Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 Next
Comments 24401 to 24450:
-
denisaf at 17:21 PM on 15 April 2016It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming
This is one of those selective arguments that distract from consideration of the holistic problems that society will have to try to cope with. Climate disruption and ocean acidification is one predicament. Others are over population, declining availability of many natural crustal resources, fertile soil and potable water together with irrevocable aging of the infrastructure that society has become so dependent on as well as devastation of the environment and pollution of land, sea, air and us.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 15:49 PM on 15 April 2016After COP21: 7 Key Tasks to Implement the Paris Agreement
Digby Scorgie,
The burning of oil is what needs to be restricted. Making that specific action expensive is one way to achieve that required objective. A more important point is that light hydrocarbons like methane, ethane, and propane are better feedstock for making plastic. So burning natural gas is a poor action to address the CO2 problem. Not only does burning natural gas generate 50% as much CO2 as burning coal, which makes carbon capture and storage with coal burning better than natural gas burning without CCS, burning natural gas also burns up the best materials to make plastics from.
-
RedBaron at 14:20 PM on 15 April 2016It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming
Haze,
Yes you missed something. It was me not Digby Scorge that said that. Presumably that is where your confusion lies.
-
Haze at 14:03 PM on 15 April 2016It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming
Digby Scorge @21. My apologies if I have missed something but why in your reply do you say "That idea you have that mitigation necessarily requires upheaval in our way of life is not proven at all" Where, in what I have written at 18 and 20, do I say or even give the impresssion, that I have such an idea?
-
RedBaron at 12:31 PM on 15 April 2016It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming
Digby Scorgie,
That is my biggest problem with this whole controversy. That idea you have that mitigation necessarily requires upheaval in our way of life is not proven at all. Depends on the mitigation strategy taken. It can just as easily improve it even more. IMHO actually more likely to do that than anything.
-
Haze at 11:42 AM on 15 April 2016It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming
Digby Scorgie @19 Thanks for the response. Why however is there this significant disconnect between climate scientists and the general population? Surely it can't all be due to manipulation by the media as here in Australia the national broadcaster and the Fairfax press are very ardent advocates for the role humans play in climate change.
-
Digby Scorgie at 11:02 AM on 15 April 2016It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming
Haze @18
Climate change has become a political football because any attempt to avert dangerous warming would entail an upheaval in our way of life. To a lot of people this is anathema. Consequently they fight tooth and nail to sabotage all climate action.
-
Haze at 10:34 AM on 15 April 2016It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming
Why is this 97% or greater consensus not reflected in the attitudes of the wider community? Why is it that political persuasion has an effect on a scientific matter?
A recent survey, January 2016, in the US found that although 70% of Americans believe the climate is changing only, 27% of respondents agreed with the “overwhelming scientific consensus that human activity is the main cause of climate change”. (http://tinyurl.com/jn39kns)
There was a significant divide between Democrats and Republicans on the seriousness of climate change in that while 63% of the former saw climate change as a very serious matter only 18% of the latter held that view. The researchers noted that “the data exposes the extent to which this has become a partisan political issue in the U.S. rather than a scientific issue,”
Why is climate change viewed so differently by Republicans and Democrats? Why is there so much politicisation of climate change? It’s the same science and climate is no respecter of persons be they Democrats or Republicans. Is something rather out of kilter in this global debate?
-
Ikaika at 08:41 AM on 15 April 2016It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming
I understand the concept of suggesting a consensus, but I also think that it becomes an easy taget of attack for contrarians. I would prefer the use of 97% consilience of data to support AGW. This goes to the heart of scientist, who they are and more importantly what they do.
-
shoyemore at 07:43 AM on 15 April 2016It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming
Eclectic @15
Bart Verheggen blogs on climate change at My view on climate change
He has a post up on the paper discussed above: Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming
Excellent opportunity for you to pose your questions to him directly.
-
RedBaron at 06:04 AM on 15 April 2016More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
@rojojr #243
Not likely to be significant by itself, and very likely to be quickly offset by increased decomposistion and reduction of the O horizon of the soil profile as temperatures warm.
Now what you are talking about is possible via the liquid carbon pathway (LCP). But in today's world that requires careful management by us. It's not just going to happen by itself or by "natural" systems. Primarily because the biomes responcible for the LCP are too degraded to function in that respect. In fact, in my opinion that is 1/2 the problem to start with.
-
rojojr at 05:49 AM on 15 April 2016More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
Obviously there are a lot of "could" and "might" statements in the article. But one thing I have not seen is how much more c02 larger plants will remove from the atmosphere. That is assuming that as a whole, plants do grow larger. But if the earth does warm, growing seasons will increase as well which means the amount of time in a year that plants will be using c02 will increase as well. That will likely have a much greater effect at creating an equilibrium in c02 levels, possibly a decrease when combined with reduction of additional c02 from burning fossil fuels as we move toward renewable energy sources.
-
ubrew12 at 04:00 AM on 15 April 2016Open letter to the Wall Street Journal editor: a scientists’ response to Lomborg's misleading op-ed
As the planet warms, it also holds more water vapor. Dry cold air, held still next to the body, will warm rapidly to body temperature due to its low specific heat, but wet cold air will not: so you lose heat faster in wet air. So that works against Lomborg's argument 2 ("climate change will reduce the number of cold days").
-
Ian Forrester at 01:48 AM on 15 April 2016Open letter to the Wall Street Journal editor: a scientists’ response to Lomborg's misleading op-ed
Another factor which makes bacterial and viral diseases more prevalent in winter is the lower level of solar radiation. UV light is a very good sterilant but its effect is much reduced in winter so viruses and bacteria will hang around on surfaces much longer and be more readily transferred.
-
braintic at 00:11 AM on 15 April 2016Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Crask,
One doesn't need a degree to know that there is no god.
-
RedBaron at 23:22 PM on 14 April 2016You can’t rush the oceans (why CO2 emission rates matter)
Very good article, but you missed something very big and very critical. An estimated 695–748 Gt of stable carbon (stable humic substances) is held in the upper 100 cm of the world's soils. This is different than AND IN ADDITION TO the figure you used for the terrestrial biosphere of about 560 GtC, which is living biomass and about 50 GtC which is in flux (rapid decomposition) in the litter layer and about 1500 GtC in the "slow response" soil decompostion pool. The total soil pool is roughly around 2200 PgC +/-. But it matters very much which parts of that pool we are talking about and how they function. Breaking the soil pool down into the rapid responce, slow responce (taken together the active fraction) and stable fractions reveals an important understanding about both the causes and potential solutions to atmospheric CO2 rises. This is because the soil pools are currently highly degraded, but they can be rapidly restored.
Roughly 120 GtC/yr taken out of the atmosphere by terrestrial plant photosynthesis reduced by 60 GtC/yr plant respiration. An equivalent 60 GtC/yr is respired from soil, joining the 60GtC/yr plant respiration to return to the atmosphere. So we have a rough balance. This balance in the active fraction is very difficult to manipulate, because increasing biomass and thus plant photosynthesis is ultimately followed later by increased respiration, both from that increased plant biomass and also increased decomposition in the soil. This is often called the "saturation effect" However, increasing the rate at which stabilization by clay surfaces deep in the soil profile does not have this limitation due to the liquid carbon pathway (LCP).
I estimate approx 20 GtC/year +/- would be the maximum potential long term sequestration into the stable soil fraction via the LCP with a massive ecosystem restoration and change in agriculture. That's roughly 30% of 1/2 the 120 GtC/yr taken out of the atmosphere by terrestrial plants. Some people actually estimate its potential much higher.
So actually to properly restore our soils, we will need that ocean outgassing to happen. Without it, the atmosphere would rapidly loose CO2 thus reducing photosynthesis efficiency long before our soils are restored worldwide.
-
Eclectic at 22:22 PM on 14 April 2016It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming
If I may be permitted to expand on the Dutch "Environmental Assessment Agency" survey ~ linked to by Tom Curtis @9 [and first raised by Alfalfa] :-
I'm not quite sure of how it is named : possibly "Strengers, Verheggen & Vringer, 2015" . (Published by the Netherlands agency)
It is based on a survey in early 2012 of opinions, requested of a select 6550 persons of whom "around 200" were chosen because of their known contrarian position against the scientific (climate) consensus. There were more than a dozen questions, regarding attribution etc of global warming (if any).
Of the 6550 invitees, there were 29% actual respondents (though down to 24% on some of the subsequent, more detailed questions). The survey authors claim that the known contrarians only constituted around 5% of respondents . . . possibly they mean 1/20th of the 29% .
On the basic question of attribution, the large majority of respondents indicated that 50% to 100+% of global warming since mid-20th century was caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Around 12% opined that up to 50% was from GHG's (of whom a subgroup 7% opined 0-25% GHG attribution).
*** This is a very different picture of scientific opinion, to what Alfalfa/Breitbart were publicizing.
The other remarkable aspect, is the selection process for "invitees" to the survey. The authors mentioned that the names selected for survey, were based variously on an (overlapping) basis of 500 from recent science literature; 2000 from a climate science database; and 6000 from "Web of Science"; and 200 known for their contrarian opinions.
Most interestingly and unusually, the authors mentioned that: "half of whom only published in the gray literature on climate change" . . . and it was far from clear to me, whether they meant the contrarians or all those invited to reply to the survey. Can anyone at SkS enlighten me about the authors' intention ~ and on the meaning of gray literature ?
-
Kevin C at 21:45 PM on 14 April 2016It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming
I think there is a reason for this 'consensus is not science' myth.
Consensus is a genuine feature of the scientific method, and it is used in every field of science. However most of the time it is not visible to the outsider, because we don't talk about it. The only reason it has become visible in the case of climate science is because of lay people asking 'how do you know?', which means we have to explain something of how scientific knowledge develops. If lay people were to challenge scientists in other fields, the answer would be the same.
Here's an example from my primary field of X-ray crystallography. As it happens, a Nature paper and a whole load of protein structures have just been retracted: here and here. In the 1980s and 90s we had a significant problem with wrong structures being published, mostly due to rapidly developing methods being misapplied, but a few of them fraudulent.
Scientists looked at how to address this problem, and decided that a paper should not be published unless both the atomic model, and the processed (in climate terms, adjusted and homogenized) X-ray data were deposited. Furthermore the results should be checked by cross-validation (leading to a statistic we call the 'Free-R factor').
Over the course of around 5 years (which was remarkably fast) the community accepted that this was a good approach. It quickly became the norm that a paper would not be accepted without the data and cross validation tests, and eventually became a condition of publication. And as a result we now see a lot fewer wrong structures.
Nowhere in the crystallographic literature will you find the term consensus. However that is what was going on. The community agreed there was a problem, and the community recognized that a particular solution was a good one. Decisions by journal editors and the data archives played a part, but they were in turn informed by the emergence of a consensus among methods developers and users.
But if a lay person was to ask how the change happened, the existence of a consensus would be an important part of the answer. In fact I just did the experiment: I asked a senior figure in the field - an FRS - the question, and she used the term 'consensus' in her answer.
-
shoyemore at 18:53 PM on 14 April 2016It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming
bozza@10
There is more than 1 satellite:
-
shoyemore at 18:49 PM on 14 April 2016It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming
alalfa@6,
As expected, the study Breitbart is spinning is the one of Bart Verheggen, who is a co-author of the paper this post describes. That study is included in the wider analysis of the Carlton et al publication.
The question for Breitbart and alfalfa is: if there are so many non-consensus scientists, then where are their papers, their AGU presentations, their conference attendances? None seem to exist beyond the 3% "usual suspects".
-
bozzza at 18:45 PM on 14 April 2016You can’t rush the oceans (why CO2 emission rates matter)
howardlee, do you know if the Antarctic circumpolar current is tightening and if it is it might be related?!!!
If you don't know if the current around Antarctica is tightening do you know where I could find the answer to such a question?
-
bozzza at 18:41 PM on 14 April 2016Deep Ocean: Climate change’s fingerprint on this forgotten realm
Does anyone know if the sea currents are tightening around Antarctica?
Does anyone know where to find the answers to such questions?
-
bozzza at 18:26 PM on 14 April 2016It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming
@1, Consensus starts with nomenclature!
-
bozzza at 18:21 PM on 14 April 2016It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming
NSIDC is down: it is discounting all of Aprils data as unreliable.
How do we know any of March 2016, or indeed the weird few years of Arctic Sea Ice over the last few years, is reliable?
-
bozzza at 17:25 PM on 14 April 2016James Powell is wrong about the 99.99% AGW consensus
The trouble is anarchy: risking anarchy is not worth it! Jobs, otherwise known as occupations, keep anarchy at bay.
Collateral damage is fine. The whole thing that keeps anarchy at bay is the collection of tax payer dollars that allows the business confidence to keep people regularly too occupied to roam the streets in packs looking for random things to occupy their minds. The collection of tax payers dollars itself depends on business confidence: meaning the whole things depends on no one panicking.
What would you do first?
-
Digby Scorgie at 14:11 PM on 14 April 2016After COP21: 7 Key Tasks to Implement the Paris Agreement
OPOF, okay, so you don't need to burn fossil fuel to make plastics. But if the oil required becomes increasingly expensive, plastic products would also become increasingly expensive, would they not? Or is this where recycling comes in?
-
Tom Curtis at 12:15 PM on 14 April 2016It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming
alfalfa @6 references breitbart's spin on this study rather than the study itself. That is nodoubt because if you look at the study itself, you will see it does not support either breitbart's spin. Specifically, once you exclude the non-responses (unknown, I don't know, and other) 84.3% of respondents agreed with the IPCC that humans have caused 50% or greater of warming since the middle of the 20th century. That figure is itself biased low because the respondents include a group of people invited to respond solely on the basis that they are AGW 'skeptics'. That is, the sample population is not representative of climate scientists in general because of a deliberate bias to include additional 'skeptical' respondents.
Breitbart tries to pull the wool over our eyes by focusing not on those who agree with the IPCC on attribution, but on that subset who also agree with the IPCC on how certain they are. He also carefully neglects to mention the built in bias in the sample, portraying it as unbiased and representative when it is (by design) biased in favour of 'skeptical' respondents.
alfalfa will find nothing wrong with breitbart's spin doctoring because, like all 'skeptics' his global warming denial is built on straining at gnats in the work of scientists, while swallowing camels served up by his fellow deniers.
-
RickG at 11:40 AM on 14 April 2016It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming
Alfalfa, thank you for the link. Once again I wish to point out that the scientific consensus being discussed here relates to what the published peer review research world-wide shows. That published research is physical evidence, not opinion. Conversely, upon following your link I find that the non-consensus finding was an opinion poll of selected scientists in what was stated as climate related fields. What I would have to ask is: how many of them have actually performed original climate research and had their findings published in the peer review literature?
-
alfalfa at 10:51 AM on 14 April 2016It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming
Here is an article about how the antartica is growing. Evidence is more important than consensus. http://patriotupdate.com/liberals-heads-are-spinning-after-nasa-releases-new-images-showing-that-antarctica-is-growing-not-shrinking/
Moderator Response:[PS] Please see here for discussion on this. Note also from IPCC TAR
"Changes in ice sheets and polar glaciers: Increased melting is expected on Arctic glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet, and they will retreat and thin close to their margins. Most of the Antarctic ice sheet is likely to thicken as a result of increased precipitation. There is a small risk, however, that the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets will retreat in coming centuries. Together, these cryospheric changes may make a significant contribution to sea-level rise.**** "
so not exactly evidence against consensus. Please put any further discussion on Antartica in the appropriate thread.
Also, when asked to back your assertions, please supply links published science not opinion pieces (and since pseudo-skeptic sites specialize in misrepresenting papers, make sure you actually read the paper).
-
From Peru at 10:29 AM on 14 April 2016James Powell is wrong about the 99.99% AGW consensus
I would ask a simple question: even if the consensus were just under 10%, betting against a 10% probability of getting detroyed is still utterly irresponsible, to say the least.
It would be like playing Roussian Roulette with 9 billion people. Now, betting against a >90% chance of disaster is completely insane.
To put things in perspective, the 1918 flu pandemic, with a fatality rate of "just" between 2% and 6%, killed more people than WWI and WWII. As a policymaker, I would rather shut down the entire world economy for some months (i.e. massive quarantines) than letting another monster like this spread like fire by people travelling in planes, roads and ships. The economy can be restored years later, dead people cannot.
Climate Change is a slow-motion disaster that can be far worse than a pandemic, yet the measures required are much less traumatic and abrupt. They could be even beneficial by themselves, reducing air pollution and eliminating energy poverty (renewable energy has a near zero operating cost, and a declining capital cost, unlike fossil energy).
Why do we need a consensus? The mere possibility of disaster is more than enough to me.
-
alfalfa at 10:23 AM on 14 April 2016It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming
Crossing out the truth doesn't make it any less true. If you want a reference to the Netherland study take a look at http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/07/31/new-study-majority-of-climate-scientists-dont-agree-with-consensus/
Moderator Response:[JH] Moderation complaint snipped.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
chriskoz at 09:55 AM on 14 April 2016It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming
Tom@4,
Thank you for your valuable assertion and a link showing that flat earth concept was a myth among science denialist rather than the errant of science. I havn't known it! Thus Middle Ages were not "Dark Ages of Science" as wrongly portrayed by common opinion, but "Dark Ages of Science Denial". Exactly the same phenomenon as in today's climate science (Concensus Gap).
-
Tom Curtis at 07:30 AM on 14 April 2016It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming
alfalfa @1 claims that "There used to be consensus that the earth is flat" (since stricken as sloganeering by the moderator).
Of course, that claim is a myth. That the Earth has been round has been the concensus among scholars since emperical observations have been coupled with mathematical reasoning in the fourth century BC (Aristotle). That the Earth orbits the Sun has been the concensus since just prior to the start of the scientific revolution (ie, the wide spread acceptance that observation, not the authority of the ancients is the primary determinant of knowledge).
What has persisted is a concensus among the ignorant that contradicts the scientific concensus - much as is the case with climate science. Historically, where the popular view has starkly contrasted with the scientific view, the scientific view has always proved more accurate in the long run. If alfalfa was to truly draw the lesson from history, he would conclude that the 97% consensus is good reason to think that whatever the truth about climate, it is far closer to the scientific consensus than popular theories espoused on the internet.
Of course, he will not. We know already from his views on climate science that his opinions are not guided by empirical facts, but by what he desires to be true.
Moderator Response:[PS] I think we have enough responses to alfalfa now. Thanks for contributions. More would be dogpiling. Let us see whether alfalfa can back his/her claims and please dont let this discussion disappear down a track of when/if people thought earth was flat. I think we can all acknowledge that consensus doesnt imply a theory is true and that consensus positions have been wrong in the past. The point is that consensus does exist and consensus position is best guide to policy. Please dont get this offtrack.
-
RedBaron at 07:24 AM on 14 April 2016To meet the Paris climate goals, do we need to engineer the climate?
Further reading on the LCP.
Humified carbon differs physically, chemically and biologically from the labile pool of organic carbon that
typically forms near the soil surface. Labile organic carbon arises principally from biomass inputs (such as
crop residues) which are readily decomposed. Conversely, most humified carbon derives from direct
exudation or transfer of soluble carbon from plant roots to mycorrhizal fungi and other symbiotic or
associative microflora. Humus can form relatively deep in the soil profile, provided plants are managed in
ways to encourage vigorous roots [1] -
RickG at 05:12 AM on 14 April 2016It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming
@ alfalfa: The consensus is what the scientific literature states, not opinion as you seem to indicate.
-
Magma at 05:12 AM on 14 April 2016It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming
@ alfalfa: this site is frequented by scientists and others who know what they're talking about. Peddle your tired misinformation elsewhere.
-
alfalfa at 04:52 AM on 14 April 2016It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming
First of all consensus is not what makes a scientific theory true. There used to be consensus that the sun orbited around the earth. There used to be consensus that the earth is flat. Evidence that a scientific theory is true is when predictions match reality. Climate model predictions have deviated extensively from reality. Tinkering with the models after the predictions fail to make them match the past is fudging and does not support any theory at all.
Second there was a recent large scale study in the Netherlands showing that the consensus was not that human activity caused climate change.
Moderator Response:[JH] Sloganeering sticken.
Also, please provide references for your statements about specific studies.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 23:43 PM on 13 April 2016After COP21: 7 Key Tasks to Implement the Paris Agreement
Digby Scorgie, Plastics can be made from any oil and burning fossil fuels is not required. Making plastic from fossil oil would also be fine. However, any plastic should be for durable plastic items able to be completely recycled after its long use.
-
denisaf at 22:21 PM on 13 April 20162016 SkS Weekly Digest #15
The InfluenceMap deals with how corporations are adjusting their policies to cope with their perceptions of climate change. However, it does not take into account the demand for the goods or services provided by the corporations. Coping with climate change is only one of the predicaments society will have to deal with. A corporation may rate at F for its policies on claime change but an A for the impact of their policy on, for instance, food production.
-
Hans Petter Jacobsen at 21:31 PM on 13 April 2016The 35 countries cutting the link between economic growth and emissions
The blog post says: 'The International Energy Agency (IEA) says that global emissions stalled in both 2014 and 2015'. Many environmentalists regards this as good news. I do not. With future emissions as high as they were in 2014 the carbon budget for one and a half degree warming will be exhausted in six years, and the budget for two degrees in a little more than twenty years. With this perspective it is not good news that the emissions in 2015 were the same as they were in 2014.
The table in the blog post shows how the CO2 intensity has changed in percent, and it links to a document that shows the same for territorial CO2 emissions. I agree with the conversion formula that calculates the change in CO2 intensity based on the change in CO2 emissions and in GDP that is used here. But the blog post links to another document that shows the same for consumption based CO2 emissions, and I do not understand the conversion in that document. Let me use China as an example. The first document says that their GDP increased with 270.1%, and that their territorial emissions increased with 184.5%. This gives a 23.1% reduction in the CO2 intensity, as stated by the document. The other document uses the same increase in GDP, and it uses 174.8% increase in the consumption based CO2 emissions. This should give a greater reduction in the CO2 intensity than for the territorial CO2 emissions, but the document says that the reduction is 20.4%, i.e. smaller. Using the same formula as for the territorial emissions I calculate the reduction to be 25.7%. Do the two documents apply different formulas for the CO2 intensity, or have I missed something ?
The SkS post is a re-post from Carbon Brief. In the discussion following that post Simon Evans explains how the change in carbon intensity is calculated. I have checked that the formula I am using may be derived from his explanation.
-
James Powell is wrong about the 99.99% AGW consensus
New consensus paper -> cue the exploding heads in denierville.
-
John Hartz at 11:55 AM on 13 April 2016To meet the Paris climate goals, do we need to engineer the climate?
We know less about the Earth's ecosystems, including soils, than we think we do. For example...
Researchers are only beginning to understand the complexities of the microbes in the earth’s soil and the role they play in fostering healthy ecosystems. Now, climate change is threatening to disrupt these microbes and the key functions they provide.
Is Climate Change Putting World's Microbiomes at Risk? by Jim Robbins, Yale Environment 360, Mar 28, 2016
-
Magma at 10:42 AM on 13 April 2016James Powell is wrong about the 99.99% AGW consensus
Nicely done! Short and punchy, clearly argued and written, and up-to-date. You even included one on my favorite points from Powell.
Powell (2015) shows that applying Tol’s method to the established paradigm of plate tectonics would lead Tol to reject the scientific consensus in that field because nearly all current papers would be classified as taking ‘no position’.
I'd say that should settle matters with our pseudoskeptical friends, but we all know I'd be dead wrong. "So you're telling me there's a chance."
-
Andy Skuce at 07:57 AM on 13 April 2016James Powell is wrong about the 99.99% AGW consensus
In the green box at the end of the piece I wrote "stay tuned". The new paper is now out a little earlier than most of us expected. There will be more on this soon...
-
RedBaron at 06:12 AM on 13 April 2016To meet the Paris climate goals, do we need to engineer the climate?
While I have been mostly talking about carbon sequestration via the LCP, (a much more stable carbon cycle than biomass sequestration) biochar and the LCP are not necessarily incompatable. Turns out biochar can be an important jump start for the LCP in highly degraded agricultural ground.
-
Magma at 03:39 AM on 13 April 2016James Powell is wrong about the 99.99% AGW consensus
Andy, along those lines there's the 2015 Benestad et al. paper Learning from mistakes in climate research in Theoretical and Applied Climatology, but with all respect to the authors I have to say that it left me underwhelmed.
-
Andy Skuce at 03:14 AM on 13 April 2016James Powell is wrong about the 99.99% AGW consensus
I certainly agree that there has been no significant publication refuting the core of AGW. However, that's a subjective judgement and the work to establish the quality, as opposed to just the quantity, of dismissive publications has yet to be done. That work would entail close reading of the dismissive texts, looking for recycling of previously debunked concepts, along with a citation analysis. Luckily, even at a 3% rate of rejectionist articles (among those that express an opinion) there are not many of them to review.
-
Magma at 02:58 AM on 13 April 2016James Powell is wrong about the 99.99% AGW consensus
Andy Skuce makes some solid points here, but I still have a great deal of sympathy for James Powell's core argument that no significant peer-reviewed article refuting key tenets of the AGW scientific consensus has been published over the past several decades, even when such technically sophisticated and deep-pocketed actors as major oil companies and fossil-fuel exporting nations have compelling interests in funding such research and seeing credible findings make it to print.
In this case, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence.
Watch Richard Alley for a characteristically enthusiastic rebuttal of the "conspiracy of the scientists" meme: What drives climate scientists?
-
PhilippeChantreau at 01:22 AM on 13 April 2016The 35 countries cutting the link between economic growth and emissions
Denisaf, part of the problem is that for many people of power in the business world, the notion that what they call "commodities" are finite earns nothing but contempt. It's not that they argue that they are not finite, they simply don't see it as a problem.
-
denisaf at 17:44 PM on 12 April 2016The 35 countries cutting the link between economic growth and emissions
Economic growth is largely the increase in the goods and services produced by technical systems - by using up limted crustal natural material resources without this ecological cost being taken into account. It is an unsustainable processs so economic contraction is bound to occur in the near future.
Measures to cope with the irreversible climate disruption and ocean acidification and warming should be based on understanding on what is really happening. The ability to mount remedial activites will be limited by what infrastructure services are still available.
Prev 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 Next
