Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 Next
Comments 14451 to 14500:
-
Art Vandelay at 15:15 PM on 22 May 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #20
It's pleasing to see public attention to this important issue, particularly here in Australia, because gov'ts are doing almost nothing, and to make matters worse, 'green' groups are opposed to most water management solution projects, apart from expensive coastal desalination plants that emit co2 and don't address the looming inland water crisis.
-
Art Vandelay at 15:03 PM on 22 May 2018Yes, EVs are green and global warming is raising sea levels
Evan@24, I would add too that buying an EV before your existing vehicle needs to be replaced is also an exercise in emissions creation. The answer is to consume less, which mostly means that we should wait until our electronics and household consumables need to be replaced before we actually replace them. Governments are best placed to take the lead on EV's, which means making them mandatory in the gov't sector.
-
Evan at 14:46 PM on 22 May 2018Yes, EVs are green and global warming is raising sea levels
What is missing in so much of the discussion and what Kevin Anderson brings home is that we are out of time. The real question is whether we can stabilize at 2C or whether we will slowly lose control to feedbacks. We cannot wait for perfect answers. We must take the best we have and cut down however we can.
As I write this I know that I am a hypocrite, and although I am trying to cut back, I need others on the outside to remind me that I need to continue to cut back. This is part of the value of people like Kevin Anderson. They are out there telling us directly that we are out of time and that we must act now. EVs are not perfect and hopefully their carbon footprint will be lower in the future. But an EV is likely much lower carbon than the truck we traded in to buy the EV.
We must take steps in the right direction. And then take additional steps.
-
Art Vandelay at 14:31 PM on 22 May 2018Yes, EVs are green and global warming is raising sea levels
ubrew12@2, Are you referring to the emissions cost of refining crude oil into petroleum? I suppose you could go a step further and add the cost of mining and exploration etc, but it should also be said that EV's themselves incur significant emissions costs during manufacture, and then there's the new problem of battery waste and recycling. Pointing to this article also from the Guardian - www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/aug/10/electric-cars-big-battery-waste-problem-lithium-recycling. Given that future battery tech will likely be "super capacitor" and not a chemical storage cell, and will thus overcome charge cycle limitations as well as environmental impacts, I'm personally incined to wait until EV's are a little further evolved
-
scaddenp at 14:26 PM on 22 May 2018Yes, EVs are green and global warming is raising sea levels
What is missing the numbers. However, I see from his publications more about meeting the 2 degree challenge which should contain the detail. I am not all convinced that we will build renewables more slowly. With costs dropping on wind and solar, I would say the reverse.
-
nigelj at 14:10 PM on 22 May 2018Yes, EVs are green and global warming is raising sea levels
I think we could quite rapidly and completely convert to renewable electricty and possibly resolve the other issues in just a couple of years, if we really, really wanted. Most analysis puts the cost of converting Americas fossil fuel electricity grid to renewables at about 4 trillion dollars total, and America spent about 8 trillion dollars in 1945 alone on the war effort in todays money (40% of annual gdp, so almost half their economy was devoted to the war effort!).
But it would be very harsh, requiring huge cuts in spending elsewhere, and politically unlikely, because theres not that sense of desire for sacrifice, especially over such a short time frame, or the sense of urgency like the war.
Anderson is probably right. We will build renewable energy more slowly over 20 years at best, so Anderson is also right we also need to reduce personal consumption. In fact theres are many reasons to cut our levels of personal consumption of both energy and raw materials. There's a sort of confluence of reasons, all well known to anyone interested in the environment and economic issues.
-
Evan at 13:27 PM on 22 May 2018Yes, EVs are green and global warming is raising sea levels
scaddenp@18
I respect that agricultural emissions are really tough. Currently there are about 5 people per cow in the world. That seems like a lot of milk and steaks! Learning about the methane emissions from cows helped me go vegetarian.
I am impressed that in NZ 80% of your power is renewable. Obviously we in the US have a lot of catching up to do.
-
Evan at 13:15 PM on 22 May 2018Yes, EVs are green and global warming is raising sea levels
scaddenp@17
Here is a quote from Kevin Anderson when he was being interviewed by Democracy Now in November 2013, and here is the link. He says the same thing in most of his talks, such as this one here. I've heard both sides, and to me Kevin sounds much more realistic, accounting for the way things really work. I hope Kevin is wrong, but I think we should act assuming he is correct.
KEVIN ANDERSON: In the short term, the only way we can get our emissions down is to actually reduce the level of energy we consume. Now, we can also put low-carbon energy supply in place, you know, power stations that are renewable—wind, even nuclear, as well. These are all very low-carbon power stations and other energy sources. But they take a long time to put in place. And we now—we’ve squandered the opportunity we had to make those changes. So, we still need to do that, but it’s going to take us 20, 30 years to do that. So what we need to do in the interim is to reduce the amount of energy we consume, and therefore reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that we emit.
And the levels of reduction we now need in carbon dioxide, and therefore energy consumption, are such that for many of us—for the wealthy of us, certainly—we can’t carry on as we’re going now. So we’ll have to consume less. And there’s absolutely no way out of that. The maths are absolutely clear.
-
scaddenp at 12:30 PM on 22 May 2018Yes, EVs are green and global warming is raising sea levels
Also Evan, for us in NZ, our electricity is 80% renewable already. 50% of our emissions roughly are agricultural (milk powder to large degree). A meaningful reduction in our carbon emissions isnt easy. Flying and reducing the amount of stuff (embodied energy) we consume are the main personal pathways.
-
scaddenp at 12:26 PM on 22 May 2018Yes, EVs are green and global warming is raising sea levels
can you give a link for Kevin Anderson's analysis? Others contradict that. There are several ways to get those numbers very wrong. (eg looking a primary energy production).
For much of world, cars are only part of the problem. Getting off coal generation is single most important step. If you cant put up solar panels (live in an apartment) and cant choose a supplier of green energy, then you have limited options for getting off coal. I dont think you can get around the important role government has here.
-
Evan at 11:52 AM on 22 May 2018Yes, EVs are green and global warming is raising sea levels
Let's agree on the following. If everyone committed to reducing their carbon footprint 10%/year, however they did it, we would quickly start moving towards a solution. Even a person driving a Hummer could reduce their carbon footprint if they simply drove their Hummer less each year.
The reality is that it takes a long time to transition from our current way of doing things to a sustainable way of doing things. EVs are part, but not all of the solution.
-
Evan at 11:37 AM on 22 May 2018Yes, EVs are green and global warming is raising sea levels
jef@13 and 14
We get to choose between more than 2 candidates. Remember there are primary elections where it all starts.
I agree that the answer is not equipping all 7 billion with private electric cars. That is why I refer to Kevin Anderson's message about cutting back. Our going to an electric car does reduce carbon emissions, but in the long run we need to cut down on ownership to reduce emissions even more. It takes a while to revamp society and to modify our lifestyles. Right now EVs are better than ICs given the constraints we have of dismal public transportation in the US.
It will take time to transition to low-carbon transportation. EV cars are a step, but a much better solution will be EV public transportation, or shared EV vehicles. The solution is certainly not continuing to burn fossil-fuels in IC cars. This we know, because it is impossible to apply carbon capture and storage at the personal vehicle level.
-
jef12506 at 11:04 AM on 22 May 2018Yes, EVs are green and global warming is raising sea levels
The EV vs IC choice is as reasonable or I should say as unreasonable as choosing between shooting or stabing. The assumption is that there is no choice other than everyone of us 7+ billion eventually getting his or her own car, anything less is economic repression and unfair. This is the crux of the problem not electric vs gas.
-
jef12506 at 10:59 AM on 22 May 2018Yes, EVs are green and global warming is raising sea levels
Evan - your logic is selective. We don't get to choose who we vote for, we get to choose between two people who WE had nothing to do with selecting. If I ask you you have a choice of me shooting you or me stabing you are you the one choosing to die?
Also all of the FBI,CIA BS in the news is about how the DNC and Clinton got rid of the hands down #1 choice of the American public, Sanders!
If we were to ramp up EV production to replace the current IC auto inventory it would be an environmental catastrophy.
-
Evan at 10:23 AM on 22 May 2018Yes, EVs are green and global warming is raising sea levels
I like Kevin Anderson's message that we won't solve the climate problem by subsituting fussil-fuels with renewable energy. According to Kevin Anderson, there simply is not enough time to bring renewable energy online to meet current energy consumption. We need to cut back. And that will be difficult.
-
nigelj at 10:08 AM on 22 May 2018Yes, EVs are green and global warming is raising sea levels
Yes government has a significant part to play in resolving the climate problem, and it does indeed start with renewable energy. Ordinary people cant do much about that, and companies won't move to adopt renewable energy unless theres some level of subsidy or regulation pushing them. However history has shown it doesn't need much, for example the UK, so the ideological objections seem like nit picking to me.
Individuals can cut their carbon footprint and buy electric cars etc. It's challenging, as it requires change, and a less materlastic lifestyle and traditionally materialism has come to define status in western countries. Perhaps humanity just simply has to learn new ways of defining personal success and identity. And at least electric cars are pretty cool (or getting that way) and perform remarkably well.
-
Evan at 09:58 AM on 22 May 2018Yes, EVs are green and global warming is raising sea levels
But then there was Bernie Sanders. I am not endorsing him, just noting that he ran a pretty successful campaign with little funding.
And then there is Tesla. Wildly successful, and no advertizing.
Social media has a powerful effect these days.
Bernie and Tesla have been successful going against modern norms. To turn the climate problem around, we must learn to energize individuals, even if at the same time we rely on big organizations.
There is no simple answer, but there are lots of clues around us about how to circumvent the current political environment.
-
nigelj at 09:48 AM on 22 May 2018Yes, EVs are green and global warming is raising sea levels
Evan @7, yes some of those politicians who have let lobby groups influence them too much will not be elected again, but they will just be replaced with politicians subject to the same lobby group pressures, in a sort of merry go around. No doubt politicans largely start with the best of intentions, but the pressure will be there.
Politicians are reliant on lobby groups for campaign financing and the fossil fuels sector is wealthy for example, and its obviously in their interests to gain influence and so politicians are somewhat captive to what donors want, even if it's subtle pressure, and they arent consciously aware of it. The proof is obvious in the way politicians ignore overwhelming majority views, and what appears to even be their own beliefs at times.
This can all be reduced by limits on campaign financing as some other countries have, or better still tax payer funded election campaigns. But in Amerca this is regarded as "unconstitutional" which begs the question of whether the constitution really makes sense.
I think lobby groups do indeed influence voters, but this is a separate problem. Its a tough issue as I support free speech, but we could do so much more to allow the public to make informed decisions if we taught much more rigorous skills on logic and identifying misleading rhetoric at school. Of course the lobby groups would probably lobby against that. Sometimes the behind the scences lobbying has leaked into our media and it's really insidious what goes on, and more than people realise, and I hope you don't underestimate it.
I would go so far as to say modern politics has become defined by lobbying, and in this large corporates are obviously disproportionately powerful in influence and hard to counter. That's not to say their views should not be genuinely considered of course, its a question of how the system works.
I agree with the rest of what you say. We can raise awareness about the climate issue. Every bit helps.
-
scaddenp at 09:43 AM on 22 May 2018Yes, EVs are green and global warming is raising sea levels
I think most people, most places, vote for their party of identity. If the candidate really doesnt appeal, then more likely to not vote than to vote for the opposition. The US electoral system also seems to be more focussed on local issues than national issues compared to ours (NZ).
Money spent on PR is to convince voters that what is good for the wealthy lobbiests is good for the voters. This PR is often successful. The whole existance of lobbiests ( people talking to representatives rather than to voters) smacks of broken system to me.
I also think that many of the problems are so big, and so many dont care, than you will not solve the climate problem without some government help even if only at local level. The real guts of it is about using non-FF energy sources. For a lot, there is no choice. Non-FF has to be cheaper than FF. We also need tech not yet invented (like better batteries) and that takes investment.
-
Evan at 08:54 AM on 22 May 2018Yes, EVs are green and global warming is raising sea levels
nigelj@6
No amount of campaign funding will elect a candidate that nobody votes for. Once elected, those who go against the voters and side with lobby groups will not be re-elected. At least this is the way it should work if people vote in line with what matters to them, but clearly you are correct in that the lobby groups have been effective in telling people what they should care about.
Are climate issues at the top of the list for a majority of voters? I think not (peronsal opinion), because otherwise it is difficult to see how the current crop of politicians were elected. SkS is trying to move climate issues higher up on the priority list of voters.
-
nigelj at 08:36 AM on 22 May 2018Yes, EVs are green and global warming is raising sea levels
Evan @5, would it be much different with a democratic president and congress? I would suggest only to a limited degree. The influence of lobby groups on them is still huge, and thats where they get a lot of campaign funding. It seems like a systemic problem that is very strong in America.
But yes, a lot of this is about personal initiative.
-
Evan at 07:45 AM on 22 May 2018Yes, EVs are green and global warming is raising sea levels
nigelj @4
There seems to be a big disconnect between what polls and elections indicate. Nobody forced anybody in the US to vote for the current batch of politicians. We chose them, and the current president was blatantly obvious about what he stood for during the past election. In a country with as many personal freedoms as Americans enjoy, there is not much excuse for inaction. We must stop waiting for people above us to act in our best interest. There is no way out of the climate problem without personal initiative, and in the US we still have the freedom to act.
-
nigelj at 07:16 AM on 22 May 2018Yes, EVs are green and global warming is raising sea levels
Fred Singer is a conservative leaning ideologue with strong ties to corporations and right wing think tanks. He is far from impartial and disspassionate.
America has effectively become a dictatorship, or oligarchy, ruled by politicians linked to lobby groups, corporate interests, and crank scientists like Singer, who regulary ignore the will of the majority. Most Americans want renewable electricity, fuel efficient cars, and better gun control according to polls by Pew Research etc, but are being ignored. The scale of this is breathtaking. Article on attempts to overturn Obamas fuel efficient car legislation.
-
scaddenp at 07:04 AM on 22 May 2018Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming
ab, assuming experienced physicists have got it all wrong because you dont understand it takes some hubris. Physics is not a smorgasbord. You cant pick and choose which bits you want. Before you can declare that observations show current physics has it wrong, you need to settle down with serious textbook and learn what the actual theory this. Sounds to me like you are spending too much time with ilk of PSI and not enough time with a real textbook. Nothing in climate science violates physics. If you think it does, then the problem is with your understanding not the science.
-
MA Rodger at 03:55 AM on 22 May 2018Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming
ab @33,
Trenberth would have little difficulty answering. The answer is simply physics.
The 121°C temperature derives from the Stefan-Boltzmann Law which defines how much energy a hot surface will radiate. To be in balance with continuous sunlight (1,366Wm^-2), a surface normal to the sunlight incidence with emissivity=1 and zero-reflection would be in equilibrium with a temperature equal to 121°C.
The Earth, of course is only illuminated by the sun during the day and that is normal (directly overhead) only at noon. The result is an average level of sunlight reaching the Earth being 25% the constant normal solar level. That would result in an equilibrium temperature of about +5°C, except about a third of sunlight is reflected back into space so the global solar warming averages one sixth the constant normal level requiring an equilibrium temperature of -18°C. But the surface is warmed not just by the sun but also by the atmosphere. The average surface temperature therefore will be hotter than that value. With the Earth's GHGs the surface temperature is +14°C. And being hotter, it will on average radiate more than a surface warmed solely by the sun, even without any reflection.
I think that answers both your questions. The answer is 'physics'.
-
Evan at 03:43 AM on 22 May 2018Yes, EVs are green and global warming is raising sea levels
ubrew12@2
To emphasize your point, a big reason we bought an EV is that apparently most of the Minnesota gasoline comes from the Canada, which I assume means tar sands oil. So it's not just the at-the-pump savings, but everything before that as well.
-
ubrew12 at 03:30 AM on 22 May 2018Yes, EVs are green and global warming is raising sea levels
Jonathan Lesser: "electric vehicle proponents... fail to consider just how... efficient new internal combustion vehicles are. The appropriate comparison for evaluating the benefits of all those electric vehicle... mandates isn’t the difference between an electric vehicle and an old gas-guzzler; it’s the difference between an electric car and a new gas car." Did Lesser forget to mention that half the CO2 produced by a gas car was produced before the gasoline ever got into its gas tank? Funny how these fossil-fueled wonks keep leaving that little detail out of their analysis. By force of omission, they let the public keep the fantasy that the gasoline you put in your tank just came out of the ground that way, right there at the station...
-
ab at 03:09 AM on 22 May 2018Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming
How does Trentbergh explain that it is hotter on the International Space Station (ISS) (121°C facing the sun) than on the Earth's surface (14°C average), while his energy budget claims that the Earth's surface emits more energy as infrared (396 W.m-2) than the total incoming solar irradiance (340 W.m-2) ?
-
Evan at 01:14 AM on 22 May 2018Yes, EVs are green and global warming is raising sea levels
We drive an EV in Minnesota, and Connexus power company has a program for off-peak charging that uses 100% wind power. Obviously not every electron coming over the grid came from a wind turbine, but Connexus explains it this way.
Energy comes from all kinds of sources: wind, natural gas, coal, and more. Once it hits the power grid, there’s no way of telling where it came from. However, when renewable energy is added to the mix, a renewable energy credit (REC) is created that embodies all the environmental benefits of that energy. When you enroll in the Time-of-Day Program, we’ll dedicate wind energy RECs on your behalf, completely offsetting that energy used to power your electric vehicle.
Enrolling in such a program moves us closer to cleaner transportation and sends a clear signal to the power company that one more person is encouraging them to put up more wind turbines.
-
ab at 18:25 PM on 21 May 2018Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
Radiative balance is on the title, yet, nothing about it in the post. This is where IPCC is blatantly wrong: on Earth, there has to be radiative imbalance, because there is life.
Moderator Response:[DB] Thank you for taking the time to share with us. Skeptical Science is a user forum wherein the science of climate change can be discussed from the standpoint of the science itself. Ideology and politics get checked at the keyboard. When making assertions running counter to accepted science, it is incumbent upon the user (you) to furnish citations to credible sources that support your contentions.
Please take the time to review the Comments Policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
ab at 18:23 PM on 21 May 2018Measuring Earth's energy imbalance
The very first sentence of the post is wrong: "When the Earth is in energy imbalance, with more energy coming in than radiating back out into space, we experience global warming."
Earth is not the moon. On Earth, life transforms incoming solar energy into biochemical energy. So there has to be a radiative imbalance in order for life to develop and sustain itself.
Moderator Response:[DB] Thank you for taking the time to share with us. Skeptical Science is a user forum wherein the science of climate change can be discussed from the standpoint of the science itself. Ideology and politics get checked at the keyboard. When making assertions running counter to accepted science, it is incumbent upon the user (you) to furnish citations to credible sources that support your contentions.
Please take the time to review the Comments Policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
Riduna at 09:58 AM on 21 May 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
Mean global warming could exceed 1.5°C above preindustrial temperature with a decade and it is becoming increasingly likely that it will exceed 2°C by 2100. As implied by the article, this is likely to pose serious problems for ability of the human population to produce the food needed to sustain itself.
This will be the outcome if temperature increase adversely effects the ability of insect pollinators to survive. Without them it will be impossible to maintain the present, let alone an increased quantity of agricultural production needed to feed a growing global human population.
However, the prospect of mass starvation seems unlikely to result in more rapid efforts at decarbonising the economy – unless widespread financial gain is to be had from doing so.
-
michael sweet at 09:02 AM on 21 May 2018Global solar capacity grew faster than fossil fuels in 2017, says report
John ONeil,
Actual generation is shown in the second graph of the OP. Last year renewables (excluding hydro) generated 12.1% of global electricity. Renewables generated only 6.1% in 2010 so the amount of renewables has doubled in the past 7 years.
Renewables have only been cheaper than fossil fuels for less than 7 years so one would expect renewables to obtain market share faster in the future since they are the cheapest energy today.
-
nigelj at 06:06 AM on 21 May 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #20
Regarding water resources: NASA Satellites Reveal Major Shifts in Global Freshwater
-
John ONeill at 23:15 PM on 20 May 2018Global solar capacity grew faster than fossil fuels in 2017, says report
Actual generation is a better metric than capacity or investment, since coal and gas usually have higher capacity factors than wind and solar, and lower installation costs.
-
shepard145 at 13:12 PM on 20 May 2018CO2 is just a trace gas
The discussions on this page are disappointing - childish word games. The only question that matters is: "does throttling a trace gas CO2 result in human control of the climate and weather." - a global thermostat. The answer is “no”, so the entire global warming fraud and everything about it is irrelevant – including solar /wind power and electric cars and all the green marketing. None of it is relevant. Unfortunately this post was too late to save the 100,000 US coal minors who lost thier jobs.
Moderator Response:[TD] Provide a peer reviewed reference for your unsourced assertion that 100,000 coal miners were illegally underage.
[PS] This post is nothing but sloganeering. This is a science-based site. You must provide supporting evidence preferably from peer reviewed literature to back your comment. Opinions based on your preference or political leaning have no place here. You may find rants like this more welcome on sites like WUWT.
-
teacher at 12:40 PM on 20 May 2018Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate
Thanks for taking the time to respond and to give me advice everyone. I definitely have a more detailed lesson plan and more graphs for students to analyze.
-
nigelj at 07:08 AM on 20 May 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
A little more detail on the decline in insect numbers according to research discussed here.
"The number of flying insects had plunged by three-quarters in the past 25 years in Germany and very likely elsewhere." “We know that many insects are in rapid decline due to factors such as habitat loss and intensive farming methods,” ......in the future, these declines would be hugely accelerated by the impacts of climate change, under realistic climate projections."
A decline of three quarters is more than I was expecting, and is quite astonishing. This must impact the entire ecosystem, and pollination of plants and the number of birds. Sure enough it does in this article . The scale of change is pretty astonishing.
-
scaddenp at 14:01 PM on 19 May 2018Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate
Hmm. The extremely tricky bit is how are 7th graders going to evaluate the reliability of source information? With so much misinformation, misrepresentation of science, and downright false information out there from motivated reasoners, it is a minefield to navigate. Even limiting to "peer reviewed" research is complicated by predatory journals. This website delivers good guidelines but 7th graders just dont have those skills. For that matter, many gradutes dont have/use those skills. Everyone of us is prone to motivated reasoning.
To my mind, what 7th graders need to know is what the scientific consensus is.
-
Eclectic at 11:49 AM on 19 May 2018Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate
Teacher @23 ,
a further small point which might be of interest to American students :-
the once-marvellous Glacier National Park is nowadays sadly depleted compared with its former condition. By the end of the century, the Park will need to change its name to something entirely different, it seems.
-
Eclectic at 11:42 AM on 19 May 2018Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate
Teacher @23 ,
it is important, indeed essential, for students to see the OHC [Ocean Heat Content] graph showing the accumulating heating of the planetary ocean. The ongoing warming of the ocean (which absorbs over 90% of the accumulating heating caused by the higher levels of greenhouse gasses) is a matter which demonstrates the falsity of the various "Con" arguments listed at the ProCon website. Add to that, the melting of permafrost and the rapid decline of the planet's glaciers, the loss of Greenland land-ice, etcetera etcetera.
I appreciate that the ProCon website is obliged to present a list of "Con" arguments — but really, all those Con arguments are not-at-all science-type arguments but are almost entirely lawyer-style arguments (presenting deliberately misleading & cherry-picked points — and many of them self-contradictory and lacking in probity. Many are also ludicrous : e.g. note the comment: <the recent global warming period of the 20th century is the result of a natural 21-year temperature oscillation, and will give way to a new 'cool period in the 2030's. '>
Presumably such nonsenses serve as discussion points for teachers to present for students' consideration . . . but I would have thought that the teaching curriculum would be so crowded, as to preclude much time being allotted to the study of scientifically-fake statements. To me, it seems unfair that teachers should have to develop a considerable depth of climate-science understanding, in order to be able to rebut all the nonsense. "ProCon" ought to present only valid Pro arguments and only valid Con arguments. Which would leave a greatly-reduced Con list indeed!! All the first 12 Con points would disappear, and just Argument #13 would remain — and #13 is exceedingly weak, because Global Warming is merely in the early stage so far.
-
jef12506 at 11:23 AM on 19 May 2018New research, May 7-13, 2018
It occures to me after perusing several weeks of research roundups that the "uncertaintity" around climate science is predominantly on the side of uncertain about how and/or why things are getting worse in almost every area of study.
I understand that this is normal wrt the scientific principal but it is consistantly used as a reason for doubt.
-
michael sweet at 10:44 AM on 19 May 2018Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate
Teacher:
I am not impressed with procon.org. They treat conclusions made by tens of thousands of scientists as equal to the opinion of a single person who is paid to speak by the fossil fuel industry. The data shows that over 95% of scientists who study climate are convinced humans cause climate change. If you present equal amounts of scientific arguments with con arguments that are fake you will convince your students that a debate exists when there is none. The students will not be able to identify the fake con arguments.
In 1965 President Johnson asked the National Academy of Science, the top science organization in the USA, if Golbal Warming was really a potential problem. They replied that it would be a big problem in the near future. That future is now. The conclusion had been made already in 1965. Pro/con is confusing the public, your students, by acting like there is a debate when none exists. That is the entire point of deniers: to act like there is no scientific conclusion.
Check the sources of all the con arguments. 15 scientists here (how many were really climate scientists, or were they computer scientists?), a single article published in an obscure Chinese journal there, a retired physicist who has never studied climate is quoted as if he was an expert. This is posted as equal to the IPCC report that thousands of experts wrote and every government in the world, including the USA, agreed was the actual state of the science.
Pro/con needs to screen their arguments. They are claiming that 10=15,000. They give equal weight to the IPCC, which has thousands of experts from the entire world, and the Heartland institute, which is a fossil fuel funded organization with less than 10 climate scientists.
In my class I found that graphs of data were best accepted by students. They tended to disbelieve any written material regardless of the source. Be careful to get your graphs from reliable sources.
-
michael sweet at 10:06 AM on 19 May 2018Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate
Teacher:
As far as evidence of human influence, see the graph Sir Charles posted here. How can you look at the wheelchair graph, which clearly shows the natural influence for the past 5,000 years was cooling, and not see clear human influence? The natural change has been cooling for thousands of years, all heating is due to human influence.
The Skeptical Science Graphics page here has a lot of good graphs (no copy of the wheelchair). The obvious changes in many happening around 1880 demonstrate clear human influence.
-
michael sweet at 09:52 AM on 19 May 2018Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate
Teacher:
The National Climate Data Center has an excellent web page. I used it in class (10th grade). I read the selection and then wrote questions on the things I thought most important for the students to read. The 2017 Global annual report is here. 7th graders could read the list of hot years and other graphs. Have students click on the Temperature Anomolies Time series annual at the very top to see the red graph (deniers complained so the graph was removed from the main report). Ask if the graph shows temperatures increasing or decreasing (no statistics needed).
The report for the USA only is here. I like to look at the seasonal graphs (at the bottom of the page) and ask the students if they see more red/orange or more blue (red is hot and blue is cold). A statistical analysis is not needed to determine there is much more red. You can just look at your state if you wish. The regional summaries are also good to read but may be hard for your students.
The National Snow and Ice Data Center has a good web page. The yearly summary is at the end of the January 2018 page here. Read the page first (it is too long for 7th graders) and then assign what you like (I really like the graphs). The October report here has good discussion of the minimum sea ice level and some interesting graphs. The sea ice maximum is generally in March but is not usually as interesting.
Good luck. Post again if those are too hard to read or not what you want.
-
teacher at 06:59 AM on 19 May 2018Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate
I am a teacher and one of my objectives is to
- engage in scientific arguement based on current evidence to determine whether climate change happens naturally or is being accelerated by the influyence of man.
- read and evaluate scientific or technical information assessing the evidence and bias of each source to explain the causes and effects of climate change.
I need some help on what type of information to provide 7th graders to read and come to a conclusion on their own. I have printed some information from procon.org. Are there any other websites or information(7th grade reading ability) which I can share with them. I am staying away from indoctrination and trying to let them read and conclude through graphs and facts. Any advice?
-
sauerj at 00:00 AM on 19 May 2018Global solar capacity grew faster than fossil fuels in 2017, says report
As long as FF total consumption is still climbing (as 1st chart shows), and hasn't dropped into 'negative' territory, then it is hard to get excited (hopeful) at all. ... In addition, this article is only about electricity; I would guess that, if looking at total energy consumption, that % of net gain of renewables compared to FF is less than given here; and that the increase of FF consumption is proportionally more so compared to electricity only energy.
Until macro-based economic policies get installed (the most effective being 100% rev-neutral CFD w/ a steep tax rate), the chances of avoiding an ever continuous climb in temperatures is hopeless, affirmed w/ news like this showing FF consumption only continuing to increase. -
nigelj at 15:47 PM on 18 May 2018Global solar capacity grew faster than fossil fuels in 2017, says report
R Murphy, it appears you may be mistaking the package for a home instillation which would need a lot of capital. I said its specifically to replace old coal fired power stations due for replacement, as did the article. So obviously it doesnt require more capital than for a new coal fired power station.
-
nigelj at 15:42 PM on 18 May 2018Global solar capacity grew faster than fossil fuels in 2017, says report
R murphy, the costs in the article I posted for renewable enery plus storage are claimed to be more affordable than coal. Therefore the upfront capital is less than required for coal.
Where is your fact based, verifiable evidence that the claims are false? So far you haven't provided anything apart from stupid comments.
Moderator Response:[DB] Keep it clean
-
r murphy at 14:17 PM on 18 May 2018Global solar capacity grew faster than fossil fuels in 2017, says report
Nige if you have discovered the holy grail of cheap energy why don't you avail yourself of it and give us a post about all the money you are saving? What? you don't have the heavy upfront capital to get in the cheap energy game....how then is that affordable? Somebody is telling tales here.
Moderator Response:[DB] Intimations of impropriety are proscribed by the Comments Policy here.
Prev 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 Next
