Recent Comments

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Comments 201 to 250:

201. Bob Loblaw at 01:57 AM on 4 May 2025
     Sabin 33 #26 - Is wind energy good or bad for jobs?
     

     Eclectic @ 9:

     You mention "overall cost". The phrase that comes to mind is "that person knows the cost of everything, but the value of nothing". The economic system that looks solely at the $ involved, misses out on the value of what is "good" for the community. The environment often gets the short straw on this.

     This is particularly true when a small portion of the economy (e.g., energy production) finds a way to avoid the costs of something internally (i.e., "we don't have to pay for it"), but the costs still exist externally (increasing weaher disasters, polluted water, etc.). Externalities are a well-known part of economic theory. Privatized profit, and socialized costs.

     A trivial example of the weakness of economic accounting involves two people that car-pool to work. Person A drives one week, and person B drives the other week.

     • Initially, no money changes hands.
     • They decide it makes sense to pay each other for the times the other person drives. At the end of the year, Person A has paid person B for 26 weeks of driving. And Person B has paid person A for 26 weeks of driving. (Neither take vacation.)
     • Being good citizens, they report this income on their taxes, and deduct the costs they paid to the other person as expenses. It balances out, so neither pays additional tax.
     • ...but now the GDP accounting system has "new" economic activity - 52 weeks of someone being paid to drive someone else to work. GDP has risen. The economy is growing!
     • ...but the new Grand Economy has not produced any additional value that wasn't already there when the two people just car-pooled without exchanging $.
202. Bob Loblaw at 01:28 AM on 4 May 2025
     Sabin 33 #26 - Is wind energy good or bad for jobs?
     

     David-acct @ 8:

     You say "Under every economic theory, labor is a cost...". I'd disagree with nigelj @ 10 and say that you are only half-right. As I pointed out in comment 2 (which nigelj mentions in #10), every financial or economic transaction has two sides. One will consider labour to be a cost, and the other will consider that transaction to be a financial gain. To the worker, their labour is a product that they are selling, not buying.

     I challenge you to point to the post and wording that you have characterized as a "...claim that Jobs / labor is not a cost..." or ..."to justify increased labor as a reduction in costs...".

     With your extensive accounting background, I am sure that you are familiar with Double-entry bookkeeping. To those that are not familiar with it, the Wikipedia entry I link to says this:

     The double-entry system has two equal and corresponding sides, known as debit and credit; this is based on the fundamental accounting principle that for every debit, there must be an equal and opposite credit. A transaction in double-entry bookkeeping always affects at least two accounts, always includes at least one debit and one credit, and always has total debits and total credits that are equal.

     This double-entry principle can be applied on the level of a single corporate (or home budget) level, but it applies even more when you look at basic economics and the economy as a whole. For every employer, there will be one or more employees. For every purchaser of a good or service, where the transaction is a cost, there will be a seller, where the same transaction is income.

     You (David-acct) also state "...labor is a cost , just the same as capital is a cost." And then you completely ignore capital costs when you state "...higher labor costs and/or higher number of jobs per units of production are classic signs of less economic efficiency, not greater efficiency." This is wrong. Higher labour costs would be associated with less labour efficiency". Just as higher capital costs would be associated with less capital efficiency. Economic efficiency requires looking at both labour and capital costs.

     Please don't counter what you call "superficial understanding" with your own superficial explanation.

203. Bob Loblaw at 00:39 AM on 4 May 2025
     Sabin 33 #26 - Is wind energy good or bad for jobs?
     

     Eric @ 7:

     Your clarification makes sense, although I would argue that automation and capital costs go hand in hand. Any system that provides tools and equipment that reduce labour input will have costs associated with that equipment. That applies at the simple level - replacing a hand drill or screwdriver with a powered one - or at a more complex level - replacing several factory workers with a robotic assembly line. "Automation" is a rather loose term (and IG used the term in his post from 2021, which he alluded to in his first post here.)

     When it comes to "job creation", you correctly allude to (without explicitly stating it) the duality of jobs constructing or installing the system vs. jobs required to keep it running. Labour in building a nuclear plant or wind turbines, or installing solar panels on a roof, will be considered "capital costs". Keeping it running will fall under "operations and maintenance".

     Large up-front capital costs are typically amortized over a period of time. Most easily illustrated if you had to take out a loan to get the money, and pay it off over a number of years. But even if you have all the money on  hand at the start, accounting rules (either what your accountant suggests, or what the tax system allows) will dictate that the cost be spread out over time. This will often be related to how quickly that asset depreciates (e.g., the electric drill wears out, or the nuclear power plant ceases to work without a major rebuild).

     If most of the "created jobs" are "temporary" jobs related to manufacturing or construction, then you need to keep making more in order to provide long-term employment. One prominent local politician once promised to create 800,000 jobs in his job-creation plans. It turns out that he was counting 100,000 "new" jobs that would last for 8 years as "800,000 jobs". Or maybe he was thinking those 100,000 jobs created in year one only lasted one year, and he'd create 100,000 more new jobs last would last one year in year two, etc. If so, taking credit for creating 800,000 jobs over 8 years while ignoring the 700,000 people that lost their jobs after one year seems a little rich. Details matter.

204. nigelj at 07:25 AM on 3 May 2025
     Sabin 33 #26 - Is wind energy good or bad for jobs?
     

     David-acct

     "A) Under every economic theory, labor is a cost , just the same as capital is a cost. "

     Correct. Good to be reminded of basic accounting, not my area of expertise that's for sure.

     "Attempts to claim that Jobs / labor is not a cost is simply inane."

     Nobody here has claimed that jobs are not a cost. BL said "Jobs are not a "cost" to the people that do the work. It is a source of income, which allows them to purchase goods and services. Like food, housing, clothing, etc." Emphasis mine.

     "While the op is whether more jobs are gained than lost, the more important question is whether total costs are increased or decreased. "

     Total costs of wind and solar power seem to be decreased compared to coal fired power. Wind power and solar power appear to now be cheaper than coal power using the Lazard Energy Analysis. Total costs using such analysis are a function of capital +labour + running costs. Although renewables have higher labour costs than coal and possibly higher capital costs they have a big advantage in low running costs that gives them an edge.

     But such an analysis is narrow. There are the other costs to consider such as health and stability of society that Eclectic mentions Eclectic is right that renewables job creation while reducing efficiency in certain cases by requiring more labour than the alternatives, can add other benefits. The health costs of renewables are considerably lower than with burning coal with its nasty particulate emissions. Studies attest to this. Then there are the environmental costs of renewables are considerably lower overall than coal because it reduces the global warming problem. Add all this into the equation and total costs of renewables are considerably less than costs of burning coal. I know there are other minor factors and renewables do have some downsides but  renewables look very cost effective in the wider sense of the term.

205. Eclectic at 22:59 PM on 2 May 2025
     Sabin 33 #26 - Is wind energy good or bad for jobs?
     

     David-acct @8 :

     You are in a narrow sense perfectly correct, in stating that :-

     "... higher labor costs and/or higher number of jobs per units of production are classic signs of less economic efficiency, not greater efficiency.

     While the op is whether more jobs are gained than lost, the more important question is whether total costs are increased or decreased." [unquote]

     Nevertheless, you make a circular argument.

     The weasel word  is cost.  Cost in dollars is one thing, and yet overall cost is another.  More importantly, overall cost (long term cost) is best measured by the health & stability of society ~ the Common Good (as per Adam Smith).

     While I would not advocate for a return to the un-mechanized Age of Adam Smith, where (by necessity) more than half the village went out to bring in the annual harvest ~ still, the harvest work was in one sense a "good" for the village community, in fostering mutual respect & comradeship / healthy feeling of togetherness.  # Despite any "economic" or dollar-cost inefficiency.

     One danger nowadays, is the rapid movement towards even greater dollar-cost efficiency, through the use of Artificial Intelligence.  Less cost, but more unemployment.  But how to find a healthy societal balance?

     ( For myself, I would prefer to pay the extra dollars, to have real flesh-and-blood actors in a movie or advertisement; and real human actors reading the voice-overs in other productions of podcasts & documentaries, etc.   Wouldn't you?   ~Or would you prefer an AI-generated Prince Hamlet image ? )

     Anecdote : the AI "readers" can be anodyne and/or irritating . . . and yet sometimes sourly amusing in their bloopers.   # My recent favorite was an AI repeatedly reading the text of the religious "St. Catherine" as "Street Catherine".    (It seems there is no soul or ghost in the machine ! )

206. David-acct at 11:56 AM on 2 May 2025
     Sabin 33 #26 - Is wind energy good or bad for jobs?
     

     Skeptical Science asks that you review the comments policy. Thank you.

     I am an accountant working in a manufacturing environment. Electric generation is one of many manufacturing processes. I also have a minor in economics.  

     Several points that others have touched on, yet those who have have commented have shown a superficial understanding which should be clarified, (my apologies for any appearance of negativity to other commentators.) 

     A) Under every economic theory, labor is a cost , just the same as capital is a cost. Attempts to claim that Jobs / labor is not a cost is simply inane. Further attempts to justify increased labor as a reduction in costs is not relevant.  B) With rare exceptions and then only for short term periods, higher labor costs and/or higher number of jobs per units of production are classic signs of less economic efficiency, not greater efficiency. 

      

     While the op is whether more jobs are gained than lost, the more important question is whether total costs are increased or decreased. 

207. Eric (skeptic) at 09:49 AM on 2 May 2025
     Sabin 33 #26 - Is wind energy good or bad for jobs?
     

     Bob, I was trying to simplify IG's point to reinforce my point which is something I have previously commented on.  In a nutshell: productivity matters in energy production.

     Your second example (pulling cable) is an example of productivity maximization that you figured out.  Installing and connecting offshore wind is a complex endeavour that has to be timed (choreographed) to avoid men waiting for other men to do something or traveling around to different locations.  Storms can completely interrupt work.  Dangerous procedures cannot be rushed in any way.  These are all drags on productivity.

     The capital costs that you refer to are independent of automation that I now regret bringing up.  My point was that offshore wind is extremely labor intensive, but that will be inevitably alleviated by automation.  I agree capital costs are rather high too but we can't lower labor costs by spending more on capital.

     You can argue that extra employment has large societal benefits in the case of solar because the upfront employment pays off over many years with very reduced labor.  I don't believe that's true for offshore wind from what I read.

     I'm sorry I started the argument about automation which led to the issue of even income distribution as an argument for offshore wind.

208. Ivy leafed toadflax at 07:19 AM on 2 May 2025
     We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
     

      This article is missing some important information, as stated the Maunder minima occurred during the LIA, so could not be its cause, however any earlier solar minima would weaken your reasoning, the earliest for this period was the Oort minima 1040-80, this was followed by the longer Wolf minima 1280-1350 which was preceeded by the large Samalar eruption 1257, these events would surely have had a cooling effect, next was the century long Sporer minima which also coincided with the 1452 Kuwae eruption, and then we get to the Maunder mimima 1645-1715. It does seem strange that you failed to mention the earlier events, perhaps you didn't think they were important, but they are! From the start of the Wolf minima to the end of the Dalton minima there are 540 years, of which 270 are during solar minima! We know solar cycles exist, Suess, Halstatt, Bray, Eddy.

209. Bob Loblaw at 23:58 PM on 1 May 2025
     Sabin 33 #26 - Is wind energy good or bad for jobs?
     

     Eric @ 3:

     You think that IG's main point is "the fewer jobs, the better"?

     1. He certainly buried that lede in a lot of verbiage.
     2. He's wrong (as are you).

     Let's take his example of a crew of workers with shovels divided into two groups - one group digging holes, the other group filling them back in. Maybe the previous week there were three groups of workers. Some efficiency expert (let's call him "Elon") decided that was too many workers, so they fired one of the three groups. That group turned out to be the group that was responsible for planting the trees in the holes before they got filled back in. No, they haven't made the process "more efficient" - they have destroyed it.

     Granted, IG did word things later in his comment "...if we could get the same amount of wind power with less work...", but that completely ignores the capital costs, as I pointed out in comment 2.

     Let's take another example. I recently had some electrical work done, by an independent contractor who worked alone. Yes, he could have pulled the cable by himself, by repeatedly walking back and forth between the basement and the garage, but I was able to help him. That made the job go much, much faster, even though it now meant that there were two people working on the job. More people actually reduced the labour input in total, because it eliminated the "useless" work of walking back and forth between the basement and the garage,

     The point is that trivial, simplistic views of "job counts" and "labour costs" are pretty much going to steer you wrong if you are not careful. Especially when they ignore other costs (e.g. capital). Maintenance has been mentioned. Some companies (and governments) consider that to be an optional activity. Easy to cut when money is tight. We'll make things "more efficient"! Until lack of maintenance leads to equipment failures - or roads falling apart, or bridges collapsing - which ends up costing much more in the long run. Short term gain for long term pain.

     You (Eric) say that "...raising other expenses has very limited applicability currently". Wind turbines and solar panels don't make themselves, and they cost money. You mention robotics. They don't make themselves. Even if they eventually do, there are still materials needed, and those will cost money - even if they, too, are mined and refined using robotics.

     As OPOF points out, this blog post is a rebuttal to the "wind and solar destroy far more jobs than they create" myth. The myth makers introduced the metric. They need to live or die on that hill.

     You can then start to argue about the quality of the jobs. You can then start to argue about the general economic and society impacts of different approaches. Which is better: everyone has a job with a moderate income, or 10% of the people have an extremely high-paying job and 90% have nothing? Does your answer to that depend on whether or not you are part of the 10%?

     If automation is the solution, are you familiar with how automation has affected the people and communities that have lost jobs in the coal industry? You might want to read the SkS repost of "How to sell solar in coal country" from a year-and-a-half ago.

210. nigelj at 06:35 AM on 1 May 2025
     Sabin 33 #26 - Is wind energy good or bad for jobs?
     

     Regarding Ignorant guys and Erics comments. The fact that it would be great if nobody had to work and everything was done by robots doesn't change the fact that creating jobs is a good thing right now. Right now we have millions of guys going through the education system all on the expectation of getting a job. If they dont they will be dependent on social welfare or charity. So anything that creates jobs is a good thing, at least in the medium term until robots are prolific. And assuming the jobs add genuine value like renewable energy.

     Personally I think the idea we will eliminate all work and have literally everything done by robots is a pie in the sky fantasy, because its unlikely the world has enough resources, especially the rare earth metals for example. They are not rare but they are certainly not prolific either in a way that can actually be mined. But time will tell and it looks like the economy will do its best to automate everything. Its an unstoppable ship in that regard.

     Sure I agree offshore windfarms are not ideal in various respects, but they are a response to concerns about visual impacts of onshore windfarms and land use issues so there is that bigger picture to consider. I think the concerns about onshore windfarms are over stated but its a case of trying to keep everyone happy.

211. One Planet Only Forever at 05:37 AM on 1 May 2025
     Sabin 33 #26 - Is wind energy good or bad for jobs?
     

     Ignorant Guy,

     I am not an economist. But I have training and experience that helps me understand economic matters. I am a Professional Engineer with an MBA who has decades of experience with major construction projects.

     Bob Loblaw has provided a good response to your comment @1.

     I would add the following:

     • The ‘objective and angle’ of the post we are commenting on is “Is wind energy good or bad for jobs?” The example ‘myth to be refuted’ is the claim that “Subsidised wind and solar destroy far more jobs that they ever ‘create’” made by the misleading marketers behind ‘Stop These Things’.
     • Even with Bob’s clarifications and corrections of understanding, a generic response about ‘the merit of jobs’ is not a valid response to a claim that “...wind and solar destroy far more jobs that they ever ‘create’”
212. Eric (skeptic) at 20:07 PM on 30 April 2025
     Sabin 33 #26 - Is wind energy good or bad for jobs?
     

     IG's main point is correct: the fewer jobs per amount of energy, the better.  Bob's response that reductions in labor require raising other expenses has very limited applicability currently.  Perhaps it will have more applicability when robotics is applied to wind power construction and maintenance.  That will be especially true when robotics is self-recycling and repairing and all electric.  But by then I expect wind to be 90% obsolete, only used where there's no solar with cheap (embedded or intrinsic or standalone) energy storage.

     The offshore wind industry in the US (via captured government enablers) brags about jobs: www.boem.gov/boem-announces-environmental-review-proposed-VA-wind-energy-facility-offshore  At a generous 45% capacity factor that's 118 million MWh / year. At $100,000 / year for each job that's $67 per MWh.  With just labor (no capital expense) the energy produced costs twice as much as solar or wind on land.

     Offshore wind jobs are dangerous and grueling jobs.  That's why I set a conservative $100k loaded cost per year.  Women need not apply apart from a handful of strong women.  The fatality rate will be similar, if not higher, than fishing: pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5958543/ This study found fatality rates in fishing fleets during 2010–2014 ranging from 21 to 147 deaths per 100,000 FTEs, many times higher than the rate for all US workers.

     The labor productivity will be low due to many factors: remoteness of work, storm delays, coordination delays where workers will have nothing to do.    The numbers given in my first link may have originated here: www2.nrel.gov/wind/offshore-workforce in which case a portion of the jobs are on land, less dangerous, more productive or co-productive.

     But my point stands: offshore wind as a jobs program is ludicrous.  I am fighting against offshore wind here in Virginia as much as I possibly can, since as a co-owner of Old Dominion (because of where I reside) I will pay for it.

213. Bob Loblaw at 02:20 AM on 30 April 2025
     Sabin 33 #26 - Is wind energy good or bad for jobs?
     

     IG @ 1:

     You got "flamed"? And you expect to get "flamed" again?

     No, you didn't get "flamed". You had people disagree with you. And you did not respond to any of their criticisms. Here is the comment you made four years ago (on another wind and solar energy thread).

     Jobs are not a "cost" to the people that do the work. It is a source of income, which allows them to purchase goods and services. Like food, housing, clothing, etc.

     Unemployed people are not an "asset" to those that are unemployed. They represent part of society that has no source of income, and cannot purchase any of the necessities of life. Unless they have savings they can dig into because they were, at some point in the past, employed. If they do not have savings, then they become a liability to society - where society either has to pay them for not working (unemployment insurance, some other form of social security payments, etc.), or has to deal with the poverty-stricken individuals that resort to crime to feed themselves or their families.

     In any economic transactions, there are two sides. Money moves from one set of hands to another set of hands. Hint: banks like "debits" and dislike "credits". "Debits" are money moving from someone else's account into the bank's account. "Credits" are money moving from the bank's account into someone else's account. The bank's customer has the opposite view: credits are to the customer's favour, and debits make the customer poorer.

     Reductions in labour costs usually require investments in tools, facilities, automation, etc. In Economics, these are called "capital costs". They don't come free. Businesses need to balance long-term capital costs with labour costs. Labour costs are easy to shed when business slows down. Capital costs are often called "fixed costs", because once you've paid to build a factory or buy equipment, you don't save that money by shutting the factory down. Loans still need to be paid; investors money can't go back to the investors (unless the capital items are sold). In fact, sometimes a company will continue operate a facility that is losing money because operating it loses less money than not operating it. At least the operating facility generates some revenue - even if it is not enough to cover labour+capital costs. A closed facility generates no revenue, because it produces no product to sell.

     Your strawman arguments about people having jobs digging and filling holes is a red herring. There is nothing in the OP that suggests that the jobs in renewable energy will be non-productive. The fossil fuel industry is a high-capital-cost system, with relatively low ongoing labour input. That is only "efficient" if you ignore the capital costs. Renewable energy, by comparison, is low capital costs and higher labour input. That does not automagically make it economically less efficient.

214. Ignorant Guy at 17:35 PM on 29 April 2025
     Sabin 33 #26 - Is wind energy good or bad for jobs?
     

     The angle here is that wind power is good because it "creates jobs".
     I have to speak up on this. I have done before and I was flamed. I will try again and I expect to be flamed again.
     But let me try to explain this. It will be a bit lengthy. Please bear with me.

     I really like wind power. Wind power is good for a lot of reasons. But that it 'creates jobs' is not one of them.
     Jobs, work, is not an asset. It's a cost.
     If we could get all the goods and services we wanted without any work then the goods and services would have been free. But we can't. We pay with work to get it.
     Imagine that the problem for the jobless was only that they had no work to do. Then we could solve that easily by marching all the jobbless out to a field, giving each a shovel, lining everyone up on two lines, let the first line dig a hole in the ground and take a step forward, then letting the second line fill in those holes and so on until everyone has reached the edge of the field. Then everyone turns around and starts over. This is of course totally useless. But we have 'created jobs'.
     So work is a cost. If the work can produce something valuable then that value can compensate for the cost. If the product is worthless then the work is just a total loss. If the product is more valuable than the work then we have made a profit. So we should not maximize the amount of work done. We should maximize the value of goods and services produced.
     A number of unemployed people is not a cost. That is an asset. Unemployed people means available work force if some need should pop up that needs work to be done.
     The problem for the unemployed is not that they have no work to do. The problem they see is that they are punished for being unemployed - by getting no money. I was in that situation long ago, when I was a lot younger. I was long-time unemployed and I was punished for it and I resented that. But finally I got a job and then I was continuosly employed for 38 years. But when I did have a job, more than half of the time I was supposed to produce worthless junk. (And I did.) Some work I had to do was even not only useless but harmful. It would have been better to pay me for doing nothing. I resented that too. Now I am unemployed because I have retired and have a pension. I am very much OK with that.
     So, wind power is good and it takes a certain amount of work to get it. But if we could get the same amount of wind power with less work it would be better because the wind power would be cheaper. If only half the number of new jobs was needed then the labor cost would be half. That would be good. If only a tenth the number of new jobs was needed then the labor cost would be a tenth and that would be a lot better. And if I am wrong then we might just as well get some shovels and find a field.
     Now, I know that I'm just an ignorant guy, a bum with absolutely no credentials. Specifically I am not an economist. But maybe there is some economist out there who can comment.

215. Evan at 20:15 PM on 28 April 2025
     EGU2025 - Presentation about our collaborations
     

     The work that SkS authors do and the collaborations they maintain is so important for helping people understand the truth about what is happening to our climate, why it is happening, and what we can do about it.

     Thanks SkS Team!

216. Bob Loblaw at 06:25 AM on 27 April 2025
     Inside my quest for a climate-friendly bank
     

     Wild @ 2:

     In Firefox, I get an error message that fits your description when I follow the link to BankForGood.

     When I tried a chromium-based browser, I got and error message that the connection is not private, and the "https" part of the URL in the address bar is crossed out and highlighted in red. Below the error message, the browser screen states "net::ERR_CERT_COMMON_NAME_INVALID".

     It sounds like some sort of web site misconfiguration or certificate problem.

217. wilddouglascounty at 22:51 PM on 26 April 2025
     Inside my quest for a climate-friendly bank
     

     When I clicked on the Bank for Good link, my Firefox browser warned me not to proceed as the website seems to have weaknesses in its security that could allow collection of passwords, credit cards, etc. Not sure if this is actually the case or whether the site has been given tagged to prevent folks from visiting the site. Either way, it stopped me, and the good.bank did not list my Savings and Loan. Any other sites that list the fossil fuel investments of financial institutions? Otherwise I will be sending a letter to my Savings and Loan asking your questions.

218. prove we are smart at 08:54 AM on 25 April 2025
     Inside my quest for a climate-friendly bank
     

     "It’s good to have money and the things that money can buy, but it’s good, too, to check up once in a while and make sure that you haven’t lost the things that money can’t buy.” — George Lorimer- and we are losing so much and at a faster and faster rate...

219. One Planet Only Forever at 05:45 AM on 24 April 2025
     2025 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #16
     

     RedRoseAndy,

     Your proposal would help achieve the required corrections of developed unsustainable fishing activity. It would be a little more work and would reduce the profitability of the currently developed fishing. But, as you correctly implied, the easier and more profitable fishing methods that have developed have no real future (and benefiting from burning non-renewable fossil fuels also has no future, even if it wasn’t causing harmful climate change impacts).

     The assisted fertilization of eggs from ‘caught fish’ would be part of the actions to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, specifically SDG 14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development.

     You should investigate the potential for your suggestion to be part of the SDG 14 related UN Event - Ocean Action Panel 10 : Enhancing the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their resources by implementing international law as reflected in the UNCLOS

     However, I would like to know more about ‘how’ (considering all of the aspects in a holistic evaluation) an increased amount of fish will produce a reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere (more going on than carbon in fish poop falling into the depths). It seems intuitive that, like trees, more fish would result in reduced CO2 levels. If increasing the amount of fish in the seas will sustainably reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, then any actions that sustainably increase fish populations would help.

     Regardless of the question about increased fish stocks reducing CO2, it would be helpful to increase fish stocks.

     Hopefully all reasonable helpful actions will be pursued by leaders, in business and politics, to limit the harm done by human activities. Unfortunately, the focus will likely be on the easier, more profitable, and more easily popular actions rather than pursuing actually possible actions (not ‘hoped to be developed’ technological solutions) that are more helpful but are harder, more expensive, or less likely to be popular.

220. RedRoseAndy at 18:04 PM on 22 April 2025
     2025 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #16
     

     Offsetting CO2 Emissions with Fish

     Professor Oswald Schmitz is quoted in ‘New Scientist’ as saying: “Fish have a “tremendous” impact on carbon storage. “Part of it is in just the sheer biomass of these animals,” he says. But bony fish also fix carbon into insoluble minerals in their intestines as part of their way of dealing with constantly ingesting seawater. “It’s a sort of rock-like substance that they poop out and that sinks to the ocean bottom really quickly.” Collectively, marine fish account for the storage of a whopping 5.5 gigatonnes of carbon each year.” (Man produces 37.41 gigatonnes of CO2 a year.)
     Using my method of preventing fish extinction can also, then, be a method for offsetting CO2 emissions.

     A Practical Solution To Fish Stock Depletion

     Fish in the wild are being over exploited, and whole fish species face extinction. But there is an easy way of preventing these extinctions. An international law should be passed which ensures that the gonads of all fish caught are liquidized and put into water containers, the fish are usually gutted anyway so this would not be a great hardship for the fishermen. Once liquidized, artificial fertilization takes place, and after twenty four hours the fertilized fish eggs can be released into the sea. Ensure that the water in your bucket is the temperature of the sea to avoid fish deaths. It does not matter where the eggs are put back because the fry of each species find their way back to the environment they originally come from.
     In this way, the sea can be repopulated, and fishing can even become sustainable.
     The Japanese were the first country to fish in this way, and had their Navy protect the massive shoal until the fish matured. I have only heard of it being done the once, though.

221. nigelj at 07:10 AM on 21 April 2025
     Skeptical Science New Research for Week #16 2025
     

     Doug Bostrom. No apology really needed. I know its very hard for you guys to check all these links and you are volunteering time. This is where readers can help pick up glitches. 

222. Doug Bostrom at 03:21 AM on 21 April 2025
     Skeptical Science New Research for Week #16 2025
     

     Sorry about that, Nigel. That's the Unpaywall database having a search collision. Unfortunately it's "silent but deadly," impossible to catch without manual review. And I was literally falling asleep at the keyboard while getting this run done. Long days...

223. Bob Loblaw at 10:49 AM on 18 April 2025
     Skeptical Science New Research for Week #16 2025
     

     Nigel: it looks like those links and journal title are completely wrong.

     I think this might be the paper:

     https://wcd.copernicus.org/articles/6/413/2025/

     DOI from that page is this (which ends up in the same place):

     https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-6-413-2025

224. nigelj at 06:25 AM on 18 April 2025
     Skeptical Science New Research for Week #16 2025
     

     FYI. The following link "On the movement of atmospheric blocking systems and the associated temperature responses," goes to the wrong article.

225. prove we are smart at 20:45 PM on 10 April 2025
     Renewables allow us to pay less, not twice
     

     So many vested interests in slowing down the transition away from fossil fuels, ( and very successful at it too! ). As the journalist Peter Milne says here..www.boilingcold.com.au/inpex-chief-executive-expects-australias-help-to-blow-the-paris-agreement/... "a nation that allows foreign governments and multinationals to determine its economic, environmental, and energy policies." Probably true for so many others too, how sad..

226. One Planet Only Forever at 10:22 AM on 9 April 2025
     2025 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #14
     

     nigelj,

     Though we substantially agree, I need to respond to the part of your comment @23 (on the SkS re-posting of “Climate skeptics have new favorite graph; it shows the opposite of what they claim”)

     You said: “For example the Democrats proposed some truly stupid ideas like defunding the police. I guess it was an emotive reaction to police abuses but its still stupid.”

     That is a commonly claimed criticism. And it is as valid as claiming that “Tax is evil and Socialist– and imposing a Carbon Price is a tax - therefore Carbon Pricing is Socialist evil” which is the product manufactured by the misleading marketing efforts of people who resist learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others. Taxes are not evil (or Socialist). And a lack of a Carbon Price that funds full neutralization of the impacts of fossil fuel use is the reason that so much harmful activity became so popular, profitable and powerful - bad enough that many of the more informed and smarter minds are protecting their interests rather than fighting to limit the climate change harm done.

     For the police issue, Defund he Police was a punchy poster statement promoting a more involved matter. The real problem was paying to have the police try to do things they did not have proper training to do – like deal with cases of homelessness, mental health, drug use, and domestic abuse. Shifting some police funding to employ specialists in those non-police realms was the objective. “Defund the Police” was the punchy poster that became the basis for unjustified misleading marketing.

     See the following Brookings Institute presentation on the topic “7 myths about “defunding the police” debunked”

227. One Planet Only Forever at 08:09 AM on 9 April 2025
     Climate skeptics have new favorite graph; it shows the opposite of what they claim
     

     I have continued this discussion on the 2025 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #14

228. One Planet Only Forever at 08:04 AM on 9 April 2025
     2025 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #14
     

     This week’s news includes several items in the Climate Change Impacts category about the damaging impact of human-caused global warming and climate change on developed and developing global socioeconomic systems.

     • Big Banks Quietly Prepare for Catastrophic Warming
     • Global warming of more than 3°C this century may wipe 40% off the world’s economy, new analysis reveals
     • Climate crisis on track to destroy capitalism, warns top insurer,

     Those articles provide a basis for continuing a discussion here that started on the recent SkS reposting of “Climate skeptics have new favorite graph; it shows the opposite of what they claim”. The comment discussion had evolved away from the topic of the OP. The discussion had shifted to matters related to the development of sustainable improvements for the total global population, now and into the very far future.

     The three articles listed above prompted me to expand on my semi-conspiracy theory about the development of opposition to the efforts to increase awareness and improve understanding of how people can be less harmful and more helpful to Others. (see my comment @22 and nigelj’s reply @23 on that SkS reposting linked above)

     Additional considerations related to this week’s News items are:

     Big Banks Quietly Prepare for Catastrophic Warming:

     Quote:

     “The recent reports — from Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase and the Institute of International Finance — show that Wall Street has determined the temperature goal is effectively dead and describe how top financial institutions plan to continue operating profitably as temperatures and damages soar.”

     Related thoughts:

     This suggests that some people who know better are not powerfully raising awareness and improving the understanding of the general population. They are trying to maximize their collective benefit in spite of knowing how harmful their lack of action to limit the global harm done will be. It is like the way that the 2008/9 global financial disaster turned out to be beneficial for many of them (very few of them faced a negative change of status relative to Others – many of them increased their status relative to Others). The least fortunate who got little benefit from the sub-prime mortgage scams suffered the most.

     Global warming of more than 3°C this century may wipe 40% off the world’s economy, new analysis reveals

     Quote:

     “Any impacts from weather events elsewhere, such as how flooding in one country affects the food supply to another, are not incorporated into the models.

     Our new research sought to fix this. After including the global repercussions of extreme weather into our models, the predicted harm to global GDP became far worse than previously thought – affecting the lives of people in every country on Earth.”

     Related thoughts:

     A group of people today have proudly watched a 10% hit happen to global economic activity in a matter of a few days. They think they will be the winners. Everyone will lose because of the unjustified tariff attacks. But the likes of Trump probably think they will suffer less harm that Others will. Some of them may even believe they will benefit from the inequitable unjustifiable actions (paying members of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Cult could have an unfair advantage if they heard about what the Trump Administration would actual do before it became public knowledge). These type of people would have even less concern about actions they benefit from causing 40% harm to the future economy Others have to live with.

     Climate crisis on track to destroy capitalism, warns top insurer

     Quote:

     “The insurance sector is a canary in the coalmine when it comes to climate impacts,” said Janos Pasztor, former UN assistant secretary-general for climate change.

     The argument set out by Thallinger in a LinkedIn post begins with the increasingly severe damage being caused by the climate crisis: “Heat and water destroy capital. Flooded homes lose value. Overheated cities become uninhabitable. Entire asset classes are degrading in real time.”

     “We are fast approaching temperature levels – 1.5C, 2C, 3C – where insurers will no longer be able to offer coverage for many of these risks,” he said. ...

     “This applies not only to housing, but to infrastructure, transportation, agriculture, and industry,” he said. “The economic value of entire regions – coastal, arid, wildfire-prone – will begin to vanish from financial ledgers. Markets will reprice, rapidly and brutally. This is what a climate-driven market failure looks like.”

     Related thoughts:

     All of the resistance to the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals, not just resistance to efforts to limit the harm done by climate change impacts, is raising doubts about, and reducing the sustainability of, capitalism (and democracy – given the recent authoritarian ‘winning of unjustified popular beliefs and related abusive power’ in many democracies).

     The following time-line of events is part of the basis for my semi-conspiracy theory about the reasons there is such a powerful resistance to learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others. (note that there are many similar things along the timeline ... since the beginning of recorded human history and more recently)

     • 1913 – US 16th Amendment ratified allowing Congress to impose an Income Tax. (Still resisted by many wealthy and influential people who almost certainly know that their resistance is harmfully incorrect. Also resisted by people who are less aware or misunderstand things and have unjustified doubts about the benefits of an Income Tax because they are easily tempted to be misled that way)
     • 1933 – 1938 – US New Deal series of reforms (Resisted - See above)
     • 1948 – UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Resisted - See above)
     • 1962 - Silent Spring first published (Resisted - See above)
     • 1964 - US Surgeon General report regarding smoking (Resisted - See above)
     • 1965 – UN Development Programme - evolved from UN programs that started in 1949 (Resisted - See above)
     • 1972 - Stockholm Conference – identified many harmful developed human impacts (Resisted - See above)
     • 1990 – IPCC first report (Resisted - See above)
     • 2020 – COVID19 – (Influential people opposed to learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others found new ways to maximize their ability to benefit from being misleading)

     Constantly improving global civilization is not a guarantee. It is very hard work to limit the harm done by people who resist learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others. They know better, but do not care about how harmful their actions and lack of actions are.

229. Jeff Cope at 01:33 AM on 9 April 2025
     Our MOOC Denial101x has run its course
     

     It's sad the course will not be offered any more, though I hope some university or organization picks it up or creates something similar. (Coursera and others' aren't nearly as good.) I am glad you'll continue to make the resources available--I hope for the next thousand years, as that's how long the effects of climate catastrophe and denial of them are likely to last. At least.

     I recommended the course to hundreds of climate denying delayalists; though I'm guessing very few took it, its availability was an excellent arguing point. 
     
     

     PS Especially enjoyable were the Middle Earth and Westeros climate lessons.

230. BaerbelW at 15:02 PM on 8 April 2025
     2025 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #14
     

     OPOF @4

     Thanks for your feedback! I'm just adding the information that the news roundup is based on items collected via the Google form linked at the bottom and in some weeks we get around to adding the New Research article and some we don't - hence it's included in some roundups but not in all of them.

231. One Planet Only Forever at 06:17 AM on 8 April 2025
     2025 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #14
     

     wilddouglascounty,

     In addition to Bob’s good pointer to the weekly New Research posts, I would add that one of the categories for the weekly News Roundup is Climate Science and Research.

     Also, the blue panel at the bottom of the News listing invites everyone to submit an article to be included on the listing. Note that the tagging of articles for the News Roundup categories is done by the person submitting the suggested item. And they can only tag one category. Therefore, some items that are reports about recent research publications will not be tagged for the Climate Science and Research category. Examples are:

     • the article “Losing Forest Carbon Stocks Could Put Climate Goals Out Of Reach” is a news report regarding a new published research item. But I support it being tagged for the Climate Change Impacts category.
     • the article “If sea levels are rising, why is the Maldives still above water?” refers to many different publications, but it is not about a specific new research publication.

     Also note:

     • This week, the only item in the Climate Science and Research category is the weekly New Research posting last week.
     • In last week’s News Roundup (#13) there was also only one item in the Climate Science and Research category. But it was not the weekly New Research post.
     • In News Roundup #12 there were three items in the Climate Science and Research category, including the weekly New Research post.

     I am not sure that the weekly New Research post should be included in the News Roundup. But I am not the person volunteering to produce this amazing weekly compilation of informative items.

232. One Planet Only Forever at 02:46 AM on 8 April 2025
     Greenhouse effect has been falsified
     

     Reed Coray,

     In your response @213 to my ‘new questions’ @211 you state

     My thermos bottle experiment didn't compare the cavity's being filled with 'CO2 vs Air (a Nitrogen Oxygen blend), or (Air with 280 ppm CO2) vs (Air with 560 ppm CO2)' because when discussing global warming those gases are seldom mentioned.

     Are you seriously trying to 'use such a lame claim' to argue that in the context of the effect of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere it is more valid to compare CO2 to a vacuum than to compare ‘a greenhouse gas’ to ‘non-greenhouse gases’ (or to compare different amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere)?

     You established the context for all the discussion that has followed your comment @180 where you made the following questionable declaration:

     ...(“the Earth's surface is warmed by-heat-trapping greenhouse gases”) is invalid because heat cannot be trapped—i.e., an adiabatic wall does not exist in nature. If heat can’t be trapped, any and all claims that rely on the existence of heat-trapping material or trapped heat constitute misinformation.

     I believe the phrases "trapped heat" and "heat trapping" are used to incorrectly explain a physical process in a way that will resonate with the general public.

     The discussion that has developed is in the context of whether it is ‘misleading’ to say ‘greenhouse gases trap heat’ in a public ‘plain language’ presentation of the scientific understanding of greenhouse gases.

     In your response to my question @181 you conclude with the following:

     If your theoretical estimate of Earth surface warming requires the existence of 'trapped heat' (i.e., your theoretical argument is that Earth surface warming will occur because some gases 'trap heat' within the lower troposphere), then your theoretical argument is nonsense because heat can't be trapped.

     As I said, I'm not sure an 'easily understood term' exists for Earth surface temperature change.

     In spite of being provided with a diversity of reasoned justifications for the validity of saying that “the Earth's surface is warmed by heat-trapping greenhouse gases” you persist in the belief that “...the phrases "trapped heat" and "heat trapping" are used to incorrectly explain a physical process...”

     Responding to my new questions @211 the way you did @213 is just another tragic result of ‘desperately trying to maintain an invalid belief’ about the validity of saying that “the Earth's surface is warmed by heat-trapping greenhouse gases”.

     In closing I will note that by comparing CO2 to a vacuum in the thermos bottle experiment you are implying that the global average surface temperature of the Earth would be warmer (more of the incoming energy would be trapped at the surface) without an atmosphere containing greenhouse gases. Claiming that a vacuum would keep more energy at the surface would appear to be a clear case of ‘incorrectly explaining an understood physical process’ (in the context that you established for this discussion).

233. Bob Loblaw at 23:51 PM on 7 April 2025
     Greenhouse effect has been falsified
     

     Reed @ 216:

     It is obvious that you are not even bothering to read much of what people say in response to your comments here.

     To give you one hint: some of the comments include links to relevant information. Your browser will probably highlight those links by underlining the the text and/or changing the display colour where the link is buried. The displayed text will not be the link itself, but clicking on the displayed text will take you to the link. Your browser will probably pop up the details of the link when you hover over the text - most likely in the bottom left corner of your browser window. This is basic Web Browsing 101.

     For example, here is a link to your most recent comment. Here is another one, but I have chosen to display the actual link as text, instead of displaying "here is a link to your most recent comment" : https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=98&p=9#143775

     "I struggle putting comments on this blog in the right spot."

     You were previously given instructions on navigating the comments on this web site in the green Moderator's box below this post of yours. Please follow that link, and read those instructions again.

     You complain:

     Could you send me the URL where the Cambridge dictionary uses greenhouse as an example usage of "trap?"

     As Dikran has already pointed out, in comment 218 (note how I have created a link pointing directly to that comment), I already gave you that link in comment 205. I also quoted the definition in plain text, which Dikran has repeated. I also gave you a link to the Collins Dictionary definition in that comment, and a link to the Britannica dictionary definition in comment 206.

     Instead of spending time trying to justify your preconceived notions or chasing a new squirrel, why don't you try to spend time actually reading what others are saying and spend time trying to understand it?

234. Dikran Marsupial at 21:17 PM on 7 April 2025
     Greenhouse effect has been falsified
     

     Reed Coray What you are doing is known as a "Gish Gallop" which is a rhetorical device used to prevent in depth discussion of any partiular point by constantly raising new ones while the previous points have not yet been settled.  So I'll answer the first point or two and we can go badk to the other isse when those are settled.

     You replied to my question about whether it is O.K. to talk of a blanket or a thermos flask trapping heat:

     My response: Yes, it is reasonable when interacting at an educational level. But It is not reasonable when presenting a scientific argument for the purpose of persuading someone to change his way of life.

     The explanation of the greenhouse effect trapping heat is only being used in an "educational" level here, so that people who don't understand the greenhouse effect might start to understand the very basics.

     for the purpose of persuading someone to change his way of life.

     I think this is what is called "motivated reasoning".  It appears that you are making a special case here because you don't like the consequences of someone understanding the greenhouse effect.  It is a political objection masquerading as a scientific one.

     Personally, I am not asking anybody to change their way of life - I just want the public debate to be well informed.  That includes the science.

     My question to you: Forget global warming for a minute, if as part of an effort to get a lay person to appreciably change his way of life, is it okay to use scientifically invalid arguments?

     As I have pointed out to you repeatedly, saying the greenhouse effect "traps" heat is not a scientifically invalid one.  It isn't the best explanation, but as a starting point it is completely reasonable.  You have already conceded that by admitting it is O.K. to talk of a blanket or a thermos flask as "trapping heat".

     My response: Could you send me the URL where the Cambridge dictionary uses greenhouse as an example usage of "trap?"

     
     You have already been given it (by Bob Loblaw), here it is again

     https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/trap

      It says:

     to keep something such as heat [emphasis mine] or water in one place, especially because it is useful:

     
     A greenhouse stays warm because the glass traps the heat of the sun.

     
     You give the explanation of the greenhouse effect:

     My response: My understanding of the ‘basic mechanisms of the greenhouse effect” is as follows. (a) the absorption of IR emitted from the Earth's surface prevents some of that IR from reaching space (i.e., leaving the Earth/Earth-atmosphere system), (b) the energy in the IR that doesn’t reach space is absorbed by gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, and (c) a portion of that absorbed energy is radiated back to the Earth's surface thereby increasing the rate the Earth's surface absorbs IR, which in turn acts to increase the Earth’s surface temperature.

     
     As I thought, there is quite a lot missing there.  Firstly the outbound IR that is absorbed by GHG is distributed to the bulk atmosphere by collisions.  Sometimes collisions cause the bulk atmosphere to give a molecule of a GHG enough energy to reradiate.  That is quite important as it is a common source of misunderstanding.  Next most of the outbound IR is absorbed by GHGs and re-rediated and some of that is absorbed further up.  The key thing is not that IR is absorbed near the surface, but the properties of the layer in the atmosphere from which it *can* escape to space.  Due to the lapse rate, this layer is *cold* and hence GHGs there radiate less (including into space).  It is also missing the key point (and why it is called the "greenhouse effect") which is that the atmosphere is largely transparent visible and some UV light, so the surface is mostly warmed by the incoming UV & visible light from the Sun. The atmosphere is warmed from beneath.  So good start, but the lapse rate is crucial.

     "a) the absorption of IR emitted from the Earth's surface prevents some of that IR from reaching space (i.e., leaving the Earth/Earth-atmosphere system),"

     "prevented from leaving" - you mean like it is trapped or something? ;o)

      

     Now guess what, that is only an approximation to what actually happens, leaving out lots of important detail (just a first year undergrad explanation).  Science is full of that sort of thing and there is no clean distinction between "science" and "not science" when it comes to levels of explanation - it depends on the audience.  As an example, I just read Katie Mack's book on the ways the universe might end, and it turns out the explanation of Hawking radiation (virtual particles forming at the evnt horizon, one escapes and the other doesn't) isn't actually what happens, it is just the closest you will get for an audience that hasn't spent three years studying maths as undergraduate level.

     You are being inconsistent here, apparently because you don't like the idea of someone making a well-informed decision to change their lifestyle.

235. Eclectic at 14:35 PM on 7 April 2025
     Greenhouse effect has been falsified
     

     @216 :

     Very entertaining, Reed Coray.

     It is amusing how you keep moving your goalposts.  I am interested to see when you do eventually come full circle.

     Regarding mechanisms, per your 14th paragraph (or 13th ~ depending on counting odd line usage) . . . you list mechanisms (a) and (b) and (c) . . . and you have gotten all three wrong substantially.

     Perhaps you were meaning a joke ~ but otherwise, it demonstrates that you need to go away for many hours, and educate yourself scientifically on the physics of Earth's atmosphere.  Then, when you do get to understand "Greenhouse Effect" you may (or may not) choose to split hairs about the semantic meanings of English words.

     But first, please educate yourself ~ rather than flounder about as now.

236. Reed Coray at 12:54 PM on 7 April 2025
     Greenhouse effect has been falsified
     

     This response is to Dikran Marsupial at 02:14 AM on 7 April 2025.  I struggle putting comments on this blog in the right spot.

     Your statement: “My question was whether it was reasonable in a discussion with a lay-person to say that a blanket keeps you warm by ‘trapping heat’ or whether a thermos flask keeps tea warm by ‘trapping heat’”.

     
     My response: Yes, it is reasonable when interacting at an educational level.  But It is not reasonable when presenting a scientific argument for the purpose of persuading someone to change his way of life.

     
     My question to you: Forget global warming for a minute, if as part of an effort to get a lay person to appreciably change his way of life, is it okay to use scientifically invalid arguments?

     
     Your comments: (a) "How about a greenhouse (is the Cambridge dictionary that uses it as an example usage of "trap" incorrect?)." and (b) "The most popular dictionary and thesaurus for learners of English. Find meanings and definitions of words with pronunciations and translations in various languages."

     
     My response: Could you send me the URL where the Cambridge dictionary uses greenhouse as an example usage of "trap?" When I Googled "Cabridge Dictionary Online" the URL that appeared was "https://www.bing.com/search?q=cambridge+dictionary+online&qs=HS&pq=cambrid&sc=10-7&cvid=69BDBA17495D45A3B8FE6E7E187CDE83&FORM=CHRDEF&sp=1&lq=0" The first entry that appeared on the screen was: "Cambridge Dictionary | English Dictionary, Translations & Thesaurus..." When I clicked on that the URL what appeared was: "https://dictionary.cambridge.org/"

     
     When I entered "greenhouse" as the word to be defined, the word "trap" appeared nowhere on the screen. A link did appear for the phrase 'greenhouse effect." When I clicked on that link, three definitions of greenhouse effect appeared. (1) "an increase in the amount of carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere (= mixture of gases around the earth), that is believed to be the cause of a gradual warming of the surface of the earth," (2) “A reference to the American Dictionary which defined the greenhouse effect to be: ‘the gradual warming of the earth because of heat trapped by carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere’." (3) “A reference to the BUSINESS ENGLISH dictionary which defined the greenhouse effect to be: ‘an increase in the amount of carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere (= mix of gases which surround the earth), which is believed to cause the surface of the earth to become gradually warmer and to be a threat to its future’.”
     At that point I quit my online search. The "American Dictionary" definition did include a reference to "trapped heat, but the Cambridge dictionary did so only as a reference to the American Dictionary. In any event, all of those dictionaries are targeted at the general public. As such, “every-day” dictionaries omit detailed scientific arguments and replace it with phraseology that is familiar to the common man. If there is a valid complex scientific explanation that shows an error in the common-man definition, that explanation will be omitted from the dictionary. Thus, when you argue that it’s okay to use terminology from an every-day dictionary to discuss a scientific matter with a lay person, you are correct.

     However, that doesn’t establish the scientific validity of the discussion, it only means that the same terminology is used both in both the “definition” and the “discussion.” So, when an every-day dictionary uses the phrase “trap heat,” it establishes that using the phrase in discussions with lay people is a common practice and therefore acceptable, but it does not establish the scientific validity of the phrase “trap heat.”

     
     Your comment: "I have seen this time and time again in discussions with "contrarians", which is that I am happy to give very straight answers to direct questions, but they are not. The reason is that they know that their argument collapses if they give a straight answer."

     
     Question to you: Are my above answers "straight answers to your direct questions?”

     
     Your comment: "You appear not to understand the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect if that thought experiment was intended to be relevant to that question."

     My response: My understanding of the ‘basic mechanisms of the greenhouse effect” is as follows. (a) the absorption of IR emitted from the Earth's surface prevents some of that IR from reaching space (i.e., leaving the Earth/Earth-atmosphere system), (b) the energy in the IR that doesn’t reach space is absorbed by gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, and (c) a portion of that absorbed energy is radiated back to the Earth's surface thereby increasing the rate the Earth's surface absorbs IR, which in turn acts to increase the Earth’s surface temperature.

     If my understanding of the mechanism is wrong or incomplete, please explain why.

     Responding in kind to your statement that “I (i.e., you) have seen this time and time again in discussions with "contrarians", which is that I am happy to give very straight answers to direct questions, but they are not. The reason is that they know that their argument collapses if they give a straight answer.”

     I make a similar comment. "I have seen time and time again in discussions with "global warming advocates," that the use of precise scientific terminology is seldom employed. The reason being that most global warming advocates are at best minimally knowledgeable of the science, and if asked to explain the details of the underlying physics, can’t.

237. Bob Loblaw at 11:00 AM on 7 April 2025
     Greenhouse effect has been falsified
     

     scaddenp @ 212:

     My guess is that Reed started these semantic word games because he has nothing else to present. Maybe he actually finds it convincing, but it is clear that he has not presented any substantive arguments against the science.

238. Bob Loblaw at 10:57 AM on 7 April 2025
     Greenhouse effect has been falsified
     

     Reed Coray @ 208, 213:

     You continue to avoid the real question. It may be that you don't understand the question - but I agree with Dikran that you probably simply don't want to answer his question.

     At least you have abandoned your attempt to claim that "trap heat" is not a term that would appear in "a generic dictionary".

     Let's play word games again, and look at another definition of "trap" - this time as a noun. It comes from one of the links I gave earlier.

     • a dangerous or unpleasant situation which you have got into and from which it is difficult or impossible to escape:
     • The undercover agents went to the rendezvous knowing that it might be a trap.
     • fall into a trap She's too smart to fall into the trap of working without pay.
     • Don't fall into the trap of thinking you can learn a foreign language without doing any work.
     • His foot was caught in the jaws of the trap.
     • We set a trap and they walked right into it.
     • They put rabbit traps all over the wood.
     • We set traps to try to control the mice.

     Your attempts to divert attention away into more word games is obviously because of the "unpleasant situation which you have got into and from which it is difficult or impossible to escape". It is also a trap of your own making - posting poorly-thought-out arguments in a public forum, where others are free to point out your errors.

     [Note that all three of the dictionaries that I referenced in comments 205 and 206 provide similar definitions.]

     I agree with Dikran @ 210, when he says that your sort of behaviour is common from "contrarians". Avoid the questions. Avoid dealing with the arguments presented. Avoid admitting to the glaring errors of logic and inconsistency that are pointed out to you.

     Word of advice: when you find yourself in a deep hole, stop digging.

239. Bob Loblaw at 10:35 AM on 7 April 2025
     2025 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #14
     

     wild:

     The pattern of subjects/articlesyou ask about is probably because this topic is the News Roundup. It sounds like you prefer to see what is in the New Research post that comes out on Thursdays.

240. wilddouglascounty at 09:25 AM on 7 April 2025
     2025 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #14
     

     (Sorry for the poor alignment in the next-to-last paragraph above: apparently the comment posting window has a different width than the posted comment window!)

241. wilddouglascounty at 09:23 AM on 7 April 2025
     2025 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #14
     

     This is a request:

     In light of the overwhelming amount of research and analytics being done regarding the many, many facets of the climate, your Weekly Climate Change News has in the past been very helpful for the reader to find vetted journal news to sort through the tsunami of coverage that is almost impossible to sort out. Kudos for your editorial staff to sort through this firehose of information in order to glean it down to semi-digestible quantities!

     Maybe it has been there along and I have noticed it, and perhaps it is because of your system of categorization that you are now using, but I have been noticing an inflation of news articles that are inundating the research based articles published in vetted journals. While there is nothing inherently wrong with reporting the "news" in the Climate Change Impacts category, for instance, I can easily find these news articles elsewhere, whereas the journal articles are more difficult to retrieve. Given the huge volume of articles available, you could greatly turn down the "news" volume in order to make it easier to take in the research end of the category. For instance in this week's "Climate Change Impacts" section, the following represent the kind of analytic and research articles I'm interested in finding out about:

     • -If sea levels are rising, why is the Maldives still above water?
     • -Losing Forest Carbon Stocks Could Put Climate Goals Out Of Reach
     • -Big Banks Quietly Prepare for Catastrophic Warming
     • -Global warming of more than 3°C this century may wipe 40% off the world’s economy, new analysis reveals
     • -Climate crisis on track to destroy capitalism, warns top insurer
     • -Forecasters predict another active 2025 Atlantic hurricane season
     • -On the Edge: The people and polar bears of a warming arctic

     The rest of the articles in the Climate Change Impacts category are merely news headlines about unfolding weather events, and we all know that intensity and frequency of these are increasing due to increased capacities of weather systems in an atmosphere juiced by increasing carbon levels. But I'm looking more for research and analyses of those weather pattern changes, instead of reportage of the weather events themselves, which I can find elsewhere. Burying the 7 analyses/research papers amongst the 11 weather news reports makes it more, not less difficult to study Climate Change Impacts, at least for me. Perhaps this might make it easier for you as well!

     Moderator Response:

     [BL] Formatting fixed....

     When preparing your comment, the two icons in the middle of the Basic menu tab in the comments window allow  you to to created bulleted or numeric lists. These will automatically deal with wrapping over multiple lines.

     • If  you hover over the icons, you should see balloon  help that says "Unordered List" and "Ordered list" respectively.
     • Once you start a list, you can increase or decrease the indentation (i.e., make sub-lists) using the icons to the left of the double-quote icon. The balloon help will read Outdent or Indent for those icons.
242. Reed Coray at 06:51 AM on 7 April 2025
     Greenhouse effect has been falsified
     

     Question: "Why doesn’t your thermos experiment compare the cavities being filled with CO2 vs Air (a Nitrogen Oxygen blend), or (Air with 280 ppm CO2) vs (Air with 560 ppm CO2)?"

     Answer: My thermos bottle experiment didn't compare the cavity's being filled with 'CO2 vs Air (a Nitrogen Oxygen blend), or (Air with 280 ppm CO2) vs (Air with 560 ppm CO2)' because when discussing global warming those gases are seldom mentioned. I picked the gas (CO2) that most people argue is the primary cause of harmful global warming.

     Question: "Do you agree that those comparisons would be more valid than CO2 vs vacuum?"

     Answer: More valid for what— Earth surface warming, the behavior of thermos bottles, etc?  I was responding to Dikran Marsupial's statement: "I am open to rational argument, such as a good answer to my question about blankets and thermos flasks "trapping heat", and willing to change my mind."  He mentioned blankets and thermos flasks.  I chose thermos flasks.

      

243. scaddenp at 06:44 AM on 7 April 2025
     Greenhouse effect has been falsified
     

     I am struggling to see what it is gained by these sematic arguments. The real language of the GHE is the hard cold language of physics and maths, especially the Radiative Transfer Equations. No matter how these are interpretated in layman's language, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere warms the earth surface. The equations predict things like the amount of radiation received at the surface or at the top of the atmosphere and the spectrum of that radiation with exquisite accuracy. Also, see this paper for direct observation of CO2 increasing the greenhouse effect at the earth surface. Suggesting this is not real based on misunderstanding greenhouse theory is futile. You are fooling only yourself.

244. One Planet Only Forever at 03:00 AM on 7 April 2025
     Greenhouse effect has been falsified
     

     Reed Coray @208,

     New questions:

     Why doesn’t your thermos experiment compare the cavities being filled with CO2 vs Air (a Nitrogen Oxygen blend), or (Air with 280 ppm CO2) vs (Air with 560 ppm CO2)?

     Do you agree that those comparisons would be more valid than CO2 vs vacuum?

245. Dikran Marsupial at 02:14 AM on 7 April 2025
     Greenhouse effect has been falsified
     

     Reed Coray, you have not addressed my question, just evaded it with a thought experiment of your own.  My question was whether it was reasonable in a discussion with a lay-person to say that a blanket keeps you warm by "trapping heat" or whether a thermos flask keeps tea warm by "trapping heat".  How about a greenhouse (is the Cambridge dictionary that uses it as an example usage of "trap" incorrect?).

     I have seen this time and time again in discussions with "contrarians", which is that I am happy to give very straight answers to direct questions, but they are not.  The reason is that they know that their argument collapses if they give a straight answer.

     So are you going to give a straight answer to my question, or are you going to continue with the evasion.

     "In the vacuum thermos bottle, a vacuum surrounds the thermos bottle's chamber.  In the CO2 thermos bottle, a heat-trapping greenhouse gas (CO2) surrounds the thermos bottle's chamber."

     You appear not to understand the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect if that thought experiment was intended to be relevant to that question.

246. Eclectic at 17:22 PM on 6 April 2025
     Greenhouse effect has been falsified
     

     Reed Corey @208 :

     You have use multiple paragraphs of words to point to an "experiment" where a vacuum (plus silvered surfaces) does a better job of trapping heat than does silvered surfaces plus CO2 gas.

     Which really does nothing to support your argument (such as it is).

     Your argument being: that words are important and realities are not.

247. Reed Coray at 15:15 PM on 6 April 2025
     Greenhouse effect has been falsified
     

     Dikran Marsupial at 19:53 PM on 3 April 2025 wrote: "I am open to rational argument, such as a good answer to my question about blankets and thermos flasks 'trapping heat', and willing to change my mind."

     Okay try this. Take two vacuum thermos bottles as nearly identical as possible.  The vacuum region of each thermos bottle surrounds its chamber.  Punch a small hole in one of the thermos bottles (letting gas into the vacuum region of that thermos bottle), and choose for that gas  CO2 (a heat-trapping, greenhouse gas).  Reseal the hole so that the CO2 gas can't leave the insulation region."  Call the thermos bottle without CO2 gas the vacuum thermos bottle.  Call the thermos bottle with CO2 gas the CO2 thermos bottle. 

     In the vacuum thermos bottle, a vacuum surrounds the thermos bottle's chamber.  In the CO2 thermos bottle, a heat-trapping greenhouse gas (CO2) surrounds the thermos bottle's chamber.

     Place equal amounts of coffee heated to the same temperature in each thermos bottle chamber.  Place both thermos bottles side-by-side in an external envirornment whose temperature is lower than the temperature of the heated coffee.  Eventually the temperature of the coffee in both thermos will reach and stablize at the temperature of the external environment; but the CO2 thermos bottle will reach that temperature much more rapidly than the vacuum thermos bottle.  If CO2 gas traps heat, how is this possible? 

     When describing to a lay person what is happening, wouldn't it be more appropriate to say "a greenhouse gas (CO2) is freeing heat" to say "a greenhouse gas (CO2) is trapping heat?"  

     The above experiment is a comparison of "rates of heat loss," not a comparison of temperatures.  But the experiment can easily to modified to be a comparison of temperatures.  Simply place equal or nearly equal constant-rate heat sources in the chambers along with the coffee.  As long as the heat source is outputing heat at a constant rate, the temperatures of the coffee in both thermos bottles will reach a stable temperature higher than the environment's temperature, but the stable temperature of the vacuum thermos bottle will be higher than the stable temperature of the CO2 thermos bottle. As with the "rate of heat loss" comparison, for the temperature comparison it is more correct to say the CO2 gas "frees heat" than it is to say the CO2 gas "traps heat."

     hus, in thermos bottles CO2 gas doesn't "trap heat" it "frees heat." 

248. nigelj at 08:12 AM on 6 April 2025
     Climate skeptics have new favorite graph; it shows the opposite of what they claim
     

     Moderator sorry. I agree it is a bit off topic. Your comment wasn't there when I posted. I won't continue further on this thread.

249. nigelj at 08:10 AM on 6 April 2025
     Climate skeptics have new favorite graph; it shows the opposite of what they claim
     

     OPOF @21

     I go along with your philosophical position on system change etc,etc.

     -------------------

     OPOF @22

     "A reduced global total population would definitely improve the ability of all humans on this amazing planet to sustainably enjoy better lives, now and into the distant future."
     
     Exactly. Warming projections are based on business as usual population growth so only slowing mildly. Any way we can get that growth to slow quicker, will help the climate issue.
     
     "This recent BBC – In Depth article “The influencers who want the world to have more babies - and say the White House is on their side” is about beliefs that ignore or conflict with that common sense understanding...."
     
     Yes and its frustrating. This is why I suggested a declining population is not guaranteed (although personally I think population will still decline). There are forces in opposition to a smaller population mostly 1) people worried about the economics of the transition period of declining numbers of young people having to support an aging population tending to live longer and 2)people driven by the bible "go forth and multiply" and 3) the natural instinct to have large families is strong in some people even although it no longer makes much economic sense in developed countries. 4) people who tend to think more people is just good economically. 5) people worried about their culture losing dominance

     And I can acknowledge the economic arguments and at least understand the religious and cultural arguments. But I think they arent very good arguments overall, and they will all still loose the argument because even in countries where governments have tried to encourage or financially incentivise large families it hasnt worked - people continue to prefer small families. There are examples in SE Asia easily googled. And family size is decling even in Catholic and Islamic countries. So I'm not that worried about Vance backing large families.

     "[JD]Vance has often spoken about the need to fix a "broken culture" that is tearing the US family apart, by undermining men."

     This appears to mean men are being underminded because they can no longer exploit, abuse, control and discriminate against women. Or because society now accepts trangender people. Vance and his ilk are never able to provide any other reasons of any significance.

     "My semi-conspiracy theory......"

     Something like that process is definitely going on. I dont think you have quite nailed it completely, but I cant immediately improve on it.

     I tend to think that what is happening at the most general level in society is theres a unfortunate conservative backlash against gobilisation, which tends to have a liberal agenda, and which I broadly support. But it does have a few downsides which has left it open to attack.

     The emergent conservative camp wants a return to economic protectionism, traditional family values, fossil fuels , and attracts people with largely traditionalist leaning values like that. There is no sign of much of a compromise solution emerging. Its very much armed and angry camps.

     I think we have to stand up for the values we believe in and argue why, and also be open to understanding valid criticisms of our own positions. For example the Democrats proposed some truly stupid ideas like defunding the police. I guess it was an emotive reaction to police abuses but its still stupid.

     "Note: I admit to also wanting ‘more of a certain type of people’. I want more people who pursue learning to be less harmful and more helpful to others. That may be ‘divisive’. But it is arguably ‘a good divisiveness’."
     
     Agreed. And this is an example of promoting values we believe in. I dont see what more we can do. We have to take a stand, but without being closed minded about valid criticisms either. But sometimes I think liberals are a bit too polite - most of Trumps policies look idiotic to me and we have to sometimes call a spade a spade.

      

250. One Planet Only Forever at 03:46 AM on 6 April 2025
     Climate skeptics have new favorite graph; it shows the opposite of what they claim
     

     nigelj,

     A reduced global total population would definitely improve the ability of all humans on this amazing planet to sustainably enjoy better lives, now and into the distant future.

     However, some people are opposed to, or unaware of, the fundamental benefit of fewer concurrently living people, regionally as well as globally. Fewer people would allow more sustainable negative impacts per person to meet the following common sense rule: (average impacts per person) X (number of people) < Sustainable total impacts

     This recent BBC – In Depth article “The influencers who want the world to have more babies - and say the White House is on their side” is about beliefs that ignore or conflict with that common sense understanding. Those beliefs can currently be considered to be ‘of limited influence’. However, the current White House, and other institutions governed by the current version of the US Republican Party, is now significantly influenced by misunderstandings that were considered to be extreme fringe beliefs 10 years ago.

     And a scary reality presented in the article is the following quotes of statements made by the ‘pronatalism promoter’:

     "The easiest way to [spread the word about pronatalism] was to turn ourselves into a meme... If we take a reasonable approach to things and say things are nuanced, nobody engages. And then we go and say something outrageous and offensive and everyone's into it."
     ...
     "We are a coalition of people who are incredibly different in our philosophies, our theological beliefs, our family structures," says Malcolm. "But the one thing we agree on is that our core enemy is the urban monoculture; the leftist unifying culture."

     The following parts of the article are also a concern:

     [JD]Vance has often spoken about the need to fix a "broken culture" that is tearing the US family apart, by undermining men.

     In a recent interview, he said: "We actually think God made male and female for a purpose and we want you guys to thrive as young men and young women and we're going to help with our public policy to make it possible to do that."

     This idea has been echoed in pronatalist circles.

     "Vance is a vocal pronatalist," says Rachel Cohen, policy correspondent at Vox. "Trump himself campaigned on implementing a new "baby boom" and last week he declared himself the 'fertilisation president'."
     ...
     Their [pronatalism promoters] connection to power is thanks to the so-called tech right, a reactionary movement against liberalism led by some of the most powerful people in Silicon Valley. Those in the tech right include Paypal co-founder Peter Thiel – who sponsored Vance's Senate race and has invested in fertility technology – and venture capitalists David Sacks and Marc Andreessen.

     My semi-conspiracy theory, supported to some degree by the evidence, about the current version of the US Republican Party is that the fossil fuel interests who aggressively and abusively pursue their interests could only ‘sustain’ protection of their harmful interests by winning control over governing institutions. Increased awareness and improved understanding of climate science forced them to try to appeal to other harmful misunderstandings in their desperate attempts to ‘sustain’ their understandably harmful interests. And the groups they appealed to have developed more harmful influence, while ‘sustaining’ the harmful fossil fuel interests.

     People who want more people born, especially those who want more of their type than Other types, seem to be the type that the harmful fossil fuelers, and the other harmful interests they have gathered support from, would try to appeal to in order to ‘collectively sustain’ their harmful interests.

     Note: I admit to also wanting ‘more of a certain type of people’. I want more people who pursue learning to be less harmful and more helpful to others. That may be ‘divisive’. But it is arguably ‘a good divisiveness’.

     Moderator Response:

     [BL] Gentlemen: this is all getting rather off topic. Please wrap it up...

     The weekly news round-up is more suitable as a general discussion area, if you want to move it.

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next