Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 Next
Comments 14201 to 14250:
-
cready at 00:21 AM on 18 May 2018Video: The Myth of the Mini Ice Age
Thanks for posting this. After years of claiming that the Sun is responsible for global warming, now the climate denial industry are claiming the opposite. This isn't moving the goal posts so much as reversing their location.
-
Lexaray at 22:17 PM on 17 May 2018How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
How can you claim that deforestation contributes more to global warming than animal agriculture when cattle ranching alone is the main cause of deforestation???? Am I crazy for thinking that that's a blindlingly embarrassing flaw to this post???
https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/deforestation
-
Daniel Bailey at 08:48 AM on 17 May 2018California, battered by global warming’s weather whiplash, is fighting to stop it
Windows 10 and Chrome here. Works fine.
-
newairly at 21:03 PM on 16 May 2018California, battered by global warming’s weather whiplash, is fighting to stop it
Not working Win XP and latest Firefox.
Only shows part of this article summary after the first on the home page.
California, battered by global warming’s weather whiplash, is fighting to stop it
Posted on 14 May 2018 by dana1981 -
scaddenp at 10:53 AM on 16 May 2018California, battered by global warming’s weather whiplash, is fighting to stop it
Works on WIn7 too. Odd.
-
nigelj at 07:50 AM on 16 May 2018California, battered by global warming’s weather whiplash, is fighting to stop it
Scaddenp, it's the home page not working for me, as it only displays one article and half of next article, in chrome and firefox windows 10. Individual articles work fine. Other websites are fine.
However the home page works ok on chrome and firefox on windows 8.1 (my old computer) and the android phone.
It looks like a compatability issue that's developed between windows 10 and chrome / firefox, and this website, but I'm useless with tech and I'm just guessing.
-
scaddenp at 07:17 AM on 16 May 2018California, battered by global warming’s weather whiplash, is fighting to stop it
Hmm. Working for me in FF and Chrome. Got a "Click here to read the rest" in green box at bottom of article. Do you not see green box, or is the link not working?
-
nigelj at 06:09 AM on 16 May 2018California, battered by global warming’s weather whiplash, is fighting to stop it
I'm having the same problem as ianw01, google chrome and also firefox on windows 10.
-
knaugle at 03:25 AM on 16 May 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #19
#1
Well considering the scene is from Titanic?
I guess they weren't worrying either. -
ianw01 at 23:14 PM on 15 May 2018California, battered by global warming’s weather whiplash, is fighting to stop it
"In what way?" It only shows the "tease" for one article, without even a link at the end to the whole post.
Moderator Response:[DB] Working normally for me, in Chrome
-
Riduna at 08:16 AM on 15 May 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
In their 2011 Paper, Schuur and Abbott concluded that no more than 2.7% of greenhouse gasses emitted by melting of permafrost would be in the form of CH4, with 93.3% of CH4 being oxidised and emitted as CO2. This widely accepted view ignored the fact that when the top 2-3 metres of permafrost degrades, much of the land is covered in water due to poor drainage. This inhibits oxidation of CH4 since methanotrophic bacteria responsible for this process cannot function in anoxic conditions normally found in waterlogged land.
It should be expected that CH4 emissions from permafrost degredation, both onshore and from the submerged continental shelf bordering the Arctic Ocean, will therefore be very much higher and its oxidation in the atmosphere very much slower due to depletion of hydroxil (H1O) radicals essential for this process. Hydroxil radicals are derived from ozone and their depletion is due in part to anthropogenic effects on the zone layer and on CH4 emissions exceeding the rate of hydroxil formation.
The likely outcome is that global warming will produce significantly increasing CH4 emissions beyond human control (unlike farming and industrial emissions) and well beyond the capacity of hyroxils to oxidise. The result will be that the lifespan of CH4 in the atmosphere, now 10-12 years, will increase – as will its contribution to global warming, further degrading permafrost and releasing even greater quantities of CH4 to the atmosphere. CH4 emissions from permafrost will become an increasingly serious problem.
-
nigelj at 06:49 AM on 15 May 2018California, battered by global warming’s weather whiplash, is fighting to stop it
Your home page isn't working properly.
It's interesting that Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Republican and has promoted an effective cap and trade scheme, and top marks to him. Must have taken some courage. However it suggests a supportive and enlightened business sector.
If only people elsewhere could put their vested interests, short term concerns and ideologies aside and look at the data for California. Really look, and understand it and how positive it all is.
Moderator Response:[DB] "Your home page isn't working properly"
In what way?
-
Kiwiiano at 06:32 AM on 15 May 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #19
Not sure about "We don't have to worry about icebergs...." If the melting Greenland icecap lubricates the undersides of the various glaciers we could yet see an outbreak of more than usual numbers of icebergs. Just in time for the increased numbers of oil tankers taking advantage of the ice-free Arctic Ocean..... ;^(
-
nigelj at 10:29 AM on 13 May 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
Related research. Scientists struggle to explain a worrying rise in atmospheric methane
-
jef12506 at 22:50 PM on 12 May 2018New research, April 30 - May 6, 2018
Thank you SkS for putting together these studies in one place.
-
michael sweet at 20:36 PM on 12 May 2018Analysis: How much ‘carbon budget’ is left to limit global warming to 1.5C?
Nigelj@9:
I agree with your point. Unfortunately, the carbon dioxide being released today has a much longer lifetime in the atmosphere than you think. From the Guardian:
"The rest is removed by slower processes that take up to several hundreds of thousands of years, including chemical weathering and rock formation. This means that once in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide can continue to affect climate for thousands of years." my emphasis.
The next ice age has been delayed by at least tens of thousands of years by the carbon already in the atmosphere.
-
Evan at 14:31 PM on 12 May 2018Analysis: How much ‘carbon budget’ is left to limit global warming to 1.5C?
nigelj@11
Good points. We have a lot in common. I think that what sets humans apart from other animals is altuism.
Clearly we need more of it.
-
nigelj at 14:14 PM on 12 May 2018Analysis: How much ‘carbon budget’ is left to limit global warming to 1.5C?
Evan @10, I feel much the same way, and ask myself similar questions. In fact its very difficult for an individual to find answers to such difficult questions, so dont stress too much.
I think we have three key problems of climate change, environmental pressures generally, and growing danger of resource scarcity, and they strongly interrelate, but knowing the appropriate individual response is hard, and not even the experts can say with any certainty. However we do definitely know we need to obviously adopt renewable energy and consume a lot less resources per capita. In other words own less stuff. Of course its easy to pontificate on the right thing and harder to do, but that doesn't make it any less the right thing.
The issue is that humans are by nature status seeking and this is expressed through our materialism, the very thing we are now being expected to consciously scale back on. Its a huge "conflict of interest" so quite challenging, particularly as individuals are reluctant to make sacrifices unless everyone does.
However I think there's also a growing sense that materialism has a strict law of steeply diminishing returns in terms of happiness. I'm not an advocate for simple hair shirt lifestyles, however there's possibly a sweet spot of consumerism in the middle somewhere that is sustainable long term.
And perhaps rather than trying to formulate precise plans in terms of personal consumption or make radical immediate changes, its better to just get things pointing in the right general direction. Taking the first step is the hardest.
Humans are also selfish in varying degrees, but this is made complicated by the fact that some level of selfishness is not an inherently a bad thing because without it we would not surivive long. However we are clearly not entirely selfish. We are genetically wired with strong altruistic instincts as well. Many of us seem to be conscious that altruism is important, helping others is important, and acceptance of others is important, and its not just instinctive because there are obvious practical benefits from this. I tend to think right now humanity needs to concentrate on altruism, and international cooperation, and any nationalism needs to be restrained and strictly evidence based.
We are also genetically primed for loyalty to our immediate group and distrustful of other groups according to research. So expecting people to consider future distant generations of people not in our group is hard work. Yet again its clear from history that humans have risen above narrow and self defeating fears of other people.
-
Evan at 12:45 PM on 12 May 2018Analysis: How much ‘carbon budget’ is left to limit global warming to 1.5C?
nigelj@9
Agree. But knowledge does not equate to action. Yes, with smoking it is more insidious because there is a chemical dependency.
The insidious problem for us, is that even as I write this, and even as I present myself as a person interested in changing my behavior, I have normalized such excess in my life as an American, that it is difficult for me to even determine what a proper lifestyle is that is consistent with how we need to be responding. I am serious about changing, but wonder if I have the courage to act on my convictions ... assuming I knew in the first place what constituted an appropriate response.
-
nigelj at 12:38 PM on 12 May 2018Analysis: How much ‘carbon budget’ is left to limit global warming to 1.5C?
A news article a couple of nights ago discussed research finding children of smokers had nicotene levels in their bodies that in many cases were the same as their parents, through passive smoking. So it appears to me these children are probably already partly addicted, and are going to be highly predisposed to want to try smoking cigarettes. So smoking has more significant effects on others than we realised.
However climate change is expected to keep atmospheric CO2 levels significantly elevated for about 1000 years I recall according to the IPCC, so this is effecting what, about 300 generations or so.
-
Evan at 12:29 PM on 12 May 2018Analysis: How much ‘carbon budget’ is left to limit global warming to 1.5C?
OPOF@7
I agree with what you are saying. Completely agree. But if people don't stop behavior that harms themselves, they are less likely to stop behavior that harms others. It is the nature of the selfish people we are. We usually will not make a decision that will make us feel less comfortable. This is why Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" is a brilliant title. If global warming and climate change are natural, then we can continue to pray for the poor, helpless people suffering overseas. But if we accept that it is our emissions causing the problems, then we are faced with the inconvenient truth that we must change our lifestyles.
National polls often cite that 50% or so of people accept that GW and CC are real and that fossil-fuel emissions are the problem. But what percentage of the people you know are changing their lifestyle to account for that reality? I can count the number of people I know changing their lives on one hand or maybe two. We should care about others, but considering that half of American voted for a nationalistic president, to me it seems the message is clear that in the end we will take care of ourselves and, at best, pray for the others. I don't mean to criticize Christians. I am a Christian. But I don't see a very Christian response to this problem, because sacrificing for the sake of others is a tough thing to do.
People will barely sacrifice for their own good, much less the good of others.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:01 PM on 12 May 2018Analysis: How much ‘carbon budget’ is left to limit global warming to 1.5C?
Evan@6,
I am well aware and agree.
A major difference between tobacco and fossil fuels is that the burning of fossil fuels creates accumulating future harm to Others.
Negative impacts of smoking have mainly been limited to the people lured into doing it. Burning fossil fuels harms Others.
Doing harm to Others makes an action even less acceptable than doing harm to one's self. So, hopefully that understanding can speed up the correction of what has developed, leading others, particularly the genuinely caring and deserving among the wealthy, to act more aggressively to protect humanity from the damaging sub-set of the population, particularly against the interests of the damaging undeserving wealthy ones.
-
Evan at 11:24 AM on 12 May 2018Analysis: How much ‘carbon budget’ is left to limit global warming to 1.5C?
OPOF@5
By the 1940's we already knew that smoking caused cancer, but it took until the 1990's to enact meaningful legislation in the US. And 15% of Americans still smoke. This is a problem that does not have distant impacts, but impacts within ones lifetime, and for which each person probably has known somebody who has suffered ill effects of tobacco use. Yet the problem goes on.
Breaking habits is indeed difficult, even if we know the ill effects to our health. Breaking the fossil-fuel habit, where the impacts are distant (or at least perceived to be distant), will be really, really tough.
-
nigelj at 09:00 AM on 12 May 2018New research, April 30 - May 6, 2018
A couple of interesting things: Alien Waters: Neighboring Seas Are Flowing into a Warming Arctic Ocean - the “Atlantification” and “Pacification” of the Arctic has begun.
New research related to Hurricane Harvey: Record-breaking ocean heat fueled Hurricane Harvey
The research "Teaching environmental policy in an era of polarization and misrepresentation" appears well founded, and is astonishing to me because its politely saying the leadership in America is rotten to the core as far as the environment is concerned. It just seems astonishing because research is normally not quite so direct in its findings related to leadership of society. People need to be paying attention to this sort of research and what its saying.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:58 AM on 12 May 2018Analysis: How much ‘carbon budget’ is left to limit global warming to 1.5C?
nigelj,
Thanks for the link. It is likely that the USA and Australia have seen what is "called or claimed to be Conservative" most radically distorted in their nations. A similar thing has happened in Canada, particularly in Alberta.
However, the study seemed to fail to correct for the fact that 2 the 4 conspiracy events are clearly USA centered, the New World Order bit is highly USA centered because the New World Order would knock the USA from global dominance, leaving the adoration of a non-USA celebrity to be less USA centered, but the USA is likely the most Celebrity focused nation.
I think that resistance to climate science is not a 'fear of increased government intervention'. It is more likely because accepting climate science exposes that unacceptable unsustainable activity has developed and needs to be rapidly corrected. And relying on people freely doing what they want in competition for popularity and profitability won't solve the problem. And the deniers sense their loss if they admit to the unacceptability of trying to benefit from the burning of fossil fuels. The bigger threat is to their cherished vested/private interest in being able to personally benefit as much as they can in their lifetime.
A key aspect is the way people can believe they personally will not experience a net-negative result in their lifetime. The lack of concern beyond their local interest during their near future is a serious problem, bringing up one of my favourite warnings from John Stuart Mill in "On Liberty": “If society lets a considerable number of its members grow up mere children, incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant motives, society has itself to blame for the consequences.”, where distant motives are considerations beyond personal local short-term interests.
It is indeed complex. A simple slogan for the answer could be something like: "Act Local Now to Help Develop a Sustainable Global Future". But the key is developing a consistent detailed understanding of the objective, and brevity fails to do that. "Be Best" is a great example of that.
-
nigelj at 06:37 AM on 12 May 2018Analysis: How much ‘carbon budget’ is left to limit global warming to 1.5C?
OPOF, this article discusses new and significant published research related to reasons for climate denial, and how vested interests and particularly conservative politics fit into the picture. It certainly supports some of what you say.
According to the article, denial of the science is more related to vested interests, with conservative politics being a secondary factor. However the notable point is climate science denial by conservatives seems unique to America and Australia, and is much less evident elsewhere, and they explain why.
However the research does not explore mitigation. Personally I think you would find more conservative resistance to things like carbon taxes. The whole thing is rather complex I'm afraid.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:32 AM on 12 May 2018Analysis: How much ‘carbon budget’ is left to limit global warming to 1.5C?
Climate science has developed the emergent truth that the unsustainable pursuit of temporary benefit through the burning of non-renewable fossil fuels creates negative future consequences for humanity. It is highly unlikely that further development of climate science will significantly alter that understanding. And further development of climate science, and the corrections of developed human activity that are required for humanity to have a better future, is essential to the future of humanity.
I am still working on a comment to the final OP of the 3 Part - "Climate Science Denial Explained". This comment includes my thoughts regarding the motivations for the development of climate science denial.
Sean Carroll's "The Big Picture" presents a comprehensive understanding of how the environment people grow up in can develop the type of people they become, develop their character and ways of thinking. It also makes it clear that the starting point for everything is the current moment that has developed as a result of everything that happened prior to the current moment. And it makes it clear that the future has a diversity of possibilities that will be the result of the chosen actions of every living thing that makes choices, constrained only by what has developed up to the current moment and the fundamental physical realities of the universe we developed in and inhabit.
People can change their minds, but the environment people experience can lead them to develop strong interests/desires causing them to prefer to not change their minds; preferring to maintain what has developed that they personally perceive a personal comfort/benefit from; and attempting to change the system further in their favour.
It is obvious that the lack of responsible correction of harmful unsustainable human development in the past, especially deliberate resistance to increasing the proper understanding of the issue in the general public, has created undeniable harmful consequences for future generations (today's bigger climate change challenge), consequences that are continuing to become bigger/worse.
Some still try to claim that the perceptions/evaluations of wealth today will naturally continue to grow into the future if more people are freer to believe what they want and do as they please (the fantasy that good results will be produced by a less regulated free-for-all society/marketplace).
The reality is that only truly sustainable socioeconomic development has any chance of continuing to have value into the future. And it cannot grow endlessly. It can only be improved by the development of even better truly sustainable activity, the quicker the better for the future in spite of perceived losses by some people today.
The undeniable truth is that the moral/ethical obligation is for all of the most fortunate to lead the rapid increase of awareness and understanding of the corrections required for the future of humanity and lead by example (discrediting and correcting 'legal developments' when developed Laws and their enforcement are unethical/harmful, including exposing the awareness of unethical legal developments by disobeying through 'civil disobedience').
Any of the richest or winners of positions of power who fail to act that way clearly need to be corrected rather than being excused, just like any other trouble-maker in society or business needs external help/motivation to become better educated, changing their mind to behave better, and having reduced influence in the socioeconomic system until they prove they deserve to be winner/leaders.
This is a common sense ethical matter. But developing common sense ethics can be hard for people who have a powerful personal interest/desire that would have to be given up if they were more ethically sensible/responsible. And the developed socioeconomic systems that such people develop in are the real problem needing correction.
It is moral/ethical common sense that the current generation owes the future generations a maximum impact of 1.5C increase. That means the richest today paying for CO2 reduction (none of them should make a penny from the ventures), with the distribution of cost among the richest being determined by peer review of who should be obliged to pay more, who was a bigger trouble-maker. That is what is required.
The developed socioeconomic political systems that resulted in the development of that problem cannot be expected to produce the correction, especially not by allowing more freedom for people to do whatever they want. And the correction requires the richest to have the least freedom, the most responsibility, be investigated/evaluated most intensely to a higher standard of behaviour.
That developed problem can be expected to get harder to correct the longer the developed socioeconomic-political system is allowed to defend, perpetuate and expand the unacceptable things it has developed.
Developing a sustainable solution to that problem is essential to the future of humanity, and the more rapidly it is developed the better the future will be.
Climate science has unintentionally become one of the most significant fronts in the socioeconomic-political struggle to develop a sustainable better future for humanity, a struggle to correct incorrect developments that have developed powerful defences, particularly through regionally temporarily successful misleading marketing appeals to developed temptations for more potential personal benefit rather than desiring to be more helpful to others and the future of humanity.
A note about religious and conservative people that will be part of my comment on "Climate Science Denial Explained: The Denial Personality". Being fundamentally religious or conservative is not what make a person less likely to accept climate science. Religious and conservative people can appreciate the importance of protecting the development of a better future for all of humanity. The problem is people who choose to claim to be religious or conservative (or liberal or atheist) to defend or excuse a developed personal interest in maintaining an otherwise understandably unsustainable and harmful developed way of living and treating others. That harmful desire is a choice. Not every religious or conservative person will choose to think that way. And it is unhelpful to refer to being Conservative or Religious as a problem. Conservatives and religious people can be helpful. The problem is the way that unhelpful people can claim to be Conservative or Religious as an excuse for being harmful. And some people will claim to be Liberal or Atheist to excuse being unhelpful (that is less likely to be the case, but it can still happen).
-
sauerj at 00:06 AM on 12 May 2018Analysis: How much ‘carbon budget’ is left to limit global warming to 1.5C?
1.5C Projections: From my simple "CO > Temp" best-fit regression model (based on NASA temp set), I believe the equilibrium temperature will hit 1.5 C in 2025 (based on a baseline of 1955, and 2.5ppm annual rise of CO2), and has already hit 1.5C in 2017 if based on a baseline of 1880-1900 (adding 0.24 C to the 1955 baseline). This would put set the CO2 budget at ~250 GtCO2 (7 years x 36Gt) for a baseline of 1955; and -36 GtCO2 for a baseline of pre-industrial (1880-1900). Considering that it will take 30-50 years to get CO2 emissions down to 10% of today's emissions, I would say that any talk of holding below 1.5 C is out-of-touch with reality.
2.0C Projections: This simple model puts hitting equilibrium temp of 2.0 C at 2043 (2.5ppm annual rise) with a baseline of 1955; 25 years from now. If we delay 'all hands on deck' global mitigation efforts any more than 10 years, that goal too will be out-of-touch with reality. ... Based on the current void of any serious political-will (most egregious now in the US), the ability to avoid cresting 2.0 C is not looking good.
This simple best-fit regression model puts the temperature sensitivity factor at 3.42 C, and the 1st-order time constant at 16.2 years. Here is a link to this simple model's derivation worksheet (fyi: the 'saved version' has annual rate-of-rise at 3.0 ppm):
Moderator Response:[DB] Shortened link
-
Evan at 22:32 PM on 11 May 2018Analysis: How much ‘carbon budget’ is left to limit global warming to 1.5C?
Thanks for the informative article Zeke.
There is something I don't understand. A climate sensitivity of 3C/doubling CO2 implies that warming of about 1.5C corresponds to CO2 concentration of about 400 ppm. We have already passed 400 ppm. I understand that there are other GHGs than CO2, and there is cooling caused by air pollution, but on balance, 3C/doubling CO2 pretty well explains the observed warming seen since 1970. How can we talk about remaining carbon budgets when we have already passed 400 ppm, the CO2 concentration corresponding to 1.5C warming? Doesn't this imply that carbon removal has to work? But we've passed 400 ppm, and carbon removal only exists at scale in the models.
Am I missing something? I am not trying to be argumentative, but I really don't understand how 1.5C can be a viable target when we are already above 400 ppm. CO2 is not only increasing, but the Keeling curve shows that CO2 is still accelerating upwards.
-
MA Rodger at 23:35 PM on 10 May 2018Climate's changed before
aemilius89 @610,
I would correct one thing you say. Yes, humans are reducing the area of the globe which support 'ecosystems'. But, dispite their best efforts, humans are not decreasing green biomass. A significant proportion of our CO2 emissions do result from cutting into the 'green biomass' (this the source of an average of 13% of our total CO2 emissions since AD2000 according to Global Carbon Project global budget). That proportion is a lot smaller than it used to be. It was 62% a century ago and 89% fifty years before that, these large numbers because back then fossil-fuel-use was in its infancy. Yet these emissions which represent 'decreasing green biomass' have to be balanced against the extra CO2 'land sink' which with the falling proportion of land use emissions now exceeds those land use emissions (GCP figures put the 'land sink' at 30% of emissions total emissions throughout) and the sink has exceeded source since about 1965.
Mind, I could go all pedantic and add that had you said 'us humans had decreased the green biomass' this statement would be supported by the GCP data (which goes back to 1860) as the cumulative net loss of biomass in the century prior to 1965 still just exceeds the cumulative net gain in the half century since. We'll need another half decade to achieve parity between cumulative loss and gain. (This timing dependent on a 1860 start date which we could at a pinch get away with as providing a pre-industrial value.)
-
David Kirtley at 22:09 PM on 10 May 2018The 1970s Global Cooling Zombie Myth and the Tricks Some People Use to Keep it Alive, Part II
Thanks Xulonn.
Fair point about Science News. I guess we could say that there are varying shades of grey in the grey literature.
""Science News" has an interesting little niche - it is read by many scientists fo keep up with research and news in other disciplines." That's ineresting. So a chemist or anthropologist reading Douglas' article from Science News in 1975 would get a pretty good overview of climate science of the period. Of course, if they just read NTZ's quote:
According to the academy report on climate, we may be approaching the end of a major interglacial cycle, with the approach of a full-blown 10,000-year ice age a real possibility.
they would only get a one-sided view. Reading the full article they would find:
“the cooling trend observed since 1940 is real enough . . . but not enough is known about the underlying causes to justify any sort of extrapolation,” and “by the turn of the century, enough carbon dioxide will have been put into the atmosphere to raise the temperature of earth half a degree." (PCF08)
"It might be interesting to research the evolution of reporting on AGW/CC in these two classes of publications." Yes, there are a number of ways to look at the literature of the time to get a look at the history of the science as it developed and as it was communicated to other scientists as well as the general public.
Of course, you have to look at the entirety of each source, not just the parts you like. ;)
-
aemilius89 at 19:34 PM on 10 May 2018Climate's changed before
What I found so astounding about the claim that because climate change happened before and that therefore CO2 is not the cause is a non sequitur. Because on does not follow the other. First of all the far past was significantly different in rate of change and second the distribution and amount of sequistiring green biomass was a whole lot more than it is now. There were intact ecosystems that could balance the change. And ecosystems had ample time to adapt to the change. This is not happening now. Humans are decreasing green biomass a lot. There are even less ecosystems now compared to then. I think this alone debunks a lot of this natural change myths happening now. If I am incorrect please indulge me and explain it to me.
-
nigelj at 13:43 PM on 10 May 2018Global warming is melting Antarctic ice from below
The following article discusses another two factors in melting of antarctic glaciers, including foehn winds and ocean currents: When warm winds blow in Antarctica's dark, freezing winter.
-
Digby Scorgie at 11:52 AM on 10 May 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #18
Commentators on industry influence on the EPA seem blind to an evil hiding in plain sight. If the industry leaders involved were civilized people, they would be just as concerned as everyone else with public health and the state of the planetary climate and environment. Indeed, the matter of "regulatory capture" would never arise.
The fact that the foregoing industry leaders are concerned only with profits and their wealth and power (in the short-term), never mind the cost to public health and the planet (in the long term), demonstrates their appalling lack of humanity.
Moderator Response:[PS] I think this pushing very close to edge of comments policy. I dont this is constructive.
-
nigelj at 06:15 AM on 10 May 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #18
Some interesting research on the reasons for climate denialism. Puts vested interests as main factor in denialist personality, with politics / psychology as secondary factors.
-
michael sweet at 04:40 AM on 10 May 2018Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
In the last paragraph of the previous post it should say "causing less IR radiation to get out"
-
Xulonn at 01:47 AM on 10 May 2018The 1970s Global Cooling Zombie Myth and the Tricks Some People Use to Keep it Alive, Part II
A truly excellent two-part article on the 1970's global cooling myth. I shall keep it handy for reference. However, I have one small quibble. I wouldn't classify "Science News" as a "popular science magazine."
Not to be pedantic, but "Popular Science" is a "popular science magazine" for a general audience, while "Scientific American" is similar, but a bit more serious with many scientists as guest authors over the years - including Albert Einstein. Both of these are festooned with gaudy Madison-Avenue style advertising.
And of course, most of us here know that "Science" is an actual peer-reviewed scientific journal that is published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. It is one of the most respected scientific journals in the world.
"Science News" has an interesting little niche - it is read by many scientists fo keep up with research and news in other disciplines. Fairly recent stats show that It has a fraction of the circulation of Popular Science (about 10%) and Scientific American (about 20%). The AAAS journal "Science" has a circulation nearly the same as Science News - in the 130,000 range per issue.
In the mid to late 1980s, I worked in sales and technical support for a Jandel Scientific, a Marin County, California based software developer. We sold our MS-DOS based software (SigmaPlot, SigmaScan and SigmaStat) to scientists around the world, and I even got to work our booth at the San Francisco AGU meeting one year - a wonderful experience. Our marketing folks discovered that the little "classified" style ads in Science News were an excellent, low-key place to advertise, because many scientists read this magazine to keep up with news from other disciplines.
It might be interesting to research the evolution of reporting on AGW/CC in these two classes of publications. (Popular Science and Scientific American appeal to the general public, and Science and Science News appeal primarily to scientists.)
-
Nick Palmer at 22:45 PM on 9 May 2018The 1970s Global Cooling Zombie Myth and the Tricks Some People Use to Keep it Alive, Part II
My memory of the time was that the media articles mentioned increasing pollution (particulates and acid gases - remember 'acid rain'?) on top of the slow slide towards the next glaciation, due to the current state of the Milankovitch cycles, plus there was also concern about a 'nuclear winter' (a lot of dust thrown up) should a war break out adding a lot to the several cooling elements.
It's pretty clear from the 1940s onwards cooling that pollution from the expanding use of fossil fuels was temporarily overwhelming the global warming from their use until we started cleaning up the smoke stacks - not that I'm suggesting that a solution to global warming should involve us choking ourselves with a lot of smoke again! -
michael sweet at 19:43 PM on 9 May 2018Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
User 1001,
I could not find a reference that exactly matched your question.
Most (90%) of the atmospheric ozone is in the stratosphere. It blocks incoming UV radiation and protects the Earth's surface. This ozone has degraded in recent decades from attack by chlor-flouro chemicals. The Montreal Protocol has strated the healing process for stratospheric ozone.
At the surface of the Earth (the troposphere) the situation is different. Here ozone is created by pollutants humans release into the atmosphere. The concentration of ozone in the troposphere is increasing. Wikipedia says:
"Quantifying the greenhouse gas potency of ozone is difficult because it is not present in uniform concentrations across the globe. However, the most widely accepted scientific assessments relating to climate change (e.g. the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report)[47] suggest that the radiative forcing of tropospheric ozone is about 25% that of carbon dioxide."
Ozone in the troposphere absorbs outgoing IR radiation. Thus at the same time as overall concentrations of ozone decreases (causing more UV radiation to reach the surface), there is more ozone in the troposphere causing less UV radiation to get out (the basis of the green house effect). We get screwed both ways.
-
user1001 at 16:40 PM on 9 May 2018Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
In Figure 2 comparing spectral absorbtion of outbound radiation 1970 till 1996 why doesn't the O3 absorbtion decrease as the amount of O3 in the atmosphere decreased over that period I expected to see the opposite effect to the CO2 but it seems to be the same effect for a decrease in concentration. I found a chart showing a fall of around 5% O3 over that period:
-
Digby Scorgie at 12:46 PM on 9 May 2018SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference
MA Rodger @21
I'd be happy with that.
-
nigelj at 07:23 AM on 9 May 2018The 1970s Global Cooling Zombie Myth and the Tricks Some People Use to Keep it Alive, Part II
The papers predicting cooling are clearly small in number and not a consensus. This prediction of cooling appears to me to be largely dependent on reasoning about fossil fuel particulates increasing.
But scientists could not have known that S02 emissions would be filtered out and reduced from 1980 onwards causing about a 30% drop in these emissions since then. It's unreasonable to accuse scientists of a mistaken scientific prediction on the basis of yet to be invented or applied technology!
-
nigelj at 06:28 AM on 9 May 2018Global warming will depress economic growth in Trump country
Jef @2
"Unless we tax the heck out of every carbon emitting activity (which is just about everything) and use ALL of that money to pay people to NOT do carbon emitting activities then there will be no net gain in a carbon tax, certainally not any that makes a difference."
We don't have to tax "the heck out of nearly everything". Just fossil fuels and products like cement etc. Other products have a carbon content because of the energy used in manufacture and transport, so you wouldn't tax them twice. It really depends on how the tax is structured, and there are various approaches.
I dont see that you have to pay people (the consumer) specifically not to do carbon emitting activities, and its hard to see how you would enforce this practically. For example Several countries have carbon taxes, and British Columbia for example has a small carbon tax which has provided a net gain as in this article.. They dont give all the tax back to the people or spend it on low carbon activities, as far as I'm aware. I stand to be corrected.
From the article :"The tax, which rose from 10 Canadian dollars per ton of carbon dioxide in 2008 to 30 dollars by 2012, the equivalent of about $22.20 in current United States dollars, reduced emissions by 5 to 15 percent with “negligible effects on aggregate economic performance,” according to a study last year by economists at Duke University and the University of Ottawa."
I agree obviously it will need to be set much higher to lead to 50% reductions, but if its tax and dividend this keeps power in consumers hands. The economics suggest enough would be spent on low carbon goods to make a difference.
However personally I think some of the tax should however go to manufacturers subsidising electric cars, so it would be a 'partial' tax and dividend scheme. I think the important thing is not to have such a dividend end up in general government spending on education, military etc.
-
MA Rodger at 02:40 AM on 9 May 2018SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference
Digby Scorgie @20,
Myself, I think the world will probably end up using that 0.61°C adjustment from HadCRUT4 1850-1900 as being pre-industrial. The scientific debate about revising that value was covered in The Guardian a month ago. I reckon the main problem faced by those wanting to set the baseline period earlier is the difficulty the likes of Hawkins et al (2016) & Schurer et al (2017) in providing a single number rather than a range with all its attendant ambiguity. (Hawkins et al argue for using 1720-1800 as pre-industrial and with it a range of 0.55°C-0.80°C to replace the 0.61°C.)
-
jef12506 at 00:38 AM on 9 May 2018Global warming will depress economic growth in Trump country
Out here in the real world the more money you have the larger your carbon footprint......period!
Unless we tax the heck out of every carbon emitting activity (which is just about everything) and use ALL of that money to pay people to NOT do carbon emitting activities then there will be no net gain in a carbon tax, certainally not any that makes a difference.
-
Digby Scorgie at 16:04 PM on 8 May 2018SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference
MA Rodger @19
Scrogie? Well, that's another new one!
Anyway, what baffles me about all this is how one can talk about limiting warming to x degrees above pre-industrial (as in Paris-style agreements) if one has not defined what warming has already occurred. The latter would be the warming from pre-industrial to some specified period in the twentieth century when temperature measurements can be considered reliable.
-
scaddenp at 14:40 PM on 8 May 2018Climate's changed before
Unless there is confusion between an outward flux and the net flux. It is "voodoo economics" to have amount of CO2 dissolved in oceans increasing (the reducing pH) while claiming net outflow from ocean to atmosphere.
-
scaddenp at 11:00 AM on 8 May 2018Climate's changed before
" Also,Milankovitch was obviously brilliant to have figured out the spinning shifts of the earth." Not sure what you are trying to say here. He was brilliant, but for calculating the magnitude of the effects without a computer. The orbital cycles discovery is simply astronomical observation and discovery of some of them date back to ancient history (maybe Babylon).
CO2 did come from oceans as they heated up at end of ice age cycles with significant contributions from eurasian swamps as well. If you want a new theory, make sure it matches the observations of methane as well and also accounts for the isotope composition of both in ice cores.
However, ocean outgassing from current warming is not happening yet - not even close. You cannot seriously posit a new theory that violates basic physical and chemical laws and observations.
" I have read that they are warming and thus giving off a lot more CO2 than our burning of fossil fuels now."
You dont say your source but it is clearly untrustworthy. The actual fluxes are well established as the mass of papers associated with that diagram in the IPCC report show.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 09:22 AM on 8 May 2018Climate's changed before
mkrichew, your theory will have some serious hurdles to overcome in order to fit the present warming. The oceans are net carbon sinks at present, not sources; part of the gigantic amounts of carbon dioxide injected in the atmoshere go into solution in the oceans, and lead to acidification. There is an entire thread devoted to the subject on this site. Furthermore, what would be warming up the oceans in the first place? You'd have to find some seriously exotic source of heat to explain the kind of energy accumulation seen across the planet's oceans, another subject that is explored in SkS threads. Even if there was such a mysterious forcing, oceanic chemistry shows that they are not outgasing any CO2. I don;t feel obligated to link any references considering that all these considerations figure in already existing SkS threads. Use the search engine.
-
Eclectic at 09:17 AM on 8 May 2018Climate's changed before
Mkrichew @604 , your Mike Krichew theory was previously called the Murry Salby theory. To see why Murry Salby was wrong, please read Climate Myth #142 (and elsewhere).
Prev 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 Next
