM on 24 January 2019Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
Somewhat old now, but Pielke's work has been discussed over at Tamino's Open MInd in the past:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/catastrophes-how-many-more/
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/unnatural-catastrophes/
Slightly newer discussion of hurrixcane frequency at RealClimate. The post presents some behaviour by Pielke that is, shall we say, not particularly flattering.
-
michael sweet at 10:09 AM on 24 January 2019Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
Norm Rubin,
I am not an expert on hurricanes but I read some.
Nature Sustainability is not the same journal as Nature. It is less prestigious.
These authors have been making this argument for a long time. From what I have read it appears that they are in the minority but there is not a consensus on this topc.
Analysis of USA only data seems inappropriate to me. There are not many hurricanes and the record is noisy. The USA is only 3% of the Earth's surface. You would expect that noise would be bigger than the signal.
This article documents that strong hurricanes (force 4 and 5) have increased in number over the entire Earth. They reference at least 4 other papers that find an increase in the most powerful hurricanes. There appear to be less force 1 and 2 hurricanes so the total number of hurricanes is about the same. There is much more signal to noise in an analysis of the entire Earth. It stands to reason that if there are more force 4 and 5 hurricanes (which cause most of the damage), there will be more damage caused. An analysis of world wide damage for the past 40 years would be more meaningful than a USA only analysis with a longer record.
The paper I cited claims that sea surface temperatures have only been elevated enough to affect hurricanes for 40 years so the earlier data in your cited paper is not as valuable.
Jeff Masters discusses the catastrophic hurricanes that struck the USA in 2018. He discusses modeling that attributes 50% of Florence's rainfall to warming. Similar attribution has been made for Harvey's rainfall in Texas last year.
To me it stands to reason that if there are more category 4 and 5 hurricanes and they produce twice as much rain due to warming than more damage will be caused by hurricanes. There were several strong hurricanes at the start of the limited USA record analyzed in the Weinkle et al paper which affect the statistics.
I expect it to be a long time (decades) before the USA only record of hurricanes shows statistically significant change in hurricanes since there are so few and the record is noisy. The worldwide record already shows increases in powerful hurricanes which cause the most damage.
I doubt there will be much commentary on this paper by scientists unless deniers make wild claims about it. Since it is a valid paper if you choose to make the argument that hurricanes have not changed you can, but it is not a strong claim when the world record is examined. The fact the US damage was so severe in 2018, after the Weinkle paper was published, is suggestive but not statistically significant yet.
-
nigelj at 07:27 AM on 24 January 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #3
Scaddenp, yes that pretty much sums it up. As does this amusing quote from John Rogers:
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
-
scaddenp at 06:13 AM on 24 January 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #3
Gee, I would have said the attraction of Rand's confused philosphy was in how to feel good about being a completely self-centered, immoral prat. Followers really dont want to think too hard about how her idea connect actual reality, preferring to try and shape reality to fit Rand's fantasy worlds.
-
RedBaron at 01:28 AM on 24 January 2019Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
@324 MA Rodger,
"room" in this case refers to the size of the sink potential, not the size of the pool or the rate at which carbon moves from one pool to another.
Clearly because this is a complex system the rate will vary quite a bit due to many factors, but the size of the sink is far more than large enough to handle all the excess carbon in the atmosphere easily. That would not even get soil carbon levels to pre-industrial, much less pre-agriculture.
Keep in mind though, I have stated multiple times here with evidence that LUC as you depect here for example is about emissions and completely inadequate at resolving the whole stable soil carbon cycle including lost sequestration capacity. It's a labile or biomass state. ie short term carbon cycle and labile carbon pools. Apples and oranges.
Because you are about oranges instead of apples I can see where you might think this is off topic. But instead of going off topic, go back on topic, and you'll see more clearly my point. I am not talking about LUC in the biomass and labile carbon pools, I am talking about saturation capacity in the long term stable carbon soil sink.
-
SirCharles at 00:30 AM on 24 January 2019State of the climate: How the world warmed in 2018
So we're at 2045-2050 where we will hit the 2°C above pre-industrial baseline. 1.5°C probably by 2030. Not much time left. I'd say the oncoming decade is DECISIVE for anything like Paris.
-
MA Rodger at 22:43 PM on 23 January 2019Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
RedBaron @323,
Your assertion that there is "room for all emissions to be absorbed by natural systems" (by this meaning the biosphere) is a little off-topic here.
However, a few facts (numbers sourced mainly from the Global Carbon Project).
About one third of our CO2 emissions since 1750 have resulted from Land-Use-Change (or in simple terms cutting down trees). And as a result of these LUC emissions, the biosphere only became a net absorber of our emissions from the 1970s-on (when FF emissions became the 'bulk' of the total).
Today (ie the last 40 years) the biosphere absorbs significantly more of our emissions than do the oceans. But when we manage to stop boosting atmospheric CO2 levels (hopefully soon), the oceans will become the major absorber, eventually taking the vast majority of our emissions and in doing so, reversing the biosphere absorption of today (and since 1990 when CO2 was ~350ppm).
The absorption of CO2 on man-managed lands can be improved and the carbon then 'sequestrated' (ie out of reach of the natural carbon cycle) to somewhere safe (rather than relying on natural 'sequestration' processes). But without such 'sequestration,' added reabsorption relies on either reversing the LUC (so simplistically able to reverse that third of our emissions that came from LUC) or a continued presence of an elevated atmospheric CO2 level, which logically implies not "all emissions" can be absorbed by this route.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:27 PM on 23 January 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #3
nigelj,
Thanks for the added insight into Ayn Rand.
And I will continue using the term Altruism but will trying to remember to describe it as 'helping others with no expectation of any return benefit' and the related understanding 'not harming Others'.
That is the essence of the motive for establishing and pursuing the Sustainable Development Goals. Most of the required actions and corrections should not be expected to return a direct benefit to those who put the effort into achieving and improving on them. The required actions are not a set of Trades in the Market between supposedly fully informed and equally influential parties.
-
nigelj at 12:48 PM on 23 January 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #3
OPOF @19, I did a design degree, and Ayn Rands Fountainhead "came with the territory" and I also read Atlas Shrugged. I think you are right her views were very coloured by her experiences of the Soviet Union. She saw the worst side of socialism, a confused set of policies often forced onto people in barbaric and senseless ways at the point of a gun. Intellectuals rounded up and forced into labour camps. Anyone should be horrified, but it made her react against anything even remotely socialist, and means she was letting circumstances colour her evaluation of things, so although she claimed she was an objectivist, she was actually the complete opposite. Not that all her observations are wrong, but her ideology and her code of morality is little more than her opinion and doesn't make a lot of sense.
For example its nice to say everyone should be productive. Who would disagree? Nobody sensible. But if someone gets lucky and wins the lottery and stops being productive there is nothing we can do about it short of forcing them, the very thing Ayn Rand would rebel against.
And how do we deal with people who cannot be productive like invalids? Because it's really this that is her real, hidden concern. In Ayn Rands world they are left to the wolves, because she rules out any collective response where the public assist such people through something like a social security programme, because she sees this as the alleged mob telling her that she must help pay for such a scheme through taxation. She sees this as fundamentally wrong, having seen the worst consequences of such forced programmes in the soviet union, however the only viable way of funding such schemes is in fact taxation. The only viable way of funding any form of government action is taxation, so if taxation is "theft" then we cannot escape some element of theft, because the alternative is the rule of the jungle- and this is even worse than Soviet collectivism. So I say her world view is laughable and not logically thought through.
In fact the real solution is to create socio economic structures that help people and tax as required, but structure them to minimise such structures abusing their power and over taxing and over spending.There are obvious ways of doing this.
Yes sure I agree Rands acolytes try to give altruism a bad name. I'm in two minds, because I see your point of view, yet why should we let them dictate the terms of the debate? Altruism is a recognised form of human behaviour and a word in the dictionary. We do it because we are human, and I'm damned if anyone is going to tell me it's somehow fundamentally wrong or cannot form part of governments thinking! Even if we use the term Helpful they will finad a way to pull that to bits!
Ayn Rands world might have purity of ideas, but it is a cold sterile purity and is unable to deal effectively with problems in the real world. The real world is complicated and messy. I do not believe in soviet union style collectivism as such, this sort of ownership just leads to stagnation, because nobody owns anything so nobody cares, but environmental problems fall into the category of "things needing some government input" because free markets simply dont adequately solve the problems. This might annoy Rand, but too bad for that. Ayn Rands thinking means such problems would go completely unsolved for the sake of her "principles" which is just madness.
-
RedBaron at 11:35 AM on 23 January 2019Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
@321 chromedome49
You are correct. There is actually room for all emissions to be absorbed by natural systems. But of course we humans have significantly degraded that side of the carbon cycle as well.
Farming Claims Almost Half Earth's Land, New Maps Show
So even though there is room, particularly in the soils, in reality agriculture has turned that sink potential into the second leading cause of AGW behind fossil fuels.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 11:30 AM on 23 January 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #3
nigelj,
Thanks for the link. Improving understanding relies on updates of information that alter or strengthen an existing understanding.
One pore point. I am moving away from using the term Altruism.
I have been learning that people have different perceptions of the term. And some of those perceptions are not consistent with my intent to focus on helping vs. harming others. Using the term can end up in misunderstanding.
Some people, like Ayn Rand, have very extreme views of Altruism. They see a altruism as a complete abdication of all personal choice or freedom. Ayn thought that way because she considered the Authoritarian Soviet state actions to be examples of what altruism is all about. What was happening was not Ayn Rand's observation of a requirement of altruism from Soviet citizens. A portion of the Soviet population was abusing claims that sounded altruistic as misleading marketing for their authoritarian strongman pursuits of more personal power and perceptions of superiority relative to others.
My current understanding is that Ayn Rand would likely have been a strong proponent of what I am thinking is required. One gap in her expression of her thinking was the failure to describe what she meant when she said things like it being 'best for every man to do as they please except that it was 'immoral' for a man to not be productive'. Productive is open to a range of helpful and harmful possibilities. It is possible that a person interested in being deliberately harmful (as I describe help vs harm) could be considered to be productive because they are doing something that impacts others and they are succeeding.
Ayn Rand has said other things that indicate she expected people to be helpful rather than harmful. But she never seemed to clearly elaborate on the requirement for helpfulness. Tragically, an acolyte of Ayn's, Allan Greenspan, claimed in his testimony to Congress after the 2008 financial debacle he oversaw the development of, that he had no idea that business leaders would consider doing anything that would result in future harmful consequences.
Many anti-altruism freedom fighters appear to similarly misunderstand what is actually going on. The mere mention of the term altruism can trigger a fear and anger gut-reaction that isn't helpful. Using the terms helpful and harmful still challenges their beliefs, but it is harder for them to be dismissive about a help/harm description than they can be about a term like Altruism. Some of them actually even try to claim that altruism does not exist, probably because they do not want it to exist, because the likes of Ayn Rand state that altruism and capitalism cannot co-exist, but more likely because the thought of giving up a potential personal benefit out of consideration for Others is seriously contrary to their interests.
-
MA Rodger at 10:27 AM on 23 January 2019Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
chromedome49 @321,
You appear to be asking a question by beginning a sentence "Question:" but this isn't followed by a question. So I will assume you are asking something like: 'Why, if anthropogenic emissions are but a small fraction of natural emissions (using the numbers in the OP, actually 3.7%); why then can't such a small extra amount be taken up and absorbed by the much larger natural mechanisms?'
The problem with such a proposition is that the natural cycle was in balance prior to our emissions. Today, the reason the natural cycle is out-of-balance and takes more CO2 than it emits is simply because the atmospheric CO2 levels have gone up. Without such an increase, the balanced natural cycle would fail to take any of our emissions. But as there is now an extra 1,055Gt(CO2) in the atmosphere, there is extra space in the natural absorption part of the cycle for some of our CO2 to be absorbed in that cycle. While we continue to emit at increasing rates the proportion of our CO2 emissions absorbed by the natural cycle will continue to be large, roughly 50%. Were we to stop emitting, the natural cycle would continue absorbing extra CO2 and reducing the anthrpogenic burden in the atmosphere, initially quite quickly over a few decades, then more slowly in successive centuries until in a thousand years 75% or 80% of our emissions will have been drawn out of the atmosphere. After that, the process becomes so slow that it will take many tens of thousands of years to reduce the remainder to insignificance.
Prev 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 Next
