Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 Next
Comments 23801 to 23850:
-
BBHY at 21:10 PM on 4 July 2016The War on Science will change how you see the world
What bothers me the most is that they try to paint science as the same thing as religion and a large number of people, and most of the media, never question that.
Science is basically the opposite of religion. Religion is based on faith, and requires no objective evidence. Science eschews faith and is based enitrely on objective evidence.
The fact that this is not obvious to most people is a huge failure of our educational system. Kids from grade 5 or 6 on should fully understand this difference, let alone adults.
-
Paul D at 16:39 PM on 4 July 2016The War on Science will change how you see the world
The issue is whether a science subject is profitable or not.
Genetic Modification is seen as profitable and it is all about control of the environment, hence it gets the thumbs up. Climate change is seen as disruptive and largely as costly to us all, so it gets the thumbs down.
Remember that ideology drives what science is acceptable. Why would a political ideologist and activist accept a science that would mean they would have to change their ideology or activity? -
One Planet Only Forever at 14:26 PM on 4 July 2016The War on Science will change how you see the world
scaddenp@6
Many people may be responding in the way you describe but they are motivated into that way of thinking by influential messages from people who abuse their understanding of how to influence such easily impressed people to get what they want (the pros change their messaging based on data evaluation of the response they get - science of marketing).
And the people who respond to such appeals are a symptom of the real problem. The real problem is the people who deliberately abuse better understanding to gain unjustifiable personal advantage rather than trying to advance humanity to a better future. They love science that will benefit them.
Political Science and Business Science (particularly marketing) that promote the understandably damaging economic status-quo are conspicuously free from having a war on science waged against them.
-
nigelj at 11:36 AM on 4 July 2016The War on Science will change how you see the world
OPOF @ 4.
Agree with your reasons why science is being attacked, but it has unfortunately spilled over into a more general attack.
The war on science is mostly coming from people with vested interests. They have some financial interest (and as you say may partly know this is not an entirely ethical interest) and the science threatens their interests. The science may also threaten their world view, or prejudices, etc. As a result they may extend their response to a sweeping attack on all science, to strengthen their case.
The attack is indeed on the idea that "you use data to change your mind" but the attack is only happening because of pre existing vested interests. It is not an attack on scientific method just for the sake of it.
Science has challenged ideas about creationism, and homosexuality (by suggesting its largely genetic), and has suggested we are degrading the environment. That challenges a lot of vested interersts or cherished beliefs.
Science, or "evidence based thinking" also challenges dubious politics, or foreign affairs exploits, and whether very liberal gun ownership is a good thing. In fact evidence based thinking challenges both sides of the gun debate!
With so many things recently science in general has thus come under attack.
-
scaddenp at 10:10 AM on 4 July 2016The War on Science will change how you see the world
OPF - I am inclined to disagree. The fight is actually against the very idea of science - that you use data to change your mind. Obviously no one objects to data that doesnt conflicts with wishes/ideology/values. However, we are increasing seeing an attacks on science when there is a conflict, especially when it generates value conflicts since scientists themselves have values too. There is no acceptence of hypothesis evaluation by data in these and so in fact a rejection of scientific method.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:06 AM on 4 July 2016The War on Science will change how you see the world
It is important to clarify that the fighting is not against any and all Science.
Science can be described as the development of better understanding of what is going on through observation and experimentation (and as such must exclude Spirituality which is a relevant area of thought that cannot be observed or experimented upon).
What is going on is some people are fighting against raised public awareness and understanding of certain types or areas of developing better understanding.
The fight against certain areas of better understanding is done by people who get away with becoming wealthy or powerful through actions they come to understand, or always knew, are not justifiable sustainable improvements of global humanity. They then need to fight against the deserved end of their developed method of acquiring wealth and power.
However, to be fair, many of those people love to abuse a development of specific better understanding that would allow them to temporarily personally gather more wealth and power such as a new drug that can make lots of money before its negative consequences are understood.
So it is not fair to say they are fighting against all science. In fact, the science of marketing and the ability to create popular support through careful marketing message creation and delivery is a favorite of those people.
So it is no a "War on Science". It is a fight by people who have developed undeserved perceptions of prosperity, wealth and power against any increased awareness and understanding that is contrary to their interests.
A good example of this distinction is the recent Conservative government of Canada. They did not dislike all science. They redirected government funding to areas of research and reporting (message development and dissemination) that they believed would be beneficial for the interests of the likes of them. They also deliberately reduced funding for areas of research that could be contrary to their interests or tried to carefully control the reporting of the results of such research (refer to "The War on Science: Muzzled Scientists and Wilful Blindness in Stephen Harper’s Canada" by Chris Turner).
-
scot at 03:58 AM on 4 July 2016Development banks threaten to unleash an infrastructure tsunami on the environment
'... as natur bats last!'
In fact, 'Nature' has done very well since nearly 4 billion years, as it has not just survived, but thrived despite extremely hazardous conditions. It will be just fine without our protection.
More important is how we will do in the long run with the changes to the environment that are happening as natural consequences of the changes we make to the environment.Plenty food and drink is available in the supermarket, fresh air comes through the window, clean water comes out of the faucet, electricity out of the wall, and for all other things we simply go to strip mall. How may this change as a natural consequence of how we treat our natural environment?
Looks like we are all in for finding out the hard way. Though, it seems that quite a few who are smarter than that and can, already are heading and securing for themselves the high ground instead of at least tying to help fighting the fire, while lucky others still remain in deep sleep. -
chriskoz at 19:55 PM on 3 July 2016The inter-generational theft of Brexit and climate change
Haze@36,
"Britons never never never shall be slaves" resonate with many Britons even of today, particularly the elderly.
While this and all your analysis may be reasonable, it's also accurate to say that the world has moved on long way since those centuries ago when britain was an imperium and rest of the world their "slaves". In today's highly globalised economy, national diversity domestically, and big global companies internationally, play more and more important role. National snobism as you describe, will be not just jingoistic annoyance but simply a thing of the past on few years. Just as slavery became thing of the past over a century ago.
If some brits voted leave because they support this anachronic attitude (likely other factors e.g. disappointment with current govs were more at play IMO), they already came to realise their mistake, hence we've got Bregret now.
I have few brit friends here in Australia. All of them, expats like you, but do not share your view. They are actually shocked by the silly outcome of that referendum and saying that britain stepped into a big mess that they despise. They supported and voted Bremain. And these are people aged 40-50+, therefore not "young" as defined by Brexit demographics, but their view closely resembling their "young" domestic counterparts. Admitedly, my friends are not a representative population sample but still a good sample of brit expats in OZ.
-
braintic at 02:44 AM on 3 July 20161934 - hottest year on record
This video shows how temperatures of the 2010s compare to those of the 1930s in the US. The hot area of the 1930s is clearly limited to a small band, with most of the US being warmer now. It also applies mainly to daily maximum temperatures, with daily minimums being higher now in the vast majority of the US:
-
ubrew12 at 02:12 AM on 3 July 2016The War on Science will change how you see the world
Article: "Over the... next forty years... science is poised to create more knowledge than... in all of recorded history... democracy is facing an existential challenge" Indeed, if, as seems possible, China heads up many of these scientific advances and leads in Climate remediation, she could triumphantly claim 'who needs Democracy?', and others around the World might listen.
-
John Hartz at 23:56 PM on 2 July 2016The War on Science will change how you see the world
Recommended supplemental reading:
The GOP’s Denial of Science Primed Them for the Illogic of Trump by Phil Plait, Bad Astronomy, Slate, June 30, 2016
-
Haze at 21:55 PM on 2 July 2016The inter-generational theft of Brexit and climate change
Tom Curtis@ 3. Your last para suggestrs you do not understand the English who in large part are responsible for the reuslt of the referendum, a result that I personally deplore. Unlike the citizens of the US, Australia, New Zealand and (probably) Canada, Ehnglish citizens live in a society with traditions going back to at least 1066, some 950 years. This is greater than the sum total of the history of the US, Australia, New ZeaLnd and (probably) Canada. The current way of life in these countries is largely due to the Brtish. You also don't understand that the English are conscious that they are the descendants of men and women who forged the largest and one of the greatest empires the world has ever seen, A country that essentially made the modern world. Think of the rule of law, habeas corpus, liberalism, civil rights and that has a very proud military history (at least till the end of the second world war). Although deplorably jingoistic, the words in Rule Britannia "Britons never never never shall be slaves" resonate with many Britons even of today, particularly the elderly. Many Britons consider the EU taken away the right of Britons to govern themselves and in so doing has trespassed on the independence so dear to many Britons. And as for the comaliants of the young, if they cannot be bothered to vote and 64% couldn't, it is entirely their own fault that the outcome of the referendum is not as they would like. I doubyt many Australians would be impressed by a Britobn pontificating on Australia and similarly I doubt any Briton wrelishes an Australian pontificating on the UK
-
nigelj at 09:04 AM on 2 July 2016The War on Science will change how you see the world
I will be buying a copy of this book. I agree with your comments about post modern ideas about alternative sources of "truth" and how bizarre this is, and the resulting fake balance issues in the media especially on climate change.
Another issue is science expertise in the mass media, or the lack of this in some cases. By mass media I mean traditional newspapers and television, not websites like this. In the past the mass media, such as newspapers seemed to have science editors and quite decent science articles. I have noticed this has fallen away recently, and wonder if competition between the internet and traditional media has eroded traditional media, and people employed with some science expertise have been the first casualties of job cuts.
Of course there are excellent science based websites like this one, however most people don’t have huge time to read and get their overall impression from news articles on television or in the newspaper. I'm not sure what the answer is, other than to implore all media outlets to have some qualified science writers of repute, and having respect for mainstream science positions. It would also be great if the mass media was better aware of specialist websites like this, and referenced them more often.
Another issue is we may be a victim of our own success. Science has delivered a prosperity some people take for granted, and now feel free to indulge in their anti science conspiracy theories when it suits. They are in effect biting the hand that feeds.
Certain people also seem able to achieve the mental feat of believing in both science and creationism, and I just don’t know how they do this.
Of course we also have this attack on science from various ideologically driven groups. Ideology is about belief, and science is about evidence, and they make for uncomfortable bed fellows.
The attacks on science from groups with vested interests, or religious or political ideologies is quite vicious.
Conservative think tanks are not always friendly towards science, although doubtless some liberal ones may not be either. However the more interesting thing is what drives this. Make no mistake these bodies wield a pervasive power beyond their apparent size. Maybe the drive in recent decades towards belief in "free markets" and the private sector has created the environment that generates powerful and well funded behind the scenes lobby groups and policy foundations that become in turn quite driven by their own need to exist and prosper, the same criticism that has been made of government bureaucracies!
However the bottom line is these attacks on science are rarely soundly based, and are driven by vested interests, ignorance and fear in many cases.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 22:01 PM on 1 July 2016After 6 years of working on climate at Harvard, I implore it to show the courage to divest
Divestment isn't a powerful tool, but for those organisations there may be few other tools. But it shouldn't be underestimated either.
On the basis of 'pure fundamentals' divestment counts for little - someone else will buy them. But markets are seldom 'pure fundamentals'. Because many markets are not about the economics of the businesses traded in the market. They are about the sentiments of the people doing the trading.
And divestment acts strongly here. 'This stock is being sold because of sentiment' translates into 'Oh my God, sentiment is shifting... time to get out before I get burned by the impacts of other peoples sentiments'.
Markets aren't rational, they are emotional. And symbolism exists to manipulate emotion. -
scaddenp at 20:27 PM on 1 July 2016After 6 years of working on climate at Harvard, I implore it to show the courage to divest
But oil companies aren't offering shares. Buying existing shares puts no money into fossil fuel extraction. It shows your institution can recognize that the companies will making a profit. If enough people divested to undervalue those shares, then you just make management buyout profitable. In some industries, divestment would be powerful but I am blowed to see what it achieves in oil.
To my mind it is just a feel good option, and bad news if people do this instead of something effective.
-
ColabMaster at 16:57 PM on 1 July 2016After 6 years of working on climate at Harvard, I implore it to show the courage to divest
Divestment is critical, the alternative is investment. If you or your organisation is a shareholder in a specific business or industry for which you produce research, then this can be considered a "conflict of interest". If Harvard produces scientific research on Climate Change, and Climate Change is clearly caused by the Oil and Coal industry, then having investments in such an industry could make Harvard hold back, over simplify and more. Divestment says "I refuse to opperate with a conflict of interest", or "Not in our name". Divestment proves you are reading your own publications Harvard, it proves your own papers have merit otherwise you apear to be a joke.
-
Ger at 14:17 PM on 1 July 2016After 6 years of working on climate at Harvard, I implore it to show the courage to divest
If you do not want to divest as a university, but make a change, advise/force to change to other renewable, sustainable feedstock. Bio-crudes from fast pyrolisis for example. Sureley a university has the intelligence and research capabilities to provide knowledge on technology and supply chain issues for retrieving the feedstock.
-
Pointfisha at 13:29 PM on 1 July 2016Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
It's a bit of rhetorical sleight of hand to appeal to the carbon cycle in order to claim that human breath is neutral, since the factor that should be taken into account is that human consumption negates the collection of carbon performed by those plants that are used for food, in addition to deforestation for conversion into agriculture. The impact of human consumption and breathing is that the sink that would naturally be functioning ceases to operate when human consumers are eating it. That biomass (now negated through its function as food) is precisely the kind of sink that stripped atmospheric carbon long ago and created the fossil fuel deposits, which are currently being liberated through human activity back into the atmosphere.
Moderator Response:[PS] Changes/carbon loss from vegetation change is accounted for under "Land Use Change".
-
chriskoz at 12:47 PM on 1 July 2016Discovery exposes fragility of Antarctica’s Larsen C ice shelf
To put the Hubbard's numbers into perspective, one must know the thickness of the iceshlf itself. A number which is very obvious to Hubbard himself having lived there for years, but not obvious to outsiders.
Wikipedia lists iceshlf thickness around the world as varying from 100m to 1000m https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_shelf
Surviving Larsen shelves appear to be around 220m (parhaps 200m to 300m) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larsen_Ice_Shelf.
So "a 100m-thick river of ice" appears to be up to scale on the last figure, occupying roughly upper half of Larsen C shelf.
-
scaddenp at 11:58 AM on 1 July 2016After 6 years of working on climate at Harvard, I implore it to show the courage to divest
Well I am with William on this one. Divestment might be worthwhile in coal but in oil? Any big oil company really needing to go to market or banks to raise capital? Since oil still pays nice dividends, then if market undervalues, management buys and does very nicely. If you want to hurt oil companies (and do the climate a favour into the bargain), then get off the plane and out of the auto.
If demand dries, then disinvestment makes good investor sense as well, but until then...
-
Dave2042 at 10:13 AM on 1 July 2016After 6 years of working on climate at Harvard, I implore it to show the courage to divest
William. You are missing two points.
First, companies frequently raise additional capital, for example to expand their business. They do this either by issuing new shares (this is largely the reason you bother to list on an exchange), or issuing debt. The price of new debt or equity is significantly affected by the current share price. In the case of raising equity, it is almost entirely set by the share price; in the case of debt it is more complex, but the share price, which signals the overall value of the business is still a very fundamental driver. So a falling share price can completely undermine this process.
Secondly, senior executives typically get much or even most of their remuneration either in shares, or in a form linked to the share price. A falling share price is a disaster for them, and so share price is a huge driver of their behaviour.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:04 AM on 1 July 2016The inter-generational theft of Brexit and climate change
william @33, I would have thought that the older generation, having lived through the periods of dominance of Pol Pot, Francisco Franco, Fidel Castro, General Suharto, Mao Zedong, Augusto Pinochet etc, would know very well that the EU is not a dictatorship. They should probably recognize that government by a commission appointed by an indirectly group of indirectly elected officials, and subject to the veto of a directly elected parliament is arguably more democratic than the US (where the President is indirectly elected, and appoints his "cabinet" without possibility of veto by Congress). It is not greatly different from the process in Brittain itself where the Prime Minister is indirectly elected from among the membership of a directly elected body, and where his cabinet need not be elected officials themselves (they may be members of the House of Lords), but can be vetoed by a directly elected body. The EU, like the US, and Britain and Australia is imperfectly democratic, but democratic none-the-less.
I would also have hoped the older generation would have had the sense to realize that the concerns afflicting them are shared by US citizens, Australians, New Zealanders and (probably) Candadians and therefore that the problem does not lie in EU membership.
I guess they are about to learn that the hard way.
-
scaddenp at 08:31 AM on 1 July 2016The inter-generational theft of Brexit and climate change
That simply sounds like rhetoric to me. Which acts by an unelected officials in the EU do you blame for the current situation?
I might also ask did they destroy unionism? Did they lower the taxes? However, I am more interested in what you perceive to be the answer to first question.
"They want out of the dictatorship by a few non elected commissioners which is the EU and which America finds much more easy to control and influence than 28 individual democracies." That sounds like conspiracy theorist territory. What is the evidence that convinces you of this?
If Brexit results in real improvement for lower classes in Britain, then I will delighted - and extremely surprized. Worst protest vote ever in UK is my guess.
-
william5331 at 08:13 AM on 1 July 2016The inter-generational theft of Brexit and climate change
I reject this constant theme that the greedy older generation voted for Brexit while the virtuous younger generation wanted to stay. The older amongst us have experienced the decline of democracy and the rise of neoliberalism (read Laisse Faire) and globilization in which massive international corporation, primarily out of America can do what they want and devil take the rest of us. They want out of the dictatorship by a few non elected commissioners which is the EU and which America finds much more easy to control and influence than 28 individual democracies. The young are seduced by the baubles that come from being in the EU and don't have the experience or vision to realize what is happening in the world and its likely consequensis. We have only had some reasonable senblance of democracy in the western world since the new deal by FDR. Before that there was a knock down drag out fight to achieve some semblance of justice for all. We are now on the way down agian and the Brexit vote, as much as anything, was a vote against this slide back into a neofeudalism.
-
william5331 at 07:57 AM on 1 July 2016After 6 years of working on climate at Harvard, I implore it to show the courage to divest
I;m no economist as will be immediately apparent but I fail to see how divestment helps. Surly you divest by selling your shares to someone else. If you are a big share holder, this may push the price of your shares down and someone else, potentially gets a bargain. If you decide simply to burn your shares, then the rest of the shares outstanding go up in value. Money only goes to the company when they issue their shares. After that, they are bought and sold by third parties (and can be bought back by the company in some cases) so how does this effect the coal companies.
-
chriskoz at 07:36 AM on 1 July 2016After 6 years of working on climate at Harvard, I implore it to show the courage to divest
ubrew12@5,
I upvoted your post because you found the right time and the right context (this thread) to use Holocaust and all-upcasing (coment policy not withstanding in this case I hope mods agree). Thank you. Usually, those who resort to such arguments in their disussion, are losers. You're the winner. End of discussion in both cases.
I can only second that silence about AGW mitigation is still overwhelming as we speak. E.g. in AUS federal election, to be held tomorrow. Malcolm Turnball, the ruling party (NLP) leader who is given an edge to win by pundits, has not spoken at once about AGW during his campain, in fact during his entire prime ministership. Despite being an outspoken proponent of carbon price while he was an opposition leader.
The Greens are obviously vocal about AGW. So is the opposition party (ALP), but I wonder if they continue doing so if elected tomorrow. How could it be, that all people, once elected to govern, become universally silent? No matter where it be, in state gov or in universities?
-
Tom Curtis at 06:04 AM on 1 July 2016Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
Mike Hillis @200, for what it is worth, 5.77 to 56.58 microns represents a band containing 95% of IR emissions at 288 K, with approximately symetrical quantities of excluded emissions in each tail, so it is probably closer to what you are looking for. The right tail (in your graph at 200) cuts of at a much lower point in the y-axis than does the left tail, but that is due to the truncated shape of the left tail curve requiring a lower instantanious radiative flux at the cut of to represent the same total radiative flux in the tail.
Regardless, for the purely technical point as to whether "the atmosphere is almost 100% transparent or largely transparent to a majority of upwelling wavelengths of IR", we only require a precise characterization as to what counts as an upwelling wavelength, and 6 to 30 microns is precise. It also represents a bandwidth of 24 microns compared to the 5 microns from 8-13 microns, that being the only band of IR radiation with >50% transmittance from surface to space within the 6-30 (or 5.77 to 56.58) micron band. Ergo for either definition, it is not true that "the atmosphere is almost 100% transparent or largely transparent to a majority of upwelling wavelengths of IR".
More substantially, nothing in this discussion has called into question Costa and Shine's estimate that the mean clear sky radiation from the surface to space is 66Wm^-2 and that the global mean all sky radiation from the surface to space is 20Wm^-2 (+/-20%), as discussed by MA Rodger @184. That is, only 28% of clear sky radiation to space directly from the surface, while only 8.5% averaged globally comes directly from the surface. The percentages are significantly smaller as a fraction of total surface emission.
-
John Hartz at 01:10 AM on 1 July 2016The inter-generational theft of Brexit and climate change
A humorous look at Brexit from across the pond…
A Bachelor Named Britain, Looking for Love, Op-ed by Frank Bruni, New York Times, June 29, 2016
-
denisaf at 21:46 PM on 30 June 2016Chatham House: Brexit could harm UK climate and energy policy
This discussion of 'energy' and 'climate change' is misleading as it is really dealing with systems made of irreplaceable materials supplying only electrical energy for the operation of some of the infrastructure. These systems cannot supply alternative forms of liquid fuels required by the fleets of ships and aircraft. And climate change is only one consequence of greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel usage. Ocean acidifcation and warming is another deleterious consequence
-
MA Rodger at 20:48 PM on 30 June 2016Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
Mike Hillis @200.
Your chart is a very bad choice and your interpretaion of it is exceedingly poor. Indeed, you are giving a very good impression of somebody well out of his depth.
The contention you make @195 is "Upwelling radiation below 6 and above 30, for the purposes of a discussion about the Earth's greenhouse effect and the absorbtion of IR by its atmosphere, is trivial."
The AGW discussion about the Earth's greenhouse effect is greatly concerned with an effect that will hopefully remain well below 1% of global energy flows. I appreciate that you comments here @SkS strongly suggest you have problems with the concerns others have with AGW but this is SkS and the goal of SkS is to explain what peer reviewed science has to say about AGW. Thus I would suggest that if you want to talk of some part of the planet's energy balance being "trivial," you bear in mind where you are and frame your argument accordingly.
The chart you present @200 does not well characterise your contended position. Why the two limits 30 microns & 6 microns? They are even strongly asymetric on the chart you chose to present. I feel you are but struggling to defend your statement @181 "Earth doesn't even emit 4 microns" and @190/91 "As for the gish gallop of whether Earth radiates 4 microns:- it doesn't." This was ever a hiding-to-nothing for you. Even the graphic you present @191 to defend your indefensible position graphs the "upwelling" emissions down to 2.5 microns. You were wrong. Get over it.
You latest chart is a very strange choice. Its origins are as Figure 1 on this webpage. Note that the discussion there for which that Fig 1 is presented is all about solar radiation. It is not about the earth's surface radiation, the "upwelling" stuff withinin your contention and so it is entirely wrong to start waving its Fig 1 as being an authority on that "upwelling" radiation. Mind, that image has spread across the interweb and been used for various purposes, not all of which are well advised. The "upwelling" radiation profile in that graphic is no more than schematic. And obviously so. Note how the peak radation level is at 10 microns. You present this graphic as your authoritative evidence but you grossly misrepresent it. Indeed, I am puzzled as to why you feel the need to source your own graphical representation of the "upwelling" radiation when this comment thread is stacked high with such graphics.
-
sidd at 15:19 PM on 30 June 2016The inter-generational theft of Brexit and climate change
"Who will they blame when out of EU?"Precisely. They already blame their own government. And they have already forced a breakup of both Tory and Labour. Which is more than happened in a long while.
The Very Important People are speaking in a way that reminds me of the quote: "The people have spoken, the bastards."
-
scaddenp at 14:56 PM on 30 June 2016The inter-generational theft of Brexit and climate change
An example of the perception that societies evils can be blamed on EU even when exactly same thing is happening in countries that are not part of EU. Who will they blame when out of EU? Post war, the top tax rate was 92%. Both top and basic rates have dropped steadily since then. That part of equation is nothing to do with EU, nor was quashing the unions.
-
sidd at 14:38 PM on 30 June 2016The inter-generational theft of Brexit and climate change
Let me add, with the moderators's permission, an anecdote. I spoke to an older person, born in the fifties, lived thru postwar UK rationing, the down years, and the up years after North Sea petro and gas, and voted to join Common Market in 1975."We voted to join in '75 because we thought things would get better. We got screwed for forty years, and the rich got all the money. The kids haven't lived through that, they think if they go along they'll get rich. Well, I tell them that all they will get is another forty years of getting screwed. No more, I'm voting out."
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 14:18 PM on 30 June 2016Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
Mike
Finally, contrast this run, again with the Cumulus cloud model looking down from 4 km with the clear sky 4 km lookdown graph above. The presence of the clouds wipes out all structure from below, absorbs everything including in the Atmospheric Window (N-band) and forces emissions across the spectrum to a lower value. The model sets the cloudtops at 2.7 km.
A lot of stuff happens below the height of Mauna Kea. And since the average altitude of all land is around 850 meters, biasing your thinking around what happens above 4000 metres is missing a hell of a lot of detail.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 13:56 PM on 30 June 2016Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
Summary.
Total decline in radiative flux between the surface and 70 km - (360.472 - 259.961) = 100.511 W/M2Around 48% of this occurs within the first 4 km, below the height of Mauna Kea!
Another 32% occurs from 4 to 8 km, only partly due to water vapour.
The remaining 30% occurs from 8 km up.
Then adding clouds adds a further 37 W/M2 of reduction.
And a note about how jagged the curve becomes as we ascend. We are seeing the declining impact of line broadening. At lower altitudes the individual absorption lines are smeared out over each other producing more even absorption/emission. At higher altitudes we start to see the individal spectral lines standing out more distinctly. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 13:44 PM on 30 June 2016Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
Mike, your comment about Mauna Kea which is just over 4000 meters high.
Stop and consider what one would see if you were to look down from that altitude. Here are a series of emission spectra, calculated using Modtran with different lookdown altitudes starting at zero - the surface. All graphs are using US Standard Atmosphere, surface temperature of 288.2 K, clear sky, 400 ppm CO2, 1.7 ppm CH4, 40 ppb Tropospheric O3, standard values for atmospheric water and Stratospheric O3.As you go up in level you are seeing the impact of the levels below. When one part of the graph doesn't change between one level and the next, then the atmosphere has become transparent at that wavenumber. Also note the total upwards radiatave flux and how it declines with altitude.
This is the surface. Flux is 360.472 W/m2. It follows the Planck Curve for 288.2K
Next 1 km up, looking down. Flux has dropped to 351.994 Some small declines across the water bands, slightly larger effect from the CO2 band. Atmospheric window unchanged.
Next 2 km. Flux is now 337.55. More activity from water and CO2.
Next is 4km. Flux now 312.242 W/m2. The CO2 notch becoming more pronounced, Also the water regions are becoming more jagged. I will dscuss this later.
We have only just reched the altitude of Mauna Kea and activity from below has alreaady reduced the flux compared to the surface by around 48 W/m2. This much has happened before we even consider looking up.
Next, 8km. Now in the upper troposphere. Flux is now 279.146. CO2 notch very prominent. Around 32 W/m2 decline in flux over the second 4 km contrasted with 48 W/M2 in the first 4 km. Reduced change from the water vapour regions nearere the CO2 regions, but still change below 450 and above 1350 cm-1.
Next 16 km up. Now we are into the lower Stratosphere. Flux is now 261.782 W/M2. Only around 17.5 W/M2 change over the last 8 km vs around 71 W/M2 in the first 8 km. Essentially no change in any of the water bands above 450 cm-1. Water is only contributing more below 450 cm-1. where it is a stronger absorber. The atmosphere is now quite dry. CO2 is still contributing significantly and the Ozone notch due to statospheric Ozone has kicked in.
Next, 32 km looking down. Now in the upper Stratosphere where air temperatures are starting to rise. Flux is now 258.924. Only a small contribution now, mainly from Ozone. Notice the small spike visible at the bottom of the CO2 notch, and that the bottom of the notch is no longer below the 220 K Plamck curve but actuall is sitting on it. The CO2 band is actually radiating slightly more. This is originating from the warmer upper stratosphere.
Next, 70 km looking down. Flux is now 259.961. Flux has actually increased slightly. Ozone hasn't contributed any more but the CO2 notch is now sitting a little above the 220K planck line and the central spike is higher. CO2 is adding slightly to emissions above the 32 km level.
Finally, the same 70 km lookdown height, but with a cumulus cloud model added. Flux is now down to 222.909, 37 W/M2 lower! And we can see visibly reduced emissions across the water and atmospheric window regions from 450 to 1350 cm-1.
-
ubrew12 at 12:54 PM on 30 June 2016After 6 years of working on climate at Harvard, I implore it to show the courage to divest
The puzzling silence that greets the overwhelming 'now-ness' of climate action reminds me of how the World reacted to the Jewish Holocaust during WWII. We know. We KNOW, there is no way history will forgive us for our cowardice. We just can't seem to believe this heroism is demanded of us now, here in our present lives. The rude reality presses too harshly upon the well-constructed orderliness of our ordinary lives. The Great Barrier Reef may die, in some obscure corner of Earth's dark, mystifying ocean. But the Reef in our Disney-fied 'Dory-minds' lives on and on. It can no more be extinguished than can our Spirits; indeed, do not suggest otherwise with the intrusion of mere reality. I will sacrifice the World before I sacrifice my spiritual optimism.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 12:49 PM on 30 June 2016Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
Mike
15% outside 6-30 isn't trivial in my book. -
nigelj at 11:48 AM on 30 June 2016The inter-generational theft of Brexit and climate change
Scaddenp @27
I'm not saying a closed market helps wealth distribution. Read my comment at 20 above. Pulling out of the EU is unlikely to help with wealth redistribution and its a thing purely for British government policy. The EU dont control tax rates or wealth distribution.
I don't think totally free markets in labour have many gains for economic growth, and they certainly have down sides. Britain will probably actually have much the same immigration rates anyway, out of the EU, but may screen individuals a bit more. I go with reasonably free flowing immigration, but with some controls to knock off the rough edges. -
Mike Hillis at 11:22 AM on 30 June 2016Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
Yes, below 6 um and above 30 are trivial:
Now back to Venus
-
scaddenp at 10:17 AM on 30 June 2016The inter-generational theft of Brexit and climate change
I repeat - how is going to a closed market supposed to help that problem with wealth distribution? I would expect the EU to give favourable access to manufactured products from Britain in return for same access to British market because it exports to UK far more than it imports (by factor of 3 I think). However, the UK labour market will be more expensive without free movement so I would expect competitiveness to decline. Dont expect any favours on the financial services market however where UK runs a healthy surplus. And, yes, I expect them to get ugly. After Farage's speech to EU, I dont think anyone in EU will be rushing to do any favours.
-
wili at 10:07 AM on 30 June 2016After 6 years of working on climate at Harvard, I implore it to show the courage to divest
"if our children look back to how we failed them, it will not have been for lack of scientific understanding or even technological prowess; it will have been due, fundamentally, to cowardice. A profound cowardice among those who actually do have a choice in this matter, a cowardice that confuses arrogance with intelligence, pettiness with importance, and, most fatally, comfort with necessity. "
Thank you. Very well put.
-
nigelj at 09:28 AM on 30 June 2016The inter-generational theft of Brexit and climate change
Scaddenp @ 24
It's hard to know what impact leaving the EU would have on gdp growth in Britain. During the 1960s there were big reductions in tariffs across many products, if you were part of the EU, so this probably helped growth to some extent.
Now its all quite different. Britain mostly exports manufactured products and services and tariffs on these are quite low even for countries outside the EU completely. There are high tariffs on basic commodities and farming, but Britain is not a big exporter of farming products, so leaving the EU may not have much impact on growth longer term. It will however hurt in the shorter to medium term due to all the uncertainty.
However the EU could decide to play "hardball" and place various new and specific restrictions just on British exports, and things could get ugly.
-
nigelj at 09:13 AM on 30 June 2016The inter-generational theft of Brexit and climate change
Scaddenp @ 23
I never mentioned job losses. As you say there are various reasons for this however its interesting to read recent IMF research. The prediction was that globalisation would displace manufacturing jobs in western countries and they would move to higher earning services jobs. The simple fact is this hasn't happened. The Economists got it wrong.
So I can only repeat since the era of free trade and globalisation since the 1980s, the benefits have tended to go to the top 10% in western societies and lower skilled people have got none of the wage increases, despite measurable productivity increases. This is maybe partly offset by cheaper imported televisions, but I suggest not much.
I agree free trade has helped the poor in developing countries, but its impoverishing the poor in western countries. Child poverty is increasing in Britain. Something has to be done.
Agree with the second part of your post that Britain is chopping off a leg to fix a sore toe. Britain have a tendency to superiority, and think they will be able to get all the trade benefits, and shut out immigration. Somehow I suspect the EU will drive a much harder bargain! You can't thumb your nose at the EU, and expect them to be all nice in return!
-
chriskoz at 09:07 AM on 30 June 2016After 6 years of working on climate at Harvard, I implore it to show the courage to divest
Thanks Ben for your action. I agree Harvard policy of forcing "silence" on the issue does not make sense. They should not, and even cannot in principle, be stripped of their ordinary citizen's rights to protest and express their opinions.
Even though scientists are supposed to avoid the expression of private opinions in their work, they are not robots but human beings that havwe compassion to others and feel responsible for their actions. Therefore they are entitled to take actions, especially if policies so absurdly contradict themselves. It's time to create necessary support for such movement in all universities. Like trade union movement in factories, that supports workers' rights, unis are lacking simillar support for their scxientists.
-
RedBaron at 08:44 AM on 30 June 2016Alpine soils storing up to a third less carbon as summers warm
You can be skeptical you want Chriskoz, but this study is on the wrong biome and a different carbon pathway. It's meaningless, as is your arguments as to why you are skeptical as well. You are talking about labile carbon, which has a very tiny relative impact on soil carbon anyway. The pathway that has potential to actually be used by agriculture to sequester carbon long term deep in the soil profile is called "the liquid carbon pathway" ie photosynthesis-root exudates-micorrhyzal fungi- glomalin-humic polimers which bind tightly to the soil mineral base and last thousands of years or more if undisturbed. This is a defining property of grassland biomes and is what created the deep rich high carbon mollisols of the world.
http://amazingcarbon.com/PDF/JONES-LiquidCarbonPathway(AFJ-July08).pdf
-
chriskoz at 08:34 AM on 30 June 2016Alpine soils storing up to a third less carbon as summers warm
william@1,
Techniques such as no till agriculture put carbon back into the soil and if widely adopted, would start to suck carbon from the atmosphere
Although it sounds good, Im ' skeptical that much carbon can be sequestered thay way. It will find its way back to atmosphere in very short time because the two reservoirs are tightly coupled and ever-present microbial action tends to re-ballance any diturbance you create. Think about a model of two pools connected by a shallow, large diameter pipe. How much work do you need to do restrict the equilibrating flow in the pipe while you're trying to move water from one pool to anoher? And if your restriction starts leaking? Your efforts are going to waste.
-
RedBaron at 08:33 AM on 30 June 2016Alpine soils storing up to a third less carbon as summers warm
It really bothers me when articles like this show up. Not that they are false. It is well known and has been for many decades that forests, especially in warmer climates, are poor sequesterers of carbon in soil, and the carbon on the forest floor is labile carbon, not stable carbon. The vast majority of stable soil carbon is in grassland/savanna biomes as the grasses are what sequester a far larger % of the products of photosynthesis deep in the soil profile. So once again this whole line of inquiry is flawed before it even began, because it is the wrong biome.
-
scaddenp at 07:54 AM on 30 June 2016The inter-generational theft of Brexit and climate change
"We just dont know" I fear that UK is about to find out.
-
scaddenp at 07:36 AM on 30 June 2016The inter-generational theft of Brexit and climate change
Nigel - what makes you think unfair trade will trickle down any better? While there is undoubtedly job losses to Asia, this is often blamed when there are much bigger job losses to automation.
The "ordinary" people are actually driving outsourcing to a very big degree as preferring cheap consumer goods from Asia instead of expensive local products. On the plus side, free trade does wonders for lifting standards of living across developing world.
I agree that voters are lashing out at EU but to my mind they are chopping off a leg to fix a sore toe. I see in paper today that EU have reinforced message that there is not going to be access to market without free labour movement. It appears Brexiteers are still living in the alternate reality where they think they can kick out immigrants and retain trade.
I am also in NZ - far from Brexit effects thankfully, but I think UK has similar income support systems.
Prev 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 Next
