Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 Next
Comments 16251 to 16300:
-
DrivingBy at 06:04 AM on 2 January 2018On its hundredth birthday in 1959, Edward Teller warned the oil industry about global warming
We (the US and Europe) are (mostly) democracies. Democracies run on emotion, not science. That was rather helpful when countenancing whether we should have expanded Aktion T4 to a global extent (there was a little dust-up over that sort of issue), it's not so helpful in dealing with a substance whose only hazard can be discerned only via science.
Dictatiorships of one form or another run on thirst for expanding and retaining power, they are even less concerned with such issues. Iran, Mexico etc have not volunteered to cut their oil exports, much the contrary.
Teller was entirely correct and was entirely ignored. In the USA, LBJ accepted a more detail report and estimates from Keeling et.al, but did not act on it. The protest movement of the era was mostly focused on leaving Cambodia to the Khmer, using drugs and rioting. There appears to have been even less interest in the issue from other nations.
The message from Science of what was then a readily avoidable issue was lost in the babble of immediate event. It will not be the last time.
-
nigelj at 06:03 AM on 2 January 2018On its hundredth birthday in 1959, Edward Teller warned the oil industry about global warming
Astonishing history, and no chinese names as far as I can see. The early rough calculations from people like Teller and Arrhenius have been very perceptive, and an excellent validation of agw theory. if predictions work, it is a powerful validation of a theory.
Despite this the fossil fuel industry remains in denial. Of course the fossil fuel industry say they accept the climate problem, but this is a veneer of respectability, because the real denialism has been out sourced to groups like the Heartland Institute.
The fossil fuel industry have done basically nothing about the problem, other than tinkering around the edges to make it look like action, while lobbying against ets schemes. Leaders of industry and sharholders still mostly put profit and pushing the limits and boundaries ahead of everything else.
-
Aanthanur at 05:32 AM on 2 January 201897% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
I picked just one randomly, the specific paper is rather irelevant, if old or if correct or not, what matters is, if it has a quantified attribution in the abstract.
-
Aanthanur at 05:24 AM on 2 January 201897% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
"Aanthanur fails to recognize that categories 1 - 3 all endorse the scientific consensus "
what is the scientific consensus?
they use different definitions in the paper.
"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."
"We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)."
one is quantified, the other not.
you cannot use unquantified abstracts to evaluate the support for the consensus as defined in the introduction, the one in the abstract yes.
and i have no problem with a 97% consensus. or 99%. the data used in this study, is not supporting one of the two definitions given in the paper.
i do not doubt AGW in the least, AGW is an observed fact.
-
Eclectic at 04:53 AM on 2 January 201897% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
I note that Aanthanur @41 subsequently went on to cite as example the paper Beyea et al. 1991.
But Beyea very clearly states implicit support for the mainstream science of AGW. And thus the paper goes more correctly into "Category 3" — and yet Aanthanur fails to recognize that categories 1 - 3 all endorse the scientific consensus (contributing to the quoted 97%).
The Beyea et al. paper is all the more remarkable for being published in 1991. Being 26 years ago, and at the start of the survey period.
Since that time, the consensus position, already extremely strong, has gone on to become even stronger (and has no valid challenges to it). So Aanthanur's preoccupation with allocation to category 1, 2, or 3 . . . is a complete waste of time.
Furthermore, Aanthanur displays unawareness that the Cook et al. 2013 paper provides a double validation of the 97% consensus (authors gave a self-rating of their own papers — and the self-ratings verified the 97%).
It should also be noted that the average age of the papers in the Cook survey, is now around 10 years old. With the march of time and further evidence, a renewed survey would show consensus above 99%.
-
Jeff H at 21:35 PM on 1 January 20182017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52
I really was not inclined to enter this thread until Zippi62 insisted on making a ludicrous argument about C02 not being a pollutant.
In excessive concentrations any element can be deemed thusly. The current biodiversity evolved under relatively low atmospheric concentrations of CO2. Indeed, there is compelling evidence that species and genetic richness across the biosphere were higher quite recently until Homo sapiens began to carve its way through ecosystems across the planet. The bottom line is that high atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are NOT a pre-requisite for high adaptive radiation. Other eco-physiological factors are infinitely more important including paradoxially both stability and change.
As for increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 the net effect will be a significant reduction in diversity even if warming is excluded. This is because there will be decidedly non-linear effects of increased CO2 concentrations on plants and their associated consumers. Some plants will benefit at CO2 increases but many will not - this critically depends on the carbon pathway (C3, C4, ethylene) and how this leads to competitive asymmetries among plant communities. In other words the long evolutionary stasis that occurs under fairly stable abiotic regimes is being seriously undermined by the current athropogenic experiment. So phenology and non-linear dynamics is something that climate change contrarians continually ignore. This is because most of them don’t appear to have the reoevant expertise.
Then there is stoichiometry. Plants require more than carbon for optimal growth. Indeed C is by now essentially ‘junk’ in that it may accrue as biomass but this in no way creates healthier, fitter plants if vital nutrients like N and P are shunted out of plant tissues. In the Amazon there is even evidence now that most vegetation has reached a saturation point and that these forests are no longer sinks but sources of C. But I digress. N is generally much more limiting as a nutrient than C. The loss of N is already having significant consequences up the food chain. Most consumers, in particular herbivores, depend on N in their diet. Given that plant food is highly suboptimal to begin with, containing an array of allelochemicals, digestibility reducers, tannins, resins and other non-nutritive components, the loss of vitally important N from plants will lead to compensatory feeding by herbivores as they seek to acquire sufficient N. To compound the problem many plants possess N-based defenses; these plants are under the great rusk of becoming less well-defended from their antagonists as atmospheric concetrations of N rise rapidly. By contrast, plants with C-based defenses become much more toxic. Again, those repeating this silly mantra of ‘C is plant food’ continually expunge complex non-linear ecophysiological processes from their rhetoric. In their world, cause-and-effect relationships are linear, but complex adaptive systems just do not function in that way.
I am a population ecologist whose research involves the effects of primary and secondary plant metabolism on plant-insect interactions, and I continually cringe when I see this fatally flawed argument extolling the wonders of increasec atmospheric CO2 on nature dredged up. Few if any of those making this argument are qualified in the relevant fields.
-
nigelj at 15:43 PM on 1 January 20182017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52
Zippi62 @20
"You are believing unfounded projections by overzealous environmentalists. "
No I just accept the peer reviewed research and IPCC science. I'm not into deep green environmentalism, although its preferable to the denialist blather.
You are sucked in by blogsites like Wattsup and iceagenow. These websites are emotive, politically driven, and make outrageous, stupid, inflammatory claims and huge cherry picks.
"There's not one person I know that wants to destroy our planet. "
So they claim. Know people by their actions and policies: Donald Trump for example.
"There's much more science out there that disproves the "limits" mantra."The Arctic Sea Ice Extent is currently in a heavy increase period.'
One year means nothing. Natural variation. The trend over the last 50 years approximately is far more important, and is of reducing sea ice cover and also thickness. Again, its one of those aspects of climate change that is incredibly well documented, and with increasing temperatures it can only get worse, unless you believe that higher temperatures cause water to freeze?
-
nigelj at 15:33 PM on 1 January 20182017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52
"The EPA failed when they labelled CO2 as a "dangerous pollutant".
Really? The finding still stands in law and is unlikely to be changed. This doesnt look like failure to me.
"SKS also fails its own readers with its 'climate myth' about CO2 being a dangerous pollutant.
his website doesnt actually use that language. The language used is by the EPA. As far as I can tell this website just raises the normal concerns about CO2. Remember the EPA used those words dangerous pollutant in a legalistic sense, dont get too hung up on them, we know what they mean CO2 is a problem. Its not woryth all the energy debating whether its a pollutant or problem.
"SKS should redact many of its erroneous implications about CO2 in my opinion. Much of it is scientific conjecture."
I dont think so. The basics of climate science are well established science, not conjecture. Opinions like yours without some actual commentary, credible sources and understanding of the relevant basic science are pretty empty. Not saying you are badly educated, and happy new year and all that.
-
nigelj at 15:15 PM on 1 January 20182017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52
Zippi62 @15
"I get what you are saying. Humans are evil and produce excessive amounts of CO2."
No, never said that. But some humans persist with bad habits even when they know they are bad habits.
"Every plant hates excessive amounts, even if those excessive amounts makes them less prone to droughts, more rigid, ..."
Maybe so to some extent, but the trouble is any advantages of extra CO2 in cell growth come up against limits, and are offset by the effects of higher temperatures that start to reduce cell growth and crop productivity particularly after 2050, and you have all the other negative effects of climate change, such as as sea level rise. The costs of climate change outweigh any benefits by a huge factor. This website has done numerous related articles, start reading them.;
-
nigelj at 15:06 PM on 1 January 20182017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52
Zippi62@ 14
"Microphysics works with a proper analogy. Added carbon into the atmosphere can be a good thing as long as the proper analysis is applied"
Meaningless unsupported assertion.
" Carbon dioxide is not toxic and is very essential to most all living things."
Meaningless straw man argument. Nobody has claimed CO2 is poisonous in the way CO is poisonous. Merely that the build up of CO2 recently is causing dangerous climate change.
Various minerals are also essential to plant growth, but too much can kill the things.
We are bored with all these silly, weak denialist claims that are all such obviously nonsense. Can't you do better? Climate denialists are such losers.
-
Zippi62 at 14:59 PM on 1 January 20182017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52
nigelj @13
I get what you are saying. Humans are evil and produce excessive amounts of CO2. Every plant hates excessive amounts, even if those excessive amounts makes them less prone to droughts, more rigid, and require less water to survive. The animals that eat those plants get more carbohydrates into their own system. More carbohydrates are always good. It's basic sustenance.
Moderator Response:[JH] Snide, argumentative, and false assertions snipped. Your willful and repeated violations of the SkS Comments Policy means you have relinquished your privilege of posting on this venue.
-
Digby Scorgie at 14:54 PM on 1 January 2018From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation
chriskoz @5, David @6
Thanks for the help. So the idea is simple, but the computation is difficult. Science is not easy!
factotum @7
Please don't confuse us. It's "too much", not "to much".
-
Zippi62 at 14:52 PM on 1 January 20182017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52
Microphysics works with a proper analogy. Added carbon into the atmosphere can be a good thing as long as the proper analysis is applied.
When insufficient oxygen is applied to combustion, then carbon monoxide is produced, which is a highly toxic gas. Carbon dioxide is not toxic and is very essential to most all living things.
-
nigelj at 14:40 PM on 1 January 20182017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52
By CO2 not coming from humans, I meant respiration. This is essentially a neutral cycle. Additional CO2 is coming mainly from fossil fuel burning.
-
nigelj at 14:36 PM on 1 January 20182017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52
Zippi @62, Spencer is not simply an intelligent meterologist. He is a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. According to wikipedia.
He is also a creationist who believes humans are too insignificant in gods creation to cause climate change. Again, you can read this on his wikipedia profile page.
"I also know where emissions come from,"
Well you apparently don't. I can tell you where they don't come from: The oceans, humans, and volcanoes and theres plenty of information on this in the "most used climate myths" part of this website.
-
nigelj at 14:27 PM on 1 January 20182017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52
Zippi62 @9
I don't see anyone claiming that it is the 'weight' of CO2 that is critical. Its extra quantity in ppm added to atmosphere as in the keeling curve.
However a certain weight is added to the atmosphere and this is additional weight. This is obviously a fact.
Oxygen is important and must be considered. It's the two oxygen atoms that allow the CO2 molecule to basically wobble around and this quantum property is what enables it to absorb energy. As in this graphic. This is mainly why CO2 absorbs heat (technically IR radiation) and O2 doesn't.
-
Zippi62 at 14:21 PM on 1 January 20182017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52
nigelj @8
I know what Spencer says. He's an intelligent meteorologist.
Those "big numbers" are important. That's why we don't have the "runaway effect".
I also know where emissions come from, but a disingenuous scientist like yourself can't add 44 grams of CO2 to Earth's atmosphere when the atmosphere originally maintained the 2 oxygen atoms that were added through combustion. Let's reduce the added "tonnage" to the atmosphere by 73% (0.7272727272727) and stick to the additional carbon atom that married a couple of oxygen atoms through combustion. OK?
-
Zippi62 at 14:06 PM on 1 January 20182017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52
@ Moderator
Since the earth surface is 790,854,451,200,000,000 million square inches and the weight of one square inch of atmosphere at sea level weighs 14.7lbs. Then the total weight of the atmosphere is 1,162,556,043,264,000,000,000 lbs. Which I think is 1 sextillion lbs. since there are 2000lbs in a ton then the earth’s atmosphere weight in tons is 5,812,780,216,320,000 tons so the closest answer would be about 6 quadrillion tons "if" the Earth was flat.
Obviously the entire earth is not flat and other factors take that weight downwards.In all actuality combustion only adds 12 grams of weight per molecule of CO2 to the atmosphere. The additional oxygen in CO2 was used from existing oxygen in our atmosphere. You can't add what was already there as far as "tons added". That's another scientific misnomer.
If you want to add the weight of additional carbon, then that's fine, but when you are scientifically disingenuous and add the whole as an overall "addition" to the atmosphere, then you surely need to be called out.
The 2 oxygen atoms will eventually be released back into the atmosphere away from the carbon through either photosynthesis or some other process. It's called the "carbon cycle" simply because oxygen (O2) is the transporter.
-
nigelj at 12:47 PM on 1 January 20182017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52
Zippi62 @7
Oh big numbers! Anyone can post superfluous or irrelevant big numbers and long words pulled out of a hat like the rabbit.
As Moderator says, CO2 emissions are coming from fossil fuels etc. It's one of those things proven beyond doubt now.
Notice how none of the serious qualified sceptics like Spencer deny this, only the armchair eccentrics. Its embarassing watching people deny the obvious, and just shows their desperation and ignorance.
-
nigelj at 12:32 PM on 1 January 20182017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #52
Regarding this denialist slogan "we had a cold winter, or snow storm, so global warming is a myth". (or similar statements) I'm sure people must realise it's a ridiculous statement, nobody is that dumb are they?
It's got to be either deliberate ignorance, or game playing to annoy people and bait them. Be careful guys: climate change is not a time for playing silly games, and provoking people.
-
NorrisM at 12:17 PM on 1 January 2018There's no empirical evidence
JH @ 348
Thanks. I was working through this thread when I saw the ongoing discussion with Gail and could not resist putting in my two cents.Bob Loblaw @ 349
I appreciate that the future increases may not be linear but it seems to me to be a good baseline with which to start. As soon as you extrapolate beyond a linear analysis my sense is that your are into the validity of the models. I personally do not have sufficient science background to understand the issues regarding their ability to predict the future.I was hoping to see a Red Team Blue Team debate this but I do not think that is going to happen given the information I passed on from Climatewire regarding the Trump administration having second thoughts about same.
Earlier on in this thread there was a fascinating high level exchange going on between riccardo and PaulK who both clearly are physicists which unfortunately petered out. But it was fascinating to see these two go head to head. Although I could not understand the physics I did see the two of them being very honest with each other and I could get a sense of what was happening. It is this "give and take" that would be so fascinating to watch on a Red Team Blue Team discussion.
-
chriskoz at 11:37 AM on 1 January 20182017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #52
Thank you John and the Team for another year of enlightening about CS.
As other commenter (nigelj) has put on other weekly thread, this year will go to history as the "dumbest year" (so far) in politics. While agreeing, I also note that we're not over through dark ages yet: t-man the clown can still conceive sillier, more outragous ideas in next 3 years in office, if Congress does not impeach him.
In that disgusting reality, SkS shines the bright light of knowledge & hope. May next year be better and science and reason wins!
-
One Planet Only Forever at 10:28 AM on 1 January 2018Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
There may be some objection to my comment point about "...the need for some people to be removed from the competition, particularly from positions of influence and leadership, as soon as the evidence of their desire for unhelpful actions is clear."
Any business that fails to do that has no real future. Failing to correct that type of behaviour may create an appearance of value in the short-term, but eventually the damaging reality will be undeniable. Of course, many harmful gamblers only need the short-term to gather up significant unjustified benefit and hide it and themselves away, with repeated denial that they did anything wrong being their last/main line of defense.
-
Zippi62 at 10:16 AM on 1 January 20182017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52
nigelj @6
The 'climate issue' is based upon the Earth's ability to receive an additional 616 billion tons of natural (from nature) CO2 (40% increase from pre-industrial levels) into a 5.5 quadrillion ton and continuously moving atmospheric system that already had a naturally induced 1.54 trillion tons of CO2 working in continuous circulation with a receptive biosphere and receptive 1,450,000,000,000,000,000 ton hydrosphere (oceans).
Moderator Response:[TD] More than 100% of at least the past 50 years' (probably decades more than that) increase in atmospheric CO2 is from anthropocentric causes. Read the relevant post's Basic tabbed pane, then watch the video, then read the Intermediate tabbed pane. There are several lines of evidence, but really the algebraic one (mass balance) is sufficient and airtight. If you want clarification, more evidence, or want to argue, do so on that post, not this one.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 10:04 AM on 1 January 2018Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
This article got me thinking ... Then the comments got me thinking some more ... then the challenge of writing a reduced presentation of my thoughts ... made more challenging by my understanding that shortening a presentation to be a punchier marketing sales pitch piece by using shorter statements and emotive labels rather than providing dispassionate fuller explanations will lead to arguments about interpretation rather than discussion of the real problem that was trying to be pointed out ... so I gave up on trying to limit what I wrote ... hope the intent/point is clear ...
Key Words/Thoughts/Considerations: Alignment - Common Increased Awareness and Understanding; Good Objectives/Intent; Sustainable Change - Improvement/Progress; Future of Humanity; Competition to Win; The Good, The Bad, Help and Harm.
The 'technocognition' proposal can be helpful. But it's success and sustainability will require understanding and acceptance that it is guided by, and aligned with, Global Sustainable Public Good Objectives. The Sustainable Development Goals are an excellent compilation of Good Objectives. They include Climate Action. And, like the climate science basis for the Climate Action Goals, all of the identified goals have an extensive and robust basis, making them open to potential change but only for Good Reason (like climate science, everyone cannot be free to have their own opinion about these goals).
The Key Point: The discussions and disputes regarding this article (on this site and at the Guardian site) expose a lack of alignment regarding what the real problem is. The propensity for people to seek validation for understandably harmful unjustified beliefs is caused by a more fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is the result of the combination of 'competition to Win that is not governed by alignment on a Good Objective measure of what is allowed/forbidden in the competition', with the powerful alluring dogma that 'everyone freer to believe what they want and do as they please is the best/only way to develop good results', and leniency regarding misleading marketing and reporting. Without the filter/limits of a Governing Good Objective, all manner of unacceptable ways of marketing and competing can, and will, develop and Win for as long as they can be gotten away with, with undeniably damaging results.
Climate science has unwittingly exposed the need for some people to be removed from the competition, particularly from positions of influence and leadership, as soon as the evidence of their desire for unhelpful actions is clear. That means effectively neutralizing the impact of information providers in the system/competition for Good Reason, not just hoping that warnings about the incorrect presentations they have delivered will be effective. A 'mechanism' to catch every variation of presentation of misinformation would rely on the public acceptance that such a mechanism is 'justified/correct'. Such a mechanism could never flag a presentation that could be 'open to interpretation' because the first time it did so would be the fuel for the denial pushers/addicts to proclaim that the mechanism is biased/rigged 'Against Them'. Mind you, they would also believe that any information presentation contrary to their Private Interests is biased/rigged 'Against Them'. And they would be correct about the bias because their Private Interest must be commonly understood to deserve derision.
The key is having alignment and common understanding regarding Helpful Public Objectives and Intentions, especially among the leaders/winners among humanity. There can be many divisive matters but the focus must remain on understanding how any 'side' is helpful/harmful. Helpful Conservatives can, and should, have healthy debates with Helpful Democrats. Correctly distinguishing the Helpful from the Harmful allows debate among leaders to be of value. That requires a common Good basis for that evaluation. That Common/Public Good basis for evaluation is what appears to be missing, leading to damaging rather than helpful divisive behaviour among competing leaders, leading to misleading marketing efforts that are powerful even though they are ultimately unsustainable (I support being divisive when it comes to helpful vs harmful. The harmful should be helped to change their minds, and not be free to influence things until they prove they have decided to be helpful).
That leads to the appreciation that there can be Good and Bad in any action. There can be good and bad biased reporting (or conservatives, democrats, capitalist, communists, socialists, environmentalists, religious, ...). Good Biased Reporting is the acceptable/desirable kind of reporting. People with Private Interests that are contrary to The Global Public Good will focus on twisted claims/excuses like 'Bias is Bad (when it is against Them)' - Any Belief must be tolerated (unless it is not liked by Them)', rather than face the challenge of the differences that matter and make Their beliefs/opinions/desires (private interests) understandably unacceptable/unjustified.
How do you communicate with those type of people to make them more aware and understanding? How do you educate them? How do you 'correct their thinking'? How do you 'Change their Minds'?
Many people who are tempted to try to win by behaving less acceptably cannot be 'corrected' before they get a taste for winning that way. And once a person or group get a taste of winning by getting away with behaving less acceptably than 'the competition' it can be very difficult to 'fully correct their understandably damaging addiction'. The result is the competition spiralling downward as people compete to Win as unacceptably and harmfully as possible.
The following warning from John Stuart Mill in “On Liberty” keeps coming to mind: “If society lets a considerable number of its members grow up mere children, incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant motives, society has itself to blame for the consequences.”
The focus needs to be understanding the Fundamental Problem and being aligned on a Good Objective for the 'fix'. That will develop a sustainable solution rather than just creating the temporary impression that things have been fixed for good (with some people believing/complaining that the Fix is Unjustifiably Against Them).
I have many Back-up and related thoughts but choose to only include the following:
As an engineer with an MBA whenever I am presented with an existing item that 'appears, or is claimed, to need to be fixed or corrected' my first step is to ensure I identify/understand the fundamental basis of the problem (being as aware as possible and understanding as much as possible). I also make sure that any correction is consistent with the overall guiding objective of engineering to protect the general population (Others) and the environment (today and into the future), from the potential negative consequences of what a pursuer of Private Interest may try to get away with. That objective is well aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals. Unfortunately many engineering actions have that objective diminished by 'being balanced with Private Interests that are contrary to that objective (less safe, more harmful). My MBA training helped me understand and witness how motivated many classmates pursuing an MBA were to Win their competition for Private Interests any way they could get away with.Being guided by that awareness and understanding has led me to disappoint many clients/customers who have identified that their desire is 'to get something done quicker or cheaper'. Admittedly, developing the most advantageous solution to a challenge is an objective of engineering. But responsible considerate engineering (moral/ethical engineering) always has to severely limit the potential for negative Public/Environmental consequences (at the expense of the customer). When I point out the time and cost required to ensure the Quality of the engineered result there is often a claim that my job is to make them happy because 'the customer is always correct'. My response has been to pursue 'correcting the customer' to make sure the customer is actually correct. That often requires support from superiors who must be aligned with the understanding of how everyone is protected when such customers get corrected.
The bottom line is: If the fundamental cause of the problem is not identified, or if the 'fix' is not aligned with protecting the Public/Environment into the future, then any 'fix' will not be sustainable. It will only appear to repair what appeared to be broken. There will likely be future failure because the real problem was not identified and corrected.
-
Daniel Bailey at 08:12 AM on 1 January 2018Antarctica is gaining ice
I've written on the Zwally paper and its shortcomings, here.
-
John Hartz at 07:25 AM on 1 January 2018There's no empirical evidence
Recommended supplemental reading::
Laffoley, D. & Baxter, J. M. (editors). 2016. Explaining
ocean warming: Causes, scale, effects and consequences.
Full report. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 456 pp.IUCN = International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
-
nigelj at 07:20 AM on 1 January 2018Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
I agree conspiracy theory thinking allows people to reject uncomfortable information. This is partly because you can't really disprove some conspiracy, so its an easy escape. The entire climate denial movement appears fixated on conspiracy theories.
Conspiracy theory ideation is largely childish. Read scientific and hard evidence on so called conspiracies, and you will see most of them are nonsense and just escapism and lazy thinking (but fun to read about, I lap them up out of curiosity)
But there is of course a grain of truth sometimes. Companies are sometimes caught colluding to fix prices, and end up in trouble with the authorities. But this has to be proven!
Are governments all colluding to create a global warming scare? It doesn't make sense to me, because the costs of climate change on governments in providing all this renewable energy etc would be far larger than any benefits from some increase in their powers, which would at best be some carbon tax and so on. This is not some huge enhancement of powers, especially as the proposals are for tax and dividend schemes.
And IMO such a giant climate conspiracy would have leaked out by now if it was true, and is about as likely as 911 being an "inside job".
-
nigelj at 06:42 AM on 1 January 2018US government climate report looks at how the oceans are buffering climate change
Zippi62 @7
"Why do we look for deep ocean heat today, when our current ocean surface warming trend is less than what it was between 1911 and 1941?"
Because the warming since the 1980's is significant and outside the boundaries of natural variation, and evidence shows its driven by CO2 and not natural factors.
The warming period between 1911- 1941 was only 30 years long, so still just within the boundaries of natural variation, so not hugely significant. It was due to a combination of CO2 emissions, high solar activity, and low volcanic activity. The period was a coincidence of multiple factors all at one time, so very non typical.
-
Bob Loblaw at 06:19 AM on 1 January 2018Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
"the vested interest of a funder can corrupt the science"
That something is possible says nothing about the likelihood. It is possible that an undetected asteroid will hit the earth and destroy life as we know it before I will get a chance to ring in the New Year tonight. It's not worth changing my plans for that possibility, though.
Gail's repeated assertions basically amount to claiming that all the science is made up to get money, and every scientist that publishes on climate change and supports the idea that it is happening, humans are causing the bulk of recent warming, and it will get a lot worse if we continue to burn fossil fuels at current rates, are all part of a conspiracy to hide the truth. It basically lets her reject anything she doesn't like.
-
Bob Loblaw at 06:11 AM on 1 January 2018There's no empirical evidence
NorrisM: "Everyone agrees that additional levels of CO2 are causing global warming."
Everyone? I constantly see people deny that there is any warming at all, and constantly see people deny that CO2 can cause any warming.
How much of the current warming is due to rising CO2 is an attribution question, and the IPCC has stated that the best estimate is all of it.
As for how much warming is predicted in the future, under different scenarios, and how models fit into the question, please take that to the Models are Unreliable thread,
...and the future predictions are not a linear extrapolation of recent trends. That is not a good way of doing the analysis.
-
nigelj at 05:49 AM on 1 January 2018Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
Gail @33
"The overarching point is that the vested interest of a funder can corrupt the science to its own needs."
Yes fair enough. However I dont see governments directing the science in any significant way. If you are very paranoid you might believe they use the climate scare to increase their powers, so look to somehow exaggerate the science, but we see many centre right anti tax parties taking climate change seriously, presumably because they see the risk factor ( as already pointed out to you above).
If anything, and I have to say this again hoping you see the point, governments would probably prefer the climate problem to just go away. If they want to "increase their powers" there are much simpler and more nefarious ways of doing this!
In fact I would suggest that if government does inject a bias into the science, it would be to 'downplay' the risks of climate change. It's commonsense! However I doubt they would be aggressive in doing this, or it may vary depending on the policial party of the day. Clearly The republican party dont like climate science.
And we do actually have some anecdotal evidence leaking out that government officials who sign off the IPCC reports have tried to have the risks of dangerous climate change and levels of certainty of climate change downplayed.
Of course there is the allegation of whether scientists inflate the risk of climate change to get governments worried so they then fund research. Just remember scientists are employed as a matter of course to do science on all sorts of issues that pose no threat, like studying beetles, they dont have to scaremonger to get work. Scientists are also trained to be restrained and objective. They may of course say climate change is serious and needs study: But Gail it is clearly a serious issue so this is only stating the obvious.
In comparison, the fossil fuel industry have strong interests in business as usual, and are likely to go shopping for scientists who have a sceptical point of view. Once employed, they may become even more biased towards a sceptical view out of fear of losing their contracts.
Anyway as pointed out by others funding comes from both governments, companies and other sources, and this is very healthy balance that ensures we get good information overall. But the fossil fuel funded sceptical leaning studies have been unconvicing - for decades now. That should tell you something.
-
MA Rodger at 05:38 AM on 1 January 2018Antarctica is gaining ice
compx2,
I think time has caught up with your comment "Let's just say Ice overall is growing in Antarctica, okay?" which is now twenty months out of date.
Overall, the Antarctic ice cap was certainly not "growing" ice-wise over the period 2002-16. (The Zwally theorising mentioned in the OP update is an interesting theory but nothing more.) And the Antarctic Sea Ice had been showing a slow rise in SIE over the satellite record 1978-2010 and then did show a dramatic upward wobble to early 2016. But since then, as the comment @463 pointed out, the drama has been in the opposite direction and now SIE continues lower than at any time earlier than 2016.
-
nigelj at 05:18 AM on 1 January 20182017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52
Zippi62 @4
"Makes one wonder where "biased" polsters draw their lines. Most conservative thinkers I know avoid biased pollsters"
This is too anecdotal, and it is highly improbable that conservatives simply don't do polls.
"Millions of global warming/climate change protesters protesting in big cities where the environment can barely be be studied by those who protest. They have to depend on scientists to be honest and unbiased in their evaluations of each and every research study they perform using taxpayer dollars. "
Partly true, but you don't need to be a scientist to understand that we are altering the climate. All you need is a reasonable education. The evidence is pretty basic and overwhelming.
One data set or research paper might be unreliable, but we have numerous data sets and research papers,so its slander to suggest they are all somehow intellectually dishonest. Every paper discusses areas of certainty, and issues where uncertainty remains, so it's pretty transparent.
"Most big government environmental scientists have a bias IMO, otherwise they wouldn't worry about who becomes POTUS."
Not interested in your opinion, unless you can back it up with some information. Any sane person would worry about a president that tries to remove data from websites, and has scientifically illiterate views.
"George H.W. Bush Sr., Bill Clinto, George Bush Jr., and Barack Obama were all "globalists". (Remember George Sr.'s 'new world order' statement?)"
Irrelevant to the climate issue. You are also paranoid about globalism. The world has been globalising ever since we first started trading with each other. Imo the challenge is to get the global rules on a fair basis, and the balance of power right between nation states and larger global authorities, so that we avoid potential for abuse of power.
"Let us not forget where the UN IPCC came from and how it has progressed over the past 30 years and what the United Nations' ultimate goal is. Globalism. Un-elected government officials (they are appointed) being handed billions of dollars every year for climate research projects and advisory boards."
The Un doesn't primarily fund climate reseach, nation states do.
"The corn-belt of the U.S. does lots of climate research. Farmers are a good source for spotting "climate change indicators".
Yes, and they say the climate is changing.
"Purdue University did a survey aimed at Agricultural Extension educators, agricultural advisors, and farmers. Over 90% (1,560) of those surveyed mostly believed that either the environment and humans are 50/50 responsible (~33%)"
What makes you think farmers have any special insight on science? Their educational levels tend to be rather average or below average. They also tend to be Republican supporters and the Republican Party is sceptical of climate science, unfortunately. That's not to say farmers are inferior to anyone else, they aren't - and we rely on farmers for our very survival.
"Big city dwellers are easy to antagonize."
Well you might be right about that. I dont know why, but I have some good guesses on it. But its not really that relevant to the climate issue.
-
Russell at 04:09 AM on 1 January 20182017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2017/12/counting-down-to-year-of-dog.html
Let us not forget how often President Trump has stood up as species of the year
Moderator Response:[JH] Sloganeering snipped.
-
Zippi62 at 04:09 AM on 1 January 20182017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52
The "resistance" comes from those who feel that they can trust the "97% consensus" mantra. Populations in large cities like New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Denver, Seattle, Portland, Washington, D.C., Detroit, Philadelphia, Baltimore, St. Louis, and Miami vote 75%+ 'democrat' and are the most likely places for demonstrations ("resistance"). It's easy to dupe those who can't verify scientific findings on their own. 99.9% of these people aren't scientists.
Makes one wonder where "biased" polsters draw their lines. Most conservative thinkers I know avoid biased pollsters
Millions of global warming/climate change protesters protesting in big cities where the environment can barely be be studied by those who protest. They have to depend on scientists to be honest and unbiased in their evaluations of each and every research study they perform using taxpayer dollars. Most big government environmental scientists have a bias IMO, otherwise they wouldn't worry about who becomes POTUS. George H.W. Bush Sr., Bill Clinto, George Bush Jr., and Barack Obama were all "globalists". (Remember George Sr.'s 'new world order' statement?)
Let us not forget where the UN IPCC came from and how it has progressed over the past 30 years and what the United Nations' ultimate goal is. Globalism. Un-elected government officials (they are appointed) being handed billions of dollars every year for climate research projects and advisory boards.
The corn-belt of the U.S. does lots of climate research. Farmers are a good source for spotting "climate change indicators".
Purdue University did a survey aimed at Agricultural Extension educators, agricultural advisors, and farmers. Over 90% (1,560) of those surveyed mostly believed that either the environment and humans are 50/50 responsible (~33%), the climate has changedand is mostly natural (~29%) or their is insufficient evidence to know with any certainty that the climate is occuring or not (~28%). Less than 10% believe it is happening and is caused by human activities.
It's easy to convince big city-dwelling populations. That's the only world they know. They generally can't understand how big the world really is.
The 20 most populated areas in the U.S. (previous list of cities plus 6 other highly populated areas) take up less than 14,000 square miles of the 3,500,000+ square miles United States land area (0.04% of the total U.S. land area). (Hillary Clinton received 10 million more votes in these 20 most populated areas. She won the popular vote by less than 3 million)
Big city dwellers are easy to antagonize.
If anything, Global Warming alarmism plays to those who don't have the luxury of exploring the world outside of their own city. They are the poorest of the poor.
Good luck in your celebration! The science isn't as 'cut-and-dry' as is portrayed by those who seem to love antagonizing people into a "resistance" they don't understand.
Moderator Response:[JH] Blatant sloganeering 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.
-
Aanthanur at 03:53 AM on 1 January 201897% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
they included papers that did not quantify the Anthropogenic contribution to warming.
and when you check the abstracts of for example endorsement level 3, you find that they did count unquantified abstracts as supporting, thus the claim in the intro of the study is false.
Moderator Response:[DB] Specific citations required.
-
John Hartz at 03:52 AM on 1 January 2018There's no empirical evidence
NorrisM: You ask:
Are there studies to show accelerating ocean temperatures?
Recommend that you peruse the comments previously posted on this OP and the related lecture-video from Denial101x that is appended to the OP.
-
Tom Dayton at 03:26 AM on 1 January 2018There's no empirical evidence
Gail: The bank balance accounting that Bob Loblaw explained to you has been done for planetary energy imbalance, using the types of evidence that MA Rodger described to you. But instead of your subjective, reference-free and incorrect assertions of the bank balance, climatologists have done the accounting quantitatively, with references to source data and methods, including uncertainties, and from multiple types of data, data sources, and methods. The most recent I've found is a reference I already pointed you to, which you seem to have totally ignored: Trenberth et al. (2016). If the body of the paper is too technical for you to understand, at least read the Abstract, Introduction, and Conclusions.
-
NorrisM at 03:18 AM on 1 January 2018There's no empirical evidence
Moderator
That was why I was asking for some estimate of warming from two periods, 1950 and 1975. Perhaps the two periods should be from 1950 and 1970.
I agree that the rate from 1950 at least would be more relevant. It would be interesting to look at 1970 but we then get into shorter periods which themselves have problems.
I appreciate my question on models might be getting "off topic" but these questions on the rate of temperature increase certainly relate to "empirical evidence".
Perhaps this is just impossible to do because of other factors such as the aerosols, volcanoes, ENSO etc. I think I read somewhere on this website that ocean temperature increases are a better measure. Surely there are some papers on this because it is such an obvious question.
Are there studies to show accelerating ocean temperatures?
Moderator Response:[TD] See the Nuccitelli 2012 graph to see that ocean heat content dwarfs that of air, land, and ice. Then for a more up to date graph of ocean heat content, and one in which the acceleration is obvious, see John Abraham's post, and for details read the article that John's post summarizes.
-
compx2 at 02:42 AM on 1 January 2018Antarctica is gaining ice
It sounds to the outsider as though it is very important to you guys to say that the addition of ice in Antarctica is NOT due to global warming, a separate issue related to Ozone (are humans responsible for the Ozone hole?). But the loss of ice is due to global warming.
Seems to me addition of ice is a simple thing to say, and that attributing it to something else is kind of like saying this ice is different from that ice, that some ice counts toward the ice in Antarctica and some doesn't count.
And you sound awefully sure about that Ozone hole, Where are the references to the studies that prove lack of Ozone is the problem? Well, is there a problem that Ozone ice is messing up something in Antarctica? Should be plug the Ozone hole?
Let's just say Ice overall is growing in Antarctica, okay? -
John Hartz at 02:00 AM on 1 January 20182017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52
citzenschallenge:
The ten actions identified in the Editor's Pick article of the OP are:
- Pipeline protesters fought back
- Thousands of nerds marched on Washington
- Scientists saved climate data
- Ex-government employees dropped the mic
- San Juan’s mayor said what many were thinking
- Bears Ears tribes took Trump to court
- Legislators pushed for environmental justice
- Companies defied the Trump agenda
- Cities filled a leadership gap
- States also thumbed their noses at Trump
Only the first two are public protests.
-
JohnSeers at 01:44 AM on 1 January 2018Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
@Gail 33
The problem is not just that you are biased against (climate) scientists but you give the impression you view the world of funding in a very simplistic, cynical and black and white way.
How do you think scientists should be funded? By government or industry? Obviously the answer is both because you need independence from industry but also industry genuinely wants answers to questions, so they sometimes employ scientists directly or commission research. Naturally, ultimately, these are just people with various levels of integrity as is reflected anywhere.
Scientists, on the whole, take a pride in their objectivity and value the integrity of science and truth. This does not mean none of them cannot be corrupted by money but that is rare. (Hence the very few contrarian scientists perhaps?). More the problem is industry taking research results and then spinning the results to over-emphasise small effects or ignore poor results. This can be ameliorated by good communication from scientists but they tend not to have budgets for this.
When scientists accept funding there are always contracts that protect the integrity of the science and bolster the independence of the scientists. This can get quite messy when it comes to interpretation and control of results. But on the whole there is quite a distinct gap between the scientists and the industry.
Your view that everything is just all one-way to the bad is just unrealistic.
Moderator Response:[JH] Gail is on the cusp of relinquishing his/her privilege of posting comments on this site.
-
citizenschallenge at 00:59 AM on 1 January 20182017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52
Seems that it's going to take more than protests.
How about some direct intellectual confrontation - demanding an explaination for why Republican feel comfortable using blatant (and juvenile) lies to rationalize refusing to pay attention to what sober serious science tell us about the physical Earth that we depend on for everything.
Here's a thought:
"Science’s Blue team educates Pruitt’s Red team - A Rough Outline."
https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/p/blue-vs-red-team.html
or perhaps
https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/p/hall-of-shame.html
-
Gail at 00:19 AM on 1 January 2018Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
Eclectic @ 32
Skepticism about climate science isn't over the basic notion of AGW, which is widely accepted; sooner or later there must surely be a problem, yes. It's about whether the science truly is settled as regards How Much Warming How Soon - ie the claimed high certainty of an imminent catastrophe (CAGW). And also more general skepticism over objectivity.Moderator Response:[JH] Sloganeering 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, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. 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, as no further warnings shall be given.
-
BaerbelW at 00:09 AM on 1 January 2018Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
Gail @33
Your view of (climate) scientists seems to be very biased to say the least. Please, take a look at the website "More than scientists" and the collection of expert interviews recorded for our MOOC Denial101x where some of them share why they actually do the work they do.
-
Gail at 23:52 PM on 31 December 2017Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
Eclectic @ 32
No I am not comparing oranges and apples. The overarching point is that the vested interest of a funder can corrupt the science to its own needs. Searching for positive or negative results, it makes no difference here.
Possesion of science degrees, or having "science" in job titles, is no guarantee that objectivity and scientific method are being followed. -
BaerbelW at 22:55 PM on 31 December 201797% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
Aanthanur @39
Your comment reads as if you haven't yet taken the time to read all the information readily available about Cook et al. on our homepage:
https://skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=homeOtherwise you should already be aware that one important aspect of the rating done for the paper (and actually mentioned in it) is that any wording minimising anthropogenic warming would have made the abstract go into one of the rejection categories, thus ruling out the inclusion of "human activity cause some warming" in categories 1 -3.
-
Eclectic at 21:36 PM on 31 December 2017Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
Gail @31 , your arguing is getting even more confused.
You are comparing apples and oranges. Tobacco-funded research was "looking for an escape clause" — they wanted to find "negatives" or at least some counter-arguments against the scientific consensus position.
Government-funded climate research [done by agencies, institutions, and hundreds of independent universities] is not angled toward an escape clause — every genuine climate scientist knows there is no escape clause and there is no counter-argument against AGW. If there were a valid counter-argument against AGW, then the handful of "contrarian scientists" [richly backed by Fossil Fuel industry funds] would have discovered & publicized it long before now. And indeed, the contrarians don't have a clue : they only have various hypotheses which have already been proven false (and their "hypotheses" are mutually contradictory and have zero evidence backing them).
Gail, you are comparing apples and oranges there . . . and so your conclusions are invalid. Invalid and worthless.
Gail, it is high time you started to educate yourself about science.
-
MA Rodger at 19:33 PM on 31 December 2017CO2 limits won't cool the planet
Aaron Davis @27,
I assume you have not carried out even the most simplistic of calculations to support you assertion "So, if anything albedo and CO2 combination, should overstate the seasonal effect over CO2 alone." If you had, you would have noticed that, while the impact of surface albedo will accentuate your elusive little CO2 effect, if you calculated it properly even for that pair of two-month-periods, you would see that during the periods and zones in question, insolation & albedo are far bigger effects than your teeny weeny dip in CO2. The insolation works against the CO2 effect and is about 100 x bigger (+13Wm^-2 compared with -0.14Wm^-2). The Surface Albedo effect is bigger still being about 300 x teeny weeny CO2 effect but additional to it. So the combination of Insolation and Surface Albedo sits 200 x bigger than the teeny weeny effect you attempt to measure (-27Wm^-2). Of course the atmospheric albedo is still to be accounted as has the imbalances in preceeding months. And there is still a whole pile of other factors beyond solar energy input.
I must stress that the reason your teeny weeny CO2 effect is so insignificant is not because CO2 forcing is insignificant or even that 15ppm CO2 is entirely insignificant. It is because the 15ppm CO2 dip you attempt to measure is only operating for a couple of months before you attempt to measure its impact.
The 9e18j value you ask about reflects the size of the zone impacted by the dip and its accumulative impact by the time of your temperature measurement. It is not a global figure. Why would it be? (The annual global forcing from -15ppm ΔCO2 would today amount to 2,250e18j, an effect that is far from insignificant.) That you apparently see some notion mirroring your own denialism in my comments is entirely illusory on your part.
Prev 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 Next
