Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 Next
Comments 22651 to 22700:
-
scaddenp at 06:51 AM on 30 September 2016How climate science deniers can accept so many 'impossible things' all at once
If you can see an effective solution to mitigation of CO2 that the libertarians can live with, then please share in detail on this thread. Fresh ideas are extremely welcome.
" a fully government controlled and regulated response ahead of a (partly regulated) free market response. IOW, global socialism."
Frankly this sounds like over-ripe rhetoric. Did the Montreal Protocol usher in global socialism? Does a global agreement on a Pigovian tax signal the end of free-market economies?
I hear Sanders (who seems centre-left politico to me) described as "socialist" which to me suggests Americans have a very different definition of socialism to that in politcal theory textbooks and used by wider world. It is being invoked as a bogeyman by people who are mindlessly binding to an ideology and demanding reality conform to that rather than ideology to reality. Can you get pills for that do you think?
Also implicite in this, is idea that say a carbon tax is "a threat to the comfortable existence of an individual" but rapid climate change isnt. Libertarians are big on rights - how do you feel about the negative consequences of one persons comfortable existance being born by someone else entirely? I nurse the strong suspicion that many "Liberaterians" are actually just extremely selfish people concerned with nobodies rights but their own, but I am well aware of thoughtful rights-repecting individuals too that do worry about things like one person's smoke harming another.
IMO, you dont even need a global agreement. If big consumer economies, (US, western europe) implemented pigovian carbon tax and taxed carbon at the border (on embodied energy of goods created with FF), then that would have the same effect.
-
JWRebel at 03:50 AM on 30 September 2016Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 1
Finally the truth about Katherine Hayhoe comes out: I always thought it so unlikely to find a bona fide Texas evangelical atmospheric scientist, and a woman at that. Now I discover that at bottom she's just another sensible Canadian. There goes my little miracle.
-
Tom Curtis at 02:22 AM on 30 September 2016How climate science deniers can accept so many 'impossible things' all at once
Art Vandelay @23, while I cannot exclude the "rolling the dice" model for all "skeptics", I see little evidence that "skeptics" in general consider AGW one from amongst many (nearly) equally probable alternatives. Some, it is true, may consider many alternatives to AGW equally probable, while being very firm that AGW can only be believed as the result of a conspiracy theory to fraudulently alter data. Most common, from my observation, however, is the firmly expressed belief that:
X ⇒ ¬AGW, for the given anti AGW theory X, currently being presented; and that therefore ¬AGW.
That is, they are happy to apply modus ponens with equal enthusiasm for each and every anti-AGW argument presented, even though that commits them logically to the truth of each of those anti-AGW arguments, which are in turn form mutually contradictory set.
Further, I have seen a number happy to reason in that flawed manner while also boasting of their scientific credentials (including many engineers, doctors, not a few BScs).
As to the theory of motivated reasoning, I am certain it is a factor, but it is never justified. Further, as an explanation it fits nicely with Lewandowski, Cook and Lloyd (2016).
-
Art Vandelay at 14:55 PM on 29 September 2016How climate science deniers can accept so many 'impossible things' all at once
Tom Curtis @14 says, "For myself, I have often noted within the "skeptical" community a tendency by individuals to comment appreciatively on any claim purported to refute AGW, even when such claims contradict the favoured theory of the individual."
Perhaps this can also be explained by the "rolling the dice" analogy, where individuals may see 'dangerous global warming' as just one of a number of possible outcomes with near equally probability, as well as the only outcome that necessitates a global coordinated response. Bear in mind too that the average person on the street possesses a limited understanding of the physics behing the theory of AGW, and if the denialist movement (assumed movement) is a collective of persons of average (high school level) science knowledge, the incoherence is more explainable at the collective level.
Which brings us to the issue of 'world view'. If the global coordinated response presents a threat to the comfortable existence of an individual then it's a natural human response for that individual to (attempt to) reject that response and the very basis on which it's constructed.
For myself, a libertarian, I see the AGW response as a threat only if it demands a fully government controlled and regulated response ahead of a (partly regulated) free market response. IOW, global socialism.
Actually, my world view supports AGW action because I regard free market economics as best able to deliver timely energy solutions, and if necessary, engineering solutions to remove excess CO2 from the atmosphere, and I'm confident that a free market approach will ultimately prevail anyway.
Other free marketeers see it differently of course.
Obviously, in the future there needs to be a pathway to sustainability, independent of GHG emissions.
-
scaddenp at 12:31 PM on 29 September 2016How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
Locane, looking at chart sources, that purple band is all agriculture (which includes non-food agriculture like cotton, wool). The 5.1% is I believe just enteric emissions (burps/farts) and manure. Depending on farming practice, meat will also have contributions from soils. In places where forests are being cleared to raise beef (Brazil), there is a significant contribution in the Land Use change (green) band.
However, if your point is that meat-eating is a small contribution to emissions compared to industry, electricity and transport, then you would be correct.
-
RedBaron at 12:18 PM on 29 September 2016IPCC special report to scrutinise ‘feasibility’ of 1.5C climate goal
@16 John Hartz,
I have a SBIRP Phaze 1 grant proposal to finalize in the next couple weeks to meet the deadline. Once I have completed that, I will probably have some spare time to make a synthesis. But to keep it short and sweet, I would probably need you to more precisely define the topic. I do have a tendancy to ramble on regarding related side issues. You know? The whole "systems science" thingy where everything it related to everything else! ;)
Moderator Response:[JH] You can always author more than one article, or break-up a long article into parts. Please submit an outline of the ground you would like to cover using the "Contact Us" button at the bottom of the page. All draft articles submitted for publication on SkS will undergo a "peer review" by members of the SkS all-volunteer author team.
-
John Hartz at 11:32 AM on 29 September 2016IPCC special report to scrutinise ‘feasibility’ of 1.5C climate goal
RedBaron:
Would you be interested in synthesizing your posts into an article for posting on the SkS website?
-
Digby Scorgie at 11:09 AM on 29 September 2016IPCC special report to scrutinise ‘feasibility’ of 1.5C climate goal
John Hartz @8
Having skimmed through bits of IPCC reports, I am amazed at the vast amount of work these reports represent. From my technical-writing perspective I'm only too aware of the enormous difficulty of the task.
However, one must still bear in mind the comment in the article about "increasingly unreadable reports". And having studied specifically the SPM, I know that a good technical writer or two would make a marked difference to the readability of the document. In its current form it is just not easy reading for a non-scientist.
-
Locane at 09:46 AM on 29 September 2016How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
Quick question for the author dana1981 - is the purple band in the GHG Emissions flowchart representative of ALL food-producing agriculture; IE plants (corn, rice, fruit, etc) AND animals? Or just animals?
If it's all, does that mean that raising animals for meat consumption is 5.1% of the total in the world GHG chart?
Thanks! -
RedBaron at 09:34 AM on 29 September 2016IPCC special report to scrutinise ‘feasibility’ of 1.5C climate goal
@12 John,
No John, I did not have a hand in writing that article. Furthermore, I think the carbon sequestration potential estimates given are extraordinarily low. I believe those estimates are low because they make the fatal assumption that we are required to keep the basic production models we have in place now. (ie king corn, CAFOs, and corn and soy biofuels) Instead of replacing those fatally flawed production models, they instead base their estimates on improving them so they are less destructive.
My advocated approach would completely bypass most of that, because there is only so much improvement that can be made as long as the directive from the USDA remains to overproduce grains, promote corn fed beef and total confinement pork and poultry, and increase corn fermented ethanol. (CAFOs are at 97%, so they are mostly maxed out already)
You need to remember, within the system they created, there is only so much improvement that can be made. Most farmers and the majority of the infrastructure is nearing maximum efficiency. In order to achieve the much better efficiencies, you would be forced to make USDA change their directives so we can change the whole system to a more efficient one. This is closely related to the post I made a while back showing how we could restructure the buffer stock scheme. (and related regulations)
-
RedBaron at 09:03 AM on 29 September 2016IPCC special report to scrutinise ‘feasibility’ of 1.5C climate goal
@11 John,
You said, "BTW, what is Sir Albert Howard's dire prediction?"
No less than the complete collapse of agriculture, taking both human civilization and a good portion the biosphere with it. Keep in mind though, he actually didn't think that would happen. He always assumed humanity would not be foolish enough to continue down that doomed path. Here we are though, 70 years later, and not only are we still stuck on that path, but actually regulating against and subsidizing against correcting it! His words of caution seem extraordinarily pithy today.
"The first duty of the agriculturalist must always be to understand that he is part of nature and can not escape from his environment." - Sir Albert Howard
-
John Hartz at 08:39 AM on 29 September 2016IPCC special report to scrutinise ‘feasibility’ of 1.5C climate goal
RedBaron:
Did you have a hand in writing the following article? Seriously, does it square with your position?
Looking to the Earth Itself as a Climate Solution by Georina Gustin, InsideClimate News, Sep 28, 2016
-
John Hartz at 08:34 AM on 29 September 2016IPCC special report to scrutinise ‘feasibility’ of 1.5C climate goal
RedBaron: Thanks for the detailed response. There is indeed much for me and others to digest. :)
BTW, what is Sir Albert Howard's dire prediction?
-
RedBaron at 06:39 AM on 29 September 2016IPCC special report to scrutinise ‘feasibility’ of 1.5C climate goal
@9 John Hartz,
Claimed in the link you provided:
"It is possible the natural processes that remove methane from the atmosphere have slowed down, but it is more likely that there’s been an increase of methane emission instead, especially from the hot wet tropics, according to the authors."
In my opinion both are happening. Agriculture as it is most widely practised now is both reducing the natural processes that remove methane, and in some cases increasing methane emissions. So the net component of increasing atmospheric methane that agriculture is responcible for is dramatically rising due to the effect agriculture has on both sides of the methane cycle.
You asked how can BCCS make a significant contribution to mitigating this contribution to manmade climate change? Well starting with wetlands emissions, the primary agricultural component to that portion of the methane cycle is paddy rice production. So in the case of rice, a shift to SRI would be a significant improvement.
• Reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from paddy soils
o Methane (CH4) is reduced by between 22%
and 64%, as soils are maintained under mostly
aerobic conditions [10,11,3]
o Nitrous oxide (N2O) is only slightly increased
or sometimes reduced as use of N fertilizers is
reduced; N20 increases do not offset CH4
reductions, so GWP is reduced [9,10,11,12]
oTotal global warming potential (GWP) from
flooded rice paddies is reduced 20-30%
[10,12,3], even up to 73% [11]The System of Rice Intensification (SRI)… … is climate-smart rice production
SRI has over 700 published journal articles which can be found here: JOURNAL ARTICLES ABOUT THE SYSTEM OF RICE INTENSIFICATION (SRI)
Please note that yields per hectare are increased at the same time as the impact to AGW is reduced. You will also find that many of the outliers mentioned in the above quote are also the same outliers in yields too. In other words, the farmers that reduce emissions the most are also the same farmers yielding the most. (and the farmers sequestering the most carbon in the soil) And the farmers producing the record yields have little to no impact on AGW any longer at all. It can not be emphasized enough how important this breakthrough is, as the methane signature from rice cultivation goes back thousands of years according to the Ruddiman Early Anthropocene Hypothesis .
The next biggest agricultural component to methane increases is related to the way we currently practice animal husbandry. This component is primarily driven by reducing the natural processes that remove methane from the atmosphere. Since ruminants and other animals have been passing gas since the beginning of time, it is less an emissions problem but rather a symptom of soil degradation caused by the way we currently raise grains (largely to feed animals in confinement).
In my opinion methane is an animal husbandry problem primarily because of CAFO's. It is not a problem in a properly managed grassland/savanna biome. After all those biomes supported many millions and millions of grazers who were extirpated. The methane levels before they were extirpated were actually lower than now! According to the following studies those biomes actually reduce atmospheric methane due to the action of Methanotrophic microorganisms that use methane as their only source of energy and carbon. Even more carbon being pumped into the soil! Nitrogen too, as they are also free living nitrogen fixers.
Grasslands and their soils can be considered sinks for atmospheric CO2, CH4, and water vapor, and their
Cenozoic evolution a contribution to long-term global climatic cooling. Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic CoolingThe subsurface location of methanotrophs means that energy
requirements for maintenance and growth are obtained from
CH4 concentrations that are lower than atmospheric. Soil Microorganisms as Controllers of Atmospheric Trace Gases
(H2, CO, CH4, OCS, N2O, and NO)Upland (i.e., well-drained, oxic) soils are a net sink for atmospheric methane; as methane diffuses from the atmosphere into these soils, methane consuming (i.e., methanotrophic) bacteria oxidize it. IMPACT OF METHANOTROPH ECOLOGY ON UPLAND METHANE
BIOGEOCHEMISTRY IN GRASSLAND SOILSNevertheless, no CH4 was released when soil surface CH4 fluxes were measured simultaneously. The results thus demonstrate the high CH4 oxidation potential of the thin aerobic topsoil horizon in a non-aquatic ecosystem. Methane fluxes from differentially managed grassland study plots: the important role of CH4 oxidation in grassland with a high potential for CH4 production.
Of all the CH4 sources and sinks, the biotic sink strength is the most responsive to variation in human activities. Environmental impacts on the diversity of methane-cycling microbes and their resultant function
The CH4 uptake rate was only 20% of that in the woodland in an adjacent area that had been uncultivated for the same period but kept as rough grassland by the annual removal of trees and shrubs and, since 1960, grazed during the summer by sheep. It is suggested that the continuous input of urea through animal excreta was mainly responsible for this difference. Another undisturbed woodland area with an acidic soil reaction (pH 4.1) did not oxidize any CH4. Methane oxidation in soil as affected by land use, soil pH and N fertilization
I pulled a few quotes out to make my case, but I highly recommend you read the sources in their entirety and even find further educational materials, since this is a highly complex subject.
The main summary being, the current system used to raise animals in confinement has removed them from the farmland, where when managed properly their methane emissions are part of a larger agricultural system that oxidizes more methane than the animals emit. Since this biological oxidation of methane occurs below the soil surface where that carbon enters the soil food web, actually animals improve the BCCS systems even more than without them. This actually has been known for decades and is well vetted, but was never quantified for climate scientists. Sir Albert Howard, father of organic agriculture, noted this effect on soil biology (of removing farm animals from the land and replacing their impact with synthetic fertilizers) way back in the 1940s.
“As the small trickle of results grows into an avalanche — as is now happening overseas — it will soon be realized that the animal is our farming partner and no practice and no knowledge which ignores this fact will contribute anything to human welfare or indeed will have any chance either of usefulness or of survival.” Sir Albert Howard
In my honest opinion one reason for the recent spike in atmospheric methane is simply the fruition of Sir Albert Howard's dire prediction, since we continue to ignore this.
The third part of the link you submitted talks about increased emissions from natural wetlands. I am less familiar with this portion of their claims, but I can hypothesize that it could potentially be related in part to agricultural runoff causing anaerobic conditions (dead zones), since most decomposition under anaerobic conditions does produce large quantities of methane. Fertilizer Runoff Overwhelms Streams and Rivers--Creating Vast "Dead Zones" Ironically the "King Corn" lobby is so huge, that even though the above article from Scientific America admits the primary cause cropland runoff of synthetic nitrogen, they actually propose:
the only way to increase ethanol production from corn and reduce nitrogen runoff would be for Americans to stop eating meat, thereby freeing up corn used as livestock feed for other uses.
While also stating:
"That [also] means not utilizing all the land to grow crops."
Apparently they don't see the irony in these two statements. The solution of course is not to grow corn for ruminants at all and dramatically reduce its usage for other livestock. And not to use corn for ethanol production at all. (excepting a nice corn whiskey) There are other ways to feed animals and distill ethanol more efficiently than using "king corn" surpluses. So step one is to stop subsidizing the over production of corn and soy and changing our production models to more efficient regenerative models of production that don't cause AGW.
-
John Hartz at 03:35 AM on 29 September 2016IPCC special report to scrutinise ‘feasibility’ of 1.5C climate goal
RedBaron: How do the research results described in the following article impact your position on the ability of biological carbon capture and storage to make a significant contribution to mitigating manmade climate change?
New research explores how wetlands and agriculture could be causing a global rise in methane by Sarah Honeycombe, Geo Space, AGU Blogosphere, Sep 27, 2016
-
Tom Curtis at 02:23 AM on 29 September 2016How climate science deniers can accept so many 'impossible things' all at once
Barry Woods, the "skeptical" use of the claim that CO2 is a trace gas as an argument goes from that premise directly to the conclusion that, either, CO2 cannot generate a greenhouse effect, or that changes in CO2 are too small in level to result in any change in the climate. There are not intermediate steps, or additional premises. "Skeptics" using that argument are therefore commited to the validity of the argument form:
"X is a trace quantity" ⇒ "X can have not impact on Y" for arbitrary Y.
However, if we take this argument form and substitute "Atmospheric CO2" for X, and "the growth of plants" for Y, we have an immediate counter example to the argument. As some "skeptics", including the provider of the sample quote in the "CO2 is a Trace Gas" rebutal, both assert the implicit argument and that CO2 is necessary for plants to stay alive; they both endorse the argument by use, and contradict it in another context.
Moderator Response:[JH] Please know that all of Barry Wood's future posts will be summarily deleted.
-
Barry Woods at 01:37 AM on 29 September 2016How climate science deniers can accept so many 'impossible things' all at once
That interpretation seems to be focusing of the use of more, ie more trace gas may benefit plants, but more co2 won't give a huge rise in temps.. these are 2 different topics... both could be true (even if not) not contradictory statements.. It is not contradictory use of more..
If we have to guess what John means, perhaps he could add, what he means in the comment part of contradictions page..
Additionally nobody it seems to be immune from contradictions, from the paper itself..
Lewandowsky, John Cook, Lloyd-Springer Philosphy. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-016-1198-6
A contradictory statement relates to the use of denialist, within a single paper: 3 statement are:
"…views in the “community” of denialists…"
"No such corrective processes can be observed in denialist discourse…"
"…incoherencies manifest in denialist discourse…"
The fourth use in a footnote, which states that:
"We use denial as a noun that describes a political or discursive activity but we avoid labels such as “denier” or “denialist” that categorize people."
They seem a little confused about who are the people who are incoherent and contradictory, by both simultaneously labelling/categorising a whole group of people as denialist or deniers, but simultaneously stating that they do no such thing. Perhaps John Cook can comment.
Moderator Response:[JH] Your privilege of posting comments on this website has been rescinded.
-
RedBaron at 01:12 AM on 29 September 2016How climate science deniers can accept so many 'impossible things' all at once
@Barry,
I can't answer for John, but I can submit my take on it. Those two are not contradictory on the surface, but climate deniers often use both in a contradictory context. ie CO2 is a plant food so more is better, and since CO2 is a trace gas more doesn't change the system to make it warm. It is too small a trace to effect anything.
In this case, climate deniers try to claim both that CO2 is increasing enough to effect plant growth positively, and at the same time claim CO2 is at such low levels, and we emit such a small % of that small %, it cant effect anything. It is self contradictory.
Context is everything. It is true that there is such a thing as the CO2 fertilization effect. It is one of many feedbacks. Unfortunately this feedback is not large enough to prevent CO2 from rising to levels that are causing global warming.
-
Barry Woods at 22:46 PM on 28 September 2016How climate science deniers can accept so many 'impossible things' all at once
From th econtradictions refernece in the paper to SKs website.
The following table lists skeptic arguments that contradict each other. Please feel free to submit a new pair of contradicting arguments.
CO2 is just a trace gas - CO2 is plant food -John Cook
How do those 2 statements contradict each other?
This statement is one of the highlighted examples used in the paper.
Both these statements are "true". (essential for photosynthesis and ~0.04% of the atmosphere) perhaps John can explain why he thinks sceptics saying - CO2 is plant food - contradicts - CO2 is a trace gas. even if the same individual is saying it?
-
John Hartz at 13:47 PM on 28 September 2016IPCC special report to scrutinise ‘feasibility’ of 1.5C climate goal
Digby Scorgie @6: To the best of my knowledge, the authors of the IPCC's Summaries for Policymakers are a combination of scientists and non-scientists from throughout the world. They do not all speak English so translations are required throughout the drafting process. The fact that the reports read as well as they do is a tribute to all involved.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:15 AM on 28 September 2016New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’
Red Baron @38, you are correct. Thanks for picking up my slip.
-
nigelj at 11:10 AM on 28 September 2016IPCC special report to scrutinise ‘feasibility’ of 1.5C climate goal
Red Baron @5
Thanks for your information. I have had a read of your more detailed summary on carbon capture in the soil, and the way to promote this, and what you say is quite compelling with a long list of research links.
However I don’t have any real specialist soil knowledge. The only soil science I have ever done is stage 1 (introductory) physical geography at university, long time ago but interesting paper that had a component on soils.
I would agree carbon capture is probably more acceptable to both conservatives and liberals than taxes or kicking the oil companies too directly.
I agree oil subsidies are absurd, given oil companies are profitable and established without the need for any additional help. Ideally subsidies should be switched to more useful things like carbon capture.
However this would still be a hard sell politically. It’s a case of favours to campaign supporters, something both democrats and conservatives are tied into. In other words it’s part of the American system where elections are funded by private sector donations. The democrats have tried to put a cap on this, or some limits, but it has been struck down by the courts as unconstitutional to limit donations, so its hard to see what the answer is. Of course some presidents are self funding like Trump, but that guy brings a whole lot of other problems. It's unlikely we would see a self funding president that’s universally admired, but hope springs eternal.
Back to soil capture. All quite promising practically and could possibly be sold politically despite my reservations, so good luck to you. However the problem is also time related. It would take a long time to make such a proposal have a tangible effect. However I'm being a "contrarian" on the issue here! If such systems also have other benefits as you claim, then that alone makes it worthwhile.
-
Digby Scorgie at 10:49 AM on 28 September 2016IPCC special report to scrutinise ‘feasibility’ of 1.5C climate goal
Having studied the last SPM, I conclude that the IPCC didn't use any technical writers to create it, or if they did, the writers were not very skilful. (In case you're puzzled: BrE "skilful", AmE "skillful")
As a retired technical writer, I know that a small team of skilled technical writers would've created an SPM that was easily understood by politicians of all kinds, including those with little knowledge of science. Not only that, but such an SPM would have had a far greater impact.
This is not to denigrate the efforts of those who did write the SPM. It's just that very few scientists are good at writing for lay readers. Nor should one expect anything different, for this is the province of the technical writer, not the scientist. The job of the technical writer is to "translate" the science into language the lay reader can understand.
(My technical writing, incidentally, entailed "translating" engineering-speak into technician-speak!)
-
RedBaron at 09:54 AM on 28 September 2016New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’
Tom,
You said, "any negative slope a deceleration, and a zero slope represents constant temperatures."
I believe you should have said, "any negative slope a deceleration, and a zero slope represents a constant rate of change."
Since in this case that constant rate of change is above zero, this repesents warming.
-
RedBaron at 09:27 AM on 28 September 2016IPCC special report to scrutinise ‘feasibility’ of 1.5C climate goal
@4 nigelj,
Yes there is an upper limit to the amount of carbon stored this way. Fortunately that upper limit far exceeds all the Carbon in the atmosphere. So it is plenty large enough to lower CO2 and meet the IPCC panel's stated goals.
Yes such a system requires changes in farming methods, and the agricultural infrastructure that supports farmers. Those do have some short term costs. Fortunately the short term profit increases largely offset those short term costs, and the long term profit potential to both the farmers and the larger economies, both national and international, far exceed any temporary short term costs, and that's even without trying to measure the economic costs associated with ecosystem services losses. Include those and the cost benefit analysis shows a positive outcome immediately.
Yes there are extremely powerful lobbies resisting the change, and not just agricultural lobbies, but also financial lobbies because of the huge vested interest in the status quo at the commodity markets, banking, insurance, and international trade level. So yes there is a question of political viability.
I believe I know of a way to break that deadlock. Unlike my previous statement about there being unequivocally the technological ability to do what is needed, this objection I am far more cautious about. I have made a rather detailed practical summary of how I believe that deadlock can be cracked. here But actually breaking the deadlock is another matter.
I believe that plan would need to be brought before a high level think tank to flesh out and be peer reviewed before it would be acceptable to the IPCC. Since I posted it, I myself already found a few things I would word slightly differently in order to meet the IPCC request for communicating well to policymakers and the public. But you are more than welcome to add your ideas.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:44 AM on 28 September 2016New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’
Red Baron @34, Tamino shows the following graph of 15 year trends of the GISS LOTI:
The dashed lines are the 95% error limits.
Because this is a graph of trends in the data rather than the data itself, any positive slope in the graph is an acceleration in the data itself, any negative slope a deceleration, and a zero slope represents constant temperatures. Very clearly there has been accelerations, eg, from 1900 to 1930, or from 1950-1970, but for the period from 1975-2015 , while there has been some variation above and below the line, the slope has been a close approximation of zero. Ergo, no acceleration, and certainly no acceleration within error.
My claim of no acceleration was limited to the period post 1975, so I consider this conclusive evidence.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:36 AM on 28 September 2016New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’
michael sweet @35, consider the OLS trend of the temperature data from 1975 to 2013. if you take the residual of the temperure data relative to that trendline 1998 to 2013, it has a negative slope over that period. That negative slope is not an artifact of measurement error. It is genuinely a feature of the data, and genuinely shows the variation, not the underlying trend, in temperature over that period. It follows that the measured trend over the 1998-2013 period, ie, the 1975-2013 trend plus the trend in the residual from 1998-2013 is less than the 1975-2013 trend. In short, there was a slowdown in the measured trend.
Is the period 1998-2013 cherry picked? Yes! Is the slowdown (not hiatus) in the measured trend from 1998-2013 an artifact of short term variation rather than an alteration in the underlying trend? Yes! Eoes 1975-2013 trend better show the underlying trend, and therefore is likely to have a smaller residual as projected into the future? Yes!
All of this was known, or should have been known in 2013 to anyone who payed attention to either the statistics or the actual changes in ENSO over the period. But simply saying that there was no change in the trend without distinguishing between the underlying and the measured trend looks like a denial of the flatening of the graph in that period that is easilly visible to the eye. I thought I could clarrify that by introducing more specific terminology, but I am beginning to despair of that possibility.
Just once more. If you take the OLS trend from 1975-Aug 2016 in GISS LOTI the result is 0.181 +/- 0.035 C/decade. That is the measured trend over that interval*. We do not know precisely the underlying trend in that interval, but with close to 0.95% probability it will lie within the error margins of the central estimate. If we take the OLS trend from 1998-2013 (inclusive) on the same data we get a measured trend of 0.098 +/- 0.128 C/decade. Again the underlying trend will lie within the error margins with close to 0.95% probability. Further, the measured trend of the second interval (even though cherry picked). That is just a matter of mathematical fact. But the underlying trend in the second interval is very likely to have been included in the error margins of the first interval as well, ie, to be within the 0.146-0.216 C/decade range. Sometimes in asserting that last fact, defenders of climate science give the appearance of denying that there is a difference in the measured trends of the intervals, but the difference in measured trends is just a matter of mathematical fact. On the other hand, some scientists, in acknowledging the difference in measured trend, and that it has been longer than similar differences in measured trends in other short intervals within the interval 1975-2016 appear to be denying that there has been no change in the underlying trend. It is my belief that that is a matter of appearance only, following only from a failure to distinguish clearly between the underlying and measured trends.
(*Note, the measured trend is the central estimate, but has much smaller error margins, being a function of measurement error only.)
-
nigelj at 08:27 AM on 28 September 2016IPCC special report to scrutinise ‘feasibility’ of 1.5C climate goal
Red Baron @2
Sequestration of carbon in soils does have some appeal to me, but you are up against two big challenges. Firstly there would be an upper limit on how much carbon can be stored this way.
Secondly such a system requires a lot of changes in farming methods that have some short term costs in some cases. Farming lobbies are notoriously powerful, ask the EU or the United States. So how politically viable is it?
So even assuming some uptake of the idea, carbon capture looks like a partial answer to me.
-
nigelj at 08:03 AM on 28 September 2016IPCC special report to scrutinise ‘feasibility’ of 1.5C climate goal
The charts in the article do indeed show some significant differences in impacts between limits set at 1.5 degrees versus 2 degrees. In fact the impacts are pretty sobering even at 1.5 degrees. However presumably you would say 1.2 degrees would be better still.
The point is limiting emissions to 1.5 degrees is a monumental task. Even limiting emissions to 2 degrees is a huge challenge, so is there much point considering lower goals? You are in danger of generating a mindset in the public where they respond that the whole thing is practically impossible, so we might as well give up on any goal.
There has to be a viable path forwards, even if it does require some significant sacrifices, but they have to be sacrifices that preserve a reasonable basic quality of life or people will say the solutions to global warming are worse than the problem. Their perception may or may not be correct, but our political systems are democratic, and this means we have to convince the public.
2 degrees seems a more achievable target. Yesterday I read an article in a current affairs magazine, reporting on Antarctic ice loss. Apparently Rob DeConto has written a report in 'Nature' with some evidence that 2 degrees is fundamental in terms of Antarctic ice. The report basically suggests Antarctic ice would remain reasonably stable if temperatures are limited to 2 degrees, (I take that to mean a very slow rate of ice loss) but once you get above 2 degrees there is a fairly sudden acceleration and much more ice loss. This appears to suggest 2 degrees is the number we should worry most about.
-
RedBaron at 06:20 AM on 28 September 2016IPCC special report to scrutinise ‘feasibility’ of 1.5C climate goal
Well I have stated multiple times this statement is flat out unequivocally wrong.
“We will need negative emissions on a large-scale and for a long period of time to bring global temperatures back down to 1.5C. This isn’t possible with current technologies.”
Biological carbon capture and storage is possible with current technologies. Will we have the strength of character to use it? Doubtful. But it most certainly is possible.
To be policy-relevant, the report will need to spell out what’s to be gained by limiting warming to 1.5C, as well as the practical steps needed to get there within sustainability and poverty eradication goals.
That too! BCCS is also helpful in both those goals as well. In fact moving beyond a meager "sustainable" to actually regenerative, and moving beyond a meager "low cost" to actually profitable. And moving beyond a meager "profitable to overall economies" to specifically the most profit increases to the lowest earners living below the poverty line.
-
ianw01 at 01:38 AM on 28 September 2016IPCC special report to scrutinise ‘feasibility’ of 1.5C climate goal
Does the IPPC have a position on where we stand now in terms of degrees of warming?
(This SkS post is pretty sobering if 1.5C is the goal.)
-
michael sweet at 19:47 PM on 27 September 2016New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’
Tom,
Perhaps I misunderstand you. When I put my straight edge on the Lowess curve I get the same result you did: there is no trace of a leveling off or decrease of increase in the temeperature record after 1975. There is a hint of increase at the very end due to the extreme values we see currently. There is no trace of a "hiatus".
Calculating slopes to 1998 while suggesting that current extreme values are due to El Nino is cherry picking. You are taking a noisy record and claiming it is a trend. If that is the remaining argument I stand on my claim that El Nino is responsible for the entirety of the claimed "hiatus".
There was no "hiatus". There are people who falsely argue that the high record in 1998 generated interesting data. 2016 shows that is incorrect.
-
RedBaron at 14:43 PM on 27 September 2016New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’
Tom,
hmmm I honestly don't see it. To me all those graphs, to one degree or another seem to transition from an accelerating rate of temperature increase to a steady (or more steady) rate of increase. So I don't understand why you said,
"Contrary to Red Baron, I would not have characterized the temperature series from 1975-1998 as accelerating."
Maybe it just depends what endpoints you choose? I have seen that exact same data graphed by rate instead of temps so as to make it appear horizontal flat and incorrectly used by climate deniers to "prove" the hiatus means no warming happened during the hiatus, when actually a closer inspection shows increases in temp. When you plot rates instead of temps the graph appears completely different and fools a lot of people.
Anyway I bow to your expertise.
-
chriskoz at 13:40 PM on 27 September 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #39
This time of year (late Sept) usually means the CO2 levels have hit a seasonal bottom at Mauna Loa. This year it bottomed comfortably above 400ppm. Last month of observations show that every day the average were within 400-402 while only some hourly averages notched below. So, almanac collectors, get an ampule of air from Aug 29 (which by a statistical fluke ended with 399.5ppm) if they still have it! Otherwise you won't get it: other stations that might still hit 400ppm extremum next year, (eg. Cape Grim inTas) may not be selling them, Antarctic stations definitely do not.
I still remember from primary school that CO2 should constitute 0.035% of the atmosphere. It was still 0.039% when I first started to learn climate science. Even that is an ancient history already.
-
chriskoz at 12:51 PM on 27 September 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #39
Thanks Bob. Gavin on RC just expertly clarified what is also my concerns about this study. Nothing to add.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:59 AM on 27 September 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #39
chiskoz:
There is a post on this paper over at RealClimate:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/09/the-snyder-sensitivity-situation/
-
chriskoz at 11:34 AM on 27 September 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #39
This new paleo study in Neture:
Evolution of global temperature over the past two million years
creates some spin in the media. Particularly the sentence in the abstract:
This result suggests that stabilization at today’s greenhouse gas levels may already commit Earth to an eventual total warming of 5 degrees Celsius (range 3 to 7 degrees Celsius, 95 per cent credible interval) over the next few millennia
results in claims (e.g. in smh here wrong IMO) that we may be already committed to 7 degree warming.
I don't have access to the full text to form my opinion about that claim. Anyone who has, or who has found a better op-ed can explains how this new study relates to, and how it changes the constrains on ESS estimates? Thanks.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:15 AM on 27 September 2016New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’
Red Baron @31, when I lay a straight edge against the Lowess smooth in the figure at 30, it is essentially a straight line from c1974 to c2010, after which it diverges slightly upward (accelerates). The divergence of the high values in 2016, and is probably an artifact of the fact that Lowess smooths given greater weight to final values than to intermediate values in determining the end point. To see that, compare the endpoints of this comparison of the spline, Lowess, and modified Lowess (ie, the smooth used by Tamino) by Tamino:
-
Tom Curtis at 11:05 AM on 27 September 2016New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’
michael sweet @, I repeat:
"I think you need to carefully distinguish between the rate of change of the instrumental record (ie, the trend with error based only on the error in determination of the anomaly values) and the climatological trend (ie, the trend with the error based on the actual fluctuations in the temperature record, as with the SkS trend calculator)."
My comment about there clearly being a reduction in trend refers to the trend, "with error based only on the error in determination of the anomaly values". With respect to the climatological trend, that Tamino discusses I state:
"[G]iven that for all periods longer than 5 years, the trend error includes the trend from 1975-1998 within its values, there has been no statistically significant reduction in trend, and hence no compelling evidence of any such reduction."
That is clearly in agreement with Tamino.
I am inclined to think your misunderstanding is due to the poor way in which I expressed myself. So to start with, in determining the trend in GMST, there are two sorts of noise - climatological noise, in which the GMST varies from the underlying trend due to short term influences such as ENSO and volcanoes; and measurement noise, in which the observed data varies from the actual GMST due to limits in accuracy of measurement and/or coverage. Corresponding to these two sorts of error are two sorts of trend, the "underlying trend" corresponding to the former, and the "measured trend" corresponding to the later. The later form or erro generates an uncertainty in the trend determination approximately equal to 2*measurement error/decades in Degrees C/decade, or about 0.06 C/decade for the period 1998-2016.
As it happens, GISS LOTI trend from 1998-2016 is 0.026 C/decade less than the 1975-1998 trend, so that if that was all the data we had, we could not determine that the change in measured trend represented an actual change or simply an artifact of measurement error. As it happens, however, the difference between the 1998-2013 trend and the 1975-1998 trend is 0.065 C/decade. That tells us the change in trend between the two is a real change in the measured trend, ie, not just an artifact of measurement error. It tells us nothing about whether or not there is a change in the underlying trend.
IMO, a lot of the confusion on this topic comes from talking at cross purposes. Defenders of AGW discuss the underlying trend in which there has been no determinable slowdown, while "Skeptics" discuss the measured trend, in which there has undeniably been a slowdown, but then often confuse that claim with a claim that the underlying trend has slowed down (or even fallen to zero). I think this confusion has also made its way into the scientific literature, with Fyfe et al accepting the reality of a slowdown in the measured trend and then discussing the reasons for that slowdown in the measured trend; and others insisting there has been no slowdown in the underlying trend (and giving reasons).
-
nigelj at 09:43 AM on 27 September 2016The Madhouse Effect of climate denial
Sounds like an excellent book. Clearly we are altering the climate at considerable cost to future generations, so this begs the question of why the climate change denialism?
I can think of 100 reasons for climate change denialism, but I think it boils down to people being worried about costs of moving away from fossil fuels, and being rather selfish about this in ignoring future generations. If the climate problem could be fixed for free I doubt there would be many denialists left.
Some people also dislike taxes on ideological grounds and conservative parties seem particularly sceptical about climate science. This ideology is put above almost every other concern it seems.
The denialists rationalise their position by claiming the science is wrong or global warming could prevent an ice age (which it cant). Or that C02 is plant food, which is a massive over simplification of the issues.
However some countries have substantial renewable energy already, and it hasnt bankrupted them, and electric cars are becoming more affordable, and are very cheap to run. The costs of the transition are being exaggerated by the denialists.
-
RedBaron at 05:55 AM on 27 September 2016New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’
@Tom #29,
You said, "Contrary to Red Baron, I would not have characterized the temperature series from 1975-1998 as accelerating. Considering measurement errors only, it has been characterized by periods of lesser and greater trends of various length. None of those periods have been sufficiently long to be statistically significant when error from short term temperature variations have been included."
I don't know Tom, that graph just posted by Michael #30 sure appears to be an acceleration of increasing temps (curved) that leveled off to a steady increase of temps (straight line). I guess it just depends how long a time frame we need to declare it significant?
Either way the important thing in my opinon is that no thinking person can deny that temps are increasing, The finer points of accelerating increases or steady increases and at what time periods those increases are significant are important for prediction future climate, but not really needed to show AGW exists. And most pertinent to this thread; While the CO2 fertilization stabilizing feedback is real, it isn't large enough to halt AGW.
-
Bob13823 at 23:16 PM on 26 September 2016CO2 was higher in the past
Until the Faint Young Sun Paradox is resolved we cannot claim that the geological record agrees with holocene climate models.
Moderator Response:[PS] You need to tell us more about what you mean. The faint young sun paradox concerns solar output billions of years ago and irrelevant to the holocene. Greenhouse gases give us a good resolution to the paradox from what can be construed about past atmosphere so what is that you think is unresolved of relevance here?
-
andreas_s at 21:14 PM on 26 September 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #39
here we have an erroneous link:
[...]Something went wrong at WUWT. Is Anthony Watts ceding his title? by Sou (HotWhopper)[...]here is the correct url:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/09/something-went-wrong-at-wuwt-is-anthony.html
Moderator Response:[JH] Thank you for bringing this glitch to our attention. The correct url has been inserted.
-
michael sweet at 20:12 PM on 26 September 2016New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’
Tom at 29,
You state that "clearly there has been a reduction in trend in the 21st century". Tamino's recent post on August temperature showed this graph:
I do not see any decrease in the temperature increase through the 21st century. I see a very slight decrease if you start at 1998, an obvious outlier that is not included in the 21st century. I think the discussion of a "hiatus" has devolved into a cherry picked argument of a change from 1998-2013. Since that itme period is too short for statistical significance, and starts with a strong El Nino and ends with a strong La Nina, for me there is no "there" there. El Nino patterns explain any change.
Martin,
There is a great deal of dispute about the "hiatus". Song et al are incorrect when they presume that a hiatus occured. Tamino and others, some cited by Song and others not, have shown no significant hiatus occured. There is some continuing discussion of the temporary factors that caused the temperature to temporarily increase slower, now countered by rapid increase back to the mean over the past three years. Song is a late addition to this discussion.
-
nigelj at 13:32 PM on 26 September 2016How climate science deniers can accept so many 'impossible things' all at once
Glen Tamblyn @16
Very true. For centuries people believed certain thngs were fixed and absolute, particularly moral beliefs. Science has shown nothing is fixed except the laws of physics and speed of light. It sure pulls the rug out, and leaves us making decisions on the basis of what seems best for most.
-
nigelj at 13:16 PM on 26 September 2016How climate science deniers can accept so many 'impossible things' all at once
Why do some people deny climate science? There are clearly several possibilities including religion, but I do think the main one is as follows:
Some people are driven by strong personal greed, worries about costs being imposed on them, so they deny the science and gravitate to small government / conservative leaning parties. (Which creates a strong political dimension to the whole issue that can't be avoided. Polls show a preponderance of climate denialism in conservative leaning parties)
Proof: If climate change could be fixed at no cost, there would be almost no denialists.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 12:49 PM on 26 September 2016How climate science deniers can accept so many 'impossible things' all at once
There are other dimensions to denial, falling under the umbrella term 'implicatory denial'. The one that gets most attention is rejection of the responses to AGW - regulation, government roles, shutdown of the FF industries that have obvious consequenses that can disturb people.Call this world-view implications of the responses
But there is another dimension that gets less attention. The impact for various peoples world-views that AGW is possible at all. This is often seen in ideas like 'It is arrogant to think that humanity can impact something as big as the climate', or 'God wouldn't make a world where that is possible' etc. etc...
It is easy to think that this second type of denial is actually a cover, a rationalisation for the first type. When quite possibly this second dimension may actually be the stronger world-view driver for denial. How does the old saying go, 'Man does not live by bread alone'? Surely there could be many people who have deep-seated world-views, such as religious ones, that are profoundly challenged by the implications of AGW even being possible.
This is just the latest in a long history of discoveries in science that deeply challenge traditional, millenia old, perhaps even genetically based world-views.- Stars aren't on celestial spheres with the earth at the centre
- No evidence of the existance of Gods.
- We don't need Creation to explain us, our minds and origins, just physics.
- We aren't the centre of the universe, just a few oversized Australopithicenesliving on an insignificant speck of dust.
- We are descended from other species, ultimately from bacteria.
- The position of s few stars in the sky can't influence your life (except when you influence yourself by believing that they can)
- etc. etc.
We often don't grasp just how science has disconnected us from our historical roots. In not much more than 1 century, 2 at most, we have become aliens on our own planet compared to all the 1000's of generations of our ancestors before then. A Neanderthal, a early Australian Aborigine, the builders of the Great Wall of China, an ancient Sumerian, a jew from the time of Christ, a Mayan farmer, a medieval blacksmith, an 18th century miller, still much of the world today. All of them would utterly understand each other and their shared sense of the world vastly more than they could ever understand Homo Scientensis.
Not surprising really that some people don't react very well or rationally. Science keeps pulling the entire carpet of meaning out from under them. -
scaddenp at 09:04 AM on 26 September 2016How climate science deniers can accept so many 'impossible things' all at once
I think the article makes a very good point. If the root of denial is a strong distaste for any measure that might mitigate climate change, then it doesnt matter to the denier really what the argument is, so long as it prevents any action. Many deniers are happy to take "its not happening; its not us; its not bad and its too hard to fix" positions simultaneously.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:51 AM on 26 September 2016New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’
martin @27, I think you need to carefully distinguish between the rate of change of the instrumental record (ie, the trend with error based only on the error in determination of the anomaly values) and the climatological trend (ie, the trend with the error based on the actual fluctuations in the temperature record, as with the SkS trend calculator). With regard to the former, clearly there has been a reduction trend in the 21st century. With regard to the later, given that for all periods longer than 5 years, the trend error includes the trend from 1975-1998 within its values, there has been no statistically significant reduction in trend, and hence no compelling evidence of any such reduction.
Contrary to Red Baron, I would not have characterized the temperature series from 1975-1998 as accelerating. Considering measurement errors only, it has been characterized by periods of lesser and greater trends of various length. None of those periods have been sufficiently long to be statistically significant when error from short term temperature variations have been included.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:24 AM on 26 September 2016How climate science deniers can accept so many 'impossible things' all at once
Art Vandelay @10, the issues you raise are discussed in the paper explicitly under section 1.4. In that section the authors point out that they have documented instances of incoherence in the positions of several individuals in Table 2, including Plimer (3 examples), Christy (1 example), Watts (2 examples) and Monckton (3 examples). Their table 2 is certainly not exhaustive in the cases of Plimer, Watts and Monckton, and is from my experience not exhaustive as to individuals demonstrating this sort of incoherence.
Further, they argue that even if the incoherence were within the group, but not within particular individuals, "...there are several reasons why this would not be reflective of “healthy debate” or “scientific diversity”". They go on:
"First, as we noted at the outset, science strives for coherence (e.g., Douglas 2013; Laudan 1984; Roche 2014; Thagard 2012) and there is little room for incoherent theories in science (and any incoherence contains within it an impetus for reconciliation). ... It follows that if climate denial were to constitute scientific reasoning—as is its purported purpose (e.g., Solomon 2008)—then it would exhibit coherence notwithstanding the presence of multiple agents and actors. The fact that it fails to achieve this and that incoherence is manifest at the aggregate (Table 1) as well as at the individual level (Table 2) leaves little doubt about the non-scientific nature of denial.
Second, the theoretical coherence of consensual climate science does not prevent robust debate. ... No such corrective processes can be observed in denialist discourse which focuses entirely on its opposition to mainstream science and does not entail any debate among the incoherent positions we have revealed in this article.
The absence of any corrective resolution process among climate contrarians raises the question to what extent incoherence is perceived or recognized as a problem by people who hold contrarian views. This question is difficult to answer with any degree of certainty, although one can attempt to make an inference by examining the “revealed preferences” (cf. Beshears et al. 2008) of contrarians. In the context of climate change, one way in which preferences might be revealed is by the willingness to incur financial risks to back one’s position in a bet. Bets have a long history as a tool to reveal people’s preferences.
...
It is notable that although contrarians readily claim that the Earth will be cooling in the future, most are unwilling to bet on their stated position (Annan 2005). ... The unwillingness to bet is thus indicative of the over-arching rationality of denial, notwithstanding its argumentative incoherence and non-scientific nature."
Obviously you should read the full text in the original rather than my quote alone, as I have ellided much of the text for brevity.
For myself, I have often noted within the "skeptical" community a tendency by individuals to comment appreciatively on any claim purported to refute AGW, even when such claims contradict the favoured theory of the individual. That indicates fairly clearly to me that the purpose of the theories advanced is not to vindicate those theories, but to "refute" AGW. If in fact the proponents of the diverse theories of AGW denial were primarilly motivated by the science, those who thought warming was caused by the rise in GHG, but that climate sensitivity was low would have as much of a problem with those who thought the warming was primarilly due to the Sun as do proponents of AGW, and similarly with those who thought the recent temperature increase was due to the PDO or AMO. Instead, there behaviour clearly indicates that they reject AGW, and will give a favourable reception to almost any theory that similarly rejects AGW, even when that theory is as incoherent with, or more inchorent with their own theory than it is with AGW. (This might be considered an aspect of the authors second point quoted above, but I think it is different.)
All that said, there are two fuzzy divides within the AGW denial community. First, there is that between those who reject the possibility of an enhanced greenhouse effect altogether, and those who do not. This is illustrated by another of Anthony Watts incoherences, for while he rejects the label "denier" as applied to himself as being a deliberate, and odious moral comparison with holocaust deniers (rather than an indication that his doubt is based on pseudoscience), he is happy to call the "dragon slayers", ie, those deniers who reject an enhanced greenhouse effect entirely deniers). The weaker barrier is between deniers who reject any possibility of AGW being either significant or harmful, and those who merely insist it will be moderate (ie, that the mean Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity lies between 1 and 3 C, and that increased damage with increased GMST is low). These categories are fuzzy because not all deniers accept that one or either category represents a significant division in the community, and because a number of those in the second category deliberately misrepresent their position by labelling it as belonging to the third category. It should be noted in passing that not all members of the third category, the "luke warmers" are in fact deniers, ie, those whose rejection of AGW shows the hallmarks of pseudoscience.
Prev 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 Next
