Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 Next
Comments 14801 to 14850:
-
nigelj at 07:03 AM on 23 April 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: Tactics of Denial
Art Vandelay @20, I think you would be right about the sun and the delayed water vapour response.
However you said "OTOH, increasing CO2 will act to reduce outgoing LWR, not incoming SWR, so will act greatest on nighttime minimum temperature, reducing diurnal temperature redange". I'm not sure about this, because heat emitted from the ground is same day and night. I think the explanation is more related to my post @4 where the science article said at night time the layers of the atmosphere compress at night (they didn't say why but presumably it's because more C02 is near ground level at night being heavier and not subject to much convection) and thus more warming at night than at day.
I agree about your cloud cover comments. The reversal in Australia could be temporary or due to local conditions.
However I don't have an atmospheric physics degree, so I'm not 100% sure of this material. I stand to be corrected by someone with better knowledge.
-
michael sweet at 07:01 AM on 23 April 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #16
Does anyone know how Tom Curtis is doing? His extraordinary posts are missed on the board.
-
Doug_C at 05:34 AM on 23 April 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: Tactics of Denial
DPiepgrass @17
I think the scientific process does that quite well over time. If something is not verifiable it is eventually discarded.
But there is always room left for improvement within the scientific process or it stops being science at some point and becomes dogma. This is the vulnerability that climate change denial specifically targets and to a degree acts like a virus turning healthy cells into factories for making more viruses. At least in the minds of many in the public, and I've also seen statements by some valid researchers that this continuing wave of denial also affects their perception of the evidence.
Given that denial has been going on at an increasing level for over 4 decades we can see that this has been a very successful approach for the denial campaign which make sense because it was designed from the start by scientists like Fred Seitz who was a past president if the National Academy of Sciences and Fred Singer who also had a productive career in science before moving into the field of fossil fuel lobbyist.
Skepticism must remain at the core of science for it to remain an effective method of progressing our understanding of the natural world. But true skepticism must be clearly defined, hence resources like this one.
So far the overwhelming evidence is that the science behind human forced climate change is the result of true skeptical examination of all the evidence.
Denial is not an examination of any evidence at all, it is a systematic approach to casting doubt on all of that evidence. It starts with an immutable assumption then forces all the data to fit that assumption, no matter how corrupted it must become.
And not only is climate change denial corrupting the data on climate it is also destroying public confidence in science itself. Attacking the evidence on human created climate change is not enough, there has also been an intentional attack on science itself going back decades.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:32 AM on 23 April 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: Tactics of Denial
nigelj@19,
There are 'concerns' about global leadership collectively acting with tax money from the more fortunate to sustainably help the less fortunate be at least basically decently fortunate in their life.
One example of concern is that responsible global leadership actions to improve the future for all of humanity, reducing the harm done to the future of humanity, would undeniably reduce the ability of the most fortunate to perceive themselves as being superior to Others. The ability of some people to appear to be superior, appear to be the bigger winners, would be reduced by their wealth being more significantly taxed to increase the well-being/health of the poorest.
Another example is that people who are only wealthier because they continue to benefit significantly from the burning of fossil fuels would actually lose so much perceived opportunity for wealth that they would only be very rich, not super-rich, relative to others. Of course, only the less fortunate should be benefiting from that type of activity, an unsustainable and understandably harmful one -> And only as a brief transition to sustainable better ways of living -> And only in situations where burning fossil fuels actually makes sense as a transition step for the less fortunate toward that better living.
And Einstein, among many others, have pointed out the benefit for humanity of the reduction of the freedom of people to believe whatever they want and do as they please for their Private Interest. Related Einstein quotes are:
"Only a life lived for others is a life worth while." (Youth, 1932)
"The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which (they) have attained liberation from the self." (My World Picture, 1934)
"This is the problem: Is there any way of delivering mankind from the menace of war? ... As one immune from nationalist bias, I personally see a simple way of dealing with the superficial (i.e., administrative) aspect of the problem: the setting up by international consent of a legislative and judicial body to settle every conflict arising between nations. ... Thus I am led to my first axiom: the quest of international security involves the unconditional surrender by every nation, in a certain measure, of its liberty of action, its sovereignty that is to say, and it is clear beyond all doubt that no other road can lead to such security." (to Dr. Freud (q.v.), July 30, 1932)
A natural extension of the last quote is that for humanity to develop a sustainable better future the wealthiest must all give up their liberty to believe what they want to do as they please. And the legitimacy of the wealthiest should also be measured by their efforts to properly raise awareness and better understanding among the general population.
What is obvious is that the developed socioeconomic-political systems tempt people to be more selfish rather than being altruistic. That leads to increased popularity and profitability of harmful unsustainable beliefs and activity making it more difficult to correct developments that become understood to be unsustainable and damaging. And it can lead (has led) to corporate or regional political leadership that fights for self-interests that are contrary to sustainably advancing all of humanity to a better future by claiming the sovereign right to be secretive or claim whatever they want to excuse doing as they please.
Responsibly self-limiting behaviour and considerately assisting the less fortunate in pursuit of sustainable improvements for the future of humanity is contrary to the developed Private Interests of many people, particularly people who have developed desires to appear to be superior to others any way they can get away with. Significant corrective motivation will be required to get them to behave better. Global leadership (by the majority of the wealthiest and regional political winners) effectively doing that is what is required. It must be a serious concern for everyone, including being a serious threat to the understandably less deserving among the powerful and wealthy, the ones who are undeserving of their impressions of superiority.
-
Art Vandelay at 02:03 AM on 23 April 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: Tactics of Denial
nijelj@8, I found a study of DTR here.. LINK
Although only valid for continental USA it does show that diurnal temperature range in summer is falling more rapidly than in winter. Unfortunately, analysis of this is not included in this study.
However, I think the answer to why maximum temperatures would increase faster than minimum temperatures if incoming solar radiation is increased, is due to the delayed vapor response. If incoming solar energy underwent a positive step change the daily maximum temperatures (t max) would initially rise faster than minimum temperatures (t min), but that situation would reverse over time as atmospheric water vapor increased to a new equilibrium value. OTOH, increasing CO2 will act to reduce outgoing LWR, not incoming SWR, so will act greatest on nighttime minimum temperature, reducing diurnal temperature redange (DTR).
However, from the continental USA data in the linked study it's interesting to see that the t-max - t-min trend is greatest during summer. not winter. Perhaps this is due to reduced cloud cover during winter and / or changes to weather system movements related to climate change. Here in Australia there was a sudden reversal in the DTR trend around 1999, and since then the DTR has actually been increasing, Daytime temps are now increasing faster than nighttime temps. I'm not sure why this isn't being examined, being so exceptional.
Moderator Response:[DB] Shortened link
-
michael sweet at 20:51 PM on 22 April 2018Models are unreliable
Norrism:
I noticed at the top of this page a reply to one of your posts that is almost a year old. After a year posting at SkS you still have to be constantly reminded to post on topic.
I have provided you copius references to peer reviewed papers in that year. You frequently dismiss these with a wave of your hand. Recently you stated effectively that nothing James Hansen said was worth discussing.
You dismiss the US Climate Change report as not the IPCC and cite a paper that claims minimum sea level rise is much less that the IPCC reports. Hansen's paper has 200 citations since 2016 while your citation has only 20 since 2014. That means that scientists think Hansen's paper was important while your paper was not. You will not listen to what Hansen has to say. Your position is contrary to science.
This repeats through the entire year you have posted. You invariably support "lukewarm" positions at the extreme lowest amount (or below) of possible damage and say all decisions should be based on that possibility. You do not even consider consensus reports like the US Climate Change report. You never consider the posibilities of severe effects which scientists fear are possible.
That dismissal of severe effects is contrary to all known proper risk management. If it turns out that the fears of Rignot and Hansen that sea level rises several meters the world will be screwed by 2100. If it turns out that Curry is correct than sea level rise will be slower and the world will not be screwed untill 2200, but it will still be screwed. The USA is only 250 years old and sea level rise alone will cause immense damage in less than 250 years. And you do not care.
There is no down side to switching to renewable energy. In 100 years oil will run out and the switch will have to be made anyway. Why delay the switch untill we have permanently screwed future generations?
The war in Syria was caused partly by a drought that was the biggest in history (over 2000 years). AGW predicts drought in that region. The refugee crisis (millions of people) of the past few years was a direct result of drought predicted in advance as caused by AGW.
I will not go into more detail about hurricanes destroying cities, wildfires consuming greater and greater parts of the globe, ocean currents slowing, floods, glaciers and ice sheets melting, and other disasters caused by AGW already. It is too depressing and you do not care.
You rely on your opinion and refuse to even read articles that describe facts you do not like. After a year I have lost my patience with you. As I recall, for the first month or so that you posted I was helpful and tried to give you information. As it became clear that you did not really want information but just wanted to lecture us on your beliefs (without any evidence to support those beliefs) I have gotten much shorter and shorter with you. I note that over the past year at least 5 other posters (including the moderator) have lost patience with you and will no longer engage with you.
This is a scientific board. You must post data to support your wild claims. You have consistently refused to support your claims and dismiss data presented to you with a hand wave. That is the problem.
Moderator Response:[DB] The participant to whom you responded has recused themselves from further participation here.
-
Eclectic at 19:31 PM on 22 April 2018Models are unreliable
NorrisM @1085 , the primary purpose of SkepticalScience website is educational, through the daily articles and multiple links. The listed Climate Myths provide a strongly educational underpinning, and indeed there is much to be learnt from the comments columns (where an informal panel of well-educated scientific thinkers provides further explication).
NorrisM, the SkS website could delete all your comments (and all my comments, too) and be none the lesser for it. SkS is far bigger than any individual commenter. While you and I might aspire to contribute praiseworthy eclat or scintillating enlightenment for the benefit of readers, it is nevertheless true that we have (thus far) fallen completely short of that target.
Michael Sweet @1084 , your comment is relevant and well-phrased. If I could expand on it, I would say that the human population [re climate] forms a bimodal distribution. One peak represents the scientific-thinking people, and the other peak represents the science-denying people.
Interestingly, there is almost no shoulder region between these two mountain peaks — certainly I myself have never heard of or met someone who truly occupies that "intermediate shoulder" between peaks.
The mainstream "scientist" group vary only slightly in the degree of expression of alarm about the the speed & consequences of AGW. ~OTOH the denialist group occupy a wider spectrum, ranging from highly-extreme craziness of denial of reality . . . through to low-extreme craziness of so-called lukewarm positions (positions which still amount to "let's ignore the problem and do little or nothing to tackle it effectively").
-
BaerbelW at 17:22 PM on 22 April 2018Skeptical Science at EGU 2018 - a personal diary
Wol @2
Perhaps this older post will give you some ideas of how to deal with gish-gallops: http://sks.to/firehose
What I sometimes do - like in a Facebook-thread full of comments by dismissives/trolls - is to just point others following the thread at our rebuttals via the fixed numbers and short URLs. Or, to take it a step further, keep on sharing the myth-rebuttal chart ("myth bingo") where the already spouted myths have been visually ticked off:
This will of course not change the attitudes of the willfully ignorant commenters but it will at least show everybody else how wrong they are (and thereby hopefully help to inoculate them against the trolls' postings).
Moderator Response:[DB] Reduced image width
-
NorrisM at 16:53 PM on 22 April 2018Models are unreliable
michael sweet @ 1084
Given the moderator's comments, my plan is to largely sit back and read rather than comment on this website. In fact in a number of instances I have taken this approach rather than "dive in".
I actually find this site very valuable and it has clearly focussed my views on climate change perhaps more so than the "other site" that I tend to also read. I have contributed to this site and plan to do so in the future assuming that I do not get blacklisted.
But before I sign off for a period of time, I have to respond to what I find troubling about your attitude compared to all of the other regular contributors to this website.
In many respects, you try to "dehumanize" me. Like you, I am most interested in the welfare of this world. No, I am not a selfish capitalist involved in oil and gas matters. I clearly disclosed my financial interest in the oil and gas business so that everyone could judge my views knowing where I was coming from. Not everyone on this website has done so.
But I am 71 years old with my children in no way dependent on the oil and gas industry. One lives in New York and the other in Vancouver. Over the next 10-20 years, I highly doubt that that portion of my investments involved in oil and gas interest will be really impacted by this debate. I am not so stupid as to have most of my "chips" on the oil and gas square.
I have zero interest in anything other than what is in the best interests of this world. And I do mean the whole world and not just Europe and North America. I am trying to rationalize the massive increases in CO2 emissions and the dangers this creates with still keeping the incredible advances we have made in this world since we leveraged our energy requirements using fossil fuels. Honest people can have honest disagreements on what to do.
What I find in your remarks is a reluctance to accept that anyone with a brain could possibly disagree with your views. Rather than reply to some of my remarks with rational responses you would rather demonize me by suggesting that I have ulterior motives and therefore can be dismissed.
But I thought the purpose of this website was to educate. The moderator has replied to me on my issue regarding the models and I appreciate his information. I plan to read what he has provided to see if what he has provided to me on the climate models can counter my views. I thought this was the purpose of this website. I do not think that every person who provides a comment on this website has to have read every blog on this website before providing a comment. Certainly by me raising a question about whether we can trust the models to predict temperatures in 50 years this is an opportunity of this website to provide references to evidence to support why we should be able to do so, or reasons why we should do so in spite of the difficulty.
But you would prefer to attack me as having ulterior motives. I appreciate that at any time I could be "deleted" from this website, but is that a victory? I think not. I think providing information that contradicts my general perception is what rational human beings should do.
So rather than say that I am a "money grubbing" conservative, I would rather hear from you on my question regarding the models. The moderator has done so, why not you?
Moderator Response:[DB] Off-topic and moderation complaints snipped.
-
nigelj at 13:53 PM on 22 April 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: Tactics of Denial
The steelman strategy is intriguing and very useful. However the climate conspiracy theory I have heard is fairly specific, namely that climate change was invented by the UN to further their socialist goals to globalise and control the world from the UN and redistribute wealth.
The Paris accord does involve helping poor countries with renewable energy projects. The email leak played into the conspiracy theory.This all gets the conspiracy theorests all excited, and no matter how much proof you provide that the emails revealed nothing wrong, the denialists don't listen, because they don't want to listen and learn. Or at least it's slow progress convincing people, but worth the effort.
This conspiracy like others is all utter garbage of course. I mean its seriously moronic. I'm reluctant to even discuss it and publicise the issue, but I'm relying on the fact most people can probably see it for what it is, ridiculous. It falls over because countries give aid to poor countries anyway and for numerous other reasons. But the trouble is it all creates doubt and confusion with the public, which is the goal of the people really pulling the strings on all this, namely the heads of certain companies and political think tanks.
Most people probably realise its far more likely the oil and transport companies deliberately spread doubt about the science.
Imho in the end physical reality will increasingly show conspiracies and climate pseudoscience are both nonsense. I have noticed more people talking about extreme weather the last couple of years. Thats a good sign.
-
Wol at 13:08 PM on 22 April 2018Skeptical Science at EGU 2018 - a personal diary
I think there are fundamentally two kinds of deniers; those that ought to be open to logical and factual argument (leaders, politicians and the like) and - a much bigger number - the mass of media consumers.
The latter form by far the largest denialist groups on blogs, newspaper comment sections and so on. But attempting to argue with them using facts and logic is IMO a hiding to nothing: in the overwhelming majority of "discussions", both online and in broadcast media their tactic (both deliberate and unconcious) is to use the aptly named gish-gallop method of continually changing the subject.
There seems to me to be no way to counter this: if as soon as a logical fallacy or inconvenient and fully documented fact is used they bring up another myth or unattributable "fact" to avoid having to back up their argument one appears (to them) to be running away from new "evidence".
I have seen very little evidence of argument based on facts getting very far in changing the attitudes of such individuals.
-
DPiepgrass at 12:16 PM on 22 April 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: Tactics of Denial
Doug_C @6 From rationalism I learned the concept of steelmanning: rather than defeat a very weak form of your opponent's argument, as you've done, try to find a better argument than your opponents themselves use and defeat that instead. But it's hard to even find a fleshed-out conspiracy theory of climate science; everything I've seen is extremely vague.
But obviously, if I was going to invent a conspiracy theory of climate science, it wouldn't assume that the conspiracy started in the 19th century. One might instead assume that somehow the 19th century scientists made an honest mistake, or that 19th century scientists were mostly right but that 1960s and 1970s scientists made a mistake about the climate sensitivity, and that scientists who discovered this wrongness were somehow censored. This is more like what real climate conspiracy theorists do - they might point to some obscure paper that says humans don't cause warming, and they say "behold the proof that climate science is a sham! Media and governments are suppressing the truth!" (there are a number of these, and mainstream scientists, of course, consider them to be variously inaccurate / nonsensical / incompetent.) We could take this argument and steelman it as some sort of, let's say, institutional bias created secretly at some point in the 1980s to teach budding scientists false beliefs. I find this more plausible than a conspiracy stretching back to the 19th century, but it remains vague and relies on the idea of scientists being too dumb to notice they've been duped. (I find it hard to steelman this, maybe due to the fact that this is my first attempt at steelmanning and my heart isn't really in it.)
I'd argue against the conspiracy theory with three points. First, a conspiracy needs to have a goal. So what's their goal? Obviously, the solution to global warming is to replace fossil fuels with clean energy like nuclear, solar and wind, while increasing energy efficiency of our technology. So... why would someone create the world's greatest hoax just to encourage clean energy? Wouldn't it be easier to ignore the climate completely and make arguments like (1) air pollution caused largely by fossil fuels kills millions of people per year and clean energy doesn't, (2) clean energy can give us energy independence, (3) energy costs less if we use less of it, and (4) fossil fuels reserves will run out anyway so we may as well replace them before a crisis arises?
Second, what good is a conspiracy that convinces 97% of climate scientists but only convinces 60% of the general public 35 years (or whatever) after the conspiracy started? What good is a conspiracy that doesn't convince politicians to pass a carbon tax? Clearly the conspirators picked the wrong target - for this evil plan to work it must win over lawmakers, not scientists.
Third, who is easier to fool, scientists or the general public? The conspiracy theory would have you believe that thousands of scientists who specifically study climate were dumb enough to believe conspirators' disinformation, while the general public (conservatives anyway) were smart enough to see right through it.
Of course, as you say, the idea that certain oil companies promote disinformation makes considerably more sense.
-
DPiepgrass at 12:04 PM on 22 April 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: Tactics of Denial
Doug_C @6 From rationalism I learned the concept of steelmanning: rather than defeat a weak form of your opponent's argument, as you've done, try to find a better argument than your opponents themselves use and defeat that instead. But it's hard to even find a fleshed-out conspiracy theory of climate science; everything I've seen is extremely vague.
But if I was going to invent a conspiracy theory of climate science, it obviously wouldn't assume that the conspiracy started in the 19th century. One might instead assume that somehow the 19th century scientists were wrong, or that 1960s and 1970s scientists studying global warming were wrong, and that scientists who discovered this wrongness were somehow censored. This is more like what real climate conspiracy theorists do - they might point to an obscure paper that climate scientists consider to be scientifically inaccurate/nonsensical/incompetent, a paper that says humans don't cause warming, and they say "behold the proof that climate science is a sham! Media and governments are suppressing the truth!" We could then steelman this as some sort of, uh, institutional bias created secretly at some point in the 1980s to teach budding scientists false beliefs. I find this more plausible than a conspiracy stretching back to the 19th century, but it remains vague and relies on the idea of scientists being too dumb to notice they've been duped. (I find it hard to steelman it though, maybe due to the fact that this is my first attempt and my heart isn't really in it..)
I'd argue against the conspiracy theory with three points. First, a conspiracy needs to have a goal. So what's their goal? The solution to global warming, obviously, is to replace fossil fuels with clean energy like nuclear, solar and wind, while increasing energy efficiency of our technology. So... why would someone create the world's greatest hoax if it just encourages clean energy? Wouldn't it be easier to make ordinary arguments like (1) clean energy can give us energy independence, (2) air pollution caused largely by fossil fuels kills millions of people per year and clean energy doesn't, (3) energy costs less if we use less of it, and (4) fossil fuels reserves will run out anyway so we may as well replace them before a crisis arises?
Second, what good is a conspiracy that convinces 97% of climate scientists but only convinces 60% of the general public 35 years (or whatever) after the conspiracy started? What good is a conspiracy that doesn't convince politicians to pass a carbon tax? Clearly the conspirators picked the wrong target - if this evil plan were going to work it would have to win over lawmakers, not scientists.
Third, who is easier to fool, scientists or the general public? The conspiracy theory would have you believe that thousands of scientists who specifically study climate were gullible enough to believe conspirators' disinformation, while the general public (conservatives anyway) were smart enough to see right through it.
Of course, as you say, the idea that certain oil companies promote disinformation makes considerably more sense.
-
michael sweet at 08:54 AM on 22 April 2018Models are unreliable
Your "luke warmers" used to argue that there was no warming. They changed their hats when it became impossible to continue with their past lies. They continue to lie to the public about the changes expected from warming. Look at the briefs submitted to the court by deniers in the case of young people suing the government. You cannot concede the possibility of sea level rise contained in the US Climate Change report which is described by its author as "very conservative".
The real difference between warmists and luke warmers is that the luke warmers are deliberately lying to the public about the dangers we face.
The models can be falsified in myriad ways. You are just making excuses. The problem is that you are listening to oil company lobbyists and not scientists. There is much more than temperature modeled. We can compare the models to ocean heat, atmospheric humidity, rainfall patterns, drought predictions, extreme storm predictions, floods, temperature changes in different areas, river flow, and many more. All these data points give us evidence of the accuracy of the models.
We already see the stronger storms, drought, flooding and sea level rise. You want to wait and see if it really gets as much worse as scientists have projected? You realize the it will continue to get worse after 2100 in any case? You want to wait until civilization collapses before you take any action?
The fact that Arhennius in 1896 made projections that are still in the range of what is expected tells us that scientists are close to the mark. How long do you need to wait? It has already been 120 years, why would we need to wait another 30? James Hansen testified to congfress in 1989, 30 years ago. Fossil fuel intrests used exactly your argument 30 years ago. Now that the future has realized we see that Hansens projections were very accurate and you say we need another 50 years to wait? Does that make sense?
You are making excuses so that you can make money while everyone younger than you will suffer. 10 years ago scientists did not use the term carastrophic global warming and the deniers (luke warmers do not exist) used that term to insult scientists. Today scientists warn of catastrophic damages and deniers say it will not be too bad. The consequences have gotton so much worse in the past ten years that it is no longer extreme for scientists to warn of castrophe.
Scientists work for 150 years to develop the knowledge to project the future climate. You do not like the projections because it means you will make less money. You say we will just have to wait and see if it is really that bad. There is a consensus that warming over 2C could threaten the collapse of civilization and you say we should wait and see what happens at 4C? That is insane.
You produce no peer reviewed papers to support you absurd claims. You dismiss Stern, Hansen and Jacobson with a handwave. You have only the opinion of a lawyer who invests heavily in fossil fuels. You ignore the evidence you are presented. Why do you waste our time here when you do not care about the evidence?
Arguing that you do not understand the consequences of material that you refuse to read is not rational.
Please do not insult us here again with your comparisons of "luke warmers" and scientists.
-
michael sweet at 08:24 AM on 22 April 2018New paper shows that renewables can supply 100% of all energy (not just electricity)
Norrism:
The papers I have referred you to claim that we can convert to 100% renewables by 2050 if we try hard.
If we continue to accept the lowest possible estimates for possible damages and the fossil fuel industry estimates for the cost of switching to renewables than it will appear to be difficult.
Both Jacobson and Smart Energy Europe estimate that it will be cheaper to switch to renewables than to continue to use fossil fuels. Economists like the Stern Report say it will be much cheaper to switch to renewable energy than to continue ot use fossil fuels (and the cost of renewables had shrunk dramatically since then).
We have to decide: do we listen to neutral scientists whose primary care is the future of their families about what is best to do or do we listen to oil industry executives who only care about how big their bonuses this quarter are?
Plans like those I have linked exist for all the countries of the world. The fossil fuel industry crying for farmers in India is just so much BS. Look at how many millions of Indians die every year from fossil fuel pollution.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:10 AM on 22 April 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #14
rt Vandelay@,
I consider a considerable part of the “roots of evil action development and any associated resistance to correction” to be socioeconomic-political systems that encourage or tempt people to be more selfish than altruistic or reward harmful selfishness.
Good and valuable actions are undeniably actions that help sustainably advance all of humanity to a better future. Developing such actions requires people to be motivated to help others without expecting a personal reward. They may not get to personally experience the benefits of the better future for humanity that their actions support. And the more fortunate people will have to sacrifice some opportunity for personal benefit when it is understood that such Private Interests are not helping to develop sustainable improvements for the future of all of humanity.
So I do not consider the burning of fossil fuels to be the root of all evil. It is only a significant example of the developments occurring because of what I consider to be a significant part of the roots of evil.
And I do not wish to just “assign blame”. I consider Truth and Reconciliation to be an essential part of the actions required to effectively correct inappropriately developed beliefs and actions. So I am pointing out the need to challenge unjustified excusing of the burning of fossil fuels (As stated on Einstein's memorial at the National Academy of Science: “The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true.”).
Please correct me, help me be more aware and better understand, if any of the following points I have made in this comment string are not correct efforts to raise awareness and better understanding of what is going on:- the continuation and expansion of burning fossil fuels is a damaging unsustainable geoengineering activity that Global leaders (elected representatives and the wealthy winners of economic competitions) have failed to provide responsible leadership to sustainably solve or correct
- promoting global geoengineering actions as solutions to the irresponsible and unjustified increased harm of burning fossil fuels is undeniably more irresponsible pursuits of excuses for those who irresponsibly continue to try to get away with benefiting from an understood to be damaging and ultimately unsustainable activity
- burning fossil fuels cannot be proven to be providing any sustainable benefit for future generations of humanity, its continuation and expansion is only doing more harm
- burning fossil fuels not only creates harmful excess GHGs resulting in rapid global scale climate geoengineering, activities related to it create large scale local water contamination and air pollution and destruction of developed ecosystems
- the climate change impacts from the unsustainable burning of non-renewable ancient buried hydrocarbons are unpredictably disruptive to the intricately developed inter-related life ecosystems on this planet
- rapidly curtailing the selfish pursuits of benefit from the burning of fossil fuels is the only reliable way to develop a better future, a way to reduce the uncertainty regarding the magnitude and types of challenges that future generations will face. That understanding was well developed in the 1980s and has become even more certain since that time.
- global geoengineering to specifically remove CO2 from the atmosphere is an activity that can and should be developed to reduce the excess harmful impacts already created, even if other 'cheaper and quicker' geoengineering options to appear to 'solve the problem that is being created by the ultimately unsustainable and unhelpful activity' appear to exist.
As a final point, pursuing Universal Acceptance is a bit of a Fool's Game. Increased Acceptance is the best that can be hoped for. The people wanting to continue to behave understandably unacceptably will claim the need for Their Interests to be Balanced with “Other Concerns”. That is essentially compromising on what is understood to be the required correction of behaviour because some people do not want to give up on their understandably unacceptable pursuits of Private Interest. It can also be claimed to be the “pragmatic thing to do”. Those types of claims point out the unacceptable results of allowing popularity or profitability to determine acceptability is systems that tempt people to be more selfish and less tolerant of diversity. They also expose the twisted ways that terms like Balance, Fairness, Compromise, and Pragmatism can be abused to excuse understandably unacceptable desired beliefs.
The Truth and Reconciliation processes of raising awareness and better understanding of the unacceptability of what was/is really going on is important. And that includes pointing out what has been and still is unacceptable, even if doing so increases the resistance to correction among the portion of humanity that has developed a significant Private Interest in “not being corrected”.
As John Stuart Mill warned 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.”
Before John Stuart Mill's warning, Thomas Jefferson said “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times.”
The understanding that societies leaders (the rich and influential) must help the entire population be more correctly aware and better understand what is going on and help sustainably improve the future for all of humanity is not new. Systems that develop unhelpful leaders need to be corrected. And that correction requires the unacceptability of what has developed, and who is behaving unacceptably, to be openly declared rather than being excused due to misguided beliefs/claims about the need or right for “Balance of all Private Interests” or “Fairness to all Private Interests” or “Compromise of what is understood to be true to accommodate all other Private Interests” or “Pragmatism delaying correction due to a variety of Private Interests”.
Some things are understandably the more correct and justified emergent knowledge, and they should not be compromised out of a misguided sense of a need for Balance or Fairness or Pragmatism to appease understandably unacceptable developed Private Interests/Beliefs.
-
NorrisM at 02:56 AM on 22 April 2018Models are unreliable
michael sweet
Here is my comment which was snipped for being off-topic.
I think the real difference between what I will call the "warmists" versus the "luke warmers" is not really a difference on the science. Both sides accept that the planet is getting warmer and CO2 emissions constitute at least 50% of the warming (with the difference largely related to whether there are 60 year oscillations of the AMO). The real difference between the warmists and the luke warmers is a disagreement on the ability of the models to accurately predict what will happen after 2050.
But is that not what this all comes down to? We cannot agree on: 1. whether the temperature increases in RCP 8.5 are realistic based upon the limited ability of the models to replicate the climate 50 years into the future; and 2. whether the assumptions of fossil fuel use in RCP 8.5 are realistic. As well, all the "scary stuff" in the models seems to take place from 2050 onwards so we really cannot even point to any spectactular failure of the models today. The models are not falsifiable because we have to wait 30-50 years.
It is true that Einstein's theory of relativity was only "proven" many years later (I cannot remember the comet's path which seemed to prove it correct) but in that case the world was not asked to change its source of energy over a relatively short time period given that presently approximately 85% of our energy needs are provided by fossil fuels and less than 5% by wind and solar power.
Moderator Response:[DB] Sloganeering and blatant handwaving snipped. Either bring actual credible evidence to support your contentions or acknowledge that these assertions by you are simply your uninformed opinions. A number of posts at SkS already detail the accuracy of model projections vs actual performance (like here, here and here). Indeed, there is a plethora of posts examining just how well models as far back as even the 1980s and 1970s have performed.
You are welcome to make your case using actual evidence. You are not welcome to spread misinformation or to represent your opinions as anything other than that (opinions); without credible evidence to support them, they will be disregarded and dismissed if they differ from established science and scientific research. I'm not going to bother to warn you further as the fact is: you've been given ample warnings and simply ignored them.
-
JamesRRoach at 20:59 PM on 21 April 2018What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
You know as a graduated student, I can tell you where is the big problem. Our education! We don't pay any attention (I mean serious) to the environment. Look at all, this service who offer you to "do my essay online". The main theme is just ridiculous!
PC, Internet, Films, and other and only about 1 to 10 essays will be about nature. New generation are don't even interesting about how to help our planet, they have Instagram and other stuff to do.
We should talk about our environment a lot more! We should get teens and adults' interest. -
Doug_C at 17:38 PM on 21 April 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: Tactics of Denial
nigelj @9
Climate change denial is approaching the point of having to rewrite fundamental scientific theories that have been demonstrated over and over to have very high confidence. It's ridiculous to the point of having to claim that the same quantum theories that allow semi-cnductor transistors to operate in such a way as to enable all modern electronics suddenly break down when they are applied to describing why carbon dioxide is able to absorb heat when molecular nitrogen and oxygen aren't.
It requires far more complexity to make the deniers case work than it does the science of human forced climate change. Which isn't separate at all from the main body of scientific knowledge and discovery.
It is only mindless repetition paid for at a massive level that allows denial any visibility at all.
-
NorrisM at 14:55 PM on 21 April 2018New paper shows that renewables can supply 100% of all energy (not just electricity)
michael sweet @ 86
Happy to continue the discussion here. Obviously we have previously discussed the Jacobson paper at some length (and some of the peer-reviewed criticisms of it) but your point is well-taken that all proposed 100% renewable energy solutions have to have come up with an answer for the agricultural sector.
Jacobson's study was based on the United States. Somewhere else I provided a vox.com interview with an wind and solar expert in California who had advised the California power authority who felt we could only realistically get to 80-20 in the US. But this is in the United States and even with his interview I had no sense of how long that would take even if we had the Democrats in power.
Even in North America this is not going to be cheap. I recently walked into the Tesla dealership to see how much my sister's Model X (I think that is the new one) is going to cost her. I thought she had told me ballpark $35,000 Cdn. My understanding is that by the time you walk out of the dealership you will be looking at somewhere between $50-60,000 (before taxes). Elon is not appealing to the working man.
But then we move to the Chinese or Indian farmer. Where is the grid system that Jacobson works on in his US analysis? Just how many years will it be before China has moved from coal to wind, solar and nuclear energy sufficiently to allow tractors to operate on batteries? And when are the trains going to be converted to electrically run systems to transport the goods to ships? And when are the ships going to be converted to electric powered engines?
I acknowledge that all of this can happen but it will take a lot of time.
There is simply no way we can move from ballpark 85% fossil fuel energy production in the world to even 50% let alone 20% as projected for the US by this California expert. Right now, wind and solar in the world is no more than the source of 5% of the world's energy production. I think it is more like 2-3% if I am not mistaken.
I think the real difference between what I will call the "warmists" versus the "luke warmers" is not really a difference on the science. Both sides accept that the planet is getting warmer and CO2 emissions constitute at least 50% of the warming. The real difference between the warmists and the luke warmers is a disagreement on the ability of the models to accurately predict what will happen after 2050 and therefore how much time we have to deal with the problem. That is why I personally want to focus on sea level rises based upon observations. But I guess to continue this discussion we have to move to even another blog. But is that not what this all comes down to? We cannot agree on: 1. whether the temperature increases in RCP 8.5 are realistic based upon the limited ability of the models to replicate the climate; and 2. whether the assumptions of fossil fuel use in RCP 8.5 are realistic. As well, all the "scary stuff" in the models seems to take place from 2050 onwards so we really cannot even point to any spectacular failure of the models today. The models are not falsifiable because we have to wait 30-50 years for the serious consequences. Moderator: If you "snip" this last paragraph for again being off topic could you suggest another thread on models?
So much of this comes down to how much can we trust the models.
Moderator Response:[DB] Off-topic, sloganeering and arguments from incredulity snipped. For SLR discussions, continue using the thread you had been (you know better than to try to throw other threads off-topic). For models, learn to use the Search function in the upper left corner of every page here and select the most-appropriate thread from the results.
-
michael sweet at 12:02 PM on 21 April 2018New paper shows that renewables can supply 100% of all energy (not just electricity)
Why don't we shift the discussion of renewable energy to here. It will be on topic.
-
michael sweet at 11:46 AM on 21 April 2018Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
Norrism:
If you had read the reference I gave you to Smart Energy Europe you would see that they proposed using electrofuels. I.E. they will use electricity from renewable energy to convert CO2 from the air into diesel fuel. They could also use electric tractors with a teather or batteries, whichever is cheapest. I think Jacobson proposes electric tractors using batteries.
Obviously, everyone who has made an all renewable proposal has something in mind for farm equipment. Your suggestion that it has not been solved just shows that you have made no effort to read the papers you have been referred to.
If you do not look for the answers everything is a mystery that cannot be solved. If you read the background information than we can have a discussion on how to implement the proposed solutions. Many people have proposed all renewable systems so many different solutions for farm equipment have been suggested.
You have spent too much time at fossil fuel investor meetings. In those meetings they say solar power will never compete with coal. Solar is currently cheaper than coal and oil fueled electricity in many areas. Wind and solar are cheaper than gas in some areas.
-
NorrisM at 11:29 AM on 21 April 2018Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
Bob Loblaw @ 87
As with everything in this world, "The Devil is in the details.". I would be pleased to carry on this discussion on another thread if the moderator can suggest one.
The use by the third world of fossil fuels is massive and I have assumed a large portion of this is used in agriculture and the transportation used to deliver those crops to the world. I would have to start searching for details but this is not a straw man. Perhaps we can find some information on what percentage of fossil fuel use is agriculture and transportation in third world countries. I will try to find this out if the moderator can suggest another thread other than sea level rise.
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:43 AM on 21 April 2018Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
NorrisM: "...just tell me how the Chinese or Indian farmer replaces his diesel tractor."
Seriously, dude. If you are going to create strawmen that absolutely every use of fossil fuels has to stop, so justification of one use is justification of all, then you are wasting everyone's time.
-
Art Vandelay at 10:28 AM on 21 April 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: Tactics of Denial
nijelj@14, Just to add that I was really only speaking for conservatives in Australia, who are more libertarian than conservatives in the USA. The situation in NZ is no doubt similar. Conservatives in Australia largely fall within the upper middle class and are more likely to be self employed or employed within senior mangament positions in medeum to large enterprises. Not surprisingly, Australia's conservatives mostly believe in small government too, and from observations they look far less to government for leadership than is the case with the progressive class, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. But ultimately it's resistance to change that defines a conservative. That doesn't mean that change isn't possible though. When evidence is clear and compelling that change is for the better a conservative will embrace change.
-
nigelj at 06:44 AM on 21 April 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: Tactics of Denial
Art Vandelay @13, thanks for the info. on Australia. I realised you probably knew most of the material I posted. I posted it more for the benefit of anyone else interested as well. Same goes for some of the following.
The nature of renewable energy means more sharing of resources by the States which suggests a national plan is now appropriate, or alternatively one national lines company perhaps. Britain has sidestepped the political problems and regional control by putting energy planning in the hands of a non partisan body separate from government. They have not had the same level of cost and relaibility problems as Australia probably as a result. They are also doing better than New Zealand.
"I mention all of this because I don't believe that a majority of conservative heartland denies climate change, but whether it does or doesn't probably doesn't matter that much anyway"
I hear you and its a interesting point. I assume you really mean agw climate change. It's complicated, and peoples beliefs might even change almost from day to day depending on who they listen to, and of course you get gradations of belief, for example yes humans are warming the climate, but less than the IPCC predict. But I think this is all still denial of the issue in the end.
Perhaps more imprtantly is people like Trump and Scott Pruitt and media personalities like Bill O'reilley and other authority fugures claim the science is a fraud and conservative people appear to be very influenced by authority figures whatever they believe internally. Liberals are more argumentative and less likely to follow authority figures (for good or bad).
interestingly polls back up what you say on renewable energy. Conservatives are more receptive to this, than to climate science theory. This in turn suggests they might accept the science more than they say when polled, but dont want to admit they accept the science to their peers.
I agree part of this is selling the benefits of renewable energy, and I accept conservatives embrace renewable energy to some extent. But you have a couple of problems still in the way of all this. Firstly the conservative leadership certainly doesn't accept renewable energy. The White House stand firmly opposed to renewables despite their rhetoric, and is even reported to be about to use cold war legislation to enable it to give direct government support to coal. The Republican congress is still luke warm on renewable energy. And as I mentioned authoity figures are important to conservatives. In other words the conservative leadership is not helping as much as it could, even if people on the ground make efforts.
The Democrat politicians are more supportive of renewables, but not as much as they could be either. It needs much stronger efforts and this will in turn build confidence with ordinary folk.
And a good acceptance of the science and risks impacts of climate change on humanity will be good motivations to adopt renewable energy even if it does cost slightly more or alternatively requires some small state subsidy. So its important to improve acceptance of the science as much as possible.
Acceptance of the science has improved in America over the last 20 years although slowly.
-
Xulonn at 02:42 AM on 21 April 2018Glacier loss is accelerating because of global warming
>nigelj - thank you for the glacier/water supply links. I shall read them in the near future as well as search for more.
It is difficult to determine which negative effect of AGW/CC will cause the most damage to human civilization over various time periods, but the cumulative impact will ultimately be devastating. It appears that the distribution of changes in large-scale agricultural productivity might favor Russia while the U.S. suffers - an interesting quirk I was not aware of until recently.
At age 76, I am alive to witness the slow acceleration of the negative effects of AGW/CC , but the generation after me will likely to be the first to be seriously threatened.
-
Art Vandelay at 22:45 PM on 20 April 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: Tactics of Denial
nigelj@12, yes all understood. I'm across the detail of the problems here with wind and pv solar etc, and grid reliability issues which are not directly attributed to renewable energy but more the lack of despatchable base load power. So it's an indirect relationship more than a direct one, but people really don't care about the how's or why's. All that matters is that the power is always working, and with a retail price that's stable and affordable. As we transition to more intermittent renewables there will be many challenges. Politics in this country is interesting because the states themselves control their own energy supplies, and until recently there's been no national energy plan.
I mention all of this because I don't believe that a majority of conservative heartland denies climate change, but whether it does or doesn't probably doesn't matter that much anyway. Regardless of political orientation, people won't be hostile to renewable energy if it's able to effectively match traditional sources for price and reliability. If the solution to climate change is renewable energy, as the experts say, then it's simply a matter of selling the benefits of renewable energy. Fwiw, conservative areas in the major cities have all led the way for PV solar installations, so the evidence suggests that conservatives are definitely willing to embrace renewable energy. They already have.
-
michael sweet at 21:55 PM on 20 April 2018Glacier loss is accelerating because of global warming
Scaddnp:
I thought as much. I posted so the absurd claim that Mt. Hunter was ice free were not left unrebutted on the board. The paper states that is was very rare (less than one melt day per decade) for Mt Hunter to have any melt at all in the 1600's. Even if the MWP affected the glacier it would have caused occasional melt, not deglaciation.
-
Daniel Bailey at 20:52 PM on 20 April 2018Glacier loss is accelerating because of global warming
I wish people would actually read papers they cite. That paper is entirely consistent with the established phsyics of AGW.
-
bozzza at 17:28 PM on 20 April 2018Climate's changed before
Rates of change is always the concern. The global debate should be about this but it's not because business has already accepted the reality of climate change: everything else is the vagaries of investment.
-
bozzza at 17:25 PM on 20 April 2018CO2 effect is saturated
Daniel, "This page isn't available
The link you followed may be broken, or the page may have been removed."
-
bozzza at 17:21 PM on 20 April 2018Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
Norris, you can't just join issues.
-
nigelj at 17:04 PM on 20 April 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: Tactics of Denial
Art Vandelay @11
I tend to confine my comments to what I think is driving denialism of the science. We have a whole separate but related issue of peoples concerns about renewable energy, and I agree its reasonable for people to be concerned about reliability and costs (we in Auckland NZ have just had a huge record setting power cut due to an unusually intense low pressure system and its frustrating. It took out numerous power lines).
However I think the reasons for wind farm problems of reliability in Australia appear related to a political fight on how the electricity system as a whole is designed at a conceptual and market level and how the states share resources, as opposed to the technology of wind farms themselves.
I know you also had a disastrous storm that caused wind power to be taken off line, but this was due largely to the failure of transmission lines and would have happened with a purely fossil fuel based system. Some software problem with the wind farms did contribute to the problem, and hopefully people appreciate this will sometimes happen with new technology, and the problem was quickly fixed. But clearly too many of these won't be tolerated.
Increasing electricty prices have a range of causes mostly due to a a failure to invest in enough new generation and issues with transmission lines costs. Renewable electricity itself only accounts for about 16% of increase in prices. I remembered reading this, and found this article below:
www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-25/the-truth-about-soaring-power-prices/8979860
But the bottom line is its not the renewable electricity causing most of the problems. Its politics. And industry lobby groups and conservative leaning political think tank groups falsely blame all the problems on renewable energy ( as described in the article I linked) and the end result is a very confused and mislead public.
-
NorrisM at 15:56 PM on 20 April 2018Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
scaddenp @ 78
Can we agree that my reference to .4M by 2100 is the middle ground of the Rholing 2013 paper? It is not the low end. It is the "probability maximum".
It is so easy to move off from the blog topic of sea rise level but only to reply to your comment regarding my "over-estimate the consequences of proposed action" just tell me how the Chinese or Indian farmer replaces his diesel tractor. If he has to go back to plowing his fields with animals he will be reduced to the poverty he has just recently been lifted from.
Moderator Response:[DB] Off-topic snipped.
-
Art Vandelay at 15:52 PM on 20 April 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #14
One Planet Only Forever@13, I respect your opinion but don't agree that fossil fuels are root of all evils. If for instance humans had burnt forests instead of fossil fuels, there's some evidence that the overall environmental impact might be worse than it is now. Population growth has also fueled emissions growth, and if the global population had stabilised at 2-3 billion it's unlikely that we would have a climate problem in 2018, even if 100% powered by coal, oil and gas.
Aportioning of blame might make some people feel better but it doesn't solve the problem, and might even make solutions more difficult to achieve. Now is the time to accept that a problem exists and to devise and implement remedial actions that are likely to succeed and are universally accepted.
-
bozzza at 15:49 PM on 20 April 2018The courts are deciding who's to blame for climate change
We are: the people lead, governments follow!
-
Art Vandelay at 15:27 PM on 20 April 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: Tactics of Denial
Nijelj@9, I think you're on the right track with that reasoning. Living in conservative heartland I meet many people who are labelled 'deniers' but in actual fact many do openly acknowledge the existence of climate change, along with the possibility of potential severe consequences. However, they resist voting for political parties that advocate more radical solutions, primarily because those parties lean further to the left than a conservative is prepared to go, but also due to the negative consequences already experienced from transitioning to intermittent renewables, which in Australia has seen higher power prices and reduced reliability / more outages in some states and regions. In Australia, our governing Liberal Party is actually the most conservative party, and offers less ambitious targets and solutions than Labor or The Greens, but it seems almost certain now that Labor will win gov't next year, and possibly with a Greens alliance, and if it does will definitely implement its policy of 50% renewable energy by 2030, and with more ambitious targets going forward.
To a large extent, Labor's success or failure will depend on energy prices and reliability, as well as the overall impact on the economy. Overly ambitious targets that risk energy affordabilty and / or reliability, with a flow-on economic impact will create a large voter backlash and a rapid return to a more conservative government with a more conservative climate change policy.
-
scaddenp at 14:09 PM on 20 April 2018Glacier loss is accelerating because of global warming
Michael, Steveh should answer for himself, but I think he is echoing WUWT commentators. If the ice core is 400 years old at bedrock, then that "proves" Mt Hunter was ice-free pre-1600 (ie MWP) and only re-glaciated in LIA which are now thankfully "coming out of". I kid you not.
-
nigelj at 13:35 PM on 20 April 2018Skeptical Science at EGU 2018 - a personal diary
Regarding debunking climate myths. I have heard the incorrect claim a lot recently that climate science can't be trusted, because the science is allegedly very new, and was developed by the United Nations for political motives. Or variations on this general theme.
The science is actually more than a century old. It might be worth adding this issue to the list of climate myths with some of the history.
-
michael sweet at 12:49 PM on 20 April 2018Glacier loss is accelerating because of global warming
Steveh:
Your analysis is not supported by the paper you reference. They specifically state that the thickness of each year of ice becomes thinner as you go down in the ice core. Below 165 meters the layers are too thin to resolve, while near the surface they are as thick as a meter. This means your estimation of 100-300 years previously to be ice free is just something you made up. The actual time to the bottom of the core is much longer, it is not discussed in the paper. The data do not support your claim that this ice core relates to the MWP. I did not see any mention of the MWP in the paper.
In summary: you have made up any statements about the MWP, they are not supported by the data in the paper.
-
SteveH at 12:22 PM on 20 April 2018Glacier loss is accelerating because of global warming
From the next to last paragraph in the above article - "And this is why a new study attracted my attention. A paper was just published by the American Geophysical Union that shared research carried out by Dominic Winski and his colleagues."
The mt hunter study is interesting for a number of reasons in that it confirms several things most everyone knows.
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JD027539
The first point is that two ice cores were drilled down to 208 meters at which point they hit rock. The 400 year point (from 2013 to 1613) was reached at 164.8 meters which left approximately 44 meters which extrapolates to approx 100-300 years for the remaining ice. in other words mt hunter was ice free sometime between 1300-1400 which coincides with the end of the MWP.
Second, this is another of several data points that indicate that the MWP was more wide spread than the convential/current climate science conclusions. This is also consitent with the exposed tree stumps from the mendenhal retreating glacier which was carbon dated circa 1000-1100ad.
Third the study points out the the melting is 60x more than circa 1850 which is to be expected since that is considered the end of the LIA.
In summary, the Mt hunter study adds additional confirmation and insight to what is already known.
-
John Hartz at 11:00 AM on 20 April 2018Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
More reasons to suspect that the IPCC projections of SLR are on the low side...
Sea levels could be rising faster than predicted due to new source of Antarctic ice melting by Josh Gabbatis, Environment, Independent (UK), Apr 19, 2018
New study shows worrisome signs for Greenland ice by John Abraham, Climate Consensus - the 97%, Gurdian, Apr 14, 2018
Antarctic Glaciers Lost Stunning Amount of Ground in Recent Years by Chelsea Harvey, E&E News/Scientific American, Apr 4, 2018
-
scaddenp at 10:37 AM on 20 April 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: Tactics of Denial
Conspiracy theorist: "I believe in hypothesis A" (eg climate change isnt happening) [belief is based on preferences routed in values and identity]
Rationalist: "Here is data proving the contrary"
CT: "There is a conspiracy to hide the real data" [cant change the belief so only alternative is disbelieve the data]
Virtually all conspiracy theories dont make sense. They are held by people for whom the rationalist framework is a foreign country.
-
Tom Dayton at 09:55 AM on 20 April 2018CO2 is plant food
After 24 years, the pattern reverses: C3 plants grow worse as CO2 continues to increase, and C4 plants grow better. New article.
-
nigelj at 08:36 AM on 20 April 2018Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
NorrisM @81, concerning 2 M approx. sea level rise by 2100, if the Antarctic destabilises etc.
Right now this is possible and connot be ruled out. Probabilities are small given current best understandings and observational evidence, but 2M by 2100 would be catastrophic. Because the consequences are grave, even a low possibility becomes concerning.You have to think of it in these terms.
It's not sensible to start saying perhaps a 10% possibility, or we dont have definitive evidence or enough observations so lets hope we dodge this bullet, because if we don't consequences are very severe and very costly in terms of adaptation and possible geo political ramnifications. Even 1M is bad enough.
Of course you have to weigh all this against costs of reducing emissions, but these have been demonstrated to be within the boundaries of what countries can deal with and the technology is there, at least for electricity and vehicle transport, and these are large parts of the issue and negative emissions options are also available and proven in most cases.
And appreciate whatever the rate of sea level rise is by 2100, it will continue at the same or greater rate beyond 2100.The more temperatures rise the faster ice melts, basic stuff and this is before you consider how glaciers and ice sheets respond in detail and can become destabilised.
The last decade or so has averaged about 3.5MM so thats 350mm per century at 1 degree of warming. Even drastic emissions cuts by 2050 has still locked in about 1.5 degree, and so at least 400mm probably more like 600mm by 2100. So forget about this low end scenario.
Higher temperatures can only increase the rate well above 400mm. We are definitely in 1M to 2M territory, unless emissions are reduced.
-
nigelj at 07:45 AM on 20 April 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #15
This is important: Trump's Latest Plan for Saving Coal Comes From the Cold War
-
nigelj at 07:31 AM on 20 April 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: Tactics of Denial
Doug_C @6
Well argued. The idea that climate science is a conspiracy doesn't make sense to me either. Too many people have been involved to keep such a secret. It's as absurd as the twin towers conspiracy theories, or moon landing conspiracy.
Of course the denialists would argue bizarre things that all the early research was fake, and its all an elaborate plot by the one world illuminati socialist globalist conspiracy to enslave humans for god knows what crazy reason.
Better to apply occams razor. The simplest explanations are usually correct. Scientists were looking at the climate and trying to explain things, nothing more or less than this.
Apply Occams Razor to the climate denialists and its tempting to say they are simply ignorant low intelligence people, but this doesn't stand scrutiny, because the denialists include higher than average intelligence, so the next plausible and simple motive is vested interests and political dislike of government regulations and programmes needed to help fix the problem.
-
nigelj at 07:11 AM on 20 April 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: Tactics of Denial
Art Vandelay @6
"After all, a higher average temperature will result in greater evaporation - which means more vapor in the atmosphere."
Yeah I was wondering this exact thing myself, and I dont know the text book answer. However here's my answer as an alternative to M Sweet. If the sun went through a period of enhanced activity causing a warming effect and the water vapour feedback, day time temperatures are increasing because of both direct influence of the sun 'and' the water vapour greenhouse effect. This is going to lead to more rise of temperatures during the day than at night because at night the only factor is the greenhouse effect.
-
nigelj at 06:35 AM on 20 April 2018Glacier loss is accelerating because of global warming
Useful articles on the glacier issue:
www.ipsnews.net/2011/09/200-million-depend-on-melting-glaciers-for-water/
www.scientificamerican.com/article/shrinking-mountain-glaciers-are-affecting-people-downstream/
Prev 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 Next
