Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 Next
Comments 20251 to 20300:
-
Jim Eager at 00:24 AM on 1 April 2017Elevator Pitches - Chapter 02 - Radiative Gases
Sancho, the key to understanding the power of adding only one molecule per 10,000 (from 3 to 4) is to understand that the other 9,997 N2 and O2 molecules do not absorb IR energy, only the 3 CO2 molecules do, and thus only the 3 are responsible for the greenhouse effect. The other 9,997 molecules might as well not even be there. Thus increasing the CO2 number from 3 to 4 has to increase the power of its greenhouse effect.
Think of it this way: if the effective dosage of a drug is 3 in 10,000 when disolved in distiled water and you increase the dosage to 4 in 10,000 you have increased the dosage by 33%, which could be fatal in some cases.
Or another analogy: think about what would happen if you added 3 liters of carbon black to a swimming pool containing 9997 liters of water. You might still see the bottom of the pool at the shallow end, but as you moved toward the deep end at some point you would no longer be able to see the bottom. Now remove a liter of water and add 1 more liter of carbon black. What would happen to the point where you could no longer see bottom?
As for the increase of 1.5F so far when we haven’t even doubled CO2 yet, remember that a warmer atmosphere will hold more water vapor, and that water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. So, by warming the atmosphere by adding CO2 we have also indirectly added water vapor to the atmosphere, thus increasing the H2O greenhous effect as well.
-
John Hartz at 23:18 PM on 31 March 2017Models are unreliable
DavidShawver:
Something for you to chew on...
Researcher's 1979 Arctic Model Predicted Current Sea Ice Demise, Holds Lessons for Future
Study from decades ago proved remarkably accurate in showing how global warming would affect the Arctic's sea ice, currently in steep decline.
by Sabrina Shankman, Inside Climate News, Feb 20, 2017
Claire Parkinson, now a senior climate change scientist at NASA, first began studying global warming's impact on Arctic sea ice in 1978, when she was a promising new researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Back then, what she and a colleague found was not only groundbreaking, it pretty accurately predicted what is happening now in the Arctic, as sea ice levels break record low after record low.
Parkinson's study, which was published in 1979, found that a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from preindustrial levels would cause the Arctic to become ice-free in late summer months, probably by the middle of the 21st century. It hasn't been ice-free in more than 100,000 years.
Although carbon dioxide levels have not yet doubled, the ice is rapidly disappearing. This record melt confirms the outlook from Parkinson's 1979 model.
"It was one of these landmark papers," said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center. "She was the first to put together the thermodynamic sea ice model."
-
Eclectic at 16:29 PM on 31 March 2017Models are unreliable
DavidS @1039,
you are overlooking a vitally important point, which is :- global warming is already occurring now in a big way. There are no Ifs or Buts or Maybes. The signs (like with an advanced pregnancy) are very obvious, right now. The higher surface temperatures, the rising sea level, the loss of glaciers and plummeting arctic ice volume, and so on. All that is very plain and obvious. And since the known cause (of warming) is still operational and actually increasing — by around around 30 billion tons per year — the warming will continue strongly.
Even without any model projections for the future, it is clear to the reasonable man [as the lawyers describe him] that action needs to be taken now, rather than postponed for many decades. In a half-century or less, fossil fuels can be phased out, with little or no real economic cost (bearing in mind the already high price of health costs and other less obvious costs of operating a coal/oil fuelled economy).
The presence or absence of model projections is a relatively trivial matter, which may be of greater relevance to the lattermost decades of the 21st Century : but has minimal importance in practical terms of what actions we need to take both now and in the near future.
DavidS, your "pregnancy test" analogy is a very long stretch.
Perhaps a slightly closer analogy is this :- A young woman reports she has had no periods for 4 months : and her abdomen shows a smooth midline lump reaching almost to her umbilicus. Plus several other signs are present, indicative of pregnancy.
Yes, there is a 0.1% chance she is not pregnant. But the reliabillity and accuracy of a urine pregnancy test is almost moot. Her real interest and need, is to make decisions about practical things she should do now and in the coming months. She would be wasting her time if she agonises over whether the urine test kit is 95% or 98% accurate.
Timely practical decisions are needed, in tackling our rapid global warming.
-
scaddenp at 13:59 PM on 31 March 2017Models are unreliable
You also bring up medical test - the idea of what is "effective" is complex and the conclusions from testing can be very murky indeed. However, we dont see joe public (on the whole) thinking they know better than the medical consensus. Judging those results requires considerable domain knowledge, just like climate science. The scientific consensus might be wrong - plenty of cases where it is - but scientific consensus is what should guide public policy.
Also, treating the models as test of climate science is also are rather dubious assumption. There are numerous direct tests of climate science instead. Models though are limited by computer power, measurement gaps, subscale issues etc and underlying chaotic processes. This is not test of the science. The correct question to ask is "are the models skillful?". The answer is yes. They sure do better than the entrails of chicken or assuming climate is unchanging, and frankly, very very much better. Broecker 1975 practically nailed the 2010 temperature.
-
BaerbelW at 13:41 PM on 31 March 2017New podcast Evidence Squared by John Cook & Peter Jacobs
Robert - you can also just go to the Evidence Squared website and listen to them from there. On my iPad, I used the iTunes app, searched for the podcasts and downloaded them.
-
scaddenp at 12:44 PM on 31 March 2017Models are unreliable
I am not quite sure what you mean by "error rates in prediction"? What do you regard as "error"? Strawman arguments are favourite denier attack - eg . "climate model predict this (cue cooked graph), actual is this, therefore climate science is wrong". The important point to consider is what do climate models actually predict here. The answer is climate, not weather. They have no skill at decadal level prediction and dont pretend to. What they do predict with considerable skill is what 30 year weather averages will do. In the graph at the above comment you will see the grey area is "weather uncertainity". What this means is that any wriggly line in that grey area is consistant with the climate models. The solid black line is model average. You can see this more clearly on this AR4 graph.
Every single line is an individual run of the model. Every one of them, a possible climate future. Discussed in more detail here.
Furthermore, whatever their imperfections, (and modellers would be first to list them), they remain our best predictor for what future climate will look like. Yes, we would very much prefer to know whether climate sensitivity is closer to 2.5 or 4.5, but this is best possible at moment. Dont assume errors will be on the side of least effect. Uncertainity is not your friend.
"with far-reaching negative economic ramifications". Hmm, sounds like drinking the FF propoganda to me. Certainly negative for some industry sectors, but what are you using as the basis your assertion on negative consequence? Want to compare them with the costs on doing nothing and even a low sensitivity of say 2.5?
Also, please dont confuse physical models for predicting the future with statistical models (eg polls). Not a lot in common for functionality.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:54 AM on 31 March 2017New podcast Evidence Squared by John Cook & Peter Jacobs
If you have an iPhone you can just download the Podcasts app and get it there.
-
robert test at 10:45 AM on 31 March 2017New podcast Evidence Squared by John Cook & Peter Jacobs
I'm sorry but I can't figure out to listen (or are these videos?) these podcasts. I clicked on the link to download itunes and I successfully downloaded and installed itunes.
Then (I think) I subscribed to the podcasts. But the only links that are available are merely to download itunes. I don't see anyway to see or hear anything other than the promos for podcasts or for itunes.
I give up.
-
DavidShawver at 10:13 AM on 31 March 2017Models are unreliable
[I noticed a few typos in my previous post, in last paragraph it should read "Therefore it stands to reason that this "test" of climate science"
In second paragraph should read "What I am questioning is whether *their use in combination with other methods in climate science as it is currently practiced* has ever been demonstrated....]
-
DavidShawver at 10:01 AM on 31 March 2017Models are unreliable
Skeptical questions from a lay person: What if the accuracy of climate models does not continue to improve as is claimed, and the current error rates in predictions of global temperature each year continue at their current rate? Is it possible that the aggregative upshot of serial errors in temperature prediction could lead to a very different result than that which is currently being predicted by the present day models? And isn't the only relevant question for members of the public whether the climate models can accurately predict what happens in the future?
I am not denying that the physical science and math and statistics that goes into climate models are not scientifically valid and independently accurate in other applications. What I am questioning is whether they have ever been demonstrated to have the level of predictive value which would be necessary to project policy 50 years into the future and beyond.
An analogy: In the realm of medicine, prior to a treatment or test being administered it must be shown that the treatment or test is effective. When we are talking about a particular method which is in essence a test (to predict increased planetary temperature) the test must be capable of predicting what it is meant to predict. For example, the law does not allow pregnancy tests to be placed on the market, when such tests have not been consistently shown effective at predicting that a woman will eventually have a baby in actual real world clinical trials.
In my mind, climate science is similar. Climate science is an amalgum of scientific techniques and human judgments that can be thought of as a particular test (albeit much more complex than a pregnancy test) which is being used in order to predict the planet's future temperature. The lay people of the world are being asked to make serious policy changes with far-reaching negative economic ramifications on the basis of this particular "test" or methodology. Therefore it stands to reason that this "test" of climate change must be able to demonstrate that it has a record of being successful in predicting global temperature changes. Can we really say that? The discrepancy in the above graph between predicted and actual seems to belie that the "test" is really there yet. By the way, the same problem of lack of sufficient demonstrated predictive value for the purposes asked also exists in the political world, where everyone was wrong about Trump's chances.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:27 AM on 31 March 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
JohnFornaro @63:
"Uhhhhh.... wut? I didn't get the meaning of that at all."
In your comment @56 you wrote:
"Tom Curtis @55:
"It will be a decade or two before we can significantly resolve which projection/model combination is most accurate with respect to sea level rise."
Which is fair on one level, but it is also permission for Congress to say, wait and see. Ten to twenty years is not three years."
"Waiting and seeing" for an indeterminate period is in fact doing nothing, hence my comment about acting as though the uncertain thing won't happen. That is not a rational response when there is a certainty of sea level rise, but uncertainty about the amount. That is particularly the case given that the earlier the policy response, the lower the overall cost of responding to sea level rise, at least if the initial steps are measured as with the two proposals I made.
"This makes some sense to me too, but is a 'run awaaaayyy' approach."
You ignored the section where I said:
"Standards for levies are a bit different as you greatly increase the cost of the response if you do multiple builds. There I suggest they set a standard for levies equivalent to a Katrina level storm surge plus around 1.5 meters. Again, they should commit to decadal review."
Clearly I was suggesting a two strategy response, with the particular strategy used in particular area dependent or relevant costs. Therefore your characterization of the strategy is an inaccurate caricature. I will grant that the different cost structure will favour retreat over the construction of levees, but as the percentage of land effected for any state other than Florida (where levees will not work, in any event) is small, that it likely the most cost effective strategy.
With regard to phobia, it is the nature of phobias to mistake irrational fears for rational fears. In this context, that comes from mistaking reasonable regulations for unreasonable.
With regard to my second preference strategy (the free market solution), it has the effect of placing the cost of adapting to sea level rise specifically on people living in low areas; whereas the cause of the costs are (mostly) the use of fossil fuels. That is, it accepts as a reasonable policy the existence of a large externality born by a small proportion of the population, but not paid for by the causes of the externality. To my mind that is irrational, but given the phobia about rational regulation in the US, I expect only the free market approach has a chance of getting up in the short term.
-
nigelj at 06:10 AM on 31 March 2017Trump has launched a blitzkrieg in the wars on science and Earth’s climate
Sailingfree @13, yes coal can certainly be a killer. Some research came out a couple of years ago showing burning coal is a much bigger cause of heart disease than previously thought as below.
I remembered this when I read your comments. Of course there are numerous other problems such as bronchitis etc.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:59 AM on 31 March 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
JF... "I would say informally that neither Obama nor Trump are climate science experts, for example."
Interesting here is the avoidance of the obvious.
The former listened to and acted upon the advice of leading experts. The latter does not.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:56 AM on 31 March 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
JF @62... Apparently you chosen to ignore the point I've made. No, merely squashing a chart down is not – in any way, shape or form – a substitute for real analysis. You have to understand the processes at work. You have to understand the data. You have to understand other influences on the data outside of the specifics you're looking at. Tamino does the actual analysis that you're incapable of (here).
"To better persuade policy makers, climate scientists could present the data at the same scale..."
You're just not getting it, John. You're asking for something that won't visually show exactly what deniers avoid understanding. And you're not grasping how you're employing a technique that is exactly how people intentionally manufacture doubt about climate science.
Look, all the information is there. It's presented over and over in compelling ways that even children can understand. Those who don't understand these things are not failing to grasp it because it's being poorly communicated. They're not understanding it because they don't want to understand it. That's not something that can be changed through anyone's abilities of persuasion.
My often used comparison here is Martin Luther King. Dr. King didn't advance the civil rights movement by trying to persuade racists that their ideas were wrong. He did it by forcing our nation to confront the atrocity of our racism.
-
JohnFornaro at 04:02 AM on 31 March 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
Tom Curtis @ 59:
" it is not a rational response to uncertainty to assume that, with 100% certainty the uncertain thing won't happen."
Uhhhhh.... wut? I didn't get the meaning of that at all.
"I would suggest that ... Congress to adopt now, a policy of converting to parkland ... [various low lying areas] ... using eminent domain". This makes some sense to me too, but is a 'run awaaaayyy' approach. [say it like Monty Python] Abandon the flooded areas. Perhaps like New Orleans? Remember that the Low Countries in Europe have been working the high sea level problem for many years with notable success, and that seems to be the approach that the Corps of Engineers is using in New Orleans at the moment.
But you mentioned "eminent domain". And then you asserted that "phobia about reasonable government regulation". What people actually have is a phobia about UN-reasonable government regulation. From a persuasion standpoint, 'unreasonable government regulation' is an LKS.
You do offer a free market solution that should be adopted as soon as is practicable, tho: "that buyers do not conceal faults in a [low lying] property they are selling, and that the government not subsidize the insurance, [nor] become the insurer of last resort for people who ignore the reality of sea level rise".
-
JohnFornaro at 03:48 AM on 31 March 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
Rob Honeycutt @ 58:
"JF... Regarding sea level rise, if you merely squash a chart down you're unlikely to gain any valuable information."
I have to disagree. I squashed down the Colorado.edu graph to the same ordinate scale as the graph @ 40. The valuable information is that there is no catastrophic sea level rise out to 2020. The comment was made above @ 55 that "if a change of scales defeats a person, they lack that ability" to reason.
Clearly, getting the graphs at the same scale shows that the sea level rise, at least as predicted by the models of those 'experts', is not something to be alarmed about.
The prediction of a 1m rise in sea levels is out to the year 2100, and is the extreme level predicted by the highest 'expert' NOAA assessment. You ask,
"In terms of 'persuasion' what are scientists supposed to do?"
To better persuade policy makers, climate scientists could present the data at the same scale, project out to the same time, and work harder to refrain from berating the idiotic morons who comprise our government. At least do the first two things.
"What seems ridiculous to me is that people, such as Adams, have some expectation that if scientists were more clever with their words or graphics..."
Did I mention scale and timeframe?
The colorado.edu graph is a flat line on sea level rise over the same time frame that NOAA predicts a 4cm rise. Both graphs cannot be correct.
-
JohnFornaro at 03:32 AM on 31 March 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
Rob Honeycutt @ 57:
"I'd have to say, that [my comment about how even 'experts' cannot determine the best climate model.] is a non-statement on par with, 'I can neither confirm nor deny... ' "
If you would drop a line along those lines to to Michael Sweet @ 43?
I totally agree with you that "persuasion without expertise" can be a dangerous area on many levels. I would say informally that neither Obama nor Trump are climate science experts, for example. You bring up, as an aside, I'm sure, the issue of morality, and this is a very important issue to bring up, since it is the morality of our government as a whole which has led to our involvement, as one example only, in elective war without purpose, since at least Vietnam.
Discussions about morality suck the air out of a discussion at approximately the same rate as a black hole sucks matter.
I'm trying to focus on two things only at the moment. Persuasion and sea level rise. Anyhow...
-
John Mason at 02:34 AM on 31 March 2017Nobody really knows: a Trumpworld dreamscape
Always good advice! But your skepticism was nevertheless appreciated! You later checked things out properly and came to and admitted a different conclusion - an excellent example of the scientific method.
If only we could accomplish the same with WUWT commenters!
-
sailingfree at 02:18 AM on 31 March 2017Trump has launched a blitzkrieg in the wars on science and Earth’s climate
Coal is a killer, independent of its affect on AGW:
Estimates I have seen of the people dying in the US from coal polution range from 12,000 to 24,000, every year. Estimates of jobs in coal range from 70,000 for direct miners alone, to twice that if transportation is included.
Using the estimates that are weakest for my argument, 144,000 work in coal for a year, and 12,000 people in the US die. Or, 12 people work for a year and 1 dies, or 1 coal worker kills someone else every 12 years.
It would make more sense to pay the workers not do coal.
(That is more deaths per worker than deaths per drug dealers.)
-
villabolo at 01:12 AM on 31 March 2017Nobody really knows: a Trumpworld dreamscape
#4 - Me dumb, should have read the whole thing before putting my foot in my mouth. :-)
-
SingletonEngineer at 22:28 PM on 30 March 2017Nobody really knows: a Trumpworld dreamscape
I'm reading late in the evening. It makes spookily real sense... it is plausible.
I hope not to experience that particular dream tonight.
-
Eclectic at 21:01 PM on 30 March 2017There is no consensus
Spassapparat @746 ,
the purpose of science is to discover the truths of our universe.
And the purpose of surveys such as Cook et al., 2013 , is to discover the truth about what scientists hold to be factual.
Of course, we should also look for further evidence that may corroborate what the surveys do find (they find that, for expert climate scientists, a percentage figure in the high 90's is holding AGW theory to be factual).
These survey results are (unsurprisingly) supported by word-of-mouth opinion from expert scientists about their colleagues — and Spassapparat, this is a matter which you can rather easily ascertain for yourself, by questioning some genuine climate-related scientists. I am confident you will find it difficult, indeed almost impossible, to find any genuine "contrarian" scientist. And any such, that you can find, will be unable to provide any real evidence to support their contrarian viewpoints.
For the year 2013, it is reported that over 2000 climate-related scientific papers were published (totalling 9000 authors). And yet in that period, only one paper made a contrarian claim [i.e. that modern global warming is caused by an alteration of cosmic ray bombardment of the atmosphere]. This single paper was by a Russian astronomer, and was published in a Russian journal of proceedings. The paper was vaguely-worded; it did not measure the claimed effect; and it failed to dispose of the well-measured and well-understood CO2 mechanism known to produce AGW. This cosmic ray hypothesis had already been debunked before 2013 : and in addition, since 2013 there has been more evidence (from cloud-chamber experiments by CERN scientists) showing that this cosmic ray hypothesis is false. In short, the Russian paper was Dreck.
So in reality, Null out of 2000 papers could support a non-AGW position. To me this seems excellent corroboration that the "over 97%" Cook et al. study is the correct representation of the truth — and that the Cook 97% figure very much understates the current status.
In seeking truth, it is our duty to use complete Ehrlichkeit, and to avoid word-games which are unsupported by the general evidence, and to avoid unredlich conclusions (even when these unredlich conclusions are politically fashionable in some quarters).
-
green tortoise at 16:22 PM on 30 March 2017Nobody really knows: a Trumpworld dreamscape
chriskoz @5:
I agree with you 200% that this is a social, economic, politic, moral and why not, criminal problem.
However I was making the case that even in the case that the deniers are right and global warming is not man-made (I insist, it's just a hypothetical scenario to show how absurd the denialist position is) the case against fossil fuels and for renewable energy is still economically and socially very strong.
FF deplete, causing inflation in the long term. Renewables in the other hand, are abundant, do not deplete, had a near-zero OPEX and a time-decaying CAPEX, causing energy cost deflation, a strong boost for the economy.
Even without accounting for global warming, millions of people die every year due to aerosol air pollution, and it cost several percent of GDP to remedy all that damage.
Today argue for FF, and coal in particular, is beyond crazy.
It's behaving like Stalin during the 1930 5-year plans and Mao during the so-called "Great Leap Forward". Both agro-indutrial plans to boost production ended in the worst famines that affected Russia and China, killing even more people than WW2 and WW1. Only the 1918/AH1N1 avian influenza pandemic killed more people.
-
chriskoz at 14:01 PM on 30 March 2017Trump has launched a blitzkrieg in the wars on science and Earth’s climate
Skepty@3,
Would you rather live 100 years ago or now. People will be saying the same another century from now. As long as Mother Earth allows it.
If your objective in life is to actually make a positive impact on history, surprisingly many people would like to live 100y ago. For example John Mason the author of the very next SkS post.
The ignorant attitude displayed in your comment ("Ultimately it doesn't matter") precludes understanding and appreciation of positions of other people like that displayed by John, for whom the historical issues of our times do matter.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:48 PM on 30 March 2017Trump has launched a blitzkrieg in the wars on science and Earth’s climate
Regarding my comment@8: My comparison of Coal burning with CCS to Natural Gas is based on CO2 capture from emissions being near 90%. The Boundary Dam retrofit in Saskatchewan has this level of CO2 capture (along with nearly 100% SO2 capture and low NOx - however not all of the CO2 is properly sequestered since it is injected to enhance oil recovery from nearby oil fields rather than being put into reliable long term storage). The addition of CCS changed the Boundary Dam Unit generation from 145-150MW to 110-115MW.
Burning natural gas results in about 50% of the CO2 per unit of electricity that burning coal produces.
So 90% CCS on coal burning would be significantly better than natural gas burning without CCS (as long as the full 90% captured is properly reliably Sequestered - for thousands of years).
And even coal burning with CCS (or Natural Gas burning with CCS) is still adding to the CO2 problem, just not as quickly. And since the total amount of accumulated CO2 is the concern, CCS is not a solution. It is just a short term action that would reduce the magnitude of the problem being created compared to not adding CCS to existing facilities.
The reduction of trouble-making needs to be considered to be "Invaluable", meaning the costs to achieve the reduction of trouble-making need to be irrelevant. The only comparison that is relevant is the costs of the different ways that rapidly terminate the creation of the problem. Delaying the termination of the trouble-making because "Doing More Rapid Reduction of trouble-making" is deemed to be "more expensive" or "less profitable/beneficial for some current day people" is not a responsible action, it is an excuse - a very poor excuse that is tragically easy to make very popular in nations with unjustifiably developed perceptions of prosperity and opportunity.
The developed lack of ethics and morals among leaders is the real problem. Leaders like Scott Pruit should face legal Recall, meaning removal from their assigned responsibility when it can be shown that they are not competent to properly perform the role they have been assigned.
Excusing bad behaviour can be popular. But ethically and morally it cannot and should not actually Win anything (even if the bad behaviour is totally legal, since laws or lack of laws that develop unethical or immoral results eventually get changed).
-
chriskoz at 13:10 PM on 30 March 2017Nobody really knows: a Trumpworld dreamscape
green tortoise@3,
It [climate change] will not just kill a lot of people (something that by itself would be already the worst thing in human history) but also most of life on Earth.And ironically, solving it will be economically positive, even if global warming is not man-madeWe all know CC is man-made. But if you assume it "is not man-made" (as in your final clause quoted above) then the idea of "solving it" does not make sense. Because AGW problem is not an environmental problem but a social problem, as I've always been saying here. If AGW problem was an environmental problem, it would've been already solved, because the technologies to move away from FF already exist. It's just lack of power and/or courage by politicians to implement the solutions. The reason is that said implementation would change social status quo, because of large vested interests held by large & strong population groups and by large and literally "energy strong" nations on global scale. So there is strong opposition to the solutions, so strong as to resulting in denial by ruling political forces. The more powerful and the more encumbered by their FF donors the forces are (e.g. in English apeaking countires), the stronger and more absurd the denial is. Up to the point of disconnection from reality by the ruling party in the most powerful nation (GOP in US). This gradual strenghtening of denial through political systems culminates in the most powerful leader of the world: a sociopathic moron, the denier-in-chief, who came unsurprisingly from GOP.
In context of that picture, it is more than obvious that we have a social problem here that we must resolve first. The environmental aspects or AGW is a distant secondary issue that will never be resolved if we do not resolve the social aspect. That's why talking about "solving global warming even if not man-made" does not make sense, or should be prioritised away as a secondary task. E.g. efforts to scrub CO2 from the athmosphere or deploy some other safe geo-engineering cooling methods only address the symptoms and not the cause of a problem we have.
-
John Mason at 12:48 PM on 30 March 2017Nobody really knows: a Trumpworld dreamscape
#1 - dreams have the luxury of being in the future or the past :)
Although having said which, if I could live a dream it would be to go back ca. 100 years and devise a "how the Planet works" course for all 12-year-olds worldwide and get its teaching implemented!
-
scaddenp at 12:07 PM on 30 March 2017Elevator Pitches - Chapter 02 - Radiative Gases
"reflect or refract" isnt a great description of the interaction. A better understanding can be found here. As to effect of raising by 100ppm, you can always try the "shut up and calculate" approach. The interactions are described by radiative transfer equations. You can solve for the atmosphere and compare direct measurements at earths surface or outgoing IR from satellite with the results of the calculation. This thread has some of the results. This paper for an even better direct measurement of the effect of raising CO2.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:42 AM on 30 March 2017There is no consensus
Spassapparat @746, in Cook et al, endorsement or rejection is explicitly stated to be endorsement or rejection of the theory of AGW. That is, it is endorsement or rejection of a specific theory which states, in part, that anthropogenic factors are responsible for greater than 50% of warming since 1950. If you interpret the different categories of endorsement (implicit, explicit, and explicit with quantification) as applying to successively stronger theories, you have misinterpreted the paper and misunderstood the methodology in the paper.
You say (@744):
"Also, I was wondering about what the paper is actually saying. If we include category 2 and 3, don't we have to dial down what we are saying to what is included in the weakest category (category 3)"
However, category 3 is not endorsement of a weaker theory, but a less strong endorsement of the same theory. In category 1, endorsement is explicit, and a quantification is give so there can be no doubt that AGW is endorsed. In category 3, endorsement is implicit, so while the theory endorsed is the same, the possibility of error in assessing whether or not the paper endorses the theory is greater.
I am aware that climate "skeptics" reject this understanding of the paper, but it was the understanding of the authors, and it was the understanding of the raters. More importantly, if the endorsements are not understood in that way, it makes the paper inconsistent. That means critics are rejecting a consistent understanding of the paper, which was held by the authors and raters, in order that a criticism they have should be valid. Another way of putting that is that they are raising a straw man.
-
green tortoise at 09:36 AM on 30 March 2017Nobody really knows: a Trumpworld dreamscape
A pandemic would, ironically, be the single one situation where closing borders actually would make sense.
To be more precise: quarantine everyone that is not a healthcare worker (or any other emergency hero, for that matter). Close not just the external borders, also the inter-state and inter-province ones. Close schools, universities, workplaces and factories. Close ports and airports (like after 9/11, but for months). In the worst case scenario, no one should exit home. To feed people, there should be soldiers and doctors distributing food, water and medicines.
Before the vaccine/cure finally arrives, it will take many months. In those months quarantine in a massive scale is the only way to prevent losing most of human population. Yes, it would mean to shut down the whole economy for perhaps even a year round, but is better to lose 80% GDP than 80% of the population.
Extreme situation means extreme measures to save lives, even if that means destroying the economy. The economy can be rebuilt, dead people not.
Climate change is like a slow motion version of a global fever. It will not just kill a lot of people (something that by itself would be already the worst thing in human history) but also most of life on Earth.And ironically, solving it will be economically positive, even if global warming is not man-made.
Is like, in a hypothetical, conspiracy-theory world, letting billions of people to die because you don't allow to produce the right vaccine, a vaccine that already known and cheap, and has positive (not negative) side-effects. The "problem" is that vaccine is not profitable to the oligopoly in charge because it will make most medicines unnecessary and so they will lose most of their market.
Well, if you don't produce the vaccine in time, you will need to either shut down the economy or surrender to the infection and let billions die.
-
Tom Dayton at 08:54 AM on 30 March 2017Elevator Pitches - Chapter 02 - Radiative Gases
Welcome, Sancho! See if this post helps: "How substances in trace amounts can cause large effects." Then read "How Do We Know More CO2 Is Causing Warming?" Read the Basic tabbed pane first, and if you want more read the Intermediate and then Advanced tabbed panes.
-
sancho at 08:23 AM on 30 March 2017Elevator Pitches - Chapter 02 - Radiative Gases
I am new here so bear with me. I liked the article. I'm wondering though about one thing. I'm not sure of the exact data, but I've heard that atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased in the last century or so from around 300 ppm to 400ppm. If the change has only been one additional molecule of CO2 per 10,000 (namely 4 molecules of CO2 out of every ten thousand gaseous molecules as opposed to there having been only 3/10,000 a hundred years ago) how does this account for the rise of (correct me if I'm wrong) 1.5F? The molecular percentage change is miniscule. I don't see how it correlates to a temperature change of one and a half degrees globally. I realize the N2 and O2 are not participating in the IR equation, but it just doesn't seem to make sense mathematically. Also, are the molecules of CO2 and Methane refracting or reflecting the IR? I like the name of your website, by the way. A scientist's job is to try and poke holes in any hypothesis. Copernicus challenged the Ptolemaic model which was the scientific consensus of his day. We aren't called to have faith in other's experiments. We're called to look for the weak links. The main thing that concerns me however about the so-called climate skeptics are their bedfellows.
-
nigelj at 07:05 AM on 30 March 2017Trump has launched a blitzkrieg in the wars on science and Earth’s climate
One Planet Only Forever @8, yes I agree Trump & his team probably want to bring back coal with the possibility of export. It is indeed reprehensible, given the climate issue.
But I doubt if even those economics will make much sense, with other countries turning to renewables. I think the international market for coal prices isn't too great.
Coal is also costly to export, given the considerable bulk. We mine coal and export it, but its very hard going financially and many mines have shut down. The most lucrative market is in coking coal (?) for steel production, if you have that grade of coal.
But regardless, it's risable exporting coal given the climate change issue.
It's also probably cheaper to have renewables, than complex "clean coal".
I have read about Bannion, the alleged brains behind the presidency. This guy has a history and has suffered some undeserved traumas, but it has turned him into a bitter, extreme, anti globalist conspiracy theory. It's dangerous when people like that get the levers of power.
Others on Team Trump are as you say xenophobic. They are also short term thinkers, who react extremely defensively if they perceive something threatens their lifestyle or interests even slightly.
-
John Hartz at 06:38 AM on 30 March 2017Trump has launched a blitzkrieg in the wars on science and Earth’s climate
For those interested in reading the text of Trump's Executive Order:
Text: President Trump's Executive Order on Energy and Climate Change, InsideClimate News, Mar 28, 2017
-
nigelj at 06:36 AM on 30 March 2017Nobody really knows: a Trumpworld dreamscape
I get that Trump is a climate sceptic, but to actually try to shut down basic scientific research on climate science is just so risable. This is short sighted, emotive, authoritarian thinking. When I think Trump, I'm reminded of the authoritarian state in the book 1984 by Orwell.
Trump is trying to go back to a world that no longer exists. You can't pretend certain climate realities don't exist. You also can't put the globalisation genie back in the bottle,
As you appear to say, he could take a different more positive approach to research, and be well thought of by the vast majority of people
-
villabolo at 06:26 AM on 30 March 2017Nobody really knows: a Trumpworld dreamscape
Excellent post John. Good analogy.
You made an error on the 13th paragraph putting a date as, "December 11th 2017".
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:14 AM on 30 March 2017Trump has launched a blitzkrieg in the wars on science and Earth’s climate
The Bannon/Sessions push for making coal (and oil and gas burning) less expensive and less restricted is probably to support things like the export of USA coal for burning elsewhere in the world, which is just as unethical as burning it in the USA.
What is worse is that the likes of Koch owned refineries of heavy oils and bitumen from places like the sands of Northern Alberta produce Petroleum Coke which can be burned and is far worse than coal. That stuff should not be allowed to be burned or be exported. Such a prohibition on freedom to pursue profit would be contrary to the unethical likes of Bannon/Sessions.
As for cleaner coal, CO2 capture and proper locking away can make coal burning better than burning natural gas (the lower energy production per unit of coal burned is more than offset by the reduction of CO2 emissions). Of course burning natural gas with CO2 capture and storage would be better. But adding CO2 capture and storage on an existing coal burner could be better than building a new gas burner without CCS (if better is measured by what really matters, like CO2 emissions, rather than being evaluated by fundamentally flawed cost/profit/popularity comparisons).
p.s. The real trouble-makers are the likes of Bannon and Sessions and Tillerson (the ones who were not on the ballot yet now have tremendous influence in the most influential nation on the planet - and who rely on people being easily tempted to care more about their personal interests, like greed and xenophobia, than they do about improving the future for all of humanity). They were making more trouble than Trump long before they chose Trump to be their Potentially Popular Misleading Impression Creation False Idol Poster Boy.
-
michael sweet at 05:45 AM on 30 March 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
John Fornarno,
Admiral David Titely recently testified in congress
"The more we looked at the data, the more we saw that not only were the air temperatures coming up, but the water temperatures were coming up, the sea level was coming up, the glaciers were retreating, the oceans were acidifying. When you put all those independent lines of evidence together, coupled with a theory that was over 100 years old that had stood the test of time, it kinda made sense.
Does it mean we know everything? No, but does it mean we know enough that we should be considering this and acting? Yes, it’s called risk management and that’s what we were doing."
You are asking us to wait until we are certain that it will be a catastrophie before we take action. Scientists will never say they are completely certain. We have to act on the best inforamtion that is available. Scientists have been in agreement that action should be taken since at least 1965 when the Academy of Science warned President Johnson.
If we wait until we are certain which of the sea level model is correct it will be too late to have any affect on the result. Since Tom's data shows that we are currently running above the high estimate from the IPCC, it seems like it might already be late to start getting serious about sea level rise. Experts have characterized ice melt in the Antarctic as "unstoppable". Tamino has posted here and here about flooding in the USA already caused by sea level rise. Miami Beach is spending hundreds of millions of dollars in a futile effort to hold back the sea. This affects current real estate prices.
How much worse does it have to be before you think we should take action?
-
nigelj at 05:31 AM on 30 March 2017Trump has launched a blitzkrieg in the wars on science and Earth’s climate
I don't approve of any of Trump's policies, but I actually feel sorry for Trump.
Maybe he genuinely believes he can bring back coal, and is yearning for a world of the past. (even I do that sometimes). But the economics says its not going to happen, unless he literally forces people to open new coal mines. Coal and renewaable energy is now very similar in cost, and almost no new coal leases have been applied for in years.
Apparently approx, 70,000 Americans work in coal and approximately 600,000 in renewable energy. This was in our media, tvone New Zealand and I have no reason to doubt the numbers, but correct me if you have better data.Trumps coal policies can only really shift a few people from renewable energy back to coal. How utterly pointless.
-
nigelj at 05:18 AM on 30 March 2017Trump has launched a blitzkrieg in the wars on science and Earth’s climate
Skepty @3 suggests climate will change anyway, so we might as well do nothing abot fossil fuel emissions.
It's just a weak type of reasoning. Here's another analogy: we will all get old and get some sort of disease, so why bother with medicine at all. I guess there are many such analogies.
The point is we probaly can't resolve all future challenges like ice ages, but we might as well at least reduce risks that we have some control over.
Ultimately it's a question of the level of risk of global warming and whether we can realistically reduce fossil fuel use, and I think we can. The sceptics give me the impression they think it's all too hard, or too complicated for them.
-
Spassapparat at 03:06 AM on 30 March 2017There is no consensus
Eclectic @745 , thanks for your response!
Since the chair of the science committee in today's hearing on climate change brought the papers critiquing the Cook et al study into public record, this brought me back here.
I am aware of (A), but one should note that even there we still do not get close to a 97% consensus on category (1). I've looked into the data, and it suggests that 17% of the authors of papers that do express an opinion on climate change self-identify their paper as a category 1 paper. This is substantially higher than the rating by Cook et al. themselves, but still a farcry from the 97%.
If Cook et al. are now saying that many papers do not make a definite statement because it is obvious that most of global warming is human-made, I am inclined to agree with this assumption, not least because of other research referenced on this page showing a similar degree of consensus. However it is still just that, an assumption.
I do not think it is just Spass to play with words, I do think there is a substantial difference between saying "Cook et al. show that there is a 97% consensus that most of global warming is human made" (which, in my opinion, is an untrue statement) and "Cook et al. show there is a 97% consensus that some global warming is human made".
I wonder why, since there are half a dozen other studies showing a similar agreement, this site in particular and the climate science community in public discourse in general chooses to use a study whose proclaimed findings are so easily attackable.
-
Jim Eager at 01:47 AM on 30 March 2017Trump has launched a blitzkrieg in the wars on science and Earth’s climate
Shorter Skepty: "I don't know, therefore we don't know."
-
pattimer at 00:07 AM on 30 March 2017Trump has launched a blitzkrieg in the wars on science and Earth’s climate
Skepty
"Ok. I don't have the answers."
Surprised to see you then attempt to offer answers though.
"nor do you"
Surprised that you then tell us about your knowledge of past changes that could only be learned from climate scientists.
"Ultimately it doesn't matter."
Surprised then that you even bothered to comment. (According to your strange outlook it would make sense to build houses on shifting sand because ultimately they will fall down.)
"Would you rather live 100 years ago or now. People will be saying the same another century from now."
Surprise you go into the prophesy game after your comments suggesting extremes will come and go without us knowing about the causes. Did you use tea-leaves to reach this conclusion?
-
Skepty at 23:00 PM on 29 March 2017Trump has launched a blitzkrieg in the wars on science and Earth’s climate
2030. 13 years. Ok. I don't have the answers, nor do you. Is the climate changing? Yes, as it always has and always will. I'll even agree that we are influencing its change. Ultimately it doesn't matter. The Earth's environment will fluctuate to extremes regardless of what one or every man does or doesn't do. Eventually our planet will experience another ice age, the ice will come back. As far as changes to currents, temps, water levels, etc. What complicates one life benefits another. What I find most comical about these discussions is how wrapped up some get, that they want/crave controversy. Step back and really think about it. Would you rather live 100 years ago or now. People will be saying the same another century from now. As long as Mother Earth allows it.
-
bjchip at 15:23 PM on 29 March 2017Trump has launched a blitzkrieg in the wars on science and Earth’s climate
Any realistic and reasoned discussion of "Clean Coal" ends up with the understanding that the oxymoron is real, and the concept is not.
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”
― Philip K. Dick
The Tyrannosaurus-rump (T-rump) has an amazingly large and toothy mouth, a tiny brain (to go with tiny hands) and a dangerous disregard of reality... the TV version not being particularly real. What we can expect however (IMO) is that he will weary of being the wrong end of the joke and find a way to get medicaled out of the job. Which will leave us with Pence who is more certain in his ignorance than even Trump can manage. This does not end well.
By 2030 ordinary people will understand what the science has been saying for the past half a century and it will suddenly become a massive priority. What is the outcome in that case?
That is an input I suggest needs to be entered into the models. BAU and no effective action prior to 2030 and a crash program to reduce CO2 after that date.
What can we expect from that?
I do not clearly know but the expectation of the free-market fundamentalists that there is prosperity in trade is going to be incinerated with CO2 costs of shipping over long distances. Assertions that there will not be a cost to emitting will be used to eviscerate political parties that are so loudly expressing them now.
Will it be enough? I think not. I think there will be war on the far side of that process. The T-rump is bad and his potential replacement no better. Ignorance is the enemy of democracy
“if a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be” - Jefferson
and the USA has embraced it.
and I moved to New Zealand ... which is not nearly far enough away :-)
-
chriskoz at 08:16 AM on 29 March 2017Trump has launched a blitzkrieg in the wars on science and Earth’s climate
Like in case of T-man anti-climate coverage during his campaign by mainstream meida - subject of previous SkS article - I want to know how much of this news will be covered. Not by Guardian and not by PBS who do a reasonable job (and that's why T-man doesnt like them) but by mainstream media: ABC, CBS, MSN, CNN, FOX.
They're reverberating on ends with the coverage of anti-healthcare fiasko and earlier anti-immigration nonsense. But when it comes to the real issue herein, affecting long-term environment and intergenerational morality, arguably the biggest political issue of current generation, I predict the above media will remain laregely silent. They woul rather prefer a silly soap opera like like pussygate. I rest my case, no more words necessary.
A truly sadf state of affairs. I personally, would even like to turn blind eye on pussygate (which might be irrellevant to the ability of the president to actually govern the nation) if the president was otherwise a wise leader when it come to doing his job. But media view it differently and turn the priorities around. Really sad!
Moderator Response:[JH] Rest assurred, Trump's blitzkrieg on the environment is being covered by all MSM in the US including the broadcast media you have listed. I have posted links to some of those news reports on the SkS Facebook page and will continue to do so throughout the week. In addition, i am posting links to editorials about Trump's erasure of US climate policy at the federal level. The editorials that I have read so far are quite damning.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:05 AM on 29 March 2017Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
Grumpymel @91 and 92, the claim above is a rebutal of denier claims that human respiration is a direct source of the increase of atmospheric CO2, just as is the combustion of fossil fuels. That claim by deniers is typified by the quote from Ian Plimer, that
"If Senator Wong was really serious about her science she would stop breathing because you inhale air that's got 385 parts per million carbon dioxide in it and you exhale air with about ten times as much, and that extra carbon comes from what you eat."
Of course, if Ian Plimer was at all honest in his science (on global warming) he would have noted that the carbon in what we eat comes from CO2 in the atmosphere, and consequently Senator Penny Wong's, and our respiration causes no direct increase in CO2 concentration.
That is a seperate question as to whether or not human agricultural activity has changed atmospheric content. It has, and in complex ways. Of these the most important have been the increase in CO2 from deforestation, and the increase in CH4 from rice farming and cattle production. Nothing above denies this, and there is extensive discussion of this in comments above. Further, the IPCC takes account of CO2 and CH4 production from these scources.
For what it is worth, CO2 emissions due to Land Use Change (the title given to those emissions) represents about 10% of emissions from fossil fuel use and cement manufacture (another important source).
-
Grumpymel at 06:28 AM on 29 March 2017Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
Thanks for your rapid response and I aplogize for the use of capitals. I was just trying to denote emphasis.
I think the problem I'm running into is simply this. The claim is that an increase in the numbers of humans engaging in respiration has a zero net effect on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere because that is offset because we produced more crops which themselves take in C from the atmosphere and thus results in net zero change.
In theory if the only things you were considering were plants consumed and human respiration (and I suppose storage of C in tissues) in isolation... that argument would seem to make sense.
However, just as the Carbon we exhale comes from somewhere (consumption of plants) and our respiration should not be looked in isolation from that so too do the crops we produce to eat come from somehere and our production of them has some effect beyond thier simple consumption.
In other words, I think what you are categorizing as land use change is salient to the topic being discussed and should not be artificially isolated from it.
That is to say, if we weren't burning any fossil fuels whatsoever but still somehow performing all the other activities we perform in order to produce the food that we consume and which in part we respirate out as CO2 waste would the effect on the composition of the atmosphere be nothing whatsoever? Would the composition of the atmosphere be exactly the same as if there were no humans on the planet doing those things? or if there were only 1 billion. I really don't see how that would be a given.
I can see the argument that the change might be very small compared to fossil fuel production, maybe even reach some equilibrium but would it be exactly the same equilibrium as were there no humans on the planet. I really don't see how you could make that argument?
Moderator Response:[RH] Again, you're extending the issue into other topics outside whether breathing adds CO2 to the atmosphere. Re-read the myth statement at the top of the article. That is what is being discussed. It's a very common misunderstanding that many non-scientists have regarding climate change and CO2 levels.
-
william5331 at 05:09 AM on 29 March 2017PBS is the only network reporting on climate change. Trump wants to cut it
The situation is so severe that one hopes the reaction will put us firmly on the road to some sensible government. It is time for Bernie to do a Lincoln and take his supporters and start a new party. The Dems are not the solution. Sorry about the political nature of the comment but politics is the problem. Get vested interest money out of politics as Bernie was doing and it is not an automatic solution to all our problems but it suddenly makes them possible to solve.
Moderator Response:[PS] This really is not the forum for political comment. Try ThinkProgress.
-
Grumpymel at 04:48 AM on 29 March 2017Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
Sorry, but it seems a rather simplistic approach to assume the result would neccesarly be net neutral in terms of emmissions. Yes, we've obviously grown more crops in order to consume them.... but that would have to assume the land upon which the crops were grown was absent of vegitation wouldn't it?
The assumption seems to be that we've increased the total amount of vegitation exactly enough to offset our increased respiration.... but haven't what we've actually done is CHANGED THE TYPE of vegitation from a form we can't consume to a form we can consume.
Where is the evidence to suggest that we've actually increased the total mass of vegitation in an amount exactly equal to our respiration?
Further wouldn't that also assume that all plant mass has exactly the same value in removing carbon from the atmosphere and acting as a carbon sink. Just the fact that certain plants have longer life cycles and hold onto their mass for longer periods of time.... or have different growing cycles would tend to suggest otherwise wouldn't it?
Would even a deciduous tree have the same value in removing carbon from the atmosphere and producing O2 as a conifer occupying the same acerage?
That's even ignoring the role of livestock in the cycle and assuming all our intake comes directly from plants.
I'm not a scientist but it seems rather like you've made a convenient set of assumptions of net neutrality for something that is not nearly as simplistic.... but maybe I'm completely off base.
Moderator Response:[RH] Note that all caps isn't allowed here. Thanks.
In terms of your question, first, make sure you've read both the basic and intermediate tabs for this topic. It seems to me that you're trying to make the question more complicated than it is. This topic isn't intended to address land use changes due to population growth. For that you can read this SkS article.
Prev 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 Next
