Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 Next
Comments 16601 to 16650:
-
Bob Loblaw at 08:30 AM on 11 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
Having worked in government (not the US), and having taken some of the basic "management" training, one of the things that is expressed clearly is that every action and expenditure has to be done in accord with legislation that grants the authority/power. Yes, the government can pass legislation to change those powers, but ultimately there is a constitutional requirement, too - legislation can be deem unconstitutional and thus void.. (And the constitution is usually hard to change.)
IANAL, but in the EPA case, the US Supreme Court declared that the EPA was required to do something based on existing law. My guess is that courts more often declare that something cannot be done, rather than requiring it, but c'est la vie. In the case discussed above, part of the goal may be to get a court decision saying the government must act. (Whether it will or not is an open question - you can always prolong the thing by forcing the complainant to sue again that you breeched the first decision.)
IAStillNAL, but key words in legislation are things like "may" (grants the power to do something, but does not require it), and "shall" (gotta do it, son).
An odd part of the current US pattern is that more and more governments are taking a "hands off" approach, in terms of actions and regulations. In the 'ibertarion ideal, everything gets decided in courts with very minimal government legislation, If the government will not act "in the common good", then an injured party has little left but to sue, it seems to me. If your reaction is "take me to court", then you aren't really justified in complaining when someone actually does.
-
nigelj at 05:41 AM on 11 December 2017The Carbon Brief Interview: Dr Katharine Hayhoe
Singleton engineer, yes that makes sense.
It's challenging because The IPCC reports have to be signed off by governments, and they aren't going to want to do this every few months if the reports are continually changing in total, or with lots of multiple small changes to wade through scattered through the whole vast document. So the five year big picture cycle would likely remain.
There's another reason, that climate change requires weighing a whole lot of related evidence before reaching too many conclusions, and this suits a 5 year period and big review.
However its too slow to reflect the physical reality and urgency, so some key chapters need faster updating. This is a sensible compromise.
Paper is dead. Nobody has to wait for IPCC to publish and distribute paper documents. They can electronically produce the stuff immediately and its instantly able to be changed and accessible for people to print if they want. I dont even use a printer much these days.
-
nigelj at 05:14 AM on 11 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
NorrisM @6
Ok thanks for some legal background and history. But you seem to miss the obvious thing, these kids (and others around the world as JH points out) are bringing courst cases only because all other avenues have been exhausted or been obstructed. The stupid politicians are failing to do the right thing, so it only leaves legal action.
So I'm right behind what these kids are doing, and you might be surprised with the result. The constitution is a document so general that it is open to interpretation, and so we cant possibly guess where this court action could go. It may be symbolic,or it may lead to changes.
You quote problem areas of such cases selectively, because clearly other environmental actions bought against the government that have cost implications have actually succeeded, like the EPA example above. The fact you ignore this as if it doesn't exist, is not very impartial of you.
And climate change is essentially fossil fuel companies causing humanity harm in a similar way to tobacco, or any drug, or poison. Its also tragedy of the commons issue. To summarise these are all manifestly legal issues ultimately, and because politicians are failing to take the lead, it only leaves the courts.
-
michael sweet at 05:13 AM on 11 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
Norrism:
Currently in the USA the legislature is controlled by people who do not care about anyone except rich donors. The EPA was sued to declare carbon dioxide a pollutant and the EPA lost during Bushes term. The court required the EPA to declare CO2 a pollutant because the judges were required to read the overwhelming evidence that it is a problem. The Trump EPA has not challenged the declaration of CO2 as a pollutant because they would be in violation of the court order.
The court can declare that CO2 pollution is a national emergency and the legislative branch has to deal with it. It can set goals that have to be achieved. It can take punitive action if the goals are not met. This is currently done with sulfate pollution.
-
NorrisM at 04:55 AM on 11 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
Moderator and nigelj
I will see if I can find some discussion of what is expected to be achieved beyond the publicity.
My rhetorical point is that the courts are not the place to decide these very complex issues. The problem courts have in cases like these is that they know very well any specific direction to the government could have massive financial costs which they are not equipped to evaluate. This is the function of the legislative arm which balances a great number of competing expenditures then weighing the use of deficit financing versus raising taxes. Many years ago our Canadian Supreme Court came down with a decision stating that if waiting lines did not improve they would render a decision finding that the Canada Health Act was beyond its power in prohibiting two tiered health care. What happened? Nothing.
Where specific issues are involved like civil rights or abortion these are legal questions where an answer can be given which can then be worked around by the legislative arm. I was familiar with the US Supreme Court decision on CO2 and that is why I asked if there were some discussion of what they think could be achieved in the children's case beyond publicity.
It is often the case in democracies that if a group of people are not happy with the government they resort to the courts. What happens is that our political system gets bogged down because every step taken by the legislative arm gets met with years of litigation. I do not think it is the way to run a democracy personally. Courts usurp the political process if they start making policy decisions. Clearly this is not a bright line between the law and policy but there are limits to what the courts can and should do. If you are not happy with your politicians then boot them out. If the US Supreme Court does get rid of "gerrymandering" this would go a long way to bringing more democracy to the legislative arm in the US.
-
John Hartz at 04:15 AM on 11 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
This just in...
People around the world beset by the impacts of global warming like droughts, heat waves and storm surges are calling for “climate justice,” and many are pleading their cases in court.
Globally, there are at least 1,000 active legal cases related to climate change, more than two-thirds of them in the United States, according to a recent tally from the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, in London.
A summit on Tuesday in Paris — with more than 50 heads of state attending — on how to finance the transition to a low-carbon economy will be followed the next day by a climate justice forum.
Climate change: Global warming victims seek justice, on the street and in courts, AFP/Hindustan Times, Dec 10, 2017
-
william5331 at 04:13 AM on 11 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
The NY Times article titled Soil Power has hit the nail sqarely on the head. Read David R Montgomery's book, Growing a Revolution and then his previous book Dirt. It is all laid out clearly how to proceed and is a great read to boot.
-
SingletonEngineer at 21:27 PM on 10 December 2017The Carbon Brief Interview: Dr Katharine Hayhoe
@nigelj:
I think that the answer to your question about paper publishing Vs electronic starts with the timeline.
IPCC operates on a 5-year cycle. The published reports hit the public some time after the end of the date at which new content is frozen. An example could be new data on ice mass stored on Greenland and the Antarctic, or the ice coverage of the Arctic. After a certain date, discussion of that new data simply must carry over to the next cycle.
At a rough approximation, let's put that at a half-cycle, ie 2.5 or 3 years.
Professor Hayhoe has suggested faster cycles for subject areas, especially the rapidly evolving ones, thus (my guess) lopping a year or maybe much more off the time lapse between publication of the peer reviewed work and its filtering out to the broader community.
IMHO, the 5-year cycle is probably going to remain for the purpose of bringing together the widest perspective and developing the broadest agreement across disciplines, but those are not valid arguments against the type of revolution proposed by Prof. Hayhoe.
Fresh is best, in science as well as fruit, but not so fresh that it hasn't ripened.
-
nigelj at 11:42 AM on 10 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
NorrisM @2
"Assuming the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allows this case to go forward, if you were the judge what would you order......?"
I'm not sure why you are asking me. I'm not a lawyer, and I do not have a law degree, or know the American legal system, and you know this already, so theres not much I can say about what sort of legal case they can bring or what the judge would order, or damages they could demand. They will be getting that sort of advice.
Wouldn't it have been of more use for you to share your legal knowledge with us than ask a layperson on the law?
All I can say is the constitution is law in America, and violations of the constitution certainly have had legal consequences in the past with award of damages, or requiring various other orders, and the Federal government is not immune.
According to the article its all happened before "Climate science has been in court before. When he was president, George W. Bush also wanted to ignore the seriousness of climate change. His Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decided that CO2, the gas most responsible for the planet’s warming, is not a pollutant that could be regulated under the Clean Air Act. Twelve states and several cities disagreed and took EPA to court. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if the Administrator of EPA certified that CO2 does in fact endanger public health and safety, the gas should be regulated."
What I can do is give some advice on how to argue the facts 1) based on my knowledge of the climate issue and 2) I have actually represented myself in civil court several times, and won every case, so I know a little about how to present an argument.
And regardless of the legalities, the case the kids are bringing will focus attention on a very worthy subject.
"Relating to the Jacobson vs Clack litigation, I have just finished reading the published response of Jacobson and then the reply of Clack to that response. It is laughable to think that some judge with legal training could ever make sense of the complicated issues raised between the two of them even after listening to endless "experts" on both sides. "
Clack v Jacobson is complicated, but no more so than a complex financial fraud trial, or some high profile complex murder case. Judges and/ or juries hear those all the time.
-
NorrisM at 10:17 AM on 10 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
nigelJ @ 1
Assuming the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allows this case to go forward, if you were the judge what would you order? And who would you order to do it? Or do you, as the judge, just say, yes, it affects the life and liberty of every American. Then what?
Perhaps someone can point me to a rational discussion of what this case could achieve.
Relating to the Jacobson vs Clack litigation, I have just finished reading the published response of Jacobson and then the reply of Clack to that response. It is laughable to think that some judge with legal training could ever make sense of the complicated issues raised between the two of them even after listening to endless "experts" on both sides.
This case by these children all sounds wonderful but do you really expect some judge to come down with any decision that would have any legal effect?
Moderator Response:[JH] You claim to be a lawyer. If so, you should be able to do your own legal homework on this case.
-
nigelj at 06:55 AM on 10 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
Go you kids! I have total respect for what you are doing, and will watch with interest.
Lawyers can be intimidating, I have dealt with plenty of them. But a lot of it turns out to be hot air, empty rhetoric, and bluster, so dont let it intimidate you too much, and keep your discussion composed and civil, but forceful.
The main thing they will do is cast doubt on the science, and claim its not settled science and there's no consensus, so this is the main thing you have to counter. Point out that we have five independent studies showing 90 - 95% agreement between climate scientists that humans are warming the climate. Point out its climaate researchers views that count most, as they have the expertise. Point out polls like the Oregen partition are deeply flawed.
Above all do accept the fact a few climate scientists are dissenting voices, but that you do not require 100% agreement for settled science. There are always a few eccentric scientists with opposing views in any field of science, and there's still a flat earth society that is not entirely just for humour.
And point out that all natural climate trends should be causing a cooling effect rather than warming, and the fact that the denislist's haven't provided a competing, fully thought out alternative theory, that covers all issues and has won the respect of science academies and the IPCC and climate research community.
Kill it. Kill it with fire.
-
nigelj at 06:33 AM on 10 December 2017The Carbon Brief Interview: Dr Katharine Hayhoe
OPOF, you and everyone else, may find this interesting, relevant to the games people play, and very witty. "The Parable of the Ox."
-
nigelj at 06:29 AM on 10 December 2017The Carbon Brief Interview: Dr Katharine Hayhoe
Swayseeker @2, I agree geoengineering by putting heat reflecting particles in the atmosphere is just high risk, with all sorts of side effects on rainfall and clouds.
You say "From my "stack effect" calculations quite a few cubic kilometres of warm moist air could be delivered every week to the high regions where the dense cold air starts descending."
Your basic theory seems to make sense, and I'm sure they could generate plenty of cubic metres in theory, but you give no idea of the size and number of greenhouses required, or cost, and its not going to be small. Like I have said before, go the further step and at least have a stab at possible scale with some reasonable assumptions and rough calculations, and it would be more convincing.
However at the rate things are going in California they may have to try some local climate modification like this. But please appreciate your technical fix is actually local geoengineering, and may produce a few side effects of its own. But they would be confined locally, more or less.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:03 AM on 10 December 2017The Carbon Brief Interview: Dr Katharine Hayhoe
A clarification of my previous comment.
Human actions have already created so much CO2 pollution or reduction of CO2 sequestration in living organisms that the atmospheric level is above 350 ppm.
Therefore, human actions to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere are required to be started Now, no matter how expensive it is to use the currently developed technology to do that. The current generation owes that reduction of cretaed impacts to future generations, and the wealthy people who fot wealthier through activity that creayed the problem should pay the most for the rapid removal of CO2 (while at the same time seeing a rapid reduction in their ability to get more wealth from cretaing excess CO2).
Most importantly, only options that remove CO2 without potentially creating other negative impacts should be in the competition to be the preferred actions to reduce CO2.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:45 AM on 10 December 2017The Carbon Brief Interview: Dr Katharine Hayhoe
Swayseeker,
Totally agree and would add, as an experienced Engineer (applier of science), I seriously doubt our ability to understand the global environment well enough to be certain enough that there would not be unacceptable harm done by any Global Geo-Engineering attempt. All we can do is learn how to reduce the negative impacts of our actions, not try to create more impacts in the hopes that imposing more human impacts will be sustainably better.
What is certain is that even with the long established and constantly improving understanding of the harm being done by the ultimately dead-end burning up of buried hydrocarbons (more harm than the climate change conseqences of excess CO2 generation), the economic and political games people play get Won by damaging people who deserve to be Losers.
Until the fatal flaws that allow Damaging Private Interests to compete in the games people play are effectively dealt with, no Global Geo-Engineering activity should be considered helpful for the Public Interest of developing lasting better lives for all of humanity, no matter how much Regional or Tribal Popular support there is for the actions in the hopes that they will mitigate the massive damage already created by the failed Global Geo-Engineering experiment with fossil fuel burning. It would be worse to allow such actions and excuse more fossil fuel burning because such actions were allowed.
-
Swayseeker at 00:26 AM on 10 December 2017The Carbon Brief Interview: Dr Katharine Hayhoe
The above article says, "A volcanic eruption spews enormous amounts of soot and dust into the atmosphere, and if it’s high enough up in the stratosphere, that soot and dust can circle the world for a year or more. It acts like a reflective blanket or an umbrella reflecting the energy of the sun back to space, which cools the Earth off. Some are proposing this as a possible solution to climate change,.."
If you cool the ground using this method you are going to get less convection and less convectional rainfall and less clouds to reflect solar energy to space. So it will lead to more drought and more fires. In my view it would be a huge mistake.
Regarding fires: California has had huge water canal construction projects and I do not see that implementation of the following idea would cost too much: The fires are fanned by initially relatively cold air that warms as it descends and heats by compression. One could have a reverse flow by having a greenhouse to evaporate seawater near the sea and have a long greenhouse pipe running upwards to where the wind starts. Because the air will be kept warm during the day in the greenhouse pipe and moist air is less dense than drier air, the air will rush up through the greenhouse pipe and heat the cold air region and increase relative humidity there. Now it might seem that this would have little effect, but this system could be kept running day and night throughout the year. From my "stack effect" calculations quite a few cubic kilometres of warm moist air could be delivered every week to the high regions where the dense cold air starts descending.
More humid air is less dense than drier air, enabling it to rise when it is at the same temperature as surrounding drier air:
Example:
1) At sea level the air pressure is 101.325 kPa. The air has a temperature of 30 deg C and the relative humidity (RH) is 95%. Then the density of the air is 1147 g per cubic metre.
2) At sea level the air pressure is 101.325 kPa. The air has a temperature of 32 deg C and the relative humidity (RH) is 50%. Then the density of the air is 1147 g per cubic metre.
So humidifying the 30 deg C air by increasing RH from 50% to 95% has about the same affect on air density as heating the RH=50% and T=30 deg C air to T=32 deg C.
Note: RH drops slightly on heating from 30 to 32 deg C, but it does not affect calculations a lot. -
Eclectic at 20:00 PM on 9 December 2017NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority
Citizenschallenge @78 , thank you for resurrecting this rather dormant thread. I hadn't heard of anything recently from "DrPhD" Doiron and his dozen or so of retired NASA engineers & non-climate scientists — who called themselves TRCS (The Right Climate Stuff).
According to their website, their last "activity" was 11 months ago (Jan. 2017). A quick read through their website, reveals some highly-selective cherrypicking [ Ljungqvist + one Greenland ice core site + upper troposphere "global temperatures" + one dodgy-looking graph of average once-annual world mean surface temperatures ] . . . all processed through some el basico mathematics plus a bit of curve-fitting with 61-year and 1000-year "natural cycles" . . . to produce a conclusion that there's nothing for humans to worry about because Global Warming from CO2 is only very slight and self-limiting. And it will be fine to keep burning fossil carbon in an unrestricted way.
In short, the TRCS presents a fine example of Garbage-In-Garbage-Out.
-
citizenschallenge at 16:38 PM on 9 December 2017NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority
rbgage, at the rate we're going the not too distant future (a few decades) will be making the 17 hundreds look better all the time.
At least in the 1700s our environment was a vibrant healthy promising place, once you got out of the Europe's cities.
So sad, we never appreciate what we have till it's gone. : (
-
michael sweet at 10:32 AM on 9 December 2017Models are unreliable
John,
That article is so sad :(.
-
John Hartz at 06:57 AM on 9 December 2017Models are unreliable
Recommended supplemental reading:
The most accurate climate change models predict the most alarming consequences, study finds by Chris Mooney, Washington Post, Energy & Environment, Dec 6, 2017
The Most Accurate Climate Models Predict Greater Warming, Study Shows by Georgina Gustin, InsideClimate News, Dec 6, 2017
Both articles describe the findings contained in:
Greater future global warming inferred from Earth’s recent energy budget, Patrick T. Brown & Ken Caldeira, Nature 552, 45–50 (07 Dec 2017)
doi:10.1038/nature24672 -
nigelj at 06:17 AM on 9 December 2017The Carbon Brief Interview: Dr Katharine Hayhoe
Great interview. Dr Katharine Hayhoe talks a great deal of sense.
She is right the election of Trump is empowering the states to take action, but I think the election of Trump was still a mistake. He is spreading conspiracy theory nonsense, hate, and could start a nuclear war to satisfy his ego and this is a huge issue, with no upside.
Regarding internet and social media, it was all so promising back in the 1990s, but has turned into a a source of hate, personal attacks, and shallow nonsense. And it hasn't improved attitudes on climate, if anything its made them worse.
Yes she is so right, geoengineering is high risk, and even small experiments and modelling can never really tell us what would happen at large scale, and whether a geoengineering caused mistake or disaster could be reversed. Prevention is better than geoengineering cure. I think there was a movie on geoengineering gone wrong called The snow piercer, very dark themed.
I don't understand her comments on IPCC reports. You can download these in pdf format for free easy to read on any computer and even a phone. Whats the problem?
I dont know about whether its feasible to continually update IPCC reports, but theres a lot of recent science saying sea level rise could be significantly more than the IPCC say. I think the IPCC needs at least interim reports getting this message out urgently and clearly.
As Katharine says its all become hugely political. The statements made by the harder right wing side of politics on climate and economics seem stupid, and totally in denial of easily verified facts. Maybe these people who act like children should just sit down and be quiet.
-
MA Rodger at 03:31 AM on 9 December 2017Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
Bill13 @54.
The nonsense written by Parker & Ollier (2017) will be celebrated (indeed is being celebrated) by the deluded community of AGW denialists. It is a very silly piece of work that boldly states that the alignment of messy tidal gauge data by others is wrong and then dreams up a fantasy scheme of alignment that suits their won purpose. They couldn't even be bothered to take the annual cycle out of the data which shows how silly their work is. They thus contradict Unnikrishnan & Shankar (2007) and fails to even mention Woodworth et al (2009). It will probably be some time after those deluded denialists have found some other nonsense to cheer about that the eggregious errors perpetrated by Parker & Ollier will be set out within the literature. Proper scientists have better things to with their time than debunk the work of Parker (assuming he's still calling himself that these days) & Ollier.
It is sad that these two pick on Yemen to do their denialist act as Yemen is a country particularly vulnerable to SLR, "one of the top five most vulnerable low-income countries," according to Al Saafani et al ((2015).
-
NorrisM at 12:38 PM on 8 December 2017Renewables can't provide baseload power
John ONeill @ 191
Courts are ill-equipped to deal with complex issues of science. I can understand why Michael Mann may commence a libel or slander suit against a particular professor who effectively suggested that what Mann published was criminal.
But when two scientists like Jacobson and Clack (and the other authors on both sides) strongly disagree on questions of fact and science then the proper forum is peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals.
What really troubles me about these kind of cases is that I am quite sure that the massive legal costs involved are not really paid by the litigants but rather powerful interests behind each litigant. The litigants themselves then become pawns in the chess game really directed by the money men on each side.
This kind of litigation will only discourage other scientists from making honest criticisms of other papers for fear of finding themselves in court. I truly hope that this case is thrown out of court for these reasons.
-
NorrisM at 12:21 PM on 8 December 2017COP23 video: Three need-to-knows from the UN climate talks in Bonn
Phillipe Chantreau @ 3
I probably agree with most of what you have said above. I even think that the denial of the "1%" of the economic problems imposed by globalization on the working classes in America and Europe reminds me of the conditions of denial by the French nobility immediately prior to the French Revolution. Not exactly the Middle Ages but a long time ago.
The question you have to ask yourself is what, given the realities in the US at this time, do you do about it?
My feeling is that Democrats in the US should:
1. Read Mark Lillas' book "The Once and Future Liberal" and get with the program (or, if that is too much time, at least listen to the Sam Harris podcast interviewing Lilla) - Message: Democrats, roll up your sleeves and work to take control of state governments which you have largely ignored for 30 years;
2. Willingly sign on to the Scott Pruitt "Red Team Blue Team" approach if it ever gets going and "stuff it down their throats" with the best climate scientists who have some ability to communicate their views. On this basis, I still think it would be better to have a physicist like Steve Koonin (a Democrat) head this debate rather than a non-scientist (I know I will get some heat for this on this website but once again I am trying to deal with the political reality in the US today).
3. Come up with a "middle of the road" candidate to compete against Trump in the next presidential election. Believe it or not, but serious political commentators were suggesting Al Franken as a possible Democratic presidential candidate not more than 3 months ago.
My point is that you do not just "throw your hands up" and wait for 3 more years. Midterms will not magically change Trump's approach and, I suspect, will not massively change the makeup of Congress.
-
nigelj at 11:39 AM on 8 December 2017COP23 video: Three need-to-knows from the UN climate talks in Bonn
To put the 1929 economic crash in context, that year America's total gdp fell approximately 10%, and did the same in the next few years documented here. This hurt, because back then living standards were much lower than today even in the good times.
By comparison, many studies like this one estimate it would cost America approximately just 1% of gdp per year to covert to renewable energy. This is spread over approximately 20 years including generation and line upgrades.
Americas economy is expected to grow approximately 3% this year alone. Much of that will go in bonuses to bankers, and subsidies to fossil fuels etc.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 10:19 AM on 8 December 2017COP23 video: Three need-to-knows from the UN climate talks in Bonn
There is no such thing as clean fossil fuels. Especially clean coal, which is an idiotic PR piece of nonsense. Eradicating industrial scale use of coal is the most critical and most important part, and also the easiest to implement, as there are many better alternatives to produce electricity. The World could loose 15 trillions in a heartbeat in 2008, without coming anywhere close to the distress experienced following the 1929 crash, so a massive worldwide effort is possible and would not even take that big a bite out of our beloved creature comforts. The only reason why it's not happening is simple: large interest groups that place their short term financial benefit above everything else.
Today's World is not much less feudal in essence than Medieval Europe. Governments are the vassals of mega conglomerates.
In the US, nothing is likely to happen soon because the interest groups are firmly in control, and the denial in the population is so strong that even the already existing, numerous, worsening adverse events are brushed off. If having the California wildfires and Texas floods within a few months, while extreme and unusual events are going on in the rest of the World as well is still not enough to awake the cargo cult worshippers, probably nothing will. Who cares? People are glued to devices whose algorithms compete to show them what they like to see, read what they want to read, validate their emotions even in the complete absence of real reasons to do so, whether it be conspiracy theories or no-good-commie scientists who are after their tax money. The disconnection from reality is so widespread and so pervasive that nothing can mend it anymore.
-
Daniel Bailey at 09:39 AM on 8 December 2017Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
Ollier is a serial fake-skeptic (SkS did a take-down of his work, here). Both Ollier and Parker are affiliated with the fossil fuel-mouthpiece Energy and Environment.
The real travesty is examing just a handful of locations measuring sea levels in just a small part of the world and somehow handwaving away global datasets showing global sea level rise, inluding satellite measurements with global coverage.
Instead of what science has found, this:
Deniers want us to see this:
-
John Hartz at 08:54 AM on 8 December 2017Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
Bill 13 @54: The paper that you have provided a link to demonstrates that science is a continuous process of discovery.
-
Bill13 at 08:13 AM on 8 December 2017Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
Can anyone here comment on this: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41748-017-0020-z
On the surface it looks like more shanigan's have been found, and at least in these locations the rate of sea level rise was exagerated.
-
nigelj at 06:36 AM on 8 December 2017US government report finds steady and persistent global warming
"Getting vested-interest money out of politics is the one move that would give us a chance."
Yes absolutely.
Wikipedia has interesting article on publicly funded elections, and examples of countries using this, although the extent is limited:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicly_funded_elections
It seems such a small price for us to pay to clean up politics and ensure politicians don't become captured by hidden lobby groups. Of course the opponents of public funding will argue that a wide range of groups contribute to election campaigns so it allegedly "evens out" but it only takes one wealthy group to capture key politicians, to have a disproportionate and damaging influence, IMO and the fossil fuel industry is very wealthy.
And on a related matter, you only have to read the history of lobbying against environmental legislation to be quite shocked about what goes on behind the scenes, and how dirty the game often is.
However things may be slow to change in the USA for reasons to do with constitutional guarantees on freedom, and a tendency to take things simplistically in this regard. It may be that philanthropists concerned about climate change should fund politicians campaigns as much as they possibly can. It's not idea solution, but seems the only viable option in America right now, and would dilute the influence of the fossil fuel groups and libertarian business donors.
It's also a moral question. Politicians are paid out of the public purse in terms of their salaries, and should be thinking of the public interest as a whole.
-
nigelj at 05:07 AM on 8 December 2017COP23 video: Three need-to-knows from the UN climate talks in Bonn
Trump says America will have "clean fossil fuels". Donald Trump also promised not to play golf, to reform obamacare, balance the budget, eliminate federal debt within 8 years (all 18 trillion dollars worth), put tariffs on China. Hmm, clean fossil fuels don't look terribly likely, based on the evidence, the Trump governments record, the credibility of various promises, and the high cost of clean fossil fuels compared to renewable energy.
Just look at the costs of experimental clean coal and the difficulties of strong carbon, in the clean coal plant in Canada.
Renewable energy is far more cost effective, and simpler than clean fossil fuels, which shows how these politicians must have other reasons, like pandering to campaign supporters, and scoring points against the green movement and Obama. A gish gallop of pathetic motives.
-
nigelj at 04:46 AM on 8 December 2017COP23 video: Three need-to-knows from the UN climate talks in Bonn
Paris agreement is becoming critical. Latest research is ominous, and says:
"More-severe climate model predictions could be the most accurate"
Date:December 6, 2017
Source:Carnegie Institution for ScienceSummary:The climate models that project greater amounts of warming this century are the ones that best align with observations of the current climate, according to a article. Their findings suggest that the models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, on average, may be underestimating future warming.
"Our study indicates that if emissions follow a commonly used business-as-usual scenario, there is a 93 percent chance that global warming will exceed 4 degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of this century. Previous studies had put this likelihood at 62 percent."
-
william5331 at 04:37 AM on 8 December 2017US government report finds steady and persistent global warming
Even politicians who realize what is happening will spout denialism if that is demanded by their sponsors. The one ring that controls them all is money in politics. The cost of the present system is so huge, so pervasive that it would be far better if politicians were supported from the public purse. Getting vested-interest money out of politics is the one move that would give us a chance.
-
thanes at 02:07 AM on 8 December 2017US government report finds steady and persistent global warming
Has anyone done a comparison with the latest data and Hansen’s Congressional testimony? I would love that, last ones I’ve seen were from here, maybe 2014?
-
nigelj at 17:40 PM on 7 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #48
Those guys can really sing.
And now for Bob Dylans Hard Rain song, the climate change version.
-
Eclectic at 15:04 PM on 7 December 2017Homogenization of Temperature Data: An Assessment
Moderators, may I suggest that Scottfree1's post here be moved to the "No Climate Conspiracy" thread, since it fits with his other (contemporary) posts there. His posts express Conspiracy Theory, and do not involve genuine science.
Moderator Response:[JH] Please leave to moderatiing to the moderators. Thank you.
-
Tom Dayton at 13:19 PM on 7 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #48
Tis the season, y'all.
-
John Hartz at 09:57 AM on 7 December 2017The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican Party
Recommended supplememtal reading:
Instrument of Power: How Fossil Fuel Donors Shaped the Anti-Climate Agenda of a Powerful Congressional Committee by Marianne Lavelle & David Hasemyer, InsideClimate News, Dec 5, 2017
-
Eclectic at 08:47 AM on 7 December 2017No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
Scottfree1 @36 and @37 ,
. . . your cherrypicking is a laugh.
Please read the article above and its following comments.
Then ask yourself, if there is no real global warming — then why is the ice melting and the sea-level rising, and plants & animals changing their habits as well.
Could it be that the plants & animals are smarter than the average denier?
-
nigelj at 05:43 AM on 7 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #48
Addendum. While Greenspans views were reported in some media, coverage was limited, and the political and economic establishment were largely silent on them.
-
nigelj at 05:38 AM on 7 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #48
"Economists mainly get their applications of theory like Adam Smith's, Milton Friedman's, and Say's Law wrong because they 'presume' that the damaging potential of self-interest will be effectively managed by more freedom of people to think and do as they please.........The nuttiest of them are totally deluded acolytes of the fairy tale spinners like Ayn Rand."
An interesting example is Alan Greenspan, head of the American Federal reserve leading up to the global financial crash, acolyte of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman, and believer that financial markets self regulate, and that housing bubbles cannot happen. After the crash, he admitted he was wrong about all these things, but the political establishment and media said "hush" we cant talk about Greenspan, bury it all fast.
So unfortunately important lessons (important information) from important people gets missed and when information is confused, poor decisions follow..
-
nigelj at 05:17 AM on 7 December 2017US government report finds steady and persistent global warming
Another useful study. Reading the comments after the article, we have many denialist claims we have heard many times before, all unsupported by any sources, and rebuttals from people quoting actual research sources. It's so sad and frustrating this is all still needed, and it's so time consuming.
No doubt some climate denialists simply have inadequate knowledge and can be persuaded and informed, but I think the problem is largely ideological and political, and research supports this as follows.
According to this article here we are very fixed minded on politically charged issues, as climate change has become. We takes politics very personally apparently. They say challenge is for us to depersonalise and rationalise the issues.
This research article here discusses research on what changes peoples minds. Its really useful, and full of surprises.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:56 AM on 7 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #48
NorrisM,
A legal case like the one you refer to could lead to changes of official policy requiring proof that the changes will actually meaningfully rapidly reduce GHG emssions. As a minimum, it could require the reversal of every Trump Administration reversal of Obama led policy actions related to climate science, including the requirement to honourably rejoin the Paris Agreement. It could also result in a requirement to return of government funding for climate science research and promotion of understanding (refunding the climate science advisory panel to help Leaders better understand what actions are helpful).
The legal case is more likely to increase the awareness and understanding of how the games of popularity and profitability can result in truly damaging developments. It could also increase awareness of the lack of development of sustainable improvements for the future of humanity due to Winning by people with Private Interests that are understandably contrary to the undeniable governing Public Interest of achieving the globally developed Sustainable Development Goals (goals that include sustainable poverty reduction, environmental protection, climate action and population limits - most important being limits on the total impact of the activity of the global population, with the understanding that all of the goals need to be achieved).
Clearly the Private Interests that are contrary to achieving Good Objectives like the SDGs should not even be allowed to compete for popularity and profitability. Such Private Interests can increase their competitive advantage by trying to get away with behaving less acceptably. Those Private Interests can too easily drum up popular temporary regional or tribal support for understandably unhelpful actions. Cheaper and quicker are more profitable and can be popular regardless of any proof of how harmful the cheaper quicker option is. And that greed temptation/addiction can more easily Win if it successfully partners with less social intolerance (as is clearly proven by Unite the Right groups who will vote for each other's understandably unacceptable social and economic Private Interests).
Perhaps this legal action will also increase the understanding that it is OK to penalize people for actions that were 'legal' if the only reason they were 'regionally legal at the time' is that the 'laws or their enforcment' failed to effectively responsibly limit actions that were understandably contrary to achieving the Good Objectives of the SDGs. That would include the ability to remove Supreme Court Justices who present 'legal positions attempting to justify actions that are contrary to acheieving the SDGs by claiming some nonsense such as a dogma-based claim that Private Interest Freedom (based on an interpretation of the US Constitution and its many amendments) should over-rule the Global Public Interests (such as the absurdities of economist beliefs that more freedom in Private Interest economic pursuits and less government action regarding 'what is encouraged/discouraged' in the Public Interest will develop lasting improvements for all of humanity). I mention this because the undeniably politically biased US Supreme Court in its current form would likley pass a 5 to 4 split-decision judgement against the interests of future generations of USA citizens, 5-4 in support of Private Interests that are contrary to any lower court decision that supports the Public Interests of the future generations (the current US Supreme Court would likely do that rather than declare the need for another Constitutional Amendment - or they may declare the need for an unjustified Constitutional Amendment that is contrary to achieving the Public Interest). A Good Way to change that 'debilitating legal aspect' is developing the acceptability of removing a US Supreme Court Justice for 'Good Reason'. Nobody should be 'above being removed from a leadership role or being penalized for Good Reason', not even a Supreme Court Justice. As for 'who' would make such a decision, a consensus of experts in the field would suffice leading to a Senate Vote to remove the Justice for Good Reason (with each expert/Senator subject to removal from being considered an expert/Senator by their peers if they can be shown to have acted in a way that is contrary to the achievement of the Good Objective of the SDGs - and with all experts able to recommend improvements to the SDGs, substantiated by Good Reason of course).
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:13 AM on 7 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #48
Daniel Mocsny,
Selling/promoting 'climate action' needs more than a 'better marketing spin'. In fact marketing spin can be understood to be part of the problem. Raising awareness and better understanding is often easily challenged by misleading marketing that tempts people to prefer to believe an unjustified claim supporting a Private Interest.
The real problem is the lack of a Good Objective (lack of morality/ethics) that obviously/undeniably develops when people are freer to believe anything that suits their personal interest and do whatever they desire.
As John Stuart Mill warned in “On Liberty” ... “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.”
And the 1987 UN report “Our Common Future” pointedly identified the political-economic problem as follows:
“25. Many present efforts to guard and maintain human progress, to meet human needs, and to realize human ambitions are simply unsustainable - in both the rich and poor nations. They draw too heavily, too quickly, on already overdrawn environmental resource accounts to be affordable far into the future without bankrupting those accounts. They may show profit on the balance sheets of our generation, but our children will inherit the losses. We borrow environmental capital from future generations with no intention or prospect of repaying. They may damn us for our spendthrift ways, but they can never collect on our debt to them. We act as we do because we can get away with it: future generations do not vote; they have no political or financial power; they cannot challenge our decisions.
“26. But the results of the present profligacy are rapidly closing the options for future generations. Most of today's decision makers will be dead before the planet feels; the heavier effects of acid precipitation, global warming, ozone depletion, or widespread desertification and species loss. Most of the young voters of today will still be alive. In the Commission's hearings it was the young, those who have the most to lose, who were the harshest critics of the planet's present management.”Economists mainly get their applications of theory like Adam Smith's, Milton Friedman's, and Say's Law wrong because they 'presume' that the damaging potential of self-interest will be effectively managed by more freedom of people to think and do as they please. They ignore the undeniable reality of the damaging results that develop when people with harmful Private Interests are allowed to compete for popularity or profitability. The nuttiest of them are totally deluded acolytes of the fairy tale spinners like Ayn Rand. They believe that any collective action that would restrict individual freedom to is poisonous. They fundamentally incorrectly believe that collective social leadership through government (and I would add business leadership) is only ever a bad thing.
My understanding of the problem is that people who get away with behaving less acceptably will have a competitive advantage. There is ample evidence of that axiom in politics, economics and sports. And the answer in every case is responsible restriction of what can be gotten away with through collective support of Good Responsible Leadership/Winning. And in every case of the pursuit of the development of that collective desire for Good Leadership/Winning there is the constant challenge by Private Interests gaming things to be able to Win by behaving less acceptably. Even in Sports, there is the constant need for new rules and monitoring and penalizing to try to ensure that Good Behaviour is the only behaviour competing to Win Rewards (some competitors always try to figure out ways to Legally behave less acceptably - leading to the need for new rules including actions to expel the cheaters who generate the need for new rules from the competitions).
Moral/Ethical outrage should be focused on raising awareness and understanding of the unacceptability of fundamentalist believers in that 'Freedom to believe and do as you please', especially focusing on exposing damaging reality of the groups of Fundamentalist Freedom Fighters who try to Win by gathering support through damaging misleading marketing to encourage people to be greedier and less tolerant. Those groups refer to themselves as Uniting the Right and claim to be Conservative (they hope to get the votes of support from easily impressed people who fundamentally support 'Conservative' without really thinking about what they are actually supporting. Those groups carefully appeal for votes of support from clearly harmful Private Interests, being careful not to push away people with harmful Private Interests who may choose not to support Other Harmful Private Interests. They make it clear that their only hope of Winning is to vote to support each other's understandably unacceptable Private Interests.
A more important action is the positive raising of awareness and understanding of the Good Objectives that need to be understood to be the aspirations of human activity, the Public Interest. It is very difficult to argue against the value of the Public Interest in developing lasting improvements for all of humanity, including (especially) future generations. However, it is very easy for people to be temporarily be tempted to be Tribal Regional pursuers, especially if they do not have a solid understanding of what is truly valuable. The response to the increased understanding of climate science is a excellent case study proving how easily people can be tempted to consider their convenience and lower cost of personal enjoyment in their lifetime to be Worthy of being Balanced with consideration of the unsustainability of those ways of living or the damage they cause that Others have to deal with. The political-economic misleading marketing response to improved understanding of climate science has proven the power of regional and tribal Private Interest (incorrectly but effectively being claimed to be regional and tribal Public Interests, as if any sub-group of humanity can claim their sub-group interests from their perspective are valid Public Interests. That is obviously absurd since it leads to the nonsense that any individual's Private Interests can be declared to be the Public Interest ... but that absurdity of individual Private Interest being the Public Interest is the flawed core of the beliefs of many Fighters for Freedom, especially those constantly wrong economists).
The best presentation of the detailed requirements of the Good Objectives of human activity is the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The SDGs are the result of many decades of detailed collective global investigation into better understanding the reality of human activities that started in the 1960s. The SDGs include Climate Action. But they make it clear that climate action alone is rather irrelevant. Achieving climate action can even be understood to be easier to do as the other SDGs are achieved, and vice versa.
So the best action is raising awareness and understanding of the importance of all leaders in business and politics being evaluated for their worthiness of their Leadership position based on the honesty and amount of effort to raise general public awareness and better understanding of the importance of achieving all of the SDGs, especially the importance of responsible limitation of pursuits of Private Interests to ensure the most rapid achievement of the Public Interest of the SDGs.
Discouraging people from trying to secretively or 'Regionally Legally' temporarily Win by getting away with Private Interest actions that are contrary to achieving the Global Public Interest will require the ability to penalize anyone who can be shown to have acted in a way that is contrary to the Global Public Interest. That means the end of National Sovereignty on matters that affect the achievement of the Global Public Interest. There are already global sanctions on Nations that are attempted to be carefully targeted at the offending people who try to hide within a nation.
That concept of justified removal/bypassing of sovereignty simply needs to be extended to penalize all of the people who try to Win through actions that are contrary to achieving the SDGs. Any nation that fails to properly limit the actions within its influence, because they '(paraphrasing John Stuart Mill) let a considerable number of their population grow up mere children, incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant motives, being easily tempted by harmful Private Interests' does not deserve sovereign freedom from Global actions targeting the unacceptable actions attempting to be gotten away with. And the response to Team Trump's irresponsible action plans regarding climate impacts shows that global support exists to pursue targeted penalties on 'Regionally Legal Unacceptable Winning'.
Support for penalties on actions that are contrary to the Global Public Interest SDGs exists in the USA and many other nations. But growth of popularity is restricted by the powerful temptation/addiction to the dogmatic and undeniably wrong belief that more Freedom is will develop lasting Good Results. And the resistance to raised awareness and acceptance of that understanding is fuelled by the magnitude of development in the wrong direction that must be 'corrected'.
The support for the changes required by climate science could be increased by connecting the support for all of the SDGs. Anyone who shows any interest in any one of the SDGs (or any part of any one of the SDGs), should be able to extend their understanding to the importance of achieving all of the SDGs, including climate action. The result would be the opposite of the Unite the Right gathering up of people with harmful Private Interests. It would be the Uniting of all of the people with Private Interests in achieving part of the SDGs to support all other pursuers of SDGs. An example would be ending the in-fighting between 'people wanting to help improve things for the less fortunate' and 'people wanting to reduce the harm done by the burning of fossil fuels'. The less fortunate can only be sustainably helped by actions that do not increase or prolong the burning of fossil fuels. It would also reduce arguments about 'total population' and 'impacts of human activity' since reducing the impacts of the highest impacting people allows for more people to live decently with acceptable total impact, and the other SDGs include actions to limit total population.
-
scottfree1 at 03:08 AM on 7 December 2017No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
Corrupting good data with bad for the sake of "science"
Moderator Response:[DB] Please limit image displayed width to 450.
-
scottfree1 at 02:56 AM on 7 December 2017No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
"The adjustments are scientifically necessary"
But are they actually science?
When the hypothesis is not supported by the data you change the hypothesis NOT the data.So lets look at the 34 (yes 34) "official" Nasa/Giss temperature records issued between 1998-2011. In this "unbiased" purely "scientific" process of "correcting" temp data you might expect near 50/50 distribution of +/- adjustments? Well, not so much, of the 34 adjustments 33 raised current temps and lowered historical temps. The odds of 33 to 1 distribution? A most reeasonable and unbiased 1 in 505,300,000 or 20x worse than hitting the super lotto..
Moderator Response:[DB] Please limit image displayed with to 450.
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.
-
scottfree1 at 02:26 AM on 7 December 2017Homogenization of Temperature Data: An Assessment
Investigation of methods for hydroclimatic data homogenization E. Steirou, and D. Koutsoyiannis, Investigation of methods for hydroclimatic data homogenization, European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2012, Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 14, Vienna, 956-1, doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.23854.31046, European Geosciences Union, 2012.
In total we analyzed 181 stations globally. For these stations we calculated the differences between the adjusted and non-adjusted linear 100-year trends. It was found that in the two thirds of the cases, the homogenization procedure increased the positive or decreased the negative temperature trends.
The use of homogenization procedures and tend to indicate that the global temperature increase during the last century is between 0.4°C and 0.7°C, where these two values are the estimates derived from raw and adjusted data, respectively.
It turns out that these methods are mainly statistical, not well justified by experiments and are rarely supported by metadata. In many of the cases studied the proposed corrections are not even statistically significant.
Moderator Response:[DB] Linked to the paper for you. Please learn to do this yourself.
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.
-
John ONeill at 20:24 PM on 6 December 2017Renewables can't provide baseload power
The proposition that 100 percent renewable energy is both possible and affordable is about to be tested in the way that really matters - in the Washington DC Superior Court. Mark Jacobson, who backs 100%, is suing Chris Clack, lead author of a paper claiming that for US electricity, 80% is an achievable figure, with the balance being legacy nuclear, biofuels, and natural gas. There's an interesting graph from the late David Mackay, plotting population density and energy consumption per head against the area required for various renewable technologies measured in watts per square metre. http://www.inference.org.uk/sustainable/data/powerd/HiRes/PPPersonVsPDen2WA.eps.png A few countries in the 'low energy use' quadrant, and even fewer in the ' low population density ' area , actually do manage 100% renewable electricity, but that's mostly hydro. Denmark claims about 40% from wind. However the eastern and western sections of the Danish grid are actually more closely tied to, respectively, Norway and Sweden ( with ten times the capacity of the whole Danish grid ) and Germany ( about twenty times as big ), than they are to each other. Energy flows, and CO2 produced by electricty generation, can be seen in real time here -https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=country&countryCode=DK The island of El Hierro, in the Canaries, also gets about 40% of its power from wind, using pumped hydro up to a handy volcanic crater to balance lulls. http://euanmearns.com/el-hierro-october-november-2017-performance-update/#more-20384 Of countries invested heavily in solar, Italy and Greece manage about 8% of domestic generation, averaged over the year, much less in winter. Mark Jacobson's team has drawn up 100% renewable scenarios for fifty US states and about a hundred countries. http://thesolutionsproject.org/why-clean-energy/ In nearly every simulated case, wind and solar make up about 90 to 95% of the total projected energy use, compared to about one percent worldwide today. Jacobson claims this is possible, at least in the US, with no energy crops and practically no additional hydro dams, just more grid interconnections and more generators on the existing dams. Clack says, a bit more circumlocuitously, that he's a halfwit. http://www.vibrantcleanenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/ReplyResponse.pdf
-
nigelj at 17:11 PM on 6 December 2017The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican Party
Scaddenp @20, where have you been living? Leighton Smith has been doing the 1ZB talk back radio show for about 20 years, 9am-12am. He has even won awards, despite his absolute nonsense, so his profile is quite high. He is an institution.
He even initiated a ghastly climate debate on television. I used to listen but not much now, its always the same rubbish. Don't worry you haven't missed much.
I do listen to talkback radio a little. I live alone, semi retired, like to see what people think. A lot of its poison of course. Sometimes I wonder why I bother.
-
scaddenp at 14:14 PM on 6 December 2017The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican Party
Nigel - well amazingly, I have never heard of him. I dont think I have ever willingly listened to talkback radio, but surprised I havent had people push this stuff at me. Hopefully it means his profile is quite low. Is Auckland radio denizen?
Prev 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 Next
