Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 Next
Comments 18101 to 18150:
-
gws at 01:16 AM on 30 August 2017Study: Katharine Hayhoe is successfully convincing doubtful evangelicals about climate change
An issue with these kind of studies, IMHO, is the undergraduate student audience. While chosen for convenience, it may not be representative of a wider population depending on what was asked and how the study was conducted. In this case, age may be the culprit. The young person's (political) mind is often still forming, changing, adapting, while over 30-year olds are more difficult to reach. This is a fundamental issue with much of social science research, although some results (see above link) are encouraging. I think the students would have to be followed, aka re-interviewed a regular intervals, to see if this actually made a difference. We know that an equal "treatment" with the myths can easily erase the effect, and if the fact-based "treatment" is not repeated, the effect diminishes over time.
That does not discount the known effect of the "trusted source". I think it should rather be called "in-group" vs. "out-group": A source may not be "trusted" a priori (not literally), but if the information is coming from a person considered in-group in some way (here, also evangelical), his/her message is accepted much more easily, and if that experience is repeated, replacement of accepted myths by scientific facts may eventually happen.
-
tweetster58 at 21:01 PM on 29 August 2017It's Skeptical Science's 10th Birthday!
Hi. Just registered today after lurking for a few years. incredible site-well organised and extremely informative. Keep up the good work.
-
MA Rodger at 20:46 PM on 29 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
NorrisM @37.
After a lot of waffle you state "I admit that I think I am out of my depth on this but it takes a lot of exaggeration to go from 33 Gta to 3,066 Gta."
The numbers do appear disparate so the first question to ask is "What are these numbers?" (and it is worrying that such a question has to be asked). As you feel 'out of your depth', it would be remiss of me to ask you. But do consider the situation. ☻ You apparently gleen these numbers from Lomborg's web-page comment where Lomborg states that the value "33GtCO2" comes from the UNFCCC saying "Figueres’ own organization estimates the Paris promises will reduce emissions by 33Gt CO₂ in total." Yet there is no sign of such a number in the UNFCCC document from which you would expect this Lomborg reference - the UNFCCC INDC Synthesis Report. ☻ Lomborg (2015) explicitly cites the UNFCCC INDC Synthesis Report and here the referred values ("3.6 (0.0–7.5) Gt CO2eq in 2030") are correctly cited - but note Lomborg himself prefers to use the 2030 value of "6.2–6.8Gt" which is significantly different. But there is no direct sign of any 33Gt or 3,066Gt values. ☻ So Lomborg is no help at all in explaining his own numbers but it is evident from these figures that your "33 Gta to 3,066 Gta" are multi-year values, with perhaps the 'cumulative reduction in emissions over the period 2017-2100' being the most likely given the 3,066GtCO2(e) figure. Indeed 2017-2100 is the only period under discussion that would provide for a value of thousands of GtCO2(e) emissions/emissions reduction. But with such an accumulative measure and even if reductions as small as "3.6Gt CO2eq in 2030" are being considered, how can this translate into an accumulative "emissions (of) 33Gt CO₂ in total"? It doesn't seem possible. Even the most strict of the two ridiculous schemes set out in Lomborg (2015) would yield at least 77GtCO2(e) by 2100.
So the question "What are these numbers?" remains unanswered and if you don't know what the numbers are, there is little point in bring them here for discussion.
-
ubrew12 at 20:18 PM on 29 August 2017Study: Katharine Hayhoe is successfully convincing doubtful evangelicals about climate change
I think Katherine is getting help from Harvey (not the professor, the hurricane). Nuccitelli: "There’s been some debate among social scientists about how much facts matter in today’s politically polarized society." We entered the 'Age of Consequences' about a decade ago and these consequences are now becoming obvious. Among the 'trusted sources' that can help skeptical evangelical students to accept Hayhoe's message increasingly must be listed their own eyes.
-
nigelj at 19:38 PM on 29 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #34
Regarding the IPA claims. Hard to believe anyone could produce such hopeless garbage, and and not be totally embarassed.
Anyway I thought the climate sceptics had a low opinion of "models". These people are so arrogant they think nobody can see their many contradictions.
-
nigelj at 19:28 PM on 29 August 2017Study: Katharine Hayhoe is successfully convincing doubtful evangelicals about climate change
I'm sure Katharine is changing some peoples minds for good but how many is an interesting question. 30% of americans are still very sceptical about evolution, ( more for christians) so this suggests she will probably have mixed success, but every little bit helps build a critical mass of public opinion.
People become entrenched in their views over anything political or religious, and sometimes not wanting to admit they were wrong. I recall the sin of 'pride' in the bible somewhere but Im not really religious.
-
nigelj at 17:57 PM on 29 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
Norris M @30
The Paris Agreement.
Opinions differ on what cuts to emissions and temperature reductions it will achieve because of the complexities and policies of individual countries. Plenty of sources claim it will achieve considerably larger cuts than Lomberg claims both by 2030, 2050 and 2100. Given the massive criticisms of Lombers calculations by numerous experts, and the fact the Danish Government found one of his books on climate change scientifically dishonest, can you guess whos views I have more respect for?
Some expert discussion on paris accord:
www.factcheck.org/2017/06/will-paris-tiny-effect-warming/
Costs of renewable energy. An example:
My country of NZ has approx. 9,637mwh installed capacity of all sorts of generation, some actually renewable. But for the sake of an example, to convert all that to wind energy costs approx. $50 billion. This is equal to about 8 months worth of total government spending for one year. It is about one quarter of NZ total gdp per year.
Obviously not all that generating capacity would be built in one year. Lets assume it is built within a 20 year time frame. That about $2.5 billion per year, about one quarter of what the government spends each year just on the old age pension (NZ Super). Given Americas economy is not that different to ous in per capita structure I dont see costs being that different. At least it gives you some idea of scale and that it is expensive but obviously not unaffordable.
I'm not a technical expert on all this, but basic arithmetic is easy enough. And why would anyone bother with more detailed technical explanations when you have consistently shown many times that you ignore technical information / internet links / sources?
Nuclear Energy:
Hanson promotes nuclear energy. Costs are slightly cheaper than renewable energy, depends however on the country and wind is cheaper in some countries, but building these things is a nightmare because of regulatory controls around safety etc. This is why operators in America are choosing other alternatives like wind, solar and gas. I dont think Hanson is either right or wrong, but in America generators are choosing other options.
Hope that helps.
-
Ken Kibithe at 15:33 PM on 29 August 2017Global warming and energy – intertwined problems in Africa
In Kenya, long strides are now being experienced in the long journey towards global warming and energy issues. Many Universities are offering programmes and encouraging students/researchers to engage in projects on such issues. See the courses below as an example of the programmes being offerd in the University especially in Agriculture and Engineering categories. http://www.mut.ac.ke/academic/mut-undergraduate-programmes.html
-
NorrisM at 15:24 PM on 29 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
MA Rodger
Apologize for missing the "d".
This is interesting. The Ward analysis responds to the Lomborg analysis. What I find interesting is the following statement which seems to support Lomborg's postion that achieving 2.7C is based upon assumptions of future cuts after 2030: "Neither of these scenarios corresponds to expected policies beyond 2030." This statement follows the analysis, of the cuts in the Paris Agreement proposed by the US, the EU and China.
So I have to assume that the Paris Agreement only goes to 2030. My understanding is that Lomborg then assumes that no futher cuts are made other than keeping those cuts for the next 70 years. Then I understand from Ward that Lomborg uses the IPCC 'worst case scenario" temperature rises to come up with his 3,066 Gta CO2 reduction.
Lomborg on his webpage makes reference to the fact that "future cuts" in 2030 beyond those in the Paris Agreement will be required to achieve the 2.7C level by 2100.
So is Lomborg not correct that what was achieved with the Paris Agreement, by itself, is really not very much? Maybe I am missing something but 33 Gta to 3,066 Gta is a long way to go. Assuming Lomborg used the most conservative estimates of "business as usual' beyond what had been agreed with the Paris Agreement, I have to think that the required amount to keep temperature rises to 2.7C would still be not less than 1,000 Gta CO2. Now I am purely speculating but it does not seem that the "assumed" future cuts in 2030 will only be minimal.
I admit that I think I am out of my depth on this but it takes a lot of exaggeration to go from 33 Gta to 3,066 Gta.
I wish someone with a little more technical background could respond.
But onto ground with which I am more comfortable. Can someone respond to my question of how we magically get from .4% solar and wind to even 50% in 30 years? And at what cost per unit of energy?
Can someone also not respond to why James Hansen believes that the only way to achieve the goals is to turn to nuclear energy? Where is he wrong?
-
Eclectic at 15:23 PM on 29 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
NorrisM @33 etc.,
MA Rodger has recommended the Global Apollo Programme [ @#34 above ]. It would be very much worth your while to read ~ a couple of dozen pages, and little more than 15 minutes of your time. The authors are British, and the report is slightly dated in that it is based on information of 3 - 5 years ago. But all that has happened since then, is that renewable energy has become even cheaper to produce . . . and the recent run of record-hot years [2014/2015/2016/2017ytd] is showing the urgency of displacing fossil-fuel usage. There is not the luxury of time to dawdle and do little or nothing (e.g. the do-nothing policy of Lomborg).
You are wasting your time if you read anything by Lomborg.
Koonin, in comparison, is [IMO] merely confused about climate matters (because his intellect is overridden by his motivated reasoning) but he is [again, IMO] basically an honest guy.
Lomborg is a propagandist and an "indirect" apologist for fossil-fuel industry interests (he tries to portray himself as independent and "Luke-Warm", yet that is belied by his statements). He is, in parliamentary terminology, very "economical with the truth". My comments here are not an Ad Hominem attack, but simply a description based on his abominable track record. Quite possibly Lomborg is kind to animals and children in his personal life : yet his "scientific statements" are designed to misinform and mislead the naive reader. He is a science-denier in Sheep's Clothing [please excuse the cliche]. Possibly he may at some future time, come out with good & useful information . . . but so far he has failed to do so.
BTW [= by the way ] NorrisM, welcome back from your "sea holiday" ! Interestingly, it appears to have caused a "sea change" in your thinking : you appear to have abandoned any "judicial approach" to climate science, and you now seem to have become more an advocate of "outliers" such as Lomborg. Would it not be simpler & more straightforward to accept the (overwhelming) weight of evidence that the mainstream scientists are correct.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:03 PM on 29 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
NorrisM@33,
The Paris Agreement is structured to require increased CO2 abatement actions in future years.
Without future increased actions from the initial offered actions of each nation (without the Paris Agreement commitment to increase actions to collectively keep global warming impacts to 2.0 C), the future of humanity is indeed going to be severely negatively affected (but the Undeserving Winners of a better life today won't suffer any serious personal losses so All is Right by Them).
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:51 PM on 29 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34
nigelj@7,
What you refer to regarding maize in Africa has been a problem that climate change is making into a bigger problem because of increased drought frequency and severity.
Africans in the drought prone areas should have always been encouraged to grow a more drought tolerant crop like sorghum. But the perception that corn means "Winning" (it is American's 'success crop at the core of so much economic activity') makes many Africans want to grow/buy corn, encouraged by a few Good crop years and marketing by developers/sellers of Supposed Super Corns (companies that create and market new varieties but never themselves gamble on the success of trying to grow the products).
Each farmer (in African and America) would probably be better off planting both maize and sorghum (more sorghum than maize in areas more prone to drought).
-
nigelj at 12:24 PM on 29 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34
Regarding crop yields:
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160620112504.htm
"Crop yields will fall within the next decade due to climate change unless immediate action is taken to speed up the introduction of new and improved varieties, experts have warned.
journal Nature Climate Change, focusses on maize in Africa but the underlying processes affect crops across the tropics.
Study lead author Professor Andy Challinor, from the Priestley International Centre for Climate at the University of Leeds, said: "In Africa, gradually rising temperatures and more droughts and heatwaves caused by climate change will have an impact on maize.
The researchers found that crop duration will become significantly shorter by as early as 2018 in some locations and by 2031 in the majority of maize-growing regions in Africa. Only the most optimistic assessment — in which farming, policy, markets and technology all combine to make new varieties in 10 years — showed crops staying matched to temperatures between now and 2050."
In my view,even if output does increase, global warming makes this more difficult, and at the very least is likely to reduce the gains that would occur without global warming. Given population increase this is a concern.
-
ubrew12 at 10:31 AM on 29 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34
Tom13@5: I'm sure the wizards of crop productivity would appreciate it if we didn't give them a moving target. Yes, they can adapt to a changing climate. So can Houston. But, with all the great work we could be doing (colonizing Mars, anyone?), is that really the highest expression of human ingenuity you can come up with (ie. to bail us out of our own blindness)?
-
MA Rodger at 09:07 AM on 29 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
NorrisM @33,
You now appear to be citing this Lomborg web-page which is a presentation of the findings of Lomborg (2015). You ask "Is this true? Or even remotely true?" It appears to be not remotely true. According to Ward (2016), Lomborg (2015) simply sets up his desired answer within the assumptions he adopts.
And you understanding is flawed as Lomborg's proposed solutions are entirely inconsistent with those of the Global Apollo Programme.
-
NorrisM at 08:27 AM on 29 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
MA Roger
So now I know of Kare Fog! Interesting comments on Bjorn Lomborg's two books.
On Lomborg's website, he shows a very controversial graph where he measures how many units of CO2 would be required to keep temperatures to 2.7C by 2100 versus what the Paris Agreement would achieve if fully implemented by all nations including the US.
The graph shows that 3,066 Gt CO2 would be required whereas the Paris Agreement would only achieve 33 Gt CO2. I believe the website even claims that Christiana Figueres, the UN Climate chief, admits that the Paris Agreement alone would only achieve 33 Gt CO2.
Is this true? Or even remotely true? Surely this is a factual statement that can be confirmed or denied. Even if the Paris figure is ten times this amount, this is a very relevant issue, if only to understand the cost estimates.
My understanding is that even Lord Stern, the author of the UK report on the economic costs of climate change, has joined the Global Apollo Group which seems to be recommending a course similar to what Lomborg has proposed. As well, James Hansen, I believe does not think we can achieve the goals without turning to nuclear power solutions.
If Lomborg's numbers are correct, do we not have to consider alternatives to massive cuts 100 times larger than what the Paris Agreement would achieve?
-
NorrisM at 05:50 AM on 29 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
Whew! Just checked back since referencing Bjorn Lomberg's book and recent views. Sorry Susanne, just back from holidays and forgot the term. Everyone knew what I meant so I am not sure how you advanced any argument by your comment. Ad hominen's are a very poor way to advance arguments.
Lomborg makes a lot of claims which can be refuted factually if they are incorrect. But his primary point is that there are more efficent ways of battling the effects of AGW than just massively reducing CO2 emissions without a viable alternative for cheap energy having been discovered.
When predicting the future, it is difficult to suggest "technology" will solve it but look back at the past and ask what has more upset predictions than technology? Paul Ehrlich's claims that the world would starve to death did not take into account technological changes in agriculture as an example. We humans are a bit apocalyptic.
I intend to follow some of the above information, especially MA Roger's suggested urls.
But today, when wind and solar represent .4% (not even 4%) of world energy consumption and fossil fuels are somewhere around 85%, is it rational or responsible to simply reduce fossil fuel consumption to 15% as suggested by Bill McKibben? I just shake my head when I hear things like this.
One "cost" that I even saw that Lomborg "dodged" is the cost of land reclamation. His approach is to measure the cost to a nation as a percentage of its GDP. I assume this will be referenced in some of the criticisms above. Looking forward to reading them.
-
Barcino2017 at 05:50 AM on 29 August 2017CO2 effect is saturated
I fail to find convincing evidence as to how CO2 can be the cause of global warming with a occurence of only 400 ppm. This would entail that 1 CO2 molecule would need to heat up 2,500 other molecules in the atmosphere to cause any increase in overall temperature. How is this possibly explainable! It is impossible.
-
Tom13 at 05:39 AM on 29 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34
Moderator - the article makes the statement that the trend are expected to worsen which implies that the current trend is negative, yet as my cites point out, the crop yield trends are positive and have been positive for quite a long period.
Moderator Response:[JH] With respect to crops, the two paragraphs you have quoted are geographic specific. In addition, crops are not the only foodstuff addressed.
-
rkrolph at 03:16 AM on 29 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
@27 and 29,
I just assumed MGW meant "Man-made Global Warming". But I've never seen that term used before. It's always been AGW that I have seen.
-
RedBaron at 02:35 AM on 29 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34
@Tom13,
Yes it is true that the historical trends in agriculture yields are up. This is mostly due to scientific advancement in genetics and breeding and to a lessor extent methodology. At the same time the hisorical trends in agricultural land degradation are up as well. We are increasing yields at the same time we are increasing the destruction to the environment that agriculture causes.
This is where the flaw in yield stats lies. Land that has been degraded so significantly it is no longer arable is not counted in that statistic. Roughly there is about as much land that used to be productive but is now abandoned as is currently in production. Those statistics do not count that land in their yields figures. It makes it seem as if everything is improving, when actually we will quickly run out of new virgin ground to use up. From a global agriculture perspective, those yield numbers need halved to reflect the land now so degraded it can no longer be used for farming.
Only 60 Years of Farming Left If Soil Degradation Continues
You asked if the authors believed innovation would halt. Well I am not an author of that article, so I can't speak for them. But I do know that innovation will continue, and the innovation is part of an AGW mitigation strategy. Just one example can be found for rice:
The System of Rice Intensification (SRI)…
… is climate-smart rice productionIt's not a doomsday prediction. It's a projection based on the world continuing "as is" instead of progressing with innovation like the above SRI and of course solar, wind, hydro etc.... as a AGW mitigation strategy.
The difference between a prediction and a projection is that projection have contingencies. We get to chose the outcome of the future by our actions now.
More information on how innovation in agriculture can be part of an AGW mitigation strategy can be found here:
Can we reverse global warming?
Executive summary:
Yes we can reverse Global Warming.
It does not require huge tax increases or expensive untested risky technologies.
It will require a three pronged approach worldwide.
- Reduce fossil fuel use by replacing energy needs with as many feasible renewables as current technology allows.
- Change Agricultural methods to high yielding regenerative models of production made possible by recent biological & agricultural science advancements.
- Large scale ecosystem recovery projects similar to the Loess Plateau project, National Parks like Yellowstone etc. where appropriate and applicable.
If we fail to take these steps, then exactly what the authors suggest will happen, surely will indeed happen just as they claim.
The choice is ours though. We get to chose our future.
-
Tom13 at 01:34 AM on 29 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34
ourworldindata.org/yields-and-land-use-in-agriculture/
ourworldindata.org/yields-and-land-use-in-agriculture/
Moderator - The historical trend for most all crops has been positive -
Moderator Response:[JH] The first sentence of the the two paragraphs that you quote is (my bolds):
Geographically, the negative impact of climate change on agricultural output could result in lower yields of rice, wheat, corn and soybeans in countries with tropical climates, compared with the impacts experienced by those in higher latitudes.
-
Tom13 at 23:17 PM on 28 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34
From the article above:
Geographically, the negative impact of climate change on agricultural output could result in lower yields of rice, wheat, corn and soybeans in countries with tropical climates, compared with the impacts experienced by those in higher latitudes. Fisheries could also be affected by changes to water temperature, warned the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) today.
Based on the findings of the global research community, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) anticipates that these trends are expected to worsen in the future with the projected impacts of anthropogenic climate change.
Yet the actual trend over the centuries have been increases in crop yields with an acelleration since the 1970's. Better farming techniches, improved grain varieties, etc all contributing to better & higher yields, all contrary to the typical doomsday predictions of the Paul Ehrlich types.
Do the authors of this report realy believe the technological progress, innovation will come to a halt because of global warming.
Moderator Response:[JH] Sloganeering snipped. Please carefully reread the paragraphs that you have quoted.
-
Tom13 at 23:02 PM on 28 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
#17 -Bozza -"'First tanker crosses northern sea route without ice breaker'"
The tanker is an ice breaker with the Russian certification level of ARC7
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/08/25/first-tanker-crosses-northern-sea-route-without-ice-breaker-because-it-is-one-anyway/
-
Eclectic at 15:17 PM on 28 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
Good point, Susanne @27.
"MGW" is a mysterious neologism, which I too had never encountered prior to reading post #4.
Perhaps he means "Minimal Global Warming" — although that would seem to be begging the question about an issue which would count as too trivial to deserve any attention at all. So it can't be that [in view of the severity of the AGW problem, and, indeed, of NorrisM's many lengthy posts on this website].
Perhaps he means MajorGW [though that also would be incompatible with NorrisM's inclination toward denial of the scientific evidence].
Perhaps "Mysterious Global Warming"? . . . but that doesn't fit with the fact that our modern-day rapid Global Warming has a cause which is well-understood and well-proven. Nothing mysterious at all, there.
Susanne, please let me know if you discover the solution to the mysterious case of M . ( --Almost sounding like the title of a Conan Doyle short story about Sherlock Holmes ) .
-
bozzza at 13:46 PM on 28 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
Tony Abbott lost the Prime-Ministership of Australia by trying to make us accept B. Lomborg should be allowed to espouse his views from the pulpit of one of our most famous Universities.
He lost all credibility and his job because Lomborg was globally known as being a flim-flam artist... it was the funniest thing: you had to be there I suppose.
Climate Change alarmism is perpetrated by the climate change denialists to make everything look uncredible... It's all about credibility and the vested interests don't attack in straight lines: there is always the direct and the indirect attack! Newspapers are propaganda machines and the subtlety of the game is how it's won.
In the end the people lead and governments follow so if you want change then the consuming voter will get change only by demanding it be so. Hence suppliers are changing their ways to meet such perceived increases in demand as they know there are too many jokes out there like Lomborg that fool nobody anymore!!
It's almost like people are starting to actually care about the children they decided to bring into this world.
-
scaddenp at 12:10 PM on 28 August 2017Analysis: Why US carbon emissions have fallen 14% since 2005
GB: while I largely agree, you can reduce the cost and size of that build if you can also reduce the amount of energy used. Per capita energy use by US in raw terms is twice that of much of Europe for reasons I have not understood. Maybe there is energy export hidden on those figures somewhere, but it surely suggests there is room for some considerable energy savings without sacrificing first world living standards.
-
Susanne at 11:14 AM on 28 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
NorrisM @4
Please, what's MGW? The most (but doubtfully) relevant expansion that I can find is Minors Gone Wild, in the Urban Dictionary.
-
Gingerbaker at 10:53 AM on 28 August 2017Analysis: Why US carbon emissions have fallen 14% since 2005
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, [CO2] keeps rising. And here is a thought:
Reductions in electricity and fuel use, mainly from efficiency gains, resulted in how much additional pressure to build new renewable energy infratsructure? Answer: zero. Actually, less than zero.
I am not saying efficiency is not a good thing. But the only thing that truly matters is how quickly we can build and deploy all the RE we need to stop burning carbon.
It seems a prosaic point, but, you can't hit the switch to turn off a coal or natural gas power plant until you can hit a switch to turn on the RE plant to replace it. And funding that RE plant is a function of government, not the individual. Replacing incandescent light bulbs with LED's is not the answer, it is rearranging the deck chairs.
-
ubrew12 at 03:13 AM on 28 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34
Reading the Aug 18th 'Moyers and Company' interview with Katherine Hayhoe about the National Climate Assessment report, she's talking about the dangers to parts of America posed by climate change and made this remark: "In Texas, we’re at risk of hurricanes, which are getting stronger as we’ve got the warmer ocean water". She can say that last week, but such is the politics of the situation that if she said it this week she'd be accused of grandstanding.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:09 AM on 28 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
A minor improved understanding of my comment @24,
"... requiring the wealthy of the nations who got richest from the previous decades of massive damaging burning of fossil fuels ... to 'transfer wealth and provide support' to genuinely sustainably improve the lives of those who undeservingly lose in (experience a net-negative result) due to the fatally flawed games of popularity and profitability."
Many of the people 'Losing' are not 'in the games' and would perfer to enjoy life 'outside of, and not negatively affected by, the fatally flawed competitions for temporarily developed perceptions of Winning more than Others any way that can be gotten away with'.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:57 AM on 28 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
A follow-up to my comment@24,
Misdirection/misleading messages regarding many aspects of the increased awareness and better understanding get popular support by creating 'unjustified perceptions of anxiety leading to misdirected fear and resulting in misdirected anger' related to the requirement for human activity to be corrected to undo damaging development along the fossil fuels burning path.
Undoing decades of prolonging and expanding economic development based on fossil fuel burning is a major correction of perceptions of prosperity. In Alberta it can be seen that the push to expand extraction facilities for the Oil Sands was done to increase the number of people incorrectly perceiving their opportunity for prosperity to be related to excusing the global burning of fossil fuels and disliking and attacking anyone who says otherwise.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:43 AM on 28 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
ubrew12@23,
A misdirection to create 'unjustified perceptions of anxiety leading to misdirected fear and resulting in misdirected anger' that is pertinent to the corrective actions that climate science has exposed as being required for the advancement of humanity to a truly lasting growth of economic activity making things better for everyone is: Claims that the inequity of distribution of the truly massive wealth within the USA is to be blamed on things like NAFTA.
The people easily tempted to be angry about 'Others' benefiting from agreements like NAFTA are also easily tempted to be angry about the Paris Agreement requirement for the inequity of global wealth and harm due to climate change impacts to be corrected by requiring the wealthy of the nations who got richest from the previous decades of massive damaging burning of fossil fuels (decades that saw the damaging activity be prolonged and even increased in spite of it being well understood that development in that direction was damaging and unsustainable though undeniably cheaper for those benefiting for as long as the understandably damaging ultimately unsustainable activity can be gotten away with - any growth in perceived prosperity/wealth could not be expected to be maintained), to 'transfer wealth and provide support' to genuinely sustainably improve the lives of those who undeservingly lose in the fatally flawed games of popularity and profitability.
-
ubrew12 at 11:15 AM on 27 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
"- climate change costs will hit Trump Country hardest." It doesn't matter. The 1%-funded alt-media (Breitbart, Faux News) peddles the alternative fact that whatever happens to 'Trump Country', its someone else's fault. This is its sole purpose. So the more 'Trump Country' is squeezed, by anything including climate change, the more imperative it will be for them to vote for people like Trump. What happened to the Germans in the 1920s was the fault of the Jews (not their centuries-old rivalry with the Franks which ended badly in WWI). This is a time-honored tradition for the kind of people for whom certainty 'trumps' accuracy. Whatever happens to 'Trump Country', their media will simply wheel out the 'usual suspects' to direct their anger. Which tiresomely was revealed the other day in Charlottesville VA with the chanted slogan 'Jews will not replace us'.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:01 AM on 27 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
nigelj,
Regarding what humanity needs to focus on ... The 2015 Sustainable Development Goals are probably the most robustly developed (having the most extensive and rigorous effort put into its development) set of actions that humanity must "cocurrently pursue".
Those goals were developed through massive international cooperation in increasing awareness and understanding through the years since the 1972 Stockholm Conference.
For the likes of Lomborg to claim that "They know Better" without actually providing 'substantive Good Reasons based on new information' as the basis for changing the SDGs is the epitome of damaging dangerous hubris. It is simiar to the ridiculous 'US Supposed-Winners-of-Leadership-in-the-Moment' claim that their Red Team-Blue Team climate change assessment would be more relevant than the IPCC reports and recommendations.
-
nigelj at 06:49 AM on 27 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
This is perceptive about Lomberg and his "copenhagen consensus"
We need to stop our obsession with global warming, and start dealing with the many more pressing issues in the world, where we can do most good first and quickest," Lomborg concluded.
While Lomborg's views are dismissed by the overwhelming majority of those researching climate change, his attendance in Buenos Aires ensured that his views where not only projected into the 'echo chamber' by conservative news sites such as CNSNews.com, but picked up by the BBC as well.[15]
Others don't think the outcome of the Copenhagen Consensus should be taken all that seriously. Not only were the invited presenters all economists, critics of the process point to the constrained choices they were presented with in ranking priorities that the global community should address.
"Climate strategies are compared with measures to address problems that everyone agrees are crucial. But climate strategies should also be compared with other goals that society spends (or wastes) money on. One relevant example is to ask what can be delayed with the least harm: climate measures or exploration of Saturn’s rings? Or what about ranking climate measures in relation to spending tens of millions of dollars a year developing new kinds of nuclear weapons, as the Bush administration seems prepared to do?," wrote Pål Prestrud and Hans Seip from the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research (CICERO).[16]
Moderator Response:[RH] Shortened link.
-
nigelj at 06:22 AM on 27 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
OPOF @19
You could be right. Some people are indeed scientifically literate enough to know whats really going on, but deliberatly misrepresent things for ulterior motives. But I have known very bright well educated people who are just weak in science.
Either way the result is the same, and Lombergs mistakes are as you say too numerous to excuse. The Danish Ministry of Science also found his book scientifically dishonest, in a formal hearing, although he was cleared of personal dishonesty. But if thats not still a red flag what is?
Lomberg has demonstrated over and over that he cannot be relied upon to be accurate and objective on matters of climate change, and he also has a strong sceptical position, therefore there will always be a suspicion this colours his economic analysis of the Paris issue.
Moderator Response:[RH] Shortened link.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:24 AM on 27 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
nigelj@16,
In order for Bjorn Lomborg to have made his 2008 claim about sea levels he was almost certain to have been aware of the data history, including data prior to 2006. He would have been looking for the longest duration he could claim for the 'no sea level rise for the past ??? years'.
Therefore, he most likely was well aware that the history includes other periods that would appear to have been the 'end of sea level rise'.
Therefore, he most likely deliberately made-up his misleading claim to achieve an understandably unhelpful/unacceptable objective.
Therefore, he has little reliability/credibility as a source of valid information or Good Reasoning. He has very little reliability as an information source.
All sources can be shown to have 'made some mistakes in the rush to be the first to present new information'. The more reliable sources make fewer and less significant 'mistakes'. But the 2008 claim made up by Bjorn was not a researcher's 'mistake' due to a rush to claim something first. It was wrong in a way that Bjorn Lomborg would have easily been aware of (and part of the blame has to go to all the media that published his claim 'uncorrected for the easy to establish fallacy that it was').
People wanting to believe the claims made by the likes of Lomborg have to be unaware of the lack of reliability of such sources. Their continued 'faith' and 'belief' in things that are contrary to available evidence and the best explanations of what can be observed/discovered is due to a motivation to 'want to continue to believe the unbelievable'.
History is filled with cases of people preferring to believe something contrary to the actual developed better awareness and understanding. And they have often argued for 'what they believe' (maintained understandably incorrect beliefs) for hundreds of years after the virtually conclusive unacceptability of what they prefer to believe has been established.
There truly are some things outside of increased awareness and better understanding, such as spiritual beliefs. But a spiritual believer is also capable of changing their mind based on increased awareness and better understanding. It is interesting to note that many people claiming a spiritual belief as the reason they do not accept an understanding of science also claim that all beliefs should be considered to be valid (an implied equivalence of validity for any belief). But they also insist that their preferred belief is the 'correct one' which is a clear contradiction of their claim that all beliefs are equally valid (and all spritual beliefs/atheism are all to be considered to be equally valid until actual independently verifiable substantial proof shows otherwise). The 'Believers' appear to detest Good Reason and True Expertise because it contradicts their preferred way of thinking - believing rather than understanding - in a way they cannot legitimately rationally argue against).
The best understanding of what is going on eventually wins, but often not before massive damage is done by Undeserving Winners of competitions for popularity and profitability getting away with the support of 'Beliefs that are Ridiculous' as Excuses for actions that are understandably unacceptable.
-
Eclectic at 01:47 AM on 27 August 2017Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
Redrum @97 ,
best if you define the meaning of "such climate optimum".
"Optimum" is a term which is in much danger of being very subjective and bordering on useless for discussion. To look at it more closely would require a careful examination of plant/animal evolution, and of course the present rapid rate of global warming (in relation to biological adaptation of species).
If I were pressed to give a facile comment, I would say that global climate conditions at year 1950 AD might represent somewhere close to (biological) optimum. You will have noted from the OP's article and various commentaries on it (including graphs), that 1950 climate is rather similar to the broad span of the mid-Holocene.
And that the large and continuing rise in temperature since 1950 does push the global climate well above the earlier Holocene warm plateau — and much more of that hotting-up is yet to come [to our detriment]. So unfortunately, the "Optimum" is receding well into the past, and with little likelihood of being regained in the next few thousand years.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:46 AM on 27 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
Correction in my post @14
"They base their claims on showing that, from their perspective, the opportunity that has to be given up by current day people is more than the harm, costs and challenges that are being created for Others."
-
Redrum at 00:02 AM on 27 August 2017Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
Hello,
Does anyone have any idea whether such climate optimum is predicted in future, is it even possible to predict such occurence?
Cheers. -
Kevin C at 18:42 PM on 26 August 2017Harvard scientists took Exxon’s challenge; found it using the tobacco playbook
Tom: In case you haven't found it yet, the supporting data (121 pages) are here:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/12/8/084019/media/ERL_12_8_084019_suppdata.pdf
This also provides links for source documents, which I quote:
All analyzed advertorials can be downloaded at:
https://perma.cc/8XHW-5GZE
All analyzed internal documents can be downloaded at one (or more) of: (ExxonMobil) https://perma.cc/D862-KB2N (InsideClimate News) https://perma.cc/26Q3-FL6F (Other) https://perma.cc/YWD4-UFVNMost analyzed peer-reviewed documents are cited in full by ExxonMobil
https://perma.cc/3QEV-KLFP (3 exceptions)Most analyzed non-peer reviewed documents are cited in full by ExxonMobil https://perma.cc/3QEV-KLFP (15 exceptions)
-
bozzza at 15:38 PM on 26 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41037071
'First tanker crosses northern sea route without ice breaker'
The specially-built ship completed the crossing in just six-and-a-half days setting a new record, according to the tanker's Russian owners.
"The 300-metre-long Sovcomflot ship, the Christophe de Margerie, was carrying gas from Norway to South Korea.
Rising Arctic temperatures are boosting commercial shipping across this route."
Posted by: Hans Gunnstaddar | August 26, 2017 at 06:21 -
nigelj at 13:45 PM on 26 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
What just amazes me and leaves me bewildered is this. Bjorn Lomberg has a degree in political science, with some sort of specialty in statistics. Now I respect his qualifications, but how can someone with a degree in statistics of all things point to a cherry picked period of a couple of years of decline in sea level? He of all people as a statistician should know such short periods mean nothing, are not represenatative, and this is doubly true because the graph posted above on sea level clearly shows similar "blips" all through the 20th century of decline, but within an overall century long increasing trend.
So it proves the old saying you can have a PHd degree in whatever subject, and still be incredibly stupid at times. Perhaps I'm being rather rude and blunt. So terribly sorry about that.
-
Ger at 12:40 PM on 26 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
Swayseeker @2; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5067572/ about passive cooling. All electromagnetic radiation,light included, gets converted to lower wave-length radiation and re-emited (as heat-radiation). Atmosphere is buffering a lot of that heat in the form of latent heat in water vapor, chemical (potential) energy (Ozon, in the upper layers) and in the surface of the Earth. At night a lot of the captured heat goes out again into (cold) space as infra-red, partly reflected back by clouds. { so far, where does that energy go eventually }
Just a bit of the incoming radiation (7 out of the 174 units of energy) is reflected directly back into space during the day. One does increase direct reflection amount, especially in heat islands as city by painting with heat reflecting paint, which tend to be white in (visible) range. Painting asphalt roads grey would keep the temperature of the surface low, reduces the costs of maintenance, wear on car tyres in the long run. If that is worrth a $40,000 a mile, I don't know.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 11:39 AM on 26 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
NorrisM,
To clarify my points regarding the unhelpfulness of the likes of Bjorn Lomborg and Lord Monckton regarding the appropriate awareness and understanding of the changes of human activity that climate science has identified as being required to improve the future for all of humanity, it is important to understand that 'anything that does not improve the future for all of humanity is unhelpful'.
Another way of saying that is 'only activities that have a net-zero or net-positive impact on Others are acceptable'. That is the fundamantal ethic behind sustainable rule of law. Any law and application of law that does not meet that measure ultimately deserves to be rewritten or revoked (like revised definitions of what Environmental Protection must include). And it is a rational consideration from the perspective the person affected, not the person making the impact, that determines if there is a net-negative impact.
The burning of fossil fuels, therefore, only becomes acceptable if there is no net-negative impact on any Others, with future generations being considered to be Others.
The likes of Lomborg and Monckton (and Trump) appeal to the selfish interests among the current generation. They try to claim that it is OK for some among the current generation to benefit from an activity that is understandably creating net-negative impacts for Others. They base their claims on showing that, from their perspective, the opportunity that has to be given up by current day people is less than the harm, costs and challenges that are being created for Others. And they attempt to justify more future harm by applying what is called a net-present-value assessment (or discounting of future costs) that reduces the value of future costs the further into the future they are. And they do not acknoweldge the 'Others' aspect. They instead claim that the harm done is acceptable as long as it is less than the opportunity to benefit that they evaluate would have to be given up by current day people since the result is a net-neutral or net-positive from their perspoective. That type of evaluation can easily be seen to be ridiculous, yet it continues to be used and be popular.
It is undeniable that much of the developed economic activity of the supposedly (perceived and claimed to be) most advanced nations and corporations was developed in the wrong direction (unsustainable activity). Those who continued with that incorrect direction of development since 1990 (and even earlier, potentially as early as 1972 when the Stockholm Conference identified the required changes of direction), have only themselves to blame for the current developed fact that making the required changes as rapidly as they need to be made is 'to their significant disadvantage'.
-
Ken in Oz at 10:19 AM on 26 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
"- climate change costs will hit Trump Country hardest." - all the more reason for the people there to really, really want it not to be true. Electing people who will tell them it isn't true must provide a lot of reassurance.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:45 AM on 26 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
NorrisM,
I would suggest that SkS is about increased awareness and better understanding of all matters related to climate science, which would include understanding the basis of claims made regarding actions required because of the constant improvement of understanding of climate science.
From my perspective climate science has raised awareness and better understanding of the fatally flawed belief that 'everyone freer to believe what they want and do as they please will develop Good results'. The evidence is overwhelming that misleading marketing and the flawed perceptions of prosperity, popularity and profitability it an create and prop-up are a major hurdle to be overcome by climate scientists as they try to ensure the success of their efforts to improve awareness and understanding.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:32 AM on 26 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
I have read Lomborg's "Cool It".
Basically the assessment is seriously flawed for many reaosns, not least of which is the fatally flawed belief that it is OK for a group of people to pursue personal benefit in ways that are understood to create harm, costs, and challenges for Other People.
The arguments against acting to reduce climate change impacts are basically comparisons of:
- the current day lost opportunities to benefit from the understood to be damaging activities athta are also understood to not be able to be continued to be a benefit in the future (because burning up non-renewable buried ancient hydrocarbon is a dead-end activity with escallating costs to continue).
- with the perceived costs imposed on Other People in the future.
The bigest falacy is the belief that perceptions of wealth and value today will magically continue and increase in value in the future. That belief only works if the created value is sustainable activity with increased value being improved sustainable activity.
The like sof Lonborg can only argue that their last opportunity costs are greater than the costs they create for others. The simple rebuttal is that costs to others must be minimized to the point of being eliminated if humanity is to have a chance of advancing to a better future.
-
michael sweet at 09:29 AM on 26 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
Norris M
This cartoon ilustrates the quality of Lomborg's arguments:
Lomborg's job is to write juk about environmental issues. He publishes books because then he does not have to pass peer review.
Prev 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 Next
