Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 Next
Comments 15751 to 15800:
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:52 AM on 7 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
nigelj@7,
It is not helpful to think of the issue as a need for 'balance' between competition and cooperation.
Sustainably Justified and meaningfully enforced limits on what is allowed in 'the competition for popularity and profitability' is what is required.
Imagine a system with no rules and many situations where there are limited opportunities to benefit, with everyone 'competing to personally perceive themselves to be better-off than others, thinking they are the Winner'. What is expected to develop in such a system? How does activity beneficial to the future of the collective develop in the system? The people willing to do less acceptable things will Win to the detriment of the collective as long as they can get away with behaving less acceptably. And even if the collective decide to act in 'their best interest' the future generations will likely be the ones to suffer. This is what is happening regarding correction of economic activity in response to the increased awareness and understanding of climate science.
The Sustainable Development Goals are all about the future. Achieving them requires charitable sacrifice of potential personal benefit. And that requires the charitable sacrifice to be shared fairly by all, not requiring that the portion of the population that is willing to make such a sacrifice try to over-come the accumulating damage done by those who care less.
What is required is global awareness and understanding that popularity and profitability competition does not properly distinguish 'what deserves to be encouraged and rewarded' from 'what deserves to be discouraged and penalized'. The economy clearly requires diligent and effective responsible refereeing, contrary to the beliefs of many people including many 'economists'.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:26 AM on 7 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
knaugle@8,
It is important to note that climate science deniers are dismissive of women who present climate science or the required changes of human activity, the corrections of developed economic activity, that are exposed by climate science. And the way they attack the women is different than the ways that they attack the men because their target audience includes the portion of the population who will be easily impressed by the way they attack the women.
Note that these disreputable people are not 'threatened by women'. They do not treat women like Ann Coulter the way they treat the likes of Katharine Hayhoe. They are threatened by the reality of the changes of human pursuit of pleasure and profit that are exposed by climate science, regardless of the gender of the person who is helping others be more aware of and better understand climate science. But, admittedly, they hope that some people can be easily appealed to that way because they have other reasons to want to be disrespectful of women.
-
nigelj at 07:33 AM on 7 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Knaugle @8, I pretty much agree. Facts and reasoning do eventually win at least some people over, but it can take time. For example NZ recently passed a gay marriage bill, when just a decade ago majority opinion was firmly against this sort of thing. I have the numbers here for America, but NZ was much the same.
www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
I'm not gay or particularly promoting gay marriage. Its just a good example of how reasoned debate eventually changed attitudes enough for politicians to pass the legislation. There was a lot of debate and information pointing out that gay marriage had no real, tangible implications for anyone apart from the two people involved.
Although in NZ the majority was something like 60 / 40 in parliament, so not a massive majority. Of course religious conviction comes into the issue hugely, but even many christians accepted change.
Of course some people will probably never accept gay marriage just as some people will never consider women as equals. Social conventions and hierarchies go deep, and don't change overnight. It needs a lot of thought and discussion, but attitudes do appear to reach tipping points of change.
-
strop at 07:09 AM on 7 February 2018There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
MA Rodger @175.
I didn't suggest there was a 0.6 increase 1880 to 1940's. My figure was 0.4 (Based on Global).
Your "three quarters would perhaps have been closer to the mark" is not representative of the timeframes the NASA statement refers to. I'll assume you've added the 0.2 you referred to.
Point was, NASA was talking about a portion of a total increase in a shorter timeframe than that overall gain was actually made, when looking at the total period. They have done this to create a narrative and the OP has seized on that to further that narrative.
There's no point selecting a short period to further a theory when the previous short period contradicts that theory. Being selective with data to illustrate a point doesn't work and raises the question of objective credibility.
There may have been some relevance to a rate of gain if a trend was always gaining.
-
knaugle at 07:03 AM on 7 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Why climate deniers target women? Why do they target Nancy Pelosi? Or Hillary Clinton? Or Kirsten Gillibrand? Or Tammy Duckworth? Or a host of other women leaders? I think plain and simply, they are threatened by them. Absolutely it is about the social heirarchy. Until recently, I'd attended a very conservative church where women in leadership simply was not allowed. I'm very familiar with this kind of thinking. You don't win over people of this ilk with facts or reasoning. That just makes them mad and more entrenched in their thinking. Yet you have to try.
-
nigelj at 06:24 AM on 7 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
"The key problem is a lack of a clear and consistent understanding of the justified governing global moral/ethical purpose for members of humanity. Without that clear common understanding the competing instinctive human characteristics of altruism and selfishness are more freely influenced by the social and economic environment a person experiences/learns in, generally to the detriment of altruism. "
Different personality types and different political groups in the USA were united to some extent in the past by huge issues confronting society, including dealing with the great depression of the 1930s, WW2, the cold war, the mission to land a man on the moon, and the widely shared prosperity of the 1950's consumer revolution, and the decades following that. This was until economic changes of ideology in the 1980's that weakened unions and embraced free trade etc.
Things seem different now. We have emptiness, nihilism, high inequality, the benenfits of growth captured by a small minority of people, ideological conflict, and no glue holding society together. Its a very confused, unsettled sort of situation.
"Sustainable development goals" and environmental awareness could be a new project for the 21st century, that unites people, and forces a disciplined balance between competition and cooperation. But its going to be hard persuading the Republican Leadership. Yet an environmentally more sustainable economy will still be a prosperous economy, as new things are developed, and new jobs replace old.
-
nigelj at 05:36 AM on 7 February 2018Humans need to become smarter thinkers to beat climate denial
This sort of critical thinking, logical reasoning,and identification of fallacies should be compulsory at school. It's as important as basic arithmetic, because it applies to so many areas of life including science, politics, business etcetera.
Wikipedia has a comprehensive list of fallacies as below.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
It also needs to be pointed out that a science theory requires both causation and a statistically significant correlation, and that denialist myths all lack either one or both of these things. This can help cut through to the core of denialist myths.
-
MA Rodger at 22:40 PM on 6 February 2018There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
strop @174,
The quote you cite from the OP is a little out-of-date today and even back when it was written by NASA, it perhaps was niggardly with its "two-thirds ... since 1975." Three-quarters would perhaps have been closer to the mark.
Today the GISS global temperature record is risen another 0.2 deg warmer. Note that the rise 1880s-to-the-1940s was never 0.6 deg (unless you are not talking global). Even cherry-picking a single year the rise to 1944 was 0.47 deg. But a better measure would be 0.3 deg which is just 0.1 deg above a temperature by 1975. (For the record, the cherry-picked 1944 anomaly was bested in 1981.) So today you can say that more than 70% of the warming since the 1880s has occurred since 1980 and less than 30% before 1940 with a dip of 0.1 deg (10%) between 1940 and 1975.
-
Art Vandelay at 16:24 PM on 6 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #4
Trump will have one and maybe two terms in office if he's lucky, so I can't see his impact on US emissions being in any way significant in the long term. Actually, if there is real economic merit in advnacing renewable energy solutions then Trump will be on board anyway, so ironically his legacy might actually turn out to be positive for climate change mitigation in the USA. Personally, I'm more concerned about emissions growth in the developing world, and along with that other extreme emvironmental impacts stemming mostly from unsustainable population. Net CO2 emissions from OECD countries have peaked and are now tracking slowly downwards, whereas non-OECD emissions are rising stratospherically.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:13 PM on 6 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
The issue is more complex than it is presented. But it can also be understood to be a sub-set of a higher level or more general understanding of what is going on that is not as complex.
The key problem is a lack of a clear and consistent understanding of the justified governing global moral/ethical purpose for members of humanity. Without that clear common understanding the competing instinctive human characteristics of altruism and selfishness are more freely influenced by the social and economic environment a person experiences/learns in, generally to the detriment of altruism. In competitive systems rewarding winners the harmful things a selfish person would be willing to try to get away with can be seen to give them a competitive advantage 'as long and as much as they can get away with it'.
My own view is that the 2015 Sustainable Development Goals are a highly dependable (unlikely to change significantly due to new learning) and comprehensive presentation of the objectives that constitute the Best Governing Global Purpose for Humanity - in my words “developing truly sustainable ways of living and working to constantly improve things by developing even better truly sustainable ways of living with all humans fitting into the robust diversity of life on this planet.”
That perspective leads to a higher level explanation that encompasses what is presented in the article. The following quotes from the article and the related comments are examples of the better higher level explanation:
- “... many men oppose rules and regulations that would change a system that largely benefits them.” This statement makes more sense when generalized to: anyone perceiving a personal benefit from a developed system would oppose rules and regulations (changes) that would reduce their ability to continue to benefit that way.
- “As cognitive linguist George Lakoff writes, hierachs believe that, “in a well-ordered world, there should be (and traditionally has been) a moral hierarchy in which those who have traditionally dominated should dominate.”” In this case there is a more justified moral hierarchy based on the understanding that only truly sustainable activity is allowed to be benefit from by anyone. Those more helpful regarding achieving the Sustainable Development Goals deserve more recognition and reward. Those more harm deserve less respect and more penalty. That change of understanding is a pretty powerful motivation for the many less deserving current Winners to be as mean as they can get away with to try to keep that required change of understanding from occurring.
- “When experts urge governments to regulate industry in order to protect nature, they are subverting the natural order — all the more so when those experts are female. Tree huggers and uppity women both threaten the existing male-dominated hierarchy.” Anyone who is perceived to be threatening the ability of undeserving winners to keep on winning will be attacked any way that can be gotten away with. The current developed society includes many people who are easily impressed by statements that disrespect Women. Sadly, there are many locations where there enough of those easily impressed people in an electoral district to swing the balance of a vote if they all get motivated to vote based on their understandably unacceptable beliefs. That is the basis for regional success of Unite the Right movements around the planet, movements that get away with claiming to be Conservative because many people who consider themselves conservative will excuse nastier aspects of the group they support, like denigration and disrespect of Women, if they see their personal interest being achieved through the collective voting of the United group (and sadly some people vote Conservative just because that is what they learned to do, and they are very unlikely to change their mind).
-
strop at 13:23 PM on 6 February 2018There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
with refernce to there being a 0.8 deg increase in average global temp since 1880, NASA states, "Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade".
It's true that the temp has increased by approx 0.53 deg since 1975, which is two thirds of 0.8. However, the temperature had been higher in the 1940's than in 1975, so the reality is just over half the gain has been since the 1940's, not since 1975. Meaning we've had approx 2 x 60 year periods of 0.4 gains.
-
Bob Loblaw at 12:39 PM on 6 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM @3:
Although you won't find me disagreeing with the idea that many Americans (especially the current "leadership" in Washington) have a rather low opinion of "collective good" (especially outside their own country), I would characterize our past discussions a little differently from you.
I have tried to focus on what your own beliefs are, to better understand the positions you have taken on the climate science. You seemed unwilling to separate the question of "What do the Americans think...?" from "What does Norris M think...?" [...is the correct way to assess costs].
My impression (right or wrong) is that you have tended to to use the American public perception/attitude as a mechanism to deflect from arguing your own position. You have levelled many criticisms at the science, only to switch to the sociology/politics of others when you haven't been able or willing to continue to argue your criticisms.
Although I have opinions on the sociology and politics, I am first and foremost a climate scientist. I wish that you had continued that science engagement and learned more about it through further engagement on those issues here at SkS.
-
Doug Cannon at 08:15 AM on 6 February 2018New study ‘reduces uncertainty’ for climate sensitivity
I've always thought of climate sensitvity being in 2 parts ala the Charney report. 1C being the direct effect and a multiplier of 3 (+or- 1.5) as the secondary effect from "positive feedbacks" such as water vapor, clouds, albedo, etc.
Assuming that Charney was right (and most studies since then aren't too far off), how does the Transient Climate Response relate to that? I'm assuming it's the 1C direct effect plus some of the faster response multiplier effects. And therefore the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity would be the TCR plus the other, longer response, multiplier effects whichever ones they are.
Am I off base here? (Not so interested in the numbers, I'm really just interested in the concept.) I think I've seen a graphical time plot of these factors in the last IPCC report but I can't find it.
-
nigelj at 05:30 AM on 6 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM @3
I agree entirely on the question of individual and collective rights, and your comments on the current Republican Party. Imo the Republicans have recently swung too far on the side of individual rights, at least in the business world and on environmental matters. When it comes to sexual issues and immigrants they still have a different view to some extent, and are happy for the power of the state to severely regulate such things.
We know that for society and the economy to function optimally, we need a balance between individual liberty and community rules, there's no escaping this. It goes right back to people like Aristotle, so theres nothing new in this. Of course its possible to swing too far the other way into over regulating economies and individual behaviour as well. It's always going to be an intelligent, informed balancing act, and will never be perfect.
JS Mill had the correct test when evaluating a problem and how to respond and whether a law is justified. We have to consider the effects of peoples actions on other individuals and also the public good, and whether they cause others significant harm, and/ or erode the liberties of others. It then becomes a question of how we do this, and inevitably one has to consider 1) evidence and 2) science, and 3) simple logic, and this scares some conservatives, because it ultimately leads to things they may not be comfortable with, and a world that constantly changes, and has few absolute certainties apart from scientific laws. The Republicans see a world changing and it scares them.
So In America the Republicans have fallen back to promoting an extreme form of individual liberty, and opposing even obviously sensible environmental rules, and attempts to provide at least some basic universal healthcare.
So yes the Trump administration and current RC is very hostile to considering the costs of climate change beyond Americas shores. This has been reinforced by Trumps dislike of international multi party agreements, and his slight isolationist tendencies. As a proponent of sensible globalism this frutrates me, and America will find it cannot entirely isolate itself from the international effects of climate change, and potential refugee crises, no matter how many walls it builds.
Some form of global cooperation makes more sense, however I do agree with Trump to the extent that countries have to obey international rules, and all pull their weight and not dump their products on other peoples markets etcetera. But Trump and the RC is stupid to want to tear down a global international rules based order, international multi party agreements, or free trade in principle, or expect everyone to renegotiate the Paris accord endlessly just to suit Trump's planet sized ego, and bully boy attitude. It can't be allowed to happen this way.
-
william5331 at 05:11 AM on 6 February 2018Natural gas killed coal – now renewables and batteries are taking over
If I heard the announcement correctly, in Australia, the government is going to give solar panels and batteries to 50,000 homes to mitigate the effects of turning on air conditioners during heat waves. Essentially they are building a new diffuse power station. Their heat waves are getting ever more severe and cause brown outs as people try to keep cool enough to survive.
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2017/02/australian-air-conditioning.html
Moderator Response:[JH] Link activated.
-
NorrisM at 01:38 AM on 6 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
nigelj @ 1
I think another factor confusing the the liberal/conservative dichotomy is the continuum between the rights of the individual versus the collective good. My concern is that in the US most Republicans are far on the side of individual liberties and do not care much about the public good (look at their views on medical care). There is no question in my mind that this affects the Republican view about climate change. If Americans are not even concerned about their fellow citizens, it is hard to believe that they will be concerned about the citizens of some small island in the South Pacific or Bangladesh! It is this cynical view of their attitudes that prompted me into a debate (with I believe Bob Loblaw) on how realistic it is to ask Americans to calculate costs of climate change beyond their own shores.
I am awaiting a book by Andrew Sullivan on Conservatism which I expect will be a good read in that Sullivan clearly is someone who believes in Mills' utilitarianism.
-
Swayseeker at 23:26 PM on 5 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Re more drought: When land and air heats more than the sea evaporation from the sea is reduced according to a number of equations. This could be creating more drought conditions. See https://airartist.blogspot.co.za/2018/01/if-coastal-cities-need-more-rain-they.html for graphs, etc
-
KatyD at 19:27 PM on 5 February 2018Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
As the result of a twitter conversation about this H&M graph I did some analysis which you might find interesting - feedback welcome.
https://climatechatter.wordpress.com/2016/12/16/comparing-data
Moderator Response:[JH] Link activated.
-
nigelj at 05:35 AM on 5 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
This vile nonsense coming from Breitbart about women and other groups is unacceptable, and is a primitive defensive emotive reaction, not a fairly based rational evaluation. However not all people leaning to the right have these views in my experience, and Brietbart are at the outer extreme of the bell curve.
Just simplifying down the qualities discussed in the article. Conservative's have sometimes been categorised in simple dictionary definitions as resistant to social change, and hierarchical and dominant in outlook, while liberals are defined as more accepting of change, egalitarian and accepting of differences, and inclinded to follow where the science leads.
Scientific research shows liberalism and conservatism likely have genetic origins as below.
phys.org/news/2015-08-genes-liberal.html
So these political leanings go deep. and and are not simply learned attitudes and behaviours. Whats more, there are also differences between the sexes with more women leaning conservative, apparently (this may be counter intuitive).
For the record it appears to me both conservative and liberal attitudes, so embracing change and being sceptical of change, have survival value and general moral value, just as society needs some form of hierarchy, but not perhaps an overly rigid one. But for some peculiar evolutionary reason it has lead to two separate political groups of liberals and conservatives. They usually find common ground, but are now at war in America. The conservative attitude of some people towards science and the regulatory role of the state is starting to become very frustrating.
The dominant, hierarchical authoritarian personality type is very concerned with winning and immediate rewards, and does not like anything that gets in the way. Yet while winning and competition has a healthy side, our society can only function, and the environment can only be healthy with some level of rules, and consequences for destructive behaviour that causes people harm, or damages the environment. Dominant personalities tend to be strong on the criminal law, but unwilling to embrace other forms of law.
However I have seen conservatives eventually embrace change, and become strong defenders of the "new normal", and liberals sometimes become more conservative in outlook, so these qualities may not be rigid. This is just purely as a personal observation, but its a frequent one.
So this vile nonsense about women and other groups coming form Briettbart and the alternative right is hopefully coming from an extreme minority. Or at least there are many shades of grey. They are clearly not very self critical, and are unwilling or incapable of change.
-
funkymystic at 04:40 AM on 5 February 2018There's no empirical evidence
Thanks so much MA Rodger and Eclectic!! Very helpful. Also, I think Braden should be added to the list of “Climate Misinformers” on this site. I hate to say it, but several people in my extended network of artists and musicians listen to him and think he’s telling the truth :/
-
Eclectic at 00:35 AM on 5 February 2018There's no empirical evidence
Funkymystic @355 , alas nobody can help you make sense of Gregg Braden's explanation of the graph he shows in his video.
That's because Gregg Braden's ideas are way beyond California Crackpot.
The average climate-denialist grudgingly admits [well, most days of the week] that at least some of the modern rapid global warming is caused by higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere. But Braden is on another planet — he (in his video) claims that as CO2 goes up, it causes temperature to go down. That the CO2 causes cooling !! Marvellous how he can suggest that concept, while keeping a straight face.
Braden's past history also includes other beyond-crazy ideas. Which he tries to flesh out by displaying actual genuine scientific graphs . . . which he fails to interpret in a sane scientific way.
For instance, the ice-core temperature/CO2 charts he displays, are stated by him to apply to the whole Earth's climate, rather than just the local regions from which the cores were taken. Hence his nonsense about the so-called Medieval Warm Period (MWP) being hotter than today's worldwide climate. And he is obsessed by "natural cycles" (which cannot explain the recent rocketing planetary temperature). He gazes at cycles (whether regular or irregular, whether Milankovitch-related or not) and he seems oblivious to the basic physical fact that changes in planetary climate must be caused by actual physical effects — they don't just happen because "it's time for them to happen".
Funkymystic, please have good read through Climate Myth Number 12 "CO2 Lags Temperature" [which you will find via the Home Page here, top left portion]. That will explain the complex feedback link between global atmospheric CO2 and the advance & recession of "ice ages" & interglacials. You will soon see how Braden has made a colossal error in understanding things. Doubtless Mr Braden has had these things pointed out to him on various occasions — but it seems he is not interested in scientific truth.
-
MA Rodger at 23:59 PM on 4 February 2018There's no empirical evidence
funkmystic @355,
It isn't just the post-2000 data that is missing from the graph shown by this Greg Braden character.
The data (and graph) is from Loehle and McCulloch (2008) 'Correction to: A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies'. It has thus corrected criticisms of an earlier paper (see this RealClimate critique) but not all criticisms.
Additional to that, the data actually ends at AD1935. (There's an ASCII file of the poltted data linked HERE.) Using a modern global surface record to fill in recent decades (BEST was to hand) and aligning it with the tag end of the Loehle and McCulloch data (1850-1935), the temperature for 2016 would be plotted at +1.2ºC which is plainly off the graph. In Greg-Braden-speak, that would be "two-times above the peak of the MWP." (In the video linked @355, good old Greg tells us this 9th-century MWP peak temperature was "three-times above where the anomaly is right now." )
-
funkymystic at 21:01 PM on 4 February 2018There's no empirical evidence
Could someone please help me make sense of this graph in this Greg Braden video? I believe a big part is that he is leaving out post-2000 data. Any help is appreciated
(At the 7:40 mark of this video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxERTlbAo7g&feature=share
-
MA Rodger at 20:30 PM on 4 February 2018There's no empirical evidence
gwtalbott @352 links to the composite 500 million year Temperature of Planet Earth from Wikipedia. This plainly shows the last 20ky as warming to 11.7ky bp but then-after zero warming until recent times.
The graph does get a bit busy when it come up to the present day. The projections for RCP8.5 are about right but for some reason the Berkeley Earth Land&Ocean temperatures which somebody has added are rather misplaced. Although inexpertly applied, it is difficult not to interpret them as showing recent temperature as rising to just +0.4ºC (1960-90=0). The Berkely Earth annual anomalies (duly adjusted to 1960-90) have been knocking on +0.8ºC/+0.9ºC in recent years (the two figures dependant on the treatment of sea ice) and even decadal values are running at +0.6ºC. One wonders if the Berkely Earth additions were misplaced to discredit the RCP8.5 projections which are indeed scary - they suggest a protential global temperature for 2100 that hasn't been seen in over 10 millon years.
-
Ger at 13:18 PM on 4 February 2018New research, January 15-21, 2018
In subject #1 I would take the emissions of kg CO2 per kWh of energy as the defining factor: (http://www.carbonindependent.org/sources_home_energy.html)
Coal : 3.62 kg CO2/kWh
NG : 0.203 kg CO2/kWh
Wood : 0.10 kg CO2/kWh
Bottled gas : 3.68 kg CO2/kWh
And given that most wood pellets for burning are made from what's left from the wood industry (Veneer, furniture,etc.) which otherwise would rot away, or does get burned in open air, the actual amount of additional CO2 is from fossil transport fuels. That could be lowered as well by using bio-fuels.
Additional, using gasification (solar heat assisted) between 20~40% of the energy value of the gas is from hydrogen split from water. Actual carbon related energy value (in case of coal gasification) is 60%~80% if compared with straight burning. In case of wood, with 47% carbon instead of 70%, the total amount of carbon related energy value is far lower.
-
Alchemyst at 09:44 AM on 4 February 2018Is warming in the Arctic behind this year's crazy winter weather?
One Planet Only Forever and Michael Sweet
Moderator I took you up on your suggestion
It would appear that the 30 years was a typo and it should have read 40.
-
chriskoz at 07:47 AM on 4 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #5
Nigel@1,
The anticyclone you're talking about affected not just NZ. The whole east of OZ have been under the same heat stress. In NSW, it was maybe not as hot but extremely humid for some 2 weeks, making the wet bulb temp unusually high and unconfortable. The nighttime lows, running at 24-25 degrees with 100% humidity were the most terrible part of the conditions because you could not sleep. In Melburne VIC, last sunday night, during evening tennis final starting 8pm, they must have applied extreme heat policy and close the roof of the arena. This was an unprecedented decision, because this is an outdoor event and with the exception of couple daylight matches in extreme heat of 40+ played in recent years, the roof is meant to stay open. Both fans and at least one player were unhappy that the playing conditions were so distort, unprecedented final in OZ open history. But if you check the weather data in Melbourne at 8pm that evening, you note that it was 39 degrees and some 50% humidity and wet bulb conditions were unprecedently exceeded so organisers acted according to their rules.
-
nigelj at 05:33 AM on 4 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #5
I live in Auckland, New Zealand, and the artcle sums things up well. Its certainly been a rollercoaster ride of weather.
Just a couple of additional points. We have had about a couple of weeks of heatwave conditions, mainly in the south island, due to la nina conditions, and large southerly anticyclones leading to unusually warm oceans well above the norm. Last years temperatures were also one of the hottest in our history due to climate change. Not sure how this year is tracking, but it certainly feels well above average temperature for January, but fortunately mostly low humidity in Auckland.
A few days ago the heatwave collided with the remnants of a tropical cyclone from the north, causing significant wind damage and flooding in the south island, and higher than anticipated. It was a small tropical low moving down, however it then gained intensity due to the very warm oceans right near NZ's coast.
We also sometimes get tropical cyclones getting right down to NZ , eg Cyclone Bola. Climate change is expected to increase the strength of tropical cyclones that reach NZ, according to NIWA, as oceans warm.
The heatwave ended a couple of days ago, with low pressure cells and fronts over the country and colder southerly air masses dominating. Night time temperatures have dropped about 8 degrees in Auckland. The change has been quite abrupt.
I recommend Dyson fans. Incredibly strong air flow and quiet.
-
Daniel Bailey at 01:08 AM on 4 February 2018There's no empirical evidence
"the fact that the earth has been warming for the past 20K years"
As the mod's note, that claim is incorrect. The facts are, increasing carbon pollution has ended the era of stable climate.
Per Marsicek et al 2018:
"amplified warming in recent decades increased temperatures above the mean of any century during the past 11,000 years"
And, per the discussion at Think Progress:
-
Bob Loblaw at 08:24 AM on 3 February 2018It's not okay how clueless Donald Trump is about climate change
The American Meteorological Society has commented:
-
gwtalbott at 05:24 AM on 3 February 2018There's no empirical evidence
Global warming is a fact, but the title of this article is misleading and unhelpful to the cause. It's typical in any debate that both sides overstate their claims. I regularly see and hear the claim that humans are causing global warming, but that doesn't recognize the fact that the earth has been warming for the past 20K years. What is true is that humans are CONTRIBUTING to a climate change that is already underway. In some respects that is even more scary.
Moderator Response:[TD] Your claim is incorrect. See the post on the wheelchair, and then the post on PAGES 2K. Then read Zeke Hausfather's post including a graph of natural versus human influences. And the Advanced tabbed pane on the post about the human fingerprint.
[JH] The use of all-caps constitutes shouting and is prohibited the the SkS Comments Policy.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:02 AM on 3 February 2018Is warming in the Arctic behind this year's crazy winter weather?
Alchemyst@9,
Some additional reasons to consider the original statement you question to be reasonable based on my suggested considerations:
- The sun does not shine on any part of the actic during the winter months. So the summer month ice cover is the key to how much solar warming of Arctic waters occurs. Also, the ice cover during the winter keeps more of that that heat in, though the ice is thinner making it likely that soon 2012 will no longer be the record.
- The time duration between 2012 and 1992 is only 20 years.
Combining those two points it is reasonable to expect that in 2022 the Arctic Sea Ice minimum area will be about 50% of the mean minimum for the period from 1979 to 2006 (2016 and 2017 were pretty close to that lower value).
I hope that helps you change your mind.
-
NorrisM at 03:25 AM on 3 February 2018It's not okay how clueless Donald Trump is about climate change
nigelj @ 3
Nigel, I think you will find Fire and Fury very interesting. It is a fascinating description of the tug of war that has happened in the Trump administration between 3 factions to get "the ear" of The Donald. Bannon representing the "alt right", Preibus representing the RNC, and Jarvanka (Jared and Ivanka) representing a somewhat Democrat viewpoint pushing in front of Trump a litany of CEOs that Jared would like to get to know better.
Watching all of the recent information regarding Hope Hicks and the Nunes memo which is presently in the press makes more sense having read the book.
This book is much more than a few "off the record" quotes from his entourage on what he is really like.
-
SirCharles at 23:19 PM on 2 February 2018It's not okay how clueless Donald Trump is about climate change
Also => President Trump’s claim of growing ice does not reflect reality
-
One Planet Only Forever at 16:18 PM on 2 February 2018Is warming in the Arctic behind this year's crazy winter weather?
Alchemyst@9,
Statistically, the mean of the Arctic Sea Ice extent for the period 1979 - 2006 is not the value in 1992 (or 1993 - the other middle year of the set of data).
And 2012 is cleary just the current record low that is expected to be beaten in the near future. The trend of the Arctic Sea Ice extent is headed that way.
However, all I offered was another way of validating how reasonable the statement you question was. To me it appears reasonable 'as is' in spite of the qualifications you raise.
-
michael sweet at 12:53 PM on 2 February 2018Is warming in the Arctic behind this year's crazy winter weather?
Chriskoz,
I saw that the average of JAS was not a 50% decline but I do not have a copy of September only. The decline is more in September than in July or August so the decline in September from 1950-1979 must be greater than 20%. Dr Francis would have the exact data needed.
The data I have presented show that the sea ice started its decline long before 1979 and using only the satalite data grossly underestimates the decline. Since September has declined 40% over the satalite era it is clear that the total September decline is over 50%.
It is not Dr Francis problem if other people do not know the facts she uses in an article for the general public.
-
jef12506 at 12:27 PM on 2 February 2018It's not okay how clueless Donald Trump is about climate change
Clean coal = We give it a warm bubble bath before burning it.
-
chriskoz at 12:19 PM on 2 February 2018Is warming in the Arctic behind this year's crazy winter weather?
michael sweet@10,
Eyeballing your graph for the most dramatic period (JAS) of decline, the trend from ~1950 to 2010 would be from a bit less than 12 (11.5)to a bit over 6 (maybe 6.5), so less than 50%, proving Alchymist correct. Maybe you meant the Sept only graph to better illustrate your point. But it's unclear what data fairly represents the point Jennifer was making.
The bottom line is Jennifer may want to be more precise next time even though she does not need to be in such non-scientific article.
-
nigelj at 12:18 PM on 2 February 2018It's not okay how clueless Donald Trump is about climate change
Addendum: By clean coal I assume Trump means burying the CO2 emissions underground etc. But who knows what he means, I doubt he knows himself half the time.
-
nigelj at 12:12 PM on 2 February 2018It's not okay how clueless Donald Trump is about climate change
Chriskoz @2
Trump certainly has a history regarding racial issues. For example from the NY Times we have some detailed evidence: "Donald Trump’s Racism: The Definitive List"
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/15/opinion/leonhardt-trump-racist.html
Yes clean coal is just deceptive nonsense that will never happen. He could start implementing this today if he really wanted, but has done nothing. Not that I'm advocating clean coal, because renewable energy now makes more sense.
I feel just as strongly as you about Trump, but I just function better if I'm a bit restrained in comments. Just bought the book Fire and Fury.
-
chriskoz at 12:00 PM on 2 February 2018Is warming in the Arctic behind this year's crazy winter weather?
Alchemyst@8,
Mod [PS] responded to the substance of the issue you raise & I have nothing to add.
However, I'm curious why you "sic" michael sweet's name. My understanding is that "sic" is used to warn about deliberate misspelling, e.g. due to quoting someone else's mistakes or another dialect.
Deliberate misspelling of someone's name is a personal offence, so should never happen and you did not misspell michael's name. So "sic" does not make sense here unless you wanted to use it in a meaning that I don't know.
Moderator Response:[JH] Michael Sweet mispelled Alchemyst. Please let the Moderators do the moderating. Thanks.
-
michael sweet at 11:33 AM on 2 February 2018Is warming in the Arctic behind this year's crazy winter weather?
Alchymist,
You are cherry picking your start year as 1979. That is when satalite records start, but not when scientific records start. This graph from Cryosphere Today
Indicates that the sea ice decline started around 1950. The sea ice declined about 20% between 1950 and 1979. (the averages for the entire summer changed 20%, the minimum generally changes more than the average of the entire summer), Since the decline from 1979 to the average of the 2010's is about 40%, when you add in the decline from 1950 the total decline is substantially greater than 50% since 1950.
Dr. Francis is referring to the decline in sea ice known for the entire record, not for a cherry picked interval that starts long after the decline in sea ice is known to have started.
Moderator Response:[JH] You are addressing Alchemyst. not Alchymist.
-
Alchemyst at 10:52 AM on 2 February 2018Is warming in the Arctic behind this year's crazy winter weather?
One Planet Only Forever, taking a mean for 1979 to 2006 and comparing it to the result of 2012. The "mean" year would be 1992 which makes 30 years to 2012. And 2012 had half the cover of the mean.
Yet 2012 was an outlier and so this is very bad statistics. So the declie is less than 50% in 30 years, thank you. Please note that the September data shows the greatest decline for any of the months and as I stated earlier it is 13.7% per decade which gives 41% over 30 years.
The ice cover loss for other months can be as low as 8% in 30 years (please see the April 2017 bulletin).
No 50% without qualification in my opinion is exagerated and alarmist and does not help in the overall discussion.
Moderator Response:[PS] This article is a repost from "The Conversation" and we dont have contact with the author. While I agree that overstating the case is not good, Sks is not going to be altering the text of a repost. It might be better if this point is raised over at "The Conversation". The author is only person really able to talk to the point - everyone else is guessing. Whether the change is 30-40-50% is also a little irrelevant to the main point of this article which was to look at the way arctic changes can affect weather further afield.
-
chriskoz at 10:29 AM on 2 February 2018It's not okay how clueless Donald Trump is about climate change
Nigel@1,
T-man resents Obama because t-man is a racist. Proof: he instructed his hotel staff to tag black people on their job applications and was telling black customers "no vacancies" while admitting whites at the same time.
The article describes well the t-man's ignorance but IMO it does not go far enough. E.g., t-man's talk about "beautiful clean coal" is no more than a moronic, childish, deceptive quirk to gather behind him the voters who lost their jobs due to coal mining collapse. No one listens to it, and those unemployed miners should stop listening ASA they realize other, cleaner jobs do exist.
Perhaps Dana restrains himself, because the office of POTUS is very honorable (sic, I live in OZ) and requires respect. But it's hard to have any respect to the childish soap opera show that t-man turned this office into.
-
Alchemyst at 10:18 AM on 2 February 2018Is warming in the Arctic behind this year's crazy winter weather?
Thanks michael sweet (sic) at 7:35, the result is due to using the 2012 result which was exceptional. This is caled cherry picking and does not credit the site. If you are using the 2012 value as representative then there has been an increase in the arctic ice cover over the last 5 years.
The University of Colorado state that the cover loss is 13.2 % liear per decade for the most extreme month. If one takes the 2012 result as a point in calculation then the conclusion is that the ice cover is now increasing!
michael the 2012 result was an outlier and should not be used as a representative of the real slution which is of a steady decline with significant scatter.
Here is the data, just take 19996 and 2012 results in isolation and you can get 50%, but at my shool were were taught that doing that was naughty.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2017/10/
I gave you a reference to probably the best data that of the Universty of Colorado
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:05 AM on 2 February 2018Is warming in the Arctic behind this year's crazy winter weather?
Alchemist@2,
The total ice area evaluation presented by Arctic ROOS shows a minimum ice area for the 1979-2006 data set of 6.0 x 106 km2. The minimum for 2012 was slightly less than 3.0 x 106 km2, which is a loss of 50% of the ice area. The 2016 minimum was about 3.5 x 106 km2 which is not quite 50% below the median of the 1979 to 2006 data set. And 2017 was a little higher. But the trend is not an increase of Arctic sea ice extent.
On a related point about the future of the Arctic Sea Ice, the total mass of Arctc ice is evaluated in this PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Reanalysis by the Polar Science Center which shows that the average Arctic ice is getting significantly thinner making significant near future reductions of minimum sea ice extent more likely to occur.
A final point about how much the Arctic extent has been reduced. The reference in the OP could be regarding the reduction from the earlier values in the 1979 to 2006 data set, which may have been higher than the median, and high enough that the 2017 area of sea ice is 50% less than the minimums in the early years of the 1979 - 2006 data set.
Moderator Response:[JH] You are addressing Alchemyst. not Alchemist.
-
MA Rodger at 08:13 AM on 2 February 2018In 2017, the oceans were by far the hottest ever recorded
sidd @6,
The missing energy is as described by scaddenp @7&9. And the basic numbers set out by Incognitoto @RealClimate are fine although some of the subsidiary numbers are well off the mark.
Incognitoto is suggesting the net climate Forcing back 10-15 years ago was +1.6Wm^-2 (which is possible) which he equates to an energy imbalance of 800TW (actually 816TW) and that would be 25Zj/yr. He also speculates about today's net Forcing being +2.0Wm^-2 but goes nowhere with it.
Incognitoto then suggests ΔOHC would have been 8Zj/yr, so accounting for a 250TW energy imbalance. The 0-2000m ΔOHC for 10-15 years ago (from NODC/NOAA although they don't list back to 2003 for 0-2000m any more. The earliest 5 years comes to 43.7Zj ΔOHC between 2005 & 2010) gives 39.3Zj ΔOHC between 2003 & 2008. That yields 7.86Zj/yr or a 249TW energy imbalance.
Incognitoto adds on "less than" 10TW for melted ice and 40TW for added atmospheric H2O. The Ice estimate is probably about right for 10-15 years ago. 10TW would equate to 950Gt/yr of melt. GRACE data for Greenland & Antarctica (graphed here) suggests about 400Gt/yr. And according to PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice would add about 300Gt/yr and a similar amount from other glaciers. The H2O is badly wrong. It would be about 2.4TW with an additional 3.0TW heating up the air. A final component is the heat required to warm the land which would be roughly similar in size to Ice & Atmosphere. (Note the SkS graphic here dates back to 2007 would predate GRACE results.)
So the energy flux back 2003-08 exiting planet Earth to space due to the AGW temperature rise (if the 1.6Wm^-2 is accepted as a net Forcing) would be something like 525TW.
-
michael sweet at 07:43 AM on 2 February 2018Is warming in the Arctic behind this year's crazy winter weather?
Alchymst
Idle claims that the sea ice expert who wrote this article was incorrect are easily dismissed with actual data.
To answer your question: "could someone please explain this disepancy [sic] or is it due to inflation and projection?"
The discrepancy is due to the asker being uinformed of the actual data. The linked article was a summary article and did not detail all the sea ice data.
-
michael sweet at 07:35 AM on 2 February 2018Is warming in the Arctic behind this year's crazy winter weather?
Alchemyst,
Perhaps the author was referring to the fact that from 1979-1989 the minimum daily extent was 7.0 million Km2 and the minimum in 2012 was only 3.3 million km2. data link (sorry, I couldn't get the graph to link). That is a decrease of more than 50% where I went to school. Sea ice area decreased from about 5.5 million km2 to about 2.3 million km2, also more than 50%.
Monthly minimum volume has decreased from 16.5 thousand km3 to 3.8 thousand km3. (first data link above) Since that is a decrease of more than 75% she was probably not referring to that change.
-
nigelj at 06:58 AM on 2 February 2018It's not okay how clueless Donald Trump is about climate change
Well said. Trump is just clearly totally scientifically ignorant, and you can probably add in some deliberate stupidity. He doesnt like carbon taxes, and renewable energy etc so he attacks the science.
He is excessively prioritising corporate values above the environment and public good. This is clear in everything he has done since being in office legislatively, so his words claiming otherwise are fake words.
Clearly Trump doesn't like multi party agreements. He is used to negotiating two party property deals, and multi party agreements are foreign to him. It's not so easy for him to dominate and manipulate people in multi party agreements.
Trump has pulled out of the TPPA, which is a multi party trade agreement. America was dominating this agreement and getting the best deal, so his move makes little sense. However Trump has opposed free trade for a long time, despite the fact nearly all economists promote free trade.
Trump also obviously hates and resents Obama. This appears almost pathological.
America is lost, and it's people mostly don't seem to care anymore what made up nonsense their politicians talk.
Prev 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 Next
