Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 Next
Comments 16651 to 16700:
-
David Kirtley at 06:58 AM on 22 December 2017From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 1: The Basics
Johnboy, the values for the red scale are negative. So normally on a graph like this they would look like:
0
-1
-2
-3
...
But on this graph the red scale is reversed to show that increasing emissions of CO2 track along with the change in the 13C/12C ratio:
-3
-2
-1
0
-
citizenschallenge at 06:51 AM on 22 December 2017It's cosmic rays
He's baackk,
H. Svensmark, M. B. Enghoff, N. J. Shaviv, J. Svensmark. Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei. Nature Communications, 2017; 8 (1) DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02082-2
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171219091320.htm
December 19, 2017
Source:
Technical University of Denmark
Summary:
The study reveals how atmospheric ions, produced by the energetic cosmic rays raining down through the atmosphere, helps the growth and formation of cloud condensation nuclei — the seeds necessary for forming clouds in the atmosphere.Henrik Svensmark confidently broadcasts and hundreds of astroturfers are busy spreading the word: "Finally we have the last piece of the puzzle explaining how particles from space affect climate on Earth. It gives an understanding of how changes caused by Solar activity or by super nova activity can change climate." says Henrik Svensmark, from DTU Space at the Technical University of Denmark, lead author of the study. Co-authors are senior researcher Martin Bødker Enghoff (DTU Space), Professor Nir Shaviv (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), and Jacob Svensmark, (University of Copenhagen).
===========================
Links to serious critiques of this paper and ther authors claims would be appreciated.
-
Alchemyst at 06:45 AM on 22 December 2017From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 1: The Basics
The comments by chrizkoz ring a familar bell. I used to work for a multinational european company. I was asked to present a talk to one of the continental partners. In order to distinguish the subtle difference between tally and count an illustrated joke suggested by my supervisor was used. This was followed later on by another joke and a red herring both to illustrate points. I passing the slides to my supervisor he then deleted the second joke stating that one was enough any further attempt at humour would not go down well. OK so it was deleted. It then came to the continental manager to check out the talk who was emphatic that the red herring be omitted as it could mislead. My reply was that it was to illustrate a point, he agreed but it had to go out since I had used up my limit of hunour stating that he understood us and was not offeneded and my bahaviour was perfectly acceptable in my country but not in his.
-
nigelj at 06:12 AM on 22 December 2017Analysis: How developing nations are driving record growth in solar power
One of the greatest challenges Africa has is a lack of energy infrastructure, because without electricity nothing much else can progress. Yet they have considerable solar potential.
Local decentralised solar power in small instillations can do much to help families and business, even if it just helps power medical equipment in isolated regions, or provide some light at night with a few batteries added obviously. The potential is huge, and its sad a region with great sunlight hours, does not have more solar power. Decentralised systems may be of more practical viability than large expensive centralised supply.
The economist.com did a great article recently on energy needs and solar power in Africa, here.
Africa has jumped ahead with mobile phones helping greatly with business. Solar power will help in a similar way, without needing massive investment like a hydro power station, or large cental solar array and expensive lines network.
IMO one of the best favours the western world could do is targeted assistance with solar panels in Africa and other poor countries. It will help their people as a compassionate gesture, and ultimately help them contribute better to the global economy, and we all benefit from this.
However such aid should be arranged to ensure its spent on solar power, and not going into leaders pockets or military spending. It needs monitoring and some conditions.
-
nigelj at 05:02 AM on 22 December 2017One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
NorrisM @9, ha ha, yes no doubt the Paris meetings include some of Mao's talk and spin. But at least Paris 1) has the right general idea and 2) has at least some definite projects and commitments to show for things. Things have to start somewhere. They always start slow and talky, but eventually things firm up and lead to more solid action.
Enlightened people actually do know what needs to be done in terms of international assistance to poor countries. It's a case of getting voters on board, and making them see the wider benefits more fully. One thing that would help is international auditing mechanisms that ensure money is well spent, and if specific countries are unwilling to have some accountability like this, they will risk not getting assistance. We should hep countries and substantially, but we are entitled to expect some things in return.
America is going in fast reverse on many things, and in the end may find itself isolated. Trump threatens punative actions against nations who disagree with Americas agenda on various things. He should pause and remember the world is bigger than America, and nations might decide they have had enough, and may take punative actions against America. I would of course not like to see things end up like that, but it is looking inevitable.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:53 AM on 22 December 2017One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
NorrisM,
Another way of expressing the point:
Any nation that fails to have responsible leaders (in business or politics) loses the priviledge of sovereignty. So it is up to the population of a nation/region to ensure that all of its Winners/Leaders are responsible considerate pursuers of the corrections and types of new things that are consistent with and supportive of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.
Any region or nation that fails to keep damaging Private Interests from Winning will require external guidance/correction. And that external action will be diplomatic to the extent that is practical. with targetted financial penalties and International Criminal Procedings as required to achieve what the future of humanity requires to be achieved.
How the USA system processes the " vs. " case will be an indication of how deserving the USA system is of sovereignty. Developing a sustainable better future for all of humanity is quickly becoming the "Global Golden Rule". Sub-sest of humanity (Regions and Tribes) that fail to adapt to or accept that improved understanding will suffer consequences.
History is loaded with examples of unacceptable pursuers of Private Interest Winning for a while even though they are understandably creating harm, but ultimately suffering failure - the learning is that understandably harmful people, 'trouble-makers', need to be 'addressed' quicker and more aggressively - though never with a Death Penalty).
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:49 AM on 22 December 2017One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
NorrisM,
The global collective action against other 'trouble-makers is targetted financial penalty and International Criminal Court.
If the Trouble-makers regarding climate change do not change their ways it is ikely that the International community of responsible leaders will have 'no choice' but to implement targetted financial sanctions on the Trouble-makers and step things up to trying the worst offenders for Cries against the future of humanity.
It would be great if everyone could be expected to responsibly and considerately limit/control teir behaviour and help achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. And that requirement should be increased for the wealthier or more influential people.
But realistically there will always be some who deliberately try to benefit from behaving in understandably unaccepable ways. So the financial sanctons and criminal proceedings against the worst climate change offenders (irresponsible wealthy ones and elected representatives) will likely occur in the future. And the basis for doing that is well established, and being improved/strengthened with each new international meeting regarding the Sustainable Development Goals (not just climate change).
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:30 AM on 22 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #50
Digby and Nigel,
I have learned similar things in reviewing published research regarding protein and meat consumption.
Though there are a variety of results because investigating complex interactions is, well, Complex, my take-away understanding regarding Beef consumption, open to new results from more robust research, are:
- Do not eat more than 4 oz (100 g) of beef (or any other meat), in a meal. The human body is unlikely to extract any benefit from a larger consumption in a meal.
- Only eat beef a few times a week. There are health risks to eating too much red meat. You should diversify the other parts of your diet in a way that ensures you are getting adequate nutrition like iron - Without taking pills.
- Severely limit consumption of processed beef such as sausage or corned-beef. This category of meat products seems to aggravate the health risks of eating beef. Probably wise to minimize consumption of any processed meats (like ham). And what humans 'think is appetizing' needs to change to maximize the consumption of every edible nutrient providing part of animals grown for consumption in ways that are 'healthy'.
- Definitely pay more for a good cut of beef to BBQ. Since you are only eating 100 g, the expensive stuff is not that expensive. And keep the BBQ temperature low and slow cook the meat. It will be more tender and will have less of the harmful mutated protiens that are created by high-heat cooking.
Everyone following the first two pieces of advice would dramatically reduce the amount of beef (or other meat) that 'needs' to be produced.
And following the 3rd piece of advice could reduce the energy intensity of the meat that is consumed. And reduced energy consumption is an important aspect of achieving the required climate action as well as many of the other Sustainable Develoment Goals.
-
Johnboy at 01:58 AM on 22 December 2017From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 1: The Basics
Am I missing something? The red scale on the lower plot is not reversed.
-
NorrisM at 00:41 AM on 22 December 2017One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
nigel @8
Nigel, this reminds me of a quote from Mao Tse Sung (sp) when he was developing his nuclear capabilities and other nations were trying to discourage him in various ways but could not agree on how to do so. Mao's quote was: "Talk, talk, talk, spin, spin, spin!"
I am sure this quote could be adapted to nations coming together to actually commit funds to other countries regarding assisting them to advance climate change agendas.
-
nigelj at 18:13 PM on 21 December 2017Research shows that certain facts can still change conservatives’ minds
OPOF @16, actually you raise a couple of good points there. Almost didn't notice anyone had added a comment to this page, glad I did.
The ox parable is of course pretty old now and more a parable of the pasasitical finance industry that exists mainly to serve itself. I liked the punch line at the end, where the ox died, in reference to the "real economy" being neglected among all the financial betting, wheeling and dealing.
The melamine scare implicated a company in my country, but it was a subsidiary of their's in China that operated largely independently. The NZ company has a good safety record on the whole, and was immediately cleared of blame. But it just amazes me how anyone could actually put such poison in baby formula, just at a moral level. Even if one is desperate for money for some reason, how could they do that? Of course it was partly due to slack oversight and so on.
The republican view in America is almost libertarian: Corporates should be allowed to do precisely anything they like with no consequences, but we will grudgingly accept they can be sued in civil court, but no more than that. They don't want any imposed state regulations, standards, fines, and inspections and so on, and see this as the work of the devil.
The trouble with civil court is only the lawyers win, and the small guys can't afford to take court action. Only huge problems that can bring class actions makes the courts. And even then, out of court settlements dominate, that mean valuable knowledge on what caused the problem is never made public, so nobody learns anything.
Sometimes cases make criminal court. Now of course sometimes thats sometimes 100% appropriate for serious situations, but if you threaten companies with such dire consequences for general routine safety breaches it can backfire and make them too cautious.
And I have noticed that governments and courts in NZ are very reluctant to even bring any criminal charges, even in serious cases, so people walk free. We have had two disasters, a mining tragedy and building collapse, and no charges were bought against anyone, much to the publics disgust, even although there was a good case against specific individuals, however the law is now being changed to make it easier to hold people and companies to account.
In some cases its better to have simple codes of practice, an inspection system, and fines / penalties, and for serious breaches a method of firing the negligent people involved. Fines are often not enough alone, because such costs can be passed onto the customer. Firing people hurts, especially if its made public with some humiliation.
The bottom line is safety and environmental breaches and negligence must have immediate punative consequnces of some sort. I agree the public should not be paying, ever. Responsibility has to be sheeted home to companies and individuals, of course proportionately to the problem we don't want to destroy people over minor things. But I'm tired of seeing a lack of accountability.
-
nigelj at 15:49 PM on 21 December 2017One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
Ger, Norris asked for a list of projects and some idea of funding. The link I pointed to does just this. Maybe its not perfect in the exact format that would keep Norris happy, well he is an intelligent guy and can use google to track things down.
He is also a lawyer, and I'm used to reading many documents by many lawyers, and they are mostly incomprehensible and often don't answer my questions, and are never in a form that suits me, or any normal human being, and lawyers charge a fortune. So I have no symapthy if Norris has trouble with the above article!
You also make many claims of fact about those projects that are not immediately apparent to me in the summaries.
But thank's for the link to the OECD study. I agree totally the funds allocated are well below what is required. Window dressing is too harsh, but yes so much more could be done, and has to be done. Most of the latest research evidence reported on websites like this shows an ever growing problem with the climate. But what is needed is some ideas on how to do more, not complaining.
-
Ger at 14:49 PM on 21 December 2017One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
Nigelj@6, what I see in that list of 25 descriptions of projects are 25 different views on projects formely known as Official Development Assistance projects. Funded by budget allocation guarantees, fully paid for by the recipients over a 20,30,40 years.
The equity of such projects is mainy paid for in kind (equipment like trains, busses, generator sets and 'Technical Assistance' in the form of consultancy on design and organisation executed/paid for from the same equity budget) often not reaching 10% of the total budget.
All costs are retrieved from local and service (maintenance, adaption, managment fees) activities which guarantees the salaries and part prices of the foreign assistance.
None of the projects specify a particular climate goal those one to reach. Sure lines have been added to show a lower CO2 eq emissions as before the project.
https://iccwbo.org/media-wall/news-speeches/what-you-need-to-know-about-climate-finance-ahead-of-the-one-planet-summit/ mentions that a 6.3 trillion is needed, yearly till 2030. Committed is 100 billion from 2020 onwards( not yet there): 15% and not sure it is there. The list of finance mentioned a lot of asset value of several companies but those do not even add up to the required 100 billion. Let alone that bonds on those assets do reach 10 billion. Divesting in oil & gas & coal is not 'new' money ready for investment.
So I agree that One Planet Summit is not more than window dressing, Business As Usual in a new coat. So much more could be done.
-
chriskoz at 13:31 PM on 21 December 2017From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 1: The Basics
I always read scientific articles literaly. And that includes SkS. This incident of a colloquialism being misunderstood underscores the need of using precise language when talking to a large, especially international audience as is the case here.
I work for a company doing scietific research for a large Japanese company. For obvious reasons, any idioms/jokes/colloquial terms (Australian, American, British or otherwise) are forbidden in communication with our cutomer. Simple grammar and usage of words in their basic meaning only are strongly encouraged. Even with such cautionary principles, the meaning of your discourse can be lost in translation. Of course these rules are relaxed when we socialise with a sip ok sake, and we can tell jokes by then. Our Japanese collegues usually don't understand our jokes but are happy to learn them as is appropriate during partytime.
But during scietific reporting or education time (as is the case here), I learned to be very strict in such environment, hence my comment @1,
Thanks for teaching me a new idiom involving the word "weed". Like many idioms, it just does not make sense at face value. Although I acknowledge its existence, I will never use it, because it's simply silly to me, as it would probably be in any formal context to every bush or forrest regenerator.
But let's move on, because the mistake of using a silly idiom in this article can be disregarded: it does not affect the informational value of the article. And said value is excellent: clear at the intended level of understanding and accurate to the best of my knowledge, nothing to add. Lots of people will benefit from that information, so thanks David for writing it.
-
nigelj at 13:15 PM on 21 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #50
Digby Scorgie, sorry I got the numbers a bit wrong. The article says "That’s why the Department of Health advises people who eat more than 90 grams (cooked weight) of red and processed meat a day to cut down to 70 grams, which is the average daily consumption in the UK."
I'm assuming of course NZ is similar. And your consumption is still looking low.
-
nigelj at 13:09 PM on 21 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #50
Digby Scorgie @27, from what I have read high red meat consumption can cause problems with cancer risk, although the increase was moderate increase nothing too drastic. But obviously its still a concern. I have also read research that low meat consumption in general (all types of meat) is associated with longer life.
But you got me curious about quantities of beef, so according to this article below the average intake in the UK is 90 grams a day, and the latest health recommendation is 70 grams per day, so your intake looks low to me. I would actually eat even less but mainly because I prefer taste of chicken and I'm going thru a chicken curry phase.
www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Pages/red-meat.aspx
"Moderation in all things" is perhaps the answer to many problems.
I agree low beef consumption gets cattle numbers looking sensible, and cattle farming has to also be done right. We have problems with rivers and over stocking etc. Hopefully there's a clever way of solving it that is fair to everyone concerned. I would like to think we can find that answer.
-
David Kirtley at 11:11 AM on 21 December 2017From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 1: The Basics
I appreciate the "thanks" and praise!
"The statement "For the average citizen, who perhaps has a rudimentary grasp of general science" was a bit patronising."
Yeah, I should have worded that differently, I certainly don't mean to be patronising. Everyone has gaps in their education, by no fault of their own, myself included. But the truth is everyone (even with an exceptional education) has some limited knowledge in some field of study. There's nothing wrong with that, that's just the way things are. There's no judgement in that, merely a statement of fact.
Skeptical Science strives to make all of climate science accessible to the widest audience possible. It is important for us to keep in mind that not everyone in that audience has the same interests in science, the same background knowledge of science, or understands the science-ese that scientists use.
-
Digby Scorgie at 11:02 AM on 21 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #50
From everything I've read I conclude that it's much better for one's health to eat small quantities of beef. My intake is 250 to 300 g per week. I'm guessing that this is quite low. So what it boils down to is that if everyone adhered to a healthy diet the demand for beef cattle would be low. Even so, I agree with RedBaron that it has to be done right.
-
Digby Scorgie at 10:42 AM on 21 December 2017From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 1: The Basics
I'm also from Down Under, but I too knew immediately what was meant by "lost in the weeds". I've done my share of complicated physics (many many years ago) and I don't feel insulted.
-
nigelj at 10:36 AM on 21 December 2017One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
NorrisM @5, I'm not going to waste much time on this.The very first link in the article above namely "One Planet Summit" contains a page titled look at projects with 25 videos of different projects, plus a written summary of each. But apparently that is to hard for you to find, and not sufficient information?
-
NorrisM at 09:25 AM on 21 December 2017One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
nigelj
If there had been major commitments I would have expected this author to detail them. The onus is on the person writing the article to provide evidence for broad statements.
OPOF @ 4
My criticism is of politicians who are good at making announcements but not so good at following through. If those are the troublemakers, I am not sure what you do with them other than vote them out. I think we are past the point in our political development when they get marched up to the guillotine.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:10 AM on 21 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #50
The bottom line for me regarding Beef production:
I support any actions that are consistent with, and supportive of, achieving all of the Sustainable Development Goals.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:49 AM on 21 December 2017One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
NorrisM,
I completely agree with your identification of the problem: "People able to get away with pursuits of Private Interests that are impediments to the pursuit of the Global Public Interest of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals."
What do you propose should be done to/about those trouble-makers?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:15 AM on 21 December 2017Research shows that certain facts can still change conservatives’ minds
nigelj,
I have been considering the parable of the ox.
It is a reasonable presentation of the steps of departure of commodity trading from reality, into irrational gambling.
But it does not quite capture the real world problem of irresponsible gamblers in the game. Those irresponsible gamblers will not support truly sustainable improvements for all of humanity because they see a quicker bigger buck can be made by pushing over-development in a wrong direction. Their often irrational pursuits create bubbles that have to burst, like the massive bubbles of unsustainable perceptions of prosperity and opportunity that have developed due to the pursuit of benefit from burning fossil fuels.
The parable does allude to the competitive advantage obtained by being willing to behave less acceptably than others in the competition. But it does not properly highlight the powerful role of misleading marketing in drumming up unsustainable regional or tribal popular support for profitable activity that is understandably damaging and ultimately unsustainable.
And the story completely misses the power of misleading marketing in politics that can result in elected representatives deliberately participating in the misleading marketing scams even when those scams are fooling less than half of the population. A politician can win by playing the game of carefully target marketing appeals about many single issues that individually are understandably unacceptable and have less than majority support. Collecting enough unacceptable single issue voters and having them understand the power they can have if they vote for each other's unacceptable Private Interests is understandably the Power Game played by the Uniters of the Right.
A better ending of the Ox parable would be to have the gamblers betting on getting a share of the Winnings of the most successful farmer, with the most successful farmers being the ones who have low costs because they produce something that looks like an Ox but is very low in nutrients for the consumer, and maybe even be harmful to the consumer.
That would be like those profitable Bady Food Powder producers who added melamine to the powder because it was cheap and would be counted as protein by the testing that was done. And the nation that that happened in is less important than understanding that the nation had low monitoring of what was done so it was not able to stop the problem before it became a real serious problem.
That 'let trouble develop then see it anything gets done about it' type of system is what the likes of the Republicans push for in the USA. They 'Promote the Belief' that the threat of legal consequences will keep people from behaving less acceptably. It is undeniable how that turns out (As a Canadian Professional Engineer, I saw how some States let anyone claim to be an Engineer with legal consequences for not properly doing something being the only threat they faced - and I saw how popular with executives it was to hire that cheaper person who claimed to be an Engineer). A real serious problem always has to occur/develop before any serious attempt is made to deal with it. The result is often a Lack of Any Corrective Action. And even when corrective action occurs it is Always Too Late, And Always Too Little Done to Correct the Problem, or the general population pays to fix it.
The climate change challenge is a big one because the non-USA people and all of the future generations suffer the consequences but have no real legal recourse against the 'greedy Private Interests focused people' who gamble on getting away with behaving unacceptably.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 06:24 AM on 21 December 2017CO2 limits won't cool the planet
And that last piece about Swinbank vs MODTRAN. Note that the Swinbank model dates back to 1963.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0038092X9500117A
Excerpt: "Besides, the formulae of Swinbank (1963) and of Czeplak and Kasten (1987), which both express the emittance as a quadratic function of dry bulb temperature, turned out to reflect the radiation physics of “normally” stratified not too dry atmospheres."
Interestingly, it turns out that MODTRAN in fact validated the Swinbank model under the somewhat narrow circumstances described above. Swinbank came up with a good way to estimate things that were later derived much more precisely from radiative physics. That's how science works. I don't see how anyone would prefer to use Swinbank over MODTRAN or HITRAN at this point in time, except for the simplicity of use, but computers mostly solve that problem.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 05:43 AM on 21 December 2017CO2 limits won't cool the planet
Mods; I'm having problems losing comments when using the link insert function, hence the non embedded links at the end.
Aaron: Your Mars/Earth trick ignores the facts that Mars does have some GH effect that raises its average temp by approximately 5 deg K compared to no GH effect at all. Mars remains cold because of the very low atmospheric mass, the lack of other GH gases in sufficient quantity, the low solar irradiance and low outgoing IR radiation to be captured. You did not mention any of these facts, and your little mars/Earth comparison is irrelevant to the point of being misleading. The shame is on you for that.
MODTRAN and HITRAN are sophisticated models using physics. I'm not sure what you are trying to say with the predictive/descriptive thing. The values predicted by HI/MODTRAN have been verified for many conditions and show close agreement with observations. This was especially important from early on when developing the model and was the subject of abundant research. There is an entire body of litterature on this aspect of validation. These models superseded simple models such as the Swinbank many years ago, and allow for far more accurate and refined representations of atmospheric radiative processes. The tutorial that you linked only claims to be useful for cloudless vs cloudy night comparisons. It states to be valid for a surface "isolated from its environment."
The reason why CO2 receives emphasis in IPCC works is because all the research compiled continues to point to it as the forcing responsible for the changes observed. No other forcing fits the bill, no matter how hard we look. Furthermore, paleo evidence also points to CO2 as the major control knob. That is why it is necessary to accomplish a carbon free energy transition, then decarbonize as much of the World economy as possible. I do not advocate for geo-engineering, but if it comes to that, large scale carbon capture is likely the least risky option. Not only it will just reverse the recent trend, but it will also mimic what has happened naturally in the past.
In contrast, the geo-engineering schemes that you propose are among the least realistic I've ever seen. Paleo evidence suggests that the closing of the Panama isthmus was associated with the onset of the glaciation/deglaciation cycles. Forcing large amounts of sea water to do anything could lead to the mother of all unintended consequences and would require to transform the entire planet in some sort of gigantic engineering project.
As of now, airplanes emit CO2, H2O and various particulates. Although the altitude of release poses its own problems, the quantities involved make them far less of a priority than coal fueled electricity production. Recruiting commercial air traffic for the purpose you suggest would imply that they're equipped with carbon/water free propulsion, and then loaded with equipment decreasing their payload, while they already have the problem of energy density to contend with. That is nowhere near realistic.
Your remark on moving thermal and nuclear plants seem to allude to waste heat. This has been discussed on this site and shown to be an order of magnitude too small to be a significant factor. In addition, large industrial facilities of any kind can not be "moved." They would have to be dismantled (expensive process) then rebuilt somehwere else (even more expensive). In the case of electricity producing facilities, relocating far away from consumption sites also carries innumerable other problems.
I don't see that you've shown to understand atmospheric radiative processes anywhere near as well as you claim, and certainly not in a way to turn current understanding by experts on its head; it would be a euphemism to call your geo-engineering ideas far fecthed.
About Mars:
http://marsnews.com/the-planet-mars
One (among many) relatively recent MODTRAN validation study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22614400
About moving sea water:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X05004048
Moderator Response:[JH] Links activated.
-
michael sweet at 05:16 AM on 21 December 2017From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 1: The Basics
Perhaps Lost in the Weeds is an American colloquialism. I do not use it but I knew what it means right away. I found a reference to American slang. Does anyone from England know this phrase? I think Nigelj and Chriskoz are from down under.
-
nigelj at 05:01 AM on 21 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #50
I agree with OPOF, the question of beef is not just about one thing.It requires weighing up several things as follows:
In defence of meat: I know Red Baron is coming from the angle of maintaining large prairie types of cattle grazed grasslands, because its natural, and leads to deep carbon rich soils. This is good for the climate, and because a lot of this land can only really be used for cattle anyway, unless you throw enormous irrigation and fertiliser resources at it, in a desperate and dubious attempt to grow crops.
Meat is also a rich source of iron and protein, and lets face it people nothing tastes as great as a grilled steak.
The case against meat: On the other hand, meat is essentially an inefficient use of resources, and too much meat can cause certain cancers. We also dont want an absurd situation where huge quantities of land are used for cattle and their feedcrops, which starts to crowd out other crops and make basic cereals expensive. It's also not really feasible to try to revert to the early hunter gatherer period of 20,000 years ago of vast tracts of grasslands and wild cattle roaming, and no human crops. (Although red baron possibly dreams of this in his sleep)
Clearing vast tracts of rainforest for cattle grazing has a lot of detrimental effects to me.
The verdict: So what am I saying? I sure dont think we all have to become vegeterian, but keeping meat consumption low to moderate makes sense.
There's probably a sensible balance, or optimal balance between crop lands and cattle grazing. If we have good environmental policies, education and laws in general terms, particularly in respect of agriculture we will find that balance without having to try to pick a number and impose it.
-
nigelj at 04:36 AM on 21 December 2017From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 1: The Basics
I have to agree with Chriskoz. I found the lost in the weeds termnology rather off putting terminology.
The statement "For the average citizen, who perhaps has a rudimentary grasp of general science" was a bit patronising. Only has a general grasp of science is better. But its a nit pick.
Overall this article has stunning precision and clarity. It's the best written article on a complex subject I have read in years, and I read a lot. Frankly it sets the standard.
-
michael sweet at 03:57 AM on 21 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #50
Dr. Jeff Masters reviews a book on sea level rise called The Water Will Come. It is written by a Jouralist but Dr Masters rates it highly. Just the review is interesting. Miami gets three chapters (out of twelve).
-
Alpinist at 03:26 AM on 21 December 2017From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 1: The Basics
Thanks David. I've used this information in my cllimate presentations as part of the answer to the question "how do we know it's us?"
My answer is Math, Chemistry and Physics.... This is the Chemistry part.
Thanks again and Happy Holidays to all.
Tokodave
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:44 AM on 21 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #50
Red Baron,
The problem with Beef is more than the global warming impact assessment, just like the problem with burning fossil fuels is more than just the global warming aspects.
-
David Kirtley at 23:19 PM on 20 December 2017From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 1: The Basics
michael sweet explains it well. Think of a field of beans or some other crop: the view of the entire field is similar to the broad explanation of climate science. But when you get in closer among the furrows of the field and zero in among the weeds you are getting into the finer details of some aspect of the science.
-
michael sweet at 20:38 PM on 20 December 2017From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 1: The Basics
Chriskoz,
Googling "lost in the weeds yields:
"Dear Word Detective: The phrase “getting into the weeds” is widely used to mean “getting into the details,” often with the inference of getting into too much detail. I have a guess about the origin of this phrase which is that it comes from harvesting."
It is clear that is the meaning here. David Kirtley wants to get into a lot of detail about carbon.
-
michael sweet at 20:25 PM on 20 December 2017Polar bear numbers are increasing
Bruce,
According to this Desmog blog, Susan Crockford refused to respond to emails that asked aboout the money she gets from the Heartland Institute. Desmog provides links to internal Heartland documents that say they pay Crockford. Most of her claims are that she is a biological expert without mention of polar bears ie: " a paper in a peer-reviewed book chapter on ringed seals, the primary prey of polar bears (Crockford and Frederick 2011), and a peer-reviewed journal article on the paleohistory of Bering Sea ice,".
Susan Crockford has never studied polar bears, her "detailed academic critique" (mentioned first by you so it must be important to you) is a blog post written for the Heartlad Institute.
She is an adjunct professor which means she is part time in a position at the bottom rung of education. Hardly the position of an expert. I am an adjunct professor at a college so I know what that is.
Under no standard is she an expert in all biology as she claims.
I await your apology since I have provided documentation that Susan Crockford receives money from the Heartland Institute. Her denials are apparently false.
-
chriskoz at 20:05 PM on 20 December 2017From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 1: The Basics
I categorically object to the use of term "weeds" to describe complex knowledge that must be simplified in order to explain the basics. As much as I like the explanation of CS to on this site in general, the use of the term "weeds" in this article is so logically incorect and even misleading that it warrants my objection.
I'm a bush regenerator in my spare time here in Australia, so I'm entitled to speak on this subject. The term "weed" means a plant that grows somewhere out of its natural place, and often disturbes the balance of the ecosystem by suppressing other native species, so we don't want it to grow there. Following that definition, by calling the detailed, complex knowledge of CS by the relevant experts "weeds", do you imply that their knowledge is misplaced, that said knowledge interferes with other information and that we want to remove it? Nonsense, misleading characterisation at worse, or a serious mistake at least.
I'm surprised that you made such a mistake. Perhaps you meant the climate myths by science deniers or contrarians, should be called "weeds". Those myths, that needs to be eradicated and the reculting gaps replaced by positive knowledge, so the "weeds" analogy would be precise here. But you're not talking about science deniao here.
I think you should re3tract that "weeds" term from this article and replace it with something more apporpriate (e.g. "deep ocean where you drown") otherwise you will atract harsh criticism and disapointment from people like myslef who know what "weeds"really are.
-
Eclectic at 19:21 PM on 20 December 2017Polar bear numbers are increasing
Bruce @72 ..... with all due respect, Dr Crockford's expertise in evolution/speciation & hybridization of polar bears has near zero relevance to the modern situation where there is an extinction threat to the species.
Polar bears are evolved for a specialized diet, and they do not have the fall-back position of an omnivorous diet (such as possessed by their ursine relatives). The polar bears' hunting habitat is heading rapidly toward 100% loss over the next one-to-two centuries, thanks to Arctic warming (per AGW).
Polar bear numbers (and importantly their condition) can be very difficult to determine accurately. It is a bold, very bold, scientist who undertakes to publicly express a complacent attitude about the survival of a specialized mega-fauna carnivore which is undergoing almost complete loss of habitat. Especially bold, for a scientist who is not a specialist "at the coal face".
It appears Dr Crockford holds an outlier opinion, and is also making a mountain out of a molehill when it comes to relevant expertise.
As to whether she is receiving financial benefits (from propaganda organizations such as Heartland, GWPF or other slush funds) in the form of a retainer or fee-for-service or stipend [see for instance the case of Emeritus Professor Lindzen or maybe Dr Judith Curry] or receiving non-cash benefits for speaking engagements etcetera ..... a cynic like you Bruce would of course wish see an absolutely categorical denial from her, that "none of the above" benefits apply to the present financial year nor any years of the past decade. Alas, it is all too easy for propaganda organizations to arrange for covert benefits of various types.
All too often in this world, Bruce, situations are more "gray" than you would wish.
-
bruce14421 at 17:32 PM on 20 December 2017Polar bear numbers are increasing
Michael Sweet says about Dr Crockford "No sign of expertise in polar bears"
From Dr Crockfors's letter to the AIBS.
"I am a professional zoologist with a Ph.D. and over forty years of experience and dozens of peer-reviewed papers on various topics, and also fails to mention that I have recently published a detailed academic critique on the issue of polar bear conservation status."
"...my Ph.D. dissertation on speciation included polar bears"
"In addition to my dissertation that features polar bears, I have an article on evolution in a peer-reviewed journal in which polar bears are prominently featured (Crockford 2003), and two official comments, with references, on polar bear hybridization (which is how official responses to published papers are handled in these two journals). I also have a paper in a peer-reviewed book chapter on ringed seals, the primary prey of polar bears (Crockford and Frederick 2011), and a peer-reviewed journal article on the paleohistory of Bering Sea ice, the habitat of Chukchi Sea polar bears (Crockford and Frederick 2007)."
According to http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/arctic/wildlife/polar_bear/population/
polar bear numbers are 22-31,000.
From the literature I've read no-one seriously disputes they are currently in decline but computer models say they are threatened by future climate change.
Michael Sweet said
"She is paid a monthly retainer from the Heartland Institute."
But she says...
I am not “linked with” nor do I “receive support” from The Heartland Institute or any other corporate-funded think tank.
either Michael Sweet or Dr Crockford is lying.
Moderator Response:[DB] 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.
Personal attack snipped. Also, note that the usage of sock puppets is frowned upon in this venue. -
RedBaron at 16:53 PM on 20 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #50
One Planet Only Forever
There is no "yeah buts". Regenerative ag works at any scale in any country in developed and developing technologies and at every volumn. You have this fixation with trying to make beef production a villian. It isn't. There is no down side. Raise it correctly and instead of 10x the harm, it becomes 10x the benefit. The cow is the great multiplier, both the biggest villian done wrong and the best hero done right. It is because of the rumen. It is designed to recycle hard to digest plant material in large volumns. If the land needs large quantities of plant material and nutrients recycled, then the cow becomes the hero every bit as much as it becomes the villian when instead of hard to digest plant material is used and instead high quality expensive crops are purposely wasted. Either way it isn't all about the cow anyway. There are multitudes of crops and food animals!
Recycling beneficial plant debris? good x 10
Wasting perfectly good grains grown as crops? bad x 10
“The number one public enemy is the cow. But the number one tool that can save mankind is the cow. We need every cow we can get back out on the range. It is almost criminal to have them in feedlots which are inhumane, antisocial, and environmentally and economically unsound.” Allan Savory
I have gone over this so many times on so many threads they asked me to just post the evidence all in one place and simply refer back to it. Otherwise the threads bogged down.
Can we reverse global warming?
-
nigelj at 16:19 PM on 20 December 2017One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
Norris M @2
"I do not see very much other than fanfare or repetition of promises made in the past."
Talk is cheap. You provide no proof (with internet links) that these announcements are merely repetition. It seems unlikely to me they would just repeat exact past dollar commitments.
"But in reading through this post, I am at a loss to understand what billions of dollars have been announced today. "
The article is a summary. Why not read the links and original reports etc.
"I see Bill Gates promising $15MM over five years but that works out to $3mm per year. That is "chump change" to Bill Gates"
He gives billions to other causes. Now you have finished rubbishing Gates, how much do you contribute, - as a well paid lawyer?
"What I am questioning is the willingness of developed countries to transfer a significant portion its wealth to another country in the name of climate change."
What you are doing is spreading cynical negativity and doubt.
-
NorrisM at 15:14 PM on 20 December 2017One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
Perhaps someone can explain what actually happened at the One Planet Summit.
I just went through all of this whole post entitled "Finance Commitments Fire Up Higher Momentum" and I do not see very much other than fanfare or repetition of promises made in the past.
As part of the fanfare, Patricia Espinosa is quoted as follows:
“From the United Nations system to governments and investors, billions of dollars have today been mobilized and trillions more pointed towards a transformation of the world’s energy to agricultural sectors, adding to the finance that has already been flowing before, during and since Paris 2015”.
But in reading through this post, I am at a loss to understand what billions of dollars have been announced today. I see Bill Gates promising $15MM over five years but that works out to $3mm per year. That is "chump change" to Bill Gates probably representing about a half of one day's interest return on his net worth.
Perhaps someone can elucidate. What concerns me is that countries are great at making big announcements but not so great at cutting the cheques.
What I am questioning is the willingness of developed countries to transfer a significant portion its wealth to another country in the name of climate change. Unless I am missing something, the last time we saw this was the Marshall Plan. That is a long time ago and was a very bold move by Truman to counter communism.
Please note that I am not referencing specific actions on climate change taken within a specific country.
-
nigelj at 06:20 AM on 20 December 2017One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
Thankyou for some positive news that may encourage others to follow suit.
We must face the obvious problem: We are polluting the planet, and using resources frighteningly fast, due to a combination of fossil fuel use, high population growth and high gdp growth.
The solution has to be a combination of renewable energy, better controls on polluting activities, aim to slowly achieve smaller global population, and phase down to steady state economy with zero gdp growth.There is no alternative.Even recycling while useful, comes up against limits eventually.
The UN sustainable development goals make perfect sense.
We can help vulnerable people adjust, and ensure assistance is targeted at programmes that really work and that spend money wisely. We must not let powerful people with vested interests and mean spirited ideologues stand in the way of all these various things.
All these solutions have a huge range of hidden benefits to our lifestyles,and security, and will make long term sustainablity possible.
-
nigelj at 05:23 AM on 20 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #50
We are polluting the planet, and using up mineral resources incredibly fast. Many materials can be recycled many times, - but not all. We come up against hard resource limits eventually.
The causes are near exponential population growth, and gdp growth
The solution is phase down to zero gdp growth economy, and stop population growth. We may even need a smaller population than todays numbers, if you want decent consumption levels sustainable long term.
It's slow reducing population growth rates, so the other factors are very important like slower gdp growth, renewable energy etc.
UN development goals are definitely the right way.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 05:15 AM on 20 December 2017California's hellish fires: a visit from the Ghost of Christmas Future
Michael, note that the paragraph starts with "where I live." That is close to 45 degrees lattitude, with a significant oceanic influence that brings a lot of precipitation between October and June. I know that things are different in the Eastern part of the state and in California. You are corect that all the region's fire season is extending in duration though.
-
michael sweet at 05:08 AM on 20 December 2017Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
Damcc
You asked " what do you think Morner's motivation could be for rejecting consensus on this issue?" but the answer you suggest is exactly backwards.
If Morner was to agree with the consensus he would be one of a million scientists and no-one would care about his opinion. Since he is a "skeptic", he gets to write Wall Street Joural articles, is feted at Heartland Institute bashes, is paid to give speeches on AGW, is presented as an expert and does not have to learn any of the science.
Skeptic scietists like Spencer, Curry, Lidzen and Watts (they are scraping the bottom of the barrel when one of their "experts" never even graduated from college) would be completely ignored if they were mainstream because their contributions are so small compared to Hanson, Mann and many others.
Morner owes his fame to being skeptical.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:45 AM on 20 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #50
knaugle,
Achieving all of the UN Sustainable Development Goals is indeed essential for humanity to have a future.
-
knaugle at 01:54 AM on 20 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #50
This is at best a temporary solution. Even at 7.5 billion people, it seems we have way more demand for resources than the Earth can sustainably provide. Sure we can act more sustainably, but what happens when we reach 10 billion? 15 billion? There is a breaking point no matter what we do if we refuse to address population growth. It's not easy, China tried, and failed. AGW will just make it worse.
-
MA Rodger at 01:24 AM on 20 December 2017Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
danmcc @90,
You speak in the present tense and while this thread has been collecting cobwebs for some years, you are correct in using the present tense. Nils-Axel Mörner is still at it, for instance last year responding to the assertions that SLR in the last century was 'extremely likely faster thanany of the previous 27 centuries' set out by Kopp et al (2016) last year with a pantomine 'Oh no it's not.' And more recently he is published in an obscure non-SLR journal. If you want to see the man himself in action, there is 19 minutes of him from last summer in full flow here.
Mind, of late there has been proposed adjustments to that satellite record pre-2003 but I don't think Mörner will be happy with the adjustments being suggested by, for instance Chen et al (2017).
-
Eclectic at 00:42 AM on 20 December 2017Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
Danmcc @90 , one can only guess at the various motivations that compel Dr Moerner's rejection of all the evidence.
If he were the one and only person to reject the physical evidence of our modern global warming, then perhaps one could look at his age [currently 79] and speculate about him "Going Emeritus" or suffering some organic deterioration that could explain such strange behavior. Or look at prior personality type favoring maverick attitude [in blunter terms: "ornery contrariness"] or perhaps even a type of persecution complex.
However, we do not have access to his inner psyche — and so, in view of the considerable number of humans who believe the Earth is flat or believe that all scientists are in a grand century-long Conspiracy against mankind . . . or even that the Moon Landings were faked or that Climate Change is a Hoax by the Chinese . . . then IMO we should recognise that not all humans are fully sane (sane in the sense of being intellectually sane). It would appear that Moerner is just one more example — nothing more, nothing less. Danmcc, really it is not worth your while agonising over such motivations. There is plenty of other craziness in this world, worthy of your more urgent attention.
Your second point — the "falsely-adjusted" altimetry data — is more easily dealt with. Look at the bigger picture : sea temperature measurements show the ocean is warming [as expected, from the increase of the so-called Greenhouse Effect which has been going on for a century or more] and that a vast amount of land-based ice (well over 30 million Megatons, over that time) has melted and flowed into the ocean. So of course the sea level has risen substantially — and with much more to come. Moerner is being grossly unscientific. Crazily so. (Danmcc, you may also be amused to read Tom Curtis's post #51 above, and subsequent discussion.)
Thirdly, Danmcc, as you point out — a single satellite, making a single 90-minute orbit around the planet, will have great inaccuracy in altimeter reading. But multiply those orbital passes by tens of thousands of iterations, and the integration will have only a very tiny error. And remember that the satellite data is also well-supported by the tide-gauge data.
Basically, Moerner is laughably wrong (or is "sadly wrong" the better term?).
Please note that the initial diagram in the OP article above, is now more than 5 years out of date. Sea level is rising ever faster (and an up-to-date analysis is to be found on statistician "Tamino" website).
-
danmcc at 22:30 PM on 19 December 2017Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
I have three questions. First, what do you think Morner's motivation could be for rejecting consensus on this issue? He clearly knows he'll be smeared and isolated because of it as opposed to being held in the high esteem he once was. That makes me tend to think he is worth listening to.
Secondly, he claims that the satellite record has been "falsely adjusted" to "get a trend" because older data showed little or no rise. I can't find any data that shows what the new "calibrations" were, or why they were made. Does anyone know?
Finally, I did some research on how the altimetry of the Sats works at http://www.altimetry.info/radar-altimetry-tutorial/how-altimetry-works/. In that
quite detailed information, there are a large number of error sources listed that have to be corrected. They are listed as variable signal propagation delays due to ionization and water vapor, tidal effects, eddies, gravity anomalies, rotational effects, antenna angle of incidence, signal noise, and surface wind. I reason that each error correction is likely subject to some quantifiable total error range which is not documented. Also, to my surprise, I found words to this effect. "Resolution of the altimeter is 47CM (3.125ns) and range measurement over the ocean is 10 times greater than this" That is 4.7 meters! I also found this "satellite altitude accuracy is about 1 or 2 CM". So my question then is how is it possible to resolve the measurement to millimeters when the resolution is many 1000s of times lower than that, altitude accuracy is an approximation 10 to 20 times that, and there are other unquantified error sources?
Prev 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 Next
