Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 Next
Comments 18201 to 18250:
-
Wol at 07:16 AM on 4 September 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35
My Kaspersky antivirus says that this site's certificate is invalid - either out of date or too early.
Moderator Response:[PS] Our technical team will have a look, but I note that digicert is giving the site a clean bill.
-
nigelj at 07:15 AM on 4 September 2017The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
The red blue team suggested balance of 3 warmists and 3 sceptics does not represent true opinion in the scientific community, so the red blue team debate is fundamentally dishonest. M Sweet is right.
It's nothing more than the equivalent of a school debating competition, where some ridiculous subject is debated with two equal size groups. This is entertainment not serious science.
-
Bob Loblaw at 04:15 AM on 4 September 2017The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
NorrisM: "Steve Koonin is not a crank. "
When it comes to understanding climate, yes, he is a crank. Doing one thing well does not mean you are qualified to do everything well. Acting as if you know everything well because you know one thing well is a quick path to crankhood.
-
sailingfree at 03:45 AM on 4 September 2017Polar bear numbers are increasing
I don't have the expertise to comment on it, but a non-peer reviewed paper claims the population is increaseing: https://peerj.com/preprints/2737/
Of course we know that there is less sea ice, but maybe the biologists don't understand something.
Moderator Response:[JH] Sloganeering snipped.
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 This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.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.
-
NorrisM at 03:31 AM on 4 September 2017The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
Moderator:
"But without credible evidence for your position, you will be immediately dismissed as a crank."
Steve Koonin is not a crank.
There are many intelligent people who are highly qualified in their areas of scientific expertise who have asked questions about how much we can rely on the existing models to take action.
I have finished reading the Summary for Policymakers relating to the IPCC Special Report, and I would think that a better approach is to say that although we have a significant degree of uncertainty arising out of the models, the cost of moving to an RE future of wind and solar power will not represent more than 1% of the world's GDP on an annual basis (at least for electrical power generation). I plan to read the actual report over the next while but this "cost" will not sink the world.
-
Daniel Bailey at 23:15 PM on 3 September 2017We're heading into an ice age
Shorter Daniel:
Because we know science, and understand physics, we know that human activities are the cause of the current warming, and the warming will continue, for decades-to-centuries after the cessation of the burning of fossil fuels.
-
Daniel Bailey at 23:14 PM on 3 September 2017We're heading into an ice age
No guesswork needed. The Earth's climate doesn't change significantly without a change in factors capable of forcing it to change. When climate is in balance, seasons come and go at their usual times and polar ice cover stays within range of natural variations. As do ocean pH and global temps. If global temps and ocean pH are changing, which we can measure and verify that they are, then there must be a change in the composition of those gross factors which can affect climate.
The gross factors affecting climate are: Milankovitch cycles (orbital factors), solar output, volcanoes (typically a negative forcing), aerosols, surface albedo and non-condensable greenhouse gases (water vapor plays the role of feedback). Orbital forcing has been negative for the past 5,000 years (since the end of the Holocene Climate Optimum), solar output during the past 40+ years has been flat/negative, volcanoes exert a short-term (up to several years) negative forcing (but none of note since Pinatubo), aerosols (natural and manmade) are a net negative forcing over that time period. Albedo is a net positive forcing due to the ongoing loss of Arctic sea ice; cloud albedo effects are thought to be in general a net zero forcing.
Which leaves the non-condensable greenhouse gases, primary of which are carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). Atmospheric levels of both are rising, and have been for literally centuries now, so they are a net warming. While the concentration of CH4 is rising, and it is a potent GHG, the warming from it is overall less than that of CO2 due to the much more massive injection of previously-sequestered, fossil-fuel-derived bolus of CO2 humans are re-introducing back into the carbon cycle.
Still no guesswork neded. Scientists have researched that very subject. What they've found is that the next ice age has been postponed indefinitely.
Per Tzedakis et al 2012,
"glacial inception would require CO2 concentrations below preindustrial levels of 280 ppmv"
For reference, we are at about 400 right now and climbing, so we can be relatively sure the next glacial epoch won't be happening in our lifetimes.
But what about further down the road? What happens then? Per Dr Toby Tyrrell (Tyrrell 2007) of the University of Southampton's School of Ocean and Earth Science at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton:
"Our research shows why atmospheric CO2 will not return to pre-industrial levels after we stop burning fossil fuels. It shows that it if we use up all known fossil fuels it doesn't matter at what rate we burn them.
The result would be the same if we burned them at present rates or at more moderate rates; we would still get the same eventual ice-age-prevention result."
and
"Burning all recoverable fossil fuels could lead to avoidance of the next five ice ages."
So no ice ages and no Arctic sea ice recovery the next million years...
Also covered by Stoat, hereThis Nature article offers an interesting summary
-
serper at 22:34 PM on 3 September 2017The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
The enemies of climate change are extremely skilled in the dark art of lying/deception. Consider that in the election fight of John Kerry against George Bush, the dark side somehow convinced the majority of the public that Kerry (who served in Vietnam) was a coward, while Bush (who during Vietnam served in the Texas Air National Guard) was the patriot hero.
And in the last election, it was painful to listen to people calling Hillary Clinton a liar, and the king of lies was believed to "tell it like it is".
If we engage in red/blue televised debate, the anti-climate side will select a more telegenic, better-looking, smoother-talking debater, or perhaps a more scientific-looking and sounding Einstein imitator - whatever the focus groups determine will be more effective. We do not stand a chance against them in this type of arena.
-
michael sweet at 22:04 PM on 3 September 2017The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
I think that the Academy of Science should become involved with Pruitt to design the Red-Blue team exercise. They should insist on a set-up like John Oliver's with 97 blue team scientists and 3 red team scientists. If Pruitt does not agree the NAS should make a loud public complaint to draw attention to the unfair make up of the teams.
A public debate of how the teams should be made would allow scientists to emphasize the 97-3 split in expert opinion.
Why allow the deniers the opportunity to make the rules of the debate. Scientists should be the ones making up the red-blue team rules since it is supposed to be a scientific debate.
-
MA Rodger at 21:23 PM on 3 September 2017Greenhouse Effect Basics: Warm Earth, Cold Atmosphere
RSaar @122,
Your description of the Greenhouse Effect rather exaggerates the role of convection. You will note the SkS OP above explaining the Greenhouse Effect makes no mention of convection whatever. Note also that the standard graphic representing energy flux through the atmosphere shows convective "Thermals" as being the smallest quantity under consideration.
The idea that atmospheric gas significantly cools the planet by circulating from the warm surface up to the upper troposphere where it sheds its heat to space is thus wrong. The atmosphere has very little vertical movement. To appreciate this, consider the big circulations which would provide this convection.
The Hadley Cells are but 15km high but stretch for 3,000km North-South. The horizontal flow we experience as wind would have to be massive, supersonic, to provide the gas in any quantity ready-warmed for its upward journey. Instead, winds are not so rapid and the average flow upwards through the troposphere is very gentle taking an average of about 2 weeks from bottom to top. (I am ignoring hurricanes in saying this. Tropical cyclones do provide a mechanism for rapid convective flow and do constitute a significant part of those "Thermals" 17W/m2.)
The absence of large convection cooling is because the atmosphere is pretty-much in balance. It is indeed cooler at altitiude but if a packet of air rises it expands with the reducing pressure and thus will cool and be no warmer than the gas it replaces. (Note this means your (c) is not correct. There is no conduction effect. The cooling results from the drop in pressure with height.)
I'm not sure where this leaves your question.
-
BaerbelW at 20:55 PM on 3 September 2017The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
NorrisM @27
Please watch Gavin Schmidt's TED-talk "The emergent patterns of climate change" before questioning models again. You'll only need to invest 12 minutes of your time but it should be time well spent.
The talk includes two memorable and - for me - quite thought-provoking quotes:
From Tom Knutson & Robert Tuleya:
"If we had observations of the future, we obviously would trust them more than models, but unfortunately observations of the future are not available at this time."
From Sherwood Rowland:
"What's the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we're willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?"
And an ArsTechnica article from Scott K. Johnson explaining models:
Why trust climate models? It's a matter of simple science
I maintain that whoever watches the video and reads the article and still doesn't understand models .... just doesn't want to understand them and how they work. I sure hope that you are not one of "those people"!
-
Paul D at 20:32 PM on 3 September 2017The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
NorrisM @ 27 - "Another issue is how sensitive the climate is to the massive increases in CO2, namely, how much in "positive feedbacks" are created by water vapour, etc.. I would like to hear from both sides on this issue."
That sentence just about sums up why your comment can largely be ignored. It shows you don't understand the mechanisms or the scientists that investigate them.
You need to consider the states of matter on this planet and the energies involved. It's very simple science. The fact that you appear to over complicate the issue reveals a lot about yourself.
-
Eclectic at 18:25 PM on 3 September 2017The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
Bravo, NorrisM !
16 at one blow — yes, by my count, your post #27 has delivered a gish-gallop of approximately sixteen points. All of which have been rebutted years ago.
Question: Is a gish-gallop actually a form of "blather" or is it simply a gish-gallop? [in the way that Freud's cigar is sometimes just a cigar]
Please lift your game, NorrisM. For the amount of effort you put into your posts, you ought to be able to achieve a much higher quality output.
Your first few posts at SkS were transparently bogus. But you obviously put a lot of work into concocting them, and they did provide entertainment of a sort plus some stimulation to readers (to make brief review of their own ideas). However, your persuasiveness was zero, because you generally pursued things in a nonsensical way and to a nonsensical conclusion. (Yes, and I realise that your basic desire was not persuasiveness.)
If I may advise you: Please try using some subtlety and finesse. You should aim to achieve posts which are entertaining and clever, rather than ridiculous and repetitious [something which the moderators view as tiresome].
Justify your presence, NorrisM. Excellence, or nothing !
-
NorrisM at 16:47 PM on 3 September 2017The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
JW Rebel @ 19
I do not want to make a big deal of this but there is an underlying assumption you make. You assume that because one group may citicize the explanation of some theory that it is not acceptable to criticize that theory without coming up with an alternative theory. You are 100% wrong in that assumption.
It is perfectly acceptable to criticize a theory without coming up with an alternative. One may question the existence of God (for lack of evidence) without coming up with an alternative explanation of why we are here.
In the area of climate change, it is perfectly acceptable to criticize the existing theories without coming up with an alternative explanation. In science, it perfectly acceptable to simply say, this theory is wrong but we just do not know what the answer is. You do not have to come up with a viable alternative.
At this point in my personal deliberations, I am convinced that man has caused the temperature to increase because of CO2 emissions but I am not convinced that the models can accurately predict what the effects will be over the next 70 years or beyond. What troubles me is that these computer models have to make massive assumptions about the impact of clouds because they simply do not have the computer power to properly build them into the models. I think the term they use is "parameterizations". Another issue is how sensitive the climate is to the massive increases in CO2, namely, how much in "positive feedbacks" are created by water vapour, etc.. I would like to hear from both sides on this issue. I would also like to hear from both sides how successful the models have been in predicting temperatures since the models have been developed. I read Michael Mann's support for the James Hansen predictions in an recent article in Foreign Affairs but it seems to me that he "cherry picked" his predictions. Many of Hansen's predictions as to temperature increased in the last 20 yeas were quite far off which were not referenced.
I would also like to hear whether the experts agree on whether there really was a Medieval Warming Period and a Little Ice Age. According to Michael Mann there was no such thing in the promotion of this "hockey stick" which was to show that the temperature increase today is unprecedented in the last 2000 years. A recent Chinese study has shown that certainly in China there have been periods of warming corresponding to the MWP and periods of cooling corresponding to the Little Ice Age. This corresponds to the information we have both about Greenland and Europe.
I am not saying that proving there was a MWP or a Little Ice Age means that we do not have a problem today but I would just like to get the facts and I am not convinced Michael Mann et al have delivered same. I have to admit that Climategate seriously impacted my trust of Michael Mann and Phil Jones. I do not care that their respective universities "cleared" them of any wrongdoing. You have to have massive blinders on you not to read these emails and wince. Are they scientists or are they going beyond the science to promote what they think is the "right thing to do"?
Returning to your main point, it may very well be that there are so many factors involved that it is impossible to predict what the climate will do in 30, 70 or more years. And it may be impossible to predict what portion of today's temperature increase is attributable to anthropogenic influences. This does not end the argument. We clearly have polar ice caps and glaciers melting. Oceans are rising (although they have been for 150 years).
So it behooves us to consider what we should do.
I just had to comment on your premise that the "other side" has to come up with a viable explanation otherwise you just accept the present premise and predictions of future temperature increases and the concomitant effects.
So I am hoping that a red team blue team can deal with some of these issues. I do not have any preconceived views on what would be achieved but I would enjoy seeing each side go at each other.
For those who say that it is too complicated, I say "fooey". If you cannot hit the main points and come to a conclusion then we should not be going down the road of massive changes to our society because it is undemocratic. If you cannot distil these issues for the public and you therefore have to rely on arguments of "trust me" or "trust the IPCC" then I do not think you have a chance at all of convincing the majority of the US public to go along with the massive changes proposed. Gradually switching to RE, yes, but not massive changes which impact their economic well being. It is like asking the Oracle of Delphi to tell the ruler whether he should go to battle. I think we have got beyond that stage.
Moderator Response:[DB] "In science, it perfectly acceptable to simply say, this theory is wrong but we just do not know what the answer is. You do not have to come up with a viable alternative."
Certainly, in science you are allowed to take a contrary position to a scientific theory. But without credible evidence for your position, you will be immediately dismissed as a crank.
It would behoove you to better acquaint yourself with the scientific definition of a theory (as some use terms without knowing what they mean):
A good explanation of the scientific method
Multiple off-topic snipped.
-
RSaar at 16:05 PM on 3 September 2017Greenhouse Effect Basics: Warm Earth, Cold Atmosphere
Hello. I have a question from denialist that i can not answer (with my little brain).
It is about CO2/H2O absorbing/reflecting/reemitting infrared.
Earth reflects back infrared, it hits CO2/H20 (if there is cloud cover, it likely will happen in cloud cover but it could be lower/higher too). This warms up, warm air moves up by conevction and releases its energy (at least some of it would be done via infrared). Howevers the infrared now has less resistance when it gets emitted towards space. So the greenhouse gas layer (more dense, more humid) at lower levels will act now as a shield.Am i on right track:
a) Before the convection makes warm air to release its energy high up, the energy in this 'warm air bubble' has already made surface/low atmosphere temperature to rise.b) There is difference in infrared spectrum at lower atmosphere (where we should see smaller C02/H20 impact) and what it is when measured from space ("bigger" footprint in where CO2,H20 absorb it) - Doesnt this show that the heat at CO2/H20 frequencys gets trapped for more time (and hence warms all else up) in the atmosphere?
c) As molecules that get heated via infrared rise up, they loose some of the energy on the way via conduction and now if they happen to emit infrared, it is on a different frequency (so more potential for this infrared to heat up earth surface than get reflected by cloud cover or CO2 molecules)
-
rlac at 16:02 PM on 3 September 2017We're heading into an ice age
Stepping back a bit ... perhaps guessing the precise combinations required to affect the planet's next temperature change is more philosophical than intrically scientific. Have a look at the graph again. Could we all agree that the temperature has fluctuated over time and more or less the colder than we are now parts of the graph take up about 90% of the graph? On the very first graph the times between the hotspot peaks is about 90,000 years, 82,000 years, 108,000 years and until now, 130,000 years. This time the top of the peak has been sawed of and it has lasted somewhat longer than the others ... and 130,000 years is significantly longer than the other integers so no matter what the reasons, I'd say that it's way more likely to get colder than warmer relative to the cycles indicated on the graph.
The sawed off peak is not as high as the last three so there appears that the cycle could get warmer yet ... humans in or humans out of the equation. It could even be interpreted that humans have been somehow been keeping the temperature down. Overall, we should be learning how to survive underground, to create food with much less heat ... there is no way that it won't be getting colder soon ... geologically speaking.
One last thing: why are humans so arrogant as to believe that they have any control of this process?
Moderator Response:[JH] Sloganeering snipped.
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.
-
Rakali N at 15:19 PM on 3 September 2017The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
Looking through what everyone is saying there seems to be general agreement here that this is a wholly bad idea being used to further extend a pointless debate. While I don't doubt that is the case it seems there is a bit of a lack of information at the moment as to what the actual plan is. In the vacuum, there is speculation as to what form it will take.
Getting back to the idea of a red teaming though I think it is something that deserves consideration. The idea of Red Teaming is not entirely new. Famously the Vatican has had the office of the Promoter of the Faith or the Devil’s advocate to challenge those going for sainthood. More recently red teaming has been used extensively by militaries from section level all the way through to commanders to review and improve plans. More recently it has started appearing in more corporate areas. I bring this up to show that it is used in a variety of fields to improve outcomes.
In Science, as has been noted, this role is largely filled through the process of research, critique and publication. However, around Climate one of the biggest issues is the implementation of knowledge in the development of policy. Particularly now as both sides seem driven to further extremes. Given this maybe Red teaming has a role to play in developing policy that all sides of politics can support. I realise that this does not appear to be the context that is being proposed here but it may be worthwhile. -
NorrisM at 09:04 AM on 3 September 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
MA Rodger @ 73
For some reason I can now access the Weisbach paper. I will read it before I respond.
-
nigelj at 07:48 AM on 3 September 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34
Tom @28
"An additional note, which has received scant comment in this article is that fluctuations in weather have had a far larger impact on annual fluctuations in crop yields that any other single factor and will likely continue to be the largest single factor by a wide margin (absent a return to another mini ice age similar to the 1500-1800's)."
Yes clearly weather fluctuations affect annual crop yields. But these are short term one year cycle issues. Gradually increasing temperatures can potentially reduce crop yields longer term regardless of yearly weather, more droughts will have an effect, and changes in weather could have an effect. In other words annual cycles is not actually the point.
Why do you think only an ice age would effect crop yields? Higher temperatures could equally have an effect. So could more intense droughts.
Obviously its complex so for example more rain could be good for some crops and not others or may lead to changing land use. But there's plenty of research on all these things that suggests the net effects of climate change globally are not good for food production on the whole, particularly after 2050. The guardian article below makes the point I was making, that one study has already found past crop yeilds for maize would have improved more if not for climate change we are already experiencing.
www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/19/climate-change-affect-food-production
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2613695/
Theres too much debate these days, and not enough open honest discussion. Call me old fashioned if you want.
-
DrivingBy at 07:22 AM on 3 September 2017The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
The color team setup sounds like reality TV. Real science is highly detailed, exhausting and dead boring to 98% of the population. Even when it will eventually reach a conclusion they like, that 98% despises the actual process of science.
-
nigelj at 07:12 AM on 3 September 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34
Tom @29 and 30
"A) that the general trend for crop yields is positive - see the citation below,"
Yes you have said that about 5 times now, and nobody has disputed that the 50 year trend is positive, and I have accepted it, so with respect its becoming very tedious reading what you write
As I pointed out its also possible they were referring to a short five year trend or the like but you have ignored this possibility. If it all bothers you do much, I suggest contact the writers of the study and stop speculating.
"B) the sentence is written in a manner that implies the the current trend is negative and will get worse when the trend is positive (adjusted for weather)"
That is you opinion, and you are entiled to it. You can stay fixated on it forever getting nowehere if you insist. You have not in any way demonstrated they were misleading.
And please note that the quote in study from John Hartz above acknowledged that they saw furture crop improvements as desirable, this tends to suggest there is no great conspiracy to downplay crop yields in the past. I think that might have been his point but you missed it.
"The agenda I was refering to was why the authors so heavily discounted the long term trend in order to reach the conclusions they reached."
To call this an agenda is simply your opinion. Why is it an agenda to do science and reach a conclusion? You have provided no detailed proof, evidence, or research source material relating to their methods and conclusions, just empty assertions, accusations and slogans.
Moderator Response:[JH] It is quite possible that the orginal version of the article posted in the OP was written in French since it summarizes a meeting in Viet Nam of the Agriculture Ministers of APEC, The sentence that gives Tom 13 heartburn may just be a mistranslation.
-
Tom13 at 06:43 AM on 3 September 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34
[JH] Your words...
Then why did the authors of the article write the sentence with the implication that the current trend was negative - were they trying to be accurate or were they pushing an agenda. By now, I think you know the answer -
You, not I, raised the "agenda" issue.
JH - two separate and unrelated topics - The agenda of increasing agriculture efficiency is a worthwhile goal and as my previous comments noted, the study discounted the long term trend in improvements in technology, farming techniques that are improving crop yields.
The agenda I was refering to was A) why the authors wrote the previously cited misleading sentence and B) why the authors so heavily discounted the long term trend in order to reach the conclusions they reached.
Moderator Response:[JH] Which "study" are you referring to?
-
Tom13 at 03:10 AM on 3 September 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34
[JH] The seventh paragraph of the OP reads as follows:
Much can be done to increase the efficiency of agriculture and land-use activities in Asia, according to Mr. Kadiresan.
Why do you object this agenda?
I havent objected to that agenda - which raises the question as to why changed the subject instead of directly addressing the point[s] that I actually raised.
A) that the general trend for crop yields is positive - see the citation below,
B) the sentence is written in a manner that implies the the current trend is negative and will get worse when the trend is positive (adjusted for weather)
An additional note, which has received scant comment in this article is that fluctuations in weather have had a far larger impact on annual fluctuations in crop yields that any other single factor and will likely continue to be the largest single factor by a wide margin (absent a return to another mini ice age similar to the 1500-1800's).
www.pecad.fas.usda.gov/highlights/2015/06/Southeast_Asia/Index.htm
Moderator Response:[JH] Your words...
Then why did the authors of the article write the sentence with the implication that the current trend was negative - were they trying to be accurate or were they pushing an agenda. By now, I think you know the answer -
You, not I, raised the "agenda" issue.
-
John Hartz at 00:35 AM on 3 September 2017The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
Recommended supplemental reading:
EPA chief Pruitt borrows from an old but effective denialist playbook by John Cook, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Aug 18, 2017
-
JohnSeers at 22:15 PM on 2 September 2017CO2 effect is saturated
@Barcino2017
Are you trolling? Or can you genuinely not come up with an idea of how molecules of CO2 can heat up other molecules in the atmosphere? This idea around 2500 molecules seems to be quite common in denier circles and reminds me of a "discussion" I had with someone who was pushing this idea:
Denier: There are 2500 molecules for each molecule of CO2. For an increase of 1C the CO2 molecule would have to be heated to 2500C.
Me: Why would the CO2 molecule have to be heated to 2500C?
Denier: Because er, 2500, you dishonest green rent grant seeker.
Me: What? Why?
Denier: Your smears and lack of empirical data and science are obvious. You are a dishonest liar. I win!!!!!!!!!!?
Now, you don't want to be that person, do you? Your idea is slightly less extreme than his as you do not propose a CO2 molecule has to be heated all in one flash and heat 2500 other molecules at the same time. But you are suggesting a CO2 molecule cannot heat more than one molecule. Ever. Like, once it has heated another molecule it can never do it again? A one-off never to be repeated event?
Perhaps you need to rethink that misconception.
-
MA Rodger at 22:13 PM on 2 September 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
NorrisM @71.
I am not sure why you are having a problem with accessing Weißbach et al (2013). It is but a pdf file and the link @53 is functional. And I am not sure why you task me with finding a "a better source for accessing this report," or indeed, why you would think that there is another source available.
As for the rest of it, the publication of Weißbach et al (2013) does create "some scientists who have (I assume) published a peer-reviewed paper who do not believe that wind and solar power are viable alternatives for high energy consuming societies like Germany and the US" but if you note the journal's webpage for that peer-reviewed paper, you will note the thesis set out by that paper is controversial and contested, indeed rebutted. I will however avoid entangling this comment in that rebuttal by burrowing into that rebuttal.
The point of your interest with Weißbach et al (2013) is in its finding that "an EROI threshold can be roughly estimated by the ratio of the GDP to the unweighted final energy consumption" which is then calculated very very roughly for USA (& also seperately for Germany) for 2011 as $0.7(GDP)/kWh with electricity costing $0.10/kWh yielding a supposed EROI "threshold" of 7 (for both US & Germany) "assuming OECD-like energy consuming technology" and styling this as "the economic limit." This prompts Michael Shellenberger to state in your reference "The researchers also concluded that for high-energy societies, such as Germany and the United States, energy sources with EROEIs of less than seven are not economically viable." I find this in so many ways extremely silly. Do I need to explain why?
-
Paul D at 19:43 PM on 2 September 2017The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
This appears to be about American science rather than Climate Science.
Climate Science is a global effort. So one would assume any teams would include Russians, Chinese, Europeans, Asians etc.
But the real problem is that the idea is the old false balance issue, this has plagued the BBC for some time due to UK government diktats regarding balance.
-
FrankShann at 11:16 AM on 2 September 2017New research, August 21-27, 2017
Very useful indeed , thank you Ari.
-
michael sweet at 10:52 AM on 2 September 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
NorrisM,
In my post at 5 7above I said:
"Just for starters, the data for solar panels comes from an article written in 2006 (updated in 2007) while the wind power data comes from a masters thesis published in 2004 and a paper from 1998. These papers are also used in the article I linked above. I don't know about where you live, but in the USA there have been significant developments in wind and solar since 1998 and 2006. These data are updated yearly. I do not know why the authors decided to use ancient data, but for me that disqualifies your reference. It seems to me that the authors are trying to justify a conclusion, not reach a true answer. Other readers can make their own judgements. The article I link calculates an EROEI of above 10 for roof top solar in Switzerland. Somewhere with better sun (say New Mexico) would have an EROEI of at least 20 for utility farms."
I accessed the paper using MA Rodgers link. The german scientists concluded that in 1998 wind had a EROEI of about 3 and in 2005 solar had a EROEI of about 3. Who cares what the EROEI was 10-20 years ago? Current data is readily available to determine current EROEI values The link I provided estimates in 2015 rooftop units in Switzerland have an EROEI above 10. In sunnier locations, or utility scale, the EROEI would be much higher.
I do not have time to play these games with you. I notice that you are very well informed about what is posted on denier sites about remewable energy.
You have not read either the posts I have made or the references I have given for you that show that renewable energy is much cheaper than fossil fuel for the future.
It seems to me that you are a concern troll and I try to avoid dealing with people like that. I note that several other posters have had concerns about your postings.
DNFTT. I will no longer post responses to you.
-
nigelj at 10:27 AM on 2 September 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34
Red Baron @26
Yes absolutely agree. Increasing yields are one thing but the whole agricultural system is under strain in various ways. Climate change adds to these problems.
However I was just making the point increasing yields are certainly likely to some extent, but will struggle against various climate impacts and may not be as large as assumed. The following article discusses this and has a ton of sources of research. It also discusses some of the dangerous trends in modern agriculture, but by no means all.
-
NorrisM at 09:24 AM on 2 September 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
MA Rodger @ 53
I was not able to access the German scientists report referenced in Shellenberg's article in Foreign Affairs from the url you provided. Assuming that he accurately summarized the report it contains this conclusion:
"The researchers also concluded that for high-energy societies, such as Germany and the United States, energy sources with EROEIs of less than seven are not economically viable."
If you could provide a better source for accessing this report it would be greatly appreciated. There are obviously some scientists who have (I assume) published a peer-reviewed paper who do not believe that wind and solar power are viable alternatives for high energy consuming societies like Germany and the US.
Don't shoot the messenger. I would just like to understand why they have come to this conclusion and why they are mistaken.
-
NorrisM at 09:08 AM on 2 September 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
scaddenp @ 59
Thanks for the reference to the IPCC WG3 2014 report. Unlike a number of the url references, it worked. I have printed off the Summary and will take it home to read this weekend. A quick look at the graph on page 10 confirms my reference to .4% as the contribution of wind and solar power. As of 2008, the IPCC shows Wind Energy - .2% and Solar Energy - .1%. So my reference to .4% may reflect a more recent estimate I pulled from Wikipedia. If Shellenberg's figure is 1.8% then it obviously has increased from 2008. I do not know where he obtained that figure. It still is a massive endeavour to move from .4% or 1.8% to anything like even 50%.
-
RickG at 08:16 AM on 2 September 2017The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
If I may, I would like to suggest a different approach to the problem, which Skeptical Science does very well. The denial side is very agressive in making false claims about scientists and climate organizations being dishonest and altering data; yet, it is they (the deniers) who are the ones distorting the science through their own altered/misrepresented data and graphs. I think that is the thing that needs to be emphasized most, and presented to the media, public, and especially the politicians.
-
RedBaron at 08:08 AM on 2 September 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34
Nigelj,
Tom13 made an assumption based on a false premise not in evidence. The projections are based on good data and the models are skillful. Tom has made the mistake of reductionism on a holistic system by only looking at the net yields trends but ignoring many other dangerous trends.
-
nigelj at 07:29 AM on 2 September 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34
Tom13 @24
Perhaps they just made a mistake or picked the wrong words. People do actually do that sometimes you know.The researchers would definitely have been aware of past trends with crops, its common knowledge we learn at school that crop productivity has generally increased.
Or perhaps their statement on current trends was meant as just the last five years, where some crops have had slightly negative trends.
You are making an issue out of nothing, or one little statement, while ignoring the detail in the rest research. You haven't proven the study wrong, because it doesn't rely on this opening summary statement.
-
nigelj at 07:03 AM on 2 September 2017The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
The whole red blue idea is a game to delay things, and shopping expedition to try to find a conclusion the climate denialists and sceptics want. They wont accept a result that doesn't go their way, they will just keep on looking for another debate or forum of some sort.
Its like a court case going from one local court to a high court on and on to an appeals court, and this makes a mockery of science. Its not how science is done.
Let Donald Trump swear an oath he will accept the result and I might start to listen. Of course he never would and I doubt one single Republican voter would.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:56 AM on 2 September 2017The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
JWRebel@19,
Giving Them '10 more years before They are required to take corrective actions' plays into the game that the denier/delayers want to play.
In 10 more years the perceived harm/unfairness to the 'Their even more overdeveloped in the wrong direction' parts of America will make Them fight even harder against the larger more rapid corrections They would be required to make. And less corrective action before then, because They actually increased the rate of how harmful They were, would lock-in even larger negative future consequences to be faced by all of Us.
Us people pursuing increased awareness and better understanding of what is going on to make Good Reasoned decisions about actions to advance humanity to a sustainable better future for everyone have to be the Winners. And that means not playing the games They want to play. It means pointing out how ridiculous (and dangerous) it is to play games the way They (the easily tempted to be greedier or less tolerant uniting to vote for each others unacceptable beliefs/desires)" want to get away with playing.
-
JWRebel at 04:55 AM on 2 September 2017The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
Instead of the redTeam doing some nitpicking, we could have them submit their own comprehensive climate resconstructions, temperature reconstructions, and theories to explain climate (models of current climate, models of climate in recorded history, models of longer term proxies, and models encompassing paleontological data, models of climate sensitivity, etc). Oh, wait, that would take at least ten years! After they submit their proposals, the blue team of real experts could nit pick away, see if there's anything left to publish, if there any are left: Chances are that somewhere in those ten years they will be converted, like Richard Mueller.
-
NorrisM at 04:47 AM on 2 September 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
nigelj @ 68
I completely agree with your comments. This divide that has opened up between Republicans and Democrats (and the violence we saw in Charlottesville) has the markings of a future civil war. Maybe that is pushing it but this discussion has found itself into articles in the journal Foreign Affairs.
What is also troubling is the graph in the Pew Reseach paper showing the relative faith of Americans in their military (79%) compared to their elected officials (27%). A full 73% of Americans do not trust their politicians. My understanding from other sources is that one out of 6 Americans would prefer to have the military run their country (in the 90's it was 1 out of 16). Pretty scary.
In this environment, it is hard to see how anything can get done on steps to address climate change because whatever one party proposes will be opposed by the other.
But without the US onside, I cannot believe that China and the EU would march along knowing that the US is not contributing. Trying to get the US and other nations to increase their R&D to .05% of their GDP seems a lot more doable than massive infrastructure changes involved with a switch to solar and wind power. Meanwhile the more progressive states like California etc will press on with their programs which may show the way.
I still have a lot of reading to do on the cost references so I will stop "blathering" along (as one commentator has referenced it).
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:51 AM on 2 September 2017The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
This is clearly an attempt at misleading marketing by a group that only knows how to Win through misleading marketing (a group that knows that in a comeptition of Good Reason all they have to offer are 'Poor Excuses for understandably unjustified beliefs and actions they hope to get away with that are potentially very popular with a significant portion of the population - just enough voters in just the Right locations to achieve unjustified Overall Wins').
The following may be a way to pro-actively criticise the attempt at misleading marketing while offering a Good Reasoned alternative that the misleading marketers would struggle to legitimately criticize:
- The National Science Foundation with support from other scientists involved in the IPCC process (Team NSF/IPCC) should demand that instead of Team Trump/Pruitt (Team Whatever/Whoever) get their desired Red/Blue marketing ploy, they be required to formally present a specific position regarding a climate science issue with their basis/justification properly referenced (a submission for peer review, or a desired debate point presented for review/rebuttal).
- Team NSF/IPCC would then produce a "reply/rebuttal" (present Good Reasoned evaluations/corrections).
- Team Whatever gets one more try to improve/justify their initial presentation.
- Team NSF/IPCC gets the last say on Team Whatever's last effort.
Only after the back and forth is completed does the entire correspondence get presented - in full. Any media attempting to present edits or make their own summary statement would be fined for unnecessary mis-presentation, attempted misleading marketing. There would be no Good Reason for anyone to do anything other than deliver the full back-and-forth.
The Show of a live debate would not result in a proper/complete evaluation of the issue. It may not even include presentation/correction regarding reference data. It would be A Show to Create Impressions, not an exercise meant to properly increase awareness and better understanding. The Show would prey on the popularity of the belief that everyone should be freer to believe whatever they want and do as they please. And that "Freedom of Belief/Action without Good Reason" has a history of producing popular poor excuses for understandably unacceptable beliefs/actions.
-
NorrisM at 03:10 AM on 2 September 2017The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
MA Rodger @13
I am sure there are any number of other persons who have the academic qualifications to be the chair of any such process. I think the person should be outside the field of climate science but highly respected in his or her area of expertise. I have to think that the person should be a highly reputable physicist in that this seems to be the principal area of science involved when it comes to dealing with predicting the future effects of CO2 emissions.
In the absence of actively cooperating with a Red Team/Blue Team what do you suggest as an approach during the Trump years when, on an average, only 28% of American adults believe that climate scientists understand very well the causes of climate change? See page 2 of the Pew Research paper "The Politics of Climate Change".
PS On an unrelated matter, this same Pew Research paper shows that Americans are definitely signed on for more solar and wind farms. On this point, I am clearly in a minority. They have mixed feelings on nuclear power with a majority against (54-43).
-
ajki at 00:41 AM on 2 September 2017The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
If a certain Mr Pruitt and/or others want a "debate" und a whatsoever color, then why not get to it? It may be real fun and it doesn't have to be in the format Mr Pruitt thinks it has to be. In fact, for now 30 years or something the usual suspects have put up their tired gibberish on tabloids, blogs and even tried it with scientific looking papers - the "red team" (or whatever color Mr Pruitt chooses) is greatly presented right here on SkS on the left panel above. Might he and his ilk distort their offices and come up with just another list of long debunked myths - fine! The answers will stack up in no time - from all over the world alongside with a lot of laughter und media coverage.
No "debate" for you, Mr Pruitt - but put up your fancy lists of hogwash. We'll wait... -
Tom13 at 23:31 PM on 1 September 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34
Nigel @23
Just another comment to add to above. Putting it another way, the writers of the research and the article would certainly have been aware past trends are positive.
Then why did the authors of the article write the sentence with the implication that the current trend was negative - were they trying to be accurate or were they pushing an agenda. By now, I think you know the answer -
Moderator Response:[JH] The seventh paragraph of the OP reads as follows:
Much can be done to increase the efficiency of agriculture and land-use activities in Asia, according to Mr. Kadiresan.
Why do you object this agenda?
-
knaugle at 23:23 PM on 1 September 2017The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
Face it, this whole issue reads like preparation for a college debate team competition. The only science that is really appropriate for is Political Science. So what if your presenter is slicker and more communicative than the other side's? That may win elections, but is useless for science, and is in fact a step backwards.
-
JWRebel at 21:28 PM on 1 September 2017The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
NorrisM @4 — "There would be no final decision"
I used the word "pitch", because the decision is not part of the process. But there is a final decision. The final decision with a military game is which tactics are pursued and which gear is purchased. The final decision with climate change is what society subsequently does.
My point is that it would be completely political, but just as the science debate has already occurred (but the masses have paid no attention, too much effort), the political redTeam/blueTeam is occurring as we speak. So far the redTeam, by dint of political hack (and allied media coverage) and infinite funds, has managed to sow confusion. A red/blue team exercise would be a repeat performance by this Anglo-Saxon disease, and would establish firmly that there is something to be debated outside of the scientific discourse.
-
MA Rodger at 20:21 PM on 1 September 2017The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
NorrisM @4,
Much of your blather here at SkS appears to run alongside your advocacy of a Red-Team/Blue-Team exercise with "someone like Steve Koonin ... as the chair of this red team blue team investigation I think ... a reasonably independent person at its head." I consider this Steve Koonin to be a wholly fake-scientist in that his pronouncements on AGW areunscientific nonsense. (Here I cite his 2014 WSJ article "Climate Science is Not Settled" which is nonsense-ridden from start to finish.) I note your continuing RTeam/BTeam advocacy seems hemetically wed to Koonin. Is this joker essential for your RT/BT advocacy? Or would the process still work with another candidate for the job? If so, who?
-
Eclectic at 18:44 PM on 1 September 2017The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
Very much so. Scientists (and the human race) have nothing to gain by a Red Team / Blue Team "reassessment". The process would bring nothing but harm.
Scientists should protest loudly and repeatedly [if they are pressured to "join in"] that any such "review" would be a great waste of taxpayers' money. And point out that regular reviews are already being done by scientific organisations such as the IPCC. If still hounded & pressured by politicians/reporters, then the scientists should keep repeating and asserting that taxpayers' money should not be wasted on duplication of effort. No waste of taxpayers' money! And keep returning to that phrase: No waste of taxpayers' money! (And so on, and on.)
Reporters and a large slice of the public are not really "up" on understanding the science, but they are certainly up to understanding "waste of taxpayers' money". And will remember that point, and sympathise with it!
-
ubrew12 at 16:13 PM on 1 September 2017The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
If you accept Pruitt's red team/blue team debate, you accept that this science topic is debatable. Pruitt wins before the debate ever starts. When 'doubt is your product' you don't need to win the race to win, you just need to keep moving the finish line. Just keep the race going so no conclusion can be reached. So it's absurd to think Big Fossils would accept a red team debate loss. It would be followed by ever more esoteric debates about fine points of the policy response, the economic costs, and so on. Meanwhile, since these debates are publicly funded, the billion-dollar-a-year climate denial industry would continue casting doubt about the science, creating converts who would insist the original debate wasn't held properly, or unfairly tilted toward the warmists. Every last penny of that money is dedicated not to winning, but to keeping the 'debate' going. That's why their arguments are zombies that will never die until the money runs out, which it shows no sign of doing.
Sooner or later, the public is going to step out the front door and realize the science is right, has been right all along. Climate denial is funded to appear as an immovable object. But physics is the original irresistable force.
-
nigelj at 12:47 PM on 1 September 2017The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
And why would anyone accept that the red blue teams findings would be final or accepted by Donald Trump or Scott Pruit? Trump has changed his position on so many things, so many times its astounding.
-
nigelj at 12:32 PM on 1 September 2017The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
NorrisM @8
"What I found very astounding is that only 55% of liberal Democrats (the most liberal category) are of the view that "almost all climate scientists agree that human behaviour is mostly responsible for climate change".
Well that is unique to America. The same Pew polls show greater acceptance of a consensus position and human causes of climate change in other countries in all political groups. America is unique in its scepticism among western nations. People just seem highly politicised and not good with science. I mean theres scepticism, then theres being the equivalent of a flat earther, and theres a lot of the latter in parts of america over various issues.
But the roughly even division of opinion in America over expert consenus and other climate matters is due to a campaign of sceptical doubt and poor reporting of the consensus in the mainstream media. The red blue team debate obviously cant alter this consensus thing because its not about debating consensus position and numbers. So your point is a red herring.
"There obviously is a lot of work to do convincing large parts of the American public even the liberal Democrats. With the Republicans presently in power, what better time to grab the centre stage? "
Yes, theres work to be done, but as I pointed out a red blue team debate is not a good mechanism to do this. Something similar was tried and failed in my country as I pointed out.
The red blue idea will also just create more information possibly conflicting with the IPCC, so more confusion as to who the public should listen to. I dont see how that helps change minds. Sounds more like a waste of time.
It all reminds me of a kangaroo court. From google, kangaroo court, noun, an unofficial court held by a group of people in order to try someone regarded, especially without good evidence, as guilty of a crime or misdemeanour.
I agree more with the comment above about a process under one of the leading national science bodies.
Plus Norris Im going pretty easy on all this. You haven't really found fault with the IPCC (apart from not liking their conclusions) and shown specifically how a rather biased, red blue structure would be better.
Prev 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 Next
