Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 Next
Comments 24501 to 24550:
-
Rob Honeycutt at 05:23 AM on 10 May 2016Climate Bet for Charity, 2016 Update
Gotcha. Now I get what you're saying.
-
pattimer at 03:01 AM on 10 May 2016Climate Bet for Charity, 2016 Update
I am sure you are on a safe bet though :-) -
pattimer at 03:00 AM on 10 May 2016Climate Bet for Charity, 2016 Update
What I mean by that comment is that you would end up with 0.209 after 120 months if the average continued as it has done for the these past years. ( I am not implying that this is what you expect) but it would end up at 0.109 if the remaining years had an anomaly of 0 ( and I am not implying that this is what Kiwi expects) -
Rob Honeycutt at 01:13 AM on 10 May 2016Climate Bet for Charity, 2016 Update
Yes. That's effectively what I've said, that KT's methods are going to end up with the same result in the end. Although, I'm not clear on what you mean when you say, "Your running average is effectively assuming that the remaining months will continue with the same average anomaly and Kiwi's is assuming that the remaining months will have an anomaly of zero."
That's not registering for me somehow.
-
pattimer at 00:46 AM on 10 May 2016Climate Bet for Charity, 2016 Update
Rob. It seems to me that both these methods will come to the same when the 120 months are up.....Or am i missing something?Your running average is effectively assuming that the remaining months will continue with the same average anomaly and Kiwi's is assuming that the remaining months will have an anomaly of zero. It is no surprise then when an average of 0.209 over 5 years and 3 months will return a running average of 0.109 if remaining months are assumed zero. When the time is up these assumptions have no bearing on your final answer. -
Christian Moe at 22:37 PM on 8 May 2016Handy resources when facing a firehose of falsehoods
I don't think the factsheet's claim “The IPCC is 20 times more likely to underestimate rather than exaggerate climate impacts” bears scrutiny.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m sure it’s qualitatively true that the IPCC is more likely to be over-conservative, as suggested e.g. in Brysse et al. (2013) (“erring on the side of least drama”), supported by examples e.g. in Rahmstorf et al. (2007), and practically guaranteed by the IPCC process. :-)
But “20 times” smacks of spurious quantification; at least I'm not aware of a study actually evaluating a representative sample of IPCC statements to reach such a conclusion. Apparently the source is Freudenburg and Muselli (2010), herafter FM10, discussed in the basic rebuttal to “IPCC is alarmist”. They do have a “20 times” finding, but it’s not an evaluation of IPCC findings, and doesn’t support the stated conclusion. FM10 purposely avoided drawing on the IPCC. What they did was to scan newspaper stories about new science, not evaluate the science. The most you can say, based on FM10, is that even newspapers overemphasizing scientific disagreement over climate change were much more likely to report new science as saying climate change was ’worse than expected’ than the opposite. But this may tell us more about journalistic norms for ’newsworthiness’ than about tendencies in the science, let alone the IPCC.
To the extent FM10 think otherwise (they’re not very clear), the analysis is flawed. For one thing, it falls prey to ’single-study syndrome’, since each newspaper story would likely report one new dramatic study, whereas the IPCC considers all the evidence. For another, if journalists think a good story involves ’conflict’, ’balance’ and ’danger’, these journalistic norms could well lead them to represent the science as both contested and worse than expected at the same time. Neither representation should be taken as representing the true state of the science.
However, FM10’s premise is that the newspapers’ ’worse-than-expected’ framings do reflect the tendency of the science, and even reflect it conservatively, because the papers (including WaPo and NYT) have been shown to be biased against the consensus, and so would be expected to report that the consensus view is alarmist. But when their own findings overwhelmingly contradict this assumption, does that actually confirm that the science just turned too massively gloomy for the newspapers to ignore despite their assumed bias, or does it simply mean the assumption was wrong? Anyway, their authority for this bias is Boykoff and Boykoff’s “Balance as bias” (2004), which mainly shows that the newspapers in question framed the causes of climate change (anthropogenic or natural) as still in dispute, and doesn’t really go into whether they framed the magnitude or impacts as exaggerated.
-
Christian Moe at 21:49 PM on 8 May 2016Handy resources when facing a firehose of falsehoods
OK, here are some suggestions on the Fact-Myth-Fallacy sheet. I'll start out constructive. :-)
The ocean acidification myth just argues by assertion OA "isn’t serious", which hardly merits rebuttal, but the fallacy addresses the specific myth/misunderstanding that the oceans cannot be acidifying because they’ll never become acid. I suggest that this specific claim should feature as the myth text too, otherwise this part doesn’t make sense.
There are two "models are unreliable" myths; one of these is juxtaposed with the fact that "models are based on fundamental physical principles", which is true for GCMs (though not for, say, statistical models), but doesn’t actually address reliability. I’d suggest formulating the myth here along the lines that "models aren’t reality, scientific evidence comes only from observing nature". Anoher possibility would be to merge the two myths into one.
The fact about the West Antarctic ice sheet is juxtaposed with a myth and a fallacy about Antarctic sea ice. The fallacy text fails to dispel the ice sheet/sea ice confusion exploited by deniers. It offers an accurate but weak retort that the sea-ice claim is oversimplified. Instead, it ought to call out the sea-ice argument as a red herring irrelevant to the discussion of ice-sheet mass loss and sea-level rise.
The replies to the "CO2 lagging temperature" myth are fine, but it would be good to have space to add that the present CO2 rise is entirely due to our emissions, since deniers exploit the confusion between the ice-age relationship and the modern CO2 rise to claim the latter comes from the ocean.
"Climate change is having negative impacts on all parts of society." Does this unqualified statement hold, already, everywhere? It’s good to fight cherry-picking, but it’s also fallacious to conclude from a poor cherry harvest that every individual cherry is doing badly. One alternative would be to follow AR5: "In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans" (WG2 SPM). (Both statements obscure the climate justice aspect that impacts will disproportionately harm the poor.)
"Risks from extreme weather are increasing… some forms … more confidently linked to global warming than others." Should that be "some risks" or something? Some forms of extreme weather (cold extremes) are decreasing, as expected.
I have one further objection, but it'll take a little space so I'll put it in another comment.
-
BBHY at 19:15 PM on 8 May 2016CO2 is just a trace gas
Coincidently, clouds are about 0.04% water. I've noticed quite a difference between sunny and cloudy days.
-
BBHY at 19:08 PM on 8 May 2016Handy resources when facing a firehose of falsehoods
"...they had a bachelors in meteorology and math and a masters in physics"
I usually respond to that sort of argument that the molecules of CO2 don't care about your college degrees. Your opinions about liberals, taxes, Al Gore, scientists and the government mean nothing to the molecules of CO2. They just go on merrily about their business, absorbing infrared heat energy, and they are quite good at it.
The more molecules of CO2 we put into the atmosphere, the more infrared heat energy gets absorbed and the more the Earth warms up. That's really what happens regardless of how you feel about it.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 16:07 PM on 8 May 2016Consensus on consensus
William.
There is actually an evidence base for why consensus messaging is an important part of communication. It is evidence from psychology. Your argument has a basic assumption. That we are all rational, all of the time, and thus arguing the evidence about climate will work.
When in reality, most of us most of the time are actually rather irrational. We use mental short-cuts, heuristics, quick gut-reactions, and all sorts of ways of forming a view of some sort with least effort. And we strongly filter what we hear based on our inner world-view, our value system, our fears and hopes. Difficult external knowledge can have a hard time sinking in when it conflicts with our prior ideas. And our minds are very good at doing all sorts of tricks and cognitive biases.
So 'Just the facts Ma'am, just the facts' doesn't work so well when it is competing agaisnt our inner monologue.
One important aspect of our biase-addled minds is that we follow the herd, want to fit in, want to be accepted by those around us. So we often tend to think what others think; it feels safer.
This is the power of consensus messaging. It is saying to people, 'its alright, everyone else thinks this too'. So long as the scientific consensus is soundly based - which it is - there actually is no problem, and good reasons for using consensus messaging. -
chriskoz at 08:13 AM on 8 May 2016Consensus on consensus
william@1,
In case you've missed the point of this "consensus on consensus" study: it does not argue that consensus is the evidence of AGW (as your comment incorrectly implies). It does provide the statistical evidence that 97% consensus on AGW among climate scientists is not an outlier.
You're correct that such study does not prove AGW. But you're incorrect that such study is useless. The study provides evidence to the wide public - i.e. those who rely of expert opinion because they are incapable or unwilling to spend time and effort to shape their own oipinion - that expert climate scientists publish solid & accurate knowledge. That every eveidence indicates climate expert opinions should be acknowledged as much (if not more than) the opinions of other science experts, like e.g. astronomers. Any "news" of conspiracy theories among climate scientists dissiminated dniers are pure. often evil falshood.
-
BBHY at 03:58 AM on 8 May 2016Consensus on consensus
Personally, I find the evidence very convincing, but there are lots of different kinds of people and not all of them are swayed by evidence. Numbers and physics just turns some people off. The consensus is a way to reach those people. We need to bring as many people as possible on board to solve this problem.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:56 AM on 7 May 2016Scientists are figuring out the keys to convincing people about global warming
Johnboy @13, indeed. Afterall, it is a core denier argument that:
1) Increasing the CO2 concentration by 0.016% of the atmosphere is too small a change to have any conceivable effect; but that
2) Decreasing the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere by 0.014% of the atmosphere would be completely devestating, preventing photosynthesis and thereby killing all multicellular life on Earth;
and that
3) Increasing the CO2 concentration by 0.016% of the atmosphere significantly increases plant growth and is necessary to feed a hungry world.
Of course, it is necessary to being a 'rational' denier that you never mention point (1) in the same blog post as you mention points (2) and (3). It is necessary that they be believed at different times so that there is no fear of contradiction /sarc
-
Tom Curtis at 10:47 AM on 7 May 2016Scientists are figuring out the keys to convincing people about global warming
nigelj @12:
"One educational tool could be a decent graphic of temperatures over the last 2000 years, with CO2 concentrations overlaid over this, like a double hockey stick."
It is not as directly educational as you might think. The reason is that the heightened temperatures from 1000-1200 and the reduced temperatues from 1400-1750 were respectively due to reduced and increased volcanic activity, not to the small changes in CO2 concentration over those periods.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:22 AM on 7 May 2016Scientists are figuring out the keys to convincing people about global warming
nigelj @12, the best, because easiest to understand, analogy of the increase in CO2 concentration for those who claim low ppmv impacts are too small to have any effect is this one:
-
Johnboy at 09:20 AM on 7 May 2016Scientists are figuring out the keys to convincing people about global warming
With Nigelj too. CO2 constitutes a minuscule percentage of the atmosphere, yet keeps planet earth from being an ice ball and supplies all the plants and trees on earth with whats needed for life as we know it to exist.
-
nigelj at 08:56 AM on 7 May 2016Scientists are figuring out the keys to convincing people about global warming
Some people can't understand how such small quantities of CO2 could change the climate. An anaolgy is how incredibly small doping agents in semiconductors (or transistors) can make these things amplify large currents.
Catalysts in chemistry also use very small quantities of certain chemicals to enable large reactions to take place.
One educational tool could be a decent graphic of temperatures over the last 2000 years, with CO2 concentrations overlaid over this, like a double hockey stick. A picture paints 1000 words. I have seen lots of separate graphs of these things, but not one combined.
-
william5331 at 05:16 AM on 7 May 2016Consensus on consensus
And yet, as has been pointed out by climate sceptics and scientists, Consensis has very little to do with science. Evidence does and the evidence is pretty overwhelming that the climate is changeing and we are resposible. Perhaps we should leave this argument alone and just argue on the evidence.
-
FrankShann at 01:55 AM on 7 May 2016Peabody coal's contrarian scientist witnesses lose their court case
A very useful table, thank you. So it is easier to read, please could the writing be in black, and the backgrounds made less dense so they are very pale green, orange and blue .
-
mark bofill at 01:30 AM on 7 May 2016Deep sea microbes may be key to oceans’ climate change feedback
Interesting article, thanks.
-
Johnboy at 01:23 AM on 7 May 2016Scientists are figuring out the keys to convincing people about global warming
Another tidbit for the general public, particularly folks who can't fathom the idea that human activity could possibly effect the climate of the entire planet. From a couple of websites, determined that the amount of carbon that has been extracted or chopped down and burned since the industrial revolution is roughly equivalent to the total amount of carbon currently remaining in ALL of earth's forests combined, around 600B tons.
-
Christian Moe at 19:58 PM on 6 May 2016Handy resources when facing a firehose of falsehoods
The Fact-Myth-Fallacy overview is a great resource. Kudos for all the work that must have gone into adhering to the F-M-F template while condensing the arguments to something that folds neatly into my pocket.
When you limit yourself to bite-size statements, pedants can quibble endlessly. I'll try not to.
But I would argue that one or two statements are untenable ("IPCC 20 times more likely to underestimate"), a couple of facts or fallacies fail to connect with the myth they're supposed to rebut (e.g. ocean acidification), and one or two others fail to dispel confusions that deniers exploit (e.g. WAIS/sea ice). And I think there's space on the "We're causing global warming" page to add a fact on the consensus!
Is this thread a good place to offer constructive criticisms? And would it serve any purpose, i.e., is there a prospect that you'll be revising this resource anytime soon?
Moderator Response:Constructive criticism is very welcome (we'll even take destructive criticism but constructive is much more preferred :-). This thread is also a good place for your comments.
-
bozzza at 19:30 PM on 6 May 2016Scientists are figuring out the keys to convincing people about global warming
The other thing I might say: is that Arnold Schwarzenegger is famous for saying that, "...the people lead:Governments follow!"
Who are we and why did we have kids?
-
bozzza at 19:28 PM on 6 May 2016Scientists are figuring out the keys to convincing people about global warming
Go Johnboy,
The existence of a movie by Al Gore is a key even if it was lampooned for being factually untrue: I have not the expertise to really say one way or the other.
But the fact it exists is great as most movies promote a resourcefully wasteful mode of being: some call it the witches wand of Hollywood!
-
denisaf at 12:10 PM on 6 May 2016Scientists are figuring out the keys to convincing people about global warming
Adopting measures to moderate and adopt to the irreversible rapid climate disruption and ocean acidification that is under way would be helped by employing terms that really clarify the situation. It is technical systems that use the fossil fuels that are the main contributors to this deleterious natual process. People only make decisions about the use of these technical systems. These systems exist so the best that can be done is for people to make decisions to close them down as rapidly as is reasonably possible while adopting measures to cope with the consequences, such as sea level rise.
-
Daniel Bailey at 09:14 AM on 6 May 2016Handy resources when facing a firehose of falsehoods
"they had a bachelors in meteorology and math and a masters in physics"
Sure they do. SURE they do.
[-but in reality-]
The above fallacy is detailed, here.
-
knox kp at 06:13 AM on 6 May 2016Scientists are figuring out the keys to convincing people about global warming
This is terrific and I think people's attitude does change when they discover that the science behind it is something a high-school grad can easily grasp - the link to how global warming works is a very good illustration of just that
On my university radio show I like to repeat the number 36 Billion Tons - because that's annually how much CO2 is spewed - I believe that number may even be a little low for last year - and of course, how could 36 Billion Tons of anything put into a system (climate) not have an effect?
-
Johnboy at 02:22 AM on 6 May 2016Scientists are figuring out the keys to convincing people about global warming
I'm with bozzza. Need more information in sources the general public sees. I'm no expert, not even close, but read this blog and the other sources, including the denialist's sites. Without going overboard and being careful to preempt the traps of "it's been warm before"and "the temperature data is phony" for consumption by the average American in news stories, in print (where us seniors still get a lot of our information, pand TV, documentary programs like NOVA. More, thought provoking information on changing animal migration habits, growing seasons, droughts, frequency of record temperatures, and (at least to me) the increase in frequency and intensity of violent weather, Ft McMurray fire, melting ice and glaciers, including Glacier NP, geared to the average citizen.
-
funglestrumpet at 01:47 AM on 6 May 2016Scientists are figuring out the keys to convincing people about global warming
As far as I can make out, time is not on our side. Indeed according to some scientists it is already too late and we might as well 'eat, drink, laugh and be merry' etc. Before I join them I would like to see those who have done their darndest to do harm to our species punished for their behaviour.
As background for public consumption, how about a weekly feature that shows progress towards known tipping points - in ascending order of importance and showing ramifications if crossed? (I guess the clathrate/methane situation would be at the top.)
We could have a Kickstarter campaign to fund litigation against those who can be legitimately accused of abusing their position of influence on the issue of climate change.
It would be unusual for the scietific community to take such action and should draw attention to the message that action is essential and long overdue.
-
RickG at 01:02 AM on 6 May 2016Handy resources when facing a firehose of falsehoods
@ Digby Scorgie & chriskoz
I did not respond back due to his last comment "its only a theory or idea." That pretty much suggested to me that his "said" credentials were false, not to mention his WUWT link and not addressing my direct question asking if he had sourced the actual published paper he was trashing, which BTW was the Cook et al, 2015 Consensus paper.
I appreciate your comments and suggestions, I think I'll go back and address the specific fallacy to see what response I get back. I also like the idea of asking what evidence he would need to see in order to accept global warming. Thank you both for your input.
-
peter7723 at 22:38 PM on 5 May 2016Scientists are figuring out the keys to convincing people about global warming
Here are my three sentences to start the ball rolling:
_WE_ are the polluters.
_WE_ contribute CO2 to Global Warming when we drive our cars and use energy generated from fossil fuels.
_WE_ must reduce energy use and go for renewable energy generation.
-
Digby Scorgie at 20:16 PM on 5 May 2016Handy resources when facing a firehose of falsehoods
RickG @2
It's too late to tell your friend that he's been caught for a sucker by the psycopaths of the fossil-fuel industry. However, I'm curious to know what he would consider as "proper" evidence of global warming. In other words, if in his eyes global warming were really to occur, what would he expect to see happening around the world? I speculated on this elsewhere at this site, but was told I'd get nowhere. What do you think?
-
nigelj at 13:17 PM on 5 May 2016Scientists are figuring out the keys to convincing people about global warming
The article above talks a lot of sense. This got me pondering about the scientific theory of evolution, and when it was first introduced. There was a lot of scepticism from various groups, especially religious groups.
The theory of evolution was also difficult to grasp if you didn't know much science. More importantly is it required visualising many small compounding changes over big time scales. Even now some people are still sceptical that this could lead to something like the human eye or ear.
See the obvious parallels with climate change denial?
In time more people will grasp climate change and its causes, and will put their ideological biases aside. But lets face facts, some people will never be persuaded, just as with evolution.
-
bozzza at 12:14 PM on 5 May 2016Scientists are figuring out the keys to convincing people about global warming
The key is getting the multi year sea ice figures on the front page !
I say we all utilise the YouTube comments section !!
Problem solved!!!
-
chriskoz at 08:33 AM on 5 May 2016Handy resources when facing a firehose of falsehoods
RickG@2,I know it's time consuming but did you try the debunking recepe from Cook, Lewandowsky (2011) (on the right margin) to your denier:
- start with the heading about the fact, followed by explanation of the fact,
- then a short mention of the myth,
- then explain the fallacy involved.
Last point is simple in your case, even without the details. The logical falacy of latest argument by your denier is argumentation from authority. Obviously a false authority, because a practicing meteorologist is not an expert in climate sicence.
Don't leave the denier without the response, because s/he be under impression of winning the argument which reinforces a false belief. Respond honestly with "You're wrong on it but will respond with details later" if you don't have time or patience anymore.
-
LarryM at 04:31 AM on 5 May 2016Scientists are figuring out the keys to convincing people about global warming
The Shi et al. study may have finally gotten to the root points that need to be communicated to and understood by the average person/voter for them to appreciate the need for serious action on climate change. What we need now are specific sentence(s) that can be repeated ad nauseum until finally they are heard by the average person for the first time.
I'd like to propose that SkS run a contest to solicit the most effective 1-, 2-, and 3-sentence standard message intended to get the whole picture across in a relatively simple and clear soundbite aimed at the average (or better yet, below-average) person. Maybe some social scientist(s) would be interested in evaluating the submissions (who knows, there might be a paper or two in it!).
My pet peeve about point #1 is that the human cause is usually stated as, "Climate change is caused by human activities". This has got to be about the dumbest and least effective sentence possible. If you're already in the know, then you know this mainly means burning fossil fuels, but also things like land use changes and agricultural practices. If you're not in the know, like most people, this is a say-nothing sentence (WHAT human activities?). It would be much better to be less all-encompassing or general in unstated inference and just communicate the most important cause: "Climate change is mainly caused by humans burning fossil fuels for energy, which puts heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the air". Many people don't get the connection between "human activities" and "carbon dioxide", and therefore balk at the need for a "carbon tax".
Note that the above sentence covers both points 1 and 2, and point 3 could be brought in like this: "Almost every climate expert in the world agrees that climate change is mainly caused by humans burning fossil fuels for energy, which puts heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the air." Many people may not totally get "fossil fuels", so maybe it would be better to say "coal, oil, and natural gas".
So, back to the proposed communication contest. It would be a great way to engage the brains of some smart people to revamp the soundbite background for discussing the climate crisis. The 1-, 2-, and 3-sentence idea is inspired by the 3-level SkS climate myth rebuttals. The time to do this is definitely now, in advance of the general election campaign and debates in the U.S., where hopefully climate change will be a more prominent topic than in past elections.
-
kmoyd at 03:34 AM on 5 May 2016Handy resources when facing a firehose of falsehoods
The theme of my 1* review of Alex Epstein's The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels is cherry picking. It's the second most-helpful 1* review, despite the trolls.
http://smile.amazon.com/Moral-Case-Fossil-Fuels/product-reviews/1591847443/ref=cm_cr_dp_qt_hist_one?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&showViewpoints=0
-
RickG at 00:45 AM on 5 May 2016Handy resources when facing a firehose of falsehoods
@ Digby Scorgie
I think there is a lot of merit to your post. What I have encountered almost exclusively with deniers is that their positions are politically based. That is, a conversation never goes very long without me being called a liberal an/or alarmist. The funny thing is that I am not a liberal, I'm a conservative and have been all my life (68 yrs). In fact, I was once caught up on the denial side myself, not actively, just accepting it on face value. What changed my mind was my background, a degree in Earth Science and a life-long career as a chemist. After a while, I begin hearing things in the conservative media (basic facts) that I knew were not correct. So I begin reviewing the actual scientific literature, and wow, what a wake-up call. I am so glad I had the interest and know-how to fact check, verify "openly and honestly" what was undeniabally factual, and most importantly accept those facts.
But as you suggest, some people are so caught up in their denial, they are not willing fact check, even when they have the background to do so. As an example, a couple of days ago I responded to a facebook friend concerning one of his climate denial posts. All I did was point out a few facts and made no judgements. One of his friends responded with a link to WUWT, along with a few side remarks. I responded back asking that person if they were open to checking the actual scientific literature and compariing his source with what the actual source said. The response I received was that they had a bachelors in meteorology and math and a masters in physics and that climate change was only an unproven theory or idea. I left it at that and did not respond.
-
Digby Scorgie at 11:34 AM on 4 May 2016Handy resources when facing a firehose of falsehoods
I managed to silence a doubter another way, but perhaps he just avoids the subject now. He is a former team-mate of mine in Antarctica, and we are in occasional e-mail contact. Last year sometime he commented that he believed the changes in the climate were due to natural causes. I replied that he'd "been caught for a sucker" by the fossil-fuel industry. I mentioned the disinformation campaign modelled on the tobacco industry's campaign to hide the link between smoking and cancer. And this was before the revelations of Exxon's shenanigans. (Those Exxon executives can only be psycopaths.) Pointing to the latter would now be an extra weapon for us to wield.
However, I've also learned that there are psychotics in this world who refuse to accept any reality that does not fit their irrational world-view. One can do nothing about such people. They are fanatics, and one does not attempt to reason with fanatics.
In conclusion then, faced with a firehouse of falsehoods, I would ask, "So what kind of denier are you: psycopath, psychotic or sucker?" All right, it probably won't work, but it's fun to dream!
-
Tom Curtis at 08:39 AM on 4 May 2016CO2 effect is saturated
ConcernedCitizen @410, ignoring clouds, the consequence of there being no GHG in the atmosphere (not just CO2) is that there is no IR radiation to space from the atmosphere; but also no absorption by the atmosphere of surface IR radiation. The consequence can be seen in the surface energy balance diagram below:
Specifically, because there is no IR absorption in the atmosphere by your scenario, the 397 W/m^2 IR radiation from the surface would escape to space. On the other hand, there would be no 342 W/m^2 back radiation (thermal down surface), so the incoming energy would be only 240 W/m^2 (Incoming solar minus solar reflected). The resulting energy imbalance of -157 W/m^2 would result in very rapid cooling until the IR radiation from the surface matched the incoming solar (ie, to - 18 C).
Atmospheric IR emission is not a "cooling effect". You can only think it is because you do not take into account all of the related energy exchanges.
-
Mal Adapted at 08:34 AM on 4 May 2016Tracking the 2°C Limit - March 2016
Tom Curtis @6 is correct. That was demonstrated by Kosaka and Xie in 2013. They compared model runs in which tropical Pacific SST (sea surface temperature) was a dependent state variable, with runs in which the actual observed timing and strength of ENSO events was input along with incoming solar radiation and atmospheric CO2 levels. They found that constraining SST to observed values accounted for most of the divergence between the observed and modeled (without forcing SST to observations) temperature trend between 1970 and 2012, including the so-called hiatus:
We present a novel method of uncovering mechanisms for global temperature change by prescribing, in addition to radiative forcing, the observed history of sea surface temperature over the central to eastern tropical Pacific in a climate model. Although the surface temperature prescription is limited to only 8.2% of the global surface, our model reproduces the annual-mean global temperature remarkably well with correlation coefficient r = 0.97 for 1970–2012 (which includes the current hiatus and a period of accelerated global warming). Moreover, our simulation captures major seasonal and regional characteristics of the hiatus, including the intensified Walker circulation, the winter cooling in northwestern North America and the prolonged drought in the southern USA.
Some AGW-deniers claimed that K&X had "tuned" the model. More rational observers agreed that K&X had advanced the physical understanding of climate, by resolving decadal "noise" (i.e. internal variability) into forcing. IOW, scientific progress!
-
dklyer at 03:55 AM on 4 May 2016Can the Republican Party solve its science denial problem?
I apologize for continuing the descent into a GMO discussion. It is, at least, immune to political rants as both republican and democratic administrations have come down solidly on the side of protecting the chemical industry rather than protecting the public. Ian (11 and 13) thank you for the great replies. The criminal activity of private labs producing research in support of approval of new pesticides, etc. is part of the book Poison Spring. One large lab was caught and several members received (short) criminal sentences. Other small labs produce more reports with a small number of poorly trained personnel than a real lab with an adequate number of highly trained researchers could ever hope to produce. The EPA looks the other way. Any attempt by EPA scientists to show contrary research quickly gets them relegated to a clerk position.
The saturation of America with pesticides and herbicides has been going on since the late 1940’s. The GMO revolution has made that worse. Don Huber is a retired colonel from the Army’s biological warfare program. He taught plant diseases and soil microbiology at Purdue for 35 years. He also has been the coordinator of the U.S. Agricultural Research Service National Plant Disease Recovery System, a program of the U.S.D.A. Huber worries about glyphosate not only for its affects but as a driver of genetic engineering. With decades of experience in biological warfare and crop diseases, Huber was convinced, in 2011, that the use of glyphosate had brought about a new pathogen that was endangering American agriculture.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/12/10/dr-don-huber-interview-part-1.aspx
I will be offering to buy my local library a copy of Poison Spring.
Moderator Response:[PS] Enough. This is off-topic. Further off-topic posts will be deleted.
-
jja at 01:56 AM on 4 May 2016Peabody coal's contrarian scientist witnesses lose their court case
California uses a baseline of SCC that was $12.00 and then adjusted for inflation in 2007 to slightly over $13.00. This value was the mean reported value by Richard Tol in a 2005 published report review. In it he gave equal weight to the 9 papers published on the social cost of carbon, some published as early as 1994, 3 published by Nordhaus and 2 published by Tol. Without regard to the evolution of the IAM models over time, the changing inputs provided by the development of climate science over the previous 10 years, or the fact that the climate science projected impacts from 2005 have been heavily revised, and considered to be much more impactful in the AR5 published in 2013, AND that even these results understate the impacts.
Clearly the application of social welfare to the realm of fossil fuels and economics is still verboten in the halls of power and corruption that our political and business leaders frequent. -
MA Rodger at 01:42 AM on 4 May 2016CO2 effect is saturated
ConcernedCitizen @410.
You say "If the CO2 molucule wasn't there, the energy wouldn't even radiate. It would stay as kinetic and remain in the atmosphere." That's a bit tricky. (I'm reminded of the rhyme ".../He wasn't there again today/I wish that man would go away." )
So if the CO2 molecule isn't there, where exactly in the atmosphere is this kinetic energy you speak of and how did it get there?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 23:47 PM on 3 May 2016Peabody coal's contrarian scientist witnesses lose their court case
michael,
The action by the current US Government to have existing rules that would have reduced the burning of coal actually enforced was thwarted by a 5 to 4 Supreme Court unprecedented directive stating that the lower courts are not to enforce the established laws prior to the Supreme Court hearing of a coal lobby funded challenge.
The challenge is scheduled in 2017. And it involves the support from 27 states that are in the grip of the callous greedy minority who have effectively taken control of the Republican Party (a group with a clear history of trying to get what they want any way they can get away with).
And that challenge would have been heard by the same 5-4 Supreme Court that refused to allow established laws to actually be enforced. However, that unprecedented Supreme Court directive was finalized only days before the passing away of one of the 5 judges that supported it.
So it is very likely that the group behind the challenge of the enforcement of existing laws will fight to get their type of judge to be the replacement on the Supreme Court. Actually, that is exactly what has been happening. And if that group succeed in getting their type of judge onto the Supreme Court then the decision of the 27 state appeal is likely to be contrary to the advancement of humanity to a lasting better future for all with a very weak justification.
-
ConcernedCitizen at 22:26 PM on 3 May 2016CO2 effect is saturated
TomCurtis @409. Putting your insults to one side, what you are talking about it kinetic to radiative change in energy. However, if the CO2 molucule wasnt there, the energy wouldnt even radiate, it would stay as kinetic and remain in the atmosphere.
(This cooling effect of GH gasses at low pressures by kinetic->radiative change is well understood)
Now, if you can answer the question ina civilised maner it would be appreciated.
Moderator Response:[PS] Civility all round would be appreciated. CC it also behoves on you to study the answers and resources suggested to you for understanding if you are asking questions, otherwise people quickly lose patience. If you have not read Ramanathan and Coakley 1978 I suggest you do so and make it clearer whether you contest the Radiative Transfer Equation fundamentals or their particular application in discussions with people here.
-
ConcernedCitizen at 22:18 PM on 3 May 2016How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
Dont forget the SAGE COARE results used above (the .2C/100wm^-2 data) used clouds s the DLR source.
CO2 DLR penetrates water even less so wil have less warming effect.
Moderator Response:[PS] I dont think you have understood the article. There is a 6 part series here which goes into the physics in exquisite detail. I suggest you read that first.
-
michael sweet at 19:47 PM on 3 May 2016Peabody coal's contrarian scientist witnesses lose their court case
Glenn,
Many conservative judges in the USA do not care about the facts. Look at the Supreme Court and its election of Bush for President. Peabody was hoping to get a sympathetic judge and they didn't.
Obama's clean power plan got a judge sympathetic to polluters.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 19:33 PM on 3 May 2016Peabody coal's contrarian scientist witnesses lose their court case
When will these guys ever learn.
You go before a judge - you have to drop the BS. If you don't have solid arguments and evidence, the steely eyed gaze of the judge will wither your soul.
Sometimes a legal judgement is a long-winded thing of beauty. -
Tom Curtis at 13:04 PM on 3 May 2016Tracking the 2°C Limit - March 2016
Trevor_S @5, Gwynne Dyer is wrong. El Ninos have large impacts on global temperature on short term time scales (sub decadal), and ENSO is the dominant cause of subdecadal global temperature fluctuations. You can see the extent of that impact at this page, which shows the regression (as a variation in temperature per degree K relative to the NINO 3.4 index, and correlation). It causes variations of global temperatures on subdecadal scales of +/- 0.166 C, or the equivalent of 8-10 years of global warming. That means it requires 15-20 years before global warming is sufficient such that the warmest El Nino 15-20 years earlier is nearly certain to be cooler than the coldest La Nina now.
There is, therefore, no reasonable doubt that the current El Nino made a substantial contribution to the very hot temperatures in 2015/16. On the other hand, almost certainly, the contribution of global warming accounts for more than the difference between the 2015 Global Mean Surface Temperature and that durring the stronger El Nino in 1998.
Prev 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 Next
