Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 Next
Comments 17151 to 17200:
-
nigelj at 05:50 AM on 3 November 2017Why people around the world fear climate change more than Americans do
Good article, but missed a few things.
Firstly there is indeed evidence that more educated people in America are more sceptical of climate change. Its very disappointing and counter intuitive.
However education may still be be a factor in this denial in another way. The following study finds standard of climate change education in schools in america is very poor, so smart generally people may not be getting enough basic information on which to make informed decisions:
Politics is clearly a factor as the article says, with strident views and a strong partican divide in America. Its a very combative sort of system that is causing steep divisions more so than Europe it seems, and The Republican Party is becoming increasingly entrenched and irrational in its views on certain well known matters. However some European countries do have deep divisions as well.
But it goes further, as almost all Americas political parties are further to the right than Europe with Europes parliament and citizens being demonstrably more accepting of environmental laws, government role in the economy, and climate science in general. (Thats not to say Europe gets everything right either, and right size of government is a delicate balance)
The denialist think tank movement appears very strong in America with strong fossil fuels influence. America has long been an oil and coal producer. Some European countries rely more on nuclear energy or gas fired generation so you dont get quite such powerful fossil fuel lobby influence perhaps.
America is a strongly christian country. This website has discussed how fundamentalist and evangelical christians tend to be climate change sceptics. Europe is a little more towards atheism. However overall I would not see religion as a huge factor in the climate issue, with many christians in the middle accepting we are causing climate change.
For me personally adding these things together is enough to explain higher climate scepticism in America.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:37 AM on 3 November 2017Greenhouse gas concentrations surge to new record
KanKnapper@16,
Interesting hypothesis, but what about all the new carbon introduced into the recycling environment by digging up and burning fossil fuels?
-
KanKnapper at 03:02 AM on 3 November 2017Greenhouse gas concentrations surge to new record
I wasn't clear. The largest source/sink that humans have disrupted that is easily accessible and amenable to recovery. For reference, see Climatic Change 61: 261–293, 2003. “The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era
Began Thousands of Years Ago”. Since soil respiration is 9x larger than all industrial emissions, it takes a much smaller change in this large carbon sink to store all industrial emissions. As far as “respiration” is just part of the “natural” carbon cycle, that is hogwashy. Organic decomposition results in CO2 emission, organics stored in topsoil is sequestration (takes effort, but still sequestration). One would think after 10,000+ years of practice, humans would know how to keep the topsoil.For your second comment, let’s reframe your point and focus on atmospheric coupling via vegetation, specifically desertification (Sahara, Australia, greater Gobi). At the dawn of agriculture, these were areas of “natural” topsoil containing huge amounts of both carbon and water. Topsoil destroyed, vegetation gone, link destroyed……..where did the water go? From the paper above, we know where the carbon went because it forms a non-condensible gas. Hard to measure a condensible gas, but estimations can be made based upon a ratio with the measured CO2 which is above my pay grade. Where did all this water vapor go?
-
Philippe Chantreau at 01:48 AM on 3 November 2017Greenhouse gas concentrations surge to new record
Kanknapper, you need much more substantiation to your assertions than "as far as I can tell." The largest sink is the ocean. You don;t demonstrate otherwise. Does loss of topsoil square with the isotopic characteristics of atmospheric carbon? Still, the burning of hundreds of billions of tons of fossil fuel isn't going away, where is that carbon going?
Temparature independent water vapor component? How exactly are physics going to accomodate keeping water vapor in the air below the dew point? The atmosphere has a way to discriminate between regular water vapor and the one coming from your preferred source? Please elaborate.
-
KanKnapper at 01:24 AM on 3 November 2017Greenhouse gas concentrations surge to new record
As far as I can tell, the majority of the GHG in the atmosphere above natural baseline is due to agriculture and topsoil is the largest potential ag sink and therefore the largest potential source. The IPCC counts farming practices, but has totally ignored loss of topsoil and the carbon contained therein. Some like to claim that the carbon is just deposited in colluvium and stored, but half of erosion is from wind and it takes some pretty powerful voodoo to store organic carbon in an oxidizing environment. Much of the water erosion carbon turns into biogenic methane. I posit further that loss of topsoil adds a temperature independent water vapor component to the atmospheric GHG concentration and this has been going on for over 10,000 years with rapid soil loss since ≈1900.
CSIRO estimates that just adding 0.5% organic carbon to 2% of the Oz ag land would offset all industrial emissions. Doubling either term would result in a net-carbon negative process like amount. This would restore atmospheric CO2 to pre-industrial levels if adopted on a much larger scale in countries that can afford it. Reducing atmospheric GHG concentration quickly to acceptable levels is something that cannot happen even if the world was 100% renewable as of today. So why all the focus on carbon neutral when we can be carbon negative for likely a lot less investment?
-
KanKnapper at 01:24 AM on 3 November 2017Greenhouse gas concentrations surge to new record
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:55 AM on 3 November 2017Greenhouse gas concentrations surge to new record
eschwarzbach@10,
The wording of the opening statement of the OP is wide-open to interpretation. In my reading of the rest of the document the only specific years mentioned are 2015 and 2016.
With the corrrections I suggested (either one), the result is less open to the interpretation that 2015 levels of CO2 were lower than 2014 or a previour record year, and it is 'less open from the beginning'.
So the semantic problem is the statement that 2016 set a New Record without closing the opennings to interpretation about when the Previous Record was set.
The type of opening available in the uncorrected opening statement is exactly the type of opening abused by a misleading information provider. They will claim you don't have to read more than the first sentence to know that the item is an incorrect presentation attempting to make things appear different from what they actually are, accurately adding justification for that claim by stating that CO2 levels have been higher than 280 ppm through the past 800 000 years and that they were even higher than 280 ppm in the past few hundred years.
-
Swayseeker at 00:39 AM on 3 November 2017Greenhouse gas concentrations surge to new record
Landfills give off a lot of methane. Why not cover the lanfill sites with transparent greenhouse plastic sheeting a metre or two above the ground and collect the gas under the plastic sheet and feed it into a tower where it can be flared? A large updraft will be formed and the flared gases will disperse high up. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower The gases will be heated by flaring and the greenhouse effect if transparent greenhouse plastic is used above the landfill. The system will simulate a solar updraft tower.
To reduce CO2, increase rainfall in desert areas near the sea and grow trees there. The wind speed is low just over the ocean (as it is just above the ground). There is therefore a fairly stagnant layer with very high relative humidity just above the sea. If one used thousands of floating devices as shown below one could increase moisture in the air so that air blowing to land would produce more rain. Water has a very high emissivity (about 0.95), so the greenhouse plastic will keep in a lot of radiation from the sea surface. For high sea surface temperatures of 30 deg C or so, the greenhouse will keep in about 450 W per square metre of infrared radiation from the sea surface.
The light portion of the solar energy passing through the greenhouse plastic will be absorbed by the black sheet instead of it penetrating deep into the ocean. The infrared portion of solar energy entering the greenhouse will be absorbed within the uppermost few centimetres of the sea surface. Any infrared radiation from the sea that is reflected back to the sea by the greenhouse plastic will also be absorbed in the upper few centimetres of the sea. The result will almost certainly be a heating of the sea surface under the greenhouse plastic, enhancing evaporation and high humidity. About 53% of solar energy is light energy, so the black sheet will prevent a lot of energy from escaping down to deeper levels and will concentrate it near the surface - see diagram at http://airartist.blogspot.co.za -
Eclectic at 00:20 AM on 3 November 2017What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?
Cero @14 , a continuation of my (#16) reply to your "notes" :-
(C) Yes, I agree that the Memo-ist's comment about "Marxists" demonstrates that he has a rather wacky/extremist attitude.
(D) Mention of "liberal bias in academia" is one of those strange (but frequent) claims causing me to smile. Among other things, it presents a fuzzy poorly-defined poorly-researched picture of reality. Much of it arguable. And much of it based on bizarre American definitions, where "liberal" is a code-word for something which is not liberal, and "conservative" is a code-word for something which is not particularly conservative (and is especially non-conservative in relation to climate & environmental issues).
All that aside, the Memo-ist seems to be trying to say that academia & social scientists & scientists generally are "strongly to the left" in their views. BTW, thank you Cero, for the Wiki reference on the issue — I was interested to see there that studies in 2010 & earlier, indicating that students generally remained uninfluenced by the political views of academic staff. And AFAICT, the "Leftishness" that the Memo-ist was complaining about, was more in the region of 75-90%, than the 95% he was complaining about.
True, they were American studies : but my overall impression is that this same "Leftish" tendency applies throughout the Anglophone academic world (with the possible exception of South Africa?) — and probably for the same causations, applies in non-Anglophone Western Europe too. You will note, Cero, that the Memo-ist paints with a broad brush — broader than mere academic/teaching scientists [and elsewhere in SkS, you will find reference to surveys indicating that scientists more generally are low (and increasingly low) in American "conservative" allegiance.]
so the Memo-ist has a point, in his comments.
But when we boil it down, the situation is this :- When a commentator finds that 75-90% of highly-educated intelligent people hold a view which is appreciably "to the left" of the commentator's view . . . then very likely it is his view that has a bias — not theirs!
Oh wonderful irony. (And the cause of my smile.)
(E) On the question of "pay gap" for women, I don't know whether any such applies at Google itself. But look around, Cero, within the USA and internationally too — for women, the "zero pay gap" is the exception, rather than the rule, for equal-work jobs. And to that must be added the "economic gap" also, owing to opportunity disparity (an important matter for the vast majority of women, who get little access to that minority of jobs possessing zero pay gap).
Overall, it ain't good . . . and we can't hide behind soothing sophistries about the whole thing being a non-issue.
-
MA Rodger at 22:48 PM on 2 November 2017Climate's changed before
cero @580,
I can see Kemp et al (2015) being drooled over by denialists. This would be because they misinterpret the paper which sadly misses out on saying explicitly things that are obvious in any genuine reading of the paper.
The idea that ancient warming episodes may have contained more rapid events within the actual warming, that the average rate of warming will inevitably be exceeded over shorter sections of that warming: this is logical. And when you are concerned how quickly, say, an oak forest habitat can shift polewards, those speedier intervals are relevant.
As Michael Sweet points out, we cannot (yet) measure such short accelerations from the available data so Kemp et al set out a new method to infer those increased levels. This is interesting stuff, and very early days, so it cannot be seen as entirely reliable. Consider the PETM which we know took millennia to occur. It was a gentle warming over a long period and would have had periods of increased and decreased rates of warming. Thus Kemp et al take central estimates for this event (5ºC to 9ºC = 7ºC, ~5ky to 20ky = 12.5 ky, this a rate of warming of 0.0006ºC/yr compared with recent rates of 0.015ºC/yr ) and adjust these to suggests a potential millennial rate of 0.0032ºC/yr or about half the PETM warming occurring in a single millennuim.
Other measured temperature rises are likewise adjusted. A 15ºC measured ocean warming over 800,000 years during the P-T (250My bp) is inferred to include a millennial period of at least 4.5ºC warming. (Potentially we could deduce a 9ºC warming over 2,000 years.) Or the Bølling-Allerød during the warming from the LGM (13,000yr bp) measured at 3ºC over 100 years is adjusted to equate to 2.2ºC over a millennia.
So I am on safe ground when I suggest that Kemp et al have not begin to capture the scale of that adjustment. They have set out a method that begins consideration of it.
But there is a missing aspect within the paper if it to be used to argue about the rate of AGW relative to previous non-anthropogenic warming. We are facing a temperature rise of 4ºC in a little over 100 years from unmitigated AGW. Such a rise would rival the magnitude of the largest millennial warming set out by Kemp et al. The caution Kemp et al say "must be exercised when describing recent temperature changes as unprecedented in the context of geological rates" does not apply to expected future unmitigated temperature changes.
-
Tom Dayton at 22:21 PM on 2 November 2017Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
KanKapper: The limit on water vapor is not a lack of liquid water available to evaporate to become vapor. The planet is covered with vast pools of liquid water that constantly are evaporating, adding water vapor to the atmosphere. The limit is how much water vapor can remain in the atmosphere at the atmosphere's temperature. Water vapor constantly is condensing out of the atmosphere to become liquid (or solid) water. Any water vapor added to the atmosphere above the atmosphere's temperature-dictated capacity simply condenses out--about 10 days as a global average.
-
eschwarzbach at 22:09 PM on 2 November 2017Greenhouse gas concentrations surge to new record
Back to comment No.3 of One plantet..
Semantic analysis of the uncorrected text does not imply that "2015 CO2 levels were lower than 2014". There is just one minor uncorrectness in the original text: "...surged at a record-breaking speed in 2016". The increase rate (speed) was 2015 slightly higher than in 2016 (both globally and Mauna Loa). Human language is seldom absolutely correct and exhaustive. But saying "...surged at a record-breaking speed in 2015 and 2016 to the highest level in 800 000 years" should be perfectly valid, without too much words.
-
cero at 20:04 PM on 2 November 2017Climate's changed before
@michael sweet:
I don't think, they claim, that it is not possible at all to measure the rate of climate change in the distant past, but they claim that the conclusions from the data are much less accurate than is commonly believed. Therefore it makes sense to correct for that.
They only have been cited 4 times, however the article is only two years old. And maybe they just didn't get that much attention. Still, the article was published in a well-known peer-reviewed journal.
That climate change deniers cite this paper can't be an argument against its validity.
-
KanKnapper at 13:44 PM on 2 November 2017Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
"The starting point in considering this is the observed fact that water vapour content in the atmosphere is governed by temperature. This is simply an everyday meteorological observation."
My question is what happens when water is insulated from atmospheric temperature and then that insulation is removed? The temperature hasn't changed, but now there is more water in the atmosphere. Specifically, I'm referring to topsoil and the loss thereof. The loss of carbon in the topsoil since the dawn of agriculture is the largest single contributor to atmospheric CO2. Since topsoil contains more water by mass than carbon, it would seem to be a major source of water vapor as well and independent of atmospheric temperature.
-
Eclectic at 12:53 PM on 2 November 2017Climate's changed before
Rodhole @586 , I am sure that genuine intellectual "confrontation" (from you?) would be welcomed, if you care to accompany it with some well-reasoned factual basis. But this site [please note correct spelling] is very uninterested in receiving moronic confrontation even without multiple spelling errors and factual errors, which you exhibit. Nevertheless, I acknowledge and bow to your immense superiority.
Moderators — as always, please feel free to delete my post, if you feel the pruning shears are called for, in this thread!
Moderator Response:[DB] Inflammatory snipped. As you note, all who bring credible evidence for their position and comport themselves with the Comments Policy are welcome here.
Rodhole has recused himself from further participation in this venue.
-
Bob Loblaw at 12:26 PM on 2 November 2017Sea level rise is exaggerated
NorrisM:
RealClimate also has a search box. Put in "Sea level rise" and you will find several posts (including the one that michael sweet has pointed you to). Another good one is What Makes Sea Level Rise?.
In comment #217 you say '..."what is happening" versus "what should be do about it"...'. You have left out "what will happen". The whole aspect of acceleration in the next 80 years is not found by studying what has happened in the past 100 purely from the sea level data.
You need to understand why sea level has changed (both in the past century and the past 20,000 years). and apply that knowledge to what will happen by the year 2100. The physics of warming water already in the oceas, land ice melt, and transfers between ocean and land will play different roles - they are not expected to contribute in the same proportions as the planet warms. That's why simple extrapolation of past patterns is not enough. You need to know how oceans warm, and why ice sheets melt and decay (and that ice sheet melt will not be linear...)
As another analogy, consider paying off a home mortgage, amortized over 25 years with a monthly payment of $2000. In the first year, nearly all the payment goes to interest, and little of the principle is paid off. After one year, you still owe almost the full amount - much more than 24/25ths. Extrapolating that at a constant rate over 25 years would lead you to conclude that there is no way to pay off the mortgage. On the oher hand, understanding how interest and principle are calculated and paid off makes you realize you will eventually own your house free and clear.
-
Rodhole at 12:01 PM on 2 November 2017Climate's changed before
Funny that you didn't publicly post the rest of what I said? I get it, you are scared of intellectual confrontation. This will be my last post on this fake cite.
When you go to sleep tonight, think about how dishonest this cite is. You are so frightened by differing opinions (which happen to be based on science and data) that may make you wrong, you choose to cut those people off rather than let them speak. It is a common liberal playcall, so I am not surprised.
I'll let you continue your shameful dominance over the realm of scared dorks who dont want to break a rule, while I continue to have open and honest conversations with people. From my experience in talking with people over the last 20 years, the farse of "man made global warming" is declining by the day. Al Gore's bank account is not happy I'm sure.
Moderator Response:[DB] I'm sorry, that your position is so weak that you are unable to bring any actual evidence for your position to this, an evidence-based site. I'm further sorry, that you feel compelled (like a moth to a flame) to repeatedly violate a code of conduct that well over 99% of participants here routinely adhere to with no difficulties whatsoever.
As for your remaining comment, even Exxon affirms the unassailable evidence, consensus, facts and the alarmist "farse" of AGW:
-
Eclectic at 11:07 AM on 2 November 2017What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?
Cero @14 , thank you for your notes. In reply :-
(A) I take your point on public/non-public. Yet in this world of rapidly-shrinking privacy (and especially so in the digital world) it seems that an employee of Google (of all places!!) would be very alert to the possibility that any statements made would bob to the surface and see daylight at some stage, sooner or later.
Considering his rather paranoid comments on "Marxists" [is the word Marxist still a thing in colloquial English? — I rarely see the word written, and practically never hear it spoken . . . or is that absence just a sign of the fiendishly-clever tactic of invisible conspiring which World Communism is presently undertaking?] ~ considering his paranoia, one would assume that the writer/memoist is very aware he is "encircled by adversaries". And perhaps we should not be entirely surprised to find that there is a touch of his own "Manifesto" in his comments!
(B) in past centuries, the (male) opinion was that the female was an imperfect/inferior version of the male — and only grudgingly permitted to own property or (gasp!) vote. [Prominent exception: the upper-class married women of Sparta, who were the envy of other Greek women.]
Even into the latest decades of the 20th Century, the focus of attention was the "deficiencies" of the female intellect — and the poor "track record" of women (other than the occasional undeniable female genius) was explained away as "Nature" : a lack of Y-chromosome or maybe insufficient exposure to testostereone in-utero or during later brain development. Nigelj will doubtless remember the old psychologists' teaching that women's brains were not only [very suggestively] smaller than men's, but were more "average". True, the median educated female showed much the same I.Q. as the male — but the wider Bell Curve distribution of male intellects permitted a much higher percentage of elite/genius male brains . . . as well as the downside: more idiots, of course. [Of the last two categories, I am not sure that women completely agreed with the first point — but they are unanimous about the second point. ;-) ]
It is really only very recently that we see the results of social changes which reveal that (with appropriate nurture / acculturation / education) the female intellect is at least the equal of the male. Hardly surprising, considering the biological 45/46 chromosome overlap. Equal, but possibly not exactly identical in all respects. Yet identical enough, in all practical respects, that a wise corporation should choose to enlist the synergistic benefits of a roughly equal M/F distribution of employees (and should delete all pay gap).
To that extent, Testosterone is irrelevant (and in some management areas, a distinct disadvantage!) .
Sure, despite the overlap, there are innate biological differences in M/F intellectual "style", related to the increased aggressiveness, risk-taking and "urge-to-dominance" coming from the male's higher testosterone level. ( I for one, would much rather take a short-cut by walking across a field having a cow in it, than a field having a bull in it! )
But in human terms, for corporations & governments, it would be both wise & equitable to have males and females present in the middle and upper levels . . . roughly in proportion to their birth percentage. Unless we can find some valid evidence to the contrary.
Cero, excuse my verbosity! I shall take a coffee break and return to your remaining 3 notes, a bit later.
-
Digby Scorgie at 10:59 AM on 2 November 2017New data gives hope for meeting the Paris climate targets
CBDunkerson @8
I wasn't thinking about GDP when I said our emissions have to decrease "much much more"! There was a discussion about this at RealClimate some time ago. It seems that the Keeling curve will change direction only with a really large drop in emissions, but the emssions don't actually have to go to zero before we see a change. However, to get the final result we want, our emissions will of course have to go to zero.
-
Rodhole at 10:57 AM on 2 November 2017Climate's changed before
Skeptical Science,
Being new, I was not aware of the rigorous monitoring of the rules. Regardless, that was a perfectly fine rhetort to the post "attacking" my assertions. Am I not allowed to defend my comments? Why didn't you strike her initial comment on guns? Do you just outlaw things (especially if it makes your cohorts look bad) that you don't agree with?
One thing I learned in college is to have an open mind and allow others to voice their opinion. Unfortunately these days opinions that don't comform with the "consensus" are dismissed. I hope this cite does not only allow things it agrees with. If it does, than this not a place for thoughtful discussion, rather it is a place of pretend fantasyland.
BTW, I didn't know what it meant so I had to look up "sloganeering". I laughed bc this entire comment section is "sloganeering".
Moderator Response:[DB] FYI, the Comments Policy applies equally, to all.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.
-
Rodhole at 09:32 AM on 2 November 2017Climate's changed before
Sweet,
No, guns actually CANNOT kill people. Guns are man made and need a conscious handler in order for them to activate. But I would assume then that you would argue that because people have used guns to kill others, the real problem lies with the gun manufacturers? I guess it would depend on the amount of emissions released during the making of a gun to guide your opinion.
My point is not that emissions caused by humans is irrelevant. I think it is something that we should be responsible with (without losing our minds and/or implementing stupid laws that hurt our economy). My point is that it is arrogant to believe that after millions of years of climate change, certain scientists insist that "this one" is bc of humans.
Whether these scientists truly believe the human race was not meant to live on this earth (bottom line of debate), they fear being an outcast in the science community (reality), or they are getting incentivized to postulate an agenda (my assertion), the latter 2 of the 3 is wrong.
Moderator Response:[DB] Welcome to Skeptical Science. First, the ground rules for this venue are found in this site's Comments Policy. Read them. Learn them. Construct future comments to comport with them. Attempting to score meaningless rhetorical tricks employing logical fallacies that also show a large ignorance of the science in question in specific and the scientific method in general, as you do here, reflect poorly upon you and damage your credibility in this venue.
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.
Multiple inflammatory, sloganeering and ideological talking points and logical fallacies snipped. -
One Planet Only Forever at 09:14 AM on 2 November 2017Greenhouse gas concentrations surge to new record
The image on page 4 of the WMO article that is referred to should be included. It shows the CO2 history from several million years ago to the recent spike. And it shows the maximum of nearly 300 ppm that occured a little more than 300 000 years ago.
So the WMO article statement about 280 ppm being the maximum level through the past 800 000 years is not correct.
Also, the CO2 levels in the more recent 1000 years include values up to 285 ppm. 280 ppm is the level from the mid 1600s up to the industrial age push (except a brief dip to about 275 ppm in the late 1700s).
-
ubrew12 at 07:50 AM on 2 November 2017Greenhouse gas concentrations surge to new record
We are now receiving two messages 1) human CO2 output is stable or possibly dropping, 2) CO2 in the atmosphere continues to climb and break all previous records. Many of us are worried about permafrost CO2 production. This is already estimated to produce as much CO2 this century as the United States will (at current production levels). We all appreciate the work that is being done to quantify these two parameters, but its important, going forward, to be able to distinguish human CO2 production from CO2 coming from positive feedbacks in the natural environment. Those of us concerned about the AGW trajectory are actually watching these feedbacks most closely. We want to know the bad news as it happens, and more importantly the good news as soon as is possible. Western capitalism may have gone off the Fox News deep end, regarding physical reality, but many of us are just not able to go there with it.
-
nigelj at 07:38 AM on 2 November 2017Greenhouse gas concentrations surge to new record
I would suggest putting the two emissions graphs in the article right under the opening statement. This would answer the valid comments of both OPOF and eschwarzbach.
My own criticism is the first graph of 22000 years is confusing as it omits the CO2 hockey stick since 1900. You have to mentally join the two graphs. In fact I think you would get the essential message across fine with just one composite graph, even if it has slightly less detail on it.
But its a nit pick and very good article overall.
-
michael sweet at 06:59 AM on 2 November 2017Climate's changed before
Rodhole,
Since people died before guns were invented, according to your logic guns cannot kill people. If the CO2 concentration increase is not caused by humans, where is all the CO2 we release into the atmosphere going? A simple measurement shows that the increase in CO2 concentratio only accounts for half the CO2 we have emitted. The rest dissolved into the ocean. In order for your claim that the increase is natural to be true you must show where the CO2 we emitted went and where the CO2 icrease in the atmosphere sent.
In addition, there are chemical means to show the increase in CO2 is human caused and not natural.
Deniers are so lazy they cannot even be bothered to do addition and subtraction.
-
michael sweet at 06:55 AM on 2 November 2017Climate's changed before
Cero,
I read the article you cite. I noticed that they first claim that it is not possible to measure the rate of climate change in the distant past because of inherent problems with the samples. Then they claim to adjust measured data to correct for these random changes. That is a contradiction to their first claim.
They have only been cited 4 times by other scientists. It appears that other scientists think the paper is not very valuable. It appears that deniers cite this article.
-
RickG at 06:30 AM on 2 November 2017Greenhouse gas concentrations surge to new record
@4: After looking at the NOAA link it looks like the highest point at 300,000 years is just below the 300 ppm line to me, not on it. Also, if you follow the first link in the post to the WMO Bulletin they state:
"As illustrated in the inside story of this bulletin, over the last ~800 000 years, pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 content remained below 280 ppm (1) across glacial and interglacial cycles, but it has risen to the 2016 global average of 403.3 ppm."
Moderator Response:[DB] Truncated and hyperlinked URL that was breaking page formatting.
-
michael sweet at 06:28 AM on 2 November 2017Sea level rise is exaggerated
NorrisM:
I used 25 cm from somewhere up thread for the sea level rise from before 2017. If you go to Tamino's thread (previously linked) the next to last graph (easiest to read) shows sea level as -160 mm in 1880 and +70 mm in 2013. That is a total of 230 mm which is 23 cm. At 4 mm/yr for the past 4 years add 16 mm = 1.6 cm. Total = 25 cm. before 2017. I used d= vt + 1/2at2 to calculate 95 cm sea level rise using v= 4 mm/yr and 0.1 mm/yr2 = acceleration (83 years from 2017 to 2100).
This post from Zillow estimates damages from 6 feet of sea level rise in the USA as $882 billioon today. That is only the houses, not businesses, government, farms and infrastructure. It is a place to start. There are several problems I see with their analysis:
1: The sea level map they used shows inundation from sea level rise with 6 feet of sea level rise from mean higher high water (MHHW). Houses are never built at MHHW because then any storm surge would flood the house. (Storm surges of 1-2 feet are common). However, they used 6 feet which is closer to the upper end of sea level rise currently expected. I think the damage they estimate is about what 4 feet of sea level rise would cause because of the effect of storm surge.
2: They only count as damaged houses that are inundated. All of Miami that remained would be an island with 6 ft sea level rise. In addition, many houses are on small islands with several miles of the road leading to them inundated. How much is a house worth when the neighbors house is inundated and you have to drive through several miles of water to reach it?
3: Miami's water supply is located at 3 feet above sea level and is already having salt water intrusion problems. With only 3 feet of sea level rise they will be out of water. How much will Miami houses be worth when they have no water?
Read very carefully anything about damages caused by sea level rise. There are many ways to make a mistake. In general, scientific reports are written to be conservative. I recommend reading a lot of material before you make up your mind what you think. Tamino's work is always first class. This post from Real Climate (from 2013) is written by a sea level expert, take it very seriously. New data since then has raised expectations of sea level rise.
-
Rodhole at 06:27 AM on 2 November 2017Climate's changed before
Abrupt global warming in the Permian and Triassic periods were associated with higher CO2 levels. Climatologists speculate on the reasons for the sudden increase in CO2 levels, but obviously during those time periods the increase was not human induced. This fact is a crucial and painful one for the "consensus" who argue that our current (slight global warming) trend is man made. To assume an unknown (the imprint of human activity on our climate) over a known (Historical data proving our climate has changed with increases and decreases in CO2) is a lazy stance for scientists to take.
Moderator Response:[PS] Please provide a citation to support your statement "To assume an unknown (the imprint of human activity on our climate) over a known (Historical data proving our climate has changed with increases and decreases in CO2) ".
ie show us where science has made that assumption rather than deducing it from known and testable physics.
-
nigelj at 05:23 AM on 2 November 2017What 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.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:03 AM on 2 November 2017Greenhouse 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).
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:59 AM on 2 November 2017Greenhouse 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)
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:50 AM on 2 November 2017Greenhouse 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.
-
cero at 03:47 AM on 2 November 2017Climate'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?
-
cero at 03:39 AM on 2 November 2017What 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.
-
eschwarzbach at 03:38 AM on 2 November 2017Greenhouse 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.
-
cero at 03:20 AM on 2 November 2017What 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
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:52 AM on 2 November 2017Greenhouse 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, ..."
-
NorrisM at 01:42 AM on 2 November 2017Sea 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?
-
CBDunkerson at 22:24 PM on 1 November 2017New 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.
-
michael sweet at 20:51 PM on 1 November 2017Climate 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.
-
michael sweet at 20:49 PM on 1 November 2017Sea 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.
-
John Hartz at 14:06 PM on 1 November 2017New 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
-
Digby Scorgie at 11:50 AM on 1 November 2017New 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.
-
nigelj at 06:12 AM on 1 November 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #43
David Attenborough talks specifically about climate change here.
-
nigelj at 06:03 AM on 1 November 2017The 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.
-
nigelj at 05:47 AM on 1 November 2017New 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?
-
ubrew12 at 03:13 AM on 1 November 2017The 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.
-
ubrew12 at 02:10 AM on 1 November 2017The 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?
-
ubrew12 at 01:50 AM on 1 November 2017The 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.
Prev 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 Next
