Recent Comments

Prev  496  497  498  499  500  501  502  503  504  505  506  507  508  509  510  511  Next

Comments 25151 to 25200:

25151. bozzza at 18:04 PM on 11 March 2016
       After 116 days, MIT fossil fuel divestment sit-in ends in student-administration deal for climate action
       

       Divestment is not an ethical issue.

        

       Divestment is also called Investment: economics calls this idea, "Opportunity cost!"

        

       If Divestment has ethical connotations then surely so too does Investment?

        

       Why do we have kids? 

25152. ConcernedCitizen at 17:51 PM on 11 March 2016
       How we know the greenhouse effect isn't saturated
       

       @96.  You misunderstand.  The suggestion that the atmosphere is made thicker by adding CO2, thus forcing it to radiate from a higher altitude  and causing surface warmuing would have to be acompanied by an increase in pressure at the surface,.  This hasnt happened.

25153. ConcernedCitizen at 17:48 PM on 11 March 2016
       How we know the greenhouse effect isn't saturated
       

       @Moderator.   Where did I question the GH theory?

        

       I am questioning the 'more CO2 = higher lapse rate thus more surface warmig' theory you are proposing in this piece.

25154. Tristan at 17:16 PM on 11 March 2016
       After 116 days, MIT fossil fuel divestment sit-in ends in student-administration deal for climate action
       

       Divestment does not 'punish' fossil fuel companies. Divestment amounts to the statement: I am not comfortable deriving income from this source. It is a demonstration to broader society that one is willing to sacrifice some measure of profits for one's beliefs. It generates conversation about the nature of a given industry and whether or not we should accept the way it currently operates.

25155. Sharon Krushel at 16:58 PM on 11 March 2016
       After 116 days, MIT fossil fuel divestment sit-in ends in student-administration deal for climate action
       

       A positive and productive alternative to the hypocrisy of divesting from fossil fuels would be for students to rally MIT to invest a minimum % of their funds in renewable energy companies. This, combined with the planned reduction in the campus carbon footprint, would be an ethical move indeed that would actually have a positive impact on the environment and on those who are looking up to them for inspiration.

25156. Sharon Krushel at 16:20 PM on 11 March 2016
       After 116 days, MIT fossil fuel divestment sit-in ends in student-administration deal for climate action
       

       It's like condemning ranchers for all the methane their cattle produce, while you take another bite of your hamburger.

25157. Sharon Krushel at 16:16 PM on 11 March 2016
       After 116 days, MIT fossil fuel divestment sit-in ends in student-administration deal for climate action
       

       Painting all fossil fuel companies, executives and workers with one big broad black brush is prejudice. I hope you can recognize that in what you have written. Have you actually spoken to any of them, and gotten to know them as people? Can you produce data on which specific companies have funded denial? Are they all guilty if one is guilty? If so, you have a strange sense of justice.

       Condemning all fossil fuel companies, regardless of their track record, while we are still using fossil fuels for our own benefit is hypocrisy, no matter how you look at it.

       Actions based on prejudice and hypocrisy will have negative consequences in the long run. That is the way of ethics.

       I've not heard an answer to the ethics question, "If it is immoral to invest in companies that extract fossil fuels, is it also immoral to invest in companies that use fossil fuels?"

       The question has been asked, "If the U.S. purchases vast amounts of steel from China, and the production of the steel results in vast amounts of CO2 emissions, who is responsible for these emissions in China - the U.S.? or China? Or is it the automotive industry that uses the steel? Or is it the people who buy the vehicles?

       In light of global warming, do you recognize that it's wrong to travel for the sake of pleasure? Do you continue to do that?

       The blaming game will just take us in circles and turn people against each other at a time when we most need to be working together, collaborating, sharing and developing ideas and implementing positive changes.

       You say, "The very rich of the Western World could easily spare a 100 billion toward a transition effort, as a purely private effort." That's great! As I said, we should be encouraging that. That's a positive action that will have definite positive results.

       You say "We must reduce fossil fuel use. However, considering how little sense seems to be coming out of people in large groups..." I agree. And encouraging consumers to condemn the supplier makes very little sense. That's my point. The MIT initiative inadvertently promotes the very attitude amongst consumers that you are condemning broadly in the fossil fuel industry. "I don't need to change MY behaviour!"

       I didn't say anything about lost jobs in my comment above. I'm not sure why you brought it up. As difficult as it is to lose one's livelihood, it's not relevant to the issue of hypocrisy I'm trying to bring to light.

       It surprises me that divestment from fossil fuel companies is being justified from the perspective of ethics, when, at this point in time, it contradicts the basics of ethics. 

25158. PhilippeChantreau at 03:55 AM on 11 March 2016
       After 116 days, MIT fossil fuel divestment sit-in ends in student-administration deal for climate action
       

       Sharon you have already made the point before that the oil industry in Canada provides a livelihood for many people. That is true but by no means an excuse to hold these livelihoods hostage in any way. The reason why fossil fuels industries and their lobbies are often cast as villains is because of their proven track record of funding denial and manufacturing doubt in order to delay or entirely prevent the transition you mention, which is possible only as a public undertaking, driven by public policy.

       The overall behavior in the fossil fuel world is of the sort that has already proven so many times to lead to catastrophic failure. The same mode of operation chosen by tobacco. The attitude of utilities spreading cancer-causing chemicals in the water. The denial and irresponsible handling that caused a more recent water quality crisis in Flint. The same mind set that led VW to cheat. The attitude that consists of acknowledgeing that something is wrong but going on with it, developing all sorts of methods to cover, protect, hide, avoid. It is faulty risk/benefit analysis and always fail. It is bad business and will more surely result in the loss of the livelihoods about which you are concerned than any concerted effort to transition. 

       We are now at a time where the transition is quite feasible. Western countries are richer than ever before. The 2008 crisis was possibly the worst thing to hit the World economy since WWII. Yet, there were no endless lines of folks hoping to catch a bowl of soup, pop-up shanty towns, stores with empty aisles. None of that. This gigantic financial fiasco could be absorbed with what amounted to minimal damage.

       The fossil fuel industries have amounts of money that regular folks like you and me can barely comprehend. The very rich of the Western World could easily spare a 100 billion toward a transition effort, as a purely private effort. They really have that much money  and more. There are more technologies available than ever before to make the transition. The truth is that, one way or another, the industrial scale use of fossil fuels will be eradicated. It is up to us how controlled that process is.

       The fossil fuel industry risk/benefit analysis is completely off. They could lead this effort, thereby exercising significant control on it and ensuring their long term prosperity as the major energy player of the future, if their focus was not entirely on maximizing profit now and securing the best potential profits on the 5 years horizon.

       You do have a point, and a shining one at that, on the consumer side. We must reduce our fossil fuel use. However, considering how little sense seems to be coming out of people in large groups, policy efforts are necessary. Public policies, and private initiative like the one from MIT are all part of the big picture showing us in the attempt to wean ourselves off the stuff in a controlled, minimally damaging way. It is unfortunate that the fossil fuel industry is being such a hindrance.

       Somehow, a group think started among the FF industry with the fear that, acknowledgeing climate change and modifying their business practice and eventually their vocation, was synonymous with ruin. It does not have to be that way at all. A bunch of old guys with sclerosed thinking are paralyzed by fear of change, even though they are in the most privileged position to tackle that change. I'm not impressed, regardless how many jobs they provide.

25159. knaugle at 02:07 AM on 11 March 2016
       New Video: Why Scientists Trust the Surface Thermometers More than Satellites
       

       Good stuff.  I had noticed on Cowtan's site that the uncertainty of satellite data is twice that of the surface temperature data.

25160. pete best at 21:27 PM on 10 March 2016
       Why We Need to Keep 80 Percent of Fossil Fuels in the Ground
       

       if we have to leave 80% in the ground then how long will it take to use up the 20%? and how quickly are we reducing our usage to make that 20% last longer. I am presuming that this 20% always keeps us under 2C or is it 1.5C?

25161. Tom Curtis at 19:34 PM on 10 March 2016
       How we know the greenhouse effect isn't saturated
       

       ConcernedCitizen @95, only a few atmospheric gases radiate heat in the IR spectrum.  In particular, O2 radiates in the microwave range where very little energy is emitted, and the visible light range where no energy in emitted at atmospheric temperatures.  As a result radiation from O2 is inconsequential.  In a similar manner, radiation from N2 is even more inconsequential.  Of the major IR radiating gases (CO2, CH4, NO2, O3) CO2 has a far greater abundance than the others, and absolutely dominates their effect.  Further, the only of the IR gases to be more abundant than CO2 at low levels (H2O) precipitates out with increasing altitude, and consequently is far less abundant than CO2 at high levels.

       The upshot is that your reasoning is fatally flawed by reason of radically false premises.

       All of this is largely irrelevant, however.  The theory used to predict the impact of increasing CO2 has been used to program radiation models that show stunning accuracy in predicting the observed IR radiation from the planet.  This, for example, is the type of accuracy that they demonstrated in 1970 (46 years ago):

       

       The large trough centered around 15 micrometers wavelength is, of course, due to CO2.  Area under the curve represents the total power of TOA emissions, so that trough represents a very significant reduction in energy radiating to space.

       Similar observations have been made with similar accuracy across a wide range of atmospheric condition.  For example, in 2008 comparisons between a model and satellite observations for 134,862 measured values were released:

       

       This represents a stunning accuracy, and the fact that the accuracy was preserved over the full range of latitudes, surface types and atmospheric temperatures shows it is no accident.

       Against this very well established theory - confirmed by laboratory and in situ observations to a remarkable extent, you offer hand waving based on radically false premises.  Given that you have no model, ie, no mathemtical predictions of observations from your premises, you do not even have a scientific theory.  But you want your hand wavey non-theory to trump a theory backed by detailed and extensive comparisons between models and observations over nearly half a century.  I'm just not buying it.

25162. ConcernedCitizen at 19:08 PM on 10 March 2016
       How we know the greenhouse effect isn't saturated
       

       "So if we add more greenhouse gases the air needs to be thinner before heat radiation is able to escape to space"

       But only for heat radiation absorbed and emitted by CO2.  Heat radiation from the rest of the atmosphere is at the same altitude as before, since we arent adding more N2, O2  etc.

       So even if this theory is true, 0.004% of the atmopshere radiates from a higher altitude.  99.996% radiates from exactly the same altitude as before.

       Therefore the saturation argument still holds true and increasing CO2 is of little effect.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Friendly advice. If every textbook on radiative physics validates GHG theory, but you have a differing opinion, then chances are you have misunderstood the theory (as in this case) rather than the theory is wrong. Concluding "therefore the saturation argument still holds" is hubris in extreme. You will get better engagement here if instead you say "given x,y,z, then appears to me that the theory X is wrong". People will help with misconceptions and in the unlikely event of you discovering something new, be inclined to take your argument seriously. And you are very unlikely to find new science unless you have taken time to read the textbook and thoroughly understand the theoretical background.

25163. Sharon Krushel at 17:52 PM on 10 March 2016
       After 116 days, MIT fossil fuel divestment sit-in ends in student-administration deal for climate action
       

       I only took one ethics course in college, but it seems to me that punishing the fossil fuel industry with divestment, while we are still using fossil fuels, is hypocritical. It could also be counterproductive in terms of stopping global warming as it leads people to think they've done their bit for the environment if they've divested, when, in the long run, they haven't done anything significant at all.

       If divestment resulted in all of the tar sands in Canada shutting down, it would reduce global emissions by 0.15% (and people would just import oil across the ocean from somewhere else). However, if, for example, everyone were to stop travelling for the sake of pleasure, the reduction in global CO2 emissions would be significant indeed. I wonder if there any statistics on that.

       Targeting the industry that supplies the gasoline and jet fuel we use is a perfect example of the psychology of blaming. It is a popular approach to the global warming problem because it relieves us of the very uncomfortable feeling that we should be making changes in our personal choices, and rather makes us feel like members of the league of environmental heroes who will bring down the villain and save the planet.

       Essentially, we as consumers are driving AGW. We would be further ahead to stop demonizing our suppliers and encourage people, institutions, manufacturers and industry to take responsibility for their own carbon footprint.

       Here's a question for the ethics committee. If it is immoral to invest in companies that extract fossil fuels, is it also immoral to invest in companies that use fossil fuels?

       I think investing in renewable energy companies is a positive move for institutions and individuals.

       I agree with engaging with the fossil fuel industry as investors with an attitude of inquiry and inspiration, as long as we are not so myopic that we can't see the logistics the company has to deal with.

       Ironically, we may need a healthy fossil fuel industry in order to transition to renewables. We need to be careful we don't antagonize and cripple the giant whose resources and expertise we could really use in our quest.

       Fossil fuel industry executives and workers are people too, who care about the earth that will be inherited by their children and grandchildren. Many have dedicated their entire careers to working within the industry to minimize impact on the envionment while supplying people with the energy they need to survive and thrive through all these years. Eveyone knows we need to move to a low carbon economy. But right now, some of us would freeze to death before we had a chance to starve to death without a supply of fossil fuels.

       If we damage western fossil fuel companies with divestment, we'll just end up importing more oil from places like Saudi Arabia, and they are using the profits to bomb schools and hospitals.

       On the other hand, the royalties from Canadian tar sands oil funds schools and hospitals, social programs for the poor, etc. And as technology and efficiency improves, CO2 emissions are going down.

       The ethics of this issue are not as black as tar and as white as a wind turbine.

25164. TomR at 08:22 AM on 10 March 2016
       Why We Need to Keep 80 Percent of Fossil Fuels in the Ground
       

       Bill McKibben is a great leader, but he is far too optimistic. We have already very likely burned far too much fossil fuel and 100% of it needs to be left in the ground. We have very likely already crossed the barrier for a 2C rise in global temperature due to the melting permafrost and methane clathrates which the IPCC has yet to consider. Despite this, humans are burning more oil and natural gas than ever before. Coal may have decreased a little, but as of Dec. 31, 2014, it was also at record levels. Deforestation is also at record levels according to the most recent satellite study which show that numerous world governments have been lying. And Europe is chopping down American forests to burn in their power plants.

       Of course, Europe has been lying about nitrogen oxide and soot emissions from diesels yet is still subsidizing diesel cars and fuel. The EPA has been lying until recently about U.S. methane emissions. Atmospheric CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide are all at records levels and still increasing at or near their fastest rates ever. CO2e is almost at 500 parts per million.

       We need to ban the manufacturer and importation of fossil fuel cars, buses, trucks, and tractors as of five years from now. We need to ban their usage as of 15 years from now. We need to ban the use of fossil fuels for concrete five years from now and the production of electricity from fossil fuels. 

       It is very likely that billions of humans will die many years prematurely this century due to global warming. There are seven billion on Earth now and probably another 13 billion will be born this century. No one wants to admit that billions will die of starvation as most of the current farmlands of the world will turn into desert including the U.S. Midwest and South. It's about time that Skeptical Science starts reporting this.

       We must work quickly to save as many human and animal lives as we can. We must all give up beef and dairy today if you haven't already. Even seafood and pork have footprints which are simply too high. We all should only buy EV cars and only buy renewable energy electricity. We should eliminate our gas water heaters and stoves today. We need to give up flying on airplanes completely. And we have to elect Democrats, because Republicans have sold their souls to the fossil fuel industry, America be damned. Death is rushing at us. Don't be so optimistic. Scientific research shows that pessimists live longer, probably because they take things more seriously.

25165. Elmwood at 04:43 AM on 10 March 2016
       Why We Need to Keep 80 Percent of Fossil Fuels in the Ground
       

       it is hopeless, even obama advocates for an "all of the above" approach to fossil fuel consumption, and at least he admits there's a problem. it only gets worse from there.

       rich and powerful people want to keep us enslaved to fossil fuels, they are not going to voluntarily agree to massively subsidize renewable energy.

25166. One Planet Only Forever at 01:04 AM on 10 March 2016
       During the most important year for climate news, TV coverage fell
       

       Tom Curtis @6:

       I agree that there is also the "Sensationalism Sells" motivation behind new media providers. And that is a significant part of how a new media provider may 'try to get attention'. But the report is regarding the behaviour of major established media in the US.

       Some "Sensationalism Sells" infuence exists even for the major media. However, there is little doubt that Murdoch has set up (and potentially even directs), Fox to report in accordance with his personal preference, and he definitely has a history of a misguided (misinforming) and denialist (deliberate attempts to discredit) attitude toward climate science. And there is no doubt that American Exceptionalism and the desire of many people in the US to gobble up appealing lies like President George Bush telling them 'they did not have to change how they lived' when he announced that the US would not be formally signing onto Kyoto (I remember how apalled I was when I watched him say it, but I cannot find a video or speech transcript).

       The types like Bush desired that US citizens believe they did not have to reduce their pursuit of reward from the burning of fossil fuels. And they still desire that belief to be maintained any way they can get away with, because 'pursuing maximum personal reward any way they can get away with for as long as they can get away with (cheaper and quicker without regard for advancing humanity to a better future for all)' is their chosen 'purpose in life'. It is the truly exceptional damaging and ultimately unsustainable attitude that is still fermetting and growing in pockets in the US and being exported (encouraged to develop) around the world in other potentially fertile regions (like Alberta, Canada) to grow and affect the future of humanity like a cancer, virus or bacterial disease thoughtlessly spreading and growing without any concern about its actual impacts. But unlike those unthinking trouble-makers, these people are able to be aware of the trouble they make and will deliberately try to get away with making it, including deliberately limiting the growth of awareness and understanding that is contrary to their interests, any way they can get away with including influencing what gets presented by the major media providers.

25167. bozzza at 14:37 PM on 9 March 2016
       Will Fossil Fuel Prices Fully Recover?
       

       You can't say my remarks are irrelevant when you take sentences out of context and indeed capitalise words that were half way through said sentence as if it were the start of a sentence. Then you missed the full-stop to complete the faux pas!

       Saying all that you were right: I was ranting and just asking people to read up on the Jevons Paradox... a controversial little article now you got me to read a little bit more of it.

25168. bozzza at 14:21 PM on 9 March 2016
       During the most important year for climate news, TV coverage fell
       

       @ 7, fair enough.

       I didn't realise Miami was doing this and the problem is actually a clear and present danger. I mean I suspected it was but didn't actually know...

25169. chriskoz at 13:55 PM on 9 March 2016
       Will Fossil Fuel Prices Fully Recover?
       

       bozzza@12,

       What point are you trying to argue in this article or its comment thread?

       Jevons_paradox

       ...occurs when technological progress increases the efficiency with which a resource is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), but the rate of consumption of that resource rises because of increasing demand.

       And later:

       Conservation policies (such as cap and trade) do not display the paradox, and can be used to control the rebound effect

       Whilst, in the article, Riduna is trying to point out that FF can be made redundant/displaced by a competing technology (renewables). There is no mention of increased efficiency of coal use that your argument of Jevons would apply. No such topic in any comment either. Unless you clarify how you relate your argument of Jevons to the topic at hand, I conclude your comment is an irrelevant rambling with no substance.

25170. John Hartz at 12:15 PM on 9 March 2016
       During the most important year for climate news, TV coverage fell
       

       Supplemental reading:

       Analysis of 50 major newspapers reveals relative drop in media attention at December UN conference compared with 2009 event

       Why did Paris climate summit get less press coverage than Copenhagen? by Alex Pashley, Climate Home, Mar 8, 2016

25171. John Hartz at 11:55 AM on 9 March 2016
       Mapped: The sensitivity of the world’s ecosystems to climate
       

       Supplemental reading:

       New research exposes urgent need to transform key agriculture regions across Africa by as early as 2025 by CIAT* Comunicaciones, Mar 7, 2016

       *International Center for Tropical Agriculture

25172. Riduna at 03:49 AM on 9 March 2016
       Will Fossil Fuel Prices Fully Recover?
       

       jsousa36

       You are quite right but Russia has agreed with Saudi Arabia to limit its oil pumping to no more than the (record) level it was pumping in January 2016.  Text has been amended to show this.

25173. michael sweet at 03:28 AM on 9 March 2016
       During the most important year for climate news, TV coverage fell
       

       Jenna:

       PBS and Miami Herald (cost estimate $500 million).  Many hits on Google.  These efforts will only help them for a little while, the ground is porous and the water cannot be held back.

25174. jenna at 03:15 AM on 9 March 2016
       During the most important year for climate news, TV coverage fell
       

       @michael sweet

       "Miami Beach is spending hundreds of millions of dollars now to pump the ocean back."

       Do you have a link or reference to go along with that statement? Thx.

25175. michael sweet at 03:08 AM on 9 March 2016
       During the most important year for climate news, TV coverage fell
       

       Bozza:

       An army that solely focused on killing the enemy and neglected its supply line would not last very long in the field.  

       Miami Beach is spending hundreds of millions of dollars now to pump the ocean back.  These costs will only rise as sea level, flooding rains, strong hurricanes and other problems caused by AGW increase.

25176. Tom Dayton at 02:36 AM on 9 March 2016
       Ted Cruz's favorite temperature data just got a lot hotter
       

       Carl Mears has responded to criticisms (mostly Roy Spencer's) of the RSS 4.0 update. (Hat tip to barry at Open Mind)

25177. Tom Curtis at 01:51 AM on 9 March 2016
       During the most important year for climate news, TV coverage fell
       

       OPOF @5, we need not assume direct editorial input to account for the astonishing anti-scientific bias in so much new media.  In essence, the AGW denier strategy (borrowed from the cigarette companies and creationists before them) is manufacture controversy.  As long as the science is considered controversial, it will be considered premature to frame policy on it.  Hence the deniers absolute hatred of any quantification of the consensus of climate scientists agreeing with global warming.

       On the other hand, the mantra of news organizations is that controversy sells copy.

       There is a natural synergy here such that for purely commercial reasons, new media will inflate the significance of, and give undue prominence to the 'mavericks', ie, the 1 or 2% of climate scientists and their non-scientist promoters over the consensus as determined by the IPCC.

25178. Tom Curtis at 01:39 AM on 9 March 2016
       The global warming 'pause' is more politics than science
       

       steve222 @18, the temperatues series start in late 1978 because that was when the first satellite used for the data started operation (later for the TUT channel).  

       There are two key tricks with the satellite data.  First, the TMT data (and hence the TLT) data which is derived from that channel, draws a significant amount of its temperature information from the lower stratosphere, which is cooling.  So much so that the TLS channel shows a trend of -0.259 K per decade to the end of 2015.

       

       The second is that the satellite data shows an exagerated (and delayed) response to ENSO events, and volcanoes relative to surface temperature data.  When viewing the full record, that makes the noise and hence the standard error large when calculating trends.  When truncating the data to start from 1997 as deniers often do, it gives a false indication of no trend where in fact a trend actually exists.

       For what it is worth, the NOAA TMT trend to the end of 2015 is 0.123 K/decade, which is far from flat.  The TLT trend would be larger.

        

       One further nuance worth noting is that the weighting function above is actually calculated for the US Standard Atmosphere.  The actual atmospheric weights observed will vary depending on altitude of the land surface, and latitude.  The later is because convection carries the air mass much higher in the tropics, which lifts the peak weight of the weighting function to a higher altitude.  That is why for Fu and Johansson's TTT channel (and artificial channel determined by a linear composition of TMT and TLS data), they use different weights for the TMT and TLS channels for global average, and tropical data.  The practical effect is that satellites do not measure the temperatures of the same altitude band of the atmosphere at different locations across the globe.

       As warming of the air causes the height of the atmosphere to increase, it will also change the weighting function.  That is, a positive temperature trend in the troposphere will result in the satellites using data from progressively higher (and hence cooler) sections of the atmosphere.  I know that this effect is not compensated for in the various satellite temperature products.  I do not know that it is a significant effect.  That is, its effect on trends may well be only -0.00001C/decade or less for all I know.  Worse, increasing CO2 warms the troposphere (causing it to rise) but cools the stratosphere (causing it to shrink) thereby increasing the stratospheric contamination of the TMT channel over time.  Again, I have no idea of the magnitude of this effect.  I just mention these possibilities to highlight that it is far from straight forward to assume the various satellite temperature products represent a reliable record of tropospheric temperatures.

25179. One Planet Only Forever at 01:18 AM on 9 March 2016
       During the most important year for climate news, TV coverage fell
       

       ryland,

       Many multi-mass-media owners definitely control and direct their enterprises to pursue personal objectives while maximizing profit. Very few strive to better inform to advance humanity to a lasting better future (and many will try to use the term sustainable as Green-washing. In Alberta the businesses involved in the undeniably unsustainable production of coal, oil and gas for burning claim to be pursuing sustainable development).

       Those media leaders do not try to get everyone to watch or read their product. They try to appeal to identifiable audience types that can be sold to marketers who want focused access to that type of audience (and many marketers, particularly the deliberately misleading ones, want access to an audience that is willing to be easily impressed and is likely to have money to spend or would try to get a loan or credit card and run up debt for something they have been fooled into 'wanting - believing they need it').

       And there can be no doubt that getting away with cheaper desired things is appealing, so it is natural to expect it to be easy for people who gamble on benefiting from an unsustainable damaging activity like burning fossil fuels to succeed in their attempts to drum up support for keeping their unacceptable activities 'permitted, desired and cheap'.

       And media can also be significantly controlled by the lure of advertising revenue.

       The real problem is that advancing humanity to a 'lasting better future for all' is not as profitable as getting away with less acceptable pursuits, and it is easier to drum up popular support for damaging unsustainable activity because people can easily be tempted to 'want more reward for themselves and will not want to understand how unacceptable their desires are' (greedy people share that deliberate desire to not better understand things with intolerant people claiming to be religious, that is why greedy people commonly partner with intolerant people behind a potentially popular political Brand, they know they need each other's support because they fundamentally know their attitudes are unacceptable and have no real future).

25180. boba10960 at 23:55 PM on 8 March 2016
       During the most important year for climate news, TV coverage fell
       

       Perhaps the problem is broader than the news media. I work at a university in the U.S. Recently one of my colleagues returned from a visit to a major U.S. university. Yesterday he was describing to me his discouragement over the fact that the school devoted to sustainability at the university he visited seemed uninterested in including climate or global warming within their purview. Of course other factors are important, such as renewable energy and recycling, but it seems odd that a school of sustainability would not consider climate within its scope. Has there been a failure to communicate well enough that sustainability is intimately linked to global warming?

25181. steve222 at 22:42 PM on 8 March 2016
       The global warming 'pause' is more politics than science
       

       Slighly OT I suspect, but (long term reader, first comment) I just received email from skeptic friend in response to a piece he read on NOAA Tropsphere data. Why does it start around 1980 on most charts. WHat happens if you go back further? He claims it shows no warming. I suspect it is just  amatter of different methods, but dont remember it being directly addressed here. Thanks.

       Steve

25182. bozzza at 18:08 PM on 8 March 2016
       During the most important year for climate news, TV coverage fell
       

       Yeh, America has bigger problems than climate change.

       It also means clever operators get everyone else to do the heavy lifting and then buy your patents when you can't make the business plan work.

       In war you solve the problem that's going to kill you first,.. and that aint climate change.

25183. ryland at 17:29 PM on 8 March 2016
       During the most important year for climate news, TV coverage fell
       

       One Planet Only Forever  @1 It isn't so much that the media cannot be expected to strive to raise awareness but that the media is allowing climate change awareness to fall out of the public consciousness.  If I may digress a little and Dana, if you read this, a comment from an American would be appreciated.  I live in Australia and was asked what I thought of Donald Trump. I said I didn't don't know much about him  but then said it doesn't matter what I think but why, according to the reports, are so many Americans  voting for him?  Presumably they must like what he is saying which, as far as I can gather is very non-PC and lacks any sort of finesse.  

       Back on topic. Trump has said this about climate change:

       "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."    

       If a very high profile candidate for the POTUS with a lot of Americans voting for him in the Presidential rimaries says this,  it may be a significant number of Americans are no longer engaged with climate change and the media is reflecting this lack of interest.

25184. bozzza at 15:22 PM on 8 March 2016
       Will Fossil Fuel Prices Fully Recover?
       

       Ask yourself: what is Jevons Paradox?

       This is a regulated markets failure!! The free-market ideal is exactly that: an idea that exists only within your head. Year 11 economics dictates that all government intervention into the market place makes that government intervention more difficult to withdraw when it finally realises that the wrong winner had been picked.

       This is because the mixed market economy has evolved around that previous intervention, making the hypothetical invisible-hand of market forces inefficient.

       If markets aren't regulated then its pirate ship diplomacy aka anarchy!

       Go the witches wand of Hollywood. By that I mean that: we are all asleep at the wheel and had kids for no reason!!

25185. One Planet Only Forever at 14:13 PM on 8 March 2016
       During the most important year for climate news, TV coverage fell
       

       Media that is owned by people interested in maximizing the personal rewards they can accrue in their lifetime (which typicaly involves trying to get away with activity contrary to the advancement of humanity to a lasting better future for all), and media that relies on attracting an audience that would result in them getting advertising revenue from those type of people, cannot be expected to strive to raise awareness of the best understanding of what is going on and the changes required to advance global humanity to alasting better future (because that would be contrary to the interests of the people they are beholden to and strive to appeal to).

25186. timknab at 11:43 AM on 8 March 2016
       The last time carbon dioxide concentrations were around 400ppm: a snapshot from Arctic Siberia
       

       Tom Curtis, AWESOME explanation on CO2 curtailment/cessation...let's hope we make these changes ASAP before the worst of the worst...

25187. John Hartz at 11:16 AM on 8 March 2016
       No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
       

       Supplemental reading:

       Lamar Smith: Still Fishing With Dynamite by Phil Plait, Bad Astonomy, Mar 7, 2016

25188. John Hartz at 11:11 AM on 8 March 2016
       Ted Cruz's favorite temperature data just got a lot hotter
       

       More supplemental reading:

       Ted Cruz’s favorite argument about climate change just got weaker by Chris Mooney, Energy & Environment, Washington Post, Mar 7, 2016

25189. hank at 04:22 AM on 8 March 2016
       GWPF throws out centuries of physics, climate scientists laugh, conservative media fawns
       

       > that statistical model to forecast future temperature changes.

       > It’s an approach that’s been used to predict financial market

       > changes, for example.

       You omitted the word "unsuccessfully" there.

25190. jbpawley at 00:46 AM on 8 March 2016
       Mapped: The sensitivity of the world’s ecosystems to climate
       

       Hi Will,

       As I understand it, this study doesn't measure drought per se, but the sensitivity of thhe local plants to climate. In the case of Syria, I think that the answer may be that although the ecosystem may only be medium-sensitive to climate, the system itself is also so marginal for producing any plant life (as seen in the background of the news photos) that beyond a threshold, a small amount climate change was enough to tip it over the edge. Of course, this doesn't mean that NOTHING would grow, only that farmers could no longer make a living from what they could grow. Here things get complex because the economic viability of farms is affected by variables other than local climate. The massive collapse of small "corn and beans" farms in  Mexico was probably caused less by climate change and more by the sudden availablility of cheap imported food from the US driven by NAFTA. Then the force driving emmigration became not so much lack of food as the lack of any money to buy it.

25191. José M. Sousa at 00:33 AM on 8 March 2016
       Will Fossil Fuel Prices Fully Recover?
       

       Russia is not a OPEC member

25192. chriskoz at 22:49 PM on 7 March 2016
       Will Fossil Fuel Prices Fully Recover?
       

       sauer, I totally agree with you. CO2 pollution is a classic example of Tragedy of the Commons, which is a free market failure. Players on such a failed market will continue to pollute without a price correction (e.g. fee & divident) and/or env regulations.

       Taking other examples of Tragedy of the Commons from history: whales would have been hunted to extinction if they were not protected, acid rains would still be falling if filtering regulations were not imposed, ozone would have been destroyed if CFC were not banned.

       There is no reason to believe CO2 pollution is any different: if anything, it is a worse TOC than the examples I quoted above because it is more widespread and necessary byproduct of virtually every economy today. A free market, especially US-style, can only aggravate such TOC problem, therefore the failed market must be corrected, at least until a transformed economy renders the pollutant obsolete (we are far far away from that in case of FF). Possibly longer: even today, whale hunting must remain under strict control, otherwise they would be hunted to extinction just for sport. I concur that american thugs would make sure FF burnout continues "just for fun", even if solar was abundant & available for free. That's because FF burning can be more "spectacular" than renewables, by thje same token eg. ferrari turbo engine is more spectacular than electric motor. Strict regulations must keep the desires of such thugs curbed if we want to control CO2 pollution.

25193. Elmwood at 16:17 PM on 7 March 2016
       Will Fossil Fuel Prices Fully Recover?
       

       The average inflation adjusted oil price for the last 100 years or so is about $40/bbl. Oil prices are rising now and will likely be above $40 by the end of the year. maybe in a few years they will be back up to $80.
       i don't think renewables will have any effect given the speculation and geopolitics that are involved.

       COP 21 was a joke and there is basically no to little support for drastically cutting fossil fuel consumption in this country. besides bernie, who will most certainly not win the election, nobody running for POTUS cares.

25194. John Hartz at 06:04 AM on 7 March 2016
       Ted Cruz's favorite temperature data just got a lot hotter
       

       Supplemental reading:

       Adjusted satellite data derails one of Cruz’s arguments against climate change by Elizabeth Koh, Dallas Morning Herald, Mar 6, 2016

25195. One Planet Only Forever at 02:44 AM on 7 March 2016
       Ted Cruz's favorite temperature data just got a lot hotter
       

       While TMT and TTT are scientifically interesting things to better understand, it is clearly the trend in TLT (the values below more of the excess CO2 known to be the result of burning fossil fuels and deforestation to grow commodities that already fortunate people can profit and benefit more from), that would be more relevant as a comparison to the trend of global average surface temperatures (which is clearly the more relevant surface temperature data, particularly the surface data evaluations that include the polar regions since satellite evaluations do not include the polar regions).

       It is also interesting, but not really relevant to the evaluation of the impact of excess CO2 from human burning of fossil fuels, that UAH (Spencer and Christy) have recently presented their evaluation of the RSS update (on Dr. Roy Spencer's website), but chose to first report their evaluation of TMT. They have pointed out a couple of reasons they would consider UAH TMT more 'accurate' than RSS TMT. And it appears they wish to imply that their cherry-picked points of critcism in the TMT evaluation by RSS should be the basis for deciding which method of 'guessing how to manipulate the satellite data to represent temperature values' is the better one (with the default claim being that the interpretation of satellite data that UAH is currently on version 6 of is somehow the only valid measure of the human impacts - which isn't really their claim because their presentations to date appear to be based on the fundamental position that the burning of fossil fuels is not a matter of concern and their job is to develop and deliver the 'best possible information in support of that preferred belief').

       Clearly, a major impediment to the advancement of humanity continues to be the potential for people who have little interest in advancing humanity to a lasting better future for all to knowingly abuse deliberately deceptive marketing to drum up unjustifiable popular support for irresponsible, unsustainable and damaging economic and political actions. The wealthiest and most influential among these people understand that the required changes to advance humanity would include stopping 'their callous greedy pursuits of personal reward any way they can get away with'. Their motivation is clarly to try anything they think they can get away with to delay the advancement of human understanding and development of a lasting better future for all, including trying to focus the discussion heard about by the general population on the trends of a selective method of determining TMT from satellite data. The objective is to create the impression that the less reliable and less relevant satellite TMT evaluations are strong evidence that any trend in the global average surface temperature data is wrong (it is also an attempt to distract attention from the other clear indications of the unacceptable results of the massive burning of fossil fuels and deforestation being gotten away with for the benefit of already fortunate people to the detriment of the future of humanity).

25196. Bob Loblaw at 00:51 AM on 7 March 2016
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       

       bicyclebob:

       Glenn's comment not-withstanding, but yes spectral radiation is typically expressed in units that include a "per unit length" term. If you think of total energy flux  in the radiation as W/m^2 (1 Joule per second, for each m^2 of surface), when you divide that total into a "per wavelength" - i.e. spectral - distribution, you are of necessity divding by the units "wavelength" is measured in. Micrometers or nanometers are common, but there is nothing odd about centimetres, so you get the cm^-1 term. When you integrate over all wavelengths to get a total, you are multiplying wavelength times the "per wavelength" units and cancelling them back out.

       Although Beer's Law (the equation you give) is appropriate for determining the absorption of the IR radiation, the emission of IR becomes more complex, as Glenn states. Although absorptivity = emissivity at a specific wavelength for a specific gas, actual emission involves temperature, too.

25197. sauerj at 22:01 PM on 6 March 2016
       Will Fossil Fuel Prices Fully Recover?
       

       Riduna, I live in midwest US, the heart of a country that "doesn't have a clue", the "joke of the world" (increasingly so these last couple months).

       I am not trying to be a troll or argue against you; I am just being a sad-hearted realist. 1) You mention that solar is 'cost free'. Yes, operating cost is free (unless you have to pay for backup power, likely in US); but capital cost is hardly free (and capital cost is the big deal here, required to get us over the 'conversion' hump). A PV conversion will cost me $10k-$15k installed (link). Even if that were to drop to $5k (there will be too many other installation/labor costs to fall below that), the average US clueless thug would never even consider such a move if the price of FF grid power stays low (my assumption based on the impetus of this article). 2) EV's: Even a CO2 aware guy like me is still going to likely buy a low priced, used small gas car ($15k) versus an EV ($35k in 2017); I simply can not afford to justify the difference. And, I can guarantee you that the average US thug will go buy a Hummer with gas still at $1.50/gal and not even consider an EV.

       I am in full agreement that FF's need to go (not trying to be a troll here); I just know people in the US, and I know that as long as FF's are cheap they will use all they can afford plus, in addition, use all the renewable energy they can afford (as they become cheaper).  That's my point here; people will just add on more energy usage if it is cheap. In other words, they will consume even more energy per person than they are consuming now, with still a very large chunk of that being FF's. They will buy more gadgits and more useless crap until they have drained all their finances; and cheap FF's will only feed that insatiable consumption.

       I remain very skeptical that things are going to get any better (any significant drop in CO2 generation) until FF's are priced to include future costs (CFD). ... Trust me, I do hope that I am wrong, very wrong! But, I really doubt it! I just know the typical, average US mind, and it isn't even close to understanding or caring! It knows just one thing: consume! Just look at the average electorate; need I say more! ... Peace brother!

25198. tmbtx at 20:46 PM on 6 March 2016
       Ted Cruz's favorite temperature data just got a lot hotter
       

       I feel like this public examination of the satellite data's limits and uncertainties is finally catching up with the Cruz's abuse of that data. I've been trying find information on why RSS is different for several years now and it's been hard to find. Glad that gap is finally closing.

25199. Glenn Tamblyn at 16:42 PM on 6 March 2016
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       

       bicyclebob
       
       No, it isn't per a single cm-1 wide, it is much narrower than that. And no, the absorption coefficient isn't just the inverse of the spectral intensity. And at that point everything gets a lot more complicated.
       
       SpectralCalc have a description of some of the calculations and theory here. But I suspect getting to Beer-Lambert from this still involves more stuff.
       
       It always amazes me how simple rules and laws always end up being so complex when we look under the hood.

25200. bicyclebob at 16:23 PM on 6 March 2016
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       

       Comment 191 shows a graph of log intensity with the units cm^2/cm-mol.  I assuming that I(l,v) = I(0,v)) x 10^(-a x C x l), where I(l,v) is the intensity of radiation of frequency v at distance l, a is the absorption coefficient, and C is the concentration of the gas, presumably in moles/cm^3.  Am I correct in assuming that the intensity is per a wavelength band one reciprocal cm in width?  Am I also correct in assuming that if the log intensity in the units given is -20, then the absorption coefficient is 20.  Finally, if I want to compute the IR emissivity, can I just use the Beer's law equation multiplied by the energy per photon and the Boltzmann ratio of excited to ground state at the temperature of the gas?  It has been a very long time since I have done these kinds of calculations, and I am not sure I am properly understanding what I am reading.

Prev  496  497  498  499  500  501  502  503  504  505  506  507  508  509  510  511  Next