Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 Next
Comments 13401 to 13450:
-
william5331 at 07:20 AM on 13 October 2018Victims of Hurricane Michael voted for climate deniers
Fortunately Michael is a one off event. A one in a thousand year event, not likely to happen again in our lifetime. Besides climate change is all a hoax.
How do we know
The president told us so
(Sung to the tune of that sunday school ditty, The Bible Told me So)
-
Daniel Mocsny at 05:04 AM on 13 October 2018Victims of Hurricane Michael voted for climate deniers
On "insensitivity" - I don't feel sorry for tobacco smokers who die from tobacco-caused diseases. They ignored the clear warnings of science and got the consequences. Similarly, I don't feel sorry for people who live lavishly all their lives off fossil fuels and then get the consequences. Everyone who consumes the benefits to self from burning fossil fuels dumps an increment of harm onto everyone else. If we lived in a just world, individuals would experience harm from climate change in proportion to their individual contributions to climate change. Instead the opposite tends to occur, with the wealthiest individuals and countries suffering the least from climate change, and the poorest individuals and countries suffering the most.
In most natural disasters to hit the USA, the poor and people of color tend to suffer disproportionately, those who contributed relatively less to climate change (although in most cases still much more than their globally equitable carbon fair share, as the USA per capita average emissions are so horrendously high). In the USA, when the poor and people of color head to the polls, and their votes aren't suppressed by Republican rigging, they tend to vote Democrat. Therefore, to the extent that we want to avoid being insensitive, we should look at who the victims are and who they voted for, before lumping them in with the narrow plurality of Floridian voters who went for Trump. In 2016, Trump received 49.02% of the vote in Florida, while Hillary Clinton received 47.82%.
Because of the winner-take-all nature of American politics, it's easy to over-generalize about an entire state. While Trump/Clinton was not directly a referendum on climate change - the issue wasn't even mentioned in the Presidential debates, and hardly came up in news coverage of the campaign - if we interpret the vote as some measure of attitudes toward climate change, Florida would be in almost a dead heat on the issue.
Let's also not forget that Trump fueled his meteoric rise by being verbally abusive to everyone - women, gays, Mexicans, blacks, war heroes, persons with disabilities, many of his fellow Republicans, etc. Anyone who voted for Trump can hardly complain about getting a taste of their own verbal medicine. Republicans mock liberals every day. Why shouldn't we ridicule the stupidity of people who deny climate change while living in the US state most at risk from climate change? Every coastal city in Florida could be underwater by the end of this century, for crying out loud. When greedy, self-interested humans finish melting the ice caps, most of the state will be gone.
-
Daniel Mocsny at 04:19 AM on 13 October 2018Victims of Hurricane Michael voted for climate deniers
It is a wonder that a state like Florida, which will get pummeled by Michael, could vote for someone that denies climate change.
It may be a wonder, but a psychologist (even of the armchair sort) might not be surprised. In his book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, author Jared Diamond cites an example of how denial works:
The final speculative reason that I shall mention for irrational failure to try to solve a perceived problem is psychological denial. This is a technical term with a precisely defined meaning in individual psychology, and it has been taken over into the pop culture. If something that you perceive arouses in you a painful emotion, you may subconsciously suppress or deny your perception to avoid the unbearable pain, even though the practical results of ignoring your perception may prove ultimately disastrous. The emotions most often responsible are terror, anxiety, and grief. Typical examples include blocking the memory of a frightening experience, or refusing to think about the likelihood that your husband, wife, child, or best friend is dying because the thought is so painfully sad.
For example, consider a narrow river valley below a high dam, such that if the dam burst, the resulting flood of water would drown people for a considerable distance downstream. When attitude pollsters ask people downstream of the dam how concerned they are about the dam's bursting, it's not surprising that fear of a dam burst is lowest far downstream, and increases among residents increasingly close to the dam. Surprisingly, though, after you get to just a few miles below the dam, where fear of the dam's breaking is found to be highest, the concern then falls off to zero as you approach closer to the dam! That is, the people living immediately under the dam, the ones most certain to be drowned in a dam burst, profess unconcern. That's because of psychological denial: the only way of preserving one's sanity while looking up every day at the dam is to deny the possibility that it could burst. Although psychological denial is a phenomenon well established in individual psychology, it seems likely to apply to group psychology as well.Therefore we should not be surprised to find that climate change denial would be high in the US state which gets hit by the most hurricanes and is already experiencing the effects of man-made sea level rise. Floridians are metaphorically living "directly below the dam" of climate change. Of course direct risk is not the only factor, as the perception of Floridians is also mediated by years of Republican disinformation campaigning.
California experiences climate change in the form of increasing droughts, floods, and wildfires, but California's urban blue (Democrat) majority out-votes its red (Republican) rural minority on a state level. The irony carries over there as well, since rural Californians get hit the hardest by climate change. Forest fires and crop failures occur in the countryside, not in the cities. To a first approximation, the Californians who experience climate change most directly are the most in denial about it.
-
John Hartz at 22:51 PM on 12 October 2018Victims of Hurricane Michael voted for climate deniers
Recommended supplemental reading:
GOP senators from hurricane-ravaged states mock UN’s climate change warning by Joe Romm, Think Progress, Oct 11, 2018
-
MA Rodger at 21:49 PM on 12 October 2018Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
JC @256,
Thank you for your link to Kiehl and Trenberth (1996). (You will note it is not a publication of by Geic-IPCC). The paper does demonstrate the complications in establishing Earth's CO2 GH-effect within Earth's total GH-effect but does show it is something like 32Wm^-2, and a little higher for the CO2-effect without the other GH-effects overlapping. I suggested up-thread @249 the value 40Wm^-2 as an all-sky modern value,
As for my suggestion that you test your grand method by using it on the Moon, I strongly advise that you do not dismiss it.
My reason is because Mars has such a small GH-effect that other considerations will make your calculation useless. The strength of the Martian GH-effect is very like the Moon's, at or close to zero.Sadly, there is not a great deal of work published that calculates this Martian GH-effect (certainly not in recent years) but among these publications you will find Haberle (2013) 'Estimating the power of Mars’ greenhouse effect' which unfortunately is not directly available in full on-line. This paper suggests that the apparent GH-effect on Mars is actually negative, with the Martian temperature as-measured being Ts=~202K while the blackbody temperature calculates to Te=~208K. (Note this blackbody temperature Te is the value you use, as is made plain within Covey et al 2012. And note also I am minded not to go further into this situation with respect to Mars as it is somewhat complicated.)
The same problem with Te & Ts occurs on the Moon. If you use your grand method to calculate the blackbody temperature you would obtain Te=270K. This can also be calculated using the as-measured amount of long-wave radiation emitted by the Moon (which is how they calculate the albedo). But because the Moon has such a large spread of day-night temperature and equator-polar temperature (these spreads resulting from it having (1) such a long day and (2) no atmosphere), this method is hopeless for calculating the arithmetic mean temperature of the Moon surface. Ts and Te are wildly different.
The Moon's equatorial temperature range should give some indication of the Moon's average temperature by setting an upper limit. That provides a value of 243K, well below Te. The Moon's equator actually averages 216K (the noon-day maximum is far narrower than the midnight minimum) and for the Moon as a whole Ts=200K, these from my own calculation based on Fig9a of Williams et al (2017) (This calculation would be difficult to accept as there is no properly quoted Moon average to compare it to. Yet if I average the blackbody radation calculated for each portion of the Moon and then calculate temperature, the resulting Te=270K). Thus on the Moon the Ts-Te mismatch is very large.
I would suggest there is a similar but smaller Ts-Te mismatch on Mars as suggested by Haberle (2013) and this is of great relevance to your choice of grand method to test the GH-effects of CO2.
-
JC16932 at 16:55 PM on 12 October 2018Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
I do not understand your test since I try to put in parallel the quantity of CO2 of an atmosphere and its greenhouse effect, but on the moon there is no atmosphere and therefore no greenhouse effect.
For the radiative part of CO2 : "The second most important greenhouse gas is CO2, which 32 W m-2 in agreement with Charnock and Shine (1993) goal differing from Kandel's (1993) estimate of 50 W m-2. (in : LINK)
-
Evan at 14:41 PM on 12 October 2018Victims of Hurricane Michael voted for climate deniers
Thanks Baerbel for the clarification. That makes more sense and seems more respectful to those who are suffering.
-
BaerbelW at 14:22 PM on 12 October 2018Victims of Hurricane Michael voted for climate deniers
Evan @1 - The headline of the Guardian article has now been changed to "Victims of Hurricane Michael are represented by climate deniers" after John Abraham contacted the editors of the article as mentioned on Twitter here.
-
michael sweet at 12:30 PM on 12 October 2018SkS Analogy 14 - Inertia and Inevitability
Swayseeker,
It is my understanding that on average the ocean is warmer than the air above it. That means it adds water to the atmosphere. Can you provide a peer reviewed paper to support your idea?
-
Evan at 10:22 AM on 12 October 2018Victims of Hurricane Michael voted for climate deniers
The title of this post seems a little insensitive. Perhaps it could be changed to "Victims of Hurricane Michael may prioritize climate change in future elections," or something more positive.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:45 AM on 12 October 2018The Trump administration has entered Stage 5 climate denial
Based on lots of reading, particularly “the Enigma of Reason” by Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber that I am currently reading, I have learned that all opinions likely start as Intuitive thoughts. Sometimes reasoning is applied to figure out why the Intuitive preference is what it is (science and other learning do this). When it is a matter of personal entertainment, nobody potentially being harmed as a result, the reason for an Intuitive preference does not matter. However, when there is a potential for harm then altruistic reasoned justification is essential (I learned and applied that to become a constantly improving professional engineer).
Altruism is a very good term to use when discussing the responses to climate science of people, particularly leaders who should be leading by example. Unlike terms such as 'Ethical, Moral, Good, Helpful, Reasoned, or Freedom', it is very hard to make altruism mean whatever someone wants it to mean. Altruism is 'Self-sacrifice for the benefit of others'. It is the opposite of Egoism.
All 5 stages of climate science denial are indeed attempts to delay the corrections of what has developed that are required for humanity to develop a sustainable better future.
Those delaying tactics, and other unacceptable actions by clearly unjustified leaders and winners, have a common basis. It is Anti-Altruism in response to the improving awareness and understanding that Altruism is required to govern all human activities in order for humanity to have a future (altruism can be understood to be basis for all of the Sustainable Development Goals).
My working hypothesis/theory regarding altruism/ethics related to the SDGs, particularly applicable to the climate action goal (more than enough supporting evidence that it is not just a hypothesis), is that for humanity and civilization to have a future it is becoming increasingly apparent that Altruism has to be governing and limiting all human activity. And political groups have been evolving in response to improving awareness and understanding of the unacceptability of unsustainable and harmful socioeconomic developments. Some have become more altruistic. Others have not.
Those choosing to be less altruistic, or resisting becoming more altruistic, do not like being challenged to altruistically justify what they want to believe and do. They were regionally winning support around the world because of the appearances of economic improvement and advancement that were being developed. That success has sputtered as the unsustainability, unfairness and unacceptability of the economic developments of 'people freer to believe what they want and do as they please without being governed by altruism' became harder to hide, deny or excuse.
Anti-altruism can be understood to be the root cause of almost all conflict. Altruism vs. Altruism is a debate, discussion, or an argument with a reasoned resolution, not a conflict. Anti-altruistic political parties want people focused on polarizing and divisive personal-trigger desires that prevent them from being more altruistic. They also need people to be less aware of the Altruism vs. Anti-Altruism conflict. The anti-altruists identify or create other conflicts, including making-up them up, for people to focus on rather than becoming more aware of the more important fundamental conflict of Altruism vs Anti-Altruism.
In the Feb 29, 1960 issue of Time magazine Ayn Rand stated that “If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject.” and “Capitalism and Altruism are incompatible ... capitalism and altruism cannot coexist in man or in the same society.”
Ayn Rand's observations were correct, but she came to the wrong conclusion. Since every human can understand that it is better for the future of humanity if they behave altruistically, the correct conclusion is that capitalism discourages the development of altruism and encourages the development of anti-altruism if it can be gotten away with.
Any competition for impressions of superiority relative to others encourages the development of anti-altruism (egoism). It is seen all the time. And rules and enforcement to limit behaviour need to be developed whenever competition driven anti-altruism creates the potential for harmful results.
More potential for personal benefit creates more temptation to be anti-altruistic, because the less altruistic have a competitive advantage (advantage increasing the less altruistic they can get away with being). This is especially true in mass-advertised capitalism and politics.
Altruism is not an accounting balancing evaluation. It sets a minimum standard of acceptability of “Do No Harm”. And it establishes the open-ended inspirational objective of helping others. There is no limit to how much you can help. It is anti-altruistic to compare the perceived harm done to future generations with some perceived cost or lost opportunity to current generations. Harm to future generations is altruistically unacceptable, no mater how beneficial it may be for the current generation to cause that future harm or how costly it is to avoid producing future harmful consequences.
Pointing out the unacceptability of greedier and less tolerant people Uniting and claiming to be Right produces some interesting responses. The claims include:
- claiming that 'explaining the unacceptability of greed and that it needs to be corrected' is an act of greed by someone who is jealous or wants to steal wealth or is intolerant of those who are greedier.
- claiming that 'explaining the unacceptability of intolerant attitudes and actions and that they need to be corrected' is being intolerant of the less tolerant.
- many other poor excuses that sound good but are not rationally justifiable.
All that the greedy and intolerant have are poor excuses for wanting to behave less altruistically. They can understand that they want to do things that harm others. But, they allow what they want to over-power their ability to be altruistic. Because they understand they cannot get what they want if they are limited by altruism.
The Future of Humanity is in Question - Altruism is the Answer
Altruism! What is it Good For? - The Future of Humanity
I have been working on improving my understanding of what is going on for a while. And I have always struggled to come up with punchy banner statements for what I am understanding, partly because I was not really clear about what I was learning. But now I can offer the above for everyone to use and improve (I am not interested in reward or recognition for developing this understanding. Similar understanding has been developed in all of recorded human history. I altruistically hope that sharing in this way helps increase altruism in the general population)
People simply being freer to believe whatever they want and do as they please without altruistic self-governing or external altruistic governing is developing a potentially endless stream of unsustainable harmful activity. Less regulation of human activity is the type of environment that the anti-altruists prefer. It is the type of environment they can thrive in (to the detriment of others, especially to the detriment of future generations).
If Altruism and its restrictions of acceptable behaviour is not the Overall Governing Objective and Measure of Acceptability, then harm to others, like climate challenges unjustifiably created by current day pursuits of perceptions of prosperity and superiority relative to others, will never be sustainably ended. In fact, those problems will be made as big as can be gotten away with.
Without Altruism responsibly governing and limiting human activity there will be no sustainable future for humanity, only an eternity of harm being created by people anti-altruistically pursuing personal benefit and glory (humans will always be on this planet, but humanity and civilization may not).
(I presented more thoughts about this in my recent comments on “2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38”)
-
nigelj at 04:51 AM on 12 October 2018The Trump administration has entered Stage 5 climate denial
Ruddiman has just posted a guest article over at realclimate.org
-
Swayseeker at 22:56 PM on 11 October 2018SkS Analogy 14 - Inertia and Inevitability
Scientists are saying we might see a 3 deg C rise in temperature in the near future with climate change. I do not believe that CO2 will be limited with all the exploration going ahead - that is a lost cause for the time being. I am all for renewables, but we are going to keep warming as mentioned above. So it seems we must take CO2 out by growing trees, etc. To grow trees in deserts we need rain enhancement, etc, and planting. One method to increase rainfall is to heat sea surfaces. Indeed the sea air may actually be drying out land air where there are cold seas near hot land - see explanation below:
Suppose the sea air temperature Tseaair=16 deg C and sea air RH=75%. Suppose the air temperature over land is Tlandair=26 deg C and the RH of land air is 45%. Now suppose the sea air blows to land and the land air is pushed to light coloured land with high albedo so the land air remains at 26 deg C. Suppose the sea air is over dark land and it heats to T=26 deg C. The dew point remains the same if air is heated at constant atmospheric pressure, so the dew point of the sea air remains at 11.57 deg C. The dew point of the land air stays at 13.16 deg C. So the land air is more moist (it has to cool less for condensation). The sea air is therefore drier. Summary of calculations below: Tseaair=16, RHseaair=75%,Tlandair=26 deg C, RHlandair=45%. Then dew point of sea air is 11.57 deg C and dew point of land air=13.16 deg C. So if the sea air heats up to 26 deg C then its RH will be lower than 45% (in fact the RH will become 40.55%).
Here is a dew point calculator: http://www.dpcalc.org -
MA Rodger at 18:19 PM on 11 October 2018Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
JC @253,
I wasn't aware that the IPCC (Geic) gave any value for total CO2 forcing. Perhaps you can give the reference to the IPCC (Geic) document.
Beyond that, you tread a path that is very close to the ridiculous.
As a test of your grand method, perhaps you can calculate the GH-effect for the Earth's moon. Our Moon of course has no atmosphere so this will test both you grand method as well as your data on average albedo and average surface temperature. (The average temperature you may find difficult to track down. I do have a calculated value if you need it.)
And once you have passed that test, prehaps we can address the big big problems you need to overcome in assessing the size of a real GH-effect with your grand theory.
-
Evan at 08:23 AM on 11 October 2018SkS Analogy 14 - Inertia and Inevitability
Jef@1, or for those of us pushing 60 or so, in my lifetime we have increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations about the same amount as when we came out of the last glacial cycle (i.e., about 100 ppm). But the gist of what you're saying is that CO2 concentrations are not just increasing, they are accelerating upwards.
-
jef12506 at 07:38 AM on 11 October 2018SkS Analogy 14 - Inertia and Inevitability
Great post! Thanks!
What makes this even more important is the fact that we have released more CO2 since Al Gores inconvenient truth presentation, and have yet to feel the full effects, than we did in the prior 30 years or so. Sorry I looked but I couldn't find the article where I read this.
-
michael sweet at 06:34 AM on 11 October 2018Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
JC,
You are trying to do a seat of the pants calculation for something you do not understand. It is impossible to do the calculation by the process you describe. you must use the Modtram software that was referred to you upthread.
We have already discussed that pressure effects make it impossible to compare Mars to Venus in the way you are attempting to do. The calculations at Goddards site are worthless and deliberately misleading.
I recommend that you GOGGLE scientific publications on the greenhouse effect on Venus and Mars. There is a lot of material on Venus. You can also use the search function at the top of the page to find related articles.
-
michael sweet at 02:31 AM on 11 October 2018The Trump administration has entered Stage 5 climate denial
Sir Charles:
your graph does not include enough data. From the Vostok ice core:
Note that the graph has the present on the left hand side.
Examining this graph I note that the three previous interglacial periods start with temperature rising to a steep maximum. Then the maximum almost immediately starts to decrease. In the current interglacial, there have been about ten thousand years of temperatures near the maximum.
Ruddiman has a lot of support for his claim that prehistoric farmers started climate change.
-
JC16932 at 02:26 AM on 11 October 2018Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
Calculation of the greenhouse effect of CO2 on Venus, Mars and Earth:
My starting hypothesis is as follows : energy from the greenhouse effect is proportional to the total amount of CO2 present in the entire atmosphere.
Step 1 : To verify this hypothesis, take the case of Venus where the greenhouse effect is in total of CO2:
Irradiance of Venus: 2613,9 W / m2.
On Venus, at the top of the atmosphere 2613,9 / 4 = 653,475 W / m2 from the Sun penetrate the atmosphere.
Since the albedo is 80% or 522,78 W / m2, only 130,7 W / m2 reaches the surface of Venus, the equivalent of a temperature of T = ∜ 130.7 / 5,67.10^ -8 = 219.12 ° K = -54 ° C
The average surface area of Venus is 460 ° C, ie 733.15 ° K or E = (733.15)^ 4 × 5,67.10-8 = 16 381.5 W / m2.
From 130,7 W / m2 to 16 381,5 W / m2 from the CO2 greenhouse effect, a total greenhouse effect of: 16 381,5 - 130,7 = 16 250,8 W / m2.
Now we know that in the total atmosphere of Venus there is a total amount of CO2 equal to 4.72 × 10 ^ 20 kg.
4,72.10 ^ 20 kg of CO2 therefore produced a greenhouse effect equivalent to 16 250,8 W / m2.Step 2 : Application of the hypothesis:
If there is a proportionality between the amount of CO2 and the energy produced by the greenhouse effect, then on Mars we should obtain a greenhouse effect equivalent to B W / m2.Calculation of B :
We know that in the total atmosphere of Mars there is a total amount of CO2 equal to 2,165 .10 ^ 16 kg.
4,72.10 ^ 20 kg of CO2 corresponds to: 16 250,8 W / m2
2,165 .10 ^ 16 kg corresponds to: B W / m2
So B = (2,165 .10 ^ 16 x 16 250,8) / 4,72,10 ^ 20
B = 0,745 W / m2
If there is a proportionality between the amount of CO2 and energy produced by the greenhouse effect, then on Mars we should get a greenhouse effect equivalent to 0,745 W / m2.Step 3 : Verifying the hypothesis:
Irradiance of Mars: 586,2 W / m2.
On Mars, at the top of the 146,55 W / m2 atmosphere from the Sun penetrate the atmosphere.
Since the albedo is 25% or 36,64 W / m2, only 109,91 W / m2 reaches the surface of Venus, the equivalent of a temperature of T = ∜ 109,91 / 5,67.10 ^ - 8 = 209.82 ° K = - 63.33 ° C
The average surface area of entrances is - 63 ° C, ie 210,15 ° K or E = 210,15 × 4 × 5,67.10^ -8 = 110,586 W / m2.
We thus go from 109,91 W / m2 to 110,586W / m2 by the CO2 greenhouse effect, ie a total greenhouse effect of:
110,586 - 109,91 = 0,676 W / m2.
What did we predict by proportionality? : a greenhouse effect of 0,745 W / m2Conclusion : Since the two values (0,676 and 0,745) are very close we can consider the proportionality hypothesis as true.
Step 4 : Apply the hypothesis to the Earth:
The atmosphere of the Earth contains 3,128.10 ^ 15 kg of CO2.
Proportionally with Venus, the greenhouse effect of the Earth's CO2 should be:
4,72.10 ^ 20 kg of CO2 corresponds to: 16 250.8 W / m2
3,128.10 ^ 15 kg corresponds to: B W / m2
B = (3,128.10^15 x 16 250,8) / 4,72 × 10
B = 0,1077 W / m2
The greenhouse effect of the 400 ppm CO2 of the Earth's atmosphere should be 0,1077 W / m2.The Giec gives a value close to 30 W / m2 for the greenhouse effect of the 400 ppmv of CO2 of the terrestrial atmosphere !
How can we find these 30 W / m2 by the calculation ???? -
John Hartz at 12:55 PM on 10 October 2018The Trump administration has entered Stage 5 climate denial
Recommended supplemtal readings from the New York Times:
Major Climate Report Describes a Strong Risk of Crisis as Early as 2040 by Coral Davenport, Climate, New York Times, Oct 7, 2018
Dire Climate Warning Lands With a Thud on Trump’s Desk by Mike Landler & Coral Davenport, Politics. New York Times, Oct 8, 2018
As Storms Keep Coming, FEMA Spends Billions in ‘Cycle’ of Damage and Repair by Kevin Sack & John Schwartz, US, New York Times, Oct 8, 2018
Coal Is Killing the Planet. Trump Loves It., Opinion by Editorial Board, New York Times, Oct 8, 2018
-
SirCharles at 07:07 AM on 10 October 2018The Trump administration has entered Stage 5 climate denial
@5. William
Your claim that "Anthropogenic climate change started 6 to 8 thousand years ago as rice cultivation expanded and the plough began to be used. At that time it just succeeded in holding off our next slide into a glaciation" is not supported by the data. At that time the planet was just at the height of the last interglacial.
Moderator Response:[BW] resized image
-
william5331 at 05:39 AM on 10 October 2018The Trump administration has entered Stage 5 climate denial
Just a wee, somewhat irrelevant niggle. Anthropogenic climate change started 6 to 8 thousand years ago as rice cultivation expanded and the plough began to be used. At that time it just succeeded in holding off our next slide into a glaciation (Read Ruddiman, Ploughs Plagues and Petroleum). Now we have too much of a good thing and Agriculture, if practiced according to David R Montgomery's book Growing a Revolution would contribute to putting some of the carbon back into the soil. Not the whole solution by any means but we need a shotgun of measures to reverse where we are likely headed. The good thing is that the measures described in David's book result in so many blessings in addition to putting carbon back into the soil while, would you believe, improving the bottom line of the farmers.
-
SirCharles at 03:46 AM on 10 October 2018The Trump administration has entered Stage 5 climate denial
The IPCC Special Report on 1.5ºC, here commented by Gavin Schmidt on Real Climate, is in line with my litlle video clip, Scratching the 1.5°C Jazz
So enjoy the Jazz as long as you can still hear the tunes.
Moderator Response:[BW] Updated image size as it was breaking the page format.
-
SirCharles at 03:04 AM on 10 October 2018The Trump administration has entered Stage 5 climate denial
Just take a look at this video NASA posted some time ago => One Year on Earth – Seen From 1 Million Miles
I read an awful lot of comments there: Flat earthers, conspiracy theorists, moon landings have never happened, NASA is lying to make more $$$... you name it. It doesn't wonder me a bit any more that this country is in deep denial. It's a disgrace. Lunacy at its finest. I thought Americans were all patriots. So why are these illiterates then trying to discredit a state agency which has generated much reputation for the US? As a European I'm just stunned about the amount of stupidity I'm facing there. That can't be just "Russian trolls". Misinformation by many mainstream media and an elite education system have taken their toll. I've totally lost faith in the "land of the free". Sorry, folks. That's the land of the poorly educated, the land of lunacy. Regrettably, that's all I can conclude.
-
MA Rodger at 01:20 AM on 10 October 2018Greenhouse effect has been falsified
Richard Lawson @162,
The average surface temperature of Earth is well known to be 15ºC but an equivalent value for the Moon is not readily available.
The usual statements you will find happily give max & min temperatures for the lunar equator which arguably could be averaged to give a rough lunar equatorial average temperature. The numbers you present (+130ºC -110ºC) appear to be such max min temperatures, although measurements from 2009 gave them as +120ºC to -130ºC making the Moon's equator colder than the Earth's equator which have a range +30ºC to +20ºC.
Since 2009, Williams et al (2017) have published (see their Fig 9a) zonal average temperatures through the lunar 'day'. Williams et al only state average temperatures for the equator (-57ºC) and poleward of 85º of latitude (-170ºC). To calculate an average for the whole Moon, taking all latitudes through a complete lunar 'day', the average for the Moon calculate out at -73ºC, a lot colder than Earth.
-
BeezelyBillyBub at 00:49 AM on 10 October 2018The Trump administration has entered Stage 5 climate denial
Five steps to 1.5 C = Bullshit
1) Global emissions of CO2 need to decline by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030
- This will never happen, period.
2) Renewables are estimated to provide up to 85% of global electricity by 2050
- 85% global electricity = 18% of total world power demand. You can't say emissions must be 0% at the same time only 18% of world fossil demand is renewable. 50% of Europe's renewable electricity comes from burning trees, and they want to double the amount of trees they burn by 2030.
3) Coal is expected to reduce to close to zero
- China is now building more new coal plants than there are in all the U.S.. China is reducing solar panel output 40% over 2 years. This is totally ignored.
4) Up to seven million sq km of land will be needed for energy crops (a bit less than the size of Australia)
- By 2030 we'll need 50% more food and 30% more water. When they speak of reforesting, they're talking tree farms not biodiversity.
5) Global net zero emissions by 2050
- 2050 = political, 2040 = reality
**What does it mean?**
A 45% reduction in energy = job losses. Decoupling growth from emissions is bullshit. The IPCC states that 2 C will only have a moderate impact on tourism, a statement so idiotic it defies explanation.
These IPCC reports are extorted and distorted half-truths based on political expediency. They already deleted a statement that 1.5 C = war and mass migration.
There is no cohesive thought on this subject, let alone a coherent plan that makes any sense, whatsoever.
Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45775309
-
michael sweet at 00:16 AM on 10 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #39
I found it very interesting that in the most recent IPCC report scientists are warning that if strong action is not taken immediately there will be catastrophic results. As I recall, only 5 years ago "skeptics" would use the term CAGW to deride scientists and Skeptical Science. Scientists then would say they were not warning of catastrophie, only future problems. In such a short time the prognosis has gotten much worse.
We have to do all we can now to limit the damage as much as possible.
Vote climate.
-
Richard Lawson at 23:44 PM on 9 October 2018Greenhouse effect has been falsified
The Moon surface temperature is 130C during the day, falling to -110C in the lunar night, so the average surface temperature would be +20C, would it not? Which is hotter than our +15C, attributed to our GHE.
Is there some characteristic of the Moon temperature cycle that would account for this apparent contradiction?
Thanks for help with this. -
One Planet Only Forever at 14:57 PM on 9 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #39
scaddenp and nigelj,
Your feedback has led me to more thinking/reasoning.
I understand the importance of helping to change the minds of others to be more altruistic, particularly within political groups. SkS develops and presents improving awareness and understanding that helps change/correct minds.
My interest is ethics related to achieving and improving the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly the Climate Action goals. The more rapidly and dramatically climate goals are achieved, the easier it is to achieve the other goals.
I follow SkS and comment, appreciating the feedback, to improve my awareness and understanding of ethics related to climate science and share what I learn as I develop it.
The basics of Altruism
Altruism is 'Self-sacrifice for the benefit of others'. It is the opposite of Selfishness. Governing or limiting behaviour that way is Ethical.
Altruism is a governing principle that everyone can accept including: religious, agnostic or atheist; and all socioeconomic and political types. It's benefits/necessity to developing a better future for humanity has been recognized for as long as there have been records of what people in societies were thinking.
Altruism can be understood to be constantly challenged. There are many cases of the harmful consequences of anti-altruistic interests temporarily regionally winning power.
A climate science test of altruism, that the Right-wing and Conservative leadership have failed
There is a clear altruistic response to the awareness of the production of harmful consequences by burning fossil fuels without rapidly fully neutralizing the resulting impacts -> The burning of fossil fuels is unacceptable regardless of its perceived benefits, popularity or profitability.
What has developed is altruistically unacceptable and needs to be corrected. Increasing that awareness has generated a divisive polarized response by some people.
Harm is done to future generations by a 1.5 C warming, no matter how beneficial the burning is today. I have not seen compelling proof that 1.5 C warming, and all the other impacts from burning up that much fossil fuels, will create any sustainable improvement for the future of humanity.
Warming beyond 1.5 C may be very likely to occur, not because it is acceptable, but because there are errors in the socioeconomic-political systems that have developed a serious lack of altruism, a lack of ethics, particularly among winners/leaders and authority figures.
Regarding Conservatives and Right-wingers potentially accepting the idea of a Carbon fee and rebate program
Doug Ford, Jason Kenney, and other Conservative and Right-wing leadership in Canada have recently shown what a Conservative response to putting a price on Carbon should be expected to be (see this CBC article).
Conservative or right-wing groups around the world can be expected to behave in similar ways. They share their strategies and talking points. They are shifting from the now failing, but temporarily regionally successful, claims that climate science was incorrect or a conspiracy.
Confronted with a price on CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels they call it a tax (and they have primed people to believe that all tax is evil). And the article includes information regarding other anti-altruistic actions of the current developed Conservative Right-wing in Canada. They are anti-altruistic about much more than climate science.
Conservative and Right-wing groups have devolved away from altruism in a polarizing socially divisive way. They have become collectives of anti-altruistically self-interested people supporting each other's unacceptable interests. And they hope to continue to get the support from people who are reluctant to change their mind about what group they vote for. Their actions related to climate science are just the tip of the anti-altruism icebergs that these groups have been developing into.
I admire people who try to change the climate science related opinions of people who still support Conservative or Right-wing groups that have deliberately devolved away from altruism. But they have to find the people who are willing to becoming more altruistic, people willing to Leave the New Conservative United Right.
Regarding claims that people cannot change how they think, cannot become more altruistic because it is not their nature
How a person responds 'in the context of a specific emergency' is likely to be their natural intuitive response to that type of situation. In an emergency people could react in a range from: 'trying to help others at significant personal risk of harm' through 'helping but at low personal risk' and 'ignoring what is happening' to 'running away or trying to hide'.
However, 'responses to the improving awareness and understanding of climate science' are not responses in emergencies. There is time to learn more and consider how to respond.In non-emergency situations people have the time to govern their thoughts and actions altruistically. And they should do that whenever there is the potential for harm to be done, as climate science has proven to be the case regarding fossil fuels.
People can learn to be more altruistic. Emergency responders learn to be more altruistic in emergency situations than they would have instinctively behaved. They also learn to keep themselves and others safe while putting themselves at risk to help others. Surgeons also learn to think about what they are doing when they respond to an emergency during surgery.
All humans have a brain that can learn to be more altruistic. They can learn to be willing to make a personal sacrifice rather than allow what they do to be ruled by their impulses or intuitive desires.
The actions of leaders and authorities of Right-wing and Conservative groups show that they have developed away from altruistically governing their thoughts and actions, particularly, but not limited to, them having little concern for future generations of humanity. Their anti-altruism is on full display in their response to climate science and the undeniable altruistic requirement to stop the harm being done to future generations of humanity by the unsustainable pursuits of personal benefit from the extraction and burning up of non-renewable ancient buried hydrocarbons.
More about Altruism
Everyone can easily claim they are being helpful or are pursuing freedom. As a minimum they are helping themselves be freer to do what they want. They can also claim to be helping others like them. It is more difficult to provide justification that what is being pursued is altruistic.
Selfishness readily accepts and defends gut-instinct first-impressions.
Altruism constrains freedom and beliefs. It requires justification based on specific criteria. Identifying examples of helpfulness is not the same as 'being governed by altruism', especially if the helpfulness is not evaluated from the perspective of the future of humanity.
The evidence continues to grow. The future of humanity requires altruism to govern over selfishness, regardless of temporary regional perceptions of superiority developed by anti-altruistic people winning.
It is tragic that anti-altruistic people can still win wealth and power in the nations that have developed to be the most harmful or helpful to the future of humanity, nations that are supposedly the most advanced.
As the understanding of the importance of altruism has increased (including, but not only, the string of developments that have led to the Sustainable Development Goals), political groups have evolved in pursuit of winning. Some become more altruistic. Others continued to excuse unjustifiable personal economic interests and tried to improve their chances of winning by appealing for support from other groups who were also on the wrong side of what is required for humanity to have a future.
The anti-altruists have developed collectives of altruism resistant minds. The SkS developed and promoted efforts to inoculate people against misleading marketing related to climate science will likely not change those minds. And compromising what is altruistically required in an attempt to 'get along with those type of people' is not helpful. Those type of people will need to be externally governed altruistically until they learn to change their mind, for the benefit of the future of humanity.
A final summary point regarding political polarization
Presentation of evidence and related improved understanding (like the new IPCC report) that is contrary to the interests of a politically identifiable group (the new IPCC report is clearly critical of the results of political parties that have tried to delay climate action), is not being political or being divisive. However, the responses of such groups to being confronted with such evidence and improved understanding can be seen to be socially divisive and politically polarizing. Unjustifiable resistance to changing their minds leads to differences of opinion that are unlikely to be resolved though reasoned discussion, because the groups do not share the objective of being altruistic. One group will have to govern/over-rule the interests of the other group. For humanity to have a future Altruism has to govern
-
ubrew12 at 05:49 AM on 9 October 2018The Trump administration has entered Stage 5 climate denial
Quote: "Trump...[has] taken the nihilistic viewpoint that we’re screwed and nothing we do matters." Proverbs, ch 23, verse 7: "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he".
-
william5331 at 05:24 AM on 9 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #40
Note that the term 'glacial period' was used instead of Ice Age. If we use 'ice age' for glacial periods like the previous one that extended from about 125,000 years ago (the Eemian) up until about 15,000 years ago, we will have to find a new term for the approximately 2.75m years we are still in, in which there have been about 30 glacial and interglacial periods.
-
william5331 at 05:21 AM on 9 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #40
Since the plough was invented, we have been releasing sequestered carbon into the atmosphere. Reading Plought Plagues and Petroleum by William F Ruddiman, it seems likely that this output of Carbon dioxide was just enough to hold off the slide into the next glacial period. Along came industrial civilization with too much of a good thing. The stable climate since the end of the recent glacial may have been due to the plough. Now we need to reverse this trend and get carbon back into the soils. Secondary benefits of doing this are huge. Fortunately there is a blue print in David R Montgomery's book, Growing a Revolution; Restoring our soils. His previous book, Dirt and sebsequent book, The Hidden Half of Nature rounds out the story.
-
MA Rodger at 05:13 AM on 9 October 2018Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
JC @250,
You ask "Why would strong pressure prevent CO2 from having a greenhouse effect ?" It is actually the other way about. On Mars we see ten-times the CO2 but very low atmospheric pressure and a very low GH-effect resulting from that CO2.
You may have noted in the OP above the use of the term "pressure broadening." The absorption of radiation by a greenhouse gas occurs at very distinct wavelengths. These are usually bunched into a series of lines resulting from the quantum spins a gas molecule can have. But as the pressure of the gas increases (for instance, resulting from mixing in 800mbar of N2 and 200mbar of O2) these distinct wavelengths become broadened out. The result is that the greenhouse gas can more completely absorb a wider wavelength. The graphic below is taken from a Science of Doom page illustrates what can happen to a single line under presure broadening.
The result of pressure broadening is a more effective GH-effect from a single gas operating in a particular wave-band. (In the analogy @242, it's a bit like the "hat and gloves" becoming a full balaclava & arm-length gloves.)
-
MA Rodger at 05:06 AM on 9 October 2018Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
JC @250,
You ask "Why would strong pressure prevent CO2 from having a greenhouse effect ?" It is actually the other way about. On Mars we see ten times the CO2 but very low atmospheric pressure and a very low GH-effect resulting from that CO2.
You may have noted in the OP above the use of the term "pressure broadening." The absorption of radiation by a greenhouse gas occurs at very distinct wavelengths. These are usually bunched into a series of lines resulting from the quantum spins a gas molecule can have. But as the pressure of the gas increases (for instance, resulting from mixing in 800mbar of N2 and 200mbar of O2) these distinct wavelengths become broadened out. The result is that the greenhouse gas can more completely absorb a wider wavelength. (In the analogy @242, it's a bit like the "hat and gloves" becoming a full balaclava & arm-length gloves.) The graphic below is taken from a Science of Doom page, one of a series which explains the ins-&-outs of how GH-effects work.
The result of pressure broadening is a more effective GH-effect from a single gas operating in a particular wave-band.
-
JC16932 at 03:31 AM on 9 October 2018Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
MA Rodger :
« You say that "CO2 alone has a very low GH-effect." And the only place where we find what is effectively "CO2 alone" is the 6mbar atmosphere of Mars which provides something like a 12Wm^-2 GH-effect. The usual-reported calculations put the 0.6mbar CO2 contribution to Earth's GH-effect as being 25%, perhaps 40Wm^-2, this the GH-effect if all other GHGs were taken from the atmosphere. But that CO2 would still sit within 800mbar of N2 and 200mbar of O2.»
I do not understand your explanation. Why would strong pressure prevent CO2 from having a greenhouse effect ?
-
MA Rodger at 19:57 PM on 8 October 2018Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
Lasterday @112,
As a "chemical engineer" you should have had no problem quickly sourcing those "real numbers" to "run" but as you have not returned with your findings, may I take up the challenge.
The CO2 expelled in human respiration has been calculated as equivalent to 6% or 9% of the anthropogenic emissions from fossil-fuel-use (although the emissions values cannot include emissions from land-use-change and still appear out-dated relative to the world population figures used). Using more up-to-date (all for 2016) figures (latest Global Carbon Project figures are for 2016) drops the results to to 4% to 6%.
However, such analysis does lead to the question - Where does the 55kg/head/yr or 90kg/head/yr of carbon required for such breathed CO2 come from? Of course, the source is our food which has, as a primary source of carbon, that obtained through vegitable photosynthesis, which in turn gains carbon from atmospheric CO2.
The one remaining question relating to human respiration as a contributor to atmospheric CO2 levels would be whether there are carbon pools that have diminished because of that increased cycling of carbon (atmosphere > plants > food > humans > atmosphere). There are more humans with an 18½% carbon content (or 11½kg per head). That would suggest that the rise in human population over recent years (80M/yr) would be sequestering carbon equal to 0.008% of our global FF+LUC CO2 emissions. There is also more plants/food within the cycle but this increase probably sequesters far less carbon than the releases from the land being 'cleared' for agriculture which is responsible for 11% of our CO2 emissions.
I thus can find no dimishing pool of carbon that is not being accounted within the calculations of human CO2 emissions, or for that matter any significant increasing pool of carbon.
-
nigelj at 05:01 AM on 8 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #40
Driving By
"making passenger cars more complex and shrink-wrapped around the mechanicals, so people in the US fled from them. Leading to b2) a plauge of crossovers (that's most vehicles now marketed as SUVs), which are basically the old station wagon but taller and less efficient than they simply squaring/stretching a car into wagon form."
I would think the popularity of SUV's is more likely to be caused by a sense that these larger cars are safer, good visibility, interior space, and off road appeal and they have bcome status symbols.
I have a small car shrink wrapped about complex mechanicals that are somewhat baffling to look at, but its japanese and never breaks down. I doubt that the complexity issue worries most buyers. SUV's are now packed with electronic complexity anyway.
-
John Hartz at 01:10 AM on 8 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #40
DrivingBy: You wrote:
It would be better to trash CAFE and have a carbon tax, but that's not going to happen.
CAFE standards and a carbon tax are not mutual exclusive mechanisms to reduce carbon emissions. There is absolutely no need to pit one against the other. Neither one is a silver bullet. Both are silver buckshot.
-
John Hartz at 01:04 AM on 8 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #40
DrivingBy:
Your assertion that CAFE standards caused the shift in the US auto/light truck market to shift from small fuel efficient vehicles to SUVs and larger pickup trucks is patently absurd. If that were the case, the motor vehicle manufacturers would be pounding on the door demanding even stricter CAFE standards. In reality, they are doing just the opposite.
-
John Hartz at 23:51 PM on 7 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #40
DrivingBy:
CAFE standards did not cause and accelerate urban sprawl in the US. There is no factual basis for this assertion.
For factual information about CAFE standards in the US, see:
A Brief History of U.S. Fuel Efficiency Standards, Union of Concerned Scientists, Last revised date: December 6, 2017
For factual information about urban sprawl in the US, see:
The Characteristics, Causes, and Consequences of Sprawling Development Patterns in the United States by Samuel Brody (Director, Institute for Sustainable Coastal Communities, Texas A&M University) © 2013 Nature Education
Citation: Brody, S. (2013) The Characteristics, Causes, and Consequences of Sprawling Development Patterns in the United States. Nature Education Knowledge 4(5):2
-
Lasterday at 23:08 PM on 7 October 2018Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
As a chemical engineer I feel it's misdirection to talk about the carbon cycle and say that an increase in human resperation does not add to atmospheric CO2. It may turn out to be a trivial amount, I'd have to find some numbers to guage it, but this post is meant to give a little background.
If all the carbon on earth were solid carbon and suddenly you changed it all to gaseous CO2 (this can't actually happen according to the gas law) and did this back and forth and back and forth according to the "carbon cycle" argument since there's no change in net carbon we are supposed to ignore atmospheric carbon going from nonexistant to "lots" and back again. "Hey - the cabon cycle is balanced." If more CO2 is put into the atmosphere from breathing the "cycle" itself gets bigger, the partial pressure of CO2 increases. Since biomass is a scrubber of CO2 (plants eat CO2) then there could be a net effect if the additional CO2 isn't eaten by plants. That's the issue. So to me, whipping out the carbon cycle doesn't make a whole lot of sense. My quick take is figure the volume of the atmosphere and the CO2 percentage and get that amount (huge # of moles) and then figure the amount in the resperation of 8 billion more people and see if the CO2 exaled from people is of the same order of atmospheric CO2. And keeping in mind that everything is an estimate - we don't know how many moles of carbon or anything else are on Earth. We don't know the exact volume of the atmosphere - they are estimates.
It may not factor in, but saying "the carbon cycle accounts for more breathing" is misdirection, it is just saying the net amount of carbon on Earth is staying the same, and that's not what the issue is. The net amount of gold on Earth is staying the same, too. Everything is - excepting new material from meterites and junk we send away in rockets that reaches outer space. We should be arguing about the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere.
'Ol Wikepedia says this "The oceans of the world have absorbed almost half of the CO2 emitted by humans from the burning of fossil fuels." It's like soda pop - if the ocean warms slightly, CO2 is released into the atmosphere increasing the partial pressure of CO2. Since the CO2 level seems to be cyclic
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/
perhaps periodic ocean warming is the culprit. People argue that the older peaks are not as high as the current peaks, but remember the latest data is from direct measurement, the older values are taken from ice core samples and perhaps while the samples show higher CO2 values the peaks are lost from gas loses at the sample boundries, handling issues, etc.
Of course, industrial CO2 factors in. Let's run some real numbers!
Moderator Response:[DB] "the CO2 level seems to be cyclic"
CO2 levels in the past were driven by known natural factors. None of those factors are in play during the recent increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2. The human forcing is now the largest forcing, dwarfing all natural forcings, including that from the sun itself.
"perhaps periodic ocean warming is the culprit"
Not so. Please read this post. The oceans are a net sink of CO2 released by human activities, which is why they are still acidifying.
The 18-part 'OA is NOT OK' series, written by subject matter experts in that field, as summarized in Parts 1 and Part 2 is a worthy study.
-
MA Rodger at 20:27 PM on 7 October 2018Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
JC @248,
You say that "CO2 alone has a very low GH-effect." And the only place where we find what is effectively "CO2 alone" is the 6mbar atmosphere of Mars which provides something like a 12Wm^-2 GH-effect. The usual-reported calculations put the 0.6mbar CO2 contribution to Earth's GH-effect as being 25%, perhaps 40Wm^-2, this the GH-effect if all other GHGs were taken from the atmosphere. But that CO2 would still sit within 800mbar of N2 and 200mbar of O2. You may have a problem with this situation. Science does not. (Consider, the Mercedes F1 W09 EQ Power+ has a 1.6litre engine yet can travel at speeds more than three-times that of a Mercedes OM 501 LA-541 which has a 12litre engine. To borrow your incredulity for a second time, "Where's the logic in that?")
As for data being ignored, the publications of ELR Ladurie are not ignored, although the origin of the graphic you present up-thread @241 remains a complete mystery. The data examined by Beck (2007) or Beck (2008) is not ignored although it may be dismissed as irrelevant. What is ignored is the papers written by Beck because they are nonsense and unscientific. Beck agrees his analysis is ignored "The scientific community still ignore the above-cited critics," he says. But isn't that because Beck ignores all the real science, the stuff that shows he is spouting nonsense. He may feel that such a conclusion is "unjustified" but he does nothing to support his claim of injustice. Again he is unscientific! -
JC16932 at 18:27 PM on 7 October 2018Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
To ignore certain data (Leroy Ladurie and Beck for example) is not science. Science must take into account all available data. Vostoc's data have also been criticized.
Moreover, when science uses the deductive method, the initial hypothesis becomes an explanation only when the model works perfectly. This is not yet the case in climatology. Also the hypothesis remains a hypothesis.
I am not trying to invalidate the greenhouse effect but to understand how 7000 times more CO2 in the atmosphere of Mars compared to the Earth can not even heat the planet by at least 26 W / m2. The answer given above to this question is remains very imprecise and implies that CO2 alone (without the water vapor gene) actually has a very low greenhouse effect.
Moderator Response:[DB] "The answer given above to this question is remains very imprecise and implies that CO2 alone (without the water vapor gene) actually has a very low greenhouse effect"
CO2 levels in the past were driven by known natural factors. None of those factors are in play during the recent increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2. The human forcing is now the largest forcing, dwarfing all natural forcings, including that from the sun itself.
Please remain on-topic to the nature of the OP of the post on which you place comments. Thousands of posts exist on this venue, on every topic related to climate science you can think of. Use the Search function present in the UL of every page or learn to use the Taxonomy listing of the site.
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.
Sloganeering snipped.
-
DrivingBy at 12:46 PM on 7 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #40
They are actually correct about one thing: CAFE is a poor way of reducing fossil fuel use. Two of its major effects were
a1) Making very efficient small and medium cars cheap and common, which lead to a2) building subdivisions further out from employment centers. You have to drive -everywhere- in those exurbs, not just to work, and it's all single family houses.
b) making passenger cars more complex and shrink-wrapped around the mechanicals, so people in the US fled from them. Leading to b2) a plauge of crossovers (that's most vehicles now marketed as SUVs), which are basically the old station wagon but taller and less efficient than they simply squaring/stretching a car into wagon form.
Another effect is that there are no more small pickups. Today you can have huge or almost huge pickups but there's no CAFE category that fits small or medium trucklets.
It would be better to trash CAFE and have a carbon tax, but that's not going to happen.
-
John Hartz at 08:42 AM on 7 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #40
Sunspot: At this juncture, we do not know who was responsible for ginning up the draft EIS for the NHSTA. I suspect it was not a qualified climate scientist.
-
John Hartz at 08:40 AM on 7 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #40
Nigelj: With all due respect, I believe that you are grasping at straws. The corporate sector has not convinced the Pretend President and his minions that geo-engineering is the solution to man-made climate change. The Trumpies reject climate science on political and/or religious ideological grounds. Whoever ginned-up the draft EIS for the NHSTA is probably in deep dodo. If they are not, they certainly should be.
-
earth'n at 06:55 AM on 7 October 2018Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
In 1968, the spring where we had gathered drinking water and cress was tested and found to be unpotable. I knew then, at age 8 that the earth was ill. As I floated rivers, hiked valleys and mountains and looked down from airplanes, I have witnessed the destruction of the earth. I wonder if Giaever ever set foot outside his lab.
Maybe don't fixate on "Warming" afterall it is just one symptom of what we are doing. Anyone does not have to be a scientist to be conscious and aware and mindful of physical manifestation of pollution and of factual data accurately presented.
I'm guessing he is a sad lonely man.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 06:35 AM on 7 October 2018Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/beck-to-the-future/
Georg Beck is known to have publicized a graph with a discontinuity in the x axis and a change in time scale that was downright laughable, he was not a credible source at all. Beck's nonsense has been debunked multiple times, years ago.
You need to choose your sources more carefully. It seems you're getting all your information from propagandists instead of looking in the litterature. You do not specifiy who the IPCC author you cite is and the date of the report. Cherry picking 1998 as a starting date is an obvious indication that one is trying to misrepresent the trend. 1998 saw a massive El-Nino and is obviously the worst possible choice for the start of any trend calculation, as would be a strong La-Nina year. Whenever I see a "trend" starting in 1998, I know that someone is trying to fool me and the alarm bells start ringing. The insistence by deniers to pick 1998 and their lack of mention of the corresponding El-Nino is the main reason why the so-called pause has no credibility. Start on any other year and the pause disappears. In the case of your citation, extend the period beyond 2012 to include 2017 and the trend is higher than ever. As was pointed above, there is no "current drop" in temperature. Attempting to argue with a pseudo trend that ended in 2012 does not help your case when there are 5 more years of data.
Let's summarize your contribution: you started with attempting to correlate a supposedly stagnant level of water vapor in the stratosphere (which is, in fact, increasing) with supposedly stagnant temperatures, which all sources show to be increasing as of 2017, regardless of the start year (yes, even if you cherry pick 1998, it no longer works). If you had even a superficial understanding of the seminal Iacono and Clough 1995 paper, you would have seen that water vapor (and other GH gasses) in the stratosphere contribute, in fact, to stratospheric cooling and have little influence on tropospheric temperatures.
Nonetheless, this was part of a rather pitiful effort to try to invalidate the greenhouse effect altogether, with "calculations' that were worthless; as was quickly pointed to you, you were nowhere near close to understand what you were talking about and ignorant of a large body of scientific research and litterature that you later, indirectly, confessed to be over your head. Just to be clear as to the validity of the MODTRAN model: that's what they use to ensure that IR guided weapons go where they're supposed to go. It works.
You did not have the decency to acknowledge any of these shortcomings in your argument, or the arrogance of the wide ranging pronouncements you made before the extent of your incompetence on the subject was revealed.
Instead, you moved on to what you thought were new things, bringing in something you considered to be paleo data evidence. Once again, there is far more about this than you suspected and that was pointed to you but, once again, you could not acknowledge how weak your argument was.
You are free to have whatever opinion you choose. Considering the level of ignorance and lack of understanding that you have shown in this thread post after post, it is obvious that your opinion is worthless and I am also free to point that out. Opinions do not have validity by virtue of their existence. Some people hold the opinion that the Earth is flat; their opinion has no value.
-
Sunspot at 06:19 AM on 7 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #40
My first reaction is, why are we suddenly taking climate information from the NHTSA as gospel? 4 degrees C by 2100 is a little high for most current "official" estimates I believe. And because one agency makes a statement like that, how is this suddenly the official position of the entire administration? But, as I will point out again, we already know that enough feedbacks have kicked in that it is likely pointless to mitigate what we are doing, it doesn't matter anymore. Not that we are trying anyway! I'm afraid 4 degrees C by 2100 is still too optimistic. Here in Concord NH it has averaged 4-5 degrees F above average since at least July, and it going to stay way above average for at least a few more weeks. At what point do we recognize that Abrupt Climate Change is here? (just wondering)
-
michael sweet at 06:13 AM on 7 October 2018Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
JC,
Can you provide a citation for your claim that "Georg Beck compiled data on the 19th century". What is your point?
If you do not provide a citation to support your claims they have little meaning.
Your claim about the GIEC has been addressed upthread. To summarize:
- 15 years is too short a time period to determine a trend.
- The "hiatus" trend was never statistically significant.
- The data has been updated which increased the trend over the time period you specified.
- The four hottest years in the record are 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017. Adding these points to the data show that there was no "hiatus" in the trend.
- 2018 is currently the 4th hottest year in the record. The most recent 5 years are the hottest 5 years in the record.
Prev 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 Next
