Recent Comments

Prev  331  332  333  334  335  336  337  338  339  340  341  342  343  344  345  346  Next

Comments 16901 to 16950:

16901. nigelj at 05:23 AM on 2 November 2017
       What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?
       

       Cereo @13

       "Could you elaborate on why you think his claims are unsupported by "real" science?"

       He basically claimed a lack of women at google and technology related companies was due to "biological differences" between men and women and that women were temperamentally unsuited to detailed work of this kind.

       He presented no peer reviewed research papers or text books to back his claim, and would also need to have gone further, and assess the full range of related peer reviewed research on the matter and see what the weight of evidence said. He really just expressed an uninformed opinion.

       I have done some university level psychology, and know of no consensus in any of the sciences that would say career choices stem from biological differences, or evolutionary psychology.

       I agree biology and psychology are interelated, its all chemistry ultimately, but this does not mean biology explains this specific difference until you prove it does. Ironically you might find biology makes girls better suited to technology work, and other factors keep them away.

       Further more, given girls are doing well at school on the whole in science this suggests a distict lack of biological or other deep seated differences.

       And more compelling is the reason I already gave. The lack of women in computer technology is easily explained by a lack of computer science graduates related to 1) a long standing perception its a "mans world" and 2) a preference for things like journalism etc. 

       "Well, he never did intend to go public. His document was intended as a feedback to a recent diversity course he attended (which they asked for). It circulated internally without much fuss until it got into the hands of an internal skeptic group. They made it public and sent it to the press. '

       He still circulated material in office time, that was essentially sexist and undermined google as already explained. He locked in a chain of events that meant google had little choice but to fire him imho.

       If someone leaked his information that may have been wrong, or maybe it was legitimate whistle blowing, however it's beside the point and doesnt make what he did right.

16902. One Planet Only Forever at 05:03 AM on 2 November 2017
       Greenhouse gas concentrations surge to new record
       

       A clarification of my correct #4 requiring more words to be more correct:

       The pre-industrial level is indeed 280 ppm, but that term is not referring to the maximum level through the past 800 000 years. That term is the starting point for discussing things like how much impact the industrial age has had. The industrial age pushed CO2 up from 280 (278 in the NOAA presentation) to a level of 300 ppm by the early 1900s (as indicated in my suggested correction/clarification @1).

16903. One Planet Only Forever at 04:59 AM on 2 November 2017
       Greenhouse gas concentrations surge to new record
       

       Another minor correction:

       "Over the last 800 000 years, pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 content remained below 300 ppm."

       The highest level through the past 800 000 years was 300 ppm occurring a little more than 300 000 years ago (as I mentioned in the correction @1 which is based on a multitude of sources that provide CO2 level history through the past 800 000 years, one of which is provided by NOAA)

16904. One Planet Only Forever at 04:50 AM on 2 November 2017
       Greenhouse gas concentrations surge to new record
       

       eschwartzbach@2,

       The statement uncorrected implies that 2015 CO2 levels were lower than 2014 levels but the surge in 2016 set a record level of CO2. It also implies many previous values had been records as the CO2 level bounces around.

       The correction uses more words because more words need to be used. Perhaps a different set of words would be better, but more words needed to be more correct.

       A way to say it more correctly with fewer words is:

       "Concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere surged at a record-breaking speed in 2016, according to ...", with reference to a chart showing the 800 000 year CO2 history.

16905. cero at 03:47 AM on 2 November 2017
       Climate's changed before
       

       In a relatively recent study by Kemp, Eichenseer and Kiessling, the authors argue that the change in climate may have been faster (maybe as fast as now) before, but this can't be seen in the data, since most data only refers to long time intervals.
       (https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9890)

       Is there a response to that? What is your opinion on that study?

16906. cero at 03:39 AM on 2 November 2017
       What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?
       

       @Eclectic:

       Some notes to your points:

       (A) He never did go public as I already explained in post #13

       (B) Could you elaborate on that? Most social scientists agree, that biological gender differences are negligible. However, most evolutionary psychologists (and many psychologists in general) agree, that there are significant differences.

       Also it seems quite unlikely, that e.g. hormones have a huge impact on thousands of physical traits but on the other hand should not have any impact on psychological traits.

       (C) I agree with you on that. Although I see where he is coming from (Modern intersectionality is largely based on Marx's conflict theory, without much quantitative evidence). However, he doesn't have evidence to support his own position either.

       (D) I fail to understand what you mean. You don't deny, that there is a liberal bias in academia, do you? There is even a Wikipedia article about that (although the bias is smaller than 95%): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_bias_in_academia

       (E) What is your evidence for that? There certainly is a pay gap in the sense, that women on average earn less than men. But it is not clear at all, whether women earn less at the same position in the same company. The more external factors one considers, the more the gap shrinks. The remaining part is about 5% to 7% (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap#United_States). And this still excludes many potential external factors.

16907. eschwarzbach at 03:38 AM on 2 November 2017
       Greenhouse gas concentrations surge to new record
       

       The correction to (1) does not change the basic message, that the present CO2 concentration is the highest in 800 000 years, it just makes the message less clear.

16908. cero at 03:20 AM on 2 November 2017
       What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?
       

       @nigelj:

       Could you elaborate on why you think his claims are unsupported by "real" science?

       "But the point is he circulated his opinions in office time, and they are divisive on the biological issue and undermine management on the gender balance issue. I can see why google were annoyed. He seemed to be almost asking for trouble."

       Well, he never did intend to go public. His document was intended as a feedback to a recent diversity course he attended (which they asked for). It circulated internally without much fuss until it got into the hands of an internal skeptic group. They made it public and sent it to the press. He explains this in his interview with Dave Rubin: https://youtu.be/6NOSD0XK0r8

16909. One Planet Only Forever at 02:52 AM on 2 November 2017
       Greenhouse gas concentrations surge to new record
       

       Minor but important correction of the opening statement:

       "Concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere surged at a record-breaking speed in 2016 continuing the industrial age increases that, in the early 1900s, pushed it above the 300 ppm highest level in the previous 800 000 years, ..."

16910. NorrisM at 01:42 AM on 2 November 2017
       Sea level rise is exaggerated
       

       michael sweet at 216

       Thanks for the reply.  When it comes to "what is happening" versus "what should be do about it", I think my attitude has settled on focussing on two observations and trying to understand them.  They are temperature rise and sea level rise.  This way I do not have to engage in areas of technical expertise such as the predictability of climate models where it would be hopeless for me to fully understand the complexities.

       Obviously temperature increases and sea levels are intimately intertwined in that a large part of sea level rise is expansion.

       I will look more carefully at your references and look at the most recent papers. 

       Can you explain from what date you are measuring the sea level rise?

       I asked this question of someone else on the 1C temperature rise and found that there was not a clear agreement but I think we are dealing with  ballpark 1850 to 1880.  Is that the same for sea level rise?

       On the "what should we do about it" question, is there a better place to discuss the 2010 Abbott paper which suggests we move to thermal solar for base load rather than wind or PV solar?

16911. CBDunkerson at 22:24 PM on 1 November 2017
       New data gives hope for meeting the Paris climate targets
       

       Digby, there is really no link between decoupling CO2 emissions from GDP and atmospheric CO2 levels decreasing... the latter won't happen until we get emissions down near zero.

       ianw01, the record annual CO2 increase last year would certainly not have occurred without the El Nino event... because human emissions were flat. We'll have to wait a few years to be sure, but given recent trends I think there is a good possibility that it will mark the high point... i.e. that 3.3 ppm annual increase will be the highest recorded, with the rate decreasing from here.

16912. michael sweet at 20:51 PM on 1 November 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       Norrism at 185:

       I have posted a response here on a more appropriate thread for sea level rise discussion.

16913. michael sweet at 20:49 PM on 1 November 2017
       Sea level rise is exaggerated
       

       Norrism:

       The data that you have presented from the IPCC show a  clear acceleration of sea level rise over the past 100 years.  The data show that the rate of increase in increasing over the time period analyzed.  The IPCC then did a linear fit to the data to get the rates you quote.

       When you fit a line to an accelerating function you obtain approximatley the average of the rate of increase over the time period, not the instantaneous rate.  Your claim of 3.2 mm/yr (increased from your previous rate of 3.0 mm/yr) is probably close to the rate during 2001.  According to my calender, it is now 2017.

       Deniers often use the IPCC rate from 1901-2010 of 1.7 mm/yr.  Your choice is not as bad a cherry pick as that, but it still minimizes the current increase in sea level by averaging in old data.  The 4.0 mm/yr rate I have cited is the current (2017) rate and is a conservative estimate since the data shows the rate is accelerating.  This conservative rate with the current acceleration of the rate gives 95 cm as a conservative increase in sea level by 2100. You usually choose the minimum rates of whatever you are discussing.

       Scientists are not generally allowed to cherry pick data in the fashion you do.  We use the most up to date data possible, not data from years ago.  Claiming that the sea level rise is only 3.2 mm/yr when up to date data show the rate is 4 mm/yr and accelerating is considered a cherry pick and is not a convincing argument.

       It seems to me that lawers are trying to demponstrate that their argument is correct.  They cherry pick information to make it appear their argument is correct even when it is incorrect.  Scientists want to deduce the actual behaviour of nature.  The most up to date data is used.  At SkS we want to reveal what is actually happening in nature.  

       Here is a link to an analysis by Tamino.  He discusses some of the techniques of analyzing data like this. His estimate of current sea level rise (data goes to 2013) is about 3.9 mm/yr.  Dr. Nerem  has data up to 2017.  There are small differences between satalite data (Dr. Nerem) and tide guage data (Tamino).  Tamino is a statistician who has published on climate change.

       If you want you can use 3.2 mm/yr as the sea level rise but it is not an accurate number and it minimizses the problem of sea level rise.  Note that the data in the OP here ends about 2010, it is not current.

16914. John Hartz at 14:06 PM on 1 November 2017
       New data gives hope for meeting the Paris climate targets
       

       Recommended supplemental reading:

       World set to bust global warming goal, but U.N. cool on threat from Trump by Tom Miles, Reuters, Oct 31, 2017

16915. Digby Scorgie at 11:50 AM on 1 November 2017
       New data gives hope for meeting the Paris climate targets
       

       CBDunkerson @3

       I acknowledge that the analysis is more complicated than a quick glance at the graph will show.  However, I think I'd still prefer to wait a few years before trumpeting this recent decoupling.

       There is also the fact that atmospheric CO₂ is still going up, it hangs around in the atmosphere for a long time, and our emissions would have to drop much much more if we are to see a downward trend in ppm.

16916. nigelj at 06:12 AM on 1 November 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #43
       

       David Attenborough talks specifically about climate change here.

       www.bbc.com/news/av/science-environment-15994284/sir-david-attenborough-issues-climate-change-warning

       unearthed.greenpeace.org/2017/09/25/david-attenborough-climate-change-science-storytelling-blue-planet-ii/

16917. nigelj at 06:03 AM on 1 November 2017
       The F13 files, part 4 - dealing with Elsevier
       

       The F13 paper is obviously flawed, and its sad your complaints weren't handled more professionally. Clearly the journal was stalling for time, hoping you would just go away.

       But if its some consolation, I doubt the paper will make the IPCC reach different conclusions on causes of climate change.

16918. nigelj at 05:47 AM on 1 November 2017
       New data gives hope for meeting the Paris climate targets
       

       The reason for the decoupling may be partly as follows. I recall reading that the 2008 global financial crash led to a drop in energy investment that persisted for several years. This lead to a drop in growth of emissions,for a few years.

       The recovery in gdp growth from about 2010 onwards was apparently based on more efficient use of existing energy infrastructure. This process of efficiency will have limiting factors, and So the decoupling may be a temporary anomaly.

       However as more renewable energy enters the mix you would still expect a gradual decoupling over longer time frames?

16919. ubrew12 at 03:13 AM on 1 November 2017
       The F13 files, part 1 - the copy/paste job
       

       The F13 abstract lead off with: "This paper... suggests that numerical models that lack adequate knowledge of fundamental... factors cannot be used to extract “sound” conclusions."  So, after extensive review, the authors conclude that 'Garbage in = Garbage out'?  Brilliant (/s).  Look, nobody makes a policy decision without a prediction of its outcome, based on a model of the future.  That includes the 'do nothing' alternative.  Trump etal have a model of future climate.  Its probably just an 'it'll be alright, it's always been in the Past' model put in their heads by Fox News, but its still a model, and all models are wrong (the future cannot be perfectly predicted).  The purpose of research is to make newer predictive models 'less wrong' than others.  This implies that model comparison's are necessary to the process of continuous improvement.  So, where are the denier models?  Big fossils makes a trillion dollars in pure profit annually: where are its competing climate models?  Where is Florides model?  On what basis is Trump taking the 'do nothing' alternative?  If you refuse to make something better than the moon, then you are stuck howling at the moon, which explains Florides first sentence, which reaches a conclusion any freshman studying 'C++' is taught in the first week of instruction.

       Florides abstract: "science does not really have a complete... understanding of the factors affecting the earth's complex climate system and therefore no sound conclusions can be drawn."  It doesn't matter for two reasons: 1) Policy must be made anyway.  To make rational decisions requires the best predictive tools we have, regardless of our incomplete state of knowledge. 2) There is no such thing as a 'sound conclusion'.  I'm reminded that, deciding how many Americans to send into Iwo Jima, planners developed a differential equation which assumed each Japanese would fight to the death.  Was it accurate?  Of course not.  It was simply the best planning tool they had, so they used it.  The calculation that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere will raise Earth's temperature by 4 C predates computer modelling by 75 years.  Policy should be made on that basis, and not on the shifting goalposts of a denier like Florides, for whom scientific modelling will never be good enough because, happily for him, he doesn't have to front a competing model but gets paid apparently to be a professional critic.  

16920. ubrew12 at 02:10 AM on 1 November 2017
       The F13 files, part 1 - the copy/paste job
       

       from part 3: "Cook et al (2013) [2] found that only 0.7% of their sample rejected AGW, so F13 references them 50 times more than one would expect of an unbiased sample."  That's clear evidence of bias.  How does a 'review article' get away with such egregious cherry picking?  And the mention, much less discussion, of 'cosmic rays'?  What is such speculative 'research' even doing in a review of established climate science?

16921. ubrew12 at 01:50 AM on 1 November 2017
       The F13 files, part 2 - the content analysis
       

       Excellent job breaking down the fallacies in a deeply flawed review article!  Regarding F13 ch 2.2, pg 3: F13 claim 'the temperature increase... precedes the CO2...increase [at Vostok]'.  Here's my understanding of a natural transition out of a glacial period: when Earth's precession (top spin) goes from vertical to canted (every 100k yrs or so), the poles get more sunlight, Northern ice melts a bit, floods the N Atlantic, the AMOC shuts down, this warms the Southern Ocean, which vents/doesn't absorb CO2, which causes the globe to go from 'glacial' to 'interglacial'. So temperature leads CO2 by 800 years, for Antarctica (and only Antarctica!), but lags CO2 by hundreds of years everywhere else. The orbital tilt is not enough, by itself, to cause that thermal transition. After all: Earth is a sphere, it's tilt shouldn't be affecting solar insolation at all, theoretically.

       Also, regarding F13 ch 2.5, pg 3: "F13 argue that CO2 is beneficial to plant life", I would call that a major fallacy, rather than minor, because its been so pernicious and completely without an 'Earth-scale' observable basis.  It's simple enough to say to farmers and others of limited understanding, but when the Hadley Cell swallows the American Midwest, the grain belts of Southern Europe and Spain, and most of Australia, its going to be short shrift to those farmers to know there's more CO2 in the atmosphere as they are praying for rain.

16922. ianw01 at 00:49 AM on 1 November 2017
       New data gives hope for meeting the Paris climate targets
       

       Unfortunately actual CO2 levels are rising at a record pace. According to the WMO yesterday, "The record increase of 3.3 ppm in CO2 from 2015 to 2016 was larger than the previous record increase, observed from 2012 to 2013, and the average growth rate over the last decade."

       They do partly attribute it to the recent El Nino, but still, I find it hard to celebrate this apparent decoupling in the face of such news.

16923. CBDunkerson at 22:46 PM on 31 October 2017
       New data gives hope for meeting the Paris climate targets
       

       wili, the data in question didn't come from the Chinese government. The chart showing Chinese emissions leveling off is based on independent research by the EU.

       Digby, there is a difference between the recent 'decoupling' and previous 'mismatches' in the data. Specifically, previous discrepancies were of degree (i.e. one factor shifted by a larger percentage than the other) and timing (i.e. one factor moved a year or two before the other). The recent differences have also been of direction (GDP growing while emissions are declining) and duration.

       Also, if you follow the link at the bottom to the full article you will see a third graph showing California GDP growth of ~35% over 16 years, while emissions shrank ~7%. Similar results have been observed for various other locations... making clear that the decoupling of GDP and emissions is not some statistical phantom. It has been observed in specific regions for a long time, and has now grown to the point that it is visible in the global data.

16924. Green Hammer at 22:33 PM on 31 October 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #43
       

       why can’t david attenborough bring himself to say climate change or global warming? he will mention human activity but that’s about it. 

16925. NorrisM at 14:33 PM on 31 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       michael sweet @ 113 and Moderator

       I think I have previously acknowledged having read the Abbott paper highlighted in your  post which points out some of the practical problems with nuclear power even leaving aside costs. 

       I have now read his other January 2010 paper which analyzes the various competing alternatives to FF including further information on why neither nuclear fission nor nuclear fusion will work based upon some pretty interesting data.   His "order of magnitude" approach of asking whether any particular source could alone meet the world's 15 TW energy consumption per second is fascinating for exposing problems with a lot of the sources.

       Maybe I am easily convinced but he makes a good argument for the "low tech" solution of solar thermal collectors (even if it would cover about 5 times the area required by PV Solar).

       Moderator, I appreciate this is not the thread to carry on such a discussion of the Abbott second paper.

       Could you suggest a better thread?

16926. NorrisM at 14:17 PM on 31 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       michael sweet @ 184

       I appreciate that the IPCC 2013 assessment is based upon the information at that time.  Here is what the summary says:

       "It is very likely that the global mean rate was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm yr–1 between 1901 and 2010 for a total sea level rise of 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m. Between 1993 and 2010, the rate was very likely higher at 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm yr–1; similarly high rates likely occurred between 1920 and 1950. {3.7.2, 3.7.4, 5.6.3, 13.2.1, 13.2.2, Figure 13.3}"

       Until the IPCC reexamines all of the papers at its next assessment, it seems reasonable to assume that we are around 3.2 mm/yr but knowing that things logically could accelerate assuming that the temperature does increase as projected.  Attempting to use averages over a 5 year period seems to be problematic in the same way that arguments were made relating to the well-known 10-13 year "hiatus".  On this very graph above, the rate of increase seems to have levelled off after the El Nino was finished.

       It is interesting that in the above IPCC quote we had similar "high rates" during the period 1920-1950.  Curious as to whether there is any explanation of that anomaly.   

16927. wili at 13:48 PM on 31 October 2017
       New data gives hope for meeting the Paris climate targets
       

       I'm more with Digby on this one. Don't the Chinese have a history of presenting 'official' stats on various fields including carbon emissions, only to 'revise' them, sometimes rather drastically later?

       Of course, we all want this to be true...all the more reason to put on our 'Skeptical Science Spectacles' (say that ten time fast!) to critically examine the bases of these claims.

16928. Digby Scorgie at 13:21 PM on 31 October 2017
       New data gives hope for meeting the Paris climate targets
       

       I'm not so sanguine about this decoupling of CO₂ and GDP.  From the graph there appears to have been a similar "decoupling" around 1980.  I reckon one would need to wait a few more years to see if this recent "decoupling" is a real trend.

16929. CBDunkerson at 21:55 PM on 30 October 2017
       What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?
       

       It seems to me that there is a clear link between the kind of pseudo-science and disinformation that Damore used in his screed and the same in climate science.

       What is the difference between all those pointing to the individual studies Damore cited for his claims of biological differences and climate change deniers pulling up papers by random cranks to advance their agenda? In both cases they are ignoring the overwhelming body of research which disputes their position.

       Damore was fired for publicly posting a sexist screed. As he should have been. The company would have been opening itself to massive liability otherwise.

16930. CBDunkerson at 21:53 PM on 30 October 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #43
       

       Half a dozen European countries have committed to zero coal power production between 2022 and 2030... thus, the 2050 limit cited does not seem impossible. It seems that China and India are turning the corner and likely that any future industrialization (e.g. Africa) will follow a renewable path from the start. Political forces in the US and Australia are still desperately pushing coal, but they are clearly losing the battle... and the day is coming when coal companies won't be able to afford to buy politicians any more.

16931. John Hartz at 06:14 AM on 30 October 2017
       CO2 is plant food
       

       Recommended supplemental reading:

       Global warming threatens nutrition levels in staple crops by Adam Wernick, Public Radio International (PRI), Oct 29, 2017

16932. One Planet Only Forever at 05:07 AM on 30 October 2017
       Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
       

       nigelj@28,

       Your reply has prompted me to some new thoughts and recognize important 'paradigm shifts' that people need to be 'educated to understand' (deprogrammed may be a more appropriate term than educated).

       When the ethical requirement is defined in ways consistent with the many ways I stated it in my comment @26, what is being discussed should not be called a Carbon Tax or Carbon Fee. It should be called a Carbon Fine or Carbon Penalty. The following are example statements regarding Ethics definition from m comment @26:

       • Ethical - "understandably unacceptable options must not be allowed to compete for popularity or profitability"
       • Ethical - "...action is required to terminate the creation of increased harm by pursuers of personal benefit from the ultimately unsustainable burning of non-renewable fossil fuels."
       • Unethical - "... people focused on unjustifiably getting away with obtaining self-interest benefits for only a portion of humanity to the detriment of current day Others and to the detriment of all of future humanity."
       • Unethical - "... implying that the protection of the public interest from the potential actions of a pursuers of personal benefit should be compromised/balanced with a private interest for more personal benefit."
       • Ethical - "Good results are sustainable improvements of the living circumstances of the least fortunate and future generations."
       • Unethical - "... trying to limit awareness and proper understanding of climate science through misleading marketing ..."

       Calling something a Fee or Tax implies that it is OK to do as long as you can afford it (like parking, or being a user of a State or National Park). And sometimes taxes are collected on activities that only harm the person choosing to do them (such as Liquor, Cigarette and Marijuana consumption), implying that those actions should be limited but a person should be free to knowledgeably choose to do them (other legal penalties are applied to harmful activities related to those 'personal self-harming choices', such as advertising to deliberately increase awareness and temptation to do the self-harming activity).

       The implication of fees or taxes is that if you are richer you are justified to do more of the activity that is being taxed or fee-charged if you choose to. That implied justification is not appropriate for GHG creation. We do not have Speeding Fees or Drunk Driving Taxes, and we should not have Carbon Fees or Carbon Taxes. The use of Carbon Fee is more marketable than Carbon Tax, and both are more marketable than Carbon Fine or Carbon Penalty. But the marketability of unethical things is part of the problem to be corrected.

       The creation of GHG emissions is not like those Taxed self-harming items. The person doing it obtains a benefit, almost no self-harm experienced, while objectively creating harm to others. And the activity needs to be terminated, not just be reduced or limited.

       The understanding developed by climate science is that it is unethical for some members of a current generation of humanity to benefit from creating additional GHG by burning non-renewable fossil fuels. The further implication is that the more fortunate people are expected to be 'less harmful/more helpful' because those who are more fortunate can 'afford to behave better and understand how to' and should be leading by example (they should not be free to choose whether or not they will behave better or be more helpful and less harmful).

       Making additional GHG is not a limited opportunity that the more fortunate should be able to benefit from as much as they can 'legally afford to'. CO2 has already been pushed beyond 400 ppm, so the creation of additional GHG is an activity that needs to be rapidly reduced to zero along with actions to reduce amounts of already created GHG (350 ppm is an appropriate understood upper limit to avoid imposing harm and challenges on future generations. Higher values than 350 ppm are into the realm of unjustifiably compromising the Public Interest for limited Private Interests. The future generations and the least fortunate cannot be excluded from consideration just because they have no financial, legal or marketing power).

       Ethically, the only people with an excuse for trying to benefit from new GHG creation are the least fortunate (due to the urgency of their need and likely lack of awareness and understanding). And the least fortunate should be helped by the most fortunate to sustainably develop to live a basic decent life in ways that create the least possible additional GHG (because the less new GHG that gets created the less GHG reduction has to be done).

       What needs to become understood is that Sovereign Rule of Law is only legitimate when it is Ruled by Ethics, constantly being updated/corrected to address new awareness/understanding of what is unacceptable. Sovereign regional efforts to make-up Bad/Unethical Rules of Law cannot be excused as 'legitimate Rule of Law' no matter how regionally popular that type of unethical Law-making-up may regionally be.

       The new and improving understandings of climate science have exposed some major 'Unethical Legal Matters' and related misunderstandings. Freedom of speech is abused to excuse unethical excuse-making by already fortunate people unethically pursuing more personal benefit from the understandably unsustainable and harmful burning of non-renewable fossil fuels. The following are other examples of corrections (paradigm shifting) of 'Dogma/Beliefs that can be objectively shown to be misunderstandings that need correcting':

       • Legal is not the same as Ethical (unethical harmful making-up of laws or enforcement happens)
       • Popular and Profitable are not reliable measures of success or legitimacy (less ethical behaviour can be popular and profitable even when understandably harmful)
       • Taxes are not inherently Bad (effective use of taxes to sustainably improve the circumstances of the least fortunate is Good, and more Good is Better)
       • Paying a Tax does not necessarily legitimize an action (paying a Carbon Tax does not make the creation of new GHG 'acceptable/ethical')
       • People being freer to believe whatever they wish and do as they please is unlikely to develop a Good Result (unless everyone ethically self-limits their behaviour, the reality is that some people will always try to Win by getting away with less ethical behaviour).

       The Sustainable Development Goals, Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement are consistent with that understanding of what is ethical (in different ways to different degrees). And it is those Objective Ethical Understandings and Requirements that many people fearfully/angrily react to because of the cognitive dissonance with their preferred personal beliefs and desires (they have developed perceptions of prosperity and opportunity and believe they should be able to win any way they can get away with - including developing and supporting excuses for unethical behaviour, hoping that regional popularity of understandably unacceptable actions will Win them more undeserved but desired personal benefits).

16933. nigelj at 04:41 AM on 30 October 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #43
       

       Kiwiano, you have raised an interesting point there, people in denial about sea level rise out of fear of admission and action leading to property price crash. It would be interesting to do polls on opinion on climate change in low lying areas and higher ground and compare the results.

16934. Philippe Chantreau at 04:38 AM on 30 October 2017
       Climate's changed before
       

       jop3v2 says "The planet is warming. On this we all agree."

       Actually, no. I have been around the mind manipulation wars on climate for a good number of years. There are countless fake skeptics who in fact disagree with that and have made a living of attempting to spread doubt about that very point. Most famously, Anthony Watts, who was proven wrong in his assumptions very early on by an amateur going by the handle of John V. He was proven wrong again later by NOAA and finally by his own publication. It was a fairly inconsequential paper, that still took him years to produce; it did not lead him to disavow his years of accusations of fraud against others, encouraging his readers to harass scientists by putting their personal addresses on his site, or putting up posts so grotesque that only the scientificaly illiterate could take him seriously (Antarctica carbonic snow comes to mind). And he is only one of many; some are in the highest positions of power. Your concluding statement is verifiably wrong. Perhaps you should have said: "we, people amenable to reason, all agree with that." I would concur if phrased that way.

       Another part of your argument to which I object is the "humans too small to affect anything." It is common and sometimes comes from people who are religious minded. However, it is not valid either. Imagine all the carbon dioxide released from volcanic activity happening naturally on Earth over a year. Now, multiply that by approximately 100 (give or take); that's how much we have been and are still releasing, year after year. Any argument that this does not constitute a geological scale event is wrong, purely from simple quantitative considerations. Geological scale events have geological scale ramifications.

       The per volume fraction of CO2 is seemingly small, but that does not change the physics. If CO2 was not transparent to visible light and we could actually see its increase just by looking at photos of now vs 35 years ago, we certainly would be more enclined to take the threat seriously, because that's the kind of animal we humans are. We also are very bad at anything truly long term, although this has become far worse in the recent past, under the pressure of an extreme ideology of maximizing short term gains at any cost, present or future.

       There is more to discuss about the fact that we weren't around as a global civilization in the time periods you mentioned and that we developped as such in a certain range of conditions; we then built some pretty heavy infrastructure that is already compromised by rapid seal level increase. We established industrial agricultural practices that, for all their machinery and chemical underpinnings, are nonetheless most dependent on rainfall, seasonal cycles, and low probability of extreme events. The rapidity of the change we are witnessing now is far more relevant to us than the actual position of equilibrium in a past when we were just tagging along with all the other critters.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] can I ask all responders to jopv32 to reply on an appropriate thread? You can place a pointer to your reply here.

16935. MA Rodger at 04:11 AM on 30 October 2017
       Climate's changed before
       

       jop3v2 @577,

       Concerning your self-description "I'm an AGW skeptic because I find it difficult to accecpt that only 0.03% of the atmosphere is responsible for controlling changes in Global Climate." Consider the following analogy:-

       I live in a house that I estimate contains about 60 tons of material in the walls (333mm x 3m x 10m x 4walls with sg =1.5). The atmosphere contains today 400ppm by volume and 610ppm by weight of CO2, or 0.06%. Studies suggest that if CO2 were entirely removed from the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect would effectively disappear and global average temperatures would fall 33ºC. There are a lot of things that result from the removal of atmospheric CO2 (as described in the linked SkS article) so the analogy with my house is not exact. Also note the planet's troposphere contains a 75ºC temperature drop while the inside/outside temperature difference across the walls of my house is no more than 20ºC, even in winter. So consider if I take the front door off my house in mid-winter. There will be a dramatic change in the room temperature, very likely reducing the average inside/outside temperature difference by more than 50%. If the front door weighs 36kg, it would constitute 600ppm by weight of the house. (It probably weighs a lot less.)

16936. michael sweet at 03:48 AM on 30 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       I saw a note from Dr. Nerem at CIRES regarding sea level rise.  He showed this graph:

       

       source .  He states: "While we are still completing this research, it appears that long-term sea level rise has accelerated from roughly 2 mm/year in the mid-1990s to 4 mm/year today (2017)."

       I calculate that if sea level rise continues at 4 mm/yr until 2100 the total rise would be 58 cm (83 X 0.4 + 25 cm = 58 cm).  If acceleration continued at the current rate (0.1 mm/yr),  total rise would be about 95 cm. Of course, if temperature continues to increase the acceleration can also increase.

       The IPCC is well known to be extremely conservative in it's estimation of sea level rise.  The 5th reports estimation was much higher than the 4th reports estimate.

16937. jop3v2 at 03:00 AM on 30 October 2017
       Climate's changed before
       

       First, please note that I'm a skeptic of AGW theories. I believe that at best, Mankind may have the capacity induce a relatively minor impact relative to the sources of natural variation.

       Holocene is considered an Ice Age with the last Glaciation endingn ~11K to 12k years ago. I don't know the catalyst that shifts from an 'Ice Age' to a 'Warm House'. (Need to research that) We do know it has happened many times before our arrival. 
       
       Looking at temprature records of the 12 Periods in the current Era, 84.7% of the time the Globe was several degrees warmer. It seems logical to assume the planet tends to gravitate to that level with ouside events triggering major cooling events. 
       Consider:
       84.7% of the Phanerozoic Eon was on average ~3+ degrees warmer than current. 
       Holocene is considered an Ice Age. (Something cooled things off, but the planet is trying to return to its 'normal' balance which is closer to that 84.7% of the time level.)
        
       Is it possible the current Ice Age has ended due to some factor we have not yet considered? 
       What I am really asking is; How many global climate factors are there that we have we do not yet fully understand? How big could their impacts be? What is the likelyhood that there are significant factors that we do not yet understand and or have not discovered. 
       
       I'm an AGW skeptic because I find it difficult to accecpt that only 0.03% of the atmosphere is responsible for controlling changes in Global Climate.
       Statistically speaking: 0.0003 could be viewed as a rounding error. (This point is for dramatic effect only) 
       
       The planet is warming. On this we all agree.

       Moderator Response:

       [TD] The percent of the total atmosphere that is CO2 is irrelevant. The only gases that are relevant are greenhouse gases, of which CO2 is one. With regard to forcings, there are even fewer relevant gases; water vapor condenses so it is a feedback, not a forcing. So a relevant percentage is the percent of all non-condensing greenhouse gases that is CO2.

       There is overwhelming, concrete, empirical evidence for an increase in CO2 causing warming.

       Human activities' contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere are not balanced by human activities' removals of CO2 from the atmosphere. In contrast, the natural contributions and removals closely balance. CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by natural processes very slowly, so human contributions accumulate.

       [PS] Please note that Sks organizes arguments into different topics. Please do not make offtopic comments. Use the search button on the top left to find relevant topics and comment there after you have read the article. Repetition of long-debunked arguments is boring.

16938. Kiwiiano at 02:54 AM on 30 October 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #43
       

       It's not just the 200mm that makes a difference in most places, it's the more ferocious, more frequent storms, that send bigger storm surges into areas previously not regarded as vulnerable. Part of that problem seems to be the reluctance of many communities to face up to it for fear that it will provoke a catastrophic collapse of confidence in property values. I guess time will sort that out.

16939. Eclectic at 19:52 PM on 29 October 2017
       What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?
       

       Megreen @8 , thanks for your definition of "neutral" — though I am somewhat puzzled by your application of "neutral" to the SkS website.  Surely, SkS exists to counter the lies & half-truths circulated by the anti-science propagandists (wrt climate science).   And thus, the issue of "neutrality" . . . is inapplicable to SkS.   SkS does not exist to counter political & religious dogma, but only to counter "anti-science".  

       As I mentioned above, a razor-thin focus on the pure science aspects cannot be maintained at precisely 100% (because the problems we face with rapid AGW, are problems which require some sociological analysis and response).   Inevitably, there will be some discursiveness in the sociological topics — but I think it is fair to say that SkS shows very little political partisanship there (and indeed, this discursion into "women in science" is quite atypical of SkS generally : and in itself this episode probably demonstrates a "Nothingburger" wrt SkS policy).

       As to the Memoist (if I may call him that) at Google : on a number of points he "chose poorly" [gotta love that modern cliche, from the movie Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade].

       He has "chosen poorly" by :-

       (A) going public, via a lengthy memo of decidedly non-PC statements, at the very time that his company (Google) is beset by problems of legal compliance & the need for PR virtue-signalling.   His "loose cannon" action seems (IMO) to show he puts his own desire to vent his opinions ahead of his responsibility to his company.

       (B) expressing ideas that were in vogue 40 years ago, but which nowadays show a poorly-scientific understanding of the relative contributions of Nature / Nurture / and Culture, in the male/female gender roles.   And in particular regarding the low importance of innate gender differences in the fields of science, technology, engineering and [here] business management.

       To quote one pundit: "... most of these sexual differences are [only] moderate in size and in my view are unlikely to be all that relevant to the Google workplace ..."

       (C) making paranoid claims about "Marxist intellectuals transition[ing]" to sabotage/attack society by means of gender warfare.

       (D) exhibiting extremist dogma that [to slightly paraphrase him]: "about 95% of hard-science scientists and soft/social-science scientists and humanities graduates are left-leaning".   This demonstrates his lack of insight into himself, and lack of insight into the nature of society.

       He fails to understand that [to paraphrase George Bernard Shaw]: "There is a desirable Goldilocks level of political correctness."

       (E) denying that a "pay gap" issue exists.  For all I know, within Google that might be so — but the Memoist's comment is expressed as though applying generally : where his statement is clearly false.

       * The Memoist's punishment was harsh — but is doubtless seen by Google as a justifiable damage-control measure.   Something rather like: "Push the cannon overboard to save the ship."  [excuse my hyperbole!]

16940. Digby Scorgie at 16:45 PM on 29 October 2017
       What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?
       

       megreen831 @2

       Nothing to do with climate science?  But the second part of the article sketches the careers of seven prominent woman climate scientists.

16941. nigelj at 15:04 PM on 29 October 2017
       What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?
       

       megreen831 @8

       I had already read the memo before posting any comments. I was not surprised by it at all.

       His claims on biological differences and work apptitudes are unsupported by real evidence, and in my view his criticism of googles attempts to force a 50 / 50 gender balance does have some credibility.

       But the point is he circulated his opinions in office time, and they are divisive on the biological issue and undermine management on the gender balance issue. I can see why google were annoyed. He seemed to be almost asking for trouble.

       I feel its more about how he went about things. It was dumb and arrogant to do in office time like that, and the sort of thing to discuss in private with work friends out of work hours, and then maybe approach google in private alone, or with others of like mind.

16942. megreen831 at 12:58 PM on 29 October 2017
       What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?
       

       What is it we tell skeptics when the show us the next great proof that AGW is a hoax?  Look at the science.  Check the sources and see if they're credible.  So, instead of just taking all the hype, I've now read the entire memo.  I know find it ironic, actually, to find this post on this particular site.  The parallel is incredible. Damore is making a simple request that the people at Google not be punished for challenging the status quo. Just imagine the people who understand the science of AGW and yet know they can't talk about it at work because they'll be punished (I know, I work in the oil business).

        

       He provides scientific data to support his positions.

       From the post above: 

       The explosive part in the memo involved comments about how biological differences explain the paucity of women in technology and leadership fields. While there are certainly both physical and mental differences between men and women, the comments about both genders are, in my opinion, misguided and offensive.

       I like how the author both agrees that there are differences and attacks Damore at the same time for saying the same thing.  If you read the memo you'll actually be hard pressed to find anything remotely offensive.  IMO, the only way one could be offended is if they are offended by scientific research. And ultimately, that was Damore's point, Google's culture was so closed to alternative ideas that even presenting scientific data could get you fired.  If a scientist presents a theory and it has flaws, is the correct answer to shame him and remove him from employment?  That's what happens at Google.

       There is one point in the memo where Damore refers to the risks of lowering the bar to increase diversity.  His point was that if your sole objective is to achieve 50% diversity of men and women, that to achieve the goal you might have to lower the quality requirements of applicants because you don't have a large enough pool of interested candidates to draw upon. I'll add to that with my own experience referenced above in my other comment.  If I had wanted to attain 50% diversity, I would have had to leave positions unfilled as I waited for women to apply, or I could have lowered the bar and started accepting people who weren't trained in the field but wanted the money. 

        

        

       Eclectic @7, by neutral I mean that science shouldn't be left or right of politics, it should only be the search for truth.  4+4=8 is not a left or right issue.  This site seems to use scientifically supported information that counters political or religious dogma, regardless of where on the spectrum that myth comes from.  

        

       nigelj, I recommend you read the memo.  You'll be mildly suprised 

16943. grindupBaker at 10:52 AM on 29 October 2017
       Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
       

       @11 NikFromNYC on 21 May, 2011 Your "Oh wow,...it becomes suggestive that there is a very good chance that recent warming may be a peak that is about to plunge back down, masking greenhouse warming for up to a century or more". So I'm typing this on October 28, 2017 so how did that plunging back down of GMST for the last 6 years work out for you NikFromNYC ? Time to get back to us all.

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] That participant of whom you speak recused themself from further participation here, years ago.  Due to their complete unwillingness to adhere to the Comments Policy.

16944. Eclectic at 09:58 AM on 29 October 2017
       What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?
       

       Megreen @2 , certainly you are right, in that it is hard to see any connection between AGW and "women in science".   Still, this site cannot be expected to maintain an exclusive razor-thin focus on Hard Science & its Exact Opposite [= denialism].   And you may have noticed that the more sociological topics often garner considerable interest (as judged by the amount of discussion in the comments columns).  Including your own interested comment, here!

       But it is IMO puzzling what you mean with your word "neutral" here.  It might be interesting to unpick the implications of that !

       The only "women" connection I can see, is the sociological comment that having a great many more women in political power / leadership roles, would surely have prevented the world coming to this ludicrously tragic condition of rapid AGW & snail-like political response to the problem.

       Michael Sweet @3 , your second graph is quite shocking.  Shocking that the so-called greengrocer's apostrophe should appear so prominently on a graph from the APS.   Bachelor's Degrees, indeed!!    Wot are they learnin them fizzysisters at the APS ?

       I suppose we should simply be grateful it wasn't Bachelorette Degrees.

16945. nigelj at 07:07 AM on 29 October 2017
       Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
       

       OPOF @26

       I also work in a design / technical field so completely identify with those concerns. I have sometimes experienced the conflict with the public good and technical safety codes on one hand, and clients aspirations and cost cutting desires on the other hand. Its a challenge, but important to not cut corners and compromise, and when professionals have done this they run the risk of being caught and being the ones blamed anyway.

       This is one reason engineering professions have codes of ethics and safety codes, to ensure standards are kept high and avoid client pressure by being able to show them we have no choice. As a consequnce of having codes,  its natural for people like you and I to see this extended to robust measures to reduce the climate problem.

       It seems obvious to me environmental issues are on global scale now, and we cant avoid some sort of global management and sets of rules on the issue, but balanced with allowing as much free market innovation and movement as possible within these boundaries. It cant be one or the other. it has to be both, and a carbon tax is part of it along with hopefully more enlighteend leadership. It is so obvious to me that I get frustrated that people can't see the obvious. The  denialist positions in the more libertarian leading factions seem excatly that, denialist of the obvious, and nothing more or less.

       "But learning to change their minds is the only way to resolve the anger causing anxiety."

       Yes, if only they could see this.

16946. nigelj at 06:34 AM on 29 October 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #43
       

       Many people appear to remain unfortunately scepticial or complacent about sea level rise. I think we have a sort of perception problem that explains why a lot of people seem somewhat complacent about sea level rise impacts. We have had about 200mm over the last century which is so small and slow you hardly notice, and infrastructure easily adjusts (in the main, I know we are seeing problems emerge now etc and it depends on location etc). Its generally within the margins of safety when designing building platform heights, roads, and drainage systems. Buildings last about 50 - 80 years and when replaced its easy to build slightly higher foundations if required.

       People are very conditioned to this long term pattern. It's probably very hard for many to visualise how a seemingly innocuous change to maybe 10mm per year or so and 1 metre per century would effect things quite seriously, because they have known nothing like it, and it seems distant, and just seems like a case of move to higher ground in some orderly fashion. But in fact one metre will leave many buildings and infrastructure useless well before its intended life expires, especially if we go on allowing building on low ground.

       Drainage systems just stop functioning when inundated with water, and well before actual buildings are effected, and there are not simple answers to this. They have all been designed around very low levels of sea level rise past century, not for one metre or more.

       You can keep water out of communities with barriers sometimes (at considerable expense) but thats only part of the issue. 

       Florida have already experienced quite significant sea level rise in parts recently and are starting to feel the impacts, yet remain in complete denial for the most part. It astounds me. You would think they would at least change building codes to require higher foundations, and stop developing very low lying lands for buildings.

16947. nigelj at 05:46 AM on 29 October 2017
       What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?
       

       Here is googles code of conduct: Its a most interesting, unusual sort of thing to me, but seems well intended.

       abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html

16948. nigelj at 05:31 AM on 29 October 2017
       What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?
       

       The guy that was fired from Google, James Damore, was apparently fired for violating their code of conduct in some way. Numerous media articles have covered this. I havent seen any specifics on what clause in the code was violated, but the code does have a general clause about "Dont be evil".

       Damore sent a memo around the company making rather dubious claims about biological nature of differences. IMO this seems like it has no relevance to computer work, and is  spreading inflammatory opinion.

       But If women arent applying for jobs in technology, its hard to see what employers can do. Active gender balance which maximises hiring women runs the risk of hiring people with second rate qualificiations. "If" google have such a deliberate gender balance code programme it seems in conflict with their own code of conduct, that says people should be hired on merit.

       Having said that, it would be good to see more women in techcnology, and for the record I loathe gender discrimination. This is stone age attitude.

16949. nigelj at 05:14 AM on 29 October 2017
       What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?
       

       Other reasons for women not choosing computer science. Relates to what Michael Sweet is saying.

       readwrite.com/2014/09/02/women-in-computer-science-why-so-few/

       "Computer science is the only field in science, engineering and mathematics in which the number of women receiving bachelors degrees has decreased .......One reason for this is because women have historically chosen lower-paying yet fulfilling jobs like teaching or journalism, whereas their male counterparts, sometimes considered family providers, choose high-paying careers like computer science and engineering."

        "The advent of the home personal computer may have contributed to the historic gender gap. In the 1980s, when the PC became a standard home appliance, it was mostly men who used it."

16950. michael sweet at 04:40 AM on 29 October 2017
       What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?
       

       This graph gives some data on the subject of women in science.  Many of the PhD's are people from overseas.

       

       For anecdotal stories, I noticed in my work (biotechnology) that often there were more men in undesirable jobs.  More women worked in research (which was more interesting) and less in manufacturing (where there was more chance of promotion).  Traveling salesmen were much more likely to be men (an undesirable job because you were away from home so much).  The hot (radioactive) lab was mostly male.  There are a lot of exceptions.

       My superficial impression was that men were willing to sacrifice more for promotion or money.  There might be a better explaination.

       Not everyone wants to put in the long hours commonly attributed to tech workers.  I would not want the job, even for the big money they are reported to make.  Other things in life are more important to me than money.

       Last year teaching AP Chemistry in High School I noticed that about 80% of my students were female.  These were the top students in the school.  Other AP teachers reported more women in their classes.  

       

       The graph above shows increasing numbers of women in undergraduate science.  Perhaps in the future there will be more women than men in more areas of science.

Prev  331  332  333  334  335  336  337  338  339  340  341  342  343  344  345  346  Next