Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 Next
Comments 17401 to 17450:
-
RedBaron at 08:52 AM on 14 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
cjones @10
You got caught in the merchant of doubt minefield. I get it. They can be sneaky and have fooled many. But be sure that while yes indeed from time to time CO2 levels have been higher, it was certainly not a good thing. Actually it is associated with several mass extinctions.
The logic fallacy of the merchants of doubt fallacy goes a little like this: CO2 was higher in the past, and life thrived in the past, so current higher CO2 levels will make life thrive even more.
The problem is we also had many mass extinction events in the past too. And sure enough if we look closely at the fossil record, we find that the mass extinctions mostly happened either directly or indirectly from this high CO2 levels when they went on runaway feedbacks for various reasons.
The evidence is pretty clear actually, although still debated and not certain, it is pretty likely. Far more likely than runaway CO2 being a good thing.
Great Dying 252 million years ago coincided with CO2 build-up
Ocean acidification and the Permo-Triassic mass extinction
and not only the permian extinction. It is actually a common theme in many mass extinction events.
Doubling Of CO2 Levels In End-Triassic Extinction Killed Off Three Quarters Of Land And Sea Species
-
Daniel Mocsny at 08:25 AM on 14 October 2017New research, September 25 - October 1, 2017
Tom13@8:
#6 - the bumble bees range is quite large, as shown for the eastern common bumble bee. A global temp change of .5c over the last 50 or so years isnt going to make an iota of difference.
What is an "iota of difference"? A 5% reduction in the population of a species? A 1% reduction? 10%? A difference too small to measure? And how would you know how much impact a 0.5°C change in average temperature will cause without any attempt to measure it?
You seem to be saying a change in average temperature in a given location in a species' range has no effect other than to make that location exactly like some other location in the species' range at a different latitude or altitude. That is, you are making an unstated ceteris paribus assumption that you must justify.
Your assumption is shaky because a species depends on much more for its survival than just the average temperature at a location. A species also depends on the distributions and life cycles of many other species with overlapping ranges. Those other species adapt to climate change at different rates - some may relocate rapidly in response to a changing average temperature, while others may move only slowly. As a result, a rapid warming in a given location does not instantly transform that location into an exact duplicate of another location at a different latitude or altitude.
Many species lack the ability to store much food, so much of an ecosystem operates on a "just in time" basis. Disuptions to the familiar schedule may, for example, impact migrating birds that find themselves arriving before or after the insects they feed on to get the nutrition they need to lay eggs and raise their young.
With thousands of interdependent species having overlapping ranges all shifting at different rates in response to a rising average temperature, conditions at a given location will be in flux for many years. During that time, some combination of changing factors may turn out to be hostile to a given species, which lacks the ability to ride out the storm. By analogy, if the spot where you are standing is under a flood, your ability to breathe right now isn't helped by knowing the flood will abate in a few days.
Impacts on one species can cascade through an ecosystem, affecting other species that depend on that species. These cascading effects take time and introduce a response lag to a given disruption. (For example, as pine beetles benefit from warmer winters, they need some years to build up their numbers and wipe out forests.) Thus even if the impact of a given warming over the past 50 years on a given species may not be visible now, the impact may not have yet fully played out. By analogy, consider a young adult tobacco smoker who appears to be in good health, or a professional gridiron football player who appears neurologically normal. Unseen damage is accumulating from their respective chemical and head trauma insults. It may manifest more visibly in 20 or 30 years. If physicians could only study young smokers and football players, they might not guess what's in store for many of them.
Global average temperature has hardly stopped rising. The temperature rise over the past 50 years is but a tiny fraction (perhaps a fifth to a tenth) of what the next century will see, barring drastic action to halt human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. Humans remain solidly on pace to heat the Earth to levels Earth has not seen in millions of years, by restoring atmospheric carbon dioxide to levels Earth last saw millions of years ago.
The roughly 5°C rise in average global temperature between the previous glacial maximum and the year 1750 was also less than the daily and seasonal temperature variation at many locations on Earth. But that seemingly small global average temperature change melted at least a vertical kilometer of ice from what is now Chicago. If we've already caused a temperature change equal to 10% of that post-Ice Age temperature change in just the past 50 years, how could it not be having, and be yet to have, impacts?
-
nigelj at 07:12 AM on 14 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
cjones @10
I disagree completely, and you cite no sources of research information, so have no credibility.
"CO2 levels were higher throughout most o of Earth's history."
Just a false empty assertion with no evidence provided, plus bad spelling. CO2 levels are currently considerably higher than at least the last 800,000 years as below.
www.climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-this-high-humans-didnt-exist-15938
"Temperatures have been higher in the past as well and life thrived. CO2 levels of 1000 ppm are ideal for greenhouses and agriculture has benefited from increasing CO2 levels."
The sort of life that thrived in higher temperatures was not necessarily the ideal sort of life actually. The temperatures we are heading towards are not good for crop production ultimately, and for human survival, and the rapid rates of change are greater than historically, and thus present particular problems with adaptation for all species. Higher temperatures also mean sea level rise and more intense storms. This is all covered in the last IPCC report, which is available online and easily googled.
And humans dont live in glass greenhouses.
"According to NASA sea levels have fallen...."
For about two years, which is normal short term fluctuation due to natural variability, just as they have fallen for short periods like this scattered through the last 100 years, then increased again on each occasion after a couple of years in a pattern over time. The dominant trend over the last 100 years is rising sea levels easly seen if you google the jason topex satellite sea level rise data.
"Too many natural factors such as solar sunspot cycles, orbital cycles, climatic oscillations,"
Blah, blah, blah the denialist does his best to spread confusion and doubt straight form the corporate lobbying play book. All these elements have been researched in hundreds of research papers, and do not explain recent warming. Try reading this website starting with the list of "most used climate myths"
I dont think the moderator is going to be happy with you somehow.
-
cjones1 at 06:36 AM on 14 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
CO2 levels were higher throughout most o of Earth's history. Temperatures have been higher in the past as well and life thrived. CO2 levels of 1000 ppm are ideal for greenhouses and agriculture has benefited from increasing CO2 levels. I saw a presentation where none of the CO2 models accurately predicted temperature as the CO2 levels have risen. NASA just admitted that sea levels have fallen. Too many natural factors such as solar sunspot cycles, orbital cycles, climatic oscillations, accrurately understanding the carbon cycle, and historical climate change has been left out in the AGW proponents rush to solely tie CO2 levels temperature fluctuations.
Moderator Response:[JH] Blatant sloganeering sipped.
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.
-
nigelj at 05:17 AM on 14 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
Aleks @37
You appear to remain doubtful about the precise effect of C02 on temperature (your maths model thing) . It has already been explained that no experiment in a jar can achieve this accurately or even moderately accurately, because it cannot duplicate the atmosphere. Nobody has to prove Wards experiment wrong with another experiment, given his basic assumptions are wrong.
You need to read the research done on inferring the maths of the effect of CO2 on temperature starting with Arrhenius and Hulbert and moving on from there to more modern work. You then need to prove them wrong through normal scientific channels, if you feel you see fault in their work. Just ignoring what they say, and expressing a preference for some other approach in a jar, is just the talk of a naive layperson. Their results are reasonably accurate, enough to be useful.
The best test of a theory such as quantification of effects of CO2 is predictive ability. Look at the graphs of climate models in the article "How well have climate models predicted global warming" on this website a couple of days ago. The models have done reasonably well. They would not be able to do this is the basic "maths model" of CO2 was wildly innacurate. End of story.
What's more we know the reason these models are not as yet perfect is because of the difficulties of dealing with natural variation and warming feedback effects, not doubt about the basic maths model of how a molecule of CO2 affects temperature. So all Im saying is step back and take a wider view of everything and it becomes clearer.
Dont waste time over SO2. Ample evidence has been shown that its a weak greenhouse gas, and quantities in the atmosphere are vastly less than CO2. Therefore further discussion on detailed aspects is irrelevant to climate change and this website, and leads me to conclude you are deliberately muddying the waters.
-
NorrisM at 03:49 AM on 14 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Bob Loblaw
What I would like you to respond to is my point that we should not rush into solutions which are extreme from a standpoint of costs when we find that the solutions proposed today are not very appealing from an aesthetic standpoint. So let us use gradualism. This is the Karl Popper thought that is based upon common sense. Take some reasonable steps now and see how it goes. Leaving aside issues of CH4 permafrost, we are not heading over a cliff.
In response to nigelj's comment agreeing that in some cases Popper's view makes sense but not in cases "where it so clear as to the imminent danger" , I would suggest that Popper's response would be that everyone says that their situation is absolutely clear and drastic action should be taken. Extremism is one of the biggest problems we face today and I worry that proposals for massive changes to respond to climate change would fit into this category.
Let me give one "what if" that I can think of. Assume that Trump gets kicked out of office, a Democrat wins the presidency and the Democrats magically take over control of both houses. They immediately respond with a massive program of changing the US power grid to the existing technology for wind turbines (and or solar PV) and the rest of the world goes along (along with FF/hydro as backup). I am not through reading the IPCC report on costs so let us just stick with wind turbines (because solar PV seems far off from the various models).
So now in the US we have wind turbines over ballpark 64% of the land mass of the US (see NOAA study June 2017 responding to Jacobson study). Then, either the new wind turbine technology or some new technology is found that means that 75% or more of the wind turbines are not needed. But the costs of dismantling these wind turbines does not justify their removal. So they just sit there unused because they are uneconomic.
What have we done to our world?
Is technology going to find better solutions? I would bet that is the case and it is only a question of when.
So we have defaced our world for nothing. If we start with a $30 carbon tax that lays a cost on FF for pollution then we will encourage new technological solutions to replace FF.
Everytime I see a list of the "bad things" that will happen to our planet, I sit back and think: "take a deep breath". We have decades of time within which to deal with this problem. Let us not rush "pel mel" (sp) into something that we will come to regret. A move to nuclear power would not create these kind of problems in my personal view.
Moderator Response:[DB] Sloganeering snipped.
-
Eclectic at 01:56 AM on 14 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
Aleks @41 ,
the article (above) by Lehner & Fasullo is not a complete description of every aspect of climate science — and thus it is necessary for you to "add to it" with knowledge of other aspects [if not from your own prior scientific knowledge, then from your further reading from other threads & other sources].
As mentioned earlier, the NASA website can give you information. In this case, NASA describes the relatively rapid reaction of SO2 with atmospheric H2O, to alter the radiative & reflective properties associated with the volcanic-origin sulfur.
-
aleks at 01:43 AM on 14 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
Eclectic@30
"As mentioned above in this thread, volcanic SO2 in the stratosphere has a very short life". I did not find any mention about short life of SO2 both in the discussed article and comments. Conversely, the authors of this article say that "sulfur dioxide injected into the stratosphere spreads easily along the hemisphere". So, when you told about short life of SO2, what do you mean: formation of aerosols with water (depends on ratio SO2/H2O and temperature), oxidation or reduction (by what agents?), or photochemical destruction by UV-radiation?
-
Eclectic at 01:42 AM on 14 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
Aleks @37 ,
why do you say it would be "impossible" to speak about the ideas put forward by a person (such as Mr Ward) who is not engaging in the discussion here? We are able to discuss the ideas of Newton and Einstein, despite the absence of those two gentlemen. Likewise, we are able to discuss (and disparage) the ideas put forward by members of the Flat Earth Society, despite the absence of those members.
The Flat-Earthers put forward many ideas to support their Flat Earth hypothesis — and their many ideas are garbage. Crazy unscientific garbage. Completely unreliable!
It is a waste of your (and everyone's) time to go into a detailed discussion of the Flat-Earther crazy ideas. Likewise it is a waste of time going into a detailed discussion of the many points of unmitigated garbage put forward by P.L.Ward .
Aleks, for your sake I beg of you — don't waste your valuable time on P.L.Ward . Much better instead, for you to educate yourself with genuine scientific knowledge.
-
MA Rodger at 01:05 AM on 14 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
The OP does appear to take for ganted that there is a good chance of an La Nina developing in the next few months and also that Mount Agung is soon to erupt. I would suggest there is some significant doubt on both assumptions.
Concerning the La Nina, this is a long way from a certain outcome, even a weak La Nina. The predictions (eg here) have been remarkably changeable over the last couple of months with an El Nino being predicited as much more likely as recently as July. And even as recent as September the continued ENSO Neutral condition was predicted as the most likely outcome over the winter.
Also the seismic activity generated by Mount Agung is being taken as the sign of a forthcoming major eruption. Yet (and this a hostage to fortune - a major eruption is entirely possible), the BBC report the following in their Mount Agung story:-
"According to the volcanologists monitoring Mount Agung, this situation could continue for weeks, maybe even months. An eruption may not even happen, they simply don't know. At the government observation base, senior seismologist Devy Kamil remains patient - despite the long queue of journalists who have been knocking on his door all week, hoping for some news. "There are some examples where you have swarms of activity for as long as six years," he explains, "and it is not always ended by an eruption."
So an eruption is not guaranteed and the seismic activity may last years. (The further point is made elsewhere that today's instrumentation was not available back in 1963 so comparisons with that eruption are not possible.)
And the idea that any new eruption will be a repeat of 1963 is not supported by the historical evidence. The eruption previous to 1963 was 1843 and that does not apper to feature in the volcanic ejection record in polar ice cores (eg Jiang et al 2012) (although Osipov et al (2014) show no 1836 Cosigüina eruption but instead an eruption dated to 1840 and labelled 'unknown' - this indicative of the reliability of the dating of ice core data).
Certainly nothing giving such a mark as the 1963 eruption appears on the appropriate portion of the 19th century ice core record.
Indeed, there is little enough information about Mt Agung prior to 1963. Zen & Hadikusumo (1964) set out the reports from 1843 thus:-" «After having been dormant for a long time, this year the mountain began to be alive again. In the first days of the activity earthquake shocks were felt after which followed the emission of ash, sand and stones.» These are the only words which described the eruption of 1843. "
And prior to 1843, the record of Mt Agung eruptions is entirely sparce. There is mention of the first recorded eruption being a 1808 eruption that dragged on to 1821, or mention elsewhere that 1821 was a seperate eruption. Today the standard press quotes seems to be a repeat of a 20th Sept UPI item "There was an eruption of similar intensity in 1843, and several in the 16th to 18th centuries," a quote that beyond 1843 is not based on evidence, or none that I can see.
So we may or may not have a weak La Nina in the offing. And we may or may not have Mt Agung erupt and if it does it may or may not be as climatically significant as 1963.
-
MA Rodger at 00:38 AM on 14 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
aleks @35.
When you say "the consensus in this problem is impossible now," I will assume you are saying that you remain unconvinced by any of the scientific evidence. This may be your personal position but it is not a scientific one.
However, there is one loose end in all this. You stated @18 "SO2 absorbs IR-radiation in the region 3.5-19 micron." The basis for your statement remains unclear. I will assume it would not lie within the chemistry text book you cite (although the reasons for your citation are not entirely clear). And there is no sign of a "region 3.5-19 micron" in the Google Image Search page you linked to up-thread.
Up-thread there are graphs of the SO2 IR absorption spectrum. More precisely the SO2 absorption peaks could be described as spanning 4μm to 18μm. Or the absorbtion bands could be described as spanning 3.9μm to 20μm. (I note the graph @34 shows a 200μm absorption peak which perhaps has more chance of interferring with a radio than interferring with climate.) But I am unable to make sense of describing the range 3.5μm to 19μm.
So can you set out the basis for your statement "SO2 absorbs IR-radiation in the region 3.5-19 micron" ?
-
RedBaron at 00:20 AM on 14 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
Tunnelly,
You said, "I also like the implicit recognizitonthat the only significant engineering problem left is the development of effective carbon removal technology"
Actually that part of it is done. We can do it and it is feasible and mature technology and the case studies have been done to prove it feasible at scale in the field. Not only feasible but actually highly profitable.
The problem has nothing to do with technology but rather the many billions of dollars being spent to prevent it from being implemented.
Liquid carbon pathway unrecognised
Farming a climate change solution
"If all farmland was a net sink rather than a net source for CO2, atmospheric CO2 levels would fall at the same time as farm productivity and watershed function improved. This would solve the vast majority of our food production, environmental and human health ‘problems’." Dr. Christine Jones
I wrote several whole essays about it both here and at quora. One of them was recently picked up by RedPlanet and published.
-
aleks at 00:06 AM on 14 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
Eclectic @28
I did not know before about Mr.Ward scientific activity. But in any case it seems to me impossible to speak bad about the person who does not take part in our discussion. I was not sure about the reliability P.L.Ward's data because the cited article did not contain a detailed description of the experiment and estimation of the data precision. Nevertheless, the experiment can be refuted only by other experiment. So, I will be very grateful for link containing description of such or similar experiment.
Moderator Response:[DB] "the experiment can be refuted only by other experiment"
An opinion piece like Ward's is not a peer-reviewed piece published in a credible scientific journal, thus it needs no scientific refutation via published research study. The existing research stands unchallenged by such.
-
Tunnelly at 21:59 PM on 13 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
Excellent reduction of the challenges to gobal efforts to effect gobal climate change: "problem(s) of communication and trust in the scientific community" & "problem(s) of willpower."
I also like the implicit recognizitonthat the only significant engineering problem left is the development of effective carbon removal technology by omitting any debate re: the feasability/reliablity of low-carbon energy systems.
Becuase of the uncertainty and ethical dilemma of "betting" on future development of direct atmospheric carbon removal technology, I would be interested in seeing more information on the potential impact of forest conservation a la the UN-REDD program to "reduce forest emissions and enhance carbon stocks from forests while contributing to national sustainable development."
http://www.unredd.net/index.php?option=com_docman&view=document&alias=14096-un-redd-pb14-2015-strategic-framework&category_slug=session-3-strategic-and-policy-issues&Itemid=134
-
Digby Scorgie at 12:51 PM on 13 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
Never mind, Evan. As a retired technical writer, I know just how difficult it is to rid even the simplest document of all typos and silly mistakes.
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:55 AM on 13 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
aleks:
I don't know where you are getting your information, but it is way, way out of date. The myth that "volcanoes eruptions could be an important cause of ozone layer depletion" was doing the rounds over 20 years ago. Before the World Wide Web was popular, there was Usenet and news groups. The FAQ on ozone myths was produced way back then.
http://faqs.cs.uu.nl/na-dir/ozone-depletion/idx.html
Look at part II. It's 20 years old (last update), but the debunking of your myth is probably older than some of the people reading this web site.
Please try to catch up.
Moderator Response:[PS] watch tone please.
-
Evan at 10:43 AM on 13 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
I just noticed the other embarassing mistake. "When is it too late the hit the brakes" should be "When is it too late to hit the brakes"
-
Evan at 10:37 AM on 13 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
Thank you Digby for your correction. And to think I once called myself an editor.
-
Digby Scorgie at 10:31 AM on 13 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
In the cartoon, it should be "never too late".
-
cjones1 at 08:01 AM on 13 October 2017DeConto et al: Thawing permafrost drove the PETM extreme heat event
As far as I know, there was no permafrost in the Arctic or Antarctic during the Eocene. The Antarctic did not freeze over until around 34-35 mya and the Artctic until about 3 mya.
Moderator Response:[PS] Please read the article (and paper). Lack of ice in Antarctica is key. You dont need ice-covered poles to have permafrost.
-
Evan at 07:22 AM on 13 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
If we look backwards as it has been suggested by ubrew12@1 that Lamar Smith is apparently doing, we still see the climate warming at a measured rate of 2C/100 years (see Analogy 4). Thus, projecting forward with a linear view derived from the past still spells trouble.
-
nigelj at 06:31 AM on 13 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
Very well written and hard to fault, with foolproof, convincing, informative analogies.
Lamar smith saying its arrogant to make a prediction does indeed show lack of self awareness that we make predictions all the time anyway. In fact various studies in economics show humans make decisions on virtually everything by mentally weighing probabilities of various events happening in the future. Science simply informs us on whats most likely to happen in the future in a rigourous way, better than gut feel etc or assuming things will continue as in the past. I would say its extremely arrogant of Lamar Smith to ignore science.
We can extract some of the water in the bathtub a little with man made carbon sinks. The paris accord requires 'net' zero emissions by 2050 so allowes for carbon offsets like this. Both tree planting and soil sequestration of carbon through better farming systems have potential as offsets from the IPCC reports.
However there are some big challenges. Both are somewhat slow processes to implement in a practical, educational and political sense, and time is not on our side, so the primary goal has to be to reduce emissions at source, with strengthened carbon sinks to help mop up some emissions.
Tree planting is problematic, because suitable land is limited, and the quantity of trees needed to make a huge difference is vast when you do the maths. The temptation to fell the trees prematurely is going to be huge.
I see the most plausible thing as rigourous development of carbon sinks of various types could potentially offset some of the difficult to reduce emissions like aviation emissions, and perhaps some inductrial emissions but thats about all. Still that would help solve a difficult problem.
Of course over more extended time frames man made carbon sinks may also help draw down excess CO2 in the atmosphere.
-
nigelj at 05:23 AM on 13 October 2017Despite Trump, American companies are still investing in renewable energy
Tom13 @3
"Nigelj - Can you provide any insight as to why the survey would be an accurate representation of the plans of the general business community."
I never claimed the Apex survey did. Please actually read what people say. I said "the survey is unlikely to be representative of America as whole" In other words I basically agree it samples companies dedicated to renewable energy, and this may not reflect business as a whole in America. But then again it may be representative, because we dont have enough knowledge about what all companies think or dont think or whether the ones in the survey were all that particularly special.
You have made your point, no need for you to repeat it over and over.
Anyway its only one study. The wider point is I showed you a list of other surveys and assessments that show a large proportion of companies with considerable interest in renewable energy. Surely this is the main point? If you can't register this simple thing it becomes frustrating.
-
william5331 at 05:19 AM on 13 October 2017Despite Trump, American companies are still investing in renewable energy
A sure sign that renewable energy simply makes good economic sense. Flavor that with a concern with the environment and possible cocking a snook at Trump and there is enough motivation that we will be able to look back on the Trump years as some of the best in the uptake of renewable energy.
-
Tom13 at 04:53 AM on 13 October 2017Despite Trump, American companies are still investing in renewable energy
#4 - Andy
Page 15 of the pdf (link in the lst sentence of the 3rd paragraph) provides the actual methodology -
An email link invited the panel’s 3,486 members to participate anonymously in the survey. We analyzed the results from 350 respondents in nearly 18 industries. These sub-industries were categorized into 10 primary industries. The “other” industry category included recipients from agriculture, hospitality, transportation and other undefined industries.
The overall response rate was 10 percent. About 67 percent of these respondents are based in the United States. Forty-four percent of respondents are from organizations with revenues greater than $250 million.
Note the panel consists of members of the "GreenBiz intelligence Panel"
Hope that helps.
-
AndyT at 04:40 AM on 13 October 2017Despite Trump, American companies are still investing in renewable energy
Please check the statement: "The groups surveyed 153 major corporations (both public and private), whose combined revenue was in excess of $250 million." Some individual organizations have revenues greater than $250 million so the combined total must be larger.
-
Tom13 at 03:42 AM on 13 October 2017Despite Trump, American companies are still investing in renewable energy
To summarize the The email requesting was sent to the members of "GreenBiz Intelligence Panel" a group which is group that is already predisposed to renewable/green energy. Only 10% responded - In other words, the initial group is limited to a predisposed sample group with only a 10% response rate - My basis for the assetion I made is directly from the facts describing the methodolgy as detailed in the previously cited paragraphs. Those facts are highlighted on page 15 of the pdf of the survey report.
Nigelj - Can you provide any insight as to why the survey would be an accurate representation of the plans of the general business community.
-
ubrew12 at 03:21 AM on 13 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
Excellent discussion of 'climate accounting 101'. Regarding your example of when to hit the brakes as we approach a cliff whose bridge is out: Rep. Lamar Smith has said its arrogant to predict what the climate will be in a century. That's like claiming its arrogant to say that the bridge is out based on your looking forward. Why does Smith not think its out? Because he's looking backward, and you've been driving over flat country for as far back as the eye can see. He therefore assumes flat country is ahead of you. It's important to tell the 'Smith's of this world that just because he thinks its arrogant to make a prediction of the future status of the road based on looking at it, it doesn't mean he hasn't made a prediction. He may just not be aware that he has made one. Without quite realizing it, he thinks the future will be flat as a pancake, because the past has been, and that is a prediction. As it happens, a more arrogant prediction than looking forward and telling folks what you see ahead of us.
-
aleks at 02:05 AM on 13 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
Our discussion turned out of topic of the article: effect of volcanoes eruptions on the environment. We speak about the physical essence of greenhouse effect theory, and evidently the consensus in this problem is impossible now.
However, other aspect of this topic is also important. Sulfur dioxide forms aerosols with water, and these aerosols eventually fall into sea, lakes, rivers. In this case, water pH depends on oxidation state of sulfur: strong acid H2SO4 is more dangerous than weak H2SO3. That's why is inreresting what oxidizing agent could convert SO2 to SO3. If SO2 during eruption reaches ozone layer in the stratosphere (O3 oxidizes SO2 to SO3), then volcanoes eruptions could be an important cause of ozone layer depletion. It seems, this problem also deserves attention.
-
Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
According to Spectralcalc.com (the Line List Browser & Atmosphere Browser) CO2 is a much stronger GHG than SO2 but most important, it's at least 1 million times more abundant in the atmosphere, so I think it's safe to say that SO2 as a GHG can be ignored here on Earth.
-
BaerbelW at 20:41 PM on 12 October 2017Getting involved with Climate Science via crowdfunding and crowdsourcing
A new Kickstarter project by illustrator Megan Herbert and climate scientist Michael E. Mann started on Oct. 11. They are looking for pledges to publish a kids' book about climate change called "The tantrum that saved the world". As of right now, they have pledges for $6,400+ out of the $20,000 they are looking. The crowdfunding runs until November 11.
You can check it out here.
-
Eclectic at 17:49 PM on 12 October 2017Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming?
Thank you, Dr Hausfather, for the summary on climate model projections (of past & present).
"The models are much hotter than reality" is an enduring part of the Denialist faith. An idee fixe, quite impervious to the evidence of the last 3 or 4 years of record-breakingly hot global surface temperatures. And quite impervious to the concept of underlying physical causations of fluctuations in observations (or indeed, of causations of AGW).
By chance, I came across the mention of an upcoming "Climate" book — the title escapes me, but the Editor is J. Marohasy [the Marohasy of zero credibility] and there are a score or so of chapters written as individual contributions, each by a different Denialist. By the Usual Suspects, of course. And including the late Bob Carter.
However, among the Usual Suspects, one name stood out like a petunia in an onion patch — the journalist / poet / commentator Clive James [currently age 78 and in very poor health]. I had often enjoyed his informed & witty literary comments in his radio programs [discussions with poet the late Peter Porter] but I had never heard anything from him regarding scientific topics. So, being curious, I chased down the newspaper article/essay (that he had composed in Dec2016 - Feb2017 or thereabouts) which was said to be his chapter in the upcoming "Climate" book.
Result : the contents were a Denialist's usual mishmash of garbage. "The climate models are wrong" was one of James's most prominent assertions — but he also threw in quite a number of other pieces of nonsense (too tiresome to relate the list: and I am sure readers of SkS can guess most of it!). I particularly like Clive James's assertion that sea levels have hardly budged a millimeter since the 1950's.
Altogether, his essay bristled with Strawman arguments, fake information, false analogies, and gross failure of logic.
Sad to see a first-rate literary mind displaying a fourth-rate understanding of science & logic. I would like to put the blame on the infirmities of age & illness — but the same degree of mental incapacity is seen in Denialists who are middle-aged and presumably fairly healthy. Perhaps a deep current of underlying anger is the common factor in the personalities of science-deniers.
There might have been, at a superficial glance taken 5 or 10 years ago, some sort of justification for making a tentative suggestion that "models" had a tendency to "run too hot". But that suggestion can no longer be made, in view of the overall conditions of the last 30+ years.
But I think few Denialists can face the truth, and they will take their concept of "incompetent models" with them to the grave — of course, since the models are incompetent, it simply must follow that the Earth cannot be warming & the ice cannot be melting & the sea level cannot be rising. QED
-
nigelj at 11:19 AM on 12 October 2017Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming?
David Collier, good thoughts, except welfarism is just a tax payer funded insurance scheme against risks of various types. We insure against all sorts of risks.
Regarding free thinking, its challenging because material prosperity requires both specialisation, discipline, conformity, regementation, obedience, BUT also free thinking and innovation. We need both conformists and innovators. The smartest country will grasp you need both, and balance them really well. To some extent America has done this quite well but seems to have lost its way, but we are also having a big debate on the issues as well.
And everyone needs better analytical and logic skills so to see through junk science and silly beliefs.
Theres no reason schools cant equally teach rote learning and discipline, plus analytical and free thinking. They arent mutually exclusive. We can all do both, if we are disciplined about it, right time right place. You start with acknowldging both are equally important.
Moderator Response:[PS] No more offtopic comments or followup here please. If you want to reply to an obviously offtopic comment, do so in a more appropriate place and then post a link to that comment here with "i have responded here". In general, Thinkprogress is probably a better place for such discussions.
-
nigelj at 11:08 AM on 12 October 2017Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming?
Wol, I dont think predicting future climate would be the most complex problem in science. The most complex would be long term economic predictions, mainly because of the human factor, and perhaps also working out some of the remaining physics mysteries as below:
www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/top-10-scientific-mysteries-21st-century
I do think climate is very complex because you cannot put the planet inside a laboratory and perform nice tidy little experiments, so things are inferred from a range of related evidence, that gets as close as possible to an ideal experiment. I think climate scientists have done rather well.
And of course the range of factors in climate adds complexity, but at least they can be quantified and and put into equations, try doing that with human behaviour!
-
David Collier at 10:42 AM on 12 October 2017Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming?
As i think Marx said, the purpose is not just to understand but to do something about it! This website like others will change very few hearts and minds. The boiling frog syndrome is instructive, and we know from psychology that most minds are closed to unpleasant facts (head in the sand), not to mention learned helplessness. Further, our education system was introduced to programme the young to be factory workers; to do as they are told, and not to think too much. Has this changed?
Again, we still have bread and circuses, namely the welfare system; Hollywood/Bollywood, and football. Most people do NOT think outside or beyond these things, and parents are in any case now too busy keeping up with increased mortgages and childcare expenses.
At Uni i was accused of being a freethinker, whatever that is; at work an iconoclast. But i seem to be in the minority.
The Industrial Revolution and Capitalism (the Protestant work ethic!) began the rot; to avoid an unbearably hot future we probably need to reduce our standard of living. How many are wiling to do this, and what politician in his/her right mind would suggest it!
Let us also remember vested interests; the fossil fuel industry with ties to politicians who are also involved in deforestation (e.g., Indonesia).
Not to mention the mlitary/industrial complex wasting incredible amounts of money on 'defence'.
Ignorance; greed, and hypocrisy are the enemies.
Moderator Response:[PS] This is completely offtopic. if you want to make general comments, please put them in the weekly news roundup topic eg here.
No further followups here please.
-
scaddenp at 09:40 AM on 12 October 2017Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming?
Hopefully Wol you also note some convergence as the science matures. it is worth going and reading the Manabe paper that was basis for Broekner prediction to realise how primitive the model was.
The really important point to note is the climate models do have some skill, that they are certainly better than null prediction (no change) and beats the hell out of chicken entrail reading. Despite their limitations, they remain the best tool was have for predicting future climate.
-
Wol at 08:41 AM on 12 October 2017Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming?
Accepting that predictions of future climate is probably the most complex problem in science, I would frankly not be too enthused about the list of predictions that mostly vary from -28% to +30%.
In any other field such a discrepancy would be grounds for a complete re-think, and in the case of climate must make the likes of St Christopher of Booker rub his hands in glee!
-
Bob Loblaw at 07:54 AM on 12 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM:
I will accept the apology, but it would come across as a little bit more sincere if you had not used the phrasing "...if I misrepresented your position ." [Emphasis mine]
That may be more lawyer-speaking - never admit an error - but if you cannot appreciate the difference between what I said in comment #68 and your first paragraph in comment #70, then you should spend some time thinking about it before you run off on another tangent. What you say is "the thrust of [your] argument" in comment #75 is a long way from assessing the social cost of carbon that I was responding to.
-
nigelj at 07:00 AM on 12 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
I'm sceptical of nuclear energy, probably as I grew up during the period of various nuclear scares and chernobyl. However I'm not going to be dogmatic about it. I say leave it to market forces to decide between wind power, nuclear etc on the costs and perceived risks etc.
The cost structure and safety regulation is such that generators aren't wanting to build nuclear anyway. So Norris might want nuclear, but what is he to do? The generators dont want nuclear, renewables are likely to drop even further in price while nuclear wont, and theres no compelling reason to force nuclear onto them. And the majority of the public in America oppose nuclear as below:
news.gallup.com/poll/190064/first-time-majority-oppose-nuclear-energy.aspx
So its all a bit academic.
-
michael sweet at 06:31 AM on 12 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Norrism
According to Jacobson 2015 that I have referred to you at least three times before, only 2% of US land area is required to generate all power. Since over 50% of land area is not windy enough to generate power your 65% claim is absurd. You often make this type of error.
Please cite a source for your absurd claim or withdraw your suggestion that 65 % of land is required.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:25 AM on 12 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
When I look at a chart of upwelling absorption and compare that to the narrow spectral band of SO2, it looks to me like one of two things is going on. Either the SO2 is there and it's swamped out in that spectral range by H2O, or it's not there acting as a radiative forcing on the climate system.
It's a (mildly) interesting tidbit of information.
Also, aleks stated that, "SO2 absorbs IR-radiation in the region 3.5-19 micron." But that doesn't sound right to me. I find this which shows a much narrower absorption range:
-
mtmind at 06:18 AM on 12 October 20171934 - hottest year on record
The science of carbon is not up for debate. it is well known. And it is well known what carbon does in the atmosphere, it warms it. And we know where the carbon is coming from, human activity. A small child of three could look at the photos of the antarctic and tell you whays happening, the ice is melting. When it all melts, 200 feet of sea level rise, billions displaced a world we can hardly recognize today. All for burning petroleum, what is a unique and precious chemical goldmine, that cannot be duplicated in the laboratory. And we burn it, to enrich a few people. There are more jobs, more money and a cleaner future in renewables but greed and ignorance have prevented it. We now talk about protecting cola miners, the most dangerous job in the world, instead of retraining coal miners to work on renewable energy programs like wind and solar. Why do we want to keep them and their children down in the mines, greed and ignorance. When you hear "drill baby drill" or "energy voter" you can count on a deep and brutal ignorance of the facts.
-
scaddenp at 06:17 AM on 12 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
And we are pointing out that you have not made anything like a case for "having time" whatever that is. Time for people living in middle of US, or time for people living on Pacific atolls/Asian deltas?
And what is your source for "65% of US area with wind turbines"? More lawyerly hyperbole? This calculation says only the area of Rhode island. Not a peer reviewed publication but it does outline the maths.
-
nigelj at 06:01 AM on 12 October 2017Despite Trump, American companies are still investing in renewable energy
Tom13 @1, the polling methods are pretty standard. Its not fully representative of America as whole, but is a good indication that theres very significant interest in investing in renewabale energy.
On the other hand we have other related information as follows from Bloomberg using other surveys and assessments that shows just how huge interest is in investing in renewable energy in America:
"Almost half of the biggest U.S. companies have established clean-energy targets for themselves, according to a report Tuesday from sustainable investors and environmental groups including the World Wildlife Fund."
"It’s not just the biggest U.S. companies — 44 percent of the smallest 100 members of the Fortune 500 have also set goals, up from 25 percent in 2014, and 48 percent of the entire list."
"Many are finding that renewable energy isn’t just cleaner, it’s also often cheaper. About 190 Fortune 500 companies collectively reported about $3.7 billion in annual savings, according to Power Forward 3.0, a report by WWF, Ceres, Calvert Research & Management and CDP." Etc,etc,etc.
Heres another view of the situation on renewable energy generally from Business Insider. America is "leading the way on investments in renewable energy" from this article. Sorry its a couple of years old but shows the general picture anyway.
www.businessinsider.com/us-2015-renewable-energy-investments-2016-5?IR=T
"Of all the countries in the world, the United States invested the second-most on renewable energy in 2015. Only China outspent us.American investments reached $44 billion last year, up 17% over 2014. (That figure includes investments from both private companies and government entities.) This is according to a recent United Nations-backed report with research from Bloomberg New Energy Finance."
And some more from another article on investments in renewable energy:
www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2014/08/big-companies-big-renewable-investments.html
"Twenty-four companies from the Fortune 100 and Global Fortune 100 have set specific targets for percentage of renewable energy generated, capacity (MW) or level of investment in renewable energy for their own operations."
"According to the Ceres Power Forward Report, Wal-Mart is prioritizing long-term PPAs above other financing models as a way of procuring long-term, low-cost renewable energy. The company has set a long-term goal to have its operations fueled 100 percent by renewable energy (no date set). Wal-Mart has more than 180 renewable energy projects in operation or under development, providing more than 1.1 billion kWh of renewable electricity annually."
-
NorrisM at 02:26 AM on 12 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Thanks everyone. Too much to read to provide any response. Completely agree that the Hausfather article looks very interesting. Would like to absorb all of this before commenting.
Bob Loblaw. Sorry if I misrepresented your position. Tendency of lawyers to exaggerate to make a point. I apologize. But the thrust of my argument still stands. Better to start with something that 1. Will have an impact; 2. Will be "saleable" to the American public on the basis of "pollution costs"; and 3. Responds to Karl Popper's concerns about only making "incremental changes".
Nowhere have I suggested that we should not be moving to alternative sources of supplying the increasing demands of our world for energy. My argument is that unless CH4 permafrost issues really are a concern then we have the time to do this right. I have to admit that I have a very personal problem with dotting 65% of the surface of the US with wind turbines to achieve this when nuclear power could solve the problem leaving our world looking a lot better.
-
Tom13 at 02:23 AM on 12 October 2017Despite Trump, American companies are still investing in renewable energy
The link to the pdf of the survey is in the 3rd paragraph.
The fourth paragraph of this article states that 84% of the companies are actively pursuing or considering renewable energy.
On page 15 of the PDF, ApexCleanEnergy provides the following statement on the methodology of the sampling used in the survey.
An email link invited the panel’s 3,486 members to participate anonymously in the survey. We analyzed the results from 350 respondents in nearly 18 industries. These sub-industries were categorized into 10 primary industries. The “other” industry category included recipients from agriculture, hospitality, transportation and other undefined industries.
The overall response rate was 10 percent. About 67 percent of these respondents are based in the United States. Forty-four percent of respondents are from organizations with revenues greater than $250 million.
For those that are familiar with sampling, should be able to recognize the weakness in the quality of the survey based on the methodology and the weakness of the results as being representative of the general business community.
Compare and contrast with other polling organizations such as rasmussen, fiveThirtyEight, Marist, etc
Moderator Response:[JH] Unsubtantiated assertion snipped.
-
bessie13 at 02:10 AM on 12 October 2017Why the 97% climate consensus is important
As this is your first post, Skeptical Science respectfully reminds you to please follow our comments policy. Thank You!
Has anyone suggested the obvious question for those who are claiming to have the intelligence to evaluate the climate science data (and are mis-leading the public)?
For example -
"You are claiming to have some ability to evaluate the information on climate science. You are also claiming that the evidence does not support that humans are contributing to accelerated global warming. My question is this - How, exactly, would you design a study to prove (or disprove) your claim? What kind of data would you gather, measurements would you make? information would you need to prove/disprove this question?"
It seems to me that those who are creating doubt have been putting creditable scientists on the defensive. We know that they can make broad claims that gloss over the consensus. We also know that most people won't even bother to gather more information - for legitimate reasons. It is daunting. I am wondering if this question was asked in a format where they could not evade it (say on a televised National Debate) if their strategy would begin to crumble?
-
MA Rodger at 23:18 PM on 11 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
Aleks @29.
You say:-
"However, speaking about "math model of greenhouse effect" I have meant not a global climate model, but a quantitative relationship between amount of greenhouse gas and temperature, at least for laboratory conditions when other factors are excluded."
Echoing nigelj @31, there are simplistic demonstrations that show that CO2 does absorb IR. This LINK shows a series of short YouTube videos of such experiments. The science which provides the detail of CO2's IR absorption is old and the literature listed HERE although much of it is sadly available publicly on-line only in abstract.
The mechanisms which result in increased CO2 raising global temperature are complex and cannot be reproduced within a laboratory. Indeed, it took science many decades to start to understand how CO2 effects global temperatures. (See this SkS POST describing an important part of the mechanism.) It would be akin to asking for a lab experiment to demonstrate specifically that the moon is responsible for the tidal effects witnessed in the English Channel. The proof would require either a full-sized experiment (which won't fit in a laboratory) or has to be calculated mathematically from data obtained in laboratory experiments.
And having been calculated mathematically, the big grown-up model that is then passed across to climatologists for use in their global climate models is HITRAN. (You would have noted mention of its little brother MODTRAN up-thread). It is HITRAN which allows calculation of global temperatures for different levels of the greenhouse gases.
And to again echo nigelj @31, no serious scientists and indeed no serious climate skeptic have issues with HITRAN. Those that do by acting as though HITRAN doesn't exist (like the Peter Ward you mention @26) are away with the faries and can be ignored.
-
CBDunkerson at 22:13 PM on 11 October 2017Trump’s plan to bail out failing fossil fuels with taxpayer subsidies is perverse
Every objection raised to subsidies in this discussion is equally applicable to taxes (e.g. carbon tax). Both are subject to potential abuse by politicians and corporate owners... see, for example, Trump's expected import tax on solar panels.
Whether the government assists an industry by providing them with money or taxing their competitors the potential positive and negative results are the same. For that matter, fee and dividend is both a tax AND a subsidy.
-
scaddenp at 12:33 PM on 11 October 2017Trump’s plan to bail out failing fossil fuels with taxpayer subsidies is perverse
Does say a subsidy of 2c/kWh on wind power (paid to generator), exactly equal a 2c/kWh bonus on the price paid to solar rooftop owners for electricity paid back to the grid? If you are offgrid, (or generating as much as you use), then you get no subsidy. I think it is complicated.
Prev 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 Next
