Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 Next
Comments 19151 to 19200:
-
nigelj at 06:26 AM on 11 June 2017SkS Analogy 7 - Christmas Dinner and the Faux Pause
Evan @3, most of your analogies have been good, but for me your xmas dinner analogy was just too long and complicated. I feel the purpose of an analogy is to take complicated stuff and make it simple, and most are short sentences or words or a simple sequence of events. You took the pause idea and actually made it more complcated for me. Of course this is just my opinion.
The ocean heat content wrist / waist anaology above is very clever and maybe a better analogy, although its probably still more of a clever read, and preaching to the converted.
The seasons analogy above works much better for me, and takes a familiar and simple aspect of climate and builds on that.
I got plenty out of the rest of your article, and its bang on. The pause is a huge issue that has been discussed a lot, and the reasons for it seem quite complicated. As far as I can understand it is a lot to do with cyclical ocean processes, but with a low point in the sunspot cycle adding to that. Frankly I dont think its 100% understood, so that makes any analogy even harder.
But the pause is certainly at least 75% understood in my opinion.The el nino cycle can affect things for about ten years and is a powerful cycle. So hopefully people can understand that a long term warming trend from greenhouse gases will look sort of like like an upaward tilted sine wave graph as a result of el nino etc. There are other ocean cycles of about 20 years but they are a bit weaker. Theres a lot going on summed up as short term noise in the context of century long timescales. The denialists know this, but twist these issues to create as much doubt as possible
-
Tom Curtis at 04:58 AM on 11 June 2017It's the sun
anticorncob6 @1239, if you use an offset (eg, SSN - the mean value of the SSN over a given interval) or normalized sunspot number (eg, (SSN - mean value)/standard deviation), you can get negative values. Integrating will hten allow negative slopes. Clearly if you allow yourself to do that, however, you can potentially generate an infinite number of curves with different values and/or different shapes. Therefore unless you clearly lay out how you did it, and justify the steps - it is always an invalid approach when integrating.
That is particularly the case when you use different offsets, which has clearly been done in this case. In particular, the graph of the comparison with the Southern Annular Mode (bottom left) shows a negative slope for the "sunspot integral" from about 1870 to 1930. Equally clearly, in comparing with global sea ice (bottom right), the "negative sunspot integral" is near flat over the same interval. Clearly a different baseline has been adopted in the two cases, and likely in others as well.
To make it worse, the comparison with global sea ice has clearly been tuned to get that effect. The markings on the y-axis of values from -1 to 1 indicate that these are normalized values, but the "negative sunspot integral" for half of the record is an effectively flat line with a high value. That would not be possible with an integration of the SSN offset by the mean value of the series. Ergo they have chosen some different offset for the reason that it gives that shape to the graph.
As the saying goes, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics as used by climate change deniers.
-
anticorncob6 at 04:33 AM on 11 June 2017It's the sun
Sorry if this has already been brought up (I think I can be forgiven for not wanting to read through 1238 comments) but can someone please respond to this? I'm arguing with a denier on Youtube right now.
https://i1.wp.com/s24.postimg.org/bu2hwxlut/Sunspot_Integral_Climate_Wind_Ice.png
To me it seems they're looking at accumulated sunspots (is that what they mean by "integral"?) and if that's the case the graph can never decrease, but it does. Sometime seems off but I want to be precise.
-
DrivingBy at 03:25 AM on 11 June 2017SkS Analogy 7 - Christmas Dinner and the Faux Pause
Logic and science work only for the study of nature, they are not how people work. They're also unpopular with most people, who are both uwilling and also unable to apply them to most issues. That works out well in general, because most issues (how to attract a mate, raise children, etc) aren't logic problems. If we ask people who were promoted as tribal leaders to suspend the normal way of doing things (noise, persuation, charm) and be nerds, we can expect a chilly reception at best.
Only when people believe there's something in it for them, their identity group or same cause they adhere to (Gaia, Jesus, USA, their investments etc) will they suspend looking for ways to reinforce what they already believe and even attempt to follow the foreign thought process of observation, testing and deduction.
But climate is not an obvious process you can demonstrate on a tabletop, so it will again come to whether a pol will listen to the wizards who interpret heirogyphics. They'd sooner swim through a sewage pipe than slog through the neccessary background to verify the science themselves.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 03:18 AM on 11 June 2017Climate's changed before
too @550... Pretty much every point you've stated here is fundamentally incorrect.
1) Many solutions, in addition to wind and solar, are discussed to address climate change. Nuclear, CCS, efficiency, tidal, geothermal, hydro are all solutions which are being actively worked on and are being actively implemented.
2) Researchers provide a wide variety of temperature reconstructions for past temperature. There are numberous local and regional records, and there are a great many multiproxy reconstructions as well. Just because something is "inferred" does not mean that it is wrong. That would be a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Just because you don't have absolute precisions doesn't mean you can't trust the information you do have.
3) What we do know about CO2 concentrations is, they are rising. There is no question about that fact. We know how much we extract and burn in terms of fossil fuels. We know concentrations are rising due to human contributions. There is very high confidence on this fact.
4) If you actually were to spend any time reading scientific research or listen to what scientists actually say, you would realize that uncertainties are core to the message that they present.
I suspect that your entire comment is posted here mostly as a means to drive traffic to your personal climate denial blog.
-
too at 01:57 AM on 11 June 2017Climate's changed before
Look, the main issue in general is that no other solutions to today's climate change are ever discussed other than replacing fossil fuels with wind and power. Added to this are the uncertainties of today's climate science. Specifically:
- Science cannot provide an average temperature change for the history of the world or accurately determine the rapidty of temperature changes during specific periods because these are all based on inferred evidence and those models could be incorrect.
- Science cannot accurately measure the CO2 produced year-over-year from such things as ocean-atmospheric exchange, plant and animal respiration, soil respiration and decomposition or determine if these things are increasing or decreasing. These are solely an approximation based upon a model that could be incorrect. And, even a slightly incorrect approximation or model could have a tremendous effect considering that these natural processes produce orders of magnitude more CO2 than burning fossil fuels.
It is incorrect of climate scientists to claim certainty with so much uncertainty present. It is also incorrect to only ever talk about replacing fossil fuels with wind and solar when a tremendous number of other, alternative solutions are available.
https://theobjectiveobserverblog.wordpress.com/2017/06/10/one-trick-pony/
Moderator Response:[PS] As pointed out earlier, the link is to misinformation not supporting evidence. Until you can figure out what is true, there is little point coming here to demonstrate poor critical thinking.
When you make a claim (like scientist claim certainty), then provide a link to the science that supports that claim. Nothing is easier to disprove than a strawman. Further strawman arguments will be summarily deleted.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:39 AM on 11 June 2017Reflections on the politics of climate change
nigelj,
Further clarification. Entertainment that Ridicules the Ridiculous things done by 'people who grow up mere children' does not harm such a grown-up Mere Child.
That type of entertainment can help raise awareness of the better (rationally justified) understanding of things and reduce the magnitude of Unjustifiable Winning by Grown-up Mere Children. It can also help many people who still have some growing-up to do to understand how best to develop/change their ways of thinking and acting.
To be most effective such ridiculing enetertainment should stick to the ridiculous statements and actions, not stoop to "unjustified image attacks" like making fun of the colour or syle of a person's hair.
-
HK at 23:55 PM on 10 June 2017SkS Analogy 7 - Christmas Dinner and the Faux Pause
If you want to make the point that short-term noise doesn’t negate the long-term climate trend, maybe the best analogy is daily temperatures vs. the seasons. Just as manmade GHGs now are the main global climate forcing on a decadal to century time scale, the shifting distribution of insolation is the main seasonal forcing. Clearly that doesn’t mean that every day during the spring is warmer than the previous one – a few colder days doesn’t mean that the coming summer is cancelled.
To test this pretty obvious concept, I checked the average daily temperatures at my local weather station here in south-eastern Norway from March 1 to May 31 this year. It turned out that of these 92 successive days, only 45 were warmer than the previous one while 45 were colder and 2 the same, and there was nearly no warming the first three weeks of April. The long "hiatus" in April didn’t prevent the overall temperature to rise about 15oC from early March to late May.
This shows that as long as the underlying forcing keeps on increasing, the warming will continue despite some ups and downs that are mostly caused by redistribution of heat within the climate system.
-
Hank11198 at 22:18 PM on 10 June 2017The day after withdrawing from Paris, Trump declared a flooding disaster in Missouri
ubrew12 I have seen this exact same graph or something similar but the one's I've seen have always been in C. I think I can figure out how to insert a picture.
Well I guess not. I have one on my hard drive but didn't see how to browse to it.
-
Evan at 15:03 PM on 10 June 2017SkS Analogy 7 - Christmas Dinner and the Faux Pause
nigelj@1 and ubrew12@2. I like your suggestions to focus on the oceans as well, and the idea of wrist vs. waist is interesting. I think what you are both saying as well is that most people simply don't think about the temperature of the ocean. The reason for focusing on the body weight is that I felt this is something that all people understand, and intuitively people differentiate between signal and noise, even though they don't know that's what they're doing.
Using the wrist/waist reference takes the analogy in a different direction, but one that is equally important. For this direction (informing people that the temperature of the oceans is also important) others have used sea level rise in the 20th century as an indication that ocean temperature is rising, just like mercury in a thermometer rises (expands) as it warms.
-
Eclectic at 14:02 PM on 10 June 2017Throwing Down The Gauntlet
Too @25 , the reference you give to "theobjectiveobserverblog.wordpress" is not worth reading.
The blog article is a complete waste of readers' time.
It consists of a mixture of puerile "butthurt" and tired old foolish sophistries, combined with a determined effort to avoid looking at the real physical world and the real mechanisms which are causing the current extraordinary rapid (and anthropogenic) global warming.
Theobjectiveobserver is highly un-objective and highly foolish in his observations.
Science-denier; climate-change-denier; logic-denier etc.; call him whatever . . . so long as we call a spade a spade!!
-
too at 13:40 PM on 10 June 2017There is no consensus
Just because there is consensus doesn't automatically mean that the view is correct. Historically, scientific consensus has not only been proven to be wrong, but spectacularly wrong...time and time again.
https://theobjectiveobserverblog.wordpress.com/2017/06/09/there-are-no-climate-change-deniers/
Moderator Response:[PS] This sloganeering without a scrap of support. If you want to dispute, pick a point, back your argument with references/data. If you are taken in by the nonsense in link presented, then I strongly recommend you read here and here.
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.
-
ubrew12 at 13:39 PM on 10 June 2017SkS Analogy 7 - Christmas Dinner and the Faux Pause
To extend your Christmas dinner analogy, suppose you went to your doctor and he asked if you were gaining weight. 'No', you say brightly, 'I measure the circumference of my left wrist each day, and it has remained the same since last Christmas'. 'Perhaps you should measure your waist instead', says doc. 'My waist is covered in clothing', you retort, 'that's too difficult'. Your doctor measures your waist and reports unhappily that, despite the evidence of your wrist, you never really stopped expanding since last Christmas (this analogy communicates that evidence of global warming is more accurately determined by sampling the ocean than the air, even if it requires more work).
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:48 PM on 10 June 2017Reflections on the politics of climate change
nigelj,
I agree there is nothing wrong, and lots of merit, in people doing what they enjoy, as you say "... some pleasure, fashion, and amusements", as long as the actions do not create a negative effect for Others (no entertainment or amuzement at the expense of someone else).
What I will add that when the USA Constitution was written the "pursuit of happiness" was generally understood to be the pursuit of the requirements of an enjoyable life which can be understood to be: clean air, clean water, decent nutritious food, clothing, shelter, education, health care, a variety of amuzement and entertainment, hobbies, sport, ...
The current belief in the minds of many people, not just in the USA, seems to be that Happiness is 'believing and doing whatever makes You Happy' without being restrained by "rational consideration of distant motives" (ignorant regarding the understanding that a 'personally desired' activity harms Others - future generations are Others).
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:18 AM on 10 June 2017Humidity is falling
Redrum:
Have you asked yourself what the "relative" in "relative humidity" is relative to? That is the answer to your question. It is not an absolute measure of water vapour: it is a ratio (or %) of the absolute measure of water vapour to some other quantity.
That other quantity is the "saturation humidity", and saturation humidity increases with increasing temperature. If the absolute humidity remains constant, relative humidity will decrease as temperature increases, so relative humidity is not a particularly good indicator of the actual water vapour content of the air. You need to also have knowledge of the air temperature to fill out the relationship.
As an analogy, telling me that you spend 20% of your total income on housing tells me little if I don't know what your income is. If your income goes up or down, the % will change even if the actual $ you spend on housing does not.
Wikipedia has a good page on relative humidity. It also has a more general page on vapour pressure, which includes an explanation of the concept of saturation. (They call it equilibrium.) Also check out wikipedia's Humidity page. "Specific humidity" is only one of several measures of humidity that avodi the "relative" conundrum.
Fake skeptics will call attention to relative humidity, which will go down if the absolute humidity is not rising as fast as the saturation humidity does with rising temperatures. They are the ones that are misleading.
All of this will be discussed in any decent introductory meteorology text.
-
Daniel Bailey at 09:02 AM on 10 June 2017Humidity is falling
The atmospheric composition of water vapor has increased by about 5% since 1970 (Trenberth & Fasullo, 2009; pp 317). As a result, the atmosphere now holds the equivalent of an extra volume of Lake Erie in it, spread throughout.
-
Redrum at 08:58 AM on 10 June 2017Humidity is falling
Hello,
I have a small question about the relative and specific humidity - why do these researches take on specific humidity, and what is it's relation to relative humidity? Sceptics say that relative humidity is falling globally, and we are manipulating by showing the specific humidity graphs. -
nigelj at 08:17 AM on 10 June 2017SkS Analogy 7 - Christmas Dinner and the Faux Pause
Good article, but the weight loss analogy is rather complicated and convoluted. The more technical explanation in the article following this was fine and easy to follow. I don't think the temperature trend and so called pause is an issue that suggests a good, simple, useful analogy.
I think instead your technical explanation was enough. Most people would grasp that you can have one longer term trend modulated by other shorter term trends. There is also the issue that there was no pause in ocean temperatures.
The problem was more one of scale. The denialists distorted things to make an approximately 8 year pause sound like a very long pause of 17 years by cherry picking 1998 as a starting point and cherry picking what temperature data they used. I think the public would have have some intuitive insight that 17 years looks suspicious, but 8 years or so is not unexpected.
You are right to call the denislists out on this dubious sort of interpretation. It's basically an exaggeration fallacy.
-
Nicko at 07:32 AM on 10 June 20172nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
This does not seem a good explanation for how greenhouse theory is not at odds with the second law of thermodynamics. A body will lose heat at a rate relative to the surrounding temperature. If it is much colder and your body loses heat quickly you feel cold. The blanket does slow the transfer of heat from your warm body to the cold atmosphere, making you feel warmer, or more correctly less cold. You do not actually get hotter just colder slower, whereas greenhouse theory States the earth gets hotter, not colder slower.
Moderator Response:[PS] This is the longest thread at Sks and it seems to be because people have simultaneously have a very poor grasp of thermodynamics and a great reluctance to improve it. Science of Doom have an excellent series on the textbook basics as well as good article on Second Law. But please be clear that if you are going to insist on a description of thermodynamics that is not in accordance with experimental results, then this is not site for you.
-
nigelj at 07:15 AM on 10 June 2017Pittsburgh and Paris join over 200 cities and states rejecting Trump on climate
Engineer Jim @2
I think when you claim the Paris Accord etc is about wealth redistribution, you are reacting a little bit emotively. There is assistance for poor countries and I would see this as more of a pragmatic sort of thing that can be defended on a logical basis. It should also be noted that while you are right poor countries will like this, plenty of rich countries are prepared to participate as well, and its basically the USA now on the outside being paranoid about it.
I do myself have concerns about the economic philosophies, and I'm not saying you are wrong to voice such concerns, but I don't think it invalidates the Accord as a whole, and is not a sensibe reason to just walk away. The treaty is largely voluntary, and this includes any assistance America gives poor countries, so America can ignore some of these if it really feels it must for whatever reason.
Trumps actions leaving the Acccord appear more just a rejection of any form of Accord, and looks like points scoring against anything Obama did. There is no other conclusion I can draw especially when you look at the full picture of Trumps actions on everything.
In any event helping other countries strengthens them economically, and this has some benefits for America. It all churns back into the global economy.
Yes wind and solar use some rare earth metals just like computers, phones and a thousand other devices today, but I dont hear you say abandon these and go back to the past.
All power generation technologies have downsides. Hydro power completely alters landscapes, and often requires shifting entire communities and China would be a good example. Coal power releases serious particulate emissions. Nuclear energy has both benefits and risks.
You haven't really provided any real evidence that renewable energy has more problems than anything else.
I dont see that windmills using metals is any worse overall than buildings being built of metals. Steel and aluminium are abundant.
Electirc cars largely rely on lithium and this can be recycled. However theres not much lithium in the batteries and this is not a pressing concern to recycle lithium.
Rare eath metals can obviously be recycled.
Its a tough issue because all resources can be depleted and oil certainly wont last forever. However metals can actually be recycled.
No doubt some of the factories processing rare eath metals or lithium cause pollution, especially factories in developing countries with governments with poor regulatory standards or weak court systems. However surely the solution to this is better quality institutions, as opposed to abandoning using those metals?
-
too at 03:04 AM on 10 June 2017Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?
So, if I understand what you are saying about this being a cycle. If human population growth completely stopped and remained constant as well as every other CO2 producer/source (all remain constant) and at the same time every square inch of the Earth became covered in lush vegetation, increasing the amount of photosynthesis occuring by a factor of 100 let's say, according to your "cycle" theory, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would never decrease? I think that is pretty much incorrect. Yes it is a cycle, but the amount in the atmosphere depends on how much is being put into the atmosphere (sources) and how much is being taken out of the atmosphere (sinks). So...you're incorrect.
-
John Hartz at 00:25 AM on 10 June 2017Pittsburgh and Paris join over 200 cities and states rejecting Trump on climate
[JH] Suggested supplemental reading:
Hawaii rebels against Trump with a law to uphold the spirit of the Paris climate accord by Kurtis Lee, Los Angeles Times, June 7, 2017
-
Engineer Jim at 23:10 PM on 9 June 2017Pittsburgh and Paris join over 200 cities and states rejecting Trump on climate
The basic premise of the Paris accord was noble and good. Reducing man-made pollution is good at any time. The unenforcibility and politically driven wealth redistribution aspects of the treaty is a typical piece of UN work. In their minds it is OK to get the US taxpayer to pay for their expense accounts and to pay for the actions required of smaller nations under a global treaty. No wonder the other countries all signed! Read the text of the treaty before complaining. Its sickening. Can't blame Trump for bagging it!
"Climate change" is a political talking point. It creates a focus on only air pollution and neglects all other forms of environmental pollution. Do the readers of this blog really believe that alternative energy is pollution free? Wind and solar consume a huge amount of not only metals, but exotic metals, kills zillions of birds, requires sophisticated metallurgy and manufacturing, and creates a blight on the landscape. As an example, the rare earths required to make the technologies work are principally mined in China without any type of environmental control creating massive damage to local water aquifers and the environment in general. How about the massive consumption of metals for electric cars? That is localized pollution, but its in someone else's back yard. Guess that is OK? Out of sight, out of mind. No carbon footprint?
Possibly it is time for a re-calibration of the debate to a more balanced total global pollution footprint discussion? Air, water, land?
Moderator Response:[JH] Vacuous 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.
[PS] Looks like someone is getting their information about what is in Paris accord from rather biased sources. Could try reading it instead. Also, developed world emissions have created the problem so good luck getting agreement to fix without developed world paying for it.
-
Eclectic at 21:37 PM on 9 June 2017There is no consensus
Sorry, Rikoshaprl @754 , but the link you supply mentions the main "leading climatologist" as Richard Lindzen — an ex-climatologist who was so unscientific, that he caused major embarrassment to his colleagues at M.I.T. when he was there. And the other climatologists your article (at yournewswire) links to, are little better! Lindzen makes a triple fail, because his own climate predictions are now a full degree Celsius below the present day global surface temperature. That is a colossal error by Lindzen. And Lindzen still seems to think there has been hardly any warming, despite all the evidence to the contrary! Lindzen is severely out of touch with reality. And his third fail, is that he appears to hold a religious-based belief that Jehovah would prevent a global warming of more than the slightest amount. Completely unscientific attitude there, as I am sure you must agree. Among genuine climatologists, Lindzen is a laughing stock.
Now to the Cook study itself. Rikoshaprl, it appears you have not read the Cook paper. If you had read it, then you would see that the second part of the paper consists of questioning the authors of those papers — and here, the authors themselves rate their own papers at around 97% support of the consensus figure found in the first section of the study [i.e. also 97%]
Sorry, Rikoshaprl, but you haven't a leg to stand on.
Perhaps you can inform us of how you came to make such a complete mistake of the real situation. For your own benefit, you should do some reading about what is actually happening in the field of climate science — and you can learn a great deal, right here at Skepticalscience.
Avoid foolish propaganda sites such as Yournewswire. They will misinform you and lead you to embarrass yourself, hugely !!
-
rikoshaprl at 20:32 PM on 9 June 2017There is no consensus
A paper by five leading climatologists published in the journal Science and Education found only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate studies examined in Cook’s study explicitly stated mankind has caused most of the warming since 1950 — meaning the actual consensus is 0.3 percent, not 97%. http://yournewswire.com/mit-scientist-global-warming-propaganda/
Moderator Response:[DB] In this venue, participants cite credible sources. In this case, if you wish to cite a published study, then furnish a link to the actual study, and not to some news article that may or may not be misrepresenting the paper.
Please read this venue's Comments Policy to familiarize yourself with this venue's permitted rules of engagement. Thanks!
-
Digby Scorgie at 12:19 PM on 9 June 2017Analysis: Meeting Paris pledges would prevent at least 1C of global warming
All right, Mr Moderator, I'll try to express myself more circumspectly: In view of Bjorn Lomborg's reputation, I don't think any weight should be placed on his 2015 paper.
-
John Hartz at 11:56 AM on 9 June 2017Analysis: Meeting Paris pledges would prevent at least 1C of global warming
Recommended supplemental reading:
Trump used our research to justify pulling out of the Paris agreement. He got it wrong.
His administration cherry-picked my group’s findings to help make their case.
Opinion by John Reilly*, Washington Post, June 7, 2017
As scientists concerned with the very real impact of human activity on climate, my colleagues and I certainly hope our research reaches policymakers at the highest levels of government — which, apparently, it did, when White House officials cited our work to justify President Trump’s decision to pull the United States out of the Paris climate accord.
Unfortunately, they got it wrong.
In talking points released along with the president’s withdrawal, the administration referenced an MIT study from the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, which I co-direct with Ronald Prinn, to bolster the proposition that even if all signatories to the Paris agreement met their obligations, “the impact on the climate would be negligible.” But that runs counter to the view, held by my colleagues and I, that the Paris agreement’s unprecedented global framework is necessary to address climate change.
Click here to access the entire article.
*John Reilly is co-director of MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.
-
scaddenp at 07:46 AM on 9 June 2017It cooled mid-century
Qwertie, well it is hardly a "sine wave", but yes it does contribute to variability about the trend in surface temperature in decadal scale. A couple of important points to note:
1/ PDO does not appear to be a single ocean dynamic feature but rather the expression of the sum of multiple underlying dynamics.
2/ The PDO is inherently detrended. ie global average SST is substacted from the Pacific SST in calculating the index.
-
nigelj at 07:45 AM on 9 June 2017Pittsburgh and Paris join over 200 cities and states rejecting Trump on climate
"Government regulations shouldn’t be used to pick winners and losers"
Well agreed, but subsidising or otherwise supporting renewable energy isn't really picking a winner. It is just helping the industry get started when it faces a lot of difficulties beyond what would be normal. For example, this is why Americas government funded and created NASA because it was beyond the private sector but provides benefits to America as a whole.
It also needs to be said The Republicans subsidise oil and agriculture. However it is very difficult to understand any logical reason to support established oil magnates and millionaire farmers, and there seems to me more logic in supporting renewable energy, at least for a limited time period until it becomes established.
There is also nothing wrong with government regulations that control use of fossil fuels or tax their use etc. Markets have never self regulated to prevent or rectify environmental problems, as its easy to pass these problems onto future generations, or some other persons known as the tragedy of the commons problem. Therefore governments have traditionally regulated environmental activity. I dont see why Trump and his team don't understand this.
It should also be noted Trump is treating the Paris agreement like a hardball businesss negotiation, and this might be ok up to a certain point given nation states have to somehow cooperate and reach agreements. But international environmental agreements are more political agreements, and need a strong spirit of goodwill. Without that they all fail to even get off the ground and playing hardball becomes destructive and will hurt America ultimately if the whole thing breaks down. You have to take a broad and long view of international agreements.
America under Trump has now become the global renogade, taking a very hostile approach to agreements and indeed everything, and opposing international consensus on all sorts of issues for irrational reasons that beggar belief.
-
L'Schoo at 00:51 AM on 9 June 2017Analysis: Meeting Paris pledges would prevent at least 1C of global warming
Paris looks more and more like a political pageant, meant to at least show the hoi polloi it's willing to look like it cares, but any real, substantive and verifiable action is NOT on the table. It all smells very Neoliberal......
Moderator Response:[JH] Vacuous 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.
-
José M. Sousa at 23:41 PM on 8 June 2017Analysis: Meeting Paris pledges would prevent at least 1C of global warming
Well, it seems that even assuming the pledges (Paris is no more than that, simple good intentions) will come true, most scenarios above put us well beyond 2 ºC and close or above 3 ºC. That means a big chance of crossing tipping points that will put in motion positive feedbacks that will increase the emissions regardless what we do. So, it becomes somehow irrelevant to say that this or that agreement prevents more or less 0.5 ºC if we have crossed certain temperature thresholds, like 2º C.
-
DPiepgrass at 17:29 PM on 8 June 2017It cooled mid-century
Somebody should answer Chuck's question about PDO. I'd like to know too.
-
DPiepgrass at 15:53 PM on 8 June 2017Blaming the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
When was the PDO discovered and when did it come to the attention of climatologists? Just curious because skeptics often act like something is a new discovery even when it's old news.
-
scaddenp at 15:46 PM on 8 June 2017Climate's changed before
Jim, "natural cycles" is a very vague term and you need to talk about scale. On short term (
Climate changes when the energy balance changes. First law of thermodynamics stuff. You can do that by varying the incoming solar (either by changing distance to sun, solar output, screening with aerosols), albedo, or the GHG composition in that atmosphere. It is not at all clear to me why you are claiming "cycles are logarithmic".
So what among those are changing and by how much? The milankovich cycles driving ice ages actually vary the distribution of solar energy on the surface but in practise vary climate through change in albedo - more or less ice on northern hemisphere continents. Those changes also trigger variations in CH4 and CO2 but over long time scales, turning NH effect into a global event. (Freezing or thawing of asiatic wetlands; vegatation changes; ocean CO2 by dependence of solubility on temperature). They are entirely reversable.
Currently, the milankovich cycles should be inducing a very slow cooling. However, this cycle is slow and effect at 65N are changes of around 0.008W/m2/ century. Also worth noting that while we had milankovich cycles in the Pliocene when CO2 was over 400pm, we didnt have ice age cycle.
By comparison, changes in GHG are inducing a warming of around 4W/m2/century globally, not just NH. (We can measure this increase in surface irradation from GHG directly).
What about the sun? We can now measure output directly and see that this is not contributing.
What about some hidden ocean cycle? Well it is very hard to claim increase in surface temperature is coming from ocean when the oceans are warming too. Violation of 1st law - where is the energy coming from.
Something undiscovered by science? Can never be ruled out, but the current climate change is perfectly adequately explained by GHG changes. If it is something else, then why is the extra irradation of the surface NOT the cause?
-
Engineer Jim at 13:22 PM on 8 June 2017Climate's changed before
Interestin discussion. looking at the full tread it started with "this happened before" and eventually devolves to technical minutia. Yes this has happened before, CO2 concentrations have increased in the past resulting in heating, then cycled through to an eventual ice age or cooling period. What happened to cause the reduction in CO2 in those past cooling cycles? Carbon sequestration in coal beds, etc.?
At present we are approximately 10,000 years past the last glacial maxus and have been in a long term warming cycle. Natural cycles are typically logarithmic in nature, not linear. Point is: is the current acceleration part of a normally occurring natural cycle following a logarithmic trend? Does the increase in man-made pollution simply create an overprint on what would have happened naturally. The real big picture question?
-
nigelj at 13:02 PM on 8 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
Chriskoz, I interpreted the title of this article to mean Trump was considered the worst president ever on the basis of a combination of his climate policies and all his other policies. This is a reasonable assessment of him. The use of cementing his legacy implied to me the climate policies were the final brick in the wall.
I might have missinterpreted this, and its a wide position for the website to make. It would however be my own personal conclusion.
But I think you are right about the rest of your comments such as "His passion is contageous and his followers uncritically follow." Trump is almost like those tele- evangilist ministers in his style of twisted rhetoric.
Trumps supporters clearly all connect with Trump at some visceral level and speak the same langauge (mumbo jumbo more like it).
Trump has pulled off a clever and devious if reprehensible move, he has united educated white business people who oppose business regulation and social security etc, and blue collar workers left behind, etc even though Trumps business agenda hurts blue collar workers in many ways. Trump has done all this by creating a common enemy "the estblishment elite" whoever they are, which he keeps deliberately unclear to keep the whole charade going. If he is too specific then his ruse falls apart.
Trumps followers lack the ability to see they are being cleverly manipulated by a master of group psychology. The end result of the process is a good deal of general confusion, which will add to global moves towards increased nationalism and anti global cooperation.
Trumps moves could weaken the Paris accord as well. Or will it? Trump is so monumentally crass and loud and generally offensive, he may drive the rest of the world further towards globalisation and The Paris Agreement!
-
Digby Scorgie at 10:45 AM on 8 June 2017Analysis: Meeting Paris pledges would prevent at least 1C of global warming
Everything I've read about Bjorn Lomborg points to the fact that he is a fraud. I recall reading (but can't remember where, unfortunately) that he has been funded by some in the fossil-fuel industry to produce "studies" sympathetic to fossil-fuel interests. I would discount his 2015 paper as worthless.
Moderator Response:[PS] No accusation of fraud. Please respect our comments policy.
-
nigelj at 08:19 AM on 8 June 2017Analysis: Meeting Paris pledges would prevent at least 1C of global warming
Lombergs study just doesn't make sense. From the article it just appears to be assumptions that people wont cut emissions or hold to commitments longer term. How does that even qualify as a science study, and get passed peer review? Its vacuous, anyone could have claimed that, and it tells us nothing that we couldn't do just as a maths exercise.
It's also little more than pessimism based on empty claims about China with no foundation for his claims. Why does he think China will act in that way? If anything, given their form of government it may be easier for China to stay with longer term policies than a democracy.
He claims other countries will just give up gradually over time, but I see no reason why he would claim that. If you look at other environmental policies it's much less pessimistic. Many policies have stuck in place rather well, like efforts to reduce cfc's, reduce use of asbestos and ddt, etc. Of course there have been failures, and backsliding by some countries, companies, or individuals, but that is definitely not universal or predominant from what I can see.
Possibly Lomberg thinks countries will see things as all just increasingly too hard for small returns. But he is just speculating, and being a total pessimist. This is not a good way for humanity to think, and we do have choices about how we think
If you want to predict how countries might react, at least look at history so you have something tangible. One possible scenario in America longer term might be an alternating policy cycle of action and inaction on climate, depending on whether government is dominated by Republicans or democrats, so you get maybe 8 years of inaction, 8 years of action, 8 years of inaction in a repeating cycle. You should calculate that trend of emissions, over time as its the most likely outcome in America.
In fact real issue in America over climate (and other matters) is a large disconnect between the population and Congress. The population want more done on climate change, and Congress want less done, but given the nature of things this will ultimately force some form of compromise and at least something will be done. In addition the market is moving towards renewable energy regardless of politics.
The rest of the world seems to be less politically volatile or divided on climate change, eg Germany, Britain, NZ so forward trajectories are likely to be a bit more stable than America.
-
jtfarmer at 07:48 AM on 8 June 2017Analysis: Meeting Paris pledges would prevent at least 1C of global warming
At what point in the temperature rise do we have to start accounting for fewer humans on earth. When that happens, less energy will be required to sustain those that survive. Perhaps then earth will find its equilibrium.
-
ubrew12 at 06:24 AM on 8 June 2017The day after withdrawing from Paris, Trump declared a flooding disaster in Missouri
Hank@12: I'm no expert. I refer to a graph, which I linked to in my original post, and had seen before. Here's the graph:
At least, according to this graph, the depth of the last several ice ages was 4 to 8 F below our holocene optimum. So, choosing 6 F, that's why I said 3 C.
dfwlms@13: The context for this discussion is flooding in Missouri, which as reported, killed 13 people a couple years ago. We're trying to prevent further death and destruction. That's not 'Chicken Little' behavior. I, for one, do not think the 'sky will fall' from global warming, because I know the technologies that exist to combat it are technically feasible (though perhaps costly). Realism is needed to determine when they need to be deployed, however. I casually peg a decade from now as the moment when public opinion and purse will move to deploy these solutions en mass. I believe we'll skirt the worst once everybody realizes how serious this is.
-
dfwlms at 23:19 PM on 7 June 2017The day after withdrawing from Paris, Trump declared a flooding disaster in Missouri
It might be instructive to reflect on the simple tale of yore, "Chicken Little" (or "Henny Penny"). There appear to be a multitude of "the sky is falling" partisans when contemplating the ever-changing climate and guessing at the causes.
Moderator Response:[JH] Vacuous 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.
-
Hank11198 at 21:04 PM on 7 June 2017The day after withdrawing from Paris, Trump declared a flooding disaster in Missouri
Ubrew12 I was referring to the ice core graphs I see on multiple websites which show a 5-8C drop in temperature. As an engineer that tries to keep abreast of climate science and has taken a few online courses on the subject I am limited in my understanding of the subject. However I do make a concentrated effort to study the subject and check several climate websites on a daily basis. So I will have to take your word for the 3C figure.
With that said, I have tried my best to find information on whether those graphs show local temperatures or whether they have been adjusted somehow to show global temperatures. I wish there was a place on the web where someone that has these types of questions could go too in order to obtain answers that seem to be unavailable as general information. If anyone reading these comments know of such a site I would greatly appreciate a response.
-
Eclectic at 15:10 PM on 7 June 2017The day after withdrawing from Paris, Trump declared a flooding disaster in Missouri
Nigelj, I am not sure how far down the [what you call "eccentric"] pathway Lindzen is. I base my comments on his expressions during a video interview he gave in 2006 when he was only 66 years old. Having a non-Christian upbringing, it is presumably only the Old Testament fundamentalism which is behind his assertion that the Earth cannot be sliding upwards to devastatingly-high global temperatures. He was full of denial : even though at the time of the interview, global surface temperatures and the accompanying effects of warming, were much higher at that stage than he wished to acknowledge.
I certainly gained the impression of mild intellectual impairment — but that was merely based on the 40-minute interview (possibly a version edited by the interviewer, who sounded rather like a Heartland agent) and I dare say I viewed him through the lens of my own suspicions! He did not seem (to me) to be such a florid case as Ivar Giaever or Fred Singer.
But we are digressing off topic.
-
Eclectic at 14:34 PM on 7 June 2017There's no empirical evidence
Galenpsmith @328 , you have posted in the wrong thread. Please choose a more appropriate thread for discussing the good and bad effects of CO2 / hotter climate in relation to greater greenness (good for goats and insects) and reduced food production for humans.
Moderator Response:[DB] Thank you.
-
nigelj at 14:32 PM on 7 June 2017The day after withdrawing from Paris, Trump declared a flooding disaster in Missouri
Eclectic @9, thank's for the clarification on Giaver and its certainly possible that age is making him a little eccentric or something. We mostly all go that way eventually.
Lindzen does as you say believe the planet is resilient and self correcting, but I didnt realise he made a religious connection with this? He seems just more like a contrarian sort of character on all sorts of things.
Anyway I just don't see Lindzens point, because the world is actually probably self correcting and nobody is arguing agw climate change will be permanent (although it will last millenia). It still poses a risk and cost for humanity for a very long time, and I think we are forced into a cost / benefit sort of consideration of what is the best response to the problem, which is pointing towards the desirability to reduce emissions. The fact that the planet will eventually re-absorb CO2 is no comfort for us because that process is so slow.
I also think that while the probability of something truly hugely catastrophic is low, (like several metres of sea level rise per century), but this is of big enough potential impact that it needs very sober consideration.
-
galenpsmith at 14:20 PM on 7 June 2017There's no empirical evidence
Isn't CO2 plant food? The more CO2, the greener the planet. It's very basic science...
Moderator Response:[DB] Anyone wishing to respond to this user please do so at this thread.
Galen, please read the linked thread and the comments there in their entirety to edify yourself. If, after doing so, you still wish to pursue this line of discussion, please do so there, and not here.
Just remember to bring credible evidence in the form of links to the primary research published in credible, peer-reviewed journals that seem to support your contentions. Thanks!
-
Eclectic at 13:46 PM on 7 June 2017The day after withdrawing from Paris, Trump declared a flooding disaster in Missouri
Ubrew12 and Nigelj , please do not misunderstand me. I was in no way wishing to be an apologist for Giaever. He deserves only censure, for the arrant nonsense he was talking, and for his chutzpah in seeking to lecture experts in a [climate science] field in which he confesses himself a complete novice without any formal education.
My point is that there are plenty of nominally-sane people (who are too young to have any likelihood of senile dementia) who present the "usual" denier arguments. We can speculate on the angry and selfish motives underlying their thinking. But I do not know Giaever's emotional background that may be influencing him in his twilight years. Lindzen, on the other hand, expresses a [non-Christian] fundamentalist bias toward a religious view of a divinely-protected status of planet Earth. This would appear to be at least part of his emotional baggage, impelling him toward his own strangely unscientific views [ strangely, for someone with climate science knowledge a million miles higher than Giaever's ].
-
nigelj at 12:17 PM on 7 June 2017The day after withdrawing from Paris, Trump declared a flooding disaster in Missouri
Eclectic @6, I don't understand why you would defend Ivar Gaiever. He is smart enough and highly qualified enough to know his claims were flippant and shallow.
Does he have a pre-existing emotional bias? I have a suggestion: He is currently a science advisor to the Heartland Institute. This suggests to me he sympathises with their entire dubious libertarian and ultra conservative, small government world view, as I cannot believe anyone would work for them, if they didn't share that basic world view. He does not appear the sort who would struggle to find work, given his credentials! Of course he is free to state what his world view is, if he thinks I'm being unfair.
I agree Lindzen is influenced by old testament beliefs. I wonder if Roy Spencer is as well, given things he has written.
So we have two things associated with climate denial, religious fundamentalism and free market economic fundamentalism. Now theres an interesting coincidence!
-
ubrew12 at 12:11 PM on 7 June 2017The day after withdrawing from Paris, Trump declared a flooding disaster in Missouri
I don't mean to pick on Giaever. A climate-denying friend of mine posted his talk on facebook in response to a talk I posted by Elon Musk, following the Trump-Paris divorce. Musk wasn't trying to defend the idea of climate change (because... why?), he was just talking about how to proceed with a solution (because... engineer). But the response required me to wade into a swamp I didn't want to enter (because... can't let sleeping dogs lie), and this is what I determined. Denial can't be so fragile that 5 minutes of thinking about a central claim, by someone not particularly invested with debunking ability, can unravel a 'Nobel-Prize-winner' foisted upon my friend by the Heartland Institute. We are entering 'Alice-in-Wonderland' territory, here. The underlying message is "we don't actually care if our talking-head is ridiculous upon closer examination. He just has to have 'Nobel-Prize-winner' placed prominently before his name." That's a really scary place to be. My friend told me that if I couldn't handle push-back, I shouldn't be posting on facebook. And really, that's the point. Everyone: Heartland, Giaever, my friend. They aren't about discussion, they're about self-censorship. Heartland just needs 'Nobel-Prize-winner' before Giaever's name, and a bunch of fetid whack-a-mole arguments, and a syncophant saying 'if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen', to shut down the discussion... until Earth inconveniently brings it up again.
-
Eclectic at 11:22 AM on 7 June 2017The day after withdrawing from Paris, Trump declared a flooding disaster in Missouri
ubrew @4 , it is perhaps rather unfair to use Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever as a typical example of self-deluding ways of thinking about climate temperature changes.
You reference the video of his talk to an assembly of young scientists (together with a number of Nobel Laureates) — a talk in which he confesses he took about a day of internet surfing to educate himself on the AGW issue [seemingly on WUWT website!!!!! ]. Giaever brought out all sorts of false and ridiculous arguments in classic "denier" style — arguments so infantile and unscientific, which surely could never have been made by him 40 years ago when he was in his prime.
His address must have been painfully embarrassing for the young scientists to witness. ( And I myself couldn't bear to watch more than the first part of this recorded talk. )
I would not wish to speculate on what has caused such a deterioration of Giaever's rationality : but presumably there was some pre-existing emotional bias that underlay his recent conversion to an anti-science way of thinking.
Quite different is Lindzen's anti-science way of thinking. Lindzen is influenced by an Old Testament idea that the planet was divinely created as a self-correcting mechanism (and which therefore inevitably cannot become seriously overheated).
Prev 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 Next
