Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 Next
Comments 15301 to 15350:
-
Eclectic at 15:53 PM on 15 March 2018Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Atc @95 , on the question of money — the remuneration of 200 deniers by fossil fuel companies, and the remuneration of 20,000 scientists by governments & universities . . . is an apples & oranges comparison. And is somewhat off-topic for this thread. Even further off-topic, are crazy conspiracy theories.
If you were new to the field of Earth's geography, why would you not start investigating it by commencing from the mainstream consensus scientific position (= Round Earth) — why would you commence with the Old Testament position of Flat Earth. Really, Atc, you have made a very strange suggestion.
And why would you wish to pay more for electricity in future years (as coal-burning power generation becomes increasingly more expensive than wind or solar) ?? Quite apart from the other aspects !
Howzabout we get back to the science. Also check out my post #92 on Giaever (which also touches briefly on the psychology of money payments).
-
Atc at 15:42 PM on 15 March 2018Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Philippe @96,
It seems like a contradiction. But I have a habit of reading about geniuses. The way they solve problems is definitely not the way we do it.
Gauss. When he was 10, his math teacher asked the class to add 1 to 100. Instead of adding one number at a time he did the following in his head
1 +2+.... +50
100+ 51
————————
101 +. ... 101. 50 times.
He wrote down only the answer 5050.Richard Feymann. When asked how is it that you solve your problems, he replied I already see the answer. What you see me doing is actually me working backwards to answer.
I am pretty sure Giaever is in the same class of geniuses.
This is the real reason I am bothered with this whole climate science thing. When you have people of this caliber asking questions that are not being answered, this definitely has my attention.
-
Atc at 15:08 PM on 15 March 2018Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Micheal @95,
If you are new to the field, why would you start out by agreeing with the consensus. You should start out by disagreeing and then slowly answer the questions you have. If you were a scientist, the first thing you normally do is to survey the literature to see what’s written about the topic. Usually if the topic is mature and settled, you should be able to find a survey paper usually done by a senior scientist in that field; this paper summarizes the current findings and put it in historical timeline ; you would find at the end of the paper a list of references. That way, you can trace when, what, who to see how an idea developed.
The insinuation of someone working for money is equally applicable to both sides of the aisle. Do you really think there would be any research money if global warming was not viewed as man-made and catastrophic? It has to be man-made CO2 in order to target the fossil-fuel companies so that the green energy companies have a chance. It has to be catastrophic in order for you to make the investments now. Why pay more for electricity unless you think it is catastrophic if you don’t? Missing either one and you go nowhere.
Moderator Response:[DB] "If you are new to the field, why would you start out by agreeing with the consensus. You should start out by disagreeing and then slowly answer the questions you have"
On the contrary, a real skeptic would refrain from forming any opinion on the subject until they had learned enough to actually understand their limitations.
-
ImaginaryNumber at 14:53 PM on 15 March 2018How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice
I'd like to make another comment regarding my experience in asking questions on this forum. Many of you seemed to think that the interests of science were best served, not by working to understand my point of view to better answer my questions, but rather to blast Crockford without even reading the particular posts I had questions about, and by leveling all sorts of criticisms against me for using the word "paper" when I should have used the word "article", and for criticizing me for either not explaining my point of view well enough, or my saying too much, or my not listing the correct number of scientifically-approved citations.
While the gods of scientific correctness are undoubtably smiling on your heroic posts, your winning a few battles obscures the fact that you/we are losing the war. By that I mean that it really doesn't matter if you totally prove to the scientific community that a climate disaster of epic proportions is about to swamp the Earth. What matters is if you can convince the voting public to put into office people who take climate change seriously. I thought we in the U.S. had plumbed the depths of stupidity we we elected G W Bush president. But no, we doubled down to elect Trump. What an awful choice we've made.
Those many thousands of posts that I referenced were made in an attempt to change the minds of the voting public. I came to this forum asking for help with a question that had me stumped. I feel that collectively you did a very poor job in furthering what I think would be a mutual goal to better explain and persuade the non-scientific community of what the world is facing.
I hope the next non-scientific fool who comes to this forum to ask a question has a better experience than I've had.
Moderator Response:[DB] Multiple JAQing off and inflammatory snipped.
I suggest that a venue such as this one, one based in science and credible evidence...and one that is a moderated forum that enforces the Comments Policy on all participants equally, is not to your liking. -
One Planet Only Forever at 13:12 PM on 15 March 2018Biofuels can help solve climate change, especially with a carbon tax
I agree with nigelj but would add out-of-the-box developments such as letting long distance transportation take longer along with reducing the enegry needed to accomplish the transport.
That would mean considering ideas like sails to assist ocean transport (already being developed) and using derigible-plane hybrids to allow natural winds to assist the transport when possible (also already being developed).
The key is to be willing to have things happen Slower when Slower is understood to be Better for the Environment and Resource Management.
However, the correction of the incorrectly over-developed unsustainable and harmful aspects of the existing economy should not be 'Slower to avoid penalizing people who do/did not care about the impacts of their chosen way of obtaining Personal Benefits', people who ignored warnings that what they enjoyed benefiting from was unsustainable and harmful, warnings that were undeniable 30 years ago and have continued to become less deniable with each new year of increased awareness and understanding.
A significant carbon tax would be the motivation for very creative development of alternatives, more than biofuels. For creativity to produce wonderful results, it has to be motivated to be prioritized over 'creative attempts to delay the development of awareness and understanding in the general population of the need to correct many existing developed popular ways of enjoying life and profiting'.
-
Eclectic at 13:05 PM on 15 March 2018Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
ATC @94 , you might benefit from watching the video recording of Dr Giaever addressing a meeting composed of Nobel Laureates & bright young scientists, where he states that (from a cold start) he researched online to gather views & evidence on AGW . . . and he spent only half a day or so gathering information. On the strength of that, he started lecturing the expert climate scientists on how they were all doing it wrong. The video is quite painful to watch, as Giaever (in full lecturing pontification mode) tells the audience how to do science — while himself demonstrating the exact opposite of good scientific thinking.
It must have been an absolutely cringeworthy experience, for the poor audience. But possibly the audience was able to tolerate the debacle — by remembering how sometimes even the most distinguished savants can deteriorate into "going Emeritus". [ NB — the cartoon in post #66, by poster KR ].
Somewhat younger scientists (such as Spencer and Lindzen) appear to have their rational abilities severely compromised by old-fashioned religious concepts (concepts which are condemned by modern religious figures such as the Pope).
Some scientists, such as Dr Koonin, exhibit similar irrationality about AGW science — but their psychological motivation is less clear (to me).
Nevertheless, Atc, with or without obvious causation of their intellectual dysfunction, there is an interesting tiny minority of practising "scientists" who are in full denial of the facts of climate change. Whether influenced by monetary inducement (or the ego-boosting inducements of fame/celebrity in newsprint or the invitations to address Congressional/Senatorial committees) or for reasons of extremist religious attitudes, or from having a perverted contrariness of personality . . . or for a mixture of these reasons . . . we find such people existing !!
Atc, I am slightly surprised that you have not observed such human frailties around you, in your life up till now. The existence of such people, does in no way indicate that there must be some merit in what they say. You can even find intelligent Flat-Earthers !!
Atc, please educate yourself to at least a moderate level of climate science knowledge. You will very soon see why the mainstream consensus position is held by (very close to) 100% of climate scientists. And as you progress through life, I hope you will come to recognize that there will always be a minority of crazies who can never be convinced by truth and logic.
-
ImaginaryNumber at 11:55 AM on 15 March 2018How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice
JohnSeers said:
Why don't you give some links to just a few of your thousands of posts on climate change issues? That should be sufficient to allay any doubts.
JohnSeers said:
You haven't given a few links to some of the thousands of posts you have made about the climate. Why not? As you are so industrious and assiduous on this subject you must think what you have to say is worthwhile and informative.
This seems to be very important to you, though somehow I doubt providing the requested information will greatly improve my standing in this forum.
Here are two few threads I've started (screen name SailOar, and screen name ImaginaryNumber). I've posted many thousands of posts in other threads.
-
ImaginaryNumber at 11:52 AM on 15 March 2018How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice
michael sweet said:
Peer reviewed papers are written for experts to read. They leave out information that everyone who is expert knows. There is not enough space to rewrite the history of science in every paper. Crockford's suggestion that they have left out necessary information is only relevant to people who are not experts (like Crockford). Subadult seals include pups, experts know this and it does not need to be explained. Experts know about snow conditions and leads, Crockfords comments are irrelevant.
As evidenced by your own faulty knowledge, you are not a polar bear expert and therefore shouldn't be reading Pagano's paper. I'll not comment on your other questionable comments for fear of the moderators censoring my remarks as being argumentative.
According to this paper seal pups are different than seal subadults.
pup < 1 years old
subadult1–4 years
old adult ≥ 5 years old
Moderator Response:[DB] Inflammatory and moderation complaints snipped.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 11:52 AM on 15 March 2018Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Atc,
To me, your post has too many contradictions. How can you be swayed by somebody smart supposedly not being convinced by a coherent scientific argument while at the same time not being bothered that they may have done only minimal research? That is contradictory. One can not assess how convincing the science is by doing only minimal research. If one has objections, the obvious thing to do is to epxplore whether these objections have been the subject of study. Giaever apparently doesn't think that he could be wrong, and it's not worth his time to look deeper. That is not a very rigorous way to go about any subject for a scientist.
-
ImaginaryNumber at 11:48 AM on 15 March 2018How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice
michael sweet said:
I noticed that you incorrectly linked to a "paper" by Crockford and compared it to a peer reviewed paper by Pagano...Thank you for correcting my improper use of the word "paper".
-
ImaginaryNumber at 11:46 AM on 15 March 2018How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice
Moderator(s):
I am dismayed by the instructions you have given me. In my first post (#35) I simply asked for help in understanding two articles, and gave the links for each. I thought that anyone who read the two links would then be able to understand the nature of my questions, and possibly give me assistance.
By post 39 it was becoming clear to me that few, if any, were actually reading Pagano and Crockford, so I posted a more extensive synopsis of what they had said.
At the end of post 49 you said
Moderator Response:
[DB] Yes, it's time for an evidence-based based approach for your position, grounded in the reputable literature and using citations.By this point I was getting really frustrated. Both Pagano's and Crockford's articles provided a number of citations from reputable sources. I did not understand why you wanted even more information, but I attempted to comply with your request by spending four hours creating post 52. A huge waste of my time, as far as I was concerned, as I figured if folks would simply read Pagano and Crockford they would understand the arguments far better than anything I could write down.
And now I am being told:
Moderator Response:
[JH] You have stated your case and expressed your concerns multiple times. You are now skating on the thin ice of excessive reptition which is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.It appears I'm damned it I do, and damned if I don't. I came to SKS wishing to learn, and had high expectations of my questions being taken courteously and seriously (and they were by some — thank you), but for others it was clear that they had not read either article, yet they seemed to enjoy piling on.
Moderator Response:[JH] Moderation complaints snipped.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
michael sweet at 10:10 AM on 15 March 2018Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
ATC,
Most scientists follow the path you outline and agree with the consensus. Trump is unable to find a scientific advisor becasue no-one will support his climate program.
It is not a surprise that 1 or 2% of scientists have preconcieved notions that prevent them from accepting the consensus. No-one would care what Happer thinks about most anything if he was not a denier. The same for Curry, Vahrenvolt, Carter and Spencer. They get their name in the newspaper regularly, get to write OP-Eds for the Wall Street Journal and get paid to testify to congress simply because they are deniers. Many are tempted just by the fame not to mention the money.
-
Atc at 09:59 AM on 15 March 2018Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Magellan @90 and Tom Curtis
We often see scientists from non-climate fields who believe they have sufficient expertise to understand climate science despite having done minimal research on the subject; William Happer, Fritz Vahrenholt, and Bob Carter, for example.
What bothered me the most isn’t that they are from other fields or did minimal research; that could be a plus for having a different perspective. What bothered me the most is that nobody actually doing the research was able to convince nobel laureates on this topic of global warming. These guys are not idiots. It seems that with some good convincing presentations you should be able to get them all to fall in line. If you are not able to explain or convince another scientist and a Nobel laureate, it raises very very serious concerns that climate scientists don’t really have any substantive evidence. Why would any trained scientist remain unconvinced if you present him with the data and a good argument?
For instance, if he questions how you can even get an average temperature, the correct response should be. Here is how the scientists did it. Here are the considerations. How we took the averages. Here are the questions and discussions. Here are the criticisms of this method. Here is what we finally settled on. This is the correlation and this is the causation. Remember he is a physicist. He is used to just doing an experiment to verify his theories. Climate scientists don’t have that luxury. They have to use some other method. They are in the same league as Darwin. And you know how evolution debate went. Almost parallel climate science. A consensus of Darwinian evolution. Finally giving way to accepting a minority view. My own understanding of evolution is now. Yes. There is evolution (not the current definition, undefined for me). No. It is not Darwinian. It is not random. Likewise, a concensus of catastrophic man-made global warming. Giving way to a minority view. My own understanding of global warming is: Yes. There is global warming (as partially due to natural variabilit). No. It is not catastrophic. It is only partially man-made. Probably not significant. Pollution is probably more of a pressing problem.
I am not a scientist. I have come to my own conclusions by watching the various discussions on the internet. My belief is that from a starting point of zero knowledge on any scientific topic and using the scientific method you should be able to get to the truth logically. I also believe that if a scientist is unable to convince me logically by means of the scientific method, I remain unconvinced. No need of any consensus.
-
nigelj at 09:25 AM on 15 March 2018Burning coal may have caused Earth’s worst mass extinction
TR Styles @17, I think your gasification theory sounds very convincing. But I'm not a geologist to say much about it.
It could of course be a combination of burning and gasification.
Just to be clear the example I quoted in Australia of coal burning underground was not a mine, and was a natural seam that somehow caught fire possibly from a forest fire, and somehow enough oxygen gets right down there, possibly as the seam gradually burns from the outside down or just through fissures in the rock, Im not sure. I can believe that the very widespread surface volcanic lava flows during the Permian event ignited more than a few coal seams over extended time periods. But gasification could also have happened and may be the dominant factor.
-
nigelj at 09:04 AM on 15 March 2018Biofuels can help solve climate change, especially with a carbon tax
This article makes a very good case in all respects, however using biofuels in blended fuels for cars is senseless to me. I suggest limit use of biofuels to air travel and shipping which are hard to electrify, to minimise intrusion on forestry and agricultural land.
-
T R Styles at 08:27 AM on 15 March 2018Burning coal may have caused Earth’s worst mass extinction
Thanks WOL. I really should dust off my laptop for these things, but I've become addicted to portability. Each keyboard app and wallpaper theme in Android seems to project things differently.
Hey! I'm a little suprised no one had anything to say one way or the other about "gasification" as a source of P-T greenhouse gases.. I may well be off base on that idea, but still can't see that literal burning is necessary, where hot magmas are involved, to put a lot of nasty volatiles into the atmosphere .
-
JohnSeers at 07:13 AM on 15 March 2018How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice
@ImaginaryNumber
You haven't given a few links to some of the thousands of posts you have made about the climate. Why not? As you are so industrious and assiduous on this subject you must think what you have to say is worthwhile and informative.
-
Wol at 06:35 AM on 15 March 2018Burning coal may have caused Earth’s worst mass extinction
T R Styles @ 12 (Mod - off topic but for info) Your superscripts appear just fine on my PC so obviously went OK from the phone and tablet: Might just be ine "incoming" text interpretation on them.
-
william5331 at 05:07 AM on 15 March 2018New scenarios show how the world could limit warming to 1.5C in 2100
Any reasonably bright, year 12 student could tell the politicians exactly what they should be doing to limit Carbon dioxide emissions and to solve all the other problems we face but they won't do it. There is one ring that controls them all and if we sorted out this one, the rest would fall into place. http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2018/01/wasted-effort.html
-
Jonbo69 at 04:23 AM on 15 March 2018Explainer: The polar vortex, climate change and the ‘Beast from the East’
I have a question re the polar vortex and would be grateful for any responses. I have a climate denying relative who tells me that the recent shift in patterns of the polar vortex is a result of the sun which has just entered a solar minimum. Does this have any basis in fact? (I suspect not but would be interested in what people have to say on this). Thanks.
-
michael sweet at 20:56 PM on 14 March 2018How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice
Reading your summary of Pagano's paper I did not see any mention of the fact that polar bears are white because of evolution. There is also no mention that the polar bears and the ice they stand on are made of atoms. It appears to be incomplete.
Peer reviewed papers are written for experts to read. They leave out information that everyone who is expert knows. There is not enough space to rewrite the history of science in every paper. Crockford's suggestion that they have left out necessary information is only relevant to people who are not experts (like Crockford). Subadult seals include pups, experts know this and it does not need to be explained. Experts know about snow conditions and leads, Crockfords comments are irrelevant.
Pagano's paper shows that polar bears are expending more energy to survive. That suggests that that reproduction is threatened.
-
michael sweet at 20:27 PM on 14 March 2018How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice
Imaginary Number,
I noticed that you incorrectly linked to a "paper" by Crockford and compared it to a peer reviewed paper by Pagano. The piece by Pagana was a carefully written paper reviewed by experts to determine that there were few or no errors in it. By contrast, Crockford's "paper" was only a blog post that has not been reviewed for errors. It is not more authorative than a high school term paper.
Crockfords work is simply the paid shilling of a non-expert. You cannot compare a peer reviewed paper in a scientific journal to a blog post by a paid shill who is not an expert. It has been well documented that Crockford is paid to write her nonsense.
-
Eclectic at 17:50 PM on 14 March 2018How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice
ImaginaryNumber @52 , firstly: the polar bear occupies a limited niche in the arctic environment. It is a highly-specialized apex predator. It relies upon its build-up of fat reserves, to get it through the annual cycle of feeding & breeding — and it leads a hazardous existence because of the prolonged & irregular fasting periods between kills of prey. It cannot benefit from the broad environmental band which is available to its cousins, the various species of "brown" bears (which are omnivorous).
Essentially the polar bear is in a rather precarious position, and its survival (as a species) depends on a complex interaction of sea-ice conditions suitable to itself, and sea-ice conditions suitable to its prey, the seals.
Secondly , the study by Pagano et al 2018, does little more than indicate that the situation [of polar bear energy requirement] is even worse than previously thought. And it points out that the arctic warming is producing conditions requiring even greater travel/energy-requirement. Thus an even more precarious existence for the polar bear.
None of this provides any real support for Dr Crockford's contention that "all is well" for the polar bear & the polar bear future as a species. In essence, Crockford takes a short-term [not "big-picture"] view of the situation. Short-term and unsupported [= anti-scientific] . . . and quite reprehensible "Fake News" propaganda.
-
ImaginaryNumber at 15:48 PM on 14 March 2018How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice
Thank you all for your patience. I'm away from home, and have to fit in this extra-curricular activity whenever I can.
First of all, I haven't read a lot of what Crockford has written about polar bears. And I haven't read much of what her critics say about what she has said about polar bears. I'm hoping you won't mind just sticking, as much as possible, to the Pagano paper, and those Crockford papers that deal most directly with the Pagano paper. Thanks :)
Now back to the Pagano paper --
As I understood it, the study by Pagano, et al, was primarily designed to determine the how much energy polar bears expended during the yearly time period (late spring and early summer) when they typically put on the most fat. Nine female bears were caught and monitored for between 8 and 11 days, each year, in April of 2014, 2015, and 2016. During the study period, four bears gained 5% to 15% of their initial weight, four bears lost at least 10% of their initial weight, and one bear lost a very slight amount of weight. Pagano notes that--
"Bears that successfully killed and ate adult or subadult ringed seals either gained or maintained body mass, whereas bears that only scavenged or showed no evidence of eating lost mass."
From my reading of the Pagano paper, the major conclusion of the study was that polar bears expend about 1.6 times the amount of energy, during late spring/early summer, as had been previously estimated. Thus, to put on the fat needed to fast through the summer/autumn months, when they are land-bound and fasting, they need to be able to capture and eat more seals than other researchers had previously estimated. Clearly, not all of Pagano's polar bears were able to capture enough seals to meet their energy needs, at least during the observation period. This later point is important, because Pagano also noted that --
"previous researchers reported that 42% of adult female polar bears in the Beaufort Sea during the spring from 2000 to 2016 had not eaten for ≥ 7 days before capture."
— suggesting that historically polar bears are not always able to find food when they want it. Pagano then goes on to say that --
"This rate of fasting was 12% greater than measurements from 1983 to 1999, suggesting that spring ice conditions are affecting prey availability for polar bears even before the summer open water period."
Pagano concludes by saying that --
"These studies suggest that an increasing proportion of bears are unable to meet their energy demands. Our results indicate that further increases in activity and movement resulting from declining and increasingly fragmented sea ice are likely to increase the demand side of the energy balance ratio."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Now to Susan Crockford's critique.
Her primary concern with Pagano's paper was a lack of explaination for why the Beaufort polar bears were having trouble catching seals? Crockford claims that in the spring of the year ringed seals have their birthing lairs on the ice, and that in good years they should be relatively easy for bears to raid. But Pagano's paper only mentioned eating adult or subadult ringed seals (for the healthy bears), or carcasses (for the unhealthy bears) — but no pups.
Crockford provides a link to another paper she wrote in which she discusses the snow conditions under which ringed seal births are either successful or unsuccessful. She cites various research papers which show, for example, that when snow cover over the sea ice is deep, seal lairs are well-protected, bear predation is low, and bears became malnourished. Conversely, when snow cover is light, or when there is rain, seal lairs are easy to locate and break into, and bears are better fed. In that same paper Crockford also cites research which shows that when sea ice is very thick polar bears also have trouble finding enough to eat.
Now back to Crockford's more recent paper. She notes that Pagano makes no mention of ringed seal lairs or sea ice conditions in their paper. This seems to me to possibly be a critical omission.
Crockford then posts US Navy sea ice thickness maps for the Southern Beaufort Sea, for April 2014, 2015, and 2016. In all those years, but especially for 2014, there was a band of very thick (up to 5m) sea ice along the coast of Alaska. She suggests that this thick band of sea ice may have been critical to the study polar bears not finding sufficient nourishment.
Crockford also quotes from another paper (by Stirling) --
"Polar bears prey mainly upon ringed seals and, to a lesser degree, on bearded seals. Polar bears appear to be more abundant in polynya areas and along shoreleads, probably because the densities of seals are greater and they are more assessable. For example, between March and June in the Beaufort Sea from 1971 through 1975, 87% of the sightings of polar bears were made adjacent to floe edges or in unstable areas of 9/10 or 10/10 ice cover with intermittent patches of young ice.”
Stirling also says in the same paper:
"the influence of rapidly changing ice conditions on the availability of open water, and consequently on populations of seals and polar bears, has been observed in the western Arctic. Apparently in response to severe ice conditions in the Beaufort Sea during winter 1973-74, and to a lesser degree in winter 1974-75, numbers of ringed and bearded seals dropped by about 50% and productivity by about 90%. Concomitantly, numbers and productivity of polar bears declined markedly because of the reduction in the abundance of their prey species. … If the shoreleads of the western Arctic or Hudson Bay ceased opening during winter and spring, the effect on marine mammals would be devastating."
This suggests that polar bear foraging is best when there is a reasonable number of open leads, which is less likely when there is very thick sea ice. Again, is seems that Pagano was remiss in not including more information about sea ice conditions, and seal lair conditions.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
My thoughts and questions:
Now that I've read Pagano's complete paper, and not just the abstract; and now that I've read two relevant papers by Crockford, it seems to me that Crockford is raising valid questions as to why some, but not all, of Pagano's polar bears were malnourished? Maximim sea ice extent occurs in mid-March, and maximum sea ice volume typically occurs in the later part of April. So lack of sea ice is certainly not the problem.
Did Pagano provide an answer in their paper that I (and Crockford) missed, or was their analysis of polar bear dietary habits and processes less than complete?
Likewise, has Crockford misunderstood seal breeding cycles, or misinterpreted the polar bear research that she cites?
As I understand it, if Pagano (and the news media which reported Pagano's findings) has just stuck with saying that their research showed that polar bears expend 1.6 times more energy than previously thought, Crockford might not have found anything to criticise. As it was, many concluded that because half the bears in Pagano's study were malnourished (at least during the 8-11 day study window, which apprently happens quite a lot — sort of a feast or famine situation for bears), that it must be true that all polar bear populations, at all times of the year, were also not finding enough to eat. While that concievably may be true, it appears to me that you can't infer that from Pagano's study, as Pagano didn't include a number of relevant factors in their study (e.g. sea ice thickness; snow thickness; number of open leads; relative abundance of seals, etc).
Moderator Response:[JH] You have stated your case and expressed your concerns multiple times. You are now skating on the thin ice of excessive reptition which is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.
-
nigelj at 13:31 PM on 14 March 2018Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures
NorrisM @46, I also see a difference between trying to deliberately link climate mitigation with some form of economic reform, and a carbon tax that makes inequality worse and is just patently unfair. I can't support option 2 and I'm not even sure enough Republicans would like it to get it passed.
Option 3 has a range of different advantages, and the only objection would be its "too fair" which would be a silly objection.
-
nigelj at 13:19 PM on 14 March 2018Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures
NorrisM @46, my understanding from Naomi Kleins article is that option 2 has been proposed in Washington, and has been opposed by Democrats,Republicans and most environmental groups. It has not been put to the public for some sort of vote, but it certainly doesn't look like it will be popular. Its a dumb idea, and anyone should be able to see it regardless of their politics. The failings have been pointed out enough and dont need repeating.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:43 PM on 14 March 2018Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures
NorrisM,
Things Actually can Change, and quickly when there is Good Reason for the required correction to occur.
In the 1950s the idea that the global community would collectively collaborate over 50 years to develop something like the Sustainable Development Goals was generally unthinkable, as was getting Americans to stop allowing members of their population to unjustifiably persecute people who had darker skin.
I will give you some benefit of the doubt and believe that, to a degree, you are genuinely stuck in the 'Things are what they are and will only ever change very slowly' mind-set. However, by striving to make others more aware and better understanding of the required corrections of what has developed you can be Part of the more rapid Change/Correction of awareness and understanding that undeniably needs to happen.
However, by your comments, you do not appear to be interested in properly raising awareness and understanding so that the current damaging developed realities in some parts of this planet are corrected. I suspect you also play a game of misleading marketing to try to delay the correction from developing. It could be that your Private Interest actually does not want the changes of awareness and understanding to develop too quickly.
Misinterpreting and Misrepresenting things in an attempt to unjustifiably manipulate opinions of others in order to benefit from limiting the development of corrected awareness and understanding is one of the worst things that 'competition to appear to be superior to, or more prosperous than, others' has ever developed. One interpreter of satellite data to determine temperatures in the atmosphere clearly does it in his Blog Posts which are slanted to make it appear as if things are cooling, or that any observed warming is somehow not significant. Many economists do it as well, claiming that doing harm to future generations can be economically justified, or that not harming the future generations is "Too Hard". And a cognitive psychologist may also be doing that, using knowledge of how to influence people in ways other than maximizing the rate of correction of awareness and understanding in the general population.
It all comes down to Motivation, and how helpful to others, especially to future generations, a person genuinely wants to be.
-
nigelj at 12:05 PM on 14 March 2018New scenarios show how the world could limit warming to 1.5C in 2100
Meeting the goals in the article sure looks like a mountain to climb. However another way of looking at the climate issue could be to target a sustainable lifestyle as the primary goal, and it could make reducing carbon footprints part of the mix and therefore just easier. SSP 1 is looking like the most feasible pathway.
I have been following the tall wooden buildings issue. This has huge potential for numerous reasons, and many have already been built as below:
www.bbc.com/future/story/20171026-the-rise-of-skyscrapers-made-of-wood
-
Digby Scorgie at 11:39 AM on 14 March 2018New scenarios show how the world could limit warming to 1.5C in 2100
Given the recent study concluding that "NETs are of limited potential", this new study sounds like tilting at windmills.
-
NorrisM at 11:32 AM on 14 March 2018Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures
nigelj @ 42
I personally would have no problem with Option 3 and in fact, contrary to michael sweet's accusations, I personally would prefer Option 3 but this would be bringing into the equation something else (income inequality) which complicates the issue. So, again, I would like to deal with "realpolitik". Is it not better to have an Option 2 carbon tax than no carbon tax at all because that is what I think is political reality. Or do you think Option 3 could be sold to the Republicans?
For that matter, could it be sold to Canadians? Trudeau certainly has not stepped into this. I actually should have researched the Alberta NDP carbon tax as to whether it is "revenue neutral" but that government is an abberation in Alberta. Now that the two right of centre parties have united, I do not think we will see the NDP in Alberta for long.
-
NorrisM at 11:21 AM on 14 March 2018Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures
michael sweet and Bob Loblaw,
I did not want to get back into a discussion of sea level rise until I had further information in front of me. Obviously, a lawyer even trying to discuss "sea level" rise is problematic and I appreciate this (but it seems there is a judge in San Francisco who has just asked each side to present a brief on climate change as part of one of these actions against oil companies). But I only replied to michael sweet accusing me of avoiding the issue and moving onto Pinker notwithstanding that I specifically said in one comment that I would reply to michael sweet when I had further information. michael sweet in fairness may have missed this.
So again, I will defer any further comments on sea level rise.
But I think I should address this desire of michael sweet to bar me from any participation on this website unless my comments are backed up by "peer reviewed" papers. Does this mean that there can be no criticism of the Nerem 2018 paper unless it is backed up by a peer reviewed paper that criticizes the results or methodology of the Nerem 2018 paper?
And, if the answer to that is "no", then what is the standard?
PS There is a JimD on the Curry website who is light years ahead of me in technical expertise who regularly posts questions and comments which drive Robert Ellison and other regulars on that site crazy. There are constant requests for Judith Curry to prohibit his comments. Judith Curry does not even respond to any such requests. Not that I compare myself to JimD in any way but I respect this website for also not responding to michael sweet's entreaties.
Moderator Response:[DB] If you are unwilling or unable to support your claims on SLR with citations to credible sources, then it is suggested that you avoid discussing the subject further. And all formerly contesting with you on the topic are then entitled to claim the silence as a concession of the weakness of your previous position.
-
bjchip at 10:57 AM on 14 March 2018New scenarios show how the world could limit warming to 1.5C in 2100
Have to say that I regard this as being about as likely as managing to fly to the moon by flapping my arms.
I suspect that it will not be too very long before the destabilized climate destabilizes food and water supplies and consequently nations.
This is not a base from which we will be able to easily develop technology needed to go negative on CO2 or indeed manage to reach zero net emissions. I may be wrong, but as of today I know of no economical and effective CCS technologies that I would trust to deliver the needed boost.
The only hopeful signs I see are the development of the low lignin superwood that could allow us to use trees to replace steel and other materials with a material that locks the carbon up for a longer period.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180207151829.htm
...and the artificial leaf that gets CO2 and turns it into fuel .. so not getting the sequestration... but getting some other advantages
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601641/a-big-leap-for-an-artificial-leaf/
...but I expect economic and social pressures to limit our ability to handle the period between 2030 and 2050 and retain anything much like our current civilization. The emissions will indeed fall off a cliff, but not in any sort of controlled crash... just the crash we all fear is coming.
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:26 AM on 14 March 2018Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures
[Sigh]
Once again, NorrisM pulls out the "projected linear increase" for sea level.
Once again, the answer is that there is no reason in physics to expect that a linear trend will be the future. The projections of sea level rise are not based on a simple statistical extrapolation of past observations.
NorrisM has absolutely no justification for assuming that the future path will be linear. He keeps arguing that he doesn't see a justification for acceleration. He keep ignoring the fact that there is no justification for assuming a linear trend to 2100.
Until he does provide an argument for why a linear trend would be expected, then he should stop talking about it.
Moderator Response:[DB] Agreed.
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:19 AM on 14 March 2018How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice
Or ImaginaryNumber could provide a brief summary of what he thinks is convincing in Crockford's writings, or why the many links he's been given do not provide him with any information about the lack of credibility of Crockford's wiritings.
Until then, he's just hand-waving. I've read enough about Crockford's work to make up my mind, and chasing rainbows for ImaginaryNumber is not on my list of priorities.
"I am, however, playing Devil's Advocate"
It's not working. You are looking more and more like a troll. A Devil's Advocate would actually present a case, not send people chasing squirrels.
-
JohnSeers at 08:48 AM on 14 March 2018How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice
ImaginaryNumber @ 49
Why don't you give some links to just a few of your thousands of posts on climate change issues? That should be sufficient to allay any doubts.
-
nigelj at 06:40 AM on 14 March 2018Burning coal may have caused Earth’s worst mass extinction
Aleks @10
"Can high level of mercury and lead in the rock samples be considered as a proof of coal burning? I don't think so: it could be a result of thermal decomposition of lead and mercury containing minerals during volcanoes eruptions."
I doubt it. The concentrations in the actual rock samples they found are apparently higher than expected to naturally occur. The research team almost certainly would have considered the possibility you describe, and looked at concentrations of lead and mercury you would expect from volcanic igneous rocks breaking down, against the samples they actually found.
Also the featured article says "Lead and mercury aren't associated with volcanic ash, but they are a byproduct of burning coal."
-
nigelj at 06:25 AM on 14 March 2018Burning coal may have caused Earth’s worst mass extinction
Aleks @10
"The statement about the combustion of large quantities of coal in the Permian period is not confirmed by CO2 concentration data (~210 ppm):http://www.biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological_Timescale.html"
This biocarb study in an "open access" journal has a graph using old data with quite a lot of uncertainty, and the graph is a snapshot of permian C02 levels over 50 million of years within the space of only about 1 centimetre on the page, so would probably omit any spikes over short periods. It does however still show a gradual increase in CO2 levels towards the end of the permian.
The new study on the Permian issue is more up to date. It also finds the injection of CO2 was over a period of just 10,000 years so It would also not necessarily show up in the biocarb study even if they had this data, because the period is so small. The group also analyzed carbon-isotope data from rocks in southern China and found that within the same period, the oceans and atmosphere experienced a large influx of carbon dioxide. So they have specific evidence.
news.mit.edu/2011/mass-extinction-1118
science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/11/16/science.1213454
-
william5331 at 05:05 AM on 14 March 2018Burning coal may have caused Earth’s worst mass extinction
We could give the Permian a good run for it's money in terms of extinctions. As man arrived in each previoudly man-less territory, the mega fauna and much of the smaller beasties disappeared. One of the early ones was Australia, some 50,000 years ago and the most recent, New Zealand some 700 years ago, a period which is a blink of the eye in geological terms. We are now finishing off the job. We may go along with the mega fauna and the world will evolve a whole new assemblage of animals. I wonder why we call ourselves intelligent.
-
ImaginaryNumber at 03:42 AM on 14 March 2018How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice
Thank you all for your comments and patience. I've read at least part of all the links given, and many of the links within the links. Before I get back to what brought me to this blog, first some explanatory statements.
1) I am not a scientist. Reading through scientific papers is slow work for me. There may be critical points that I've missed. Please feel free to help me out if I've made egregious misunderstandings.
2) Over the past few years I've made many thousands of posts on various social media sites advocating for greater awareness and concern for climate change issues.
3) On a number of occasions I've been happy to use information from SKS to bolster my arguments. Thank you to John Cook and all the many other talanted scientists and writers who have made this such a helpful site.
4) Dispite suggestions to the contrary, I didn't come to this blog with the intention of shilling for Crockford. I am, however, playing Devil's Advocate and arguing her point of view because I need to understand any flaws in her argument so to have an intelligent discussion with the climate change deniers I am having a conversation with.
5) Surprisingly, and dissappointingly, very little of the discussion thus far has addressed the specifics of Pagano's paper, or of Crockford's response. (post #39) Maybe it's because you didn't actually read and think about their papers?
(So that this post won't be too long I will stop here, and create another post with some of the specifics of what I've found reading the papers and links.)
Moderator Response:[DB] Yes, it's time for an evidence-based based approach for your position, grounded in the reputable literature and using citations.
-
T R Styles at 02:43 AM on 14 March 2018Burning coal may have caused Earth’s worst mass extinction
Typing on a cell phone is a dreadful undertaking. Proofreading is even more difficult. Now I'm revisiting my post on a ten inch tablet. I see that subscripting on my phone was a no-go. Can't get them to work on the tablet either. I''m sure readers were able to get past the typos in my first post, but here are few nearly-corrections anyway:
CO2, H2S, and H2SO4,
-
T R Styles at 02:13 AM on 14 March 2018Burning coal may have caused Earth’s worst mass extinction
I don't see a need for coal deposits in contact with magma to burn (oxidize) below the surfsce since the magma itself provides its own source of intense heat. With contact (or even a near miss!) large portion of the coal would be volatilized in a process similar to coal "gasification". The volatiles will work their way up through fractures and pores in overlying strata to enter the atmosphere as "coal gas", mostly methane in combination with other hydrocarbons, water vapor, CO², H2S and H²SO⁴. The same catastrophic result as burning, but no oxygen required.
-
aleks at 02:07 AM on 14 March 2018Burning coal may have caused Earth’s worst mass extinction
“The culprit: burning coal”.
Can high level of mercury and lead in the rock samples be considered as a proof of coal burning? I don't think so: it could be a result of thermal decomposition of lead and mercury containing minerals during volcanoes eruptions.
“Its sulfur emissions created acid rain to kill forests”. More exactly, sulfur dioxide, not sulfur. SO2 is a toxic gas that may kill both vegetable and animal life, especially together with acid rains, and also acidify water (much more than CO2).
The statement about the combustion of large quantities of coal in the Permian period is not confirmed by CO2 concentration data (~210 ppm):
http://www.biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological_Timescale.html -
michael sweet at 21:19 PM on 13 March 2018Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures
Norrism:
If you believe that the only way to get a carbon tax is to take money from the majority of people who are low income and give that money to the rich go for it. I doubt that the majority of people would vote for a tax increase on themselves to subsidize the people who are responsible for the problem.
I have provided you with peer reviewed data that shows the majority of scientists studyinig sea level rise think that the IPCC estimate is much too low. You have just failed to read the data provided to you. Instead you waste your time at Curries blog. Curry has published nothing on sea level rise and is not an expert.
Expected sea level rise by 2100 is at least 1-2 meters. Scientists are very confident that your 11 inches will be exceeded and are worried that sea level might be 8 feet or more. That means it is much more likely we will see 8 feet than 11 inches. Upthtread Rignot, one of the top glacier scientists in the world, was recorded saying he thought at least 3 meters during the lives of people now living was likely and over a meter during his life was possible.
Planning for the best imaginable case as you are doing for sea level rise and than claiming we should act on the worst imiganable case for economic effects is illogical and contradictory. You have provided no data to support your contradictory claims. Using Curries estimates instead of an expert like Rignot is simply stupid.
NorrisM should not be allowed to post until he provides data to support his contradictory claims.
When you post on the same topic on different threads it becomes impossible to follow the thread of the discussion.
-
nigelj at 17:18 PM on 13 March 2018Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures
NorrisM @40
I'm not sure on what basis option 3 is a wealth transfer any differently to your preferred option 2. Both take from fossil fuel companies etc and give to the citizens one way or the other. The carbon tax and dividend just does it most fairly, by treating everyone the same.
I'm not too sure that even option 2 based purely around income tax changes will be too popular with either politicians or the public, because the inequities highlighted by M Sweet are so obvious and glaring perhaps even to plenty of republicans. I take your point in suggesting avoiding some form of economic restructuring exercise in general climate change matters, but its hard to avoid in this particular case, and its on small scale. And nobody is suggesting the rich be excluded from a dividend. Ultimately the public will come around to the best option overall, which is likely to be option 3.
Option 3 is also far more flexible, because if the carbon price changes as is likely, it's much easier to adjust a rebate than income tax law. When ideas are intrinsically good, its usually because they have a range of merits.
-
nigelj at 16:53 PM on 13 March 2018Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures
NorrisM @38
Regarding Nemes sea level rise paper. The IPCC Isn't going to care too much about Judith Curries and other peoples blog entries or "essays" because they are just informal opinion. They will only care about published peer reviewed sea level rise papers, and there's other such papers raising concerns about possible rapd sea level rise such as by J Hansen. I think you will definitely see the next IPCC report change sea level rise predictions upwards.
And given the grave consequences of sea level rise over 1 metre, even if probabilities are low, it would be amazingly reckless to be unconcerned.
So what if Nermes paper relies on 6 years of topex data and issues around Pinatubo? In what way are these insignificant and / or not appropriate to include? They are facts, they are there, so need to be considered even if they are inconvenient for "sceptics".
-
Doug_C at 16:29 PM on 13 March 2018Burning coal may have caused Earth’s worst mass extinction
It's also important to point out that changing the global environment with the continued massive emissions of greenhouse gases as has happened in the past is not the only impact that is reordering and impoverishing the biosphere.
There is also urbanization, industrial monoculture, industrial fishing, forestry and more.
The extinction event we are currently forcing is going to happen much faster than in the past because it is multi-tiered and leaves no ecosystem on the Earth intact.
Ending massive fossil fuel use is just the start of a process that must occur to mitigate the sixth great ectinction.
-
NorrisM at 15:37 PM on 13 March 2018Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures
nigelj, michael sweet and OPOF
As for carbon taxes, unless I am missing one, there are really only three (3) options relating to the use of the taxes: (1) keep them in government coffers (this one branches off into a mulitude of possible uses), (2) reduce other forms of taxes equal to the amount taxed, largely through a reduction of income tax, either personal, corporate or both, or (3) distribute the taxes to all citizens by way of a form of refund or dividend which would be to every adult in the country.
As usual, I tend to like to focus on what is doable given the political realities existing in most modern democracies which are composed of voters all over the political spectrum. With a leftist government (as we now have in BC), it seems that they are going to keep it going for option 1 when the previous government had promised it would be option 2. But in most countries, to appease the conservative voters, this is simply not an option. So we are left with options 2 and 3. In my view, the only practical one is option 2 which reduces other taxes and is "revenue neutral". Conservative voters may be conservative but they are not dumb. The distribution of the carbon taxes by way of a dividend as in option 3 would be a massive wealth transfer. Do you seriously think they would approve this? That is exactly why Washington state opted for option 2.
I trust Pinker would echo my analysis for the same reasons. Political reality. As soon as you go for option 3 you are mixing climate change with other political and economic issues and we have the stillborn result in Washington state.
Is it not better to have a carbon tax which is revenue neutral by way of a reduction of income taxes? I appreciate that this will hurt the poor, many people have said that reducing carbon use will hurt the poor. In our advanced countries we can at least institute some form of carbon tax rebate for the poor.
But this worry about corporations not reducing their carbon use because their taxes will be reduced I think is misguided. The carbon tax will have the effect of imposing a price on fossil fuels that will then allow other forms of energy to more easily compete with fossil fuels. What percentage of the total income generated by corporations in the US is allocable to oil and gas corporations? I would hazard a guess that it is less than 10% (this assumes Google et al pay income taxes in the US).
-
NorrisM at 15:10 PM on 13 March 2018Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures
Correction: Mount Pinatubo
-
NorrisM at 15:08 PM on 13 March 2018Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures
michael sweet @ 34
I have not ignored our discussion regarding sea levels.
I have made it clear that I have been waiting for the last instalment on sea level rise on another website before I respond to you because I would like to have as much technical information as I can before I explain where I am on sea level rise. I have my doubts about the Nerem 2018 paper and how much it will be followed by the IPCC in its next assessment for reasons that I have not fully discussed only because my understanding is that the last instalment of the Judith Curry essays on sea level rise is expected to address the Nerem 2018 paper. Some of the blogs on the earlier instalments on her website have effectively said that if you eliminated the reliance by Nerem on the adjustments to the first 6 years of the TOPEX satellite measurements and removed the assumptions about what sea level rise would have occurred without Mt Pitabo (sp) eruption it would eliminate all of the acceleration. Fuerthermore another blogger has said that Nerem's method of removing ENSO is patently wrong. I want to hear what Judity Curry has to say about Nerem in the body of one of her instalments rather than rely on a couple of the bloggers who do sound like they know something about climate science. I will get back to you on this as soon as this last instalment appears.
So right now for 2100 we are at a projected linear increase of about 11" if the present rate holds, with Nerem's adjustments, we are at around 26" and the IPCC at 1-3 feet and the US Climate Report at 1-4 feet with what can only be described as an outlier suggestion that we cannot rule out 8 feet but refusing to risk this outlier. Having said this their risk analysis of sea levels increasing beyond 4.9 feet lies around 1.3% so why they would even mention 8 feet in the Executive Summary makes me pause to wonder why (See Charts 12.1 and 12.4). According to their own classifications, such a chance is either "Extremely Unlikely" of "Exceptionally Unlikely". Take your pick.
So I would appreciate it if we could stick to the best estimates for now. But I would really ask that we just put this on hold until I have read the last instalment of Curry. It may or may not help but I would like to see what she has to say about Nerem before I make any futher comments on projections about sea level rise.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:47 PM on 13 March 2018Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures
NorrisM
In your comment @28 you state "Reading in Pinker's book that Naomi Klien led a group successfully opposing a carbon tax in the State of Washington astounded me. She objected to it according to Pinker because it did not punish the polluters enough."
Then after I provide a link to what Klein actually did say, then @30 you provide the quote from Pinker "In one of the most surreal episodes in the history of environmental politics, Klein joined the infamous David and Charles Koch, the billionaire oil industrialists and bankrollers of climate change denial, in helping to defeat a 2016 Washington state ballot initiative that would have implemented the nation's first carbon tax, the policy which almost every analyst endorses as a prerequisite to dealing with climate change."
After reading what Naomi Klein was saying, which would mean taxes on carbon in Washington State with reduction of taxes on Washington State businesses which would exclude the Koch businesses and could trigger similar actions in other states, you failed to see that Pinker did not fully correctly represent what had happened. And Klein's presented position clarified legitimate effective carbon tax in a way that the quote from Pinker does not clarify.
Implying Klein 'joined or led' the Koch brothers in that action is like saying that Nicaragua 'joined' the USA in opposition to the Paris Agreement (Nicaragua opposed the Paris agreement for being too weak, going too easy on the ones creating the problem). Klein's motivation was understandably very different from the motivation of the Koch Brothers. And Motive is what Matters (Help vs. Harm).
Prev 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 Next
