Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 Next
Comments 18351 to 18400:
-
Ger at 12:40 PM on 26 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
Swayseeker @2; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5067572/ about passive cooling. All electromagnetic radiation,light included, gets converted to lower wave-length radiation and re-emited (as heat-radiation). Atmosphere is buffering a lot of that heat in the form of latent heat in water vapor, chemical (potential) energy (Ozon, in the upper layers) and in the surface of the Earth. At night a lot of the captured heat goes out again into (cold) space as infra-red, partly reflected back by clouds. { so far, where does that energy go eventually }
Just a bit of the incoming radiation (7 out of the 174 units of energy) is reflected directly back into space during the day. One does increase direct reflection amount, especially in heat islands as city by painting with heat reflecting paint, which tend to be white in (visible) range. Painting asphalt roads grey would keep the temperature of the surface low, reduces the costs of maintenance, wear on car tyres in the long run. If that is worrth a $40,000 a mile, I don't know.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 11:39 AM on 26 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
NorrisM,
To clarify my points regarding the unhelpfulness of the likes of Bjorn Lomborg and Lord Monckton regarding the appropriate awareness and understanding of the changes of human activity that climate science has identified as being required to improve the future for all of humanity, it is important to understand that 'anything that does not improve the future for all of humanity is unhelpful'.
Another way of saying that is 'only activities that have a net-zero or net-positive impact on Others are acceptable'. That is the fundamantal ethic behind sustainable rule of law. Any law and application of law that does not meet that measure ultimately deserves to be rewritten or revoked (like revised definitions of what Environmental Protection must include). And it is a rational consideration from the perspective the person affected, not the person making the impact, that determines if there is a net-negative impact.
The burning of fossil fuels, therefore, only becomes acceptable if there is no net-negative impact on any Others, with future generations being considered to be Others.
The likes of Lomborg and Monckton (and Trump) appeal to the selfish interests among the current generation. They try to claim that it is OK for some among the current generation to benefit from an activity that is understandably creating net-negative impacts for Others. They base their claims on showing that, from their perspective, the opportunity that has to be given up by current day people is less than the harm, costs and challenges that are being created for Others. And they attempt to justify more future harm by applying what is called a net-present-value assessment (or discounting of future costs) that reduces the value of future costs the further into the future they are. And they do not acknoweldge the 'Others' aspect. They instead claim that the harm done is acceptable as long as it is less than the opportunity to benefit that they evaluate would have to be given up by current day people since the result is a net-neutral or net-positive from their perspoective. That type of evaluation can easily be seen to be ridiculous, yet it continues to be used and be popular.
It is undeniable that much of the developed economic activity of the supposedly (perceived and claimed to be) most advanced nations and corporations was developed in the wrong direction (unsustainable activity). Those who continued with that incorrect direction of development since 1990 (and even earlier, potentially as early as 1972 when the Stockholm Conference identified the required changes of direction), have only themselves to blame for the current developed fact that making the required changes as rapidly as they need to be made is 'to their significant disadvantage'.
-
Ken in Oz at 10:19 AM on 26 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
"- climate change costs will hit Trump Country hardest." - all the more reason for the people there to really, really want it not to be true. Electing people who will tell them it isn't true must provide a lot of reassurance.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:45 AM on 26 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
NorrisM,
I would suggest that SkS is about increased awareness and better understanding of all matters related to climate science, which would include understanding the basis of claims made regarding actions required because of the constant improvement of understanding of climate science.
From my perspective climate science has raised awareness and better understanding of the fatally flawed belief that 'everyone freer to believe what they want and do as they please will develop Good results'. The evidence is overwhelming that misleading marketing and the flawed perceptions of prosperity, popularity and profitability it an create and prop-up are a major hurdle to be overcome by climate scientists as they try to ensure the success of their efforts to improve awareness and understanding.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:32 AM on 26 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
I have read Lomborg's "Cool It".
Basically the assessment is seriously flawed for many reaosns, not least of which is the fatally flawed belief that it is OK for a group of people to pursue personal benefit in ways that are understood to create harm, costs, and challenges for Other People.
The arguments against acting to reduce climate change impacts are basically comparisons of:
- the current day lost opportunities to benefit from the understood to be damaging activities athta are also understood to not be able to be continued to be a benefit in the future (because burning up non-renewable buried ancient hydrocarbon is a dead-end activity with escallating costs to continue).
- with the perceived costs imposed on Other People in the future.
The bigest falacy is the belief that perceptions of wealth and value today will magically continue and increase in value in the future. That belief only works if the created value is sustainable activity with increased value being improved sustainable activity.
The like sof Lonborg can only argue that their last opportunity costs are greater than the costs they create for others. The simple rebuttal is that costs to others must be minimized to the point of being eliminated if humanity is to have a chance of advancing to a better future.
-
michael sweet at 09:29 AM on 26 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
Norris M
This cartoon ilustrates the quality of Lomborg's arguments:
Lomborg's job is to write juk about environmental issues. He publishes books because then he does not have to pass peer review.
-
nigelj at 09:14 AM on 26 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
Norris M
"His (Blombergs)2008 book only focuses on Kyoto but his website suggests that the Paris Agreement would achieve very little in the way of temperature reductions but at great cost to society."
Is that right? Do you always take someones book at face value? Have you even bothered to read the rather compelling criticisms of all Blombergs many books and ideas including the above, merely a google click away? We are talking a whole stream of basic errors in his work, missquting other scientists etc, etc. The guy is not a scientist or environmetal expert he is a statistician.
Blombergs study on the Paris agreement takes the most pessimistic possible evaluation of impacts and doesn't consider the costs of doing nothing. Its a worthless piece of paper.
You obviously dont trust the IPCC, a huge organisation, yet want to place your faith in a jacked up debate between a small handul of cherry picked experts battling things out according to the agenda of the climate denialist organisers. I mean I'm just laughing and laughing. I suggest you google the term Kangaroo court. I place precisely zero value in such a mechanism regardless of what they come up with.
How can a smaller scale, weaker, distorted version of the IPCC Possibly be better? Its crazy stuff, the worlds gone crazy.
Delay, deny, dither. Thats all I hear from some of you people
-
MA Rodger at 08:58 AM on 26 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
NorrisM @4,
While many here will be generally familiar with the arguments set out by Bjørn Lomborg on AGW, I think most folk would need to know a lot more about the specifics set out in Lomborg's wonderous "Cool It!!!" book to be able to address your question seriously. Of course, the book is a decade old now and has not exactly set the world alight. That suggests more reason to understand the detail of what it is saying. Does this five-page resume reflect your understanding of its content? Or how about this coverage?
-
nigelj at 08:58 AM on 26 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
OPOF @3
"New study finds that climate change costs will hit future generations and the less fortunate in Trump country hardest"
Yes true, but half the people in Trump country dont have the brains to work this out, and the other half have the brains but think their children will be wealthy enough to buy their way out of the problem. They are all missguided.
-
nigelj at 08:52 AM on 26 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
Swayseeker @2
"In Los Angeles they are using cool grey paint for pavements and it will cost $ 40 000 per mile. But will it help? Will reflection cause radiation to go through windows.'
Well obviously some will go through windows, but you need to have some faith in experts, and they clearly believe more is reflected to space than goes through windows, so theres a net benefit to lighter coloured pavements. You have really just asked a rhetorical question, and not provided any data that theres a problem. However I would sure like to see an evaluation if anyone has one.
"One of the big problems can be windows with sunlight entering... so virtually all enters via a window."
Office towers use low emissivity glasses and mirror glass etc to keep solar radiation out as much as possible. So the pavement issue is perhaps not a problem in that context.
Houses use ordinary glass that lets most solar energy enter. Lighter coloured streets would reflect some sunlight into houses, but given street width, it just seems to me most would get relected away from buildings.
In your typical more northerly temperate America city you actually want heat gain through windows in winter normally, and shading in summer. It's more of an issue of how you achieve this, and one of the best ways is to use ordinary glass which lets in plenty of sunlight, but have an extrnal adjustable awning, eaves or louvred shutter so you can keep heat away from the windows in summer
-
JohnSeers at 08:36 AM on 26 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
@4 NorrisM
For a start Bjorn Lomborg's arguments (as described by you) are not "more focussed". In fact they are decidedly lacking focus. What is the point of researching non-carbon energy technologies if you do not implement them? By pushing the implementation of non-carbon energy we can help push that research and give it focus and urgency.
It seems rather laissez-faire to just rely on the hope the research is successful without following up on it to make sure it happens.
-
NorrisM at 03:52 AM on 26 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
My understanding was that this website was limited to the causes of climate change and not to the costs and ways of dealing with those costs. Largely owing to what I believe will be a "Red Team Blue Team" analysis organized by the EPA (I assume this has not changed while I was on vacation), I have decided that I will not expend any further time on issues of how much temperature change we are headed for thanks to MGW until I have heard the results of this analysis. As argued by Scott Adams (on a Sam Harris podcast) this publicized Red Team Blue Team approach is the chance for the proponents of MGW to get the US public onside. I have to admit this could be somewhat of a "gong show" but if it is organized by someone like Steve Koonin, it does not have to be.
During my summer vacation, largely owing to the recommendation of Freeman Dyson (not personally, from a You Tube interview), I have now read Bjorn Lomborg's book "Cool It". Lomborg completely accepts that the present climate change is man-made but argues that massive reductions in the use of fossil fuels at this time does not make sense compared to having the nations of the world each dedicate, per year, .05% of their annual GDP to R&D focussed on non-carbon energy technologies. His 2008 book only focuses on Kyoto but his website suggests that the Paris Agreement would achieve very little in the way of temperature reductions but at great cost to society.
Can anyone explain why Bjorn Lomborg's arguments as to a more "focussed" approach to adaptation does not make sense?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:24 AM on 26 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
Every article about the cost impacts of climate change should include the italics added below.
"New study finds that climate change costs will hit future generations and the less fortunate in Trump country hardest"
There needs to be a constant reminder that a significant part of the resistance to accepting the required changes of human activity that have been exposed by climate science comes from people who do not care that their actions negatively impact others, especially not being concerned when those others have little or no chance of "Meaningfully, quickly getting back at them for what they did". The people benefiting are not the ones suffering the consequences. Regions are not people. And future generations are not just an extension of the current generation in the business sense of evaluating near term vs. distant benefits.
The popularity of the unethical assessment that 'the opportunity for benefit that has to be given up by a portion of current day humans to stop creating harm, challenges and costs for others, particularly future generations, is too high' needs to be ended. Claiming it 'costs too much to behave in a way that does not cause harm to others, is a very Poor but Popular Excuse. And it has to be repeatedly exposed that Poor Excuses can and do win popularity and profitability contests to the detriment of the future of humanity.
-
Swayseeker at 23:26 PM on 25 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
One cost that is already emerging is the cost of cooling cities. In Los Angeles they are using cool grey paint for pavements and it will cost $ 40 000 per mile. But will it help? Will reflection cause radiation to go through windows. They are planting trees, but trees reflect radiation - see below:
My understanding of this paint is that it reflects infrared. With an urban heat island effect, the sunlight (includes infrared and ultraviolet) enters the city and gets reflected around onto walls and so on. They absorb the sunlight to some extent and heat up. The sunlight coming in has mainly short wavelength. After buildings heat up they emit radiation of a longer wavelength. Some of this longer wavelength radiation will probably be reflected by the paint and some will go out to space. The infrared of sunlight is high frequency (short wavelenth ) infrared. The heated buildings emit longer wavelength infrared radiation, mainly. With white cool roofs some sunlight is reflected onto other buildings causing heat problems. One of the big problems can be windows with sunlight entering. Window glass transmits radiation up to about 2.5 microns (the energy goes through the glass if its wavelength is less than about 2.5 microns) and about 97% of solar energy has wavelength less than 2.5 microns, so virtually all enters via a window.
Now how much of this energy escapes? Well if the walls heats up to 50 deg C, then radiation from them that is above 2.5 microns will not escape. The answer is that far less than 1% of this radiation can escape through the glass because more than 99% of the energy radiated by the 50 deg C walls is of wavelength greater than 2.5 microns (using a blackbody approximation). If a particular cool paint does reflect infrared, where is the infrared radiation going to go? Remember angle of incidence= angle of reflection. One may note that green vegetation reflects solar energy of wavelength between 0.75 to 2.4 microns significantly. Most of this could be reflected through your window into your house (glass lets in radiation of wavelength less than about 2.5 microns). This radiation would heat up objects and the radiation from the hot objects would not be able to get out through the window again (wavelength too long). About 42% of solar energy is energy of wavelength 0.75 to 2.4 microns. -
CBDunkerson at 21:05 PM on 25 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
Karma is a bitch.
-
bozzza at 19:18 PM on 25 August 2017Harvard scientists took Exxon’s challenge; found it using the tobacco playbook
The old-industry-investors are just waiting for certainty before reinvesting en-masse I perhaps should have said!
-
bozzza at 19:16 PM on 25 August 2017Harvard scientists took Exxon’s challenge; found it using the tobacco playbook
There are no denialists! The markets know this and that is why supply is gearing up to match foreseen demand!
It's just normal pause button politics to slow the world down to the pace it can handle turning at!
The people lead: governments follow! So, who wants to invest in the future? We all have the power to demand change! The old industries are just waiting for certainty.... the economy is just another large momentum system!!!
-
Wol at 13:59 PM on 25 August 2017Harvard scientists took Exxon’s challenge; found it using the tobacco playbook
I hve a copy of the summarised report by the Director of a branch of Exxon's Research and Engineering science lab, in response to Exxon's request for research into the effect of increasing CO2.
It's dated Sept 2nd, 1982
In part:
"... The consensu is that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from its pre-industrial revolution value would result inan average global temerature rise of 3.0° - +/- 1.5° C"
and:
"In summary, the results of tour research are in accord with the scientific consensus on the effect of increased atmospheric CO2 on climate......"
There can be no question that the top management of Exxon were unaware of the effect of CO2 back in at least the early eighties.
-
RedBaron at 12:49 PM on 25 August 2017New textbook on climate science and climate denial
RIP rockytom
-
nigelj at 06:32 AM on 25 August 2017Harvard scientists took Exxon’s challenge; found it using the tobacco playbook
Michael Sweet @2, yes I agree absolutely, its fraud to hide problems like this from the public. But the point I was making is some people I know don't even believe in those types of laws.
The climate issue is intensely political. The hardened denialists look to me to be driven mostly by political motives about corporate freedom and small government etc, and these positions are rigid positions they are reluctant to change. They resent any laws that define how companies process information. I see all this sort of thing in numerous comments on other websites.
I havent seen a proper study on it, but I'm willing to bet serious money I'm right. This has to be faced for what it is. This website acknowledges the problem but may be clouding it with too many other lesser things at times.
I'm not sure how you convince such rigid people, however I do believe they tend to be in a minority, and just make a lot of noise.
-
nigelj at 06:16 AM on 25 August 2017Harvard scientists took Exxon’s challenge; found it using the tobacco playbook
Tom @13
"The links to the XOM articles, studies, etc are not easily accessible"
What exactly does this mean? Be precise. Nobody else has complained of difficulties. Not even Exxon is actually denying that they produced a large volume of research confirming that we are warming the climate, so your exercise is somewhat pedantic.
"A total of 187 papers, articles, studies, etc seems to be an extremely small sample of the total volume of work and internal documents generated by ExxonMobil, Given the size of Exxon Mobil, most would have expected a much larger sample"
I disagree. You are making a false comparison. The correct comparison would be whether 187 climate studies is a represenative sample of total climate studies, not all internal documents. 187 climate studies would seem a lot of climate studies by any standard.
Also, the Oreskes study doesn't appear to mention anything about using a random sample as such. They simply stated that they used all the publicly available information they could find. I think its safe to assume anything that Exxon tried to hide would not be flattering to them and I doubt Orekses would have been selective, because Exxon would certainly be in a position to easily embarrass them and would quickly do so.
-
SteveF at 05:57 AM on 25 August 2017New textbook on climate science and climate denial
It is my sad duty to inform you that RockyTom AKA Tom Farmer has passed away after a long illness. It is my understanding that Volume 2 was about complete and I hope that Springer will allow the book to be published.
-
Tom13 at 04:05 AM on 25 August 2017Harvard scientists took Exxon’s challenge; found it using the tobacco playbook
Before we jump to conclusions regarding the validity of this study, a few observations
1) The links to the XOM articles, studies, etc are not easily accessible which makes it difficult to independently ascertain if the classification of the position of each individual paper is a reasonable classification of the position of such paper, ie is the classification assigned a reasonable classification, since it is difficult to link to and subsequently read the article, it is difficult to ascertain the reasonableness of the classification,
2) A total of 187 papers, articles, studies, etc seems to be an extremely small sample of the total volume of work and internal documents generated by ExxonMobil, Given the size of Exxon Mobil, most would have expected a much larger sample
3) As noted in #2 above, the sample size is exceedingly small. Was there ex-post screening to the papers used in this classification study. -
knaugle at 02:59 AM on 25 August 2017Harvard scientists took Exxon’s challenge; found it using the tobacco playbook
interesting read as well:
-
knaugle at 02:57 AM on 25 August 2017Harvard scientists took Exxon’s challenge; found it using the tobacco playbook
This seems a rehash of old news. A couple of years ago, there were reports that Exxon had both admitted climate change was real, and that they had as early as ( and since) 1981 engaged in disinformation on the topic. Right?
Only recently have they changed their stance on the science.
-
RedBaron at 02:05 AM on 25 August 2017Harvard scientists took Exxon’s challenge; found it using the tobacco playbook
Ironically I called Exxon up quite a long time ago. I explained how them supporting my research as part of Oklahoma's Carbon Project would be cost effective. How it has the potential of avoiding these huge legal and public trust problems before they even become an issue. The cheapest investment they ever thought about making. Very similar to when the big insurance agencies invested in timberland years back to hedge their bets, except Exxon wouldn't need to buy those millions of acres of farmland, just support in the training of new farmers to help mitigate AGW. Total cost to them basically less than their petty cash funds. Probably less than their advertising campaign for a day. Certainly a gazillion times cheaper than their law firm retaining fees to fend off lawsuites for being financially, socially and ecologically irresponcible. ie bad citizens
...
The arrogance and ignorance I found from their so called "citizenship" division was incredible. Starting with that as an example and considering any company would put their best foot forward in a "citizenship" division ... No wonder they continually make such blunders. It's like they are purposely trying to do the worst possible thing.
-
michael sweet at 21:02 PM on 24 August 2017Harvard scientists took Exxon’s challenge; found it using the tobacco playbook
Nigelj:
A primary difference with Exxon lying about Cimate Change to their stock holders is that it is against the law. AGW will reduce the future profits of oil companies (and therefor reduce the stock proce) and it is fraud for them to hide problems like that from the market. Already coal company investors have lost their shirts.
Cigarette company lies only resulted in consumers deaths, not monetary losses for stockholders (in fact stockholders benefited from the fraud). The law strictly protects stockholders from fraud, consumers have to protect themselves.
-
nigelj at 18:06 PM on 24 August 2017Harvard scientists took Exxon’s challenge; found it using the tobacco playbook
The behaviour of Exxon has been appalling, but the sad reality is not everyone cares. Some people think companies should be free to do and say what they like. Plenty of climate denialists I have come across have this attitude either out of self punishing stupidity or extreme self interest, and these opposites happily cohabit the denialosphere.
The five laws of human stupidity
www.realclearscience.com/blog/2016/09/the_basic_laws_of_human_stupidity.html
-
Riduna at 09:12 AM on 24 August 2017Problems For Oil
China leads the world with sale of 507,000 EV’s, compared to 222,000 EV’s sold in Europe in 2016. In the USA, 157,000 EV’s were purchased, up 36% on 2015. All major vehicle builders now include or will soon launch an EV alternative.
-
nigelj at 07:20 AM on 24 August 2017It's Skeptical Science's 10th Birthday!
Swayseeker @5
"and people complained about fuel being burned from airplane travel (however the airplane prevents solar enery from entering the sea or ground by casting a shadow - quite a few kWh)."
Aircraft emit approx. 1% of global CO2 emissions (plus other greenhouse gases) so are responsible for a small but measurable and significant quantity of warming.
There are typically 9,000 aircraft in the air globally at any one time. The area of total shadow cast is approximately 1 part in 30 million of global surface area. Therefore the shadow effect on surface temperatures is totally insignificant.
-
nabashalam at 03:19 AM on 24 August 2017It's Skeptical Science's 10th Birthday!
Third time is the charm? I apologize for my blunderings. Lets try one more time... Our site: www.joboneforhumanity.org/ and our free e-book: "Climageddon: The Global Warming Emergency and how to Survive It"
Happy Birthday To SkS! Your Weelky Round Up is the Best on the Web!!!
Moderator Response:[PS] Thanks for taking the time to learn. I have deleted earlier attempts.
-
ajki at 22:40 PM on 23 August 2017It's Skeptical Science's 10th Birthday!
The enormous amount of work that has gone into this site is still breathtaking every time I visit. I can't find a way to express my thanks to all the contributors throughout the years in an appropriate wording. But I hope you'll get the gist...
-
Swayseeker at 22:30 PM on 23 August 2017It's Skeptical Science's 10th Birthday!
Well I have learned a bit of the more sophisticated information from Skeptical Science posts. I must say that some of the scientists (not necessarily from Skeptical Science) have come up with ideas that have problems. People found that cool roofs reflected solar energy onto other buildings and increased air pollution and decreased rain because of lack of convection. Cows were accused of grand methane production and harm (however if the cows do not eat vegetation it can rot anyway, causing carbon dioxide and methane). and people complained about fuel being burned from airplane travel (however the airplane prevents solar enery from entering the sea or ground by casting a shadow - quite a few kWh). Scientists have proposed bright clouds, but with evaporative fine mist cooling, temperatures of clouds could fall to near wet bulb temperatures and descend (or have they got a method to make them rise?). Putting aerosols into the air will also (I am almost certain) reduce solar energy to the ground and reduce convectional rain, causing droughts. So it seems to me that some solutions proposed to cure the situation will cause problems. But huge headway has been made with solar energy (solar panels), wind energy, etc. Used solar panels have now become a huge problem - where to put them. My proposal is this: Make mirrors (mirrors can be made with plastic) of old solar panels and use them for concentrated solar power.
-
MA Rodger at 19:50 PM on 23 August 2017Solar eclipse: Why the sun is not responsible for recent climate change
chrisd3 @3,
The RealClimate problem post on stratospheric cooling was actually one of the launch posts for the site back in 2004 and was edited more than once before being replaced and declared "obsolete and wrong in many respects." There is a SkS post explaining why increased GHGs result in stratospheric cooling (a post which I see also underwent post-publication revisions). The reason why stratospheric cooling is being mentioned here because there are other factors affecting stratospheric temperature including TSI. This added complication allows the denialist message to create a fair amount of garbled nonsense on the subject, a process which actually itself causes increasing heat within the the deniosphere. Mind, while the deniosphere may relish the occasion of the likes of RealClimate or SkS admitting a message is wrong, their position is really one of the mucky old pot calling the smirror-finish electric kettle black.
As for attributing the cooling of the stratosphere, you need to set out the reference from which the cooling is measured (and we become off-topic). Over decades, the CO2 cooling effect (or 'effects' - it is not a simple process) has been larger than the CFC/ozone cooling effects (McLandress et al 2014) but more recently it appears the reduced CFC/ozone cooling is apparently pretty-much matching the CO2 cooling (Ferraro et al 2015- [full text]).
-
nigelj at 19:19 PM on 23 August 2017It's Skeptical Science's 10th Birthday!
Well done and thank's. Very useful website. Lots of well organised material in one place.
-
andreas_s at 18:41 PM on 23 August 2017It's Skeptical Science's 10th Birthday!
Congratulations and Happy Birthday :)
Thank you for all you've done!!!
-
Same Ordinary Fool at 18:24 PM on 23 August 2017It's Skeptical Science's 10th Birthday!
Only 10 years?
My first interest in global warming was from print media, before 2006's An Inconvenient Truth.
My first efforts in correcting skeptics/deniers at WUWT must've started about 2008. When, finding something suspicious on WUWT, I'd look it up at SkepticalScience, and compose a correction. This was early enough that I got away with mentioning SkepticalScience as my source.
This had to have been before mid-2009. When I spent a weekend composing a summary comment on a backwater Argument. Which is still there.
Congratulations on all you've done!
-
Zoli at 09:37 AM on 23 August 2017It's Skeptical Science's 10th Birthday!
You did a good job! Thanks! Happy birthday!
-
nigelj at 06:15 AM on 23 August 2017Solar eclipse: Why the sun is not responsible for recent climate change
Swayseeker
"People are becoming more concerned about where to put old solar panels. If you put them in greenhouses (to absorb solar energy) in the deserts and pump seawater into the greenhouses"
Old solar panels won't power pumps because they are worn out and inefficient. They are better for the rubbish dump or recycling.
Why do greenhouses need sea water? Seawater kills most plants. Are you thinking solar distillation or something?
"you would do better than having a sand bottom in the greenhouse because sand reflects energy back out (is light coloured) of greenhouses."
The idea of greenhoses is to maximise heat gain, so why would you want to reflect the heat back out? Am I missing something?
"With other solar panels, coat them to make mirrors out of them and reflect solar energy into the greenhouses."
It would be much easier and cheaper to just use new mirrors.
"Of put dark solar panels in shallow pools of seawater and reflect solar energy into the pools with the mirror solar panels to cause evaporation and more clouds and rain."
Negligible effect. Rain is also not caused by evaporation as such.
There is a proposal for massive solar electricity production in the deserts of north africa due to the phenomenal sunlight hours. Google Desertec. Its not without some challenges!
-
airscottdenning at 02:36 AM on 23 August 2017Solar eclipse: Why the sun is not responsible for recent climate change
Regarding #3: Sorry, here's the link to the classic paper on tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling from 1967.
-
airscottdenning at 02:34 AM on 23 August 2017Solar eclipse: Why the sun is not responsible for recent climate change
Regarding #3, the reason the stratosphere cools with increasing greenhouse gas concentrations is simply that it emits more IR radiation. Since there's little overlying gas to radiate back down, the result is a net cooling. This is extremely well understood, and was predicted by Manabe and Weatherald 50 years ago: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281967%29024%3C0241%3ATEOTAW%3E2.0.CO%3B2
-
chrisd3 at 23:17 PM on 22 August 2017Solar eclipse: Why the sun is not responsible for recent climate change
the upper atmosphere would cool as greenhouse gases trapped heat and prevented it from escaping the troposphere
Is this correct? It makes intuituitve sense, but it's been my understanding that the full explanation is far more complex, and that this is not the primary contributor to the cooling of the stratosphere. If I recall correctly, Gavin Schmidt got caught by this many years ago in RealClimate, and had to rewrite big chunks of a post.
-
Swayseeker at 22:20 PM on 22 August 2017Solar eclipse: Why the sun is not responsible for recent climate change
Well if there are more pollutants it seems TSI is going to be less (more solar energy blocking). If greenhouse gases are greater then the atmosphere would warm more, so "relatively cooler ground and warmer air" would sound reasonable although all of it is heating up. As always, if one can form low clouds in low latitudes it helps. Idea: People are becoming more concerned about where to put old solar panels. If you put them in greenhouses (to absorb solar energy) in the deserts and pump seawater into the greenhouses you would do better than having a sand bottom in the greenhouse because sand reflects energy back out (is light coloured) of greenhouses. With other solar panels, coat them to make mirrors out of them and reflect solar energy into the greenhouses. Of put dark solar panels in shallow pools of seawater and reflect solar energy into the pools with the mirror solar panels to cause evaporation and more clouds and rain.
-
MA Rodger at 22:10 PM on 22 August 2017CERN CLOUD experiment proved cosmic rays are causing global warming
Mick Stupp @19,
That graph appears here having been "adapted by Dr. Tim Patterson.from: Friis-Christensen, E., and K. Lassen, Science, 254, 698-700, 1991." Thus the original is Fig 2 of that paper. The level of nonsense and error engendered by that particular exercise in curve-fitting is set out in this SkS post.
-
BBHY at 17:34 PM on 22 August 2017Solar eclipse: Why the sun is not responsible for recent climate change
Good info! Also:
Nighttime termperatures have risen faster than daytime temperatures. The sun doesn't shine at night, so that is not consistent with the sun being the cause. It is consistent with excess atmospheric CO2 being the cause.
Winter temperatures have risen faster that summertime temperatures. The sun shines less in winter, so that is not consistent with the sun being the cause. It is consistent with excess atmospheric CO2 being the cause.
Temperatures at the poles have risen faster than temperatures in temperate regions. The poles receive less sun, so that is not consistent with the sun being the cause. It is consistent with excess atmospheric CO2 being the cause.
If the sun were causing the increase in temperature, the amount of energy the Earth radiates into space would go up as the planet warms. Satellites in space have measured a reduction in the energy the Earth radiates into space. The reduction is at the wavelength that is absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere, and tracks the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. This would not occur if the sun was causing the temperature increase, and can only be explained by increased CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels causing the Earth to warm by trapping heat energy before it can be reradiated into space, a process known as the "greenhouse effect".
-
Mick Stupp at 06:44 AM on 22 August 2017CERN CLOUD experiment proved cosmic rays are causing global warming
I keep coming across a graph showing correlation between sun spot cycle length and temperature, which purports to explain the cooling from 1940 to 1975. There's and example of it here: http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/sunspots-climate-friends-of-science.gif
I can't find a robust reference to this, does anyone know its origins? Also, has anyone seen this covering a longer period in history?
Assuming it is accurate it does suggest a good correlation, but this has to be a complex one. TSI alone does not explain it as this varies surprisingly little. CLOUD seem to have found strong evidence that extremely small amounts of aerosols have big effects on cloud formation, but the role of cosmic rays still seems inconclusive.
Again assuming the above mentioned graph is correct, are we still searching for an explanation for the apparently good correlation between sun spots and temperature? Anyone know what CLOUD's future agenda is in this regard.
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link. Please see "Solar Cycle Length proves its the sun" myth. Any replies, comment on that thread please, not here.
You might also note that gif from anti-science group "Friends of Science" is of the data without the arithmetic mistake corrected, despite this being known since 2000.
-
Daniel Bailey at 00:08 AM on 22 August 2017Problems For Oil
"who you are and what your qualifications are"
Why does that matter at all? The article cites sources.
-
AndyT at 18:25 PM on 21 August 2017Problems For Oil
Hi Riduna. Great article, thank you. Being a cautious type though, please tell me something about who you are and what your qualifications are. Thanks!
-
scaddenp at 10:52 AM on 21 August 2017Models are unreliable
RandyC - would you accept that if climate science is correct about CC control of water vapour, then Total Precipatible Water should then be highly correlated with surface temperature? Furthermore, you agree that if climate science has it wrong about CC, then climate sensitivity derived from paleotemperature archives would be lower than those derived from models?
-
Tom Curtis at 10:28 AM on 21 August 2017Models are unreliable
Randy C @1069, your assumptions about what climate scientists believe are in error. In particular, while the assumption of constant relative humidity is used as a first approximation of the water vapour feedback, it is not used as an assumption in detailed explorations of the issue. See Minschwaner an Dessler (2004) as an example of more detailed examinations.
I will further note that your assumption that if relative humidity is not maintained, the water vapour feedback is negligible is also not valid.
Moderator Response:[DB] Please note that RandyC is just the latest iteration of serial spammer cosmoswarrior and his iterative sock puppets coolearth / diehard / dieharder / moonrabbit / landdownunder / blackhole / WhiteDwarf / GreenThumb / HeatRay / RobJones / JamesMartin / banbrotam / JeffDylan / jcdylan. His compulsion to flood this venue with sock puppets is strong, bordering on pathological.
Prev 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 Next
