Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 Next
Comments 15951 to 16000:
-
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?
-
MA Rodger at 23:37 PM on 18 January 2018Flaws of Lüdecke & Weiss
The roguish curve-fitting in this LW17 paper will surely become more apparent the deeper you dig.
I was intrigued by their use of HadCRUT4 and RSS (v3.3 as v4.0 was not published in April 2017) and their comment "For Bün, HADCRUT4 and Pet respectively the most recent years which show unusual deviations from the remaining reconstructions were also omitted." Perhaps this is why their Figure 3 makes such a poor showing at representing 20th century global temperatures. Their blue trace (31-year rolling ave, last data 2015) shows temperatures only reachng about 0.12ºC above the 1940s peak, about a quarter the actual value from HadCRUT4. And the final values plotted don't reach 2015 by a few years. Perhaps it was too painful to plot it all out properly as that would show their predictive red trace dropping 0.66ºC over the 75 year period since 1940 while the blue trace was travelling in the opposite direction by about the same amount. Such a mis-match looks to be unique on their 2000-year-long red-blue-dancing traces and, darn it, it is just at the point of interest.
It must be very frustrating for curve-fitters when their curves refuse to cooperate!
-
John Hartz at 23:30 PM on 18 January 2018The Key To Slowing Global Warming
Recommended supplemental reading:
With Donald Trump in the White House, the prospects for fighting climate change have never been any bleaker in the US. Yet there are options available to state governments to move forward with the greening of the economy even without federal support. This point is made crystal clear in two studies produced recently by economist Robert Pollin and some of his colleagues at the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst for the states of Washington and New York. In this exclusive interview for Truthout, Pollin explains the significance of Green New Deal programs.
How to Achieve Zero Emissions, Even if the Federal Government Won't Help by C.J. Polychroniou, Truthout, Jan 17, 2018
-
Wol at 15:45 PM on 18 January 2018Flaws of Lüdecke & Weiss
>>Unchecking all the boxes should stop any glossary terms from popping up.<<
Many thanks - I hadn't seen that.
-
ubrew12 at 13:16 PM on 18 January 2018Scott Pruitt insincerely asked what's Earth's ideal temperature. Scientists answer
Pruitt: "how do we know what the ideal surface temperature is in 2100"? Ideal surface temperature 4 C cooler than now. At that temperature, Eastern U.S. covered under a mile of ice, sea level hundred feet lower than present, wooly mammoth everywhere, plenty meat and skins for all neanderthal. Good times! Signed, Thorg.
-
Bob Loblaw at 12:44 PM on 18 January 2018Flaws of Lüdecke & Weiss
Wol:
When you are logged on, you should see a tab on the lower left of your window that says "Look up a Term". Click on that, and you open up the glossary function. On the right, you can customize your settings. Unchecking all the boxes should stop any glossary terms from popping up.
-
Wol at 10:01 AM on 18 January 2018Flaws of Lüdecke & Weiss
OK, off subject - but Mods, is it at all possible to change the site coding so that one has to say right click on an "explained" link instead of the explanation appearing just because the mouse has lingered momentarily over the link?
It's irritating to constantly have to cancel expanatory boxes which have appeared unwantedly!
-
Doug_C at 09:48 AM on 18 January 2018Flaws of Lüdecke & Weiss
It's a question of relative radiative forcings acting on the Earth's land surface, oceans and atmosphere.
The periods of deep glaciation in recent geological times that have covered a large part of the Northern Hemisphere in thick ice sheets and dropped global temperatures for thousands of years are likely the result of the Milanchovitch Cycles which can reduce the amount of Solar irradiation at northern latitude. These are on the order of a few tenths of a watt per meter squared and act over thousands of years in a dry process of more snow and ice cover lasting longer and reflecting more sunlight back into space dropping temperatures and drawing down more carbon dioxide cooling things even more creating more snow and ice cover which reflect more sunlight cooling things further. It's a feedback loop than when most of the continents are near the Equator can cover almost all of the Earth in ice.
The radiative forcing from the changes we have made in atmospheric CO2 alone are almost +2 watts per meter squared, we have totally swamped the natural focrings that have resulted deep glaciation periods.
There almost certainly will be no transition to a glaciation period due to the human release of CO2 alone. The Solar Cycles are also not that significant in relation to the forcings of atmospheric CO2 in recent times, once again in the range of a few tenths of a watt per meter squared.
Even a prolonged Solar Minimum is not going to result in a cooling trend on the Earth's surface now, it will only result in a slowing of global warming as long as the positive radiative forcing from carbon dioxide emissions and other human activities greatly exceed the possible negative forcings from Solar Cycles.
And the overall trend in Solar activity is not a decrease in Solar irradiance, it is an increase. The Sun puts out far more energy now than it did say 500 Mya for instance.
Appealing to the Sun to save us as papers like LW17 do seem far more religious to me than scientific.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:56 AM on 18 January 2018Scott Pruitt insincerely asked what's Earth's ideal temperature. Scientists answer
The problem is: Change/Harm/Uncertainty on a global scale being created by rapid alteration of the living environment of this amazing planet by an unsustainable and damaging human activity.
The Real question is: How much damage/trouble are the pursuers of Private Interest (trying to personally benefit from the unsustainable and damaging activity) going to get away with creating?
The debates needs to be: How did we end up in this unsustainable damaging situation? And what changes get the future of humanity out of the damaging unsustainable downward spiral that only looks like progress? Hint - new technological developments may be helpful but are Not the answer.
The likes of Pruitt appear to be deliberately Unhelpful (potentially deliberately harmful, and potentially deliberately harmful is almost criminal)
-
John Hartz at 08:08 AM on 18 January 2018Scott Pruitt insincerely asked what's Earth's ideal temperature. Scientists answer
Recommended supplemental reading:
Climate scientists on Wednesday suggested that they may be able to rule out some of the most dire scenarios of what would happen if greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere were to double.
Unfortunately, the same scientists say the best-case scenarios are also probably unrealistic.
How a doubling of atmospheric greenhouse gases would affect the climate is of tremendous importance, as humans are running out of time to avoid that outcome. With current atmospheric concentrations at 405 parts per million, as opposed to about 280 parts per million before the dawn of the industrial era, the planet is already about halfway there.
Climate scientists say they may be able to rule out the worst-case scenarios — and the best ones by Chris Mooney, Energy & Environment, Jan 17, 2018
-
nigelj at 07:18 AM on 18 January 2018Flaws of Lüdecke & Weiss
Ruddimans ideas are quite compelling. By some estimates we have already released more than enough CO2 to prevent or hugely delay the next ice age. We could still have a colder than normal period, but it only takes a couple of degrees to stop the full advancement of continent sized ice sheets. We don't need to release any more CO2.
I gather the research in the main article deconstructs 200 yeas of solar irradiance data into its component curves and one of these correlates with recent decades of higher temperatures? But even if this is the case, which appears in doubt, a correlation doesn't prove a great deal by itself. Changes in solar activity like this don't appear to have much effect, and the overall recent decadal trend is falling solar activity.
-
nigelj at 06:55 AM on 18 January 2018Scott Pruitt insincerely asked what's Earth's ideal temperature. Scientists answer
Yes its a rate of change problem. An ideal temperature is a strawman. Heatwaves will increase, and we cannot adapt quickly enough biologically, so have to expend energy to adapt, diverted form other pressing priorities, and it will create refugee problems.
But this will not worry people like Scott Pruit. Pruitt sits in his secure, air conditioned office with his millions of dollars, secure from the effects of climate change, and not caring about anyone apart from his immediate circle of people. You cannot reason with people like Pruitt. The fossil fuel industry now runs the American government.
-
william5331 at 05:01 AM on 18 January 2018Flaws of Lüdecke & Weiss
We should be going into the next glaciation, not because of the sun's output but because of the Milankovitch cycle. In fact if you read Ploughs, Plagues and Petroleum by Ruddiman, you see that snow and ice had begun to accumulate in the high lands of Baffin Island. Fortunately our output of green house gas reversed the process. It would have happened a little earlier but ploughing had released enough carbon into the atmosphere to slow the otherwise inevitable slide. The great plagues in the old world and the destruction of the native population in the new world by diseases brought by the Spanish caused a huge recovery of forests which was enough to just tip us over the edge to snow accumulation. Increased industrialization then came to our rescue. It is a shame we are using fossil fuels so extravegantly. If used judicially, we could completely avoid the next glaciation. Instead we may tip ourselves into a very nasty heating scenario, followed by a collapse of our civilization and a rapid draw down of Carbon dioxide as the forests and jungles recover. From a destructive heating we could then slide into the next glaciation.
-
Riduna at 01:52 AM on 18 January 2018The Key To Slowing Global Warming
NorrisM @ 8
How has the South Australian Battery pderformed? This analysis provides the answer.
-
curiousd at 20:01 PM on 17 January 2018Science of Climate Change online class starting next week on Coursera
Sometime ago there was a useful set of comments and critiques on Modtran Infrared Light in the Atmosphere. Results obtained by myself and David Archer are published as part of the annual meeting of the American Meteorological Society and may be accessed at the URL
file:///C:/Users/Doug/Downloads/Pease_Extended_Abstract%20Best.pdf
Moderator Response:[JH] Link activated.
-
chriskoz at 17:22 PM on 17 January 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #2
Montecito CA looks to be quite a wealthy neighbourhood. It's more than obvious to anyone famirila with forces behind weather dynamics, that such violent event (1/2 inch of rain in 5 minutes after fires) is unprecedented and AGW has exacerbated its likelyhood severalfolds. Those residents do understand it, for sure. CA lawmakers also likely understand it, largely because they are hit by the event. But sadly, all REP in Congress together with their clown president, don't want to understand it (unless the disaster had hit themselves). I cannot wait until Americans wake up and vote them deniers-in-chief, out.
Selfish human nature delays mitigation, e.g. literally no one in US cares about vulnerability of African nations. But this event shows that even wealthy can be vulnerable (and they have more monetary value to lose), so the experience may increase mitigation efforts in US and around the world, which paradoxically would be a good outcome.
-
bozzza at 16:00 PM on 17 January 2018Study finds that global warming exacerbates refugee crises
Question: is there a causal link between climate change and the attacks on America in 2001, or not?
-
bozzza at 15:52 PM on 17 January 2018On its hundredth birthday in 1959, Edward Teller warned the oil industry about global warming
Oldmanthames, that is the most excellent of excellent points.
The large populated cities are now stuck with a nuclear solution! (So fossil fuels actually gave us nuclear power? NOW THAT is a conspiracy!!)
Moderator Response:[JH] All-caps snipped.
-
bozzza at 15:48 PM on 17 January 2018On its hundredth birthday in 1959, Edward Teller warned the oil industry about global warming
@10, the partys that run for office don’t want tax payer funded election campaigns as it takes away half the campaign material about where the other side got their campaign chest from.
Who would decide that this should be the case?
-
bozzza at 15:45 PM on 17 January 2018On its hundredth birthday in 1959, Edward Teller warned the oil industry about global warming
@9,
Democracy in the real world is a system and all systems breakdown over time.
Only life can put things back together and this is commonly known as ‘continual improvement’.
-
Doug_C at 11:26 AM on 17 January 2018Flaws of Lüdecke & Weiss
Sounds like LW17 is a study in confirmation bias not actual climate research based on actual data.
Sure the Sun moderates climate on Earth, that is not the issue today.
The issue we now all face is the virtually unrestricted release of carbon dioxide - the primary persistent GHG - from fossil fuels.
It is simple to chart the increase in concentration of cardon dioxide in the atmosphere with a clear increase in averge yearly temperature as well as other clear indicators of a warming Earth such as changes in the timing of seasons, loss of global cryosphere, thermal expansion of oceans and more.
And we can directly measure the increase of heat coming from the atmosphere in the spectrum that is absorbed by carbon dioxide, a plain fingerprint of the role that carbon dioxide plays in moderating the Earthès climate. Which is something we've understood with growing confidence since the early 1800s which culminated with a scientist in the late 1800s working out by hand what would happen if you doubled the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.
And who's results are still within the margin of experimental error.
Even without quantum mechnical theory, over a century of data, computer models and highly sensitive instruments that were at best theory in the 1800s, Svante Arrhenius in the 1890s was still doing better science than these guys.
Thanks again Skeptical Science for decoding intentionally generated bad science such as is represented by "work" like this.
As for Bentham Open, how peer-reviewed is a journal that published an article that was generated by computer and submitted to test just how reviewed Benthan Open articles are.
-
John Hartz at 11:15 AM on 17 January 2018Study finds that global warming exacerbates refugee crises
Recommended supplemental reading:
Rising sea swamps island along Bengal coast
Around 1.5 million people will be displaced in the Sundarbans, and the process has started
by Joydeep Gupta, thethirdpole.net, Jan 15, 2018
-
nigelj at 08:16 AM on 17 January 2018The Key To Slowing Global Warming
NorrisM @50
I have had a read of the Hartley article on Curries blog, and also the comments of Peter Lang and Beta Blocker. I have had a quick scan through Peter Langs research article on Nuclear energy and "learning rates".
This is interesting stuff. Some quick thoughts, bear in mind I only read the material very quickly.
Peter Lang is clearly a nuclear power fanatic, and makes some rather strange claims about what it can do, for example somehow providing liquid fuels for aircraft. I dont know how thats supposed to work. He is however correct that growth in nuclear power basically stalled in the 1970's, and part of this may have been safety concerns from three mile island, (but then these were real concerns as this came close to a huge disaster). However he is wrong to think safety concerns were the only factor, as Beta Blocker points out.
Lang is also right to point out that S Korea seeem to have had a better "learning curve" on nuclear energy, and essentially lower current construction costs for plant today. Refer a below for global construction costs comparisons for nuclear power in terms of "learning curves".
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516300106
However S korea has had problems with quality control and safety (refer "nuclear power in S Korea" on wikipedia) and is considering canceling all future neclear generation contracts out of safety concerns following the Fukushima disaster as below:
So regardlesss of costs and so called benefits of nuclear power, this safety concern constantly becomes an issue, and public views are strong on it. This is understandable, because when nuclear power does go wrong it does so in dramatic and dangerous fashion.
Beta blocker makes some good points. I think he is right overall, and that poor construction management would be a large factor in the expense of construction costs for nuclear power in America. It's presumably also the main reason for slow construction times that routinely go over estimates. I have done consultany work for the building industry, so I hear where he is coming from. However until the management problem is turned around, generating companies won't want to build nuclear power.
IMO strict safety standards are probably also a factor in costs, but then this is not something that should be compromised.
The bottom line appears to be that nuclear power can be cheap power, but this is hard to achieve in most countries, and the safety worries are a constant concern.
-
nigelj at 06:52 AM on 17 January 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #2
New York prosecutor accuses Exxon of misleading investors on how it accounts for climate change risks:
www.businessinsider.com/exxon-accused-of-misleading-investors-on-climate-change-2017-6?IR=T
American law on securities offerings:
dfi.wa.gov/small-business/role-of-disclosure
"Both federal and state laws require companies conducting a securities offering to tell each potential investor all material information about the company, its principals, and the investment opportunity (including the risks of the investment) that a reasonable person would want to know in order to make an informed investment decision."
"The offer and sale of many goods and services in the United States is governed by the market principle of "caveat emptor," which means "buyer beware.” This principle does not apply to the purchase or sale of securities."
-
nigelj at 06:12 AM on 17 January 2018The Key To Slowing Global Warming
NorrisM @50
Thank's for the reference to the Hartley article and the attached nuclear discussion. I gather this is the article? For anyone interested...
judithcurry.com/2017/12/14/the-cost-of-displacing-fossil-fuels-some-evidence-from-texas/#more-23687
I assume the extensive and possibly frustrating regulation of the nuclear industry is to do with safety. This is not something that I would want to see compromised, or short cuts taken.
I would not place absolute reliance on Hartleys views. They are the views of just one person, and the climate issue has become politicised and people have agendas. People need to read a range of views.
-
nigelj at 05:37 AM on 17 January 2018The Key To Slowing Global Warming
Riduna @47
Yes you are right that reserves of bauxite are larger than for lithium. Scientists estimate 200 - 300 years of bauxite left as below.
www.youaskandy.com/questions-answers/34-ask-andy-1980/8788-are-we-running-out-of-bauxite-.html
Of course aluminium is one of the most common materials in the crust, so these are reserves that can be practically mined at reasonable costs. Aluminium can also be recycled endlessly.
We have plenty of resources for absolutely huge numbers of batteries for cars and devices. However I still think its hard to see batteries being the main way of storing energy for power stations, because of costs and huge size of such instillations.
I agree rooftop solar power and home lithium or aluminium battery packs could well be the way of the future. An acquaintance of mine has just done a full home instillation of solar plus the tesla battery pack, and even now the economics are good. He has a nissan leaf electric car. Centralised power stations may increasingly be a form of backup for decentalised power.
-
NorrisM at 05:09 AM on 17 January 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #2
michael sweet @ 3
As you know, I am a Canadian lawyer so commenting on US law is somewhat problematic. I have already learned that libel laws in the US do not strictly apply as I believe they would in Canada to public figures.
But in Canada, although securities laws relating to offering securities to the public do provide more detailed protection to investors, the laws of misrepresentation do apply to the customers of a corporation. However, the problem often comes down to the "damages" incurred by the customer which are probably, per customer, quite small. That is why "class actions" have been allowed both in Canada and the US. But this is a whole different ball game and I do not think this is the place to get into an analysis of this area of the law.
But whenever you claim "misrepresentation" you are first presented with proving that there was in fact a misrepresentation even before you get to the issue of damages. I have not really followed the Exxon story as to what they said to the public and what they had in internal memos.
Prev 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 Next
