Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 Next
Comments 16501 to 16550:
-
jbpawley at 08:16 AM on 30 December 2017From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation
Surely there is a more direct response to this question, arising from two facts: 1) Although the delta-C13 number for carbon fuels is different from that of atmospherica CO2, but not very different. 2) There is a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere, so adding more carbon from fuel combustion can only make a small change. Presumably, someone has compared the actual change over the last 200 years (from the ice core) with the amount of fuel burned so far and the delta-C13 of that fuel (although this may not be possible as long as we don't know how much of each isotope goes into the ocean and how fast the limestone is weathering etc.).
Finally, the fact that the Ozzie plot seems to be relativley free from "noise" should make anyone more confident that it actually measures something important.
-
Eclectic at 08:12 AM on 30 December 2017There's no empirical evidence
Gail @336 , the essential point is that the planet's ice is melting, the sea level is rising, the ocean and atmosphere are warming.
So it is plainly obvious the imbalance exists. Which is at the heart of your question, is it not?
-
Gail at 07:52 AM on 30 December 2017Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
Nigelj @20
Fake science. The key issue to look for where the funder of a science has a vested interest it coming to a consensus around a particular finding. As with fake news, it's not just about what they DO tell the public and DO look nto, but what they DON'T.
-
Gail at 07:16 AM on 30 December 2017There's no empirical evidence
TD, thanks a most useful article. Trenberth there says "...the planetary imbalance at TOA is too small to measure directly from satellite". Which directly answers my question.
-
Zippi62 at 07:10 AM on 30 December 2017How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice
2 parts of the Arctic are above normal. Alaska and NE North Atlantic sea basin. Residual El Nino ocean warming is the most probable cause.
60%of the Polar Bears of the Arctic Region live in Canada and Canada has been very cold since November.
I sincerely doubt the polar bears are currently in any danger of losing Arctic Sea Ice any time soon. The current "record" of Sea Ice Extent only goes back to 1974. Sea Ice Extent was at its peak in 1979. Chapter 7, page 224 of the 1990 UN IPCC Report shows the graph.
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_07.pdf
The 1930s and 1940s were also a rough time for polar bears, but there is barely any REAL record of Sea Ice Extent. Getting caught up in the Arctic Ice Melt misinformation trail isn't moving any understanding of the Arctic Region forward. Arctic Sea Ice Extent seems to be pretty safe for now.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 06:39 AM on 30 December 2017How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice
This is precious. TPohlman mocks the use of the word denier as "a pejorative within the Code on this site."
Zippi62: "Sea ice extent is currently well within normal variability."
NSIDC: "Arctic sea ice extent for November 2017 averaged 9.46 million square kilometers (3.65 million square miles), the third lowest in the 1979 to 2017 satellite record." Examination of the graph shows that it is well below both interquartile range and interdecile range for November. How far can we be from "well within normal variability"?
Zippi62:"It started to freeze early this year and has a lot of very cold air to force a deeper freeze (more multi year ice."
NSIDC: "November air temperatures at 925 hPa (about 3,000 feet above sea level) were above average over essentially all of the Arctic Ocean, with prominent warm spots (more than 6 degrees Celsius, or 11 degrees Fahrenheit above the 1981 to 2010 average) over the Chukchi Sea and north of Svalbard."
Perhaps TPohlman can propose a different word to include within the "Code" for this kind of contributors. As for myself, I'm a big advocate of concise and simple language so I think denier is appropriate.
And lastly, when this pattern manifests over and over and over again, patience for it runs even thinner than peanut butter...
As for Polar bear diet, no article I have found to date suggests that fish is an important part of their diet. It is not exactly easy for polar bears to catch fish. However, all isotope based studies I have found so far show they almost exclusively find their sustenance from the marine food web. The variations in organic contaminants according to the trophic level of their main food soure is especially interesting. They have only recently started to learn to extract food from land based sources and they are mostly opportunistic about it but also not very smart. One study showed no significant intake of readily available fruit, something that other bears would not pass. Perhaps hundreds of thousands of years of maritime meat eating can't be easily erased.
TPohlman seems to trust Stirling. Interestingly, Stirling has been the subject of extensive persional attacks from a certain part of the blogosphere, perhaps after refuting a very poor piece involving the infamous trio Soon-Baliunas-Legates.
Nonetheless, Stirling and Iverson certainly have more of a claim to polar bear expertise than Crockford. The study referenced below shows that ringed seals and harp seals are the main staples, the abstract does not mention fish. It has a interesting list of references.
-
nigelj at 04:45 AM on 30 December 2017Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
Gail @19
"Including fake science of course., where motivated or campaigning reasoning can be presented as honest objectivity"
You mean like the anti vaxxers pseudo science, and campaigning?
-
Tom Dayton at 04:33 AM on 30 December 2017There's no empirical evidence
Gail, the most recent account of measured global energy (im)balance that I know of is Trenberth, Fasullo, von Schuckmann, and Cheng, Insights Into Earth's Energy Imbalance from Multiple Sources, 2016.
-
Aaron Davis at 02:23 AM on 30 December 2017CO2 limits won't cool the planet
I have written the following email to support@remss.com. Perhaps by next week I can resolve this issue. I thank you for your interest.
Greetings,
I am trying to quantify the effect of the 3.5% swing in CO2 concentrations in high Northern latitudes relative to high Southern latitudes. The data I have access to are monthly anomaly data where apparently the effect I am seeking: monthly temperature swings have been removed.
Unfortunately, I do not have access to the referenced ftp site. Could you please provide the average monthly (12 data points) temperature for both the 60/82.5 band and the -70/-60 latitude bands. This would be 24 data points, one for each month in the two bands.
Very sincerely yours,
Aaron DavisThe set of 12 month means for 1979 to 1998 are included in the netCDF files available on the ftp server (ftp.remss.com/msu).
-
Gail at 01:27 AM on 30 December 2017There's no empirical evidence
MAR @333
I'm assuming planetary warming necessarily means an energy imbalance. Correct ?
And you seem to be confirming what I have read elsewhere, namely that current satellite measuremen technology cannot yet tell us what the imbalance actually is in absolute units per unit time. They seem confident only that the outgoing heat is decreasing, but can't quantify in absolute terms, only the relative wobbles you mention.
Moderator Response:[TD] See Trenberth's energy budget diagram, which appears in many places such as this post. Wikipedia has a good article. More technical is a rebuttal to the misinterpretation of a Trenberth quote; read the Intermediate tabbed pane, then watch the video, then read the Advanced tabbed pane.
-
David Kirtley at 01:05 AM on 30 December 2017From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation
Digby@1 Yes, "some people" might say that such small changes can't tell us anything. It is the same kind of thinking that argues that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the small increase of that due to human emissions, is too small to matter. Here is the SkS rebuttal dealing with that: How substances in trace amounts can cause large effects.
The examples shown in that rebuttal show that small changes can have large consequences. In our everyday lives, most people can't notice such small changes. But scientists know the importance of these changes and so have devised ways to measure them.
Beyond telling "some people" these facts and examples, I'm not sure what else can be said. For "some people" their gut feelings about things trump the evidence shining before their eyes.
For me, the evidence shown in the CSIRO graph (figure 3) is compelling proof that something is different with the atmosphere's CO2. For most of the last millennium, the delta value was constant at -6.5‰; only in the last ~200 years have we seen a change with those values growing more and more negative. Yes, these are very small changes over time. But these changes are like fingerprints and blood drops at a crime scene: if you know what to look for they contain a wealth of information.
-
MA Rodger at 00:05 AM on 30 December 2017There's no empirical evidence
Gail @331,
I think I should correct the comment @332. The climate forcing is of the order of 2 to 3 watts per square metre. The imbalance will be less as the planetary warming means more radiation to space and thus a smaller imbalance, roughly 1 watt per sq metre.
The imbalance can be measured by satellites but while the satellite measurements are good at measuring the wobbles in the incoming & outgoing radiation, they are very poor (so far) at giving accurate net values or good long-term trends, this due to calibration problems. However, we do have good measures of Ocean Heat Content which is where most of the energy ends up and OHC measurements are the exact opposite accuracy-wise.
So if we say the change in Ocean Heat Content is very roughly 0.77 watt per metre squared (as quoted for Ocean Heat Content in the Intermediate version of the OP) and say that a quantity of energy very roughly about 5% of the ΔOHC would be used to warm the atmosphere, we can calculate that the atmosphere would be warming at about 0.19ºC per decade. This is a little above the actual measured rate of warming of 0.175ºC per decade which has remained remarkably constant over the last few decades (as this graph demonstrates - usually 2 clicks to 'download your attachment')
-
Eclectic at 23:53 PM on 29 December 2017There's no empirical evidence
Gail @331 , you will have to explain what you mean by a "relative measurement". That's a very odd term !
In absolute terms, the energy imbalance [i.e. rate of energy gain by the planet] is in the region of 2.0 - 3.0 watts per square meter (if I recall the figure correctly! ). That is, gain averaging "per square meter" planet-wide 24 hours per day 365 days per year. Doesn't sound much — equal to a small LED bulb — but do your math and multiply by 510 million square kilometers planet-wide year after year . . . and you can see why hundreds of cubic miles of ice are melting, the sea level is rising on an accelerating path, plants & animals are changing behavior and location, and the ocean is warming (also causing a rapid temperature rise in the thin planetary layer we call "the surface").
The speed of warming is something you should educate yourself about (you will best look at more appropriate threads & articles on this SkepticalScience website). As a heads-up, the ballpark figure for warming to an equilibrium . . . is that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 produces eventually around 3.0 more likely 3.5 degreesC surface temperature rise. How much of that we get now depends on how quickly we stop adding CO2 to the air.
Of course, for your own lifetime and the lifetimes of your grandchildren, you will more immediately be concerned with the "transient" [= short-term] speed of planetary response. Already we have had around a 1 degreeC rise in little more than a century — so it's going on at a galloping speed.
But do please pursue the matter on more appropriate threads. This particular thread is more about the mechanism of global warming & its connection/causation by human industrial activity — and both those points have been determined beyond all doubt (though there's always a "Flat-Earther" who likes to argue against all the evidence ;-)
-
MA Rodger at 23:34 PM on 29 December 2017CO2 limits won't cool the planet
Aaron Davis @23,
I am failing to grasp what you say in your first paragraph.
One point that can be cleared up by me. The Latitude quoted in my graphic @22 should of course be 52N and not 54N. Interestingly, BEST give data with an identical latitude of 52.24N for both Irkutsk and London although in the latter case, this latitude is representitive of a UK value which they substitute for a London value. (My intention at first was to graph BEST data rather than the Wikithing stuff.)
However directly addressing your first paragraph, I am not sure what you mean by your 'smoothed out differences,' why locations at 52.3N or 51.5N or there-abouts would 'not be especially relevant,' or what you meant by "correction you identified." (Perhaps I should also mention here your use of RSS that involves significantly different latitude ranges for the two poles.)
Concerning the rest of your comment @23, I set out @17 six serious errors in your grand analysis, factors you suggested @18 were "maybe not so serious" and you now @23 ask for clarity in what I "claim."
Of the six serious errors set ou @17, four address your method and of these three as existential in argumentation terms. That is, there are three reasons why no signal of the phenomenon you seek will be identified within the data you use. Using the numbering @17 for reference, these are (3) The data you use are anomalies and thus have had the signal you look for removed, as explained @19. (2) The differences between the regions being analysed will provide noise that will entirely swamp any signal were it present, an exemplar demonstration of this provided @22. (1) The signal would be minute and smaller than the measurement accuracy of the data you use. I suggested @17 "less than 0.001ºC, perhaps". The 'perhaps' was me wondering if it were better another zero would be added. Your misuse @18 of ECS (with values 2 to 7) yielding your estimate of "should be between -0.07 and -0.245oC" was flagged in the Response @18. If ECS were used to give a ball-park figure for this a phenomenon, it should be noted that perhaps 4% of the warming involved in ECS occurs in the first year of a forcing, and that the 15ppm cycle is effectively operating for just 2 months prior to the measurement period. So for ECS=3, the response would be 3 x 0.0375 x 0.04 /6 = 0.00075ºC.
Perhaps we can put this 15ppm dip in context by considering the size of the forcing and its impact prior to the measurement period. Such a dip in CO2 over +70N (the Arctic Ocean) would provide 9e18j. Over this same period the Arctic Sea Ice Volume experiences a melt of ice requiring 4,500e18j (+/-600e18j to 2sd) - the melt values from PIOMAS 1979-2017. Or simply in terms of heating an isolated atmosphere, the 9e18j would provide a 0.06ºC increase but with losses to space, to the surface and to lower latitudes due to atmospheric circulation, you would need another zero or two.
-
Gail at 21:46 PM on 29 December 2017There's no empirical evidence
The basic notion of greenhouse warming, and that man is adding CO2, are both widely recognised. The real question is surely How Much How Soon ?
The article says a creeping energy imbalance has been noted, but is this just a relative measurement, or have we actually measured, in absolute terms, the energy imbalance? And if so, what does that amount of added energy mean in terms of degrees warming per unit of time ?
-
Gail at 20:35 PM on 29 December 2017Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
Fake ideas from ANY source are a threat. Including fake science of course., where motivated or campaigning reasoning can be presented as honest objectivity, in a similar way as fake news is.
-
nigelj at 18:13 PM on 29 December 2017How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice
"To the north, Arctic sea ice reached a record low wintertime maximum (this year) extent as, incredibly, temperature instruments in Alaska malfunctioned due to the surging warmth."
www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/28/climate-change-2017-warmest-year-extreme-weather
But no, Susan Crockford says nothing going on here, and it can't possibly affect bisophere and polar bears. There just comes a point where people are clearly in denial, and simply loose all credibility.
-
nigelj at 14:50 PM on 29 December 2017How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice
Zippi@62, fair enough, polar bears do sometimes eat fish when they get lucky. I didnt say they never ate fish. But I doubt they would capture enough in the arctic region to be of much use. Remember it's the arctic bears we are all talking about.
I don't know why death of polar bears would be poorly understood. Old age, disease, hunting surely? There is some research suggesting it has been due to lack of seals related to climate change in one sub population.
Habitat loss and changes in food sources have been important causes in the extinction or decline of many species. I haven't seen any convincing reasons why polar bears are going to be immune to this, as the climate continues to warm and reduce sea ice extent.
-
Zippi62 at 14:17 PM on 29 December 2017How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice
Polar bears eat fish. - Bing Image Search
60% of polar bears live in Canada, which is NOT part of the Arctic Ice terrain. - " ... They are found in Canada (home to roughly 60% of the world's polar bears), the U.S. (Alaska), Greenland, Russia, and Norway (the Svalbard archipelago).
The polar bear Range States have identified 19 populations of polar bears living in four different sea ice regions across the Arctic. ... " - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bearI'm surprised that you didn't read your own article thoroughly.
The death of polar bears in the wild is poorly understood. They live longer in captivity (according to WIKI.
Moderator Response:[BW] Properly embedded links. Please use the "Insert" tab of the comments box to do this yourself. Thanks!
-
nigelj at 13:29 PM on 29 December 2017Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
Pluvial @17
"which will probably end our dominance of world economics and politics, another good thing, and maybe what Trumpism, supported by many reasonable people, is wisely trying to accomplish."
It is hard to reconcile this statement with Trumps efforts to increase military spending, and hold other countries almost to ransom by threatening to remove financial aid and other benefits if they disagree with trump over anything, and attempts to rewrite trade polices brutally in ways that favour america more (most economists say america already benefits more than most from free trade) and generally bully and threaten.
Or maybe this shows how we all have different interpretations of dominance!
Maybe you mean America is giving up moral leadership? Or giving up promoting multi party international agreements and trying to spread democracy? Or just becoming isolationist as it was prior to the 1940's.
I do agree that some sort of bottom up revolution is likely. And a better understanding of logically flawed arguments and identifying poor quality information sources will probably happen. But not before a lot of damage is done.
-
Zippi62 at 13:26 PM on 29 December 2017US government climate report looks at how the oceans are buffering climate change
I should rephrase that : 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?
-
Zippi62 at 12:59 PM on 29 December 2017US government climate report looks at how the oceans are buffering climate change
1911 to 1941 GLOBAL SST was +0.64C while 1941 to 1989 GLOBAL SST was +0.003C. Now we have a 1989 to 2017 GLOBAL SST increase of +0.451C.
Why do we continue to look for heat in the oceans, when our past says we have "NATURAL" warming of the same or higher magnitude on top of the ocean as we did at the turn of the last century?
-
PluviAL at 12:51 PM on 29 December 2017Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
max574, I think your valid points are good. The problem with the proposal as offered is precisely who would control it. Neutral parties can be drastically biased one way or another. Look a Jim Crow Laws, and all separate but equal ideas; completely bogus, according to the supreme court.
However, something needs to be done: My graduate level study of this very topic suggests that rather than try to impose something from the top down, content can be self-validating from the bottom top up. As far back as the late 70s, it was clear this problem was growing, now it is exploding in our faces, and it could easily destabilize our democracy, by exploiting errors in its design. This is what oligarchs in Russia have done, and together with ours, what we see now being done to the US.
My feeling is that this is a catharsis, the inoculation suggested. The USA will be fine and that our institutions will prevail, but we must learn from this hard punch, which will probably end our dominance of world economics and politics, another good thing, and maybe what Trumpism, supported by many reasonable people, is wisely trying to accomplish. Nevertheless, creating a bottom up clearing process has tremendous value, as technological bandwidth is proving to be boundless, but the mental limitations of human cognition, although amazing, are very limited by comparison.
I want to work on this concept but must finish my work on the other subject I have been warned not to talk about. If someone wants my graduate materials on the subject, I can copy them for you, look me up at my broken website, Pluvinergy.com. I will tell you the fatal flaw on the work, which when understood makes this a viable idea.
Sorry if this is inproper, and pleaes delete if so. Thanks
-
nigelj at 12:35 PM on 29 December 2017How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice
Zippi62 @26
"Polar bears mostly feed on other ocean mammals and fish"
Actually they dont eat fish, or only rarely, as follows.
"Polar bears feed mainly on ringed and bearded seals. Depending upon their location, they also eat harp and hooded seals and scavenge on carcasses of beluga whales, walruses, narwhals, and bowhead whales. On occasion, polar bears kill beluga whales and young walruses."
seaworld.org/animal-info/animal-infobooks/polar-bears/diet-and-eating-habits
They also scavenge on land sometimes but with difficulty as follows.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear#Hunting_and_diet
Polar bears aren't adapted to eating fish. Land based bears eat salmon in some places, but you can easily see why they are able to do this. Capturing fish from the sea is much more difficult for bears.
The problem for polar bears is shrinking sea ice threatens the habitats of polar bears, and also their prey, such as seals. Seals need sea ice to breed etc. So shrinking ice is basically affecting the whole food chain / pyramid.
-
sidd at 11:17 AM on 29 December 2017US government climate report looks at how the oceans are buffering climate change
HADSST3 is sea surface temperature. Ocean heat content needs measurement at depth. -
Zippi62 at 11:00 AM on 29 December 2017How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice
Sea Ice Extent is currently well within normal variability. It started to freeze early this year and has a lot of very cold air temperature to force a deeper freeze (more multi-year ice).
HadSST3 data shows an overall GLOBAL ocean warming trend of 0.05C per decade over the past 167 years.
Polar bears mostly feed on other ocean mammals and fish. I would think that they would prefer the lack of sea ice in order to hunt something other than themselves (They are cannibalistic).
Moderator Response:[DB] Off-topic and outright falsehoods 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.
-
Digby Scorgie at 10:36 AM on 29 December 2017From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation
David, I can't help thinking that "some people" will dismiss such small changes in delta-values as irrelevant. Is there some way to demonstrate that, on the contrary, the effects are significant?
-
Zippi62 at 09:50 AM on 29 December 2017US government climate report looks at how the oceans are buffering climate change
HadSST3 data shows a +0.613C warming from November 1850 to November 2017 or +0.0367C per decade.
Oct 1850 to Oct 2017 = +0.861C or 0.052C per decade
Sep 1850 to Sep 2017 = +0.835C or 0.050C per decade
Aug 1850 to Aug 2017 = +0.944C or 0.057C per decade
July 1850 to July 2017 = +0.717C or 0.045C per decade
Jun 1850 to Jun 2017 = +0.780C or 0.047C per decade
etc.........
1876 to 1879 HadSST3 data showed an overall GLOBAL ocean warming of almost +0.5C and 13 million Chinese died because of drought and excess atmospheric heat unrelated to CO2 emissions.
Overall atmospheric GLOBAL WARMING is still less than 0.1C per decade over the past 136 years. The recent up-tick is not much different than the 1910s to 1940s warming of 0.7C.
The ocean water is 1000x more dense than the atmosphere. An instantaneous rise of overall ocean temperature of 0.1C can warm the entire atmosphere by 4C almost immediately, because of the added water vapor introduced into the atmosphere. That's simple atmospheric physics and math.
The research report that you refer to is an Obama administration holdover. An extremely biased report.
Moderator Response:[DB] Off-topic and sloganeering 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.
-
max574 at 09:44 AM on 29 December 2017Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
I am a conservative religious republican voter who adamantly beleives in climate change. From my point of view the Left pushes the Political Polarisation far more than the right does. I surf many Global Warming websites and it constantly amazes me the blatant Anti-Republican articles and bias, never acknowledging the hypocricies of the Left Democrats who also fail to do what is necessary. The problem in America and I am a immigrant who lives here now, is the Left screams blue murder about every topic and constantly makes dooms day Nazi Racist extreme accusations at the Republican party without proof or even the disasters happening in REALITY itself to match the rhetoric. I read the above article and automatically I see it perpitrate exactly the same thing ALIENATING the right wing people by persisting the same tactics with its language use of "numerous allegations and evidence" to make its point. The left propganda machine exagerates huge amounts of allegations which become Proof without evidence ? where is the Proof ? its never actually stated ?... There is no race war , nazis expelling millions of mexicans , no russian collusions bla bla bla. Its all Left wing propoganda to solidify there voting block base which it solely based on divisionary identity politics and no one has the guts to say this because its not progressive politically correct to do so. When a political party screams racism constantly to gain votes who is dividing the PEOPLE ?..Without the right wing conserative smart hard working middle class people of the USA we will not solve Global Warming and I am afraid the Left wing progressive socialistic types are doing there best to stop any NON political intercourse and unity from happening. You have to live in the USA to see how ridiculous this is. Americans themselves are turned off by politics and the MSM is way over the top and studies show its the Left that is MORE BIas then FOX news which also has its BIAS....
Moderator Response:[DB] As a religious conservative and Republican (me) that helps run this venue, ideological rants are unhelpful. If you have specific examples from within the OP of this thread, fine. Otherwise, please re-read the Comments Policy of this venue and compose future comments to comport with it. Thanks!
Ideological rant snipped. -
Aaron Davis at 09:08 AM on 29 December 2017Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
John Cook's video was more specific regarding innoculation than the posted text. As an engineer I try to focus on the basic requirement - aka L&JFA. This is what I expect the media and my representatives to focus on too.
Is it true that a rising GDP will raise all boats? Certainly not if the economy colapses as a result.
Is a regulation to reduce CO2 emissions arbitrary if we wont see a reduction in global temperatures for a hundred years? We need a better plan.
Can this country survive an administration that lies under oath on written Top Secrete Security Clearences, refuses to disclose financial relationships to hide collusion with foriegn adversariey, shrinks the State Department, unminds the FBI and deliberately bankrupts the country?
Please show me the controlled requirement document we are supposed to be working towards as I am totally lost.
-
nigelj at 08:39 AM on 29 December 2017Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
One of the great things about innoculation theory is it's politically neutral. It exposes nonsense regardless of who is speaking or writing and regardless of political parties.
Innoculation theory helps get us towards the truth, and to identify credibility of websites, and claims they make, and to identify sensible, rational, effective solutions.
The only people opposed to innoculation theory are people afraid of the truth, and people with hidden agendas they are too embarrassed to openly admit to.
-
nigelj at 07:45 AM on 29 December 2017Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
Aaoron Davis @12,
"What John Cook is talking about is the Innoculation Theory and how it can be used toprotect us from Fake News. nigelj@10 and Clayeight3@8 seem a bit off topic."
No we aren't off topic. The article discuses a whole range of issues including the origins of fake news. Innoculation theory is mentioned as part of the picture.
I do agree with your proposition to teach critical thinking in schools. I have promoted that myself on this and other websites several times, so saw little point in repeating it again. I read your link.
If anything your comments on liberty are a little off topic! However I responded briefly as one does and because your comment was interesting. But I suggest we should stay with the simple dictionary definitions of liberty, and not your arbitrary re-definition or discussion becomes confused. Your use of the term arbitrary authority is a little vague, and I don't see where you are going with it. Proper authority that is not arbitrary would have to mean democratically elected authority and governed by rule of law. This is uncontraversial anyway.
I also agree on the problem of the tax cuts and higher government debt and your general commentary on that. It is also going to make dealing with climate change much harder, as it means its even harder for governments to spend money on climate research and renewable energy should they wish. This was probably part of the intention.
-
Aaron Davis at 07:24 AM on 29 December 2017CO2 limits won't cool the planet
The average monthly values over all latitudes between 60-70oN should smooth out the differences. Irkutsk at 52.3N and 51.5N is not especially relevant to the question. When I find the monthly averages without the correction you identified I will try it again.
Just to be clear, is your claim that a 3.5% change in CO2 is not perceptable or that it is perceptable but my comparison with Antarctic temperatures will not support that conclusion since "Other Effeect" are not consistent enough within the same year to be cancelled out of the difference equations @16? It appears that you are arguing the latter, but without sufficient, acceptable and relevant evidence for me to rebut.
Please be so kind as to accept the burden of proof in this regard. Or simply wait for me to arrive at this conclusion on my own once more data is identified.
Best regards,
-
nigelj at 07:16 AM on 29 December 2017How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice
TPohlman @22 and 23, I have not referred to you as a "denier". Just wanted to clarify this. To me its just interesting discussion on polar bears, and thank's for the links you posted.
You say "More ice does not always imply ‘good for bears‘ any more than less ice always implies ‘bad for bears’, no matter how many times the mantra is repeated."
So are you seriously saying that no sea ice, or very small extent of sea ice, would have no effect on polar bear numbers? Come on it has to have an effect.
Look at the picture very long term. According to research by Noaa linked below, summer ice will decline drastically and spring ice during the feeding season you mentioned will also decline. Even winter ice will eventually be down to 10 - 15 %. I simply suggest this has to effect seals and polar bears.
www.theverge.com/2013/4/12/4217786/arctic-ice-free-summer-2050-noaa-study
According to NSIDC website:
"Combined with record low summertime extent, Arctic sea ice exhibited a new pattern of poor winter recovery. In the past, a low-ice year would be followed by a rebound to near-normal conditions, but 2002 was followed by two more low-ice years, both of which almost matched the 2002 record (see Arctic Sea Ice Decline Continues). Although wintertime recovery of Arctic sea ice improved somewhat after 2006, wintertime extents remained below the long-term average. In 2015, the wintertime extent set a new record low: 14.54 million square kilometers (5.612 million square miles). The next year reached a statistical tie: 14.52 million square kilometers (5.607 million square miles)."
nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html
Sea ice is all going one way, down, down, down...
-
Aaron Davis at 06:19 AM on 29 December 2017Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
What John Cook is talking about is the Innoculation Theory and how it can be used toprotect us from Fake News. nigelj@10 and Clayeight3@8 seem a bit off topic. If you define liberty as 1) having the means to exercise free will and 2) being free from arbitrary authority, and the roll of government is to secure these characterists for All. Both conservative and liberal approaches have advantages and disadvantages.
However, a critical view of the tax bill passed and signed by only conservatives puts all our posterity (both conservative and liberal) at risk of losing liberty as the National Debt exceeds $21T. Those that support these cuts are clearly not seeking to fulfil the requirements clearly stated in the constitution and should be removed from power, or we should all expect to lose our liberty. Failure to see this is an example of the crippling power of Fake News, and greed of the few, which the Russians are successfully exploiting to their advantage every day.
-
nigelj at 06:11 AM on 29 December 2017Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
Aaron Davis @9,
You say “Secure the Blessings of Liberty for Ourselves and our Posterity”. This “truth”....
We can say "its true that liberty is a good thing" and it is, but it depends on what is meant by liberty. The standard dictionary definition is typically "the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's behaviour or political views."
This is a good goal to have. Note it doesn't say free from all restrictions. This would be anarchy and the rule of the jungle and unworkable. We need at least some rules and restrictions in order for society to function. Yet at the same time nobody wants excessive restrictions either.
So our definition of liberty is just a right to do "certain things". It's then purely a case of how do we figure those limits out? Our laws and rules might be based on principles:
1) Laws are needed if our behaviour effects other people, and causes them physical or psychological harm at significant levels. Laws are also needed if we degrade the "commons" (the environment we all share)
2) Laws should be based on mainstream scientific evidence, not conspiracy theories and alternative facts.
Right now some conservatives seem to have lost touch with these principles, and seem to think laws can be based on alternative facts, and rights to pretty much destroy the environment. This has to change.
-
nigelj at 05:18 AM on 29 December 2017Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
Clayeight @3, I agree all news organisations get things wrong sometimes, or spin the truth. However right now according to this survey Fox have the worst record, and CNN best as below:
However this truth / fake news / alternative facts issue is clearly not all about news organisations. It's about the absolute nonsense that comes from politicians themselves, particularly the current White House and Trump himself. In all fairness its hard to categorise Trump as genuinely conservative, he is hard to categorise, but his white house is mostly conservative. Then you have the nonsense claims coming from people like The Heartland Institute on matters of science, which is a conservative institute.
There's a proliferation of websites peddling alternative facts and conspiracy theories, and in my experience most of these leans quite strongly conservative and to the right. Then there are social media where the whole truth issue really explodes into many alternative facts and complete fantasy land.
Do liberal / left leaning sources have their own alternative facts? Maybe sometimes, but right now conservatives seem to be in the middle of the alternative facts phenomenon, while liberals are taking the side of mainstream science, traditional sources, and evidence based decision making and so on. They do this imperfectly but this is their general philosophy. Its an observable socio-political phenomena. Polls have even been done showing conservatives dismissive of climate science for example.
For myself its sad seeing such partisan divisions and conservatives embracing nonsense, as I have conservative and liberal friends and family, and all are good people. My instinct is to seek common ground and togetherness, and acceptance of differences and using different perspectives whether liberal or conservative as tools to solve problems and achieve solutions and a common good, as was common in the past. But America is going the opposite way, into strong partisan divisions and these sorts of strong divisions whether political, tribal, religious or otherwise can ultimately lead to civil war or abrupt restructurings of societies systems.
Maybe CBD is right, let the states decide their own economic and social policies. It's interesting to look globally, and in most democracies around the world, especially wealthy successful ones embrace "middle way" economic systems with welfare systems of some sort, maybe categorised as "medium size government" in the main, because clearly the majority want this. You also get a few large government models like France.The small government model promoted by current American conservatives is largely not wanted, and this may give an indication of what America would look like if policy was decided at state level.
-
michael sweet at 04:33 AM on 29 December 2017How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice
Tpohlman @ 22,
From your reference
I see no evidence of increased sea ice around 1970 or before. This paper does not metion polar bears or the effect of sea ice on bear polulations.
From your quote "Each was followed by a decline in polar bear reproduction and condition," This is consistant with my claim "Adult polar bears have high survival even in bad conditions. Current sea ice conditions threaten cub survival. It will take years for the effects of sea ice decrease to be measured in polar bear counts." Bad conditions cause failure of reproduction but the adult bears survive in poor condition. Your quote does not say that polar bear numers decreased, only that reproduction failed. Because polar bears live so long it takes a long time for bad conditions to be reflected in polar bear numbers.
These yearly fluctuations have nothing to do with my claim that polar bear numers increased after the control of overhunting. The control of overhunting would result in long term (decadal) increase in the population while yearly variation in sea ice would only afffect yearly variation.
I do not think your data supports your claim that sea ice fluctuations affected long term increases in polar bear populations. The data do not address the claim that control of overhunting resulted in increase in polar bear populations.
From Wikipedia
"Due to warming air temperatures, ice-floe breakup in western Hudson Bay is currently occurring three weeks earlier than it did 30 years ago, reducing the duration of the polar bear feeding season.[163] The body condition of polar bears has declined during this period; the average weight of lone (and likely pregnant) female polar bears was approximately 290 kg (640 lb) in 1980 and 230 kg (510 lb) in 2004.[163] Between 1987 and 2004, the Western Hudson Bay population declined by 22%,[185] although the population is currently listed as "stable".[8]" (my emphasis)
A decline of 22% of one of the best studied populations of polar bears is considered "stable". The decrease in female weight portends a failure of reproduction. This is caused by a decadal decrease in sea ice, not a single bad year.
From Dr. Derocher, a polar bear researcher in Canada:
"After the signing of the International Agreement on Polar Bears in the 1970s, harvests were controlled and the numbers increased. There is no argument from anyone on this point. Some populations recovered very slowly (e.g., Barents Sea took almost 30 years) but some recovered faster. Some likely never were depressed by hunting that much, but the harvest levels remained too high and the populations subsequently declined. M'Clintock Channel is a good example. The population is currently down by over 60% of historic levels due only to overharvesting. Some populations recovered as harvests were controlled, but have since declined due to climate-related effects (e.g., Western Hudson Bay). In Western Hudson Bay, previously sustainable harvests cannot be maintained as the reproductive and survival rates have declined due to changes in the sea ice."
He states that all numbers from the 50's and 60's are guesses and cannot be trusted.
I withdraw my suggestion that you would not produce data. In the past those who challenge the scientific consensus have not replied to me with data.
-
Aaron Davis at 04:01 AM on 29 December 2017Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
Clayeight3@8 I try to respect the terms of participation here about political posts, although I am frequently reprimanded for being off topic [irrelevant, require more charity and lack clarity] so let me take your comments in a more topical, less political direction. What I see a lack of in the media, leading to False News accusations is the requirement that we seek the truth, not try to appear infallible. With regard to government the truth we seek is the best way to “Secure the Blessings of Liberty for Ourselves and our Posterity”. This “truth” is by no way universally accepted. If we lived in Iran the truth might be “Inshallah”, but because we all repeated the pledge to “Liberty and Justice for All” let’s just go with that.
Moderator Response:[DB] Moderation complaints snipped.
-
Clayeight3 at 03:31 AM on 29 December 2017Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
As a conservative I resent the impression that it is only conservatives that have an issue with the truth. I believe those in power will distort the truth to maintain that power, regardless of party affiliation. Many have brought up concerns with news organizations other than Fox News. It’s easy to point to Fox News for spinning the truth for conservatives since they are the only name in the game as far as broadcast news goes. Yet it’s harder to point to spin perpetrated by other news agencies since they all tilt left more than they tilt right. Which in my estimation creates its own risk of "corrosive effects of the partisan media bubble".
I think it’s disingenuous to imply that it’s only Fox News or conservatives that have issues with the truth. Understandably this blog points to them for their reluctance to believe Climate Change, but that does not change the fact that liberals and progressives have issues with the truth as well. To that end, I have a friend with a PHD in Poli Sci and is a far left socialist who is critical of the medias madness on “Russiagate”. By making this post “Very refreshing: Aaron Mate brutally destroys Guardian journalist Luke Harding, author of a new book which makes the case for Trump-Russia "collusion.” Harding's efforts to defend his book are utterly laughable. If you're wondering why the corporate press never brings on skeptics of the "Russiagate" hysteria despite near-constant coverage, this should make it fairly clear.” https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/what-happens-when-a-russiagate-skeptic-debates-a-professional-russiagater-1e796f620a4a
Point being is political ideology has no bearing on issues of truth.Moderator Response:[DB] Off-topic snipped.
-
TPohlman at 02:43 AM on 29 December 2017How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice
Michael,
just to make this easier, here’s the “money quote” from Stirling, et al 2008:
“The 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s each experienced a two- to three-year decline in seal productivity in the eastern Beaufort Sea and Amundsen Gulf, associated with heavy ice conditions, around mid-decade. Each was followed by a decline in polar bear reproduction and condition, after which both seal and bear populations recovered (Smith, 1987; Harwood et al., 2000; Stirling, 2002). The beginning of each of those three periods was associated with heavy ice conditions through the winter before the reproductive decline of the seals, followed by a late spring breakup.”
In summary, first seals, then bears, recovered from a decline caused by excessive sea ice and late spring breakup. More ice does not always imply ‘good for bears‘ any more than less ice always implies ‘bad for bears’, no matter how many times the mantra is repeated.
-
Aaron Davis at 01:45 AM on 29 December 2017Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
CBDunkerson@6 The idea that we should let states do what they want is not new. We kept Slave/State Free States for far to long. It was the call for States Rights that the Southern States fought the Civil War About. The fear is that States with high tax and regulations would lose their wealthiest citizens while bringing jobs to low tax low regulation States.
I am particularly interested in the topic of inoculation and vitamins. In both the Engineering and Geology Classes teach as an Adjunct at the Community College I ask the students to write 10-15 true/false and multiple choice questions on the reading before class. I then use the questions in the lectures and the quizzes. My thinking is that this will help them formulate challenges in their minds to get them to think critically about the claim. I also impress on them the 12 tests they can apply from Attacking Faulty Reasoning to help them with the exercise. These 12 tests fall into 3 categories: Table manners, fallacies, and resolution.
A) Table manners
- Fallibility - no one is always right.
- Truth Seeking – we must agree to seek the truth
- Burden of proof – the guy with the claim has the burden
- Charity – put the other guys argument in the best possible light
- Clarity – be as clear with your position as possible.
2) Fallacies
- Acceptable – another researcher must have an opportunity to reproduce to replicate the results
- Relevant – the premises must be appropriate to the argument
- Sufficient – there must be sufficient evidence on one side or the other
- Rebut all challenges – explain contradictory evidence
3) Resolution
- Resolve without full agreement - When all the above are satisfied but time is of the essence it’s okay to resolve without full agreement.
- Suspend judgement– While there is time, and not all agree, it’s okay to wait for new information.
- Re-evaluate – When new acceptable, relevant and sufficient, fully vetted evidence comes in it’s okay to proceed in a different direction.
Best regards
-
Michael Schroeder at 01:37 AM on 29 December 2017Ocean acidification isn't serious
A question on ocean acidification from a non-scientist historian who's abidingly concerned about anthropogenic global climate disruption (and teaches freshman college students about this stuff in a first-year seminar on "People & the Planet" at a small liberal arts school in Central PA):
I'm reviewing climate change denialist Gregory Wrightstone's book, "Inconvenient Facts" (2017), and I'm a bit puzzled by one of his assertions. On p. 110 he writes:
"During the Cambrian, Ordovician and Silurian periods of the early Paleozoic era (543-416 million years ago), CO2 usually exceeded 4,000 ppm, reaching a maximum of nearly 8,000 ppm in the Cambrian period. The later was ~20 times today's concentration. When we compare CO2 levels to the rock record from the author's home turf in the Appalachian Basin of the eastern United States, we find that most of these CO2-enriched periods were dominated by limestone deposition. Limestone deposition could not have occurred had the oceans been 'acidified'. Most of the limestone was deposited during the periods of highest CO2 concentrations."
Thanks to this website and the references in this comments section, I've been able to find ample evidence discounting most all of Wrightstone's other assertions on ocean acidification, but this one has me puzzled. How were marine organisms able to make hard shells, and deposit massive amounts of limestone, when atmospheric CO2 (and oceanic carbonic acid levels) were so high? It's my understanding that when atmospheric CO2 reaches ~550 ppm, CO2 absorption by the oceans & the spike in oceanic carbonic acid levels renders marine animals incapable of forming hard shells. So how were these huge limestone deposits created when atmospheric CO2 levels (and oceanic carbonic acid levels) were so high?
Thanks in advance for helping me (and my students) understand the science involved here.
-
TPohlman at 01:21 AM on 29 December 2017How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice
Michael Sweet,
For a look at sea ice conditions (actual vs. modeled) in the late 20th century that clearly shows high conditions in the 70s and then the decline, I think you will find this paper useful, particularly see figures 2 and 7 in the PDF version.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00201.1
It‘s more difficult to find references to the low points during the first half of that century, due to lack of data, but I will look for you.
As for the conjecture that recovery from excessive sea ice could have helped polar bear recovery along with the hunting ban, I will see what I can find. As I was clear, I “don’t know how valid that is”, but reasonable conjecture sometimes leads to fruitful lines of research, as I’m sure you know.
in that regard, I’m somewhat surprised at your in referenced assertion that ‘adult polar bears have high survival in bad conditions“. I suggest you look at what happened in periods of high Spring ice in 2004-2006, as well as in previous episodes in the 20th century and well documented in the literature. For more on that try these (Amstrup et al. 2006; Cherry et al. 2009; Pilfold et al. 2012; Stirling 2002; Stirling and Lunn 1997; Stirling et al. 1980; Stirling et al. 1993; Stirling et al. 2008).
Finally, you and another responder have referred to me as a ‘denier’, a perjorative that is apparently within the Code on this site. I’d be curious as to what you think I’m denying. Or is it that you just assume that any deviation from orthodoxy must imply a uniform ‘denialist‘ worldview? You have no idea what my views are on AGW, sea ice trends, greenhouse gasses, etc. because I haven’t expressed any. Therefore, be more cautious with such a powerful term: spread thinly like peanut butter over everything, it is meaningless, and frankly, somewhat tasteless.
-
CBDunkerson at 23:48 PM on 28 December 2017Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
I first began noticing the growth of an 'alternate conservative reality' nearly 20 years ago, so it is gratifying that this is now (finally) a widely recognized problem that people are researching possible solutions to.
That said, I've developed my own theory on the best response... give them what they want. That is, the next time the US government falls under mostly reality based control they should put forward legislation that allows each state to choose one of two economic paths. This would be similar to the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare... each state can choose to opt in or not. Either they get huge tax cuts for the rich, elimination of welfare and other benefits, and the rest of the conservative wish list... OR they can raise the minimum wage, rebuild infrastructure, shift the tax burden back to the wealthy, strengthen the social safety net, and so forth as progressives want.
Everybody gets what they say is the best course of action, so it should be wildly popular and pass easily... at which point those living under conservative 'trickle down' economic fairy tales would sink ever further into collapse while the states governed by reality based politicians would finally be able to make sustained economic progress.
It becomes a lot more difficult for people to deny reality when it is impacting their ability to survive... and they can no longer blame 'the other side' because they got exactly what they asked for. Still, if they somehow perservere in believing nonsense... that means economic and social collapse, effectively limiting the power of those states and still allowing the rest of the country (and world) to move forward as they retreat back to the dark ages.
-
michael sweet at 22:05 PM on 28 December 2017How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice
Tpohlman,
The Wikipedia article I linked upthread contains many peer reviewed citations that cover your questions. In any case, it is common knowledge that hunting reduced polar bear numbers.
Adult polar bears have high survival even in bad conditions. Current sea ice conditions threaten cub survival. It will take years for the effects of sea ice decrease to be measured in polar bear counts.
I noticed that you do not provide any references for your wild claim that the 1970's had high sea ice amounts. Unfortunately, Cryosphere Today is not online, but this page has several ice graphs that do not show any increase in sea ice that could have had the result you claim. Satalite data show little decrease in sea ice beore 1996.
It is typical for deniers to insist that scientists produce peer reviewed references while they spew false, unsupported claims without a shred of evidence. My claims are those supported by experts. Your claims are unsupported. Please provide citations to support your wild claim that sea ice conditions affected polar bears in the 70's.
-
Arctic Haze at 19:42 PM on 28 December 2017Some curious things about Svensmark et al. reference list
The reviewers made a very poor job. The fact that they never noticed that Svensmark et al. avoid mentioning recent studies with result conflicting with their own shows they were not experts on aerosols. By the way, at minimum Svensmark and colleagues should address the negative result of the CERN CLOUD project. Pretending that contradictory results never happened is not the way one is supposed to write scientific papers.
-
MA Rodger at 19:25 PM on 28 December 2017CO2 limits won't cool the planet
Aaron Davis @21,
And you may need to reconsider your opinion that latitude (north or south) provides an "excellent comparison since the slant path sun angle, which are predominant effects are normalized."
The arctic is ocean surrounded by land. The antarctic is land surrounded by ocean. Does that make a difference?
Here are two locations with identical "slant path sun angles" for your consideration. The FM and AS averages are marked.
Ooops!! There appears to be a "predomenant effect" or two that are not in any way "normalised."
-
Eclectic at 19:04 PM on 28 December 2017How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice
Thank you Dr Tol @19. Yes I have read your own site's 20th December post (including the note on redundancy, and the brutal simplicity of basic positions taken by blogs — rather than the six variables mentioned).
A more detailed examination of the denier blogs might well discover nuanced positions — but mundane experience of climate science denialism indicates that [their] nuanced positions, when they exist, are mutually contradictory and generally lacking in scientific worth. The arctic-ice/polar-bear nexus seems to fit the pattern. And Dr Verheggen's depictions are prima facie "binary", very much so (though probably not more than would be expected, given the mindset of the average denialist).
You are a busy man, and I do not wish to importune you to provide close analysis of the blog contents themselves. I agree with you that the positions expressed (by the anti-science bloggers) are likely to be quite predictable and "anything but AGW".
-
Ari Jokimäki at 17:18 PM on 28 December 2017Some curious things about Svensmark et al. reference list
Note that in my article above the paragraph about S17 citation of Laakso et al. was incorrect. I have added a note about this and marked the paragraph for deletion.
Prev 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 Next
