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:
-
nigelj at 06:42 AM on 17 June 2017SkS Analogy 8 - I'll take the specialist
Dfwlms @10 says:
"What are the talents and experiences of the 3% of current, practicing climate scientists who do not endorse the consensus position of the US National Academy of Sciences? "
Where are you going with that? Climate scientists all tend to have advanced degrees from what I have seen.
And what would it matter? Having a poor qualification does not mean you are wrong, and having an exceptional qualification does not prove your assertions to be correct. This is the "argument from authority" fallacy as below. Qualifications are worthy of our respect, but they do not prove an argument or theory to be true or false, and only experiment and so on can prove that.
en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
"Historically, minority opinions about controversial subjects have often eventually prevailed while the majority opinions were found to be without merit."
Sometimes this has been the case. Please quantify and prove what you mean by "often".
And what is your point? Its like you are implying some theories have been wrong in the past therefore climate science is by definition wrong. This is a pretty illogical claim, if you are making it. The scientific consensus has been wrong on some things, but that does not mean it is wrong on everything. All we can really say is scepticism has its place - but obviously has to be based on something compelling.
And what is your alternative to scientific theory and consensus? Should the public just listen to whoever shouts loudest?
I can at least say the large consensus views of physics and biology of this and last century have proven to be very durable, eg evolution, quantum theory, plate techtonics etc.
Some smaller consensus positions have proven to be only partly correct, eg dangers of saturated fats. In fact consensus positions sometimes evolve, rather than radically and completely change.
"For example, apparently a significant percentage of legitimate scientists believed the "Piltdown Man" hoax for over 40 years: "
That was a long time ago, when anthropology was in its infancy. More modern scientific theories are much better scrutinised than piltdown man, because science itself has progressed, we have more scientists in the planet, communication systems have improved, science education has spread, and so on.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 06:02 AM on 17 June 2017SkS Analogy 8 - I'll take the specialist
dfwlms @ 10. The experience, talent and expertise of the researchers involved is completely irrelevant. First, one would have to quantify these according to objective criteria, an undertaking in its own right.
Regardless of their "ranking" in these matters, they are only still 3%. Most people choosing the consensus as their favorite denmial target attempts to depict it as a consensus of opinion, while it is in fact a consensus of research results. 97% of scientists actively researching climate find that their research supports the current model of Earth climate and the influence of greenhouse gases, that's what matters.
-
ubrew12 at 03:27 AM on 17 June 2017SkS Analogy 8 - I'll take the specialist
nigelj@3 said: "Giaever is... a highly accomplished physicist... not... a climate expert" I've noticed Giaever also committed a fallacy I've started calling 'heads I win, tails you lose'. In this case, no amount of temperature sensors covering the Earth, carefully adjusted to remove local effects like the urban heat island effect, and integrated together on an area basis will satisfy Dr Giaever that the climate scientists have done an adequate job calculating Earth's temperature... Tails You Lose. A few minutes later, Dr Giaever casually points to a single temperature sensor, at the South Pole, which has cooled in recent decades, and declares this proves his point about Earth not warming... Heads I Win.
As Donald Trump would say: "There's a real winner!"
-
dfwlms at 02:04 AM on 17 June 2017SkS Analogy 8 - I'll take the specialist
What are the talents and experiences of the 3% of current, practicing climate scientists who do not endorse the consensus position of the US National Academy of Sciences? Historically, minority opinions about controversial subjects have often eventually prevailed while the majority opinions were found to be without merit. For example, apparently a significant percentage of legitimate scientists believed the "Piltdown Man" hoax for over 40 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
Moderator Response:[DB] Sloganeering and off-topic snipped.
-
trstyles at 00:51 AM on 17 June 2017SkS Analogy 8 - I'll take the specialist
It's a safe bet that virtually all physicists accept stochastic approaches like the "Monte Carlo Method" to studying the subatomic realm, because they have been undeniably successful in making discoveries that are backed up by experimental evidence. I sometimes wonder however, whether many in the physical sciences do not yearn, deep down, for the deterministic universe of pre-quantum days. One that does not require the troubling concept of randomness.
For example, some of you may have encounterd an individual with a good grasp of meteorology who nonetheless finds climatology rather difficult to understand and essentially untrustworthy. Common misunderstandings of climate science occur to some extent because it is possible to negotiate a successful career in physics or engineering without the need for probability theory and statistical methods, let alone an understanding of complex global systems. In fact it is possible for the stochastically squeamish to earn an advanced degree without taking courses that addresses complexity of the sort the so called "soft" sciences routinely deal with.
The days when a university education was comprehensive and initiated a lifelong process of keeping up with all fields of "Natural Science" are past (l-o-n-g past). Specialization is now essential, but the limitations of specialization require trust in the professionalism of other scientists. Unfortunately trust has all but evaporated in large segments of society. The concept of Professionalism itself is diminished by confusing it with obnoxious forms of elitism.
By the way, I hope is not overly "political" to point out that the current mess we find ourselves in is an example of science applied by persons ignorant of how complex systems operate. We are literally witnessing uncontrolled "blowback" caused by unscrupulous social engineers who abused behavioral science. They employed sophisticated propaganda in pursuit of a certain limited result...... and got far more than they ever bargained for.
I hope it was more. I'm not quite prepared to view our opponents in this debate(?) as being that derranged. Not yet.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:33 PM on 16 June 2017SkS Analogy 8 - I'll take the specialist
Digby Scorgie @5, Annan and Hargraves (2013) find a temperature difference between the preindustrial and the Last Glacial Maximum of 4.0 +/- 0.8o C. The IPCC AR5 show a range of estimates as follows (Table 5.2):
4.4–7.2; Single-EMIC ensemble with microfossil-
assemblage derived tropical Atlantic SST; Schneider von Deimling et al. (2006)
4.6–8.3; Single-EMIC ensemble with multi-proxy derived tropical SST;
Holden et al. (2010a)
1.7–3.7; Single-EMIC ensemble with global multi-proxy data; Schmittner et al. (2011)
3.9–4.6; Multi-proxy; Shakun et al. (2012), for the interval 17.5–9.5 ka
3.4–4.6; Multi-AOGCM ensemble with global multi-proxy data; Annan and Hargreaves (2013)
3.1–5.9; Multi-AOGCM ensemble; PMIP2 and PMIP3/CMIP5The same table shows the East Antarctic temperature difference to be 7-10o C. Any graph which shows a lesser temperature range using the Vostock ice core data has scaled the temperature to reflect the difference between the polar and global temperature.
In any event, that suggests the NAS is claiming LGM temperatures 4-5o C below preindustrial temperatures, and hence 5-6o C below current temperatures.
-
nigelj at 13:09 PM on 16 June 2017SkS Analogy 8 - I'll take the specialist
Evan @5, yes you would think Dr Giaver would realise small changes can have substantial effects, depending on the issue and context. He is an expert in semiconductors, and these devices can amplify small currents into larger currents,so if anyone should appreciate this he should.
However he might be thinking that these devices can also work with and remain stable with small fluctuations in power supply voltage (I emphasise very small, I was investigating this to see if a smartphone power supply could work with my older spare mobile phone), and so thinks of the planet in those terms.
However clearly humans have become adapted to a stable climate and face several degrees of change and this has to have consequences, and we know this from basic biology and the potential pressure on our infrastructure, communities, cities and agriculture.
People see things from their learned perspectives, understandably enough, and I probably have my own biases. He is probably applying analogies from his own specialist field, and has reaced a sceptical and flawed conclusion.
-
ubrew12 at 12:46 PM on 16 June 2017SkS Analogy 8 - I'll take the specialist
Digby Scorgie@5: I've been wondering myself. This graph says an 'ice age' (actually: glacial period) is about 4F to 8F colder than preindustrial.
8F is 4.5 C, so maybe that's what NAS means. But I've been calling, in my personal correspondence, that an 'ice age' is, on average, 6F colder than preindustrial (average of 4F and 8F). 6F is about 3 C.
It's important to call attention not to the overall rise, but to the rise rate. For example, the rise from the last glacial period was 3 C to preindustrial. However, it took 10,000 years to accomplish. That's a rise rate of 0.03 C/century, for one of the most radical natural climate changes recorded in prehistory (or, at least, the last 420,000 years). By way of comparison, the rise rate in the 20th century was 25 times that value. Natural? I don't think so. Worse: if the last 25 years is any guide about the 21st century, then this centuries rise rate is 75 times that natural value. The people (Trump etc) who keep calling this climate change an example of 'natural' change, really need to explain why we are currently rising at a rate 75 times what a Milankovich Cycle would demand of Earth, naturally.
-
Digby Scorgie at 11:56 AM on 16 June 2017SkS Analogy 8 - I'll take the specialist
I note that the NAS states that global temperatures were 4 to 5 degrees lower during the last ice age than "now". But we've warmed about one degree since the start of the Industrial Age. So does that mean that Ice-Age temperatures were actually 5 to 6 degrees lower than the pre-industrial temperatures? Or is that really 4 to 5 degrees lower than pre-industrial?
-
BBHY at 10:35 AM on 16 June 2017The Larsen C ice shelf collapse hammers home the reality of climate change
Larsen B was bad news. Larsen C is very bad news. Now, there is evidence of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet surface melting. Horrendously bad news.
-
Evan at 09:54 AM on 16 June 2017SkS Analogy 8 - I'll take the specialist
nigelj@3. What is also surprising about Dr. Giaever's comment that 0.8C warming is only about 0.3% of 288K ("From 1880 to 2015, the temperature has increased from 288 K [degrees Kelvin] to 288.8 K - 0.3 percent. I think the temperature has been amazingly stable."), is that any kind of trained engineer, scientist, or technical person knows that the scale you use depends on the question being asked. To do such simple math is really surprising, because just from the consideration of ice melting, a much more logical reference point is 0C, and not 0K. Relative to 0C a warming of 0.8C from 15C to 15.8C is something to worry about. But on the other hand, not even James Hansen has made a big deal of 0.8C warming, if that was what we were limited to. Apparently Giaever also does not realize that we are talking about warming of 2-4C. If you are ice, that is a really big deal.
He should know this. But this is why we need to look for consensus opinioins, because such simple oversights get caught in a group of experts.
-
nigelj at 07:48 AM on 16 June 2017SkS Analogy 8 - I'll take the specialist
Here is a perfect example of so called experts. Dr Gaiver has a mechanical engineering degree, plus a PHd in physics (something to do with semiconductor electronics) and has a nobel prize for physics, so clearly a bright guy with scientific credentials.
He is also a well known climate sceptic. But he has never studied climate, and based much of his scepticism on one days worth of google searches on climate denial websites. His sceptical views are also on issues that have long since been genuinely debunked. Yet because he has a phd he gets peoples attention, and gets endlessly quoted by sceptics (although selectively on what he says) even though his phd is not even remotely connected to the climate.
Read his bio on wikipedia and also this article:
www.snopes.com/2015/07/08/nobel-ivar-giaever-obama-climate-change/
"Shortly after Dr. Giaever delivered his speech, his comments about President Obama began appearing on conservative web sites, cited as proof that global warming is a “hoax” and a “conspiracy.” However, Dr. Giaever (a physicist, not a climatologist) has given the same type of global warming speech in the same setting before, and by his own admission he doesn’t know much about the subject:
I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don’t think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so — half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned. And I’m going to try to explain to you why that was the case.
Skeptical Science noted of Dr. Giaever back in 2012 that:While Giaever is certainly a highly accomplished physicist, that does not automatically make him a climate expert as well. As Giaever himself has admitted, he has spent very little time researching the subject, and it shows. He simply bounces from one climate myth to the next, demonstrating a lack of understanding of Climate Science 101, and then insults the entire scientific field by comparing it to a religion."
-
nigelj at 06:54 AM on 16 June 2017SkS Analogy 8 - I'll take the specialist
Yes clearly you need to ask the real experts, namely climate research scientists. Science has become so specialised these days, in fact all occupations have, and simply hiving a chemistry or physics degree isn't going to be able to tell you what's really happening with climate.
In fact I would go further. It appears to me as an educated lay person, that the case that we are warming the climate rests on quite a wide range of evidence, unlike other theories which might rely on more limited labortatory experiments. This is because we cannot put the entire planet in a laboratory, so inferences and deductions are made from laboratory tests of carbon dioxide, paleo climate research, observations of changes in the atmosphere, modelling etc. Its very complex, and a monumental global exercise in research.
The important point is it's hard for even one expert to see the full picture, and thus draw accurate conclusions. So only bodies of scientists like the IPCC or science academies can really get their heads around the full picture, and what it means. This means the consensus is particularly significant. This review by committee may be frustrating, but it is the only way of comprehending the full nature of the issue.
And yes, the sceptical community are spreading doubt, but refuse to come up with a valid alternative theory, or anything convincing on climate sensitivity. It just seems they are driven by political ideology, vested interests and anger, because if they were really sincere, they would put all cards on the table,
-
Jonas at 06:24 AM on 16 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
I hereby withdraw my donations and support from SkS.
Monsato GMO "research" is Science Denial,
and if Science Denial is promoted even here: .. good bye.
There is plenty of good Climate Science Work here,
but I do not accept industry lobbying and will not pay for
and promote this site any more (I did it hundreds of times).Just an example:
"The court documents included Monsanto’s internal emails and email traffic between the company and federal regulators. The records suggested that Monsanto had ghostwritten research that was later attributed to academics and indicated that a senior official at the Environmental Protection Agency had worked to quash a review of Roundup’s main ingredient, glyphosate, that was to have been conducted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/business/monsanto-roundup-safety-lawsuit.html?_r=0Another example:
« Monsanto papers » : la guerre du géant des pesticides contre la science
http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2017/06/01/monsanto-operation-intoxication_5136915_3244.htmlModerator Response:[PS] Monsanto => GMO. GMO != Monsanto.
Constructive criticism of the article with evidence that anti-GMO sentiment is not based on the logic flaws outlined in the article is welcome. Better than throwing the toys out of the cot.
-
nigelj at 06:20 AM on 16 June 2017New research may resolve a climate ‘conundrum’ across the history of human civilization
Johnboy @3, the graph in my link only goes back about 12,000 years, so only shows some of the warming since the last ice age ended.
The last ice age ended about 20, 000 years ago and there is about 5 degrees of warming coming out of the ice age. Refer in the following article from RC. Scroll down to figure 4. This also shows 20th century temperatures spliced on.
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/paleoclimate-the-end-of-the-holocene/
I'm no expert, and stand to be corrected if my interpretations are wrong, but the link in my post appears correct, and RC is a very reliable website run by climate scientists.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:11 AM on 16 June 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
An added comment on too's points 4-5:
Research pretty clearly shows that consensus is important relative to the general public accepting climate change. Consensus isn't used to prove anything scientifically. Consensus is a way for non-experts to evaluate what is most likely to be correct and accurate.
No one expects anything to be proved by consensus. Consensus is a result not a method.
-
ubrew12 at 03:46 AM on 16 June 2017SkS Analogy 8 - I'll take the specialist
Excellent analogy. I have a similar analogy regarding eyesight. It occurred to me that the climate debate can be simplified to determining just one number: the ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity to doubled CO2). If the ECS is greater than 2 C, then we need to take action. If it is less than 2 C, then we can relax.
Can the public use its science-eyes to 'see' the ECS? No. The public's right eye definitely sees something: Climate science has been calculating the same ECS for over a century, and today converges on this average value, 3 C, from at least twenty different directions. But there is a problem. The public cannot trust what it's right eye sees because an entire fossil-funded doubt-industry has dedicated itself to throwing shade at the Climate scientists.
The public is thus blind in its right eye. To make policy, however, it still needs to 'see' the ECS. Lets ask the left eye, the eye of the Skeptics. What do Skeptics 'see' for ECS, and can they please show their work? But, there's a problem: the left eye is closed. It turns out the only purpose of the left eye is to invent reasons why the right eye can't be trusted, not to see anything on its own. There will always be a reason why they cannot calculate the ECS, or cannot show their work, but 'just know', intuitively, that ECS is less than 2 C (Rarely someone like Christopher Monckton will calculate ECS, and show his work, and people will find the error in that work usually on the same day).
Thus the public is blind in both eyes. One eye cannot be trusted, and the other eye is closed. So, until our vision improves, we'll just stumble along blindly in the same direction, hoping for the best. Which is the entire reason a powerful industry funded the left eye in the first place.
-
Johnboy at 02:34 AM on 16 June 2017New research may resolve a climate ‘conundrum’ across the history of human civilization
I apologize but i need help. I'm confused about the temperature changes over the Holocene since the end of the last ice age (or glaciation period). It appears that this piece and the plot provided by nigelj depict a warming of 1.5°C or so. Plots I've seen from ice core data over the last 400k years appears to me to show about an 8-10°C warming. (which actually does seem like an awful lot). Using that range, I've been trying to impress my denialist friends that the earth had warmed at about 1°C per 1000 years, whereas now it's warming that much in just a century or so due to human driven climate change, 10 times as fast.
What am I missing here? This climate scientist wannabe would appreciate your help.
-
dfwlms at 00:21 AM on 16 June 2017New research may resolve a climate ‘conundrum’ across the history of human civilization
Based on many of the posted comments, one might conclude that the word "Skeptical" in the website title doesn't imply skepticism about scientific proclamations. So, one may wonder what the adjective is meant to imply.
Moderator Response:[JH] Sloganeering snipped.
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
-
MA Rodger at 19:13 PM on 15 June 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
too @56.
The position you set out for yourself is in part difficult to grasp.Your third point seems to be saying that you have doubts about AGW. The IPCC use of the word "likely" to mean 66% to 100% certain and “very likely” to mean 90% to 100%. Is it thus correct to consider your doubts as being 33% to 10% (ie no-less-than-10% as you appear unable to sign up to “very likely”)?
With this in mind, my own position would be that AGW is “virtually certain” and I consider the UN IPCC rather pulls its punches when it sets out its assessment by stating “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century” (that is 95%-100% certain) and that “Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is … likely to exceed 2°C for ... RCP8.5." (ie RCP8.5 = unmitigated BAU).At your fourth point, you say the scientific consensus on AGW refers to your Point 3. Are you saying the scientific consensus applies only to AGW being “likely”? And then at your fifth point you say you don't see the scientific consensus on the likely-or-actual existence of AGW “proves this”. What is the “this” you refer to?
Unlike Digby Scorgie @63, I will venture beyond point 5 (but unlike nigelj @58, not beyond point 9).
Your sixth & seventh points are a matched pair. Obviously it would be a tiny bit lacking to prove some great calamity is about to occur if that knowledge is not used to prevent the calamity in some way. I would suggest that it is questionable whether it is useful to consider there being a 'solution' to AGW. Surely it is more a matter of how much AGW is sensibly acceptable and how much sensibly preventable.
Your eighth point is entirely controversial. You are saying that you do not truly believe that a debate on the likelihood of AGW being the result of CO2 is “legitimate”. Do you then consider the work of the UN IPCC and its attribution of climate change quoted above to be “illegitimate”? Perhaps you need to chose a different word.This leads to your ninth point where you believe that it is “legitimate” to debate policy response to AGW even when there is evidently significant dispute that AGW even exists! How can such debate not become bogged down in the dispute over the exisetence of AGW?
I would add that the [PS] Response @50 strongly asserts that there are “two sides” with a policy debate. I would agree. The Paris agreement had/has “sides” which could be divided into “two”. The UK Climate Change Act 2008 has “sides”. An individual country could be seen as having “sides” in AGW policy debates. And within the IPCC process there are also discernable “sides”. But to ascribe the confusion of all national and international policy decisions/non-decisions as collectively having “sides” is many steps too far for me.
That said, there exists in particular circumstances “sides” whose positions and whose impact on policymaking is worthy of discussion, but such discussion would require an understanding of where you are coming from. As I set out here, that is not yet nearly clear enough.
-
Digby Scorgie at 11:50 AM on 15 June 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
too @56
I got no further than your point (5). Fossil fuels contribute about two-thirds of warming. The consensus on this is based on hard data. In essence, the ratio of atmospheric carbon 13 to carbon 12 is decreasing. For the full story behind this you'll find an article on the topic at RealClimate.org.
Moderator Response:[PS] read it carefully. I am not aware of anyone seriously considering that "consensus" = "proof". Proof belongs in maths not science.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:59 AM on 15 June 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
michael sweet @61, Rhodes et al (2017) with regard to solar:
"Capacity factor values for utility and residential-scale solar PV plants were calculated using the capacity factor maps found in Drury et al. (2013). Because these maps were at a finer granularity than county-level, the average value per county was calculated. Utility-scale PV was assumed to be single-axis tracking and residential PV was assumed to be south-facing fixed-tilt at the local latitude (see Figs. 46, 47). Capacity factor values for solar CSP were calculated using NREL's System Advisory Model (SAM) (NREL, 2015). Weather data from over 1000 locations across the US were used with the SAM model of a generic concentrating solar plant with 6 h of thermal energy storage. The resulting capacity factors for the plants were then used to give each county in the US a CSP capacity factor based on similar meteorological conditions (Fig. 48)."
That is, with respect to each county, they used average insolation and meteorological data for that county to determine solar capacity. In contrast, Lazard (2016) state, with regard to solar:
"Low end represents single-axis tracking system. High end represents fixed-tilt design. Assumes 30 MW system in a high insolation jurisdiction (e.g., Southwest U.S.). Does not account for differences in heat coefficients within technologies, balance-of-system costs or other potential factors which may differ across select solar technologies or more specific geographies."
That is, they assume the best case regional insolation available within the US across the entire US, making their solar costs to those in low insolation, high cloud regions equivalent to those in high insolation, low cloud regions.
Rhodes et al state with regard to wind:
" Capacity factor values for on-shore wind were obtained from 3Tier at a 5 km×5 km resolution (3Tier, 2015) and were averaged at the county level. Wind capacity factors would be higher and thus the LCOE lower if the best locations in each county (rather than merely average conditions) were chosen for siting the wind turbine. The capacity factor values were for a generic turbine with a hub height of 80 m (Fig. 45)."
That is, they use the average wind speed across specific counties rather than for the entire country. Lazard does not give that information, but are likely to have followed their practise with solar, by using the best case region for determining costs across the US. Lazard also do not give information on tower height, with increased tower height reducing costs.
With regard to these methodological choices, it is not the case that each county in the US generates its own power. With a sufficient distribution system, it would make sense for nearly all utility solar in the USA to be located in the SW, and even more sense for a substantial portion to be located in Mexico. It would similarly make sense for onshore wind to be located in the mid-west which has the highest wind capacity factors. Rhodes et al, however, adress the issue of more local generation forced on suppliers by current distribution capacity and state based marketing regulations. It also provides information as to the best location of energy sources within a national distribution grid, if such should be sufficiently developed.
With regard to nuclear, Lazard states:
"Key sensitivities examined included fuel costs and tax subsidies. Other factors would also have a potentially significant effect on the results contained herein, but have not been examined in the scope of this current analysis. These additional factors, among others, could include: capacity value vs. energy value; stranded costs related to distributed generation or otherwise; network upgrade, transmission or congestion costs; integration costs; and costs of complying with various environmental regulations (e.g., carbon emissions offsets, emissions control systems). The analysis also does not address potential social and environmental externalities, including, for example, the social costs and rate consequences for those who cannot afford distribution generation solutions, as well as the long-term residual and societal consequences of various conventional generation technologies that are difficult to measure (e.g., nuclear waste disposal, environmental impacts, etc.)."
Given that the US already has several operating nuclear plants, not taking into account the cost of stranded assets will inflate the relative cost of no longer using nuclear power. I think you will find that Rhodes et al only show nuclear as being the cheapest option where such nuclear power plants are already operational, and not always there.
For what it is worth, Rhodes et al show levelized costs by county showing, Min-Max, (Mean) in dollars per MWh as:
Nuclear: 120-190 (124)
NG (Combined Cycle): 40-230 (111)
Onshore Wind: 40-1090 (155)
Solar PV (Utility): 90-270 (199)
The the low end county costs are therefore commensurate with those from Lazard, consistent with their different methodologies. The exception is for Solar PV, where the difference may be due to Rhodes et al using a 2013 paper for information on county level capacity factors.
-
nigelj at 07:40 AM on 15 June 2017New research may resolve a climate ‘conundrum’ across the history of human civilization
Good article, that resolves a long standing mystery. It shows the considerable power of climate models, but this message will be lost on the sceptics.
The following graph may be useful, and was posted on RC some time ago. It covers the last 12,000 years and includes the temperature data from Marcott, plus various model temperature estimates, plus CO2 levels, all on the same graph, so the divergence is clear. Be warned, it appears to be from a sceptics blog, but does appear accurate.
-
Susan Anderson at 04:56 AM on 15 June 2017The Larsen C ice shelf collapse hammers home the reality of climate change
Thanks, that's some nice additional information. I think the caption should be fixed above. Also, here is a more recent and specific item: A Crack in an Antarctic Ice Shelf Is 8 Miles From Creating an Iceberg the Size of Delaware. They're confused over there, so busy providing clickbait on Trump and "balancing" in Opinion that there is not enough front page coverage of some of their potential for excellent climate reporting.
-
michael sweet at 04:52 AM on 15 June 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
Tom Curtis at 34 and 36,
While the paper that you linked was recent and detailed, I wonder about many of their conclusions.
This table from Lazard (not peer reviewed but up to date)
(source: CleanTechnica) shows wind and utility solar as cheaper than fossil fuels annd nuclear.Westinghouse has declared bankruptcy because of their comittment building the nuclear reactors in the USA and Toshiba looks like it will also go under. The nuclear builds in Europe are far behind schedule and way over budget also. In the USA nulcear plants are closing because the O&M costs are more than wind and solar including the mortgage on wind and solar (nuclear has paid off their mortgages). I wonder how Rhodes et al can find nulcear economic anywhere considering this.
In their analysis, Rhodes et al used the average wind speed over the entire county to estimate the efficiency of wind power. In almost all counties there are locations where the wind is much better than the county average so they are strongly underestimating the wind potential (they discusss this problem in their paper).
While Rhodes et al have some interesting data, I think their analysis is just a first try. With more data and analysis their method will probably be useful, but the first pass is incomplete.
I am not expert in these matters so perhaps I make a mistake. Energy analysis are very complicated. Because Lazard appears to use actual prices and is more up to date, it seems to me that that data is more accurate. Energy prices change rapidly so data from a few years ago is often not accurate.
-
michael sweet at 04:25 AM on 15 June 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
Too,
This SkS post discusses Jacobson's plan to use 100% renewable energy to power the entire economy (the entire economy, not just electricity). He shows this will be cheaper than using fossil fuels. He shows in other papers that there are enough materials (like steel and rare earth metals) to build out the wind generators and solar panels needed. He shows in other papers that renewables can generate 100% of all power used as reliably as fossil fuels. His group gives a lot more data by state (in the USA) and for most other coutries in the world on their web site the solutions project (a good name since you want a solution. You will have to consider that the cost of wind and solar have decreased dramatically since those papers were written so the cost for Wind and solar will be less than he projects.
Moderator Response:[PS] Jakobson's group have paper in press discussing path to 100% renewables for 139 countries.
-
Wol at 04:12 AM on 15 June 2017The Trump Effect - Making Lemonade from Lemons
One thing that's worried me for some time is the lack of a date in the rebuttal listings.
Given that one of the ways that deniers attempt to win arguments is to cherrypick data, relying on an out-of date rebuttal can inadvertently lose the discussion.
It would be a big job to make sure each is actually up to current knowledge, but useful.
Moderator Response:[JH] Your concern about the currency of the SkS rebuttal articles is shared by the SkS author team. If you, and others, would like to help out in the task of updating the articles, please send us a note using the the "Contact Us" button on the bottom of this webpage.
-
too at 14:13 PM on 14 June 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
Appreciate the tip [JH]. The efficacy of these discussions, at least in terms of the US, seems...self apparent.
Moderator Response:[PS] A look at the average commentators at WUWT or this set of beauties would suggest attempts at communication with a portion of population is futile.
-
nigelj at 14:10 PM on 14 June 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
Too @56
Points 1-10, ok fair enough in the main.
I accepted from the start that you accept the science. However I think you are wrong on costs of renewable energy like wind being too high. Just have another look at all those tables on costs of renewable energy from various sources and think more about all the various factors.
On the consensus. I would just point out nobody is claiming this "proves" climate change, so its a strawman really to claim this. A consensus just demonstrates a strong majority position that has developed over a decent time period so become very tested (time is important). It's a measure of strength of a theory to some extent. But governments have to respond to issues and one hopes they listen to the consensus position, as opposed to fringe beliefs of the minority, and Im thinking here of climate science, vaccines, flouride etc. Its not always going to be the right choice, but the alternative of listening to eccentrics is crazy. Its worth pointing out climate science has a huge body of research more so than other issues.
On malthus. His theory was really that exponential human population growth would lead to disaster. He based this on animal populations and the end result of exhausting basic resources, and fouling environments, etc. And it could be a general problem for humanity obviously. Climate change is a little different, because we are not exhausting a resource as we have a choice between oil and renewable energy. If fusion power works this will never become a mathus type of problem, but other things might.
So the climate problem has some characteritics of malthus, but I'm not sure its strictly comparable. But reducing rates of population growth will help the climate problem to some extent, and it becomes a question of quantifying this and having a plan. Therefore agonising about the "definition" issue seems odd to me, and calling the climate issue a population problem is certainly deceptive.
On your solar analogy of the sun eventually changing and obliterating life on earth, this is pretty extreme, because it would never be possible to solve that problem barring some miracle technology in the far future. The climate problem is easier to tackle. But I take your point that people struggle with problems that seem rather distant. In fact I recent research in psychology has found human brains are simply not wired up that well to respond to distant problems, as compared to immediate concerns, and the reasons are obvious, to do with evolution and history and immediate survival. But this varies with different people to some extent.
So while we conceptualise the future we dont always have the same visceral adrenalin reaction, and powerful motivation that short term threats create.
Unfortunately a lot of people who have day to day financial challenges and cant see into the future, are also very sceptical about the science, and it becomes inter mingled. It's not possible to simply ignore the way they perceive the science, and it needs to be corrected, but obviously name calling doesn't help.
One of the main problems is politicians that are strongly driven by ideological modes of thought, and that are captive to business lobby groups and very obsessed with short term interests and immediate goals or pleasures that they have become used to. This is particularly the case in America, so despite the majority wanting more action on climate change, you get a sort of stalemate situation. This is therefore all very much a political problem, and relies on politicans having the courage to take the high ground, and don't hold your breath on that.
However lack of long term thinking is an issue for many. We have to better develop a longer term perspective that considers something more than tomorrows profit account or bills to pay. These are obviously very important, but with nothing more, humanity is going nowehere and will get into big trouble sooner than we think. As others have pointed out, sustainable development goals are a first step and clearly required to ensure our future over generations. They are a first step that provides a logical and achievable longer term framework, and which could unite people. I sense this is all inevitable anyway, but there are forces trying to obfusticate and delay this process.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:41 PM on 14 June 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
too@56,
I see the problem as a failure of Leadership in business and government to be responsible adults who use sensible rational consideration of the best understaning of what is going on to help improve the future for all of humanity.
John Stuart Mill in "On Liberty" presented a good understanding and gave a warning in 1859: “If society lets a considerable number of its members grow up mere children, incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant motives, society has itself to blame for the consequences.”
The problem today is that many "Mere Children" are being allowed to become leaders of business and be repeatedly elected to government positions.
Effective communication of climate science is an essential part of correcting the problem. But it is obvious that "All of the Other Responsible Adult Leaders" in business and government need to collectively act in ways that will effectively correct for the regional temporary ability of pursuers of support from easily impressed mere children to Win.
The majority of the USA population understands that burning of fossil fuels has to be curtailed much more rapidly than the games of popularity and profitability will curtail them. Yet the Leadership of the USA is currently controlled by the opposite type of people.
More people need to understand that an investment or job that depends on a lack of awareness of its unsustainablility or the damage that it causes is not really a valuable investment or job (regardless of its potential regional temporary popularity and profitability). Those types of investments or jobs have no future, just the potential to over-develop illusions/delusions of prosperity or opportunity. Leaders need to help everyone understand that, or face external actions to change their minds or be remove from their leadership role if they will not 'allow rational consideration of distant motives to be the basis for their thoughts and actions'.
International sanctions against those types of leaders in business and governments already happen for a variety of other Bad Behavour. It may not be long before that type of effort is used to limit the impacts of Bad Climate Leaders. The Paris Agreement is certainly set up to head in that direction (hence the likes of Team Trump disliking it loudly and passionately in ways that would appeal to other 'grown up mere children')
-
too at 12:00 PM on 14 June 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
First, thank-you moderators and I wish to clarify my positions for the record.
- Do I believe the Earth is warming?: Yes
- Do I believe that humans are the likely cause?: Yes
- Do I believe that the burning of fossil fuels by humans is the likely cause?: Yes
- Do I believe that there is scientific consensus for 3?: Yes
- Do I believe that scientific consensus for 3 proves this?: No
- Do I believe that proving scientific consensus is the most important thing?: No
- Do I believe that actually solving the problem is the most important thing?: Yes
- Do I believe that legitimate debate on 3 can exist? No, not really, but I can also understand why some might be skeptical.
- Do I believe that legitimate debate can exist on the most efficient and effective means of addressing 3?: Yes
- Do I believe that climate change is a Malthusian Catastrophe?: Yes. It is a pet theory of mine. And before I get flogged, while that concept has received wide criticism, that criticism is based upon factors not considered by Malthus that mitigated his conclusion, not the underlying concept, which is obviously true.
- Am I a concern troll?: No idea, first time I have heard that term, I do not believe so.
My concern is a path towards a solution is what is most important. Tom Curtis' generous explanations were very enlightening to me at least. What it said to me is that the economics argument from both sides can be taken as right and wrong simultaneously. It is all dependent upon what factors one considers. If one only considers LCoE then one will come to one conclusion on this. If one considers other factors like the EPA SCC then one will come to a very different conclusion. The link to the paper he supplied actually specified this, they provided an app where one could plug in one's own numbers for various different factors and stated that depending on these factors one will get different results.
Let me attempt to explain my concerns and this is a bit unconventional. Imagine if a group of individuals came out and said. "In 5 billion years the Earth will expand into a red giant star and destroy all life on Earth. This science is undeniable. Therefore, as our first priority before all other priorities, we must invest trillions of dollars to reduce the amount of hydrogen consumed by the sun. Climate change is trivial compared with the extinction of humanity. Anyone that does not agree 100% with our position is a moron and a Solar Change Denier."
Now, I don't mean to stereotype, but the members of this community would probably have the following reactions:
- These guys are utter lunatics
- You would be angry and become more entrenched in your beliefs
Here is the issue. There is a large segment of the population that views climate change in exactly the same way as you would view those individuals. These people that I am referring to do not necessarily refute the science but they have other concerns like jobs, paying the bills, etc. that are more important to them than something that is, from their perspective, far, far into the future. That is a huge barrier and problem to actually addressing climate change. If, as is my opinion, the only thing that is important is actually solving the problem then that barrier needs to be addressed. That is what I am concerned with. These people, while they do not necessarily refute the science, if you call them idiots and "Climate Change Deniers" all that is happening is that you are entrenching them in their current beliefs. Thus, it is not only about the science, it is more importantly about this large percentage of the electorate that votes.
My desire is to learn about all the various sides of this and understand how to make progress on actually solving the problem.
Moderator Response:[JH] Type the word "communication" in this website's search engine and hit the "Go" button. Then start reading the numerous articles on this topic that have been posted on SkS over the years.
-
BC at 11:55 AM on 14 June 2017The Larsen C ice shelf collapse hammers home the reality of climate change
Trump Tower is 202m (Google) and the ice shelf is around 600m (Tom Curtis @9). So re Nigelj @4, Trump Tower is one third the height of Larson C.
-
nigelj at 11:33 AM on 14 June 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
Moderator: Too says @45 " I do not believe in AGW based upon scientific consensus but rather from the aspect of the Earth essentially being a closed thermodynamic system and thus it is reasonable that significant carbon release into the atmosphere by humans likely has some degree of impact."
On you other point further above on moderation policy, I accept virtually everything you say. The only quibble I have is crossing out leaves an impression of censorship even though it isn't. A bold and explicit warning seems enough to me. But I respect you want to go with crossing out, and I do get where you are generally coming from.
-
Digby Scorgie at 11:17 AM on 14 June 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
I should add to my comment @53 that four degrees of warming is of course the typical estimate of where we'll be in 2100 with little, if any, action on climate change.
-
Digby Scorgie at 11:12 AM on 14 June 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
too
I find your arguments somewhat baffling. The bottom line for me is that climate change is happening now, humans are largely responsible, if left unchecked the habitability of the planet will be threatened, and therefore we need to do something about it.
If everything comes down to cost, well then there is another way to look at it. Let me quote the eminent scientist Kevin Anderson: "There is a widespread view that four degrees Celsius [of warming] is incompatible with an organized global community, is beyond adaptation, is devastating to eco-systems, and is unlikely to be stable." [Reykjavik lecture, February 2016]
The reference to "unlikely to be stable" means that, if we get to four degrees, it won't stop there but just get worse and worse.
One needs to reflect on those words. They paint a pretty scary picture. A world with no "organized global community"? How much should humans be willing to pay to avoid such a scenario?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:14 AM on 14 June 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
Too @ 7
I agree that something that is half the cost to the current generation and provides twice the benefit for future generations is better. However, as an engineer with and MBA, I understand the fallacy of believing we understand how to technologically manipulate the global environment in a way that is guaranteed to produce a desired result. An Engineering fundamental is that nothing gets produced for public use until thoughtful thorough actual (not artificial) experimentation has been performed to ensure its safety. My MBA courses in Organizational Change made it clear that a desired change cannot be created by implementing a theoretical adjustment on the organization. Implementing changes will result in changes, but because of complexities that are not well understood the actual change is different from what may theoretically be hoped for.
Massive experiments in imposing changes on the global environment to be performed by future generations at their risk, the sort of irresponsible impositions on Others that the likes of Lomborg try to justify, are extremely dangerous propositions.Reducing human impact emissions that are causing change is not the same type of change. Reducing the imposition of such a change to the global environment is “Guaranteed” to reduce the magnitude and uncertainty of the resulting consequences.
In line with my previous comment, it is not even appropriate to compare the costs for avoiding different levels of temperature increase. Comparisons of different approaches to reducing the total CO2 impact that would achieve the same levels of global impact are valid to determine the more effective options. But trying to justify the creation of a larger future problem because “it would be less expensive for the current generation” cannot be allowed to be considered to be sensible or responsible (and it is worse to claim that the future generations can gamble their futures on massive experiments in global environmental manipulation). That type of thinking can lead to unjustified excusing of less acceptable behaviour because less acceptable behaviour will always be easier, quicker or cheaper even though it causes a bigger problem.
A justified evaluation would be to determine the level of global temperature increase that would create very little chance of any future costs or challenges to any regions humanity currently has developed in. I am fairly certain that that has been reasonably determined, and we have already likely exceeded that level of temperature increase because of the lack of responsible action by the “Winners” among our predecessors since 1972 (1972 Stockholm Conference made it clear what changes of development direction would be required).If we continue to allow “Winning” by people who consider it OK to create costs and challenges for 'Others because the Others have no equity of influence over what is gotten away with, especially future generations' then indeed the matter is a Mathusian one in the sense of the “Less Sensibly/Responsibly Justified More Damaging Winners” encouraging others to compete to be Less Sensibly Responsible and More Damaging (A potential result of the Winners-of-the-moment in the USA excusing themselves from the responsibility to participate in the Paris agreement). The growth of unjustified pursuits of personal interests could indeed destroy humanity, even without population growth.
Basing “Winning” purely on Popularity and Profitability with everyone “freer to think and do as they please” is indeed a fundamental threat to the future of humanity.
But humanity has a history of only allowing trouble-makers to go “So Far” before their actions are effectively curtailed. Regrettably, humanity does appear to struggle to retain that learning. It seems to repeatedly have to be relearned. In too many cases the trouble-makers are permitted to go too far because of reluctance or inability to limit the Sovereign Liberty of people or nations (like the recent Sudanese, Bosnia, Rwandan atrocities).
Supposedly already advanced Nations that did the least improvement of CO2/GDP, CO2/capita since 1972 definitely have a “Disadvantage” today. Claiming the situation they are in, facing more rapid and significant correction of their economic activity (ways of living) than others, as “Unfair” is incredibly unjustified, but understandably popular in the population of such a nation. When G.W. Bush announced that the USA would not ratify Kyoto he declared that Americans did not have to change the way they lived. That “Big Lie” created a delusion among many members of the population, and the current generation in the USA is suffering the consequences. John Stuart Mill (a formative thinker regarding the pursuit of Liberty) would blame the society for failing to properly raise and educate its population. To Quote Mill, “If society lets a considerable number of its members grow up mere children, incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant motives, society has itself to blame for the consequences.” Mill would probably expect international action to attempt to “correct the failing of the USA” so that all of humanity does not fail. Hopefully, thinking like Mills will prevail in the USA before international intervention is required (because history shows that international intervention is usually too late, after significant damage is done).
It is undeniable that the USA today faces a much larger challenge than it would have to face if the leadership since the 1972 understanding of the Stockholm Conference had done more to encourage responsible development and discourage irresponsible development. But instead of striving to change as much as possible to a sustainable economic path, the USA leadership was influenced into trying to maintain a temporary perception of global competitive superiority by behaving less acceptably than it could have. Currently faced with the reality of the bigger correction of the over-development in the wrong direction, it is understandable why irrational inexcusable unjustified arguing to get away with less acceptable behaviour is popular in the USA population (and other nations). But it is also clear that the population of the USA is justifiably divided on this matter. In spite of some groups “Winning unjustified advantage by deliberately behaving less acceptably” others in the USA (and Canada, and Australia, China, and many other nations) have pursued better behaviour and the development of economic activity that does not face the undeniably dead-end destiny of activity that over-developed in the wrong direction. So the current USA (and many other nations) is understandably divided Good vs. Evil from the perspective of the future of humanity, regardless of attempts to claim that some other Good vs. Evil is more important and get attention misdirected.
Therefore, to avoid future massive damaging developments the international collective of leaders in business and government have to develop the will to be closely monitored and have quicker action taken to limit the “Winning” by any of “Their Peers” who try to gain advantage from a large portion of the population growing up mere children - selfish/greedy and/or with tribal xenophobic fear based intolerance of “Others”.
The Paris Agreement has the potential to effectively be that type of international mechanism. That is probably why it is so passionately disliked by many “Intelligent and Knowledgable but Misguiding/Misdirecting” people.
-
nigelj at 08:13 AM on 14 June 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
Come on guys (and gals)
I have written hundreds of posts critical of climate sceptics and deniers, mainly on other websites, often quoting articles from SkSc.
However even I think you are being a little hard on Too, in part. It's probably climate denier fatigue, these sceptical guys can be very frustrating at times.
But read what Too has said: He has accepted humans are altering the climate. Maybe its concern trolling but we dont know.
However he has grumbled about whether there is a "consensus". Well too, there is a consensus, clearly shown in numerous polls, and ultimately while this does not prove a theory is correct, as humans we have to really follow what the majority of scientists are saying as opposed to some eccentric.
There are two general sides in the debate. Although I dont know where too is really going with that remark.
The malthus thing is about definitions, and a more commonsense approach is to accept population increase is a factor and just discuss this.
Too is right the two sides need to avoid shouting. But he blew this with his condesending remark about calm down. This is exactly the sort of remark which gets my back up and starts to get personal.
Too has mainly carried on about renewable energy, and the costs of this. But he has not even remotely proven his case on this. So on his main point he has not persuaded me.
By the way Too, this website has discussed renewable energy from time to time, but is basically primarily a website about causes of global warming and reasons for scepticism. Its entitled to take this form and I think we need information like that.
We get a little frustrated with deniers or sceptics or whatever term you prefer, particularly because of all the dodgy cherrypicking ,strawman arguments, lies by ommission, red herrings and sophistry and so we get defensive. We have a right to be a little defensive. Michael Mann gets death threats.
Of course some warmists can be annoying, but frankly the warmists seem a bit more rational.
All I ask is for people to be upfront on where they are really going with some post, acknowldege points raised and provide evidence based arguments.
Moderator Response:[PS] too has acknowledged that there is a scientific consensus and I think he/she may have implied that they agree with it, but not sure on that. In early posts, too showed a penchant for rhetoric and sophistry. Provided posts keep that in check and stick to evidence, they should be fine.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:04 AM on 14 June 2017The Larsen C ice shelf collapse hammers home the reality of climate change
Susan Anderson @8, interestingly, google images credits the photo of being of the rift in the Larson B ice shelf, a fact given credence by its also being found in a search limited to images available prior to January 1st, 2010, ie, prior to the formation of the current rift on the Larson C. Having said that, google search time attributions are not always reliable, and I could not find a specific attribution of the photo at NSIDC.
Here is a November 2016 image of the Larson C rift from NASA:
In February 2017, the New York Times reported on the rift, showing this graphic:
In the original, the graphic indicates rift widths of (from left to right of the indicated locations), 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 1.8 and 2 miles. It also reported an ice sheet height above sea level of 190 feet (58 meters), and a depth below sea level of 1,750 feet (533 meters). So the estimates by chriskoz @2 based on the photo are underestimates of the dimensions of the potential iceberg breaking of as a result of this rift.
-
nigelj at 07:17 AM on 14 June 2017The Trump Effect - Making Lemonade from Lemons
You are right Trump's actions may inspire greater awareness of climate science, and greater efforts by other countries to reduce emissions, and this would be one positive outcome among the general mess. But I think this is what Trump wants, although he clearly largely thinks climate change is a scam and hasn't got much grasp of science.
I think Trump has pulled out of Paris because he is looking for a free ride. It would be in character with his loans and inheritance from his parents, and his history of unusually brutal business deals, and the harsh way he treated his sub contractors. There's a pattern there.
There's always someone that wont participate in group efforts to solve some problem, but is happy to benefit. It's parastical behaviour, and immensely hypocritical given Trump accuses other countries of relying on America.
-
Susan Anderson at 07:02 AM on 14 June 2017The Larsen C ice shelf collapse hammers home the reality of climate change
Tthat expanse of water in the gap cannot be a current photograph, taken during their warm sunlit season. It's dramatic but a mite misleading.
-
MA Rodger at 06:32 AM on 14 June 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
Too @various.
Perhaps we should examine your comments down this thread in the round.
Your first position down this thread (@4 & @7) is that the Paris agreement will cost a fortune and achieve effectively zero. This is perhaps the conclusion you would reach if you only relied on a climate-change denier like Lomborg.You next suggest (@9, @14, @15 & @16) that food à la Thomas Malthus is equivalent to GHG emissions à la AGW and so, bizarrely, AGW could be tackled by making people poorer (which interestingly is the exact opposite of the fix mankind has effected to escape the Malthusian delemma). Then you decide (@21) this was not a line of discussion you wanted to pursue.
There follows (@25/26 & @32/33) your not-untroubled assessment on renewable electricity production.
This leads to your redolent but ambiguous statement @37 "I am beginning to get a sense of why the two sides in this debate cannot seem to have productive discussions," followed @40 by your first mention of Trump and his fake reasons for rejecting Paris.
Concerning the existence of "two sides," your argument @45 is poor. If a 'second side' does exist as you say, perhaps you could find your way to setting out who it comprises and what it's position is and on what basis it has established such a position.
I would suggest that there is in truth no such 'second side' and that you are simply alluding to a bunch of nay-saying climate-change deniers who collectively hold any number of incompatable and unscientific beliefs. This cannot in any way constitute a 'second side' with any equivalence to the UN IPCC.
That you further set out your position (@44/45) in which you see no reason for either "side" to be proved right or wrong but instead that they have to be reconciled to properly address AGW - this is illogical nonsense. It is nonsense even if there were "two sides," which there aren't, because the positions you paint as "sides" cannot be reconciled without proving one to be correct and the other wrong. And this proof has already been established à la IPCC. Thus you must appreciate that your approach to fixing AGW and your desire for learning in that regard is pointless and a waste of everyone's time.Moderator Response:[PS] too acknowledges the science consensus. I believe his/her two sides refer to the political debate where there certainly are two sides.
-
michael sweet at 05:23 AM on 14 June 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
Too ,
You are coming across as a concern troll who claims to agree with the facts of AGW but raises "questions" that make it appear that you really want to challenge the scientific consensus. If you have anything you want to learn about use the search button in the corner to find an appropriate thread, virtually anything relating to AGW can be found on SkS. When I review your posts I see a lot of complaints and little content. "I want to learn about and help fix AGW" is a general platitude that is not answerable. You could look at threads that discuss renewable energy as a solution to AGW.
If you continue to complain about the moderators your posts will be deleted.
-
too at 03:57 AM on 14 June 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
Why would I supply evidence that there is no global warming when I, in fact, concur that there is? Since we are here to point to facts, where did I say that scientists are wrong about AGW? Please help me understand where this is coming from because to the best of my knowledge I said no such thing. And if you want to point to the Malthusian Catastrophe comment, but definition, AGW would have to be occuring for it to be a Malthusian Catastrophe.
Can some moderator show me some mercy and explain how "I want to learn about and help fix AGW" is sloganeering? The Comments policy reads:
"No sloganeering. Comments consisting of simple assertion of a myth already debunked by one of the main articles, and which contain no relevant counter argument or evidence from the peer reviewed literature constitutes trolling rather than genuine discussion. As such they will be deleted. If you think our debunking of one of those myths is in error, you are welcome to discuss that on the relevant thread, provided you give substantial reasons for believing the debunking is in error. It is asked that you do not clutter up threads by responding to comments that consist just of slogans."
I have looked through all 195 myths I can't find a reference to I want to learn about and help fix AGW" being in one of the myths.
Moderator Response:JH] To find what you are looking for, type in a key word or phrase ("clean energy" for example) into the website Search box and hit "Go".
The vast majority of articles posted on SkS over the years are not directly tied to the denier myths — especially those addressing potential mitigation and adaptation measures.
You should also explore other websites that focus on the policy responses to manmade climate change. The World Resources Institute would be a good place to start.
-
Hank11198 at 03:40 AM on 14 June 2017The Trump Effect - Making Lemonade from Lemons
I think this is the same phenomenon as when gun sales went up after Obama was elected because the rhetoric from the right was that Obama was going to take guns from people. As long as global warming was a side issue that was being worked on, though at a snail’s pace, it was a low priority in most people’s lives. When it’s being made worse or not being addressed at best, a lot of people start to worry even if it is a low priority for them.
-
Jim Eager at 01:28 AM on 14 June 2017The Larsen C ice shelf collapse hammers home the reality of climate change
Blatz, true, the calving of the floating ice shelf will have a negligible* direct effect on sea level, but it will have a long term positive secondary effect. Ice shelves like Larson act as “corks in a bottle,” holding back and slowing the flow of land based glacial ice into the sea. Once the floating ice shelf “cork” is removed the flow of that land based ice will then accelerate, and that increase in flow will add to sea level.
(*Although negligable, the direct effect is slightly positive because the floating ice is composed of fresh water, which is not as dense as sea water, so when it melts it will increase sea level *very* slightly.) -
knaugle at 23:46 PM on 13 June 2017The Larsen C ice shelf collapse hammers home the reality of climate change
Well, considering what happened to Larsen A & B? It's pretty clear the most consistent prediction is that C will disintegrate in the near future as well.
-
Eclectic at 23:19 PM on 13 June 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
Too @45 , on the contrary , whether (or not) the climate scientists are all wrong about rapid Global Warming — is one of the most seriously important issues of this modern age.
If all the scientists are wrong ..... then we should all put our feet up and do nothing to alter the old (Twentieth Century) methods of energy production from fossil fuel burning. And SkS website need not exist. And you yourself would feel no urge to come posting here.
But unfortunately, all the scientists are very much in the right about AGW. And it is noticeable how you have deflected away from supplying any (repeat: any) evidence or genuine arguments that could counter what the scientists are saying. Mr Too, you are making a complete Fail.
Just as in the Round-Earth / Flat-Earth analogy, where the scientists are completely right and the Flat-Earthers [despite their alleged "arguments" and their description of themselves as "skeptics"] are simply science-deniers. And the Flat-Earthers don't have a Turtle to stand on ;-)
Admittedly the Flat-Earther analogy does break down somewhat. The Flat Earth issue is too trivial, to have any necessity for an "SkS Round Earth Website" to exist to counter Flat-Earther propaganda & Myths. Also the Flat-Earthers are not strident and self-righteous as Climate Deniers are. Nor do they receive big money from the Oil Industry (Exxon / Koch / Murdoch et alia). Nor do the "Flatties" exert any harm on present and future humanity.
The Flat-Earthers do have similar Conspiracy Theories to many of the climate-science-deniers ..... but AFAICT, the Flatties don't get butthurt about their denier label, and furthermore some of them seem to have a humorous twinkle in their eye — and they don't have the deep anger motivation possessed by the Climate Deniers. So there are significant differences ;-)
Nor, Mr Too , have you explained your self-contradicting assertion that the scientists are wrong about the AGW problem yet at the same time we need to find "how to best implement and address fixing the problem" [your quote]. Altogether, you thinking seems quite confused.
-
blatz at 22:40 PM on 13 June 2017The Larsen C ice shelf collapse hammers home the reality of climate change
Being that Larsen C is already on water, wouldn't its impact to sea level rise be minimal? Only thermal expansion would be a factor.
-
too at 22:23 PM on 13 June 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
So, there is no interest in solving the problem of climate change, which needs the other side to cooperate to actually implement something meaningful which means that everyone needs to have productive dialogue? There is only the science and whether it is right or wrong? That seems counter-productive. We have proven climate change, but we don't care about fixing it?
Moderator Response:[JH] Blatant sloganeering snipped.
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.
-
too at 21:34 PM on 13 June 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
@44 On the subject of two sides to the science of AGW. I point to the existence of this website in support of my position that there are two sides. If there were not two sides, everyone would agree and this site would have no need to exist. Now, whether or not you give the other side credence does not negate its existence or the barriers it imposes to solving AGW, which I presume is the end goal of AGW and not a purse of gold from the solar and wind industry (you see, those kinds of things can work both ways so they should be avoided in my opinion). I will refrain from making my point about recent examples of scientific consensus being wrong in the past. I do not believe in AGW based upon scientific consensus but rather from the aspect of the Earth essentially being a closed thermodynamic system and thus it is reasonable that significant carbon release into the atmosphere by humans likely has some degree of impact.
Now, there are certainly many sides when it comes to the true impact of and how to address AGW. As a side note, the use of pejorative terms like "Climate Change Denier" and other mockery are harmful to the resolution, which I again assume to be the goal state. Whoever invented the term "Climate Change Denier" has likely done the most of any human to harm to the climate through impeding proper discussions around the subject and having discussions end up being name calling contests.
Summing this up, unless the two sides of this topic can engage in proper dialogue to come to a resolution on addressing AGW then simply proving the science is absolutely meaningless and has been a complete and utter waste of time because it has done nothing to actually solve the problem. Hence, a listing of Climate Myths, to be honest, is absurd to me because I haven't come across one that does anything to actually address the true issue, which is how to best implement and address fixing the problem.
My interest is understanding where the dialogue has gone wrong and how to make the sides talk in a common language that is not demeaning to one side or the other. I probably seem to come at this in a rather unconventional way but that is simply because I deeply and truly do not care about who is right or wrong or who is the supposed "idiot" or who is to blame. Now, I say this and you still have no idea the depths to which I do not care.
Moderator Response:[JH] Science is not a game! Do your "research" elsewhere!
[PS] Sites like ThinkProgress engage in the political debate. SkS has the narrower focus of addressing climate myths with science. You can assume the people are interested in fixing but that does not make this the appropriate forum for political questions.
Also, it is extremely difficult to have meaningful dialogue with those whose position is based on ideology/group identity and who even openly acknowledges that no evidence would change their mind. Meaningful debate means giving up on misinformation, strawmen, cherry-picking, and preferring blog rhetoric to the crucible of peer-reviewed research. You cannot expect dialogue when you engage in sophistry instead of evidence. If you think you have a cure, then state it.
Prev 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 Next
