Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 Next
Comments 21151 to 21200:
-
Forrest at 12:27 PM on 15 February 2017Why claiming that climate scientists are in it for the money is absurd
Seems to me that the best argument against this claim is to turn it on its head. Worldwide, we probably spend a few billions of dollars a year on climate change research. But we spend a few trillion dollars a year on fossil fuels. Any scientist who could conclusively show that climate change is wrong would instantly be rewarded by the fossil fuel industry with an endowed chair at a prestigious university, memberships on boards, and senior positions at industry think tanks and industry groups. He or she would instntly become immensely wealthy. With this opportunity readily available, either climate change is real, or capitalism is fundamentally flawed.
-
Digby Scorgie at 10:07 AM on 15 February 2017This is why conservative media outlets like the Daily Mail are 'unreliable'
Regarding the Daily Fail, it seems fake expert Judith Curry connived with fake journalist David Rose to concoct a fake scandal at NOAA, which the fake media promptly disseminated as widely and loudly as possible. Worse is the possibility that this fake news will be used as an excuse by the (valiantly refraining from invoking the adjective "fake") Trump Administration to emasculate NOAA. We are living in interesting times.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:14 AM on 15 February 2017Climate's changed before
KR @546, C14 is mostly formed from N14 (a stable isotope of Nitrogen) when a neutron strikes the nucleis of a Nitrogen atom, displacing a proton. Therefore an increase in C14 does represent a real increase in atmospheric CO2. Given that C14 represents just 0.0000000001% of all atmospheric carbon, any such increase would be negligible in terms of atmospheric forcing.
As a side note, about 1% of C14 is formed from C13, but 1% of 0.0000000001% not significant.
-
Climate's changed before
ergodicity - Conversion of one carbon isotope to another doesn't change the total amount of carbon dioxide present. And the data we have for the climate during the LaChamp anomaly indicates no discerneable change in temperatures.
To all intents and purposes, cosmic ray levels have negligible impact on the climate, and it's noteworthy that current variations in those cosmic rays are tiny compared to historic varations - variations that likewise had no effect.
-
nigelj at 07:51 AM on 15 February 2017Why claiming that climate scientists are in it for the money is absurd
I agree. The accusation that climate scientists are faking data to make things look worse, and that they are scaremongering, all so that they get research grants, is absurd. It would be much easier and less risky just to get a better paying private sector job.While all professions have a few people with little integrity, there is no evidence such things are widespread or the norm, or the courts would be ten times busier.
There is no proof of fake data, fake photos of glaciers, or incorrect data adjustments, or distorted exaggerations within climate models, or anything else. These issues have been investigated over and over by officially appointed people, (eg climategate, or The Best Study) and they found no problems.
The people investigating would clearly be rewarded for finding any slight problem, in terms of more prestige, promotions, and bonuses etc. This is important to realise. They have considerable reason to look closely and be very criticial.
-
John Hartz at 07:50 AM on 15 February 2017CO2 lags temperature
@ Adri Norse Fire #526:
I accept the overwhelming and ever-growing body of scientific evidence about manmade climate change. Why do you deny it?
-
JWRebel at 07:28 AM on 15 February 2017Why claiming that climate scientists are in it for the money is absurd
The argument about money is impervious to fact & logic because it is corollary to the theory that there is an alternative to climate change theory, which is that it is globally sourced collective conspiracy hoax theory. It's a little like arguing against the bodily resurrection of Jesus because a man in his condition would not have been able to move the stone blocking the entrance.
What I do think is important to present is that many in the science community in past decades did not in fact jump on their new meal ticket, but were reticent in slowly and reluctantly accepting the force of the evidence. It is a story which people understandably resist, desparate for another take on the events that are unfolding. And this reluctance can trigger personal recognition for many today.
-
ubrew12 at 06:23 AM on 15 February 2017Why claiming that climate scientists are in it for the money is absurd
If Scientific conclusions can be manufactured to support their funder, then Exxon and the Koch Brothers are missing a huge opportunity for continued profits. Is this because they are too stupid to realize they can manufacture Scientific conclusions, or too honest to do so? If A, then B. If notB, then notA: Scientific conclusions cannot be manufactured for money. Why not? Because they are conclusions about Nature, and Nature doesn't hide itself just because you got paid to lie about it. If James Hansen claims his climate model shows future warming, Exxon doesn't have to subpoena Hansen's climate model for inspection. The physics of our atmosphere is not Hansen's exclusive territory: Exxon can build its own model from scratch. Which they did, and it confirmed Hansen's conclusion. Unlike Wall Street, Nature cannot hide a fraud. It is equally available for sampling to anyone; certainly to any industry that collectively pulls in a trillion dollars in pure profit every year.
-
Tom Curtis at 02:29 AM on 15 February 2017CO2 lags temperature
Adri Norse Fire @526, with respect to your response to Daniel Bailey, when introducing the list of 10 points to which you respond, he wrote:
"The human-caused origin (anthropogenic) of the measured increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 is a cornerstone of predictions of future temperature rises.
As such, it has come under frequent attack by people who challenge the science of global warming. One thing noteworthy about those attacks is that the full range of evidence supporting the anthropogenic nature of the CO2 increase seems to slip from sight. So what is the full range of supporting evidence?
There are ten main lines of evidence to be considered:"
(My emphasis)
It is quite clear, then, that he was discussing evidence that the CO2 increase over the 19th-21st century was anthropogenic in origin, not the distinct claim that the temperature rise was also anthropogenic in origin. As such, your repeated iterations of "That does not prove that CO2 produces global warming" or variants is simply non-responsive. You have conveniently shown his evidence to be "irrelevant" by treating it as addressing of something it was not adduced in support of.
What is worse, you ask, "How do they know that CO2 does not come from other sources that also have low levels of radicarbon?" But or course, Daniel Bailey has already answered that question with 10 lines of evidence. So, your misapplication of the 10 lines of evidence serves you two purposes - both to make them easy to refute as irrelevant to the question they did not address; but also to treat them as not having addressed that question so that you can still consider it open.
With regard to your response to me:
"'' [...] Then it was driven by a feedback cycle of greenhouse gases (CO2 and methane) ''. Only?"
Of course not "only", but only those directly relevant to the discussion. You are directly denying that a CO2 and CH3 greenhouse effect can be a feedback on the glacial cycle. Evidence that the theory you are opposing without understanding incorporates such a feedback is, therefore, relevant, as is the evidence that such a feedback exists.
Actually, the correlations are not always based on recent times. If you want the correlations over 800,000 years of glacial cycle, see point 1 @520 above. You can ignore the correlations if you wish, but they are evidence, no matter how much you wish to not see it.
Finally, I will note that "recovery from the Little Ice Age" is a description of what the temperature does over a period ending about 1850. It is not an explanation of that warming. You do not explain things simply by redescribing them in different language. Now, if you ever come across a theory of what caused the general warming in the century prior to industiralization took of, you are welcome to try and show that it explains the warming in the 20th century as well. But absent that theory, your playing rhetorical games when you invoke a "recovery from the LIA". You are not practising, or expounding science.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:34 AM on 15 February 2017CO2 lags temperature
Adri... First of all, it seems as though you're working very hard to reject the established scientific understanding on these points, rather than working to try to actually understand them. Skepticism is a good thing when it's properly applied. That requires that you first learn the fundamental science.
Several folks have patiently explained the science and the article you posting on also explains it. But you've failed to acknowledge that you grasp what's being said and are, instead, compounding your misunderstanding with additional incorrect comments.
We see exactly this pattern over and over here at SkS. I'm very interested to get down to why this occurs.
Why do you think you're so dismissive of the science?
-
Adri Norse Fire at 01:09 AM on 15 February 2017CO2 lags temperature
Eclectic I still do not know what the problem is, don't worry about that. (I think the web does not allow that option, but I'm not sure anyway)
Of course, given that the present interglacial period has had shorter phases of warm and cold periods occurring on a regular basis, it is very plausible that the centuries after the end of the small Ice Age the temperature would stabilize again. Does it seem very logical?
-
Eclectic at 00:33 AM on 15 February 2017CO2 lags temperature
Adri Norse Fire @526 :
I am sorry to hear that no message arrived at your mail. Is it possible that you have got your pen-names mixed up for this occasion?
On your point No. 1 (addressed to Daniel Bailey) :- Why do you think the present rapid global warming must be natural, simply because its beginning coincides (roughly) with the ending of the Little Ice Age ?
Your argument seems to be a logical non-sequitur.
Can you explain your thinking?
-
Adri Norse Fire at 23:06 PM on 14 February 2017CO2 lags temperature
I do not understand why no message arrived in my mail, I'm sorry for not responding before.
Daniel Bailey.
-It is a joy to see that the conclusions of your "BEST" team coincide with virtually all studies on Antarctic ice cores: "Data from ice core records strongly suggest that the prehistoric carbon dioxide changes were largely a response, ''not a cause'', of temperature changes ''. But, they say: '' However, [...] Seawater has high radiocarbon; Fossil fuels have none. "Forgive my ignorance but how do they know that the radiocarbon is not lost in the process? How do they know that CO2 does not come from other sources that also have low levels of radicarbon? Let me disagree with your best team, but I find their conclusions a bit forced. And they end: "it is clear that it is the CO2 that comes first, not the warming". Well, it is not what your own data show, but I could make some concession for the last century.
And I think I can rebut some of your 10 main statements:
1. The beginning of global warming coincides with the end of the small Ice Age, therefore natural;
2. The stages of higher industrial growth of mankind do not coincide with the increase in temperature.
3. That does not prove that CO2 produces global warming.
4. The same.
5. Again, that only says that the source of co2 has no volcanic origins, but it is not a proof that CO2 produces warming.
6. Same.
7. Same.
8. Same.
9. Same.
10. And Same.
Come on man, my original question was not difficult; Or is it that the basis of global anthropogenic warming is a coincidence?
Tom Curtis.
'' [...] Then it was driven by a feedback cycle of greenhouse gases (CO2 and methane) ''. Only? Where are the biggest greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? Like water vapor, for example. Secondly, these are correlations always based on recent times. But the only certainty is that ice cores are not subject to interpretations or complicated mathematical operations that can be manipulated. Anyway, allow me the freedom to doubt the credibility of those correlations you have shown.
John Hartz.
Again, how do you know that CO2 is responsible for the observed warming since the end of the small Ice Age? The only way CO2 can influence climate is through the greenhouse effect, but CO2 is only a minor gas between greenhouse gases and the amount of CO2 produced by man is an even smaller percentage. How do you know that the rest of the greenhouse gases have nothing to do with it?
-
John Hartz at 13:14 PM on 14 February 2017This is why conservative media outlets like the Daily Mail are 'unreliable'
An informative analysis from a political science perspective...
One of the most unexpected political developments in recent months has been the political awakening of scientists in the United States.
A normally reticent group (at least when it comes to politics), scientists are speaking out, organizing a major march and planning to run for public office. There is a growing sense that the danger posed by the Trump administration to evidence-based policy, and perhaps science itself, is unprecedented. I share this concern. The Trump administration’s actions and rhetoric appear to signal an acceleration of Republican skepticism toward scientific research carried out in the public interest.
This said, what is keeping political scientists, particularly those like me who study political psychology, up at night is not the Trump administration’s ideologically driven science bias. Rather, it is the fact that Trump himself exhibits an authoritarian style of motivated reasoning that appears to be intended (consciously or not) to consolidate his power.
This combination – institutional challenges to the scientific integrity of government employees and Trump’s willingness to disregard evidence on a variety of matters – has broad and ominous implications beyond how science informs national policies.
Why politicians think they know better than scientists – and why that’s so dangerous, by Elizabeth Suhay, The Conversation US, Feb 12, 2017
Elizabeth Suhay is an Assistant Professor of Government, American University. She currently consults for the American Association for the Advancement of Science. She is assisting AAAS as they develop a new training program aimed at helping scientists better communicate their scientific findings to policymakers.
-
nigelj at 12:30 PM on 14 February 2017This is why conservative media outlets like the Daily Mail are 'unreliable'
This is perceptive from John Oliver at the Guardian:
"Oliver went on: “There is a pattern here: Trump sees something that jibes with his worldview, doesn’t check it, half-remembers it and then passes it on, at which point it takes on a life of its own and appears to validate itself.”
www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/feb/13/john-oliver-trump-relationship-truth-last-week-tonight
Doesn't this reflect what so many climate denialists do?
Oliver also talks about Trump's reliance on cable tv, Breitbart etc. He also talks about the issue of how policy debate usually agrees a basic set of facts. By dispensing with these facts, and just making stuff up, or believing nonsense, the Trump Administration risks bad policy emerging.
-
scaddenp at 11:44 AM on 14 February 2017Climate's changed before
You can have detectable change in C14 (formed from Nitrogen by cosmic ray interaction) with zero effect on climate. (well no effect that is discernable from noise). Can you see any discernible effect on climate by the Laschamp event?
Knudsen et al discerned some possible correlation in precipitation which others have also looked at. However if you look at papers citing Knudsen you will see that effect is regional, statistically weak and open to other interpretations. Other major transitions have been studied without much success and it is hard to give the hypothesis much support if a climatic effect cannot be detected in major magnetic changes. Eg try here for Laschamp, also here and here which looked for changes in cloud cover.
-
ergodicity at 09:50 AM on 14 February 2017Climate's changed before
Sorry Tom, missed your data and sources, reading now.
-
ergodicity at 09:48 AM on 14 February 2017Climate's changed before
Thanks all for the replies!
Tom Curtis Where does your statistics of "the direct contribution to the Earth's energy balance from cosmic rays is 0.0000032 W/m^2." come from? Is that stat during a weakened magnetic field or at full strength.
Rob: Thanks for mentioning the LaChamp anomaly: I have never heard of this and am excited to read about it more. But your statement "there was zero response in the climate system." is false.
https://phys.org/news/2012-10-extremely-reversal-geomagnetic-field-climate.html Clearly states, The reversed field was 75% weaker whereas the strength dropped to only 5% of the current strength during the transition. This resulted in greater radiation reaching the Earth, causing greater production of beryllium 10 and higher levels of carbon 14.[2 Detectable higher levels of carbon, even if negligible as to global warming, is not zero response.
Scaddenp: Knudsen et al 2009 is interesting. That also seems to indicate that the weakening magnetic field has some effect on climate: " In addition to supporting the notion that variations in the geomagnetic field may have influenced Earth's climate in the past, our study also provides some degree of support for the controversial link between GCR particles, cloud formation, and climate."
Again, I am not at all trying to refute the man made global warming effect. I am only trying to determine what effect the weakening magnetic field has on global warming. All links to any studies/articles/information on this subjuct would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks all for comments!
-
Tom Curtis at 09:18 AM on 14 February 2017Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
RedBaron @281, if the primary regulator of atmospheric CO2 is the biosphere, as you claim, covering vast swathes of that biosphere with land ice would reduce the fixing of CO2 into soil, and hence result in an increase in atmospheric CO2 durring glacials. Instead we see the reverse.
Although it is not yet entirely clear what drives the synchronous changes of pCO2 and GMST, the evidence strongly suggests the deep ocean has a major role. That role must be at least modulated by change in surface vegetation, which were extensive, even in the tropics. Specifically, the Sahara was not a desert (and much of the Australian outback was greened as well); but much land now covered with tropical rainforest was covered with grassland. The greening of the Sahara, however, survived several millenia past the start of the Holocene - so its contribution to pCO2 was minimal relative to the glacial/interglacial cycle. And total carbon sequestration in rain forest, per meter squared, exceeds that on grassland in every review I have seen, which would make that change, again, counter cyclical.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:59 AM on 14 February 2017Climate's changed before
ergodicity @539, the direct contribution to the Earth's energy balance from cosmic rays is 0.0000032 W/m^2. The direct contribution from the solar wind, in the absence of Van Allen belts would be 0.00035 W/m^2. Both are so negligible that their presence or absence would make no discirnible difference to the Global Mean Surface Temperature in the event of a collapse of the Earth's magnetic field.
The only way they could be significant would be through secondary effects, as proposed by Svensmark in "The Chilling Stars", but that hypothesis was always overblown given that it ignored the abundance of Cloud Condensation Nuclei generated by natural, earth bound events. Worse for that hypothesis, the LaChamp anomaly all but kills the hypothesis, as noted by Rob Honeycutt above.
(Data and sources here. I apologize for the formating. Blogger has decided to mess with the column widths on the table, but it appears with proper formating in the editing window, so I do not know how to fix it.)
Moderator Response:[PS] For context, doubling CO2 would add an extra 3.7W/m^2. Further discussions about GCR should take place on this article.
-
nigelj at 08:30 AM on 14 February 2017This is why conservative media outlets like the Daily Mail are 'unreliable'
The Daily Mail is clearly unreliable. They published inaccurate nonsense, and only half the relevent information about the issue. Conservative media too often seem comfortable with "lies by omission".
Plenty of conservative media also seem to see theories like free trade, or multiculturalism, or climate science as "Big Lies" but they are never able to show who is lying, or what the lies specifically are.
-
scaddenp at 08:12 AM on 14 February 2017Climate's changed before
The Viewzone article is a rather breathless take on Knudsen et al 2009 but the it is correct in that the supposed effect is from effects of GCR on cloud formation (which still lacks supporting evidence - see IPCC AR4 for papers that have examined this in detail). The amount of extra radiation (GCR) reaching the surface could not directly cause any measurable temperature change.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:39 AM on 14 February 2017Climate's changed before
ergodicity... Again, the earth's poles have flipped in the past, like during what's called the LaChamp anomaly, and there was zero response in the climate system.
-
ergodicity at 06:41 AM on 14 February 2017Climate's changed before
scaddenp Thanks for replying. I believe you misunderstood me. The theory I spoke of was of a polar shift: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-s-impending-magnetic-flip/
My question, not theory, not challenge to man made global warming, was, what is the effect of the magnetic field weakening http://www.livescience.com/46694-magnetic-field-weakens.html
on global warming. Are there any studies coorelating the polar flip, weakening magnetic field and global warming. http://viewzone.com/magnetic.weather.html
It seems logical that as the field weakens, more radiation get in and an increase in the surface temperature occurs. I am a firm believer that man made global warming exists, but so does natural global warming (there was a glacier here in Kentucky 20k years age), and I believe the magnetic field weakening is the trifecta that we are experiancing.
Thanks for reading!
-
nigelj at 05:52 AM on 14 February 2017Whistleblower: ‘I knew people would misuse this.’ They did - to attack climate science
Red Baron @7, I read the same thing somewhere that the data is actually machine readable. My initial reaction to this whole issue was that perhaps some minor procedural mistakes were made, but it appears even that may not be the case.
I think Bates is an angry, disgrunted former employee looking to score points. There's plenty of evidence he had conflcits with his employer. His emotional involvement could mean he has jumped to conclusions. Like with so many similar scandals, we will probably never really get to the bottom of it as he will become totally defensive, and will close up.
-
nigelj at 05:38 AM on 14 February 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #6
Tom Curtis, my understanding is the arctic is warming quite rapidly from the feedback of less ice cover etc. Could this partly explain why the global surface temperatures are warming slightly more rapidly, than higher up in the atmosphere (UAH)?
-
RedBaron at 04:23 AM on 14 February 2017Whistleblower: ‘I knew people would misuse this.’ They did - to attack climate science
I have been struggling to understand the real controversy John Bates brings to the table, rather than the hoax reported in the media. John claims he knew it would be misused. OK. So the proper use? The best I have been able to ascertain is this:
John Bates claim was that the archiving of the data wasn’t complete until six months after the paper appeared, and there was no format statement for the DATA, making it not in machine readable form, and it used a 90% rather than 95% confidence standard.
That is completely different than “all DATA from NOAA is worthless or tampered”.
In fact even the data in that controversial paper would have value, because although late to archive, it is there now. And although a format statement wasn’t made, The Data is in ascii format, which actually is machine readable, it simply lacked a format statement to that effect. And a 90% vs a 95% standard is simply a matter of recalculating the conclusions made from the data to the new higher standard. The actual measurements were not tampered with at all. So it is timing and format rather than fudged data.
How close am I? Did I understand the real issue brought up by Dr Bates? Or is there more? Thanks for your help.
-
RedBaron at 04:02 AM on 14 February 2017Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
@Tom 280,
That would make sense Tom, simply because the primary regulator of atmospheric gasses is the biosphere. When glaciation events were the main way the biological function was reduced by covering a significantly large area of land with ice, then the geological emissions would exceed natural uptake. The trend reverses till enough ice melts to allow the natural uptake to reign supreme again. So one would expect this. It would bracket the atmospheric CO2 in a range. This is what we see for the last 800k years.
This would support the idea that the degrading biosphere and ecological systems caused by mankind are what has allowed fossil fuel emissions to force the atmosphere to exceed that bracketed range. (very roughly ~170 - 320 ppm +/-) The biological stabilizing feedback function has been degraded simulataneously with increased emissions. Either alone is probably not enough to upset the balance. But both together obvious is since we are watching it happen.
-
John Hartz at 02:36 AM on 14 February 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #6
knox kp & Tom Curtis: More about what's happening in the Arctic this winter season...
Records are shattering left and right across the Arctic, much like the ever-dwindling sea ice that once covered the entire Arctic Ocean.
First, the facts. January sea ice area has never been so small. In November, the coverage fell short of average by an area the size of the eastern half of the United States. Northeast Greenland had its warmest February day ever (by almost four degrees). The current heat wave brought Friday’s temperatures near the North Pole to 50 degrees above average, which is like New York City having a January day in the mid-80s.
This kind of unprecedented weather leaves even seasoned researchers scratching their heads.
“We’re still trying to figure out what is happening here,” Mark Serreze, a senior research scientist with the Colorado-based Snow and Ice Data Center, told KUAC. “The sea ice is so low there in part because it’s just been so darn warm in the Arctic this winter.”
Once-in-a-decade heatwave melting the Arctic ... for the third time this year. Why? by Charlie Wood, Christian Science Monitor, Feb 11, 2017
-
chriskoz at 21:37 PM on 13 February 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #6
Poorly written poster. In:
...administration must accept this fact and work to fight against it.
"it" refers to "this fact". That's the only resonable meaning here, as is. Which is what current administration is doing: fighting against the fact of climate change, i.e. inventing an alternative reality where inconvenient facts are altered, then silencing the media who are trying to remind us of real facts.
Of course the author meant "fight against the threat of climate change" but failed to express it adequately.
-
knox kp at 15:29 PM on 13 February 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #6
Thanks so much!
-
Tom Curtis at 13:02 PM on 13 February 2017Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Tony Spencer @278, the estimates of geological CO2 emissions are certainly in ferment at the moment. One factor is that we know that over the long term, CO2 concentrations are essentially stable. Specifically, the CO2 concentration either at glacial maximums, or interglacial peaks have not varied by more than a few ppmv relative to other glacial maximums or interglacials respectively, for 800,000 years. It follows that natural emissions are essentially in balance with natural uptake of CO2. As it stands, however, where estimates of CO2 uptake used to exceed estimates of emissions by about 50%, they are not dwarfed by them. That means there is a problem with one set of figures, or the other, or both. My suspicion is that currently the vulcanoligists are over counting, but assume the estimate of natural uptake is too low. It would remain the case that total geological contribution to atmospheric CO2 increase is essentially zero.
-
Tony Spencer at 12:22 PM on 13 February 2017Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
No relation to Roy btw!
-
Tony Spencer at 12:22 PM on 13 February 2017Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
i came across Wylie's article the other day. Interesting. The other point he covered was diffuse CO2, that is invisible, i.e. not associated with steam plumes, part of the reason for upping the estimates, but more importantly that some we thought extinct are invisibly emitting CO2 adding perhaps another 50%, which would take CO2 to ~1 billion tons a year, 10 times what we thought 20 years ago, and therefore now around 3%, three times what was said at the beginning of the thread.
it occurred to me that as this gas was bubbling through the magma, the diffusion would seperate the C12 from C13 and that, depending on time, variation etc, could distort the ratio that we use for measuring anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuels, in the same direction, meaning we would overestimate anthropogenic by up to that amount.
Still small in the scheme of things but not insignificant, with obvious effects in rare of AGW and 2100 levels.
just a thought.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:33 AM on 13 February 2017CO2 limits will make little difference
bnielsen @8, in the past, when I have seen claims that "x is a net carbon sink", they have almost always been based on counting natural sinks, but not natural emissions. Indeed, the CSIRO shows Australian net biosphere fluxes to represent just 62% of Australia's fossil fuel emissions (not counting those from exported coal and oil).
I am disinclined, therefore, to accept your assertion without a reliable reference to back it up.
-
scaddenp at 11:25 AM on 13 February 2017Climate's changed before
ergodicity - this is a pretty weird idea since past magetic pole reversals arent associated with any climate change. Can you give us a link to where this theory myth is being expounded least the Sks team need to add it to the list of skeptic myths. It is strange how people might expect some unknown mechanism to be causing warming while ignoring that the amout of radiation at the earth surface is measurably increasing, and in the spectrum and intensity of that predicted by the GHE.
-
bnielsen at 11:21 AM on 13 February 2017CO2 limits will make little difference
I have no issue with the physics, but having worked in government projects related to projects around CO2 reduction, I have a few problems with the "skewed" messages. First and foremost is - where are the NET emissions figures? Australia is often a net carbon SINK, yet the emisisons figures given are all related to production! Surely a scientific basis for effective carbon reduction should focus efforts on countries with a net carbon production? This leads to the issue of focus - almost entirely on energy production, when food production is far more damaging to both air, land and water. Worse, in the latter case, often the product is exported, so the producer country keeps the pollution while another country gets the benefit! So New Zealand has massive methane production from agriculture, but 92% of the product is exported! So why is not the consumption country being the one with the carbon tally, since they enjoy the benefit?
-
Tom Curtis at 10:34 AM on 13 February 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #6
knox kp @1, I am not well read in this area, but climate models appear to indicate that there is no tipping point associated with the Arctic becoming sea ice free in summer. Certainly that is the conclusion of Winton (2006), Eisenman and Wetlaufer (2008), and Teitsche et al (2011). In Winton (2006), however, one of two models showed a tipping point when the Arctic was sea ice free earlier in the season, which was also shown by Eisenman and Wetlaufer (2008). Eisenman and Wetlaufer indicate that this is because, in September, the time of the summer sea ice minimum, solar radiation is already very low, and indeed, of similar value to the March "winter" sea ice maximum. In essence, as sea ice free conditions occur earlier in the year, you get low albedo conditions with stronger radiation. At some point, requiring sea ice free conditions earlier than June according to Eisenman and Wetlaufer, sufficient radiation is absorbed over the summer that the sea ice does not refreeze on the following winter, at which point reduction to the same global mean surface temperature will not restore sea ice (although at some point below it, it will).
I note again that I am not well read on this topic, so other papers may have different results - but these are the three papers I have read, and all agree on the basic point - sea ice free conditions in September do not represent a tipping point.
-
nigelj at 10:15 AM on 13 February 2017Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
One Planet Only Forever, just adding to clarify my main repsonse directly above, we should obviously be trying to make it better for poor people, but with direct anbd genuine assistance of some sort, or higher minimum wage laws. Tariffs are not the way.
-
nigelj at 10:02 AM on 13 February 2017Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
One Planet Only forever @16 &17,
Some good points.
Yes I agree your higher level objective or ethic should be front and centre. But read what I said, I already said it's a good simplifying goal, (and so obviously should be upfront).
But the point is we need to consider is how we persuade people to adopt it, because it cannot happen at the point of a gun.
In fact my country has a resource management act based around the idea of sustainablity, so we are half way there. Sadly it comes under a lot of attack.
The rest of what you say makes sense.
I personally think the use of the word "catastrophic" has been unwise. It plays into the hands of people who can then claim things like "hysteria, scarmongering, chicken little etc". Don't get me wrong, climate change is likely to be catastrophic in at least some regards, to those who have a bit of knowldege of earth systems, but sadly academics are not always experts in communication. I think the term very serious is accurate enough, and the better term.
It's easy enough to get peoples attention without massive hyperbole. A few photos of shrinking glaciers is enough. I actually think most people do accept the science of climate change and that conesquences are serious. Polls tend to show this. The problem is everyone is kind of frozen in indecision and fear about what to do, and of course you have vested interests saying do nothing. In all fairness, humanity has never faced such a large and intractable problem before, or not many.
But theres now no escaping we are altering a lot of things, partly due to the population explosion, and the only way forward is resource management on a global scale. This is challenging on several obvious levels.
Donald Trump may have some fine objectives, to end poverty in America for example, and of course I hope he does well, and I try to take people at face value in good faith, "but" his detailed words and actions to date are very inconsistent to his objectives. Even if he "brings back" a few manufacturing jobs with his tariffs scheme, it's hard to see how that would help people in services industries on very low wages. My country tried tariffs in the 1970s, and although they pushed up some wages, they caused a vast range of other problems.
And part of Trumps plan seems to be to "End Poverty" by sacrificing the environment. This does not make a lot of sense. You can't cure one problem by causing another problem.
It all looks more like a transfer of wealth and power to the corporate sector. A few poor people might be slightly better off,in the process, at the most, but the net result will be lower overall wealth for America as a whole long term, and mostly a win for the business sector in the short term. His protectionist thinking works short term, but not so much in the long term, imho.
But obviously I hope I'm wrong, and it all works out well for everyone.
-
ergodicity at 09:36 AM on 13 February 2017Climate's changed before
Has anyone done a study on this possibility? There is a theory that the magnetic field is weakening because earth is in a period of magnetic poles shifting. What is its effect on global warming?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:08 AM on 13 February 2017Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
nigelj@15, If Donald Trump truly honours his Inauguration Speech claim that he will end poverty in the USA. And he does it in a lasting way that does not harm the short-term future for people outside of the USA or harm or create challenges for future generations in any way. Then on that issue Donald Trump's leadership actions would not be the antithesis of my objective.
I would love to see Team Trump, and all other leaders, succeed in legitimately honouring that Promise. However, I believe it is likely that Team Trump will only make-up more ultimately unsustainable perceptions of Winning on that issue. Making up appealing claims appears to be their only proven talent.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:54 AM on 13 February 2017Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
nigelj@15, I understand that I am referring to a higher level objective or ethic. I am fairly certain that root of the problem is that the higher level objective is mainly missing from consideration in what is going on. And because it relates to so many aspects of human activity commenting about it really has no limit.
I am attempting to distill it into a climate science limited presentation and submit it as an OP for SkS to consider posting.
My comments to date are exercises in trying to present the point, limiting it to climate science. But providing supporting points of evidence comes from a massive variety of issues. Trying to create the comments and getting feedback has been helpful. I am not a fan of brevity. Use of terms always needs definition of the term, so I find I try to present descriptions rather than using terms. I also type comments as I think of things (more things come to mind as the comment develops) then review and edit to a degree. That leads to longer statements potentially out of sequence that I find as difficult to follow as they are difficult to reorganize and break down into smaller statements then tighten up without becoming more open to misinterpretation.
My current best concise presentation of my thinking is the need to focus on a scale for evaluating human actions that is "Helpful through Harmful" with the objective basis for positioning actions being "Advancing all of humanity to a better future". Other scales can be useful for differentiating thoughts and perspectives, but the “Helpful through Harmful” would govern over the other scales which would be personal preference or ideological scales.
Another way to say that is that actions that are on the Helpful side of the scale are valuable to humanity regardless of where they sit on any other evaluation scale (regardless of their popularity or profitability). And actions that are “harmful” are just harmful no matter where they are on any other scale, with no consideration of credit for a benefit someone may perceive they get. And any action that is in no way harmful but is also not helpful would be at the lower limit of acceptable personal entertainment.
Establishing the higher order valuable objective of human activity is essential (and it applies locally and globally). It cannot be allowed to be considered to be just a matter of personal opinion or preference. And there must be no “Balancing of Harm with Help”. Without that clear truly deserving objective basis for measurement and setting limits on acceptability (and I am open to considering stronger clearer more valuable objectives), claims could be made that misleading marketing is "Helpful" (to the people it provides an advantage to). And people could claim that investigating or explaining the unacceptability of a developed popular and profitable activity is "Harmful" (to the people who do not want to give up their developed perceptions of prosperity and opportunity).
Claims that reducing future challenges would be “too costly for people today” would clearly end up on the Harmful side. No amount of current perception of value having to be “given up” would justify a likely risk of future challenges being created. Businesses mitigate Risk. And the best way they do that, form their perspective, is set things up so that others will suffer the consequences or the evaluation of damage will be limited like the Horizon Disaster where only a living person who could directly prove how their life was financially affected could claim “Harm” and get the current shareholders to lose wealth (note that many shareholders benefited from the riskier more profitable approach to things that ultimately caused the Horizon Dister but were no longer shareholders when “payment for damages was required”). The fact that future generations cannot possibly continue to benefit from burning fossil fuels is an additional negative point about that activity, as are all the other non-climate related impacts of the activities related to extracting and burning fossil fuels.
Of course the current challenge is undoing all of the damaging popular and profitable developments. That ultimately would happen quicker if leaders could be removed from positions of influence if it can be shown that they failed to be well aware and best understand what is going on (something that voters and shareholders should expect of their leaders) and apply that understanding to improve the future for all of humanity (the only worthy actions of a leader regardless of the potential popularity or profitability of other interests or objectives).
A more difficult argument to make using what I have presented is claiming that exaggeration or misleading marketing is helpful if it raises awareness of an issue leading to the greater potential for people to realize the importance of changing their attitudes and actions to help improve the future for all of humanity. In the case of climate science, some people presenting the potential worst case future has developed a “Harmful” result, the creation of the CAGW argument as the excuse to discredit any and all climate science information.
Nigel, I may have done it again.
-
Jim Hunt at 07:42 AM on 13 February 2017Mail on Sunday launches the first salvo in the latest war against climate scientists
David Rose's second salvo appeared in the Mail on Sunday today. There was even less substance to it than in his first article, and hidden away an alleged "correction" to his first "whistleblower" article.
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/02/david-roses-climatic-alternative-facts-and-deceptions/
I don’t see an accurate graph in Mr. Rose’s profuse apology. I see no mention of “World leaders not duped, Mail readers conned again”.
-
nigelj at 06:14 AM on 13 February 2017Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
One Planet Only Forever @14
I meant by climate change not being a cost problem, that a transition to renewables is affordable. The Stern Report calculated it will cost 1% of a countries gdp per year. I should have been more specific. I think this is also what Chriskoz meant.
But I agree with your post entirely. I totally understand where you are coming from on costs, and all the rest of your views on humanity. But with respect, I just think your writing style is rather convoluted sometimes, and others may struggle. There must be a simpler, shorter, or more ordered way of saying it, although granted these issues can only be simplified to a certain extent. But you have some great ideas.
You are really talking about "cheats" who cheat the legislative rules, or who simply act unethically, or selfishly.Your insight here is to note that the more they get away with it, the more emboldened they become (and Trump might be a prime example). And the more power they get, the more they get to control the rules.
The only solution ultimately are government rules and boundaries on economic behaviour, and trying to get the balance right between firm rules, but not overly punative or petty or complex rules. The latest Economist Magazine discusses this challenge in terms of the big Dodd-Frank finance regulation legislation in the USA. Of course the challenge is convincing politicians to have a strong but fair regulatory framework, and set of boundaries, and convincing the population to support political parties that stand up for the same things. It's easier said than done given vested interests opposing these very same things.
We had the exact same charities issue in New Zealand. Personally I think they absolutely must be allowed to speak out on political or social issues etc ( and the same applies to government agencies), but I would accept some upper limit and 10 -20% would seem reasonable. Given they are tax payer funded, or get tax breaks, there should be some upper limit I guess for obvious reasons.
But when conservative parties try to shut down all rights of charities or other groups to speak out, or protest, by threatening to withdraw funding or tax concessions, this is absolutely wrong. Of course we are seeing something similar now in America under Trump, on climate issues, and a whole range of others as well.
I get the last paragraph. I would say capitalism promotes winning, and this can be healthy. But winning promotes cheating and abuse of power, and the winners often control the rule book, and then have a record of making it easy for their associates to abuse power as well.
The public ultimately also weild power at election times and sometimes throw out leaders who abuse power. It sort of balances but only sometimes.
It appears that underlying your discussion is a premise a that we as a species should be planning what we do using criteria of how this affects future generations. This appeals to me 1) because it just seems right and 2) it has the virtue of a simple goal and 3) because it propogates the species within a stable world and has forward looking economic value. I also think it is affordable for us to do anyway. Something a simple as fisheries quotas and conservation does not mean we stop all fishing, for example.
However your views on considering future generation as a prime goal, is ultimately a statement of belief or morality, although in my view a good one. In environmental terms it is the sustainablity concept. How do you get people to subscribe to such a view? Start a political party?
But as with many things in life, we could at least start with protesting against the antithesis or opposite of your ideas, which is Donald Trump.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:30 AM on 13 February 2017Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
nigelj@13, Climate Change is a cost problem, and so much more. The future costs and challenges are faced by "others", not by the ones hoping to benefit.
And I think that the challenge of the science of climate change may be a tipping point regarding the development of broad based understanding of the tragic history of human failure to improve the future for all of humanity.
Exposing the unacceptable actions and the unacceptable excuses made-up to impress easily made-up minds (minds easily tempted to be greedier or less tolerant), will have a powerful effect far beyond climate change. There is a massive amount of undeservingly popular and profitable activity in the global economy rewarding undeserving winners.
It is clear that games of popularity and profitability have failed to improve the future for all of humanity. Part of the proof is that many people still suffer through short existences on this amazing planet even though measures of wealth have increased more rapidly than population (regionally and globally). The less helpful and more harmful a person can get away with being, the more of a competitive advantage they have, the more likely it is they will Win.
I understand this because the charitable acts I participate in and support are efforts to deal with the damaging results of the games people play. Almost all the other helpful charitable acts face similar challenges.
And it is frustrating that the combined charitable activity cannot 'fix' all of the damage, meaning that effort that could have been directed toward improving the future had to be directed at trying to 'fix or reduce' the damage done by Winners who did not care about advancing all of humanity to a better future.
A particularly galling case of damaging leadership was when the Conservative Government in Canada chose to impose an investigation into charities that had determined that it would be helpful to promote public awareness campaigns to raise awareness of what causes the problems they are trying to address (the smae government declared that government funded scientists could not publically discuss their science - they had to get passed through the Government's message control filter). The Conservative Government of Canada declared that such 'education of the public' was 'political'. And charities were legally not allowed to spend more than 10% of their money on political action (a measure that had been put in place to block attempts by groups like the Conservative Party from getting more funding or political advertising through "a charity").
It is undeniable that unacceptable developed perceptions of prosperity and opportunity can be very difficult to overcome, particularly if popularity and profitability are considered to be legitimate measures of who and what actions are "Winners". It is even more difficult when deliberately unhelpful/harmful people have Won control of leadership (in pursuits of business or politics or media or sports or ....)
-
knox kp at 03:30 AM on 13 February 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #6
Sorry if this question is a bit convoluted - I came to ask a question about the current state of the arctic - from my layman's POV sometime in early Nov. the dome of cold air that was on top of the world fell off and landed on Eurasia, where they experienced weather -20 C below normal for weeks while in the arctic it was almost the opposite with temps upwards of +20 C above normal - temps as I write are 32-34 C above normal in the arctic and most of Eurasia is still under the influence of that cold weather that arrived in late fall of 2016 - as the remnants of this dome get warmed up with the coming of spring and summer and the arctic already far warmer than normal will see the sun and what's left of the ice starts a melt, so we're seemingly very close to that ice-free arctic summer - will it ever be as cold in the arctic as it once was? - is that dome of cold air falling on Russian and Europe a climate tipping point event?
-
pwl at 01:33 AM on 13 February 2017CO2 lags temperature
Tom Curtis@524
Thank you for your reply.
Do you know, I think the best way to solve this whole pro IPCC / anti IPCC Carbon emissions debate and headache would be to just remove all the CO2 from the Earth's atmosphere.
Once we've done that, there'd be no need for anyone to get all worked up and it wouldn't do that much harm would it. Clearly CO2 is really at the root cause of this whole problem and the sooner we uproot it and get rid of it all, the better. (snip)
Moderator Response:[RH] Before you continue to post, I would highly suggest reading the SkS commenting policies. Please keep your posts to the point and written so that they contribute to a positive, learning conversation.
Edit: Followup post deleted for moderation complaint. Also, this snipped post has a sarcastic tone not present in Chris Colose's piece. ...Please move on.
-
Tom Curtis at 23:30 PM on 12 February 2017CO2 lags temperature
pwl @523, the very first IPCC report says of the relationship between CO2 and temperature changes between glacial and interglacial, "Variations in carbon dioxide and methane in Ice Age cycles are also very important factors, they served to modify and perhaps to amplify the other forcing factors." So, from the very first IPCC report, the idea that CO2 was a feedback in the glacial cycles already exists.
In fact, I can trace the idea further back than that, to at least 1980 when Saltzman and Moritz describe the action of CO2 in a climate model, saying, "Another positive feedback included is due to longwave emissivity changes associated with CO, changes that, in turn, are postulated to arise in response to the variations of mean Ocean temperature Θ."
The point is that popular presentations, particularly "skepical" presentations often exclude nuance that is found in the scientific literature and IPCC reports. This may give the appearance that the IPCC is responding to "some bright wag" when popularizers of climate science are merely drawing attention to something that has been in the IPCC account all along. What has changed is the popular presentation, and that in the face of a misunderstanding that would already have been cleared up from reading the scientific literature or IPCC. Indeed, it is not unusual to be presented with stunning "new" arguments that merely rehash in an imprecise way a part of a debate that occurred in the scientific literature decades (and in some instances over a century) ago.
-
pwl at 23:01 PM on 12 February 2017CO2 lags temperature
MICHAEL SWEET,
My thanks for your rapid and courteous reply Sir.
So basically before the ice core data was interpreted by some as noting that the former IPCC solidly supported claim of "CO2 CAUSES causes global warming" was put in jeopardy, it was felt unnecessary to say "cause and effect."
And then after some bright wag noted that the ice core data suggested other than what the IPCC had claimed up to a certain date, it was felt necessary to explain it as "cause and effect." And adding into the mix that at the end of the ice age CO2 used to be a forcer and an effector but now it's semi retired back to being a forcer.
Well that seems perfectly and confusingly acceptable to me. There again when I do jigsaw puzzles I usually use a pair of scissors and a hammer too.
By the way, I thought we were still in an Ice Age - albeit an inter-glacial one?
I take it that the CO2 retires from being a feedback during an inter-glacial, shall I?
Moderator Response:[RH] Use of all caps is not allowed on SkS (starts to read like yelling).
Prev 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 Next
