Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 Next
Comments 15851 to 15900:
-
WinterSolstice at 17:18 PM on 26 January 2018So, why is two degrees the magic number?
Could "dangerous climate change" also include record low temperatures striking the northeastern and midwestern USA this winter season along with severe weather events caused by these cold fronts colliding with warmer, moister air from other regions?
Moderator Response:[JH] Your question does not compute. To understand why, go to the SkS Climate Science Glossay and carefully read the definitions of climate and weather.
-
scaddenp at 06:22 AM on 26 January 2018Antarctica is gaining ice
matt - as per JH comment, you need to take notice as to which ice you are talking about. Sea ice extent appears to be influenced by katabatic winds bring cold air from the interior over the surrounding sea. These increase outward dispersion of sea-ice was well as freezing the surface so you can increase seaice extent despite a warming ocean as per papers cited in article. The strength of the katabatic winds seems to be influenced by the ozone levels in the stratosphere. However, more observations are needed before this can established with certainity.
Land ice is a more complex picture. Early models (TAR I think), predicted Antarctic land ice would increase as warming seas resulted in more moisture being blown over Antarctica and falling as snow. However, this is balanced by substantial ice sheet losses on margins especially in West Antarctica as calving rates accelerate. You can see the pictures/videos of land ice mass change over here. Broadly it is mass gain around EAIS and mass loss of WAIS, with overall net mass loss.
-
shastatodd at 04:15 AM on 26 January 2018So, why is two degrees the magic number?
good video.
and let us remember the maunder minimum (estimated at -.4C) caused the little ice age. so if -.4C did that, how can +2C somehow be "ok"? -
One Planet Only Forever at 03:52 AM on 26 January 2018So, why is two degrees the magic number?
Three terms need more consideration: Us, Dangerous and Sustainable.
'Us' is a term that is wide open to interpretation. It can be used/abused to refer to any sub-set of humanity or to humans as a sub-set of life on this amazing planet. And it can easily exclude future generations (They are not Us!). The assessment of acceptability of any Private Interest (and all there is is a collective of Private Interests - even in Communism) to develop a better future for humanity (or to ensure there is a future for humanity) must be that Private Interest actions will not be expected to result in any 'Net Harm' to any other aspect of life, with more conservative caution applied when there is less understood about the potential for harm. Using the term Us does not clearly focus on protecting the future of humanity, it excuses Private Interest sub-sets.
'Dangerous' can be perceived to be significantly different for different Private Interests. The loss of potential Profitability can be seen as 'dangerous' (by a sub-set Us). And the loss of perceptions of superiority, prosperity and opportunity can also be thought of as 'dangerous' (by a sub-set Us). For climate science and the clear understanding of the need to rapidly terminate an overdeveloped popular pursuit of profit, it is better to relate things to the Harm done to life. That consideration is more difficult for Private Interest bias to argue against (Private Interest can be expected to try to excuse a desire or belief). The activities associated with burning of fossil fuels have always done 'net harm' to other life, and understanding that it was harmful was well established in the 1960s and some harms like the SO2 and soot were addressed, sort of, eventually. And those harmful activities cannot be economically sustained even if the harm done is excluded from consideration (burning up non-renewable resources has no future). In fact, to remain economically viable the understood harms have to be increasingly excused to allow the activity to continue to be profitable/popular.
A focus on developing sustainable human activity is the Key. And sustainable activity means all humans fitting in as a sustainable part of a sustainable robust and diverse web of life on this, or any other, amazing planet (Darwin identified that things thrive and survive based on how they adapted evolved and 'Fit in'). It also means activity that does not require excuses or denial to defend it.
Some things can be observed to Thrive unsustainably to their ultimate demise. Humanity has the ability to think about how humanity 'collectively thrives', and act collectively to ensure that Private Interest sub-sets of humanity do not Win a better present for themselves to the detriment of any Others. The development of the gift of a sustainable and constantly improving future for all of humanity needs to become the understood Objective Measure of acceptable actions.
The Sustainable Development Goals are a solid basis for evaluating acceptable actions and identifying what needs to be corrected. And like all well developed understandings they are open to improvement if a Good Reason is presented that improves the Understanding, but they are highly unlikely to be dramatically changed.
Lack of responsible correction/limits of behaviour, just letting pursuit of popularity and profit produce the results it produces, developed the circumstance that made limiting global average surface temperature impacts to 1.0C impossible and limiting them to 1.5C unlikely. The need to curtail the burning of fossil fuels was understood in the 1960s, at a time when a 1.0C limit was achievable, but the required actions would have been to the detriment of many very wealthy people and would have requiring a reduction of perceptions of superiority and prosperity in the 'supposedly most advanced and developed nations'. The result of the actions of the collective of all Private Interests (all there is is the collective of Private Interests) was clearly sub-set evaluations of what was 'Dangerous' to 'Us' that resulted in over-development in dangerous unsustainable directions (and the development of misleading marketing) - and that needs to be understood to be the expected result of using Popularity and Profitability as the measure of the acceptability of Private Interest actions - and it needs to be understood that increased beliefs in the freedom of everyone to believe whatever they want and act as they wish makes things worse - that belief is Dangerous to the future of humanity because unacceptable pursuers of Private Interest can abuse 'desired beliefs' to excuse understandably unacceptable actions.
-
ELIofVA at 02:08 AM on 26 January 2018So, why is two degrees the magic number?
Knowing the actions that achieve the various mean temperature rises are very complex and beyond the understanding of most the public, including myself. The Paris Climate Accord also referenced the goal of achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2nd half of this century. I want this measure to recieve more attention because it is much easier to understand. The problem simply defined is the inbalance of emissions over what can be sequestered. I want people to think of the inbalance like a financial debt. Since the warming we are already experiencing is causing amplifying affects (reduced ice cover to reflect light out, increased dark ocean converting light to heat, melting of tundra releasing methane, et) all of the new inbalance needs to be paid back. The only way to reduce atmospheric carbon is to emit less than can be sequestered. I developed this concept in a blog
https://lightfootdesignbuild.wordpress.com/fair-share-emissions/
When we finally stop emitting more than we sequester, we will stop adding to our debt. However, we are not out of debt. How soon we stop over emitting determines how high our debt will be. The annual increase in carbon concentration is an exact measure of how much emissions is over net zero. Understanding a simple measure of the problem gives us a much better chance of understanding a measure of the solution. To pay back the debt we must imagine and build a NET SEQUESTRATION ECONOMY, where our total human emissions are less than what can be sequestered. We need to lower our carbon concentration in the atmosphere (debt) until there are no significant amplifying affects.
-
mattmangia at 01:17 AM on 26 January 2018Antarctica is gaining ice
Part of your explanation for increasing ice in the Antarctic is that it's getting colder, and then you go on to say that it's actually getting warmer and that ice is decreasing, so which is it?
"i) Ozone levels over Antarctica have dropped causing stratospheric cooling and increasing winds which lead to more areas of open water that can be frozen (Gillet 2003, Thompson 2002, Turner 2009)."
"You're also correct in pointing out that snow accumulating in the East Antarctic interior is increasing, presumably due to increased precipitation caused by more humid conditions caused by warming air."Moderator Response:[JH] Please specify which "ice" you are referring to. Is it sea ice in the oceans surrounding the Antarctic continent, or is it glacial ice formed on the continent itself?
-
John Hartz at 23:38 PM on 25 January 2018So, why is two degrees the magic number?
Recommended supplemental readings:
Global temperature targets will be missed within decades unless carbon emissions reversed, News, University of Southampton, Jan 22, 2018
Climate change: is the glass half full or half empty? by Feike Sybesma, World Economic Forum, Jan 24, 2018
-
SirCharles at 23:19 PM on 25 January 2018So, why is two degrees the magic number?
-
SirCharles at 23:12 PM on 25 January 2018So, why is two degrees the magic number?
When this is a real important issue, why do they still need to put a stupid ad in front of the video?
-
DPiepgrass at 16:00 PM on 25 January 2018From the eMail Bag: A Deep Dive Into Polar Ice Cores
The skeptic argument goes something like this: "the age of the air bubbles is spread out over hundreds of years, therefore if there were a large CO2 spike and the spike quickly disappeared, it would be invisible in the record. Therefore we don't know that our modern CO2 spike is anything unusual."
This article is a good start at responding to this claim. I suppose part of the response is that not a single climate scientist, including any of the contrarians (the 3%), has thought of any way that CO2 could disappear from the atmosphere as quickly as it has been added.
But it would be much better to have a direct answer like "we have high-resolution data for the last 12,000 years and no spikes have been observed, therefore no spikes exist in at least the last 12,000 years."
Unfortunately this article isn't clear enough to draw such a conclusion. One way it would be more clear is if it gave at least one example to demonstrate how to calculate the gas age distribution. This article implies that the majority of molecules in the Law Dome air bubbles have an age spread of 7 or 8 years because they are "about 8-15 years" old. But is this directly related to the Δ-age? The article says
The bubbles are known to close off over a vertical ice age range [the Lock-in Zone] that corresponds to roughly 10% of the gas age-ice age difference, which intuitively should result in a gas age distribution width corresponding to 10% of the gas age-ice age difference [the Δ-age]....
So rather than 10%, a good rule-of-thumb, according to Dr. Christo Buizert, is to take 5% of the Δ-age to find the age distribution.
Intuitively? It's not intuitive to me. So what does it mean? For starters, how is the concept of "age distribution" related to the 7 or 8 year spread we saw for Law Dome? The Δ-age was not provided for Law Dome. Can I infer from this that, if 50% of Law Dome air molecules have an 8-year spread, that the Δ-age for Law Dome is 8yrs / 5% = 160yrs? That doesn't sound right.
-
michael sweet at 13:10 PM on 25 January 2018Renewables can't provide baseload power
Mjn,
Fossil fuel cars are only 20% efficient while electric cars are 90% efficient. If we all drive the same distance using renewable energy we will use only 25% of the energy required for fossil fuels. If gobal transport is twice as far we will use half as much energy. Fossil power plants are less than 50% efficient while nulcear plants are only 30% efficient. Renewable sources are 90+% efficient. That alone reduces power usage substantially. Insulating buildings better adds substantial energy savings.
The authors of your link do not understand this basic concept. The consensus of research in the field is that your link is incorrect. They have not met the burden of proof. They additionally ask for proof that new technologies can perform claiming that historically it has not been used. Of course all new technologies have no historical data, that is why they are new.
The rest of your comment is also uninformed. Try to raise your game.
-
Mjn at 10:06 AM on 25 January 2018Renewables can't provide baseload power
The Burden of proof is solely on 100% renewables studies. To say we can do it through reducing energy usage is moulding the data to fit our ideals - not very skeptical. As a skeptical site you should really be taking the Jacobsen Study down as it has been firmly rebutted which he is now sueing over instead of correcting his work or replying in a scientific manner. And for a thorough look at what the Burden of Proof needs to be for 100% renewables I recommend the following (LINK)
Moderator Response:[DB] Link breaking page formatting shortened.
[PS] Given the authorship, I hope you are reading with the same skepticism you apply (rightly) to Jacobsen.
-
scaddenp at 09:13 AM on 25 January 2018New study ‘reduces uncertainty’ for climate sensitivity
It is just shorthand. CS is meaning ECS. The Cox study is only about ECS.
-
nigelj at 05:23 AM on 25 January 2018So, why is two degrees the magic number?
The two degrees issue originated back in the 1970's. Heres the complete history from Carbon Brief, in a very nice readable article.
www.carbonbrief.org/two-degrees-the-history-of-climate-changes-speed-limit
-
eschwarzbach at 05:07 AM on 25 January 2018New study ‘reduces uncertainty’ for climate sensitivity
How doečs it come, that the central estimate of CS is 2.8C and that of ECS is also 2.8C? Should not be ECS considerably higher than CS?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:41 AM on 25 January 2018Switching to electric cars is key to fixing America's 'critically insufficient' climate policies
bozzza@4,
The perception of what owning a car was all about definitely will change.
Car ownership always was an significant expense for the average person.
Any place on the planet that was developed based on the 'need to have a car' will be at a significant economic competitive disadvantage in the future.
Automated cars will very efficiently travel through level crossings. Freeways through developed areas are wastes of land that increase travel distances and the elevated portions are expensive to maintain.
However, the future disadvantage of developing down unsustainable paths is 'someone else's problem' which is the poor excuse behind most unsustainable and damaging Private Interest pursuits of personal benefit.
-
bozzza at 15:22 PM on 24 January 2018New study ‘reduces uncertainty’ for climate sensitivity
It sounds like climate change won’t be that bad because we won’t go over 3.4 C!
...do you think we might avoid an ongoing refugee crisis involving nuclear powered countries?
-
bozzza at 15:11 PM on 24 January 2018Switching to electric cars is key to fixing America's 'critically insufficient' climate policies
Looking at that first graph anticipates hope!
Electric trucks will be the leap but when autonomous vehicles get the go ahead I think the car will largely disappear as it represents personal freedom and autonomous cars take that away ...
...just to think: the 21st century was started with 4 jet liners and now we‘re looking envisioning crazy stuff like 150 passenger electric planes! Why???
-
scaddenp at 06:18 AM on 24 January 2018Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
What "seems" to you, would appear to be a reflection of your biases if you cant back it with evidence. Take Eclectic's advice. Pick what you think is his most compelling argument and check it against our rebuttals. Just stating your biases without any evidence to support is what is called "sloganeering" here. if you want to dispute the science, then put up the evidence. Make sure you understand what the science actually does say (read it from source or the IPCC summary), as opposed to how some denialist misrepresents it. Dealing with strawman arguements is tiresome.
-
nigelj at 05:22 AM on 24 January 2018New study ‘reduces uncertainty’ for climate sensitivity
The Cox study has been criticised by an article filed by Rasmus over at realclimate.org
-
dkoli at 04:41 AM on 24 January 2018Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Well he seems open minded to me. Between his work and that seen on Adapt 2030 it seems to me like the grand solar min, the dalton min, the magnetosphere and the galactic cross correlate with the earths climate far better than an tiny increase in a trace gas. But if me being open minded to that hypothesis makes me a closed minded shill perhaps this isn't the site for me. The comments seem very one sided. I don't feel this is the place for a truly unbiased debate.
Thankfully we'll know in a short time won't we. If 2024 is record colds we know CO2 is less important than cosmic rays. If it's hot again we know CO2 outweighs the suns But thankfully it will be seled!
Moderator Response:[JH] Sloganeeing snipped.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
nigelj at 08:36 AM on 23 January 2018Switching to electric cars is key to fixing America's 'critically insufficient' climate policies
Tony Seba video on the electric vehicle disruption, and end of oil by 2030.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7Jg1IJ68_g
This is Tony Seba's Clean Disruption Keynote presentation at the Swedbank Nordic Energy Summit in Oslo, Norway, March 17th, 2016.
-
Riduna at 08:06 AM on 23 January 2018Switching to electric cars is key to fixing America's 'critically insufficient' climate policies
What we are now seeing is market convergence of decarbonised electricity generation and most forms of transport because of advances in technology which increasingly make use of fossil fuels more expensive. Let there be no doubt about it – those who have invested in fossil fuel industries will fight a rear-guard action in a vain attempt to prevent or slow this transition.
They will fail because two developments in electricity generation are occurring and gaining momentum:
Firstly: The storage capacity of batteries is increasing and their cost is reducing which, combined with the development of pumped hydro, enables solar and wind generation to become dispatchable 24/7.
Secondly: Batteries with capacity to store all the energy needed by an average household will become increasingly affordable and, in combination with roof-mounted solar panels, will enable many homes to go off-grid, reducing demand from grid-generators.
The move to wind and solar generation is increasing and displacing fossil fuels by (a) generating at less cost than fossil fuels and (b) increasing use of electricity by making it available to those who do not have access to it – without the need for costly, unaffordable infrastructure. Solar and wind generation are already available at lower capital and operating costs than is fossil fuel generation.
It is likely that within the next 2-5 years battery technology will have reduced the price of batteries to less than $100/kWh, making the capital cost of electric vehicles less than vehicles powered by the internal combustion engine. As soon as this is achieved, producers will cease manufacturing fossil-fuelled vehicles (which will become unsellable) and consumers will only ‘buy electric’.
These transitions to solar/wind generation and electrification of transport could be complete as soon as 2040, even earlier!
-
nigelj at 05:36 AM on 23 January 2018Switching to electric cars is key to fixing America's 'critically insufficient' climate policies
State and federal incentives for buying electric vehicles in America:
pluginamerica.org/why-go-plug-in/state-federal-incentives/
Key point. Federal income tax credit of $7,500, and various different state incentives.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:15 AM on 22 January 2018Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
Alan:
Your general argument appears to be "sometime science gets things wrong", which is obviously, true, but then you see to extend this to "so anything I don't like I can presume is also wrong". As I pointed out before, that is item #8 on the list in the post.
You need to have a better reason for thinking the science on climate change is wrong. The best reason is evidence and a better theory. The "skeptics" only present evidence after rejecting most of it (items 1, 2, and 3 on the list), and their alternative "theories" tend to be self-contradictory and often require the rejection of basic physics.
Science advances by providing better explanations, not hand-waving away the current ones.
-
Eclectic at 10:21 AM on 22 January 2018Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
Alan @53 , I whole-heartedly assure you that there is no stalemate, as far as my opinions are concerned. (And I am fairly sure that I speak on behalf of almost all of the scientific-minded users of this website.)
I am very open to being persuaded by you, that I [and the scientific consensus] am largely in the wrong about the harms coming from AGW and about the urgent need to counter CO2 emissions. Few things would please me more, than to learn that there is no problemo.
Unfortunately, Alan, you have provided no evidence or arguments that the 99.9% of climate scientists are wrong. Your comments lack logic and science — and worse, they appear to demonstrate your fixed resistance to to clear & rational thinking about AGW & related problems.
If you feel that is not the case, then you are very welcome to raise and discuss/dispute the various aspects — but please do so at the appropriate threads (rather than this thread). Best of luck !
-
Alan16409 at 06:30 AM on 22 January 2018Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
Eclectic, I appreciate the time you took for your answer, but we're at a stalemate as we both hold contrary opinions.
And as this website is dedicated to climate change, it is not my desire or intent to proselytize and convert readers, and I won't descend to "troldom", so this will be my last post.
For disclosure's sake, I was erroneously directed to this site by google search, and saw the site interesting, with an open comments section (uncensored).Moderator Response:[PS] Well constructed comments are very welcome on this site. However, it can be very frustrating for an author to write a piece, and then have discussed elsewhere (especially on as a repost on site that the author might not frequent). It would be courtesy to put a copy of your comments on the authors site as I suspect he would be interested in discussing your points.
-
nigelj at 06:03 AM on 22 January 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #3
Thank's for printing Climate Feedbacks interesting review of 25 articles. I noticed that the most viral articles generally had something specific and simple like polar bears, diseases, beans, and icebergs. The least viral articles were dominated by anonymous people casting doubt on the science, and technical claims about lack of warming or changes in ocean circulation.
More people seem attracted to things easily understood and visualised like animals, rather than opinions of weather people, and technical issues.
The ten most viral articles also contained fewer denialist claims on the whole than the next ten articles.
The denialist articles are not persuasive.
-
william5331 at 05:17 AM on 22 January 2018Scott Pruitt insincerely asked what's Earth's ideal temperature. Scientists answer
The article hit the nail on the head. The best temperature is the one we have adapted to over they past 12,000 years or so. It is often noted by scientists, looking at past interglacials, how unusual this period has been. Generally, a little before maximum ice melt as we emerge from a glacial, (not an ice age) carbon dioxide begins to drop and that combined with the current Miloankovitch cycle causes snow to begin to accumulate on the high lands of Baffin Island and to spread south. Reading Plought Plagues and Petroleum, it looks as if we reversed the steady drop in Carbon dioxide long before the industrial revolution by our agriculture. We may have been responsible for this remarkably benign period. Even so we were sliding into a glacial, albeit, more slowly than usual. Then came along the black death and the extermination by disease of the population of North America. We were very close and the recovery of the forests with the draw down of Carbon dioxide, just nudged us into snow accumulation on Baffin Island. The traces can still be seen in the halo of dead lichens around the highlands. Our output of Carbon dioxide continued to increase and the process was reversed. Now we have too much of a good thing and seem to be on the road to kicking ourselves into a dark age or perhaps a stone age. It is as endlessly fascinating as a good horror movie, to see how incredibly smart we are individually and how incredibly dumb we are in the collective. The one ring that controls them all is vested interest money in politics.
-
TheNewDayBreaker at 04:06 AM on 22 January 2018The Key To Slowing Global Warming
Riduna, could you provide me with your qualifications? (college degree and from where, profesiional position, and/or any awards you have won). I would love to cite this article for an argument I am making, but I will need your qualifications.
Great article!
-
Eclectic at 12:49 PM on 21 January 2018Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
Alan @51 — Again, you are failing to achieve clarity [including validity] in the expression of your lines of argument.
Your Paragraph 2 -- <"... even if there are thousands of well-established scientists agreeing on one theory, they could be proved wrong by only one person..."> (unquote) is a nonsense argument in the case of climate science. Modern climate science is based in the "hard" sciences of physics & inorganic chemistry i.e. in well-integrated science involving cross-linking of large numbers of strands (strands of basic scientific theory meshed with experimental & empirical evidence). Furthermore, regarding climate science, there is only about a score of "genuine" climate scientists who are [in modern parlance] Climate Deniers . . . and these 20 or so are unable to present any valid evidence or counter-hypothesis ! Worse, their ideas/statements seem mutually contradictory (as well as failing to possess plausibility !! ).
Of the <"... at least a few hundred to thousands of high-level scientists who are accusing the CCT** ..."> (unquote), they are likewise possessing no valid case . Instead, they lose their minds in a quagmire [ =swamp? ;-) ] of empty rhetoric and/or extremist political posturing . . . but they possess no actual scientific reasoning to support their positions [positions plural] . Sadly, some appear to be in their dotage, and some are possessed [ excuse pun ;-) ] by extremist/fundamentalist religious beliefs which prevent them from acknowledging reality [ e.g. Spencer, Lindzen ] , and some seem not to know one end of a Lapse Rate from t'other.
Evidence and logical reasoning, Alan — that is what the Deniers lack.
Your Paragraph 3 -- Alan, you make an illogical argument when you try to equate the "hard sciences" to the "soft sciences" [e.g. sociology] or the distinctly-less-than-hard sciences such as medical science (and your case of the New England Journal of Medicine). Apples and oranges, Alan. Without taking away from the vast achievements of medical science during the past 200 years [anesthetics, surgery, vaccinations, drugs, etc] nevertheless the experiment-based advances of modern medicine are usually impeded by a vast complexity of confounding factors (as well as by the effect of human psychology). These confounding complexities hamper the medical scientists in a way that does not exist in the vastly simpler area of physics/climate/meteorology. Alan, your comparison/analogy is not valid, and so your argument is not valid.
Your Paragraph 4 — Alan, nobody is mocking the most brilliant minds of the early centuries of science . . . but they lived in a very different scientific environment (from the cross-checking and weight of consistent evidence, found in the "hard sciences" of today).
Your Paragraphs 5 & 6 , — Alan, it is all about the evidence. The evidence supports the mainstream scientific consensus position (regarding climate). There is no actual supporting evidence to be found for the (many and incoherent) positions of the deniers /science-deniers /denialists /call-them-what-you-will. I myself would like to be able to dignify some of them with the term "contrarians" . . . but that cannot be, since to be a contrarian one must have something valid to base one's "counter-position" on. And that is exactly what the deniers lack (as well as lacking logical commonsense risk management, and lacking decent compassion for billions of other human beings) .
BTW, Alan, you also fail in your "local weather" argument . . . for instance while in the past two weeks or so, a small part [scientifically insignificant] of north-east North America has had a bitter cold snap — yet other parts of the world have been experiencing heat waves. Even worse for your line of argument : the New England cold snap may well, to a considerable extent, be a result of Arctic warming (Arctic warming being a consequence of AGW).
** Alan, the "Climate Change Theory" term you use is an odd one — not generally used by scientists (likewise, even more odd, is your contraction "CCT" which would be meaningless to educated people). Best to stick with standard English and standard/widely-used abbreviations, in climate discussions, Alan. There is already more-than-enough appallingly-poor communication in the discussion of important topics, in today's world !
-
Mark Roberts at 10:04 AM on 21 January 2018Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice loss is due to land use
The mount Kilimanjaro glaciers are inherently unstable: the ice at the bottom of the glacier touching the rocks melts, the glaciers lose their ‘grip’ on the mountain and ‘overhangs’ occur where the ice at the base has melted away, leaving just the ice at the top to survive.
-
robert test at 07:45 AM on 21 January 2018Consensus on consensus
A few thoughts about the importance of consensus.
1. William – it seems to me that your comment is self-contradictory. You say
a. Consensus has little to do with science.
b. Evidence is essential to science.
c. We should base our arguments on the evidence.The use of the term ‘we’ indicates consensus concerning the evidence. Without this consensus there is no we who, you say, are to base arguments on the evidence.
The essence of science is the process of correction. As experiments are performed or as more data are gathered by a community of scientists, our understanding of physical processes increases, our instruments are improved and our measurements and our theories (i.e., models) become more precise.
Science is a communal enterprise. If you fail to get colleagues in your field to understand your experiments and theories you are failing as a scientist. If your colleagues, assuming they have reputations as capable experimentalists, are unable to replicate your findings you are failing as a scientist. It doesn’t mean that, in the end, their judgments will not be revised. It does mean, however, that the judgments of the scientific community— i.e., the consensus judgments of that community are important to the process of the scientific enterprise.
A certain measure of disagreement within the scientific community is sometimes helpful. Not all consensus or agreement is important. But deviate too far from the consensus views of this community : reject the importance of things such as measurements, experiments, data, and the use of mathematics and your ability to interact with the scientific community will come to an end. Science could not exist as an enterprise without shared views of the value of evidence, data, and instrumentation.
BBHY –
I am with you here. Evidence is only convincing if it is understood. I am not a scientist. I cannot claim to understand much at all beyond the introductory sentences of a science journal article.
I am no more capable of looking at the evidence for warming and arguing that this evidence is sufficient warrant to show that humans are causing warming than I can look at my x-rays and other medical evidence and claim that I need xyz surgery. I leave it to the scientific and medical experts to come to their conclusions. I would be a fool to disagree with the consensus of the scientific or the medical community.
William –
I agree with you on your views about rationality, mental short-cuts, biases etc. But the problem runs deeper. It affects scientists too. You say our scientific consensus is soundly based. How to we ever know this? There is no simple instrument that registers positively when consensus is soundly based.
How would we verify the accuracy of such an instrument?Right now, the scientific consensus on AGW is meeting very little opposition from credible sources. All objections to the consensus are coming from opponents based on their political and economic interests. None of the objections are coming from credible scientific sources.
So, I would argue that we think that our scientific consensus is soundly based because we have a consensus concerning how to conduct scientific inquiry – we agree on the use of data, the use of various instruments to collect that data, the use of various mathematical methods to evaluate that data, and we agree on the importance of open inquiry. Based on this consensus concerning how the scientific enterprise to to be conducted we can form a meta-consensus about the well founded basis of climate science.
Its not quite like turtles all the way down but it is turtles down a bit further than you suggest.
My point is no more than consensus is important and perhaps more important than its been treated in the comments.
-
Riduna at 07:02 AM on 21 January 2018A ‘new’ measurement of climate sensitivity?
nigelj - thanks for that. Much along the lines of my own thinking
-
nigelj at 05:23 AM on 21 January 2018A ‘new’ measurement of climate sensitivity?
Riduna @6
Climate sensitivity is temperature response to a doubling of CO2, and nothing more. That much I know.
The way the weather and ice melting responds to temperature is another matter. Maybe call it weather and sea level rise sensitivity. But in a way the same issues apply. For example we know approximately what will happen with sea level rise and weather, but we do not know exactly how weather will respond or how fast ice sheets will collapse, due to some unknowns, so there is a range of predictions. However its perhaps easier to calculate the effects of temperature on ice sheets, than the effects of CO2 on temperature.
Fwiw I think climate sensitivity is most likely towards the middle of the range, and might almost be slightly under, but I think weather and sea level rise is underestimated, and will change towards the upper ends of the range. So I would say weather is very sensitive to even small changes in temperature. This is just a gut reaction or intuition based on the preponderance of information I read about things. Apparently from todays article warming has already doubled the area of forest fires and appears to be ahead of what was predicted. Sea level rise is slightly ahead of predictions. This is at a point where climate sensitivity appears to be in the middle of the range.
-
Alan16409 at 03:21 AM on 21 January 2018Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
To the moderator: As I initially saw the article on this page with comments, I thought it would be the place to add to the discussion. I will continue here for the sake of continuity and to answer some concerns.
My point was to show that man has two options in science: he can do things correctly or falsely, and this depends on two factors. 1) he uses current knowledge and reaches into the unknown with induction/deduction to further science; and 2) his perception is not distorted. I believe the latter is more important as even observable “facts” can be wrong, as Darwin, Curies’, et-al. have proved to the consensus. My post was written to show that even if there are thousands of well-established scientists agreeing on one theory, they could be proved wrong by only one person. Now let us take Climate Change Theory: is everyone aware there are at least a few hundred to thousands of high-level scientists who are accusing the CCT school of “denial and irresponsibility?” So who is right as both can’t be?
Unfortunately, it is well known that “facts” and “research” in the modern-era can be used prejudicially and incorrectly to make one’s point. The case of the ex-editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr Marcia Angell, stating that this once world-renowned magazine is corrupted by their sponsor drug companies is a case in point. It is becoming exceedingly difficult to take “scientific research” at face value as fraud and bad research abound. One must take their time to double-check original references, etc, and most people do not have the time or inclination to do this. I did not say I do not believe in science, but only in observable theories that can usually be collaborative with other branches (i.e., a unifying principle). True scientists have always been geniuses with the instinctive gift to discover a profound truth. A truth that usually leads to someone else later improving it, as more creative thinking is applied. This is what makes it “good” science. This should rebut the original author’s claim "that one has to either accept science or not.”
To poster “eclectic”: To your first point, Semmelweis was right, while pre-Columbus sailors were wrong; this is the domain of correct perception. Second point: are we so omnipotent as to state that our scientific thinking is at an all time-high without capacity for serious error, while simultaneously mocking the pre-mid 20th century minds? May I remind everyone that the most profound and life changing inventions and ideas emerged before the “information superhighway."
But let’s try this from a different angle—the climate change school is really the newcomer to the field and therefore has to prove their point. Did not they use all of the nine points the article refers to going against mainstream science? It was very easy to use the accusatory terms “fringe and denial” against CCT, and with the roles reversed, one can see it’s an ad-hominem attack. I prefer to call the anti-CCT school unbelievers, as CCT has not been proven by observation. One can cite all the studies until tomorrow, but the very real fact that we are getting snow and freezing temperatures all over the world and a deep-winter pattern is re-emerging shows that climate change is real, but not in an abnormal way. I prefer not to list all the studies and web sites to counter CCT, as I am just addressing the “logic of science.”
I personally find it is a mistake for the anti-CCT school to withhold a statement about the Earth’s environment, as they are seen as uncaring, boorish, and influenced by money, etc. This is not the case at all with many of us. We care about the environment and would like to reduce pollution as much as feasible and practical. If we would not need combustion engines and coal, fine, but that is impossible at this stage, and forcing a nation to forego their energy requirements is tyrannical. The agents of pollution that are immensely more dangerous that CO2 (of which man-made is a minor part) are the chemicals and the full spectrum of electromagnetic energy, and I would not mind if there was a vast reduction in their usage.
Moderator Response:[PS] I would just add that: "CCT has not been proven by observation. One can cite all the studies until tomorrow, but the very real fact that we are getting snow and freezing temperatures all over the world and a deep-winter pattern is re-emerging shows that climate change is real, but not in an abnormal way."
is moving into realm of sloganeering. Firstly, you dont prove anything in science, that is for maths and logic. Secondly, if you want assert that observations are counter to what a theory states will happen, then you need a/ link to a statement of consensus theory that you think is contradicted (the IPCC reports are starting point) and b/ link to observations that you think show the contradiction. Otherwise you are simply sloganeering or attempting a strawman argument. (ie it is not clear to me that freezing temperatures in winter in parts of US and Europe are in contradiction with the theory - far from it - but it behoves you to show that).
-
SingletonEngineer at 23:27 PM on 20 January 2018Scott Pruitt insincerely asked what's Earth's ideal temperature. Scientists answer
Dear Moderator:
Please remove this post and my previous one in response to a comment which has since been removed.
-
SingletonEngineer at 23:24 PM on 20 January 2018Scott Pruitt insincerely asked what's Earth's ideal temperature. Scientists answer
@ Bozza:
I understand that Australia is no newcomer to malaria, having eliminated it in the Top End during and after WWII (DDT??). There is no reason to forget that the disease's name comes from the Latin or Italian, meaning "bad air". Europe eliminated malaria only recently.
Malaria is no joking matter, however the above demonstrates that it is probably manageable. One emerging tool is vaccine, currently being developed in several promising research establishments in Australia and elsewhere.
Other effects of climate change, such as sea level rise and ocean acidification, may not be so accommodating.
-
bozzza at 21:14 PM on 20 January 2018Scott Pruitt insincerely asked what's Earth's ideal temperature. Scientists answer
2ndly, does anyone know if Michael Mann is predicting malaria in Australia yet?
Moderator Response:[JH] Off-topic nonsense snipped.
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. 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.
-
bozzza at 21:12 PM on 20 January 2018Scott Pruitt insincerely asked what's Earth's ideal temperature. Scientists answer
Scott is happy with his mediocrity : it makes him happy and the elite treat him with softer fingers than they do themselves and their peers because this is infact the first prerequisite for a member of the elite!
I think that‘s Nietzsche but don’t quote me on it!
Moderator Response:[JH] Ad hominem snipped.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
Riduna at 07:44 AM on 20 January 2018A ‘new’ measurement of climate sensitivity?
Is the term ‘Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity’ (ECS) appropriate when calculating the effect of doubling the concentration of CO2-eq on mean global air temperature measured near the surface? The term certainly does not describe the way or rate of change in climate - or its effects on the environment.
Informed guesses about the effects of increased near surface air temperatures on the climate can be made in terms of increased severity of climate events, land based ice mass loss and sea level rise. These are based on evidence of what happened during the Eemian maxima when mean surface temperature was probably less than 1°C higher than at present.
The sensitivity of the climate to a change in mean near surface temperature is not what ECS measures – or is my understanding wrong?
Moderator Response:[JH] See the definition of "climate sensitivity" in the SkS Glossary of Scientific Terms.
-
nigelj at 15:59 PM on 19 January 2018A ‘new’ measurement of climate sensitivity?
Wili @4
The Guardian article might have made a mess of the numbers as well. They say "Earth’s surface will almost certainly not warm up four or five degrees Celsius by 2100, according to a study which, if correct, voids worst-case UN climate change predictions." I think they have messed this up.
The IPCC climate sensitivity was 1.5 - 4.5 degrees celsius, now the new research suggests to 2.2 - 3.4 degrees. The Guardian appears to have mistaken all these numbers for temperature predictions by the end of the century. They are not, they are only representing a doubling of C02 levels. In effect, they are a middle range scenario in terms of predictions.
The actual IPCC worst case senario for temperature predictions is actually 5.8 degrees (above the 1990 base line) based on heavy burning of fossil fuels. Therefore I would suspect the new worst case scenario is still somewhere between 4 - 5 degrees.
-
wili at 14:36 PM on 19 January 2018A ‘new’ measurement of climate sensitivity?
www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jan/18/worst-case-global-warming-scenarios-not-credible-says-study
As the last two paragraphs of this article show, they have not, in fact, "ruled out worst-case scenarios," just ignored them.
-
Bob Loblaw at 12:05 PM on 19 January 2018Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
Actually, Alan's post is primarily a good example of the "Science has been wrong before" argument.
-
Eclectic at 08:40 AM on 19 January 2018Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
Alan @48 , your post is rather discursive. Is there a cogent case (for something) that you wish to make?
Because Semmelweis was correct (but initially scorned) . . . does that mean we should be more accepting & respectful of Flat-Earthers and their ideas? No, Alan, your line of argument is illogical. Especially so, since "science" in the 1600's , 1700's , and much of the 1800's , has been a very different kettle of fish to the very integrated science of modern times.
What is the relevance of your fourth paragraph?
Clarity, please, Alan.
-
John Hartz at 07:39 AM on 19 January 2018A ‘new’ measurement of climate sensitivity?
Suggested supplemental reading:
Climate scientists say they may be able to rule out the worst-case scenarios — and the best ones by Chris Mooney, Energy & Environment, Washington Post, Jan 17, 2018
-
nigelj at 05:15 AM on 19 January 2018A ‘new’ measurement of climate sensitivity?
Some good quality media commentary and information on Cox et al:
www.carbonbrief.org/new-study-reduces-uncertainty-climate-sensitivity
-
Alan16409 at 04:16 AM on 19 January 2018Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
Your article starts with the premise that if one disagrees with an “official science” or consensual hypothesis, they are being fringe deniers. You then list nine different false assumptions made by some in the public and try to deconstruct them. With your permission, I will use your list to prove the opposite— their inherent worth to scientists. My rebuttal is not about climate change per se, but the arguments used to eliminate skeptical researchers.
First, some quotes are in order: “All great truths begin as blasphemies,” Shaw. “Science advances one funeral at a time,” Planck. “First it is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed, third it is accepted as self evident,” Schopenhauer. Lastly, “When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces of the world are all in confederacy against him,” Swift.
Next, a very minute list of great pioneering scientists, who were attacked, ridiculed and ostracized when their work went against consensual science; their “reward” follows. Mendel/Genetics--life in isolation. Semmelweis/Puerperal fever—death in asylum. Boltzmann/Statistical Thermodynamics—suicide. And of course, Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin who were all shunned.
I hope the above two paragraphs will lay to rest eight out of the nine positions of deniers, as any pioneer in groundbreaking work has had to resort to them.
1) Ignore a large body of evidence. Check, if it is wrong.
2) Cite small studies. Check, as his new findings are unknown. I purposely left out “low quality, cherry-picked,” since this is a prejudice.
3) Conspiracy theories. Check, and not a delusion when funding is denied.
4) Accuse opponents of being close-minded. Check, and the term “shills” is irrelevant.
5) Rely on anecdotes and personal experience. Check, since by itself, exactly what is wrong with that?
6) Cite non-conventional sources (blogs and videos). Check, not a mistake if they appear genuine and logical. This is called observation, and Newton used it in nature, as he did not have a laptop back then.
7) Science has been wrong before. Check, see examples above. Your mention of Einstein versus Newton omits many real mistakes, including modern medicine.
8) Just asking questions. Check, as pioneers are usually censured and stymied. The “Appeal to minority of fringe experts,” does not really apply, as a pioneer knows that it is impossible to be taken seriously when an observation turns science upside down.
Otherwise your well-written article describes how true science is supposed to work, but you left out one essential detail—man gets in the way with his petty behavior.
Moderator Response:[PS] This topic is report from "The logic of science". It would be polite if Alan made his points over there and that is possibly the best place for discussions not directly on climate science.
-
fpjohn at 03:54 AM on 19 January 2018A ‘new’ measurement of climate sensitivity?
And there is Cox et al which suggests 2.8C
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25450
Emergent constraint on equilibrium climate sensitivity from global temperature variability
Peter M. Cox, Chris Huntingford & Mark S. Williamson
Nature 553, 319–322 (18 January 2018)
doi:10.1038/nature25450Moderator Response:[JH] Link activated
-
rocketeer at 03:05 AM on 19 January 2018Scott Pruitt insincerely asked what's Earth's ideal temperature. Scientists answer
Scott, since sea level and global temperature are closely linked, your question can be reconstructed as, "What it the ideal sea level?"
Well, the sea gulls don't care, the fish don't care, even the coral reefs will move effortlessly if the change is gradual. However one species has trillions of dollars invested in coastal infrastructure. What is the ideal location for a major port? Ten meters above sea level? Ten meters below sea level? Or right at sea level where it currently exists?
Prev 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 Next
