Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 Next
Comments 18251 to 18300:
-
nigelj at 12:35 PM on 4 September 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35
I have a laptop with Macaffe anti virus and google chrome, and I'm not getting a certificate message. I note the information pages for Macaffe says "this website is minimal risk" their lowest risk rating.
But my other computer has windows defender and google chrome as well, and is giving a message "this page is trying to load scripts from unauthenticated sources" whatever that means.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:29 PM on 4 September 2017The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
NorrisM,
Please explain in detail what you mean when you say: "... varying temperatures over the 20th Century and the 17 year pause are relevant because they at least address the issue of the predictability of the models".
-
Wol at 11:16 AM on 4 September 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35
Thanks - Kaspersky still saying same thing @ 11.08 4 Sept:
>>This certificate or one of certificates in the certificate chain is not up to date<<
Now I notice that although the browser points to skepticalscience.COM the Kaspersky warning refers to skepticalscience.NET!
The details of the certificate, issued by Let'sEncryptAuthorityX3 include:
>>This Certificate may only be relied upon by Relying Parties and only in accordance with the Certificate Policy found at https://letsencrypt.org/repository/<<
Just wondering if some third party has infiltrated the site - my technical knowledge isn't up to doing any more than asking the question!
-
nigelj at 10:27 AM on 4 September 2017The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
NorrisM @38
"Perhaps I have not fully researched John Cook's "97% of climate scientists" as to what they do agree on but do you think there is a consensus on what future impact the AGW will have on temperatures and the consequences in terms of melting ice? This is the issue. Even the IPCC provide a range of 1.5C to 4C without offering even a best guess."
The Cooke study looks at what is the main cause of recent climate change and does not go into all the other issues or melting ice. Other consensus studies are similar and listed below. All the consensus studies find 90% or more of climate scientists think we are warming the climate.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change
Virtually all the published research predicts significant sea level rise so you could call that a definite consensus as well. It's an easy thing to determine anyway.
So I repeat given the red blue team does not reflect the consensus of climate scientists it is not representative and is dishonest imho.
You have also slightly missinterpreted the example scenario range of 1.5 - 4.5 degrees. This is climate sensitivity, not an estimate of temperatures by year 2100.The actual increase in temperatures by 2100 are in the IPCC report below for various emissions scenarios. The high emissions scenario is 2.6 - 4.8 degrees by 2100 relative to 1985 baseline, so the range of numbers is not as wide as your example. The IPCC dont make best guesses they give the range of numbers that is highly likely.
www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf
-
scaddenp at 10:00 AM on 4 September 2017The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
NorrisM, I have responded to your offtopic comment in the appropriate thread.
-
scaddenp at 09:58 AM on 4 September 2017Medieval Warm Period was warmer
NorrisM asked on a different thread:
"But it does raise questions. If it is accepted that there was a MWP and a Little Ice Age, then unless these are explained using natural causes there is a natural inference that the existing warming may consist of more than just CO2 concentrations. "
And lo an behold, as explained here or in even a cursory glance at IPCC reports 3,4, or 5, there are indeed natural causes that produce model results consistant with forcings. You seem to leaping to assumptions without making an effort to be informed first (again).
-
Tom13 at 09:49 AM on 4 September 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34
Why do you think only an ice age would effect crop yields? Higher temperatures could equally have an effect. So could more intense droughts.
I am basing that on the historical record ( the old adage cant know where you are going if you dont know where youve been). Crop yields were much higher during the mwp than the little ice age, post emergence of the little ice age, crop yields quickly improved. The improvements in crop yields post little ice age have been helped considerably by improvements in technology, innovations, improvements in farming methods, etc, along with a warming planet, That trend is most likely to continue.
On a second note - the ncbi article you cited further supports the comments I have made and provides a good basis which undercuts the general premise of the UN agency report.
Moderator Response:[JH] Which "UN Agency report"?
-
NorrisM at 08:49 AM on 4 September 2017The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
Bob Loblaw @34
I worry that your definition of "crank" is anyone who does not agree with you. I am sure Judith Curry is also a crank based upon your definition.
nigelj @ 35
Perhaps I have not fully researched John Cook's "97% of climate scientists" as to what they do agree on but do you think there is a consensus on what future impact the AGW will have on temperatures and the consequences in terms of melting ice? This is the issue. Even the IPCC provide a range of 1.5C to 4C without offering even a best guess.
Jeff B @ 36
Very interesting and thoughtful comments. I would agree that the MWP probably is not as relevant but varying temperatures over the 20th Century and the 17 year pause are relevant because they at least address the issue of the predictability of the models.
But it does raise questions. If it is accepted that there was a MWP and a Little Ice Age, then unless these are explained using natural causes there is a natural inference that the existing warming may consist of more than just CO2 concentrations. I have earlier mentioned what I hope a Red Team Blue Team could address. But for sure, this is a way of bringing this front and centre before the American public.
The Pew Reserch study was conducted in June 2016 during the Obama administration. If there was so much skeptcism even during the Obama years then surely there is a need to address this skepticism.
I fully agree that Citizens United decision of the US SC is one more example of why it is hard to argue that the US has a true democracy. Add that together with gerrymandering and you do have to ask if there is a Deep State in the US. On the other hand, were it not for a few of the rust belt states, Clinton would have won.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:44 AM on 4 September 2017The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
Jeff B,
I believe the key is to minimize the effectiveness of any and all attempts at misleading marketing.
That is why I commented the way I did @18. And I support the other suggestions that focus on addressing/minimizing the potential misleading marketing Success/Winning through the Red/Blue Debate.
A variation of that suggestion @18 is for anyone (like Team Trump/Pruitt) who wants to question 'the already very robustly developed vast awareness of observations and experience related to climate science and the resulting current best explanation/understanding of all that information', to be required to ask their question to the National Science Foundation/National Academy of Science 'the group that shares and can explain that awareness and understanding'.
And in an effort to help the entire population be more aware and better understand this issue, everyone/everymediacorp who has ever delivered information regarding climate science should be required to publish each question and the full answer, without any supplementary comments, through the same mechanisms they delivered their previous climate science information points "As a Public Service - with potential penalties for failing to do so".
The best explanation for all of the currently available observations and information is already well established. That best understanding can only be challenged by the presentation of new valid information and observations. However, asking a question is not the same as presentation of a Reasoned Challenge with new information. Some back and forth would be required (the process I suggested @18 would be appropriate with the same requirement for the full back-and-forth to be presented to the entire US population without edit or supplementary comment - including Presidential Tweets).
if actually raising awareness and better understanding is the objective, the Red/Blue debate would be ineffective and potentially very damaging to the future of humanity (which is why it has been proposed by those who do not care about the future of humanity when such consideration of Others would contradict their personal interests). Pointing that out is all that the scientists should do, offering to formally answer questions or review and respond to proposed alternative explanations that either present verifiable new information or "Better Explain all of the currently avaialble information, observations and experience", as long as the reply they provide gets presented completely 'unaltered' (along with what they are responding to) and without additional comments made that the scientists have not been given the courtesy of responding to 'up front'.
Unjustified and ultimately unsustainable Winning through the abuse of communication science/marketing science is perhaps the greatest threat to the future of humanity that humanity has ever developed.
-
BilB at 08:06 AM on 4 September 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #35
Good John Hartz article, and good to see terms such as "energy in the atmosphere" entering the conversation.
What is missing in this article is the reason why, or how, the "energy in the atmosphere" makes a difference.
It is all about density.
The 60's high school science that I grew up with, and take note here that this includes the bulk of the baby boomers who are commanding the bulk of the world's wealth and political power, was that storms are caused by the sun's energy warming air which rose carrying moisture with it to form rain. I now believe that this is demonstably a false understanding of how rain making works (I hasten to add that I am not a scientist and this is entirely guesswork on my part). The percep[tion that hot air causes storms has been utilised by the denialists to obfuscate the real atmospheric processes, as they concentrate on the notion that Global Warming will result in ever higher daytime air temperatures, which we know full well is not the case and Gabriel Bowen points to what really happens.
The one piece of knowledge that is missing from general public knowledge is that humid air is lighter than dry air, it is all about relative density. It turns out that high humidity air, although only a little bit lighter than dry air has a very large uplift capacity relative to warm air. In fact by my back of the envelope calculations it takes a 20 degree C difference in dry air to equal that humid air uplift capacity.
So what we see in the environment is thermal energy creating uplift and this level of uplift gives us the spotted fluffy clouds of a standard summers day where the uplift rises to a level where there is a temperature and density barrier which causes the moisture in that air mass to begin to condence into larger droplets and the air energy is expended in turbulent air movement and infra red radiation, but no rain formation. It only dawned on me recently what mists and clouds are about when I drove through a morning mist near my business premisis. A mist is where the moisture forms droplets large enough for the uplift effect of the density difference to balance out and the moisture cannot rise until more energy is delivered with the morning sun, else bigger droplets form causing dew (we often sense a warmth from such air as the latent heat of condensation warms the carrying air).
My conclusion is that rain clouds are formed not by thermal up lift but by humidity uplift. It was not until I realised this that I understood why there can by storms in sub arctic environments.
So the full story is that Global Warming delivers heat to the oceans (and the land) thereby increasing the average air moisture content. This moisture content moderates the average air temperature and the increase in average air temperature is predominately visible in the average night time temperature, ie as the average night time temperature increases it is seen as the time of the early morning at which the temperature begins to fall (later and later as Global Warming intensifies and invisible to most people who are generally asleep and do not experience the time of change).
Climate Change is predominately the impact of the increase in atmospheric energy in the form of atmospheric moisture, and the primary driver of how that makes a difference is the relative density of moist air over dry air. The density difference creates the atmospheric overturning effect and volume of the moisture both increases that effect and causes the increase in rain volume that we are seeing around the globe.
The simple message is that CO2 increase is the primary driver of Global Warming and moist air increase density difference is the primary driver of Climate Change.
It would be interesting to know if Judith Curry and her cohorts understood this important point.
-
Jeff B at 08:03 AM on 4 September 2017The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
I hope that I am not too late to this discussion to make a comment.
First, in my view, this request for a "Red Team/Blue Team" exercise is not originating from the politicians of the Republican Party. It is instead originating from the donor class of the Republican Party, which is composed primarily of very wealthy and politically active Free Market/Libertarians. For those who follow US politics, it became apparent in about 2008-2010 time frame that Republicans abruptly went from a party that was willing to discuss (albeit not take action) on global warming to one where even discussion was considered off-limits. With the "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision in 2010, the ability for dark money to influence campaigns allowed the Free Market/Libertarian donor class to enter into the political process early in campaigns with substantial financial resources when it is very important for candidates. The choice was given to candidates of either to agree to the dogma of the donor class or face a well-funded primary opponent. In my view, this is the reason why trying to change Republican policy through evidence or grass roots lobbying is bound to fail. It is not the Republican politicians that need convincing, it is the Republican donor class that needs convincing.
Second, strategically the Free Market/Libertarians deniers/luke-warmers have placed advocates for action on global warming in a difficult position. For if one says "no" that we won't participate in a "Red Team/Blue Team" exercise then it is easy to state the "Of course, they are hiding something because they don't want to have an open debate". So even though it makes absolutely no sense to have such an exercise from a "this is how science works" perspective, it is really important to have the exercise from a political/convincing the public perspective.
Another point, the "Red Team/Blue Team" exercise could be looked at an important means to educate everyone as to the basics of global warming science. The US media just does a lousy job of keeping this issue in the limelight and as a consequence the American populace is just going to respond not based on rational evaluation but according to their tribal affiliation. This exercise could be immensely successful if climate scientists would use this as an opportunity to communicate very basic scientific concepts to the greater populace. For example, the concept of thermal inertia is just not communicated at all. Neither is the concept of thermal expansion of the oceans and the non-uniform increase in sea temperatures contributing to sea level rise. And I rarely hear anyone talk about how night time low temperatures should be considered a finger print of global warming.
The key to making it successful though is to frame the discussion very narrowly to the key issues as hand. I have watched enough congressional testimony and read enough Wall Street Journal opinions to see how debate is side-tracked by red-herring arguments, such as the existence of the Medieval Warming Period or the 17-year "pause". The purpose of a "Red Team/Blue Team" excercise should be to remove "doubt" so it would be imperative to structure the discussion so that non-germane points which serve only to sow confusion are off-limits.
-
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).
Prev 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 Next
