Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 Next
Comments 15801 to 15850:
-
scaddenp at 06:24 AM on 5 January 2018Past 150,000 Years of Sea Level History Suggests High Rates of Future Sea Level Rise
Tlander - why do you believe that substance rates are not accounted for in assessment of sealevel rise from tide gauges? Eg see methods part of Church and White. Furthermore, satellite altimetry methods are now used to assess sealevel rise and they are immune to coastal changes.
-
TLander at 05:48 AM on 5 January 2018Past 150,000 Years of Sea Level History Suggests High Rates of Future Sea Level Rise
Hello, I know this topic isn't very active, but I just have a question. Why have people not incorporated the subsidence rates along the coasts into calculations of relative sea level rise? I never see it brought up in many of the sea level conversations, but it seems to be an important factor when subsidence of 2in year or more in some areas along the coasts. Take this paper on the Chesapeake Bay.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1392/pdf/circ1392.pdf
I quote, "The difference between the average sea-level rise computed
from the four NOAA tidal stations in the study area (3.9 mm/yr) and the benchmark global
rate (1.8 mm/yr) is 2.1 mm/yr, which is an estimate of the average rate of land subsidence at
the four NOAA stations. These numbers indicate that land subsidence has been responsible
for more than half the relative sea-level rise measured in the southern Chesapeake Bay region."I am just curious why this doesn't seem to be discussed when people are talking about sea level rise. Seems like a glaring mistake, but maybe I am crazy.
-
Joel_Huberman at 05:09 AM on 5 January 20182017 in Review: looking back at 10 years of SkS and more
In my view, Skeptical Science is one of the most, perhaps the most, important site on the Web. Congratulations and thanks to the entire team for the wonderful work that you do!
-
Aaron Davis at 03:13 AM on 5 January 2018CO2 limits won't cool the planet
[snipped]
Moderator Response:[TD] You're well past your grace period. In future I will simply delete your comments that are off topic, that repeat your previous claims without addressing responses including references you've been given, and that are sheer nonsense.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:11 AM on 5 January 20182017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52
nigelj,
You have comprehensively debunked the attempted counter-claims made by Rhoowl.
I would add that Rhoowl did not to provide a counter-claim to my first point that the 280 ppm level that existed for the last 2000 years was more than enough. No part of the counter-claim provided evidence that global plant growth was 'deficient' when CO2 was at 280 ppm.
I would however concede that an increase to 350 ppm would be a reasonable limit to the damage done to future generations, as has been established by many reports. So, today's generation having to lose personal benefits and opportunity in order to unprofitably rapidly bring the current CO2 levels back down to 350 ppm would be sufficient penalty for what regrettably got away with being developed.
-
Brian Catt at 03:04 AM on 5 January 2018CO2 effect is saturated
The facts are obscured by the above analysis. The facts are that the effects of CO2 on the atmospheric absorption of IR by the atmosphere diminish rapidly and logartithmically with increasing concentration, so most of the so called greenhouse effect, that absorbs and re radiates IR, which isn't how greenhouses work, occurs in concentrations below 150ppm, which is so low trees and other vegetation die. Lower than the lowest and ice age minimums.
The effect is approximately the same for each doubling, so has expoentially LESS effect per ppm, so that at 200ppm another 200ppm, to get to where we are now, only produces the same effect as 20-40ppm.
So the statement that its never satuarted is deceitfully true, because it is partial by omitting the dominant factor, that while it's never quire saturated, it may as well be for all the effect it has, versus the natural variation in the 300 times greater effect of Water vapour, for example.
Reference? There is a useful course on this by the University of Chicago you can take for free w/o a certificate - that costs - which gives this initial fact in itshttps://skepticalscience.com/CO2-is-not-the-only-driver-of-climate.htm promo video. These are the facts on IR absorption of CO2 in the atmosphere. Not as advertised. The reverse of a tipping point in fact. We need to be looking elsewhere than CO2 for the rue cause of the tiny variation we are currently observing with the interglacial peak tempertaure range of an ice age interglacial. Soon be over, but at a rate humans cannot detect in a lifetime, as a quick study of the data shows anyone numerate. Real planetary climate hange of an interglacial is significant, but again any effect takes seberal lifetimes to be on bservable, even at the geologically rapid end of the current ice ages, over only 1,000 years...................https://www.coursera.org/learn/global-warming/lecture/CnAIV/the-band-saturation-effect
Moderator Response:[JH] url link activated. Please learn how to do this using the edit function provided.
For future reference, you may want to spell-check your draft text prior to posting a comment.
[TD] SkepticalScience is organized into a large number of narrow topics. You have commented on a topic that is only slightly relevant to your point about the direct IR effect of CO2 increase being logarithmic. Please click the View All Arguments link at the bottom of the list of Most Used Climate Myths, in the left margin, for more relevant posts, such as How Do We Know More CO2 Is Causing Warming?, and CO2 Is Main Driver of Climate Change. Note that many posts have Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced tabbed panes. The log relationship of IR absorption to CO2 level has been known for over 150 years, and always has been explicitly accounted for in all calculations of temperature effects of increased CO2.
[TD] To find posts specifically addressing the logarithmic relationship, enter the word logarithmic in the Search field at the top right of the page.
-
Philippe at 00:30 AM on 5 January 2018How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
Thank you for this post.
I'm vegan and I do believe that most vegans, including main stream films such as Cowspiracy have exaggerated the part of animal agriculture in green gas emissions. This is a moot point though. Most decent vegans, with a scientific based mind, agree that veganism is an ethical stance beyond diet, and I'll add beyond any climate considerations. I simply believe that the gathering of sentient beings in what is truly equivalent to concentration camps for animals, is unethical and that's why I'm vegan. I don't need to tweak green gas emissions to feel better and legitimate my position.
-
nigelj at 13:16 PM on 4 January 20182017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52
Rhoowl @25, just one more comment: You say "If the tcr is low as predicted by many papers then the net effect of increased c02 will most likely be positive through increased food yields"
And only a minority of papers predict TCR is low as below.
-
nigelj at 12:54 PM on 4 January 2018On its hundredth birthday in 1959, Edward Teller warned the oil industry about global warming
dkeierleber @9
I agree on all points.
Regarding the influence of dark money in politics, read the book "Dark Money" by Jane Mayer. Summary, review, and some discussion below:
This book is particularly relevant to the climate issue.
Money in election campaigns is so corrosive. IMO the only real answer is tax payer funded campaigns, but its hard getting the public to appreciate the sense in this.
However I dont know if stranded assets would cause a recession. Money would flow from oil company shares into other companies, ideally renewable energy. It probably depends on how orderly the process is, and whether theres a panic of some sort. Recessions are usually caused mainly by the business cycle or economic bubbles. However stranded assets are still obviously a problem.
-
nigelj at 12:32 PM on 4 January 20182017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52
Rhoowl @25
"Bullet 1 if that were the case then the planet would not have increased greening over the past 40 years. Plant are noticeably bigger and stronger now."
CO2 has caused some greening, but this effect saturates fairly quickly. Amazon is already becoming a carbon source for example.
"Bullet2 the increased co2 may have some negative consequences in the future. If the tcr is low as predicted by many papers then the net effect of increased c02 will most likely be positive through increased food yields. Food yields have been increasing steadily."
Read my comment @22 and the attached reference source in scientific american: Improvements in crop yields are small, and obviously negated by the negative effects of CO2 emissions
"Bullet3 not sure how the increased absorption of co2 into the seas will create a negative effect. The biosphere has been increasing its absorption capacity of co2."
Co2 absorption makes the oceans acidic (strictly speaking less alkaline) This causes damage to corals and shellfish because the acidity damages their shells. It's not just these organisms, because acidicication affects the whole food chain negatively and we have evidence that it has caused mass extinctions in the past. Refer the scientific american article below:
www.scientificamerican.com/article/rising-acidity-in-the-ocean/
"Bullet4 yeah...but we need to burn it now....we need energy and and the greens refuse to consider the nuclear option. If co2 is what you want to reduce then nuclear ome of your best option"
The Greens do not run the government or power stations Currently generating companies and governments are not interested in the nuclear alternative because of high capital costs, and slow buiding and regulatory process. We have other alternatives such as solar, hydro, wind and geothermal and costs are becoming very cost competitive with coal and gas. Refer cost of electricity by source on wikipedia.
"Bullet5 yeah...wars are fought over fossil fuel energy.....another good reason to embrace nuclear"
Wars will be fought over supplies of uranium, which would become stretched by building massive numbers of nuclear power stations. The resources of wind and the sun are free. Materials used for wind towers are abundant.
-
Rhoowl at 10:59 AM on 4 January 20182017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52
OOPOF@23
Bullet 1 if that were the case then the planet would not have increased greening over the past 40 years. Plant are noticeably bigger and stronger now.
Bullet2 the increased co2 may have some negative consequences in the future. If the tcr is low as predicted by many papers then the net effect of increased c02 will most likely be positive through increased food yields. Food yields have been increasing steadily.
Bullet3 not sure how the increased absorption of co2 into the seas will create a negative effect. The biosphere has been increasing its absorption capacity of co2.
Bullet4 yeah...but we need to burn it now....we need energy and and the greens refuse to consider the nuclear option. If co2 is what you want to reduce then nuclear ome of your best option
Bullet5 yeah...wars are fought over fossil fuel energy.....another good reason to embrace nuclear
Moderator Response:[DB] Thank you for taking the time to share with us. Skeptical Science is a user forum wherein the science of climate change can be discussed from the standpoint of the science itself. Ideology and politics get checked at the keyboard.
Please take the time to review the Comments Policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
Off-topic and sloganeering snipped. -
BaerbelW at 03:40 AM on 4 January 201897% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
Aanthanur - have you ever entertained the thought, that your opinion/interpretation - instilled by a denier, no less - might be wrong?
This is why I suggest that you read Andy Skuce‘s article - not because of the consensus percentage - but in the hope that it might help you understand the role of implicit endorsements. But, from your additional comments, it reads as if you don‘t really want to understand but just want to cling to your way of seeing this. In which case we can just as well call it quits and agree to disagree.
-
Aanthanur at 03:24 AM on 4 January 201897% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
Nobody disproved my point, that is the point. nor is it off topic. i provided an example, that post was silently removed, but someone already saw it and responded.....
wow, i must say, i am extremely dispointed here. i am not a denier. not a luke awarmer.
Moderator Response:[JH] Sloganeering snipped.
-
Aanthanur at 03:22 AM on 4 January 201897% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
i provided credible evidence, or do you to think the suplementary data from cook et al 2013 is not credible?
or are you claiming they did not use the abstracts as they described in the paper?
Moderator Response:[JH] Sloganeering snipped.
-
dkeierleber at 03:16 AM on 4 January 2018On its hundredth birthday in 1959, Edward Teller warned the oil industry about global warming
Most of this isn't about the science but it seems consist with other comments in this thread.
Not sure I would characterize America as a democracy. We have slid into the oligarchy realm as far as I can see and as long as dark money controls politics, things will continue to move in that direction. Elected officials don’t seem to even care what their constituents think. They are elected by money from big donors and industry. We’ll see if any of that changes in 2018 and 2020.
As far as our response to AGW is concerned, the fossil fuel industry keeps insisting that no assets will be stranded by any regulatory action taken by the government. When that lie is eventually exposed, what will the loss of trillions of dollars in assets do to our economy? When the coastal real estate market eventually collapses, what does that do to our economy?
The sooner we start moving in the right direction, the less the eventual pain will be, but do you really think industry is as ignorant as they pretend? Do you think maybe they’ll be safely divested leaving less sophisticated investors to bear the pain?
The recent tax plan will aggravate the other big problem of our economy---the inequality of income distribution. History teaches that concentrating wealth in the hands of a few at the top is not only toxic for the economy but can be fatal for the system as a whole, yet the big donors of the party in power insisted on what amounts to a $1.5 trillion heist. Does that sound like a democracy or more like the family of a dictator trying to get as much wealth out of the country as they can? Again, do you think they are ignorant of history and economic theory?
And then there is the 3rd contestant for what can take down our civilization fastest---the depletion of our agricultural base. How many decades of soil and aquifer depletion do we have left?
Did you see the latest prediction by Stephen Hawking? He dropped the time our civilization has from 1000 years to 100 years. Think he knows something?
-
Aanthanur at 22:13 PM on 3 January 201897% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
"How would you calculate the consensus that most of current global warming is due to humans if there were no abstracts/papers in categories 1"
by asking experts to quantify our contribution, like they did in Verheggen 2014.
"Somebody doing this kind of study in a couple of years for papers published later than the sample we used may well be faced with such a situation as more and more authors no longer see the need to spell it out in their abstracts as it just becomes the default position."
that might be. but with the data they had, they could have calculated it. its 87% which is still the overwhelming majority of experts.
"This is where the implicit endorsements come in, which in our paper were interpreted as implying that most of current global warming is due to humans (as long as there's no text in the abstract which minimises our effect, that is!)"
if you want to use unquantified abstract, you canot use the frase you used in the introduction. this is just wrong.
and no, will nto read it. because i do not doubt the consensus. i doubt the result of cook et al as it is wrong. they used unquantified abstracts for a quantified consensus.
and funny enough , Verheggen also comes to the 87% as i did when i only used endorsement leve 1 and 7.
Moderator Response:[DB] Rote repetition after being disproved of a contention constitutes sloganeering nd runs afoul of this venue's comments policy. Either move on to another point or bring credible evidence to support your contentions. Simply saying "Nuh-Uh" doesn't cut it.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts or resort to rote sloganeering (repetition of points disproved). We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.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.
Sloganeering snipped. -
MA Rodger at 20:36 PM on 3 January 2018CO2 limits won't cool the planet
Aaron Davis @32.
You suggest "it may possible a 15 ppm seasonal variation between Arctic CO2 concentration could also be significant. " A look at the lower graph @19 suggests the Arctic experiences an effective 8ppm drop in CO2 over a six month period. In terms of long-term energy budgets that is equal to 4ppm permanently. As the cycle would have existed before AGW (being a natural phenomenon), such a reduction in CO2 globally would amount to a temperature change of 0.04ºC with today's CO2 level & ECS=3. (As you appear to grasp the concept, I here adjust for the logarithmic nature of CO2 forcing.) Due to the increase in CO2 since 1979, today's 0.04ºC has reduced from 1979's 0.05ºC.
The problem we face Aaron Davis is that this 0.04ºC (which will require some adjustment as it is not global) is not what you are attempting to measure.
Consider the following.
A row of seven stout wooden chalets are heated by identical electric fires 24-7-365. But an electrical fault results in all chalets losing power for a portion of the time. In the first chalet it is 1 millisecond every six milliseconds, in the second it is 1 second every six, in the third one minute in six, then one hour in six, one day in six, one month in six, one year i six.
On average, each chalet suffers the same loss of power and they will all experience a roughly similar drop in average long-term temperature. Losing one sixth of their heating, that drop is significant and is analagous to what you suggest @32 is considered as "could also be significant."
However, this long-term average is not what you attempt to measure. You are concerned with the wobble in temperature. In our analogy, the wobble will vary greatly chalet-to-chalet. In chalet one it will be undetectable. In chalet six, the temperature will wobble from that of an unheated chalet to that of a fully heated chalet. Using a 15ppm value, your calculation will be perhaps as chalet three. But you are expecting it to be chalet six or seven.
And your numbers "the 0.54/ to 1.2oC/ due to doubling CO2" appear to be nonsensical.
-
BaerbelW at 17:54 PM on 3 January 201897% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
Aanthanur - here is a thought-experiment for you:
How would you calculate the consensus that most of current global warming is due to humans if there were no abstracts/papers in categories 1 (and 2)?
Somebody doing this kind of study in a couple of years for papers published later than the sample we used may well be faced with such a situation as more and more authors no longer see the need to spell it out in their abstracts as it just becomes the default position. This is something which seems to have already have happened in other fields, like e.g. plate tectonics.
This is where the implicit endorsements come in, which in our paper were interpreted as implying that most of current global warming is due to humans (as long as there's no text in the abstract which minimises our effect, that is!).
If you haven't done so yet, please read Andy Skuce's post about our paper "Does it matter if the consensus on anthropogenic global warming is 97% or 99.99%?". It comes at this discussion from another angle, but uses plate tectonics as an illustrative example.
-
Aanthanur at 15:42 PM on 3 January 201897% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
the selfrating uses the same endorsement levels, and also there they put together endoresement level 1-3. So the same problem there.
and he is not a friedn, he was some denier that actually had a point.
if you actually look at the evidence provided by the paper, it is 87% for the quantified consensus, and 97% of the unquantified.
Moderator Response:[DB] Sloganeering snipped.
-
Aaron Davis at 14:53 PM on 3 January 2018CO2 limits won't cool the planet
MA Rogers @28 For the 15+/-1 ppm chage the dF=-0.2 Wm-2, the change in temperature I am looking for in the seasonal analysis is between -0.11 and -0.24 oC based on the 0.54/ to 1.2oC/ due to doubling CO2. Actually the global warming by year 2017 figure shows just a 0.027oC/year from 1980 to 2017. If I use 26 occurences of the seasonal effect the error in the mean is reduced by a factor of 5, so if the monthly averages are accurate to 0.01oC, a the seasonal effect should be well above the noise. As further confirmation consider
Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010
"Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m−2 per decade "
Please consider that if 22 ppm difference in this paper yields a 'statistically significant result of 0.2 W m-2' over a decade, it may possible a 15 ppm seasonal variation between Arctic CO2 concentration could also be significant.
[TD] It doesn't seem possibile that decades of model based analysis of radiative forcing could not be validated by some clear and reasonable approach like a standard prediction error technique, but it seems like this is the case. Every article you suggest has as a basis a model manipulated to fit historical data, but seems to ignore how these models performs 10-20 years later. This whole argument reminds me of my work with ephemerides when I worked with Lockheed. For years we lived with a repeating range error of 30 ft. bulge in the range error. When I found and corrected the screwed up the polar wander transformation, the one rev prediction error did not change much because they recalibrated each rev, but try to predict 3 or 4 revs into the future and the calibrated model produced huge errors. The lesson learned is that fitting the data to an incorrect model can work for a while, but then diverges. Please provide a reference where the authors, rather than refit the model parameters to new data, really went back and fundamentally changed the model to predict 10 years out. To correct errors that far out it may be necessary to consider at least some of the a few serious "deniers" like The Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement - Dr. Ned Nikolov who establishes a pressure component to atmospheric model for global warming.
Moderator Response:[TD] Wow, you're a fast reader, especially for someone who just a few days ago misunderstood the second law of thermodynamics! That IPCC chapter I pointed you to has a lot of journal article references you say you've read, plus you had to take a bunch of basic classes so you could understand those articles. I'm really, really impressed.
Funny how all your sudden expertise in physics failed to help you recognize that Nikolov's articles are gibberish. Not just wrong, but gibberish. Even actual serious fake skeptic Roy Spencer acknowledges they are gibberish. Eli Rabbett also disassembled Nikolov's claims. And there are two posts at the aptly named And Then There's Physics. David Appell added another reason Nikolov is wrong. The bottom line: Your car's tires are not warmer than their surrounding air merely because the air pressure inside them is higher than the air pressure outside. That would violate the first law of thermodynamics. Oh, but maybe that's okay with you since that would fit your understanding of the second law of thermodynamics.
-
Aaron Davis at 13:51 PM on 3 January 2018Quantifying the human contribution to global warming
Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010
"Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2."When Feldman calculates the 0.2 Wm-2 for 22 ppm change the implied change in is for a 3.8% using the equation in the SC quantifying article dF=5.35 ln(CO2_2/CO2_1) = 0.2 . From 400 ppm 3.8% is just 15 ppm, so the function for dF might be a bit out of date. More like 5.3625*ln() might be more in line with this 2015 article.
-
MA Rodger at 11:11 AM on 3 January 2018CO2 limits won't cool the planet
Aaron Davis @30.
The climate forcing from ΔCO2 is in no way contentious. It is a matter fo physics.
A doubling of CO2 will result in a forcing of 3.7Wm^-2. Thus a ΔCO2 equal to 15ppm/400ppm = 3.75% would result in a forcing of 3.7 x 0.0375 = 0.139 WM^-2. The globe has an area of 510e12 m^2. A year comprises 8766hrs x 3600sec. Thus a forcing of 1.139 WM^-2 will result in an annual Δenergy of 0.139 x 510e12 x 8766 x 3600 = 2,237e18j/yr. (This assumes my abacus has retained all its beads which is not something I can always gaurantee but in these circumstances I am confident that I am correnct even though I have just returned from the pub.)
-
Eclectic at 11:01 AM on 3 January 201897% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
Aanthanur @55 & prior posts :-
I have the strong impression that your argumentative "friend" is simply not looking at the evidence.
He may wish to claim that the Cook et al. 2013 study can show a consensus level of 87% or 57% or 27% . . . . but the authors' self-rating section of the study does show the same 97% consensus figure matching the 97% consensus figure supplied by the independent assessors.
Game over. 97% consensus is the real figure for Cook et al. 2013
-
nigelj at 10:36 AM on 3 January 20182017 was the hottest year on record without an El Niño, thanks to global warming
UK met office global temperature prediction for 2018 with graph :
"The Met Office global temperature forecast suggests that 2018 will be another very warm year globally but is unlikely to be a new record due to a moderate La Niña in the Pacific."
www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2017/2018-global-temperature-forecast
-
dana1981 at 09:10 AM on 3 January 20182017 was the hottest year on record without an El Niño, thanks to global warming
nigel & chris - I think you're confusing the statistic (15 disasters costing over $1 billion each) with the total cost (not yet calculated).
Sangfroid @ 10: I don't really appreciate the accusation of misleading the public, just because you don't understand the margins of uncertainty involved. The NASA GISTEMP 95% uncertainty is about +/- 0.025°C. You can see it for yourself in the blue bars here: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.png
Moderator Response:[DB] A note to readership: Sangfroid's comment was removed to accusations of malfeasance, a violation of the comments policy.
-
nigelj at 08:20 AM on 3 January 20182017 was the hottest year on record without an El Niño, thanks to global warming
Chriskoz @8 yes I see your point, but the article I quoted did mention 15 disasters at more than one billion. It just looks to me like the guardian either copied this article at face value, not checking on a spreadsheet, or arrived at similar dubious looking thinking.
But its completely hard for me to understand why they say costs of Harvey is "to be determined" given wikipedia has articles detailing the costs. Maybe they are saying full costs aren't known yet or something.
The bottom line is $15 billion appears like a huge understatement.
-
chriskoz at 07:47 AM on 3 January 20182017 was the hottest year on record without an El Niño, thanks to global warming
nigelj@7,
If you import the table from your NOAA link to the spreadsheet with 2017 selected, you find out the total CPI-adjusted cost column be over $21 billion. So no, the mistaken "15 billion" figure does not come from there.
And the three 2017 hurricanes of most interest are listed there as TBD. While olders hurricanes, eg. Katrina at $161.3G, are listed even costlier than in my Wiki (which might be not CPI-adjusted).
-
nigelj at 07:26 AM on 3 January 20182017 was the hottest year on record without an El Niño, thanks to global warming
Chriskoz @5, well spotted. The following article shows how the 15 billion dollar figure was arrived at:
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/events/US/1980-2017
Please note a couple of things: they are talking about 15 billion dollars or 'exceeding' 15 billion dollars. It's also a list that includes a wide range of problems like forest fires, droughts and hurricanes, and two of the hurricanes were relatively small such as Irma, so probably only a billion dollars.
But I'm mystified why they apportion such a low cost to Hurricane Harvey, because according to your reference it is almost $200 billion,and is well known to be very devastating. So I dont know, but it's either an omission, or the media are deliberately understating the problem. This is all just all my quick impression, because I dont have much time to spend on the issue, but I was curious.
-
chriskoz at 07:22 AM on 3 January 20182017 was the hottest year on record without an El Niño, thanks to global warming
My typo @5 above. You can easily calculate that I meant Harvey to be "13 times more" (and not "30 times more") than So 30 times more.
Incidentally, the Wiki article I quoted, based on data by NOAA, also lists the total cost of 2017 seson:
The costliest season on record was 2017, with damage estimated in excess of $400 billion.
and that's the number Dana should have used in this OP.
-
chriskoz at 07:09 AM on 3 January 20182017 was the hottest year on record without an El Niño, thanks to global warming
A fragment in The Guardian (not reproduced hare):
America was hit by 15 billion-dollar weather and climate disasters in 2017
That is wrong number. I remember Katrina herself cost over $100G, so I went and checked List of costliest Atlantic hurricanes where Harvey is listed first with almost $200G, most of it in US. So 30 times more than the amount listed, not to mention other 2 major hurricanes and events.
So the listed amount "15 billion-dollar" is some kind of mistake or confusion (does not appear a simple typo) that needs clarification.
-
Aaron Davis at 06:27 AM on 3 January 2018CO2 limits won't cool the planet
"The annual global forcing from -15ppm ΔCO2 would today amount to 2,250e18j, an effect that is far from insignificant." Sorry I have again miss-read your statement. What is the source of this rather impressive figure. Is that per year over the entire globe? Would 15 ppm ΔCO2 be responsible for 18% of the entire annual global accumulation of energy of 12.5 ZJ/yr? That would be a remarkable result if it were true.
-
nigelj at 06:24 AM on 3 January 20182017 was the hottest year on record without an El Niño, thanks to global warming
I agree with OPOF that Roy Spencer doesn't give any real commentary on his climate website on el nino. Theres also not much the general issues of what temperature trends all mean. He has several sceptical views on climate science, although I don't know if he fits the denier category, but he sure seems to get close. His wikipedia profile is interesting.
RSS who also do temperature series for the troposphere, and give a much better discussion as below. However its important to realise the troposphere is not the surface, and the RSS people say its more important to look at nasa temerature trends which are at the surface. Roy Spencer makes no comment on such issues.
-
nigelj at 06:08 AM on 3 January 2018On its hundredth birthday in 1959, Edward Teller warned the oil industry about global warming
OPOF @7, yes good points. As you say management sometimes pressure technical staff to act unethically. However its not always easy to just resign from a job if you have heavy family responsibilities, so I feel for people in this predicament.
However I resigned a job once partly because of huge pressure from the boss to basically break the law, and generally do unethical things. We were talking significant issues here, not petty or silly rules. The stress of this was getting to be a killer, it was just ethically wrong, and of course if I was caught I would be the person blamed.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:00 AM on 3 January 20182017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #52
The 'harm' to others, particularly to future generations, from the continued burning of fossil fuels needs to become understood to be simply unacceptable. That needs to become the Common Sense around the world.
The defense that climate change impacts 'will not be that bad' should not be debated, other than to clearly state that creating any net-negative consequences for 'Others including future generations' is unacceptable, not an option.
'Balancing' the 'Positive current day benefits a portion of humanity get from the activity' with 'the negative consequences experienced by Others including future generations' is a fool's game, popular with pursuers of profitable Private Interests.
Claiming the defense that the results will not be catastrophic to others is like a gang-thug claiming that their shop-damaging or bone-breaking or in-fighting-with-other-gangs (or threats to do so) are OK because it isn't 'killing'.
The insideous measures of prosperity and success many economists deludedly follow will actually show 'positive results' as a result of the efforts required to 'get back to where things were before a disaster'.
There is profit to be made from disaster recovery, and from post-conflict re-building. And Naomi Klein wrote about many other ways that undeserving people can Win more Private Interest benefit from disasters in "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism".
Pursuers of benefit from tragedy probably even hope to be able to personally profit from any increased magnitude of disaster resulting from rapid climate changes, including the increased civil conflict that will occur due to climate change (part of the reason the US Department of Defense includes climate change as a significant threat).
-
nigelj at 05:37 AM on 3 January 20182017 was the hottest year on record without an El Niño, thanks to global warming
Excellent article. We have a huge problem with false or misleading attacks on climate science. I thought this may have faded away by now, but if anything it is more entrenched, despite the logical and scientific absurdity of the positions. The science has lead to implications that disturb peoples world views and political positions, and vested interests, and people can become very stubborn when their world view is threatened.
Climate science is also complex, with many costs to society but a few possible small benefits, and this opens an unfortunate door to inane and misleading claims like "CO2 is plantfood" and the tiresome need to rebut these in an exercise like whack a mole.
However I agree with OPOF to some extent that the term "climate change denier" or just "denier" is indeed not really accurate, as most do accept the climate is changing. It also reminds me of accusing someone of being a witch, and will not persuade people to re-examine their beliefs, and will instead create hostility towards the warmist group. It always make me think of the novel 1984 for some reason..
I like OPOF's term "climate science denier". It's more accurate and concise and not quite as likely to create total hostility. It will mak epeople think a bit.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:13 AM on 3 January 20182017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52
nigelj@22,
The excuse of CO2 being plant food is indeed irrelevant (use the term 'a real nothingburger' if you are conversing with a Right-Winger and you want to poke-at-them).
- There was more than enough CO2 when levels were at 280 ppm.
- Any increased CO2 results in climate changes that cannot be accurately predicted but are certain to include negative consequences for future generations.
- A significant amount of the excess created CO2 is absorbed into the oceans creating negative consequences for future generations.
- Burning up of fossil fuels reduces the amount of that non-renewable resource that is available for future generations.
- There are many other negative current day and future consequences from the activities related to burning fossil fuels, including tragic conflicts excused for other reasons but clearly linked to desires to Win more Private Interest benefit from last gasp desperate attempts by 'knowing deliberate trouble-makers' to benefit as much as possible from the global burning of fossil fuels.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:54 AM on 3 January 20182017 was the hottest year on record without an El Niño, thanks to global warming
Dr. Roy Spencer's Blog Post "UAH Global Temperature Update for December, 2017:" further exposes that he is either:
- a deliberate deciever/denier, well aware of the unacceptability of what he is doing
- or someone who is not well aware or is lacking a good understanding of things
He states that: "2017 ended up being the 3rd warmest year in the satellite record for the globally-averaged lower troposphere, at +0.38 deg. C above the 1981-2010 average, behind 1st place 2016 with +0.51 deg. C, and 2nd place 1998 at +0.48 deg. C."
All of that is technically accurate. But he fails to make any mention of the influence of the ENSO cycle on the satellite data results; He fails to attempt to make people more aware and better understand what is going on.
If "Technocognition" proposed in the Guardian article "Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution" (re-posted on SkS) does get traction, would it flag Dr. Roy Spencer?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:18 AM on 3 January 20182017 was the hottest year on record without an El Niño, thanks to global warming
I suggest expanding/changing the term "Climate Denial/Denier". That abbreviation is open to easy criticism. The intent is better described by "Denial/Denier of the developed and constantly improving awareness and understanding of climate science". If that fuller explanation seems too cumbersome, it can be stated once in an article followed by a harder to criticise abbreviation that is used in the balance of the item like: "...- Denial/Denier of Climate Science", or "...- Climate Science Denial/Denier".
Dr. Roy Spencer recently attempted to attack efforts to 'gain support for the awareness and understanding of climate science and the changes of human activity that it has exposed are required for humanity to develop a sustainable better future for all' by criticising some terms that have been used in that effort.
Dr. Roy's December 31, 2017 blog post "First Annual List of Banished Climate Change Terms" includes the term Climate Denier with the following criticism: "Climate Denier - How does one deny climate? Climate has always changed and always will. Maybe the intent is, “denier of catastrophic human-caused climate change”; if that’s the case, then I’m guilty as charged."
However, Dr. Roy exposes that he is either:
- a deliberate deciever/denier, well aware of the unacceptability of what he is doing
- or someone who is not well aware or is lacking a good understanding of things
because, in addition to abusing the term 'catastrophic human caused climate change' (used rather than being on his list of terms to banish), he uses the nothingburger term "nothingburger" as part of his feable rant against 'efforts to increase awaress and better understanding climate science and the changes of human activity that it has exposed are required for humanity to develop a sustainable better future for all'.
-
Aanthanur at 04:13 AM on 3 January 201897% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
140% should have been 100%+
-
Aanthanur at 04:12 AM on 3 January 201897% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
i never claimed it does not state a " very clear implicit endorsement"
the point is, it is not quantified.
so, it cannot be used for the evaluation of the consensus with 50% quantification. as it never states any quantification in the abstract.
i am not arguing about the real consensus today, i already said, i am in the 140% camp. that is what most of those with the most relevant expertise concluded. that is good enough for me.
i am just warning that one should not use Cook et al 2013 to try to show that there is a 97% consensus on MOST warming being anthropogenic since mif 20th century. their data shows a 87% consensus on that.
-
Aaron Davis at 04:11 AM on 3 January 2018CO2 limits won't cool the planet
Yes, I have not carried out the simplistic calculations you allude to. Please tell me where I can find acceptable, relevant and sufficient data to support the notion that 2.250e18j per year of energy accumulation is attributed to CO2 concentrations since before the industrial revolution. Is this a simplistic calculation as you state as fact, or an artifact of a chaotic climate model, or an artifact from removing all other reasonable causes? Please be precise in your answer.
Regarding Insolation, we both have access to Monthly Latitude Insolation and a simplistic excel program you can use to reproduce the following assessment of the Other Effects (Aaron Davis @16). The Other Effect of Insolation increases from -4.308 Wm-2 in 1979 to +2.43 Wm-2 in 2017. This is the difference bewteen Antarctic Warm less Artic Warn, less the difference Antarctic Cold less Arctic Cold months. The positive slope of 0.18 Wm-2 is due principally to the 0.2% increase in spatial angle between vernal equinox and perihelion of the orbit, as you will see from the headings on the 2 tables. One way to remove this effect would be to limit the data to 2003 +/- 13 years.
Thank you for your continued interest and insight.
Moderator Response:[TD] Read the Intermediate tabbed pane, then the Advanced tabbed pane, here. Then read this post by Dana. Then this post by Michael Tobis. Then for details, read IPCC's AR5, Working Group 1, Chapter 10, Attribution.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:57 AM on 3 January 2018On its hundredth birthday in 1959, Edward Teller warned the oil industry about global warming
nigelj@4,
There is little difference between Engineers and Executives/Investors in their ability to be aware and understand what is actually going on; know what is helpful and what is harmful. In fact, the Executives and Wealthiest Investors have more capability (and responsibility), to be aware and understand what is actually going on. MBA students get an entire course on Ethics in most programs, and the courses lack case study examples of Good Ethical Leadership for obvious reasons.
The failure of Executives (and the likes of Economists and elected representatives wanting to please/appeal to Executives/wealthy people) to behave more responsibly is their choice to compete to Win in a game that allows unacceptable actions to be pursued rather than fighting to keep unacceptable actions from be allowed in the games (they fight against any regulation rather than fighting for effective Good Regulation. They claim that everyone freer to believe whatever they want and do as they please is the only way to develop Good Results).
An example of Engineers deliberately being like those Executives, failing to care about the unacceptability of their pursuit of Private Interest, is the VW diesel scam. Designing the computer to recognize the actions of an emissions test and run the engine differently under those conditions was almost certainly done by engineers who did not care about the ethics of what they did.
But the majority of the damaging 'errors' of engineering are due to pressure from superiors over engineers pressuring them to do unacceptable things because of Private Interest desires for things to be cheaper and quicker, like the tragedy of the O-Ring on the Space Shuttle. A more recet case may be the exploding air bad problem. The least safe design Won the comeptition to be the biggest supplier of airr bags (some engineers to blame, but a lot of executives clearly failed to protect the Interest of Public Good).
Everyone is protected when Good Reason governs actions, even the investors. Only a sub-set of humanity can temporarily regionally win personal Poor Excuse Private Interest (like the ones who won in the Enron scam). That is a part of the Ethical training I got in my MBA. What I observed was that many classmates were not concerned about fighting against unacceptable pursuits of Private Interest (I got my MBA in Alberta).
The problem is the inertia of a society that has over-developed unsustainable perceptions of prosperity and opportunity due to too much Poor Excuse Private Interest Winning. And a society that is raised to be easily impessed by temptations to be greedier and less tolerant of Others amplifies the inetria of an incorrectly over-developed group immersed in a diversity of unsustainable damaging Private Interest desires.
The undeserving wealthy and powerful behind the Unite the Right movements around the world can be seen to encourage people to be greedier and less tolerant and 'join their group and vote together for each other's understandably harmful unsustainable Private Interests'. To Win, Unite the Right groups have to do hostile take-overs (or mergers) of existing popular 'Conservative, Right-wing' entities to increase their chances. They do that to become the only choice for Their unkind likes, hoping to get the legacy votes of people who 'always vote conservative' or of people who will not bother to be aware and understand the changes that have occurred and the required corrections - people who fail to fight for the Good Conservative or Good Right-wing to Win - or people who may try to fight for Good but are willing to support Bad in the hopes of Winning the pursuit of their Private Interest. Canada saw Unite the Right at the Federal Level with the hostile elimination of the Progressive Conservative Party by the Reform Alliance so that the Reform allinace core of greedier and less tolerant people could get the legal right to call their party Conservative. In BC the Unite the Right too over the provincial Liberal Party. And recently in Alberta, the competing major right-wing parties merged to become the United Conservative Party.
The same can be seen to have happened in the USA, with the Tea Party being taken over by Harmful Private Interests and that successful perverted Tea Party being used as a minority controlling interest within the Republican Party, perverting the actions of the collective Republican Party. However, the USA system is more massively perverted by the power of misleading marketing. Even elected Democrats in regions susceptable to misleading marketing against them have voted against actions that would have limited fossil fuel burning. The damaging power of Bad Private Interests can easily cross Political Party name boundaries in a society that has allowed too many of its members to grow up 'mere children' (to paraphrase John Stuart Mill's warning).
-
Eclectic at 23:11 PM on 2 January 201897% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
Aanthanur @51/52 , the paper you quoted in post #48 was a paper by Uasuf and Becker, only 7 years ago — so at least it is within a decade of today !
As BaerbelW mentioned in post #50, the paper's Abstract was unambiguous about the importance of countering Global Warming. Indeed — that was stated at the start of the paper, in the very first sentence of the Abstract.
So the paper showed a very clear implicit endorsement of the importance of AGW.
And certainly by as recent a date as 7 years ago, it was entirely obvious to every informed objective scientist, that humans were the very-large-majority of the cause of Global Warming. (In fact, the sole cause of recent planetary warming.)
So, Aanthanur, the 100% human attribution of modern Climate Change . . . is nowadays the quantification default position of every scientific climate-related study.
Please tell your argumentative "friend", that for modern climate-related papers, the quantified and unquantified Abstracts are now effectively the same. Your friend is wasting his time on senseless trivialities — and he is harming you by wasting your time too.
-
Aanthanur at 22:07 PM on 2 January 201897% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
"If you prefer other definitions, feel free to conduct your own study and get it published."
i used the definitions used in the study. and one of the statements in the study is wrong by their own definition.
-
Aanthanur at 22:05 PM on 2 January 201897% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
Definition of Anthropogenic does not include any quantification. And the study itself rates this abstract as unquantified. thus, no way of knowing how much warming.
everyone that is honest to himself knows that the statement
"We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)."
is false, because they trow together quantified and unquantified abstracts.
the wording in the abstract works.
"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
-
BaerbelW at 21:31 PM on 2 January 201897% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
Aanthanur - that abstract states "[..]The development of cleaner and renewable energy sources are needed in order to reduce dependency and global warming. Wood pellets are a clean renewable fuel and has been considered as one of the substitutes for fossil fuels.[...]". With that wording it clearly falls under "3.1 Mitigation papers that examine GHG emission reduction or carbon sequestration, linking it to climate change" so, - under our documented rating guidelines - is an implicit endorsement of AGW (and it's called "anthropogenic" for a reason, namely for humans being the main and not just a "minor" or "one of many" causes).
If you prefer other definitions, feel free to conduct your own study and get it published.
-
Aanthanur at 21:22 PM on 2 January 201897% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
"impossible expectations"
not the case here, this is not an impossible expectation.
it is simply an error in a paper, and all it needs is change one sentence, that is not impossible.
all they have to do is Change the sentence
""We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).""
to
""We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)."
or just use Support Level 1 and 7 and have a 87% consensus.
-
Aanthanur at 21:10 PM on 2 January 201897% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
"12270,2011,3,3,Wood pellets production costs and energy consumption under different framework conditions in Northeast Argentina"
read the abstract, there is no way to know from the abstract aone if that study attributes 40% of the observed warming to anthropogenic source or if the attribute 140% of the observed warming to Anthropogenic sources of GHGs.
i did read everything avaible on this website on this. and i still thik it is wrong.
i also wrote to the jouranal. the wording is misleading.
yes the "expanded" the definition to include unquantified abstracts, but then they should have changed the sentence in the introduction that claim they evaluate the support for the more than 50% consensus.
i will use Verheggen 2014, they also came to the 87% conclusion. and include the important point about aerosol cooling that is masking parts of the warming.
-
BaerbelW at 18:14 PM on 2 January 201897% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
Aanthanur - if you haven't done so yet (which your recent comments seem to imply as they cover old and well-trodden grounds) please read KR's comment upthread from June 2014. If his first two paragraphs - esp. the mention of "exclusive choices" - don't clarify the rating guidelines for you, then nothing will and we can just as well stop any discussion right here.
If you haven't done so, you should also take the time to actually read all the information provided on the TCP-homepage I link to in my comment @40 above (which includes the various articles related to Cook et al. (2013) and subsequent studies).
It's been more then 4 1/2 years now since the paper was published and the likelihood to come up with something, which others haven't yet used to attack the paper with, is as close to zero as it can possibly get.
Basically, you seem to have been taken in by one of the characterstics of (climate) science denial which is "impossible expectations". The denialist you are referring to is playing word games with you while at the same time misunderstanding the rating guidelines himself (and it doesn't much matter if he does so intentionally or not).
-
Aanthanur at 15:59 PM on 2 January 201897% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
i do not hurt myself. what hurts me is when AGW deniers get ammunition, and it was a denier that pointed this out to me. and i had to agree.
but you seem to not care much about accuracy. i do care, i want to use accurate data. and Cook et al is not accurate.
and i hate to be debunked by deniers. and i guess others feel the same. hense my warning to other people debating AGW deniers.
Prev 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 Next
