Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 Next
Comments 19351 to 19400:
-
Digby Scorgie at 11:43 AM on 23 June 2017Claiming that Listerine alleviates cold symptoms is false: To repeat or not to repeat the myth during debunking?
A lot of energy is being expended on persuading doubters about the reality of climate change. (I'm excluding those who are ideologically wedded to their denialism.) The doubters, however, are actually victims of the "propaganda war" (Stefan Rahmstorf's term) on climate science. Would it not therefore be more effective first to sketch the nature of this "war" and then follow with details of how they've been deceived?
-
bjchip at 09:16 AM on 23 June 2017Claiming that Listerine alleviates cold symptoms is false: To repeat or not to repeat the myth during debunking?
Random people or educated people? I think that something like this is going to be an important variable. People who are familiar with and used to logical and analytical thinking may be more competent in accepting the debunking and having it override false information than people who are not. People who rely on their gut and their belief system rather than analytical thought would be more vulnerable to the repetition than the debunking. Effect will depend on audience.
One other thing. Reading this I tripped over this phrase...
"our studies remain moot on whether familiarity backfire effects will occur in other circumstances."
In most cases we see mute used incorrectly. In this case however, mute (silent) would be (I think) more appropriate than moot (hypothetical - open for debate). YMMV. I simply know that it caused my reading process to stumble to a halt for a wee while.
I think that this is important. To debunk effectively one has to explain at least once what the error is that is being debunked. OTOH, and this is important, in many forums the subject is set by the original post. Often it is worth debunking by starting a new post because when looking at the subject lines there is an obvious propaganda value to those, and no matter how well you debunk in your response, you just repeated the error in the subject... which may well be all that most people ever see..
Be careful out there
respectfully
BJ
-
jenna at 08:20 AM on 23 June 2017To lead on climate, leave the ivy tower
All these institutions and governement members and others that have signed on will mean nothing unless they find a way to keep funding the $100 billion Climate Fund for disadvantaged countries.
Words will not help here real funding is needed.
-
nigelj at 07:50 AM on 23 June 2017New Video: John Cook and the 97 Percent
What is actually meant by the term "abrupt change" ? And what is a possible scenario, even if it's unlikely to actually happen?
The IPCC report related to this overturing circulation is very long and technical to read right through.
We all know "The Day After Tomorrow" scenario can't happen that fast (rather good move though) but what is a more likely scenario and timing?
Or do I just have an unhealthy fascination with disasters and horror stories?
-
stephen baines14492 at 07:37 AM on 23 June 2017To lead on climate, leave the ivy tower
They want to stand apart from the other universities as they feel they are elite. OK if they feel superior, but this is not the way or the time to emphasize that sentiment over a broad commitment to Paris.
Frankly, I'm ashamed of my alma mater. Not the first time, I admit.
-
nigelj at 07:27 AM on 23 June 2017Claiming that Listerine alleviates cold symptoms is false: To repeat or not to repeat the myth during debunking?
Very illuminating. It's good to hear this familairity bakfire effect is not always as strong as feared, because it's very difficult addressing science based myths or issues (or anything serious) without putting the key points up front at the top of discussion. It becomes confused and looks like something is being hidden or dodged to do otherwise. Your research is preliminary, but I thought the experiments discussed in the links were reasonably convincing.
The familiarity backfire effect has also been studied and discussed as related to economic, social, and poltical debate as well, with some views that its better to avoid attracting attention to negative problems, and instead simply either go on the offensive, change the subject, or accentuate the positive or bury the problem text in the middle somewhere. Some say "explaining is losing". However I dont think you can apply this strategy to science. We expect manipulative spin from politicians, but people will be less forgiving when academics indulge in it.
The research appears to show the familiarity backfire effect doesn't have much effect on people already familiar with a myth, or who are prepared to study it in detail and listen. I think the real problem is that when myths or problem issues are put at the start of discussion, theres a risk some people wont read more than the myth, so see what the counter arguments are, or just skim the counter arguments only briefly, so the myth might spread. It's similar to the use of "click bait" headlines in the media, that are exaggerations, spin, or simply false, but many people dont read past them so are left with false beliefs.
-
HK at 01:04 AM on 23 June 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #24
Art Vandelay @5:
The period 1921-1980 was 0.06°C and 0.05°C colder in the Berkeley Earth and NASA record respectively than their reference period 1951-80, so including those 30 years would make the temp anomalies that much larger, not smaller.
Note: Berkeley Earth presents two versions of their temperature record, but they recommend using the one with air temperature above sea ice, not water temperature below it. -
Seymour at 00:20 AM on 23 June 2017SkS Analogy 3 - The Greenhouse Effect is Like a Cloudy Night
Isn't this example a little more than an just an analogy? A cloudy sky implies higher relative humidity. Water is a greenhouse gas, which will absorb infrared radiation and return some of it to the ground. I think most people would expect a more gradual temperature drop at sundown in humid climates than in dry climates, even without cloud cover. The only difference seems to be that clouds are visible but greenhouse gasses are not. Isn't the same effect noticeable during a total solar eclipse? In other words, isn't there a more gradual temperature drop during a solar eclipse in humid areas as compared to dry areas? How measurable is the effect of 45% more CO2 and 124% more CH4 in the atmosphere on the rate of temperature drop? If we compare the rates of temperature drop we measure now during a solar eclipse with the rates measured before the Industrial Revolution would we notice a difference? I guess I'm asking for a quantitative estimate of the difference. Given that an eclipse moves so quickly over the earth's surface, I would expect that the radiative effects would dominate convective effects. A total solar eclipse will cross the United States in August. Could this present a teaching moment on the greenhouse effect or is the effect too small?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:01 PM on 22 June 2017To lead on climate, leave the ivy tower
It is very 'telling' that the Leadership of the Universities that have not signed on to "We Are Still In" have not provided a detailed 'explanation' for not signing it.
As leaders of institutions where new reasons and potential better understanding are constantly presented for investigation, consideration and challenge by other well informed people, they are undeniably aware that a 'Good Reason' will stand up to scrutiny and challenges, while a 'Poor Excuse' will stick out like a sore thumb (especially when that excuse is being rationally considered by a person who is well aware of Good Reasons for signing on to "We Are Still In".
-
Tom Curtis at 10:29 AM on 22 June 2017New Video: John Cook and the 97 Percent
Curiousbev @2, scientists have had considerable discussion of the input of fresh water from the melting of the Greenland icesheet on the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). This has been discussed in the IPCC AR (Chapter 10), which concluded that:
"Taken together, it is very likely that the MOC, based on currently available simulations, will decrease, perhaps associated with a significant reduction in Labrador Sea Water formation, but very unlikely that the MOC will undergo an abrupt transition during the course of the 21st century. At this stage, it is too early to assess the likelihood of an abrupt change of the MOC beyond the end of the 21st century, but the possibility cannot be excluded."
It was also discussed on the IPCC AR5 (Chapter 11), which was more cautious, concluding:
"Overall, it is likely that there will be some decline in the AMOC by 2050, but decades during which the AMOC increases are also to be expected. There is low confidence in projections of when an anthropogenic influence on the AMOC might be detected (Baehr et al., 2008; Roberts and Palmer, 2012)."
That low confidence, however, means the current influence of AGW on AMOC is weak, so that the possibility of an abrupt change in the 21st century is still low.
With regard to the possibility of a change in the AMOC initiating a new glaciation, Dana Royer has shown that such an event is unlikely with CO2 concentrations of 500 ppmv or above; and hence very unlikely given AGW
Moderator Response:[PS] Another recent paper looking at this is here but not expecting anything dramatic this century.
-
scaddenp at 09:12 AM on 22 June 2017Factcheck: Grenfell Tower fire and the Daily Mail’s ‘green targets’ claim
I find it hard to believe that in 2017, you could have a 24 storey appartment block in the UK without sprinklers.
-
nigelj at 08:51 AM on 22 June 2017Factcheck: Grenfell Tower fire and the Daily Mail’s ‘green targets’ claim
Paul D @11, yeah the daily mail have tried to distract attention from the real causes with a classic red herring fallacy and some emotional crowd manipulation.
As you point out fire safe panels would have cost almost nothing more. The media has also said there were no fire alarms, smoke detectors, stair pressurisation, and smoke stop doors, and these things are relatively inexpensive and provide at least basic safety, and would certainly have saved lives.
Sprinklers are worth mentioning. These are expensive to retrofit, but they have been shown to reduce property damage and save lives by approximately 50%, especially in risky occupancies with highrise buildings and kitchens etc. Houston in America has made it mandatory to fit these to old buildings, but have given owners some help with finance through some sort of tax concession and depreciation allowance. Britian has put it in the too hard basket. Sprinklers also sometimes significantly reduce insurance premiums.
-
nigelj at 08:21 AM on 22 June 2017To lead on climate, leave the ivy tower
Agreed, universities should join this coalition and show leadership. But perhaps these universities are worried about a backlash if they openly join this coaltion? Backlash could come from a variety of parties sceptical of climate science, and influential in education.
Some people probably think the laws of science can be "negotiated". There is a powerful, toxic, anti science, anti intellectual bullying movement in America, and it want's to control what universities do. It is utterly delusional, and will lead to ignorance, and your economic and social destruction. It's a return to the stagnation and values of the fuedal middle ages period. (the so called medieval "warm" period)
-
Curiousbev at 08:15 AM on 22 June 2017New Video: John Cook and the 97 Percent
I am not a climate change denier. I just want to understand why nobody seems to be talking about all the fresh water pouring into the current. Why is there no discussion about the possibility of an ice age? Do we know how much fresh water it would take to stop the current? Can we even have a conversation about the possibility without being dismissed as religious fanatics?
-
Paul D at 06:42 AM on 22 June 2017Factcheck: Grenfell Tower fire and the Daily Mail’s ‘green targets’ claim
80 people died to save £5000 in taxes.
-
Paul D at 06:35 AM on 22 June 2017Factcheck: Grenfell Tower fire and the Daily Mail’s ‘green targets’ claim
Re: Skeptism = challenging consensus
True. But Skeptism does not = rejecting consensus
Anyway, that aside. Lets not forget that the Daily Mail is a political activist product not unlike state controlled communist and fascist media of the 1930s/40s or modern day Russia.
The reason for posting such a despicable article (the title of which is an informal fallacy of one sort or another, see below) is to distract attention away from investigating the genuine causes.
Informal Fallacies:onus probandi = Shifting the burden of proof
post hoc ergo propter hoc = Correlation proves causationor 'Fallacy of the single cause' maybe appropriate.
-
andreas_s at 04:58 AM on 22 June 2017Skeptical Science now an Android app
@chriskoz
same here :(
i'm able to run the android_app after installation for a (very) short time.
after a while it is only possible to find infos in the news and about section.
the main menu (browse) and the "top arguments" are "empty".
reinstall the app deliver same results :(
-
Tom Curtis at 23:57 PM on 21 June 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #24
Art Vandelay @5, I don't think that is correct. While it is likely that the 1940s were warmer than the 1970s, the 1920s and 30s were definitely cooler than any following decade:
-
Art Vandelay at 23:34 PM on 21 June 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #24
Worth noting that the temp anomaly was referenced against 1951-1980 which was a relatively cool interval thanks to AMO / PDO phases, so the anomaly is made to look slightly more severe that what it would if the previous 30 years was also included.
-
Art Vandelay at 23:29 PM on 21 June 2017Factcheck: Grenfell Tower fire and the Daily Mail’s ‘green targets’ claim
Most, if not all residental towers don't allow access to the roof, even in cases of emergency. Not sure if it would have helped in this situation but given that residents on higher floors were effectively isolated by the extent and severity of the fire on lower floors, going up was the only viable option but was apparently not available.
-
Eclectic at 18:52 PM on 21 June 2017Explainer: Dealing with the ‘loss and damage’ caused by climate change
WatrWise @20 and prior posts,
you will have to explain yourself rather more clearly. You are coming across as somewhat confused in ideas & terminology.
(a) Scientific information is not a "product" requiring marketing (a very nebulous term, in itself). Perhaps you mean "how best to educate people" .
(b) The essential problem with education (in this particular case) is that there is a widespread highly-determined strongly-funded effort by vested interests, to oppose real education. That effort includes both a corrupt pressure on politicians and deceitful propaganda to the general public. That's a Double Whammy — and it will be interesting to hear your own ideas on how to counter that, reasonably effectively.
Moderator Response:[PS] This is not the place for such discussion. It has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Nothing further on this thread unless it is on-topic please.
-
WatrWise at 17:41 PM on 21 June 2017Explainer: Dealing with the ‘loss and damage’ caused by climate change
Moderator Response:
[PS] Suggestions welcome. The scientific community is throwing enormous effort at this but unfortunately cant cure wilful ignorance.Watrwise response: Sir, I have apologized for my initial post and offered an explanation of my intentions, which are not threatening. While I am not educated in climate science I am quite intelligent and not willfully ignorant. You claim that “suggestions are welcome”, then in a later post place restriction/conditions on suggestions.
Moderator Response:
[PS] Marketing is needed to sell a product. Truth is not a product. Try putting "science communication" into search box and take your pick.In my humble opinion the scientific community generally, and you in particular, could refrain just bit from beating interested laypersons over the head with empirical evidence and heavy handed arrogance.
Without malice or criticism I have put forth that “selling or marketing” climate science/change could improve acceptance by the general public. In response you have just given a perfect example of why many people reject your “Truth”.
Moderator Response:[PS] Sorry but in science integrity has to come first or it is no use at all. Marketing - not so much. Either we are warming or we are not. We are to blame or we are not. You cant have your truth and mine being different. Empirical science seems the best way to answer that question. Ideological/identity-based motivated reasoning seems the worst and yet it seems to dominate especially in the USA.
The comments policy is designed for calm, on-topic, discussions of the science. The policy is not up for discussion. Please use that guidance to find suitable threads. Other sites such as ThinkProgress may be more to your taste.
-
WatrWise at 15:29 PM on 21 June 2017Explainer: Dealing with the ‘loss and damage’ caused by climate change
Apologies for double posting! Error addressing previous post!
nigelj@17 Mr. Nigel it is! My comments were/are not ment as criticism. My goal is to discuss how to move the climate change message forward. I agree that - given an inspired message - people will readily follow.
While I agree that we should not narrow the playing field, perhaps focusing the message might speed things up.
I just now did a quick search of the web and apparantly there are papers written about this subject!
“Selling climate change? The limitations of social marketing as a strategy for climate change public engagement
Adam Corner a, *, Alex Randall b a School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Tower Building, Park Place, Cardiff CF10 3AT, United Kingdom b Centre for Alternative Technology, Machynlleth, United Kingdom”I haven’t read this example in depth… but a brief scan perked my interest.
I have done a search of this website and apparently there is no thread for “Marketing” Climate Science/Change. Without criticism I wonder why not? It would seem to be a topic that would be well received on this website. I would be interested in hearing your thought as well as others on starting a Marketing Thread.
-
Tom Curtis at 15:18 PM on 21 June 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #24
pjcarson2015 @5, the continuous parade of climate "skeptics" who pontificate on what "AGW predicts" without ever bothering to look up what climate science actually predicts is tiresome. In your case you claim AGW predicts a stronger greenhouse effect on Earth, whereas it actually predicts a much weaker GHE on Mars:
On Earth, as a convenience, the effect of the greenhouse effect is determined as a function of percentage change in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 on Earth as a convenience, but in the full theory, the effect of the greenhouse effect is determined by the partial pressure profile with altitude of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases).
High partial pressures of non-IR active gases (such as O2 and N2) can effect the strength of the greenhouse effect by lifting CO2 to a higher altitude, thereby increasing the partial pressure of CO2 at that altitude. But without the GHG, IR inert gases will have no greenhouse effect, and no tendency to increase surface temperature above the simplified black body estimates. (They will slightly increase surface temperature by equalizing temperature between poles and equator, but the simplified black body estimates assume equal temperature at all points, so this effect cannot raise the temperature above that value.)
For a more detailed account of what "AGW theory" predicts about the temperature of Mars, I refer you to Toigo et al (2012).
Moderator Response:[PS] I think pdCarson has outstayed is welcome. No further comments please.
-
WatrWise at 15:16 PM on 21 June 2017Explainer: Dealing with the ‘loss and damage’ caused by climate change
nigelj@15 Mr. Nigel it is! My comments were/are not ment as criticism. My goal is to discuss how to move the climate change message forward. I agree that - given an inspired message - people will readily follow.
While I agree that we should not narrow the playing field, perhaps focusing the message might speed things up.
I just now did a quick search of the web and apparantly there are papers written about this subject!
“Selling climate change? The limitations of social marketing as a strategy for climate change public engagement
Adam Corner a, *, Alex Randall b a School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Tower Building, Park Place, Cardiff CF10 3AT, United Kingdom b Centre for Alternative Technology, Machynlleth, United Kingdom”I haven’t read this example in depth… but a brief scan perked my interest.
I have done a search of this website and apparently there is no thread for “Marketing” Climate Science/Change. Without criticism I wonder why not? It would seem to be a topic that would be well received on this website. I would be interested in hearing your thought as well as others on starting a Marketing Thread.
-
nigelj at 14:27 PM on 21 June 2017Explainer: Dealing with the ‘loss and damage’ caused by climate change
WatrWise @15, thanks. It's Mr Nigel as opposed to nigella. Doesn't matter anyway.
I may have missinterpreted your first post, you came across as a climate sceptic asking long lists of annoying questions. Maybe you are not.
I find it hard to see scientists being able to do more. Their prime duty is the science, and communicating this. They have done this very well over many years, being very particular to explain both in detail and also with simplified versions, and being very particular what aspects they are certain about and what they are less certain about. I mean what more is possible? You can lead a horse to water, but cant force it to drink.
I think humans are largely followers, by nature, and so leaders are needed in the climate issue like with anything else in life. Ideally it should come from corporations and politicians, but there are clear impediments in the way. Im not sure we can expect it to primarily come from scientists other than leading on the science, and by personal example as many already do
However if you look at history many issues in society reach "tipping points" with the public and / or leadership and things suddenly start to change more dramatically. I think we may be getting near that point on climate, maybe this dedcade, but it will only happen if everyone from top down pushes for change.
I would stress that ideologically I personally see reducing emissions requiring both personal, collective, and government and corporate efforts in combination, as opposed to trying to suggest it should be more narrow.
-
nigelj at 13:53 PM on 21 June 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #24
Pjcarson2015, the reason temperatures on mars are a bit cool despite high CO2 concentrations might just be something to do with very low atmospheric mass, and very low surface pressure, compared to both earth and venus. Mars also has a lack of water vapour, and mars gets considerably less sunlight than earth.
I'm not a scientist, but even I can figure it out. You have a phd in thermodynamics? I simply do not believe you, full stop.
-
WatrWise at 13:36 PM on 21 June 2017Explainer: Dealing with the ‘loss and damage’ caused by climate change
Moderator,
Suggestion would most likely be better discussed in a Marketing Thread. Is there a marketing thread?
Moderator Response:[PS] Marketing is needed to sell a product. Truth is not a product. Try putting "science communication" into search box and take your pick.
-
WatrWise at 13:12 PM on 21 June 2017Explainer: Dealing with the ‘loss and damage’ caused by climate change
Thank you for your prompt replies.
First, I apologize for my overbearing entrance into the debate over responsibility for climate change.
My concerns are centered on those “responsible” for climate change accepting responsibility. My attesting to personal mitigation of climate change will not answer this question; though I have in my own small way tried to mitigate my own climate change footprint.
NigelJ @14, in his/her third paragraph and continuing, makes an excellent effort to answer my questions.
I agree with Nigelj that governments and corporations are principally responsible for climate change.
My observation is that the scientific community is better equipped to promote societal change as well as governmental and corporate change. The individual is very limited in this regard.
As I stated, while limited in their ability to affect change the individual will be stuck paying for mitigation of climate change.
The scientific community has an obligation to improve its climate change message in order to make progress.
Moderator Response:[PS] Suggestions welcome. The scientific community is throwing enormous effort at this but unfortunately cant cure wilful ignorance.
-
pjcarson2015 at 13:06 PM on 21 June 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #24
OK Moderator. Mine is simply a thermodynamic statement; difficult to refute. (My PhD is in that area.) You just can’t simply write that what I’ve written is wrong, without showing why.
My observation fits the Greenhouse effects on Venus, Earth and Mars, something which AGW’s known to be incorrect redefinition of Greenhouse Effect (see eg Wikipedia and countless others), cannot.
[Mars has 14x CO2 level of Earth’s but almost zero Greenhouse effect – in line with the total pressure being so low. You can get an expanded explanation at my site.]Moderator Response:[PS] Then use your PhD skills to read a text book on radiative thermodynamics instead of framing nonsense.Starting with the GHE is NOT a temperature resulting from heat held by gases. If you learnt that in your PhD, then you need a refund.
Unfortunately, your skills dont seem to include how to understand our comments policy.
-
nigelj at 12:22 PM on 21 June 2017Explainer: Dealing with the ‘loss and damage’ caused by climate change
Regarding the comment by WatrWise "Do individual people living in developed countries bear any responsibility for climate change? Remember individual people in developed countries will ultimately have to bear the cost of any mitigation of climate change."
I do not understand this question. Does it mean are individuals responsible for causing climate change as against other parties? Or does it mean are individuals responsible for reducing emissions, as perhaps against governments or corporations? Or does it mean are individuals in the west responsible for problems caused by people in the third world?
But here are some attempted answers. Individuals are causing climate change varying dependent on their lifestyle. That much is obvious.
But governments and corporations are responsible for causation as well by continuing to drill for oil, and by not offering alternatives that we know have viability: renewable power, recharging stations for electric cars,etc.
Individuals are responsible for fixing the problem as an issue of personal responsibility as noted above. But it goes further, I would contend its always ideal that individuals take the initiative, but history shows this doesn't always work sufficiently to resolve community scale problems, so communities and governments have historically imposed rules, taxes and limits.
Certain corporations also have a responsibility for both causing climate change, and reducing emissions. Again it would be nice if they didn't have to be asked, but history shows corporations have a poor record of using their own initiative in fixing environmental problems, so governments have set rules, penalties, and sometimes taxes (that dreaded word, do forgive me).
I dont think individuals in the western world have responsibility for choices made by people in other countries, but given western countries have been the biggest emitters, and some small countries could end up in dire straits over climate change, the humane thing is to assist, just as countries often do with other natural disasters.
-
Eclectic at 11:26 AM on 21 June 2017Explainer: Dealing with the ‘loss and damage’ caused by climate change
Watrwise @11 ,
on your first point ("call for action"), the required realistic actions are very obvious — reduce CO2 emissions to "net zero" as quickly as practicable. Perhaps it is better to turn the question around :- What realistic actions do you consider should be taken?
Second point :- for 30 years or more, the scientists have been pointing out that the AGW problem is severe — yet ultimately it is the politicians that bear the responsiblity for action & inaction. But the Past is unchangeable : so it is better if you turn your attention to dealing with the present & the future.
Your third point really leads back to the fundamental question :- Are you your Brother's Keeper? Society is made up of individuals. And so each individual has personal responsibility to contribute to the health of present & future society (and the health of the planet itself, of course). Can you argue otherwise?
Watrwise, you raise a large number of other points — but those are relatively trivial in comparison with your first three. Best if you address & discuss the first 3, before proceeding.
-
nigelj at 11:15 AM on 21 June 2017Explainer: Dealing with the ‘loss and damage’ caused by climate change
WatrWise @11, your post is a very long list of rhetorical questions. I find such long lists of questions to be by definition content free, and extremely irritating, reminding me of aggressive lawyers, so it just gets my back up, and is not conducive to open and useful discussion.
One or two perceptive rhetorical questions can clarify, but your list of over 10 is just ridiculous. We are not your students, Mr / Mss Waterwse.
It's especially frustrating because I know a simple google search would answer many of your questions, so why didn't you just do that first?
And most of your questions are off topic.
One point is worth comment because it demonstrates what I'm getting at. You say "Over 120 years and science cannot accurately predict climate change, even with evolving technology; why?"
If you had done a simple google search, or taken a more relaxed approach to your writing, instead of trying to intimidate people with long lists, you would know that some climate influences are known to be chaotic or variable (like el nino cycles) and so models will probably never be 100% accurate, no matter what technology is available, same issue as predicting outcomes of illness. But climate models have shown useful and reasonable levels of accuracy.
Sceptics like have been told this a million times, and still dont get it. I mean it gets to a point that you are just exasperating, and I dont want to know you people any more.
-
pjcarson2015 at 11:13 AM on 21 June 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #24
The Greenhouse effect is a temperature - that resulting from the heat held by all the gases in the atmosphere.
Therefore, ALL gases in the atmosphere are greenhouse gases.[It is immaterial how the gases absorb this heat, eg by convection, conduction, diffusion or infrared. That is an (infra) red herring!]
The amount of heat each gas component holds is roughly in proportion to its percentage.
Therefore, as carbon dioxide’s level is only about 0.04%, its contribution to global warming is puny – perhaps 0.01C!Moderator Response:[PS] Sloganeering. You cant start with a incorrect understanding of the greenhouse effect and then expect to prove it wrong. Firstly, try to understand how the greenhouse effect works - virtually everything you said was wrong. I recommend Science of Doom, for good textbook treatment. If you still want to object, find an appropriate topic (use search or argument buttons at top) and support your argument with references/data. Your objection needs to fit with all of the observation/measurements made, including direct measurements.
-
WatrWise at 08:21 AM on 21 June 2017Explainer: Dealing with the ‘loss and damage’ caused by climate change
I have signed up today after perusing your excellent website extensively over the last few weeks. Using the following webpage for conversation “How reliable are climate models?” https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
I have three questions based on the thought process below.
• Your website infers a “call for action”. In your opinion what realistic actions should be taken?
• Does science (scientists) bear any responsibility for inaction on climate change? https://www.skepticalscience.com/loss-damage-climate-change.html
• Do individual people living in developed countries bear any responsibility for climate change? Remember individual people in developed countries will ultimately have to bear the cost of any mitigation of climate change.How reliable are climate models?
Basic description
“Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.”
Intermediate description
“While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations.”
1. Why the subtle difference in your basic/intermediate descriptions, successful vs uncertainties?
2. Climate change identified by science in 1896; why so long for science to accept vs relatively short time span for general public? Why insist acceptance now? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science
3. Is science more certain about climate change today, compared to history? If so why the need for this website?
4. Over 120 years and science cannot accurately predict climate change, even with evolving technology; why?
5. Were comprehensive, reliable, numerous, geographically comprehensive temperature reading done worldwide, “since 1900”? What is the difference between land and air temperature?
6. How far into the future are predictive models confirmed “successful”?
7. Do ALL models use ALL pertinent data to “reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally”, as well as into future?
a) Are there multiple sets of data that can be ‘plugged’ into models to arrive at different conclusions? Which data sets are used below? What was the criteria to select those data sets?
b) Why is it hard to successfully “reproduce” existing historical data for climate change models? Just values measured historically, yes/no?
c) Since it is hard to successfully reproduce existing historical temperatures since 1900 globally in models; how hard is it to extend those models into the future?
d) When using forcing… how much data/which data ‘plugged in’ is related to human interaction relative to natural climate change? Is this a small or large ratio?
e) Are ALL models predicting future climate change confirmed by future observations?
f) What criteria was used to select the “correct” predictive models, shown below.
g) How do predictive models account for global variations in climate change?
h) How does someone decide who to believe when trying to make an informed decision about climate change?Moderator Response:[PS] We strongly prefer that discussion be kept strictly to topic. Please copy you comments on models, and place as a separate comment on the models thread. Put other questions on relevant threads. Bashing a whole lot of objections in one comment is called a "Gish gallop" and any repeat will be deleted. Please see the comments policy.
In general it is best to address questions one at a time.
Responders: Please put any responses on the appropriate thread. Thank you for your cooperation.
-
nigelj at 08:07 AM on 21 June 2017New Video: John Cook and the 97 Percent
"There’s no such thing as settled science” and “science does not work by consensus”, are things we commonly hear from people who really should know better. "
I agree for all practical purposes many science theories are settled, like the earth orbiting the sun, and basic equations of gravity and the greenhouse effect. The sceptics take uncertainty in some areas of science, and try to falsely claim this means everything is uncertain. There do remain mysteries at the deepest levels of particle physics, but this doesn't obviate basic theories and laws and evidence of physics and chemistry etc, because the laws work in the real world, and you have observable cause and effect.
The climate sceptics claim theres no consensus, when there plainly is, proven by at least 5 polls and studies now, including the important Cook study. We have to use the evidence we have, and we have several consensus studies all pointing in the same direction, and all using different methods. This is a strong confluence of evidence, and we have no study showing anything significantly different, despite the fact nothing is stopping anyone trying to find a different result for over 20 years now.
Science does work by consensus. You have the majority of scientists agreeing that a theory has been sufficiently debated, and things point strongly in one direction. This is the only way we the public can have faith in a theory.
Of course nobody seriously claims a consensus is proof, and proof belongs only in mathematics, and self evidently a consensus could be ultimately proven wrong, but a consensus is based on the views of trained people, so is very significant. The duty is on people to find compelling evidence it is wrong. The climate sceptics have failed to provide a compelling critique or alternative theory for over 20 years, so its just not going to happen.
Governments often have to make policy choices based on new science, and they obviously look at majority scientific opinion, ie the consensus. There is no other sensible alternative. If governments choose to believe some eccentric, this would be irresponsible, and they would certainly need some utterly compelling reason, and they have singularly failed to provide one over climate science. Trump is a good example of somebody who has not come up with a remotely sensible reason to ignore the consensus, simply because there isn't one.
-
ubrew12 at 01:20 AM on 21 June 2017Factcheck: Grenfell Tower fire and the Daily Mail’s ‘green targets’ claim
Daily Mail editorial: "The more we learn... the more it appears that the blame lies not with money but... misguided climate change targets… Was it... an attempt to slash greenhouse gas emissions?"
Uhh, how that not about money? Low-income residents in London so flush with cash they just throw it in the furnace?
-
uncletimrob at 23:19 PM on 20 June 2017Factcheck: Grenfell Tower fire and the Daily Mail’s ‘green targets’ claim
This is a shocking tradgey - but worse is that Clark and others are using it to pursue their (I'll have to say) ill-informed agenda's. His stuff is some of the worst journalism I've seen, and in my opinion this one is one of his worst.
Having said that, there is more to be done to ensure a tradgey like this one does not occur again, as the main article points that quite clearly, and presents achieveable goals in residence refurbishment that I hope governments and contractors are reading.
SkS and others should continue to call out these "shonky" stories, as unfortunately they are the ones that make the popular press.
(Mod happy for you to delete anything I've written, but this has got me quite fired up)
-
JWRebel at 20:39 PM on 20 June 2017Factcheck: Grenfell Tower fire and the Daily Mail’s ‘green targets’ claim
£5k extra for a £1.8million job does not seem very much to get fire-retardant material. The gas pipes in the escape stairways is real genius, regardless of doors or over-pressure in the stairwell. The whole project was about making the building somewhat more comfortable and lowering the heating costs for low-income tenants — any green targets were simply an unavoidable side-effect to stoking less fuel.
The people who planned this, both the construction people and the people in the municipal government were negligent to criminally negligent/selfish. The people in charge of oversight fell down on the job. The people trying to channel the outrage and emotion against "green goals" are cynical and perverse beyond redemption.
-
Lionel A at 20:39 PM on 20 June 2017Factcheck: Grenfell Tower fire and the Daily Mail’s ‘green targets’ claim
If the final paragraphs of a BBC article are true then it becomes clear that the cladding had everything to do with the rapid spread of the fire, video bears this out too.
In a separate development, Panorama has discovered that firefighters put out the first fire at Grenfell Tower.
They were called to a fridge fire, and within minutes told residents the fire was out in the flat.
The crew was leaving the building when firefighters outside spotted flames rising up the side of the building.
Four ministers were warned about tower block fire risks
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:54 PM on 20 June 2017Explainer: Dealing with the ‘loss and damage’ caused by climate change
Nigelj,
I will check out "Behave".
Based on human behaviour studies that I have read about in detailed magazine articles and brief news reports and seen documentaries about, people are born with varying degrees of altruistic and selfish character qualities (along with ranges of other qualities) and their upbringing and personal experience can alter or reinforce those characteristics to different degrees (it is both Nature and Nurture with character specific Nurturing being able to make almost any character grow up to be a helpful member of society).
My issue is with the people who have grown up being encouraged to continue to be more competitively selfish, caring more about believing what they want and trying to get away with doing whatever they please than they are willing to understand how to be cooperatively helpful (be sure they do not harm others - outgrow the desire for freedom without responsibility).
What is particularly vexxing is seeing those type of people become significant Winners, with a significant percentage of their wealthy and powerful peers willing to excuse and defend their understandably unacceptable behaviour because they also have Won by getting away with behaving less acceptably (when one type of undeserving Winner gets taken down the other types of unacceptable Winners are at higher risk of also becoming losers).
That is why my point is about the need to have the Winners of the games played in society prove they ethically deserve to be Winners, prove that their actions help develop a sustainable better future for humanity (measuring their actions against the Sustainable Development Goals established in 2015 and considering penalizing bad behaviour that occurred after 1972 based on the good understanding that was established by the Stockholm Conference).
-
nigelj at 14:08 PM on 20 June 2017Explainer: Dealing with the ‘loss and damage’ caused by climate change
OPOF @8 yes there's a certain degree of difference between the ozone issue and climate change. An ozone hole immediately affects everyone in significant parts of the world, climate change is slower and also some people may feel they can escape the effects of climate change. Clearly if you are financially really well off, it's easier to move houses, etc and insulate your children and their clildren from the consequences, or so the uber wealthy think ( in fact it may not be all that easy).
It's also a life cycle issue, as the older and more self sufficient people get the more they resent paying taxes to help others etc etc. I'm pretty relaxed and accepting about things like public health care etc, but even I have felt this a little at times, but at least make the effort to pull back and think it through a bit.
But it's almost like there are two species of humans, one accepting of some collective responsibility, taxation and public services, and one deeply resentful. You call it grown up children, and this is an apt description, but I suspect it goes beyond this and is quite deep. I have just bought a book called "Behave, by Robert Sapolsky" that looks into the biological origins of all this.
-
Doug Bostrom at 10:26 AM on 20 June 2017Factcheck: Grenfell Tower fire and the Daily Mail’s ‘green targets’ claim
Nigelj's remark about pressurization of stairs is particularly correct and significant and is exactly the sort of requirement that will fall through the cracks when oversight is impoverished. It appears something was wrong with the ventilation of fire stairs at Grenfell, almost doubtless down to a matter of broken or insufficient equipment the rectification of which pales in comparison to the ultimate cost of failure. This is what's known to us plebes as "false economy."
Closer to the gist of the original post, the Daily Mail leads us to the very sadly predictable matter of false choices. As it happens, the boxes of "reasonably efficient" and "reasonably fire resistant" could both have been ticked by the addition of ~£5k for appropriately fire resistant retrofit panels, a figure obviously far less than the down payment of £5 miillion now made by the false economics of "austerity."
Similarly, we're presented with bogus choices regarding doing the responsible thing with regard to climate change relatively cheaply now, compared to the costs of letting the problem evolve in size and cost by negligence of the style we've seen practiced in the UK with regard to fire safety.
None of this is rocket science. Let alone being deeply tragic, it's embarrassingly stupid to behave this way, when we clearly know better.
-
swampfoxh at 08:08 AM on 20 June 2017SkS Analogy 8 - I'll take the specialist
Dr. Giaever, President Trump and the rest of them are simply standing in the way, so we'll just have to walk around them.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:06 AM on 20 June 2017Explainer: Dealing with the ‘loss and damage’ caused by climate change
nigelj@7,
Regarding "Free-loaders":
I see it as the irresponsible immaturity of someone pursuing their personal interest any way they can get away with, something that is understandably unacceptable in a grown up, who is able to Win up to high levels in human societies which is the fault of the society that allows it. As John Stuart Mill advised, a society should collectively teach those type of people not to try to get away with understandably unacceptable behaviour. Responsible people do not require rules or laws regarding understandably unacceptable behaviour. The obvious example is sports which need “new” rules and revision of rules (with the challenge of effective monitoring and penalizing) because someone is discovered to be getting an advantage by doing something understandably unacceptable that is not yet Specifically Proven to be Breaking any Already Written Rule. That Sport example also applies to the economic and political games played in societies.
The required correction of the over-development of societies in the wrong direction, allowing people to grow up mere children (John Stuart Mill's description) and also allowing them to Win up to high levels of wealth and influence is the Rule of Ethics focused on the best understanding of what can be sensed and learned from to help improve the near term and distant future for a robust diversity of humanity governing over the Rules of Law and Enforcement.
Regarding a Carbon Tax:
A very effective measure would be a High Fee per unit of CO2 equivalent impact (burning fossil fuels, chopping down trees) with all of the collected money distributed equally to all members of the society including the homeless (the least fortunate).
One temporary benefit of a higher fee-rebate program would be the significant increase in wealth transfer to the less fortunate because they the impacts of their lives are well below the average level impact. But that must be recognized as a temporary benefit. It would be disastrous if a government tried to maintain that fee-rebate transfer of wealth to appear to reduce poverty. The objective is "Ending the generation of GHG impacts" not "Deciding who should pay and what can be done with the collected money".
Regarding the Ozone Hole:
The global agreement to curtail the impacts on the ozone layer was not as effective as it could have been. Though the unacceptability of certain activities was clearly understood, compromises were made that allowed continued impacts on the ozone layer by those who had the most to lose if they were required to more rapidly transition to behaving more responsibly. Basically, the worst offenders were granted permission to behave less acceptably because they were wealthy and powerful people (if the behaviour of poor people had been causing the problem it is almost certain that rapid correction would have occurred including mobilization of enhanced policing).
The agreed long term plan regarding the ozone challenge was made almost as soon as there was a reasonable understanding of the cause and the required changes to activities that had been developed.
The unacceptability of burning fossil fuels was internationally understood at the same time as the ozone problem (both are mentioned in the 1972 Stockholm Conference). Yet many of the most developed nations deliberately pursued over-development in the wrong direction long after 1972 (with many examples of irresponsibility at the highest levels of government including: The Government of Canada and Alberta trying to promote the expansion of Oil Sands extraction, and President G.W. Bush declaring that Americans do not need to change the way they live when he announced that the USA would not ratify Kyoto).
And the fight against curtailing the understandably unacceptable activity escalated as climate science became more certain about what was going on and the required changes. And the people fighting against the understanding of the required changes became wealthier and more powerful. That behaviour could be claimed to be excused because the threat to humanity was not imminent. In fact, a major tactic of the denier/delayers was to claim that other things are more urgent threats (even fabricating excuses to destabilize regions of the planet to create longer lasting cases of those distracting Alternative Threats).
The climate change challenge has exposed the unacceptability of a larger number of wealthy powerful people than the ozone challenge. And in spite of leaders in government and business knowing better since 1972 the highest impacting nations have over-developed in the wrong direction. They now claim that the required larger climate mitigation action created by their deliberate development in the wrong direction is “too expensive or unfair to them”. And it is easy to gather support in many regions for resistance to measures that would effectively rapidly curtail the understandably unacceptable behaviour.
In 1972 there clearly was less sense of significant negative consequence for the people who desired to benefit from the understandably unacceptable creation of excess GHG. The already created South Pole ozone hole and the thinning of North Pole ozone layer was a threatening real-time impact on wealthy powerful people and the populations that support/defend them. However, even today the many voters in high-impact nations are easily influenced to perceive the need to curtail their “way of living” as a Threat rather than caring to understand the Threat of their way of living. That makes it easier for wealthy and powerful people who should (and mostly do) know better to drum up support for what is understandably unacceptable behaviour, including getting support to make-up laws that do not penalize the bad behaviour they want to get away with or change laws that restrict their Freedom to Win by getting away with understandably unacceptable behaviour.
That type of Winning clearly has no future. It is actually a threat to the future of humanity. And the sooner the international community of rational considerers of distant motives develop effective ways to thwart those who attempt to Win in understandably acceptable ways, the sooner and more rapidly humanity can develop toward a truly lasting better future, climbing out of the down-ward spiral hole of damage created by those who compete to get away with being less acceptable (the real Threats).
It is very likely that the future of humanity, and effectively addressing the climate change challenge, requires a return to Successful People/Deserving Winners proving they are worthy of their wealth and influence by embodying Culture of Character traits rather than getting away with Winning because of the easier pursuit of popularity in the currently popular Cultures of Personality (Terms developed by historian Warren Sussman as presented in Susan Cain's book “Quiet - The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking” Culture of Character: Citizenship, Duty, Work, Golden deeds, Honour, Reputation, Morals, Manners, Integrity vs. Culture of Personality: “Magnetic, Fascinating, Stunning, Attractive, Glowing, Dominant, Forceful, Energetic”).
The Culture of Personality traits can easily be achieved by Mill's grown up mere children - unable to be moved by rational consideration of distant motives. But such people need significant help to understand the importance of becoming people of Character (and some of them can be expected to become angry rather than change their minds).
-
SirCharles at 08:03 AM on 20 June 2017Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Northern Hemisphere vs 2016:
Moderator Response:[PS] While your image is pretty self-explanatory, please note that image only/link only posts can be confusing. An extra sentence to explain the point you are making is good.
-
Mukesh Prasad at 07:30 AM on 20 June 2017Factcheck: Grenfell Tower fire and the Daily Mail’s ‘green targets’ claim
Conclusion? You lie - you are unable to reach any conclusion that doubts Climate Change. You lie in the very name of your website. Your website have never done any single thing involving "skepticism".
Skepticism means challenging the consensus. Try reading that and comprehending that - skepticism means challenging the consensus. When there was consensus in some parts of the world that earth was flat, skepticism meant arguing against that consensus. Today, arguing that earth is round may be anything else, but it's not "skepticism".
You are consensus lovers, therefore you are not skeptics. You have neverd one any single piece of honest skepticism.
You don't understand science either. Climate science? No, you don't. Real climate science involves physics and mathematics, not scientific-sounding talk.
Here is real climate science, if you can find a real scientist to challenge it and put their name on what's wrong with it - please do. Get somebody to find an error in the thermodynamics, or an error in the math.
Or act shamefully and just delete this open challenge.
http://www.mukeshprasad.com/climatechange.htmlModerator Response:[PS] We have no interest in engaging with people who will not respect our comments policy.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.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, as no further warnings shall be given.
[JH]
The explanatory statement appearing directly under Skeptical Science in the header of each page of this website reads as follows:
Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
-
nigelj at 06:56 AM on 20 June 2017Factcheck: Grenfell Tower fire and the Daily Mail’s ‘green targets’ claim
Yes this tragedy is hardly due to green targets. This is another typical Daily Fail anti environmental article. All buildings need insulation for a variety of obvious reasons, so its absurd to blame insulation or climate mitigation policies.
I concur with comments 1 and 2. This tragedy looks at least in part like short sighted cost cutting, combined with anti regulation and ideologically driven neoliberalism. In fact legislation was put in front of the British governmet in the last couple of years requiring upgrading of old buildings, especially adding sprinklers, but this was voted down apparently out of worries about costs etc. It's highly irresponsible to have done this because so many lives are at stake.
I used to be involved in some building and infrastructure consultancy work so know a little of the background. This is how the situation appears to me:
The fire safety provisions of the British apartment tower appear appalling, to almost non existent, although this was typical back in the 1970s in western countries. Modern codes are much better, but don't always require upgrading of older buildings out of "cost concerns".
The basic goal is to get people out safely, even if the building is burning badly, so its critical to have proper fire alarms and smoke detectors for early warning, and these are not even a large expense. You need fire safe stairs with pressurisation to keep smoke out, and tall buildings normally have two stairs. You need fire resistant structure for the stairs of at least a couple of hours normally, and also to the basic building structure to keep the building stable, and sprinklers, because fire trucks cant reach above about 4 floors.
The apartment building in England appeared to have none of this apart from some form of concrete frame, which would be inherently reasonably stable. The building was a disaster waiting to happen. The instruction to stay in rooms was bizarre to say the least, as modern practice is normally to get out fast.
The exterior panels were very flammable, being thin metal with little fire resistance, and a flammable polystyrene core. They have been banned in several countries, however provided you have proper smoke proof exit stairs, fire alarms, and sprinklers, and so on people would have at least had a much better chance of escaping, even with these burning panels.
The building could most certainly have been insulated from the inside, and with low flammability materials, or at least they would be buried behind fire resistant platerboard linings. The choice to use these panels looks like cost cutting and so on, and they are of a thin metal skin and flammable core so very susceptible to fire.
I'm an unashamed apologist for regulations around health and safety. Without these people die.
-
JWRebel at 02:16 AM on 20 June 2017Factcheck: Grenfell Tower fire and the Daily Mail’s ‘green targets’ claim
This isn't about the Grenfell Towers at all. And it is certainly not about green targets. It's about propaganda, political power, and disaster capitalism. And it's about scum in a variety of ways.
-
Doug Bostrom at 01:27 AM on 20 June 2017Factcheck: Grenfell Tower fire and the Daily Mail’s ‘green targets’ claim
Obsession with green targets leads to inferno? Hardly. But the current not-quite-a--government of the UK has enthusiastically promised a bonfire of regulations post-Brexit, in so many words. Grenfell is only what a smouldering burn of regulations thanks to starvation of civil services produces. A full conflagration is not at all desirable.
The myopic arrogance of people who believe they can second-guess hard earned wisdom encapsulated in regulations produced by decades or centuries of nasty object lessons is barely to be believed.
Prev 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 Next
