Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 Next
Comments 26551 to 26600:
-
Tom Curtis at 09:35 AM on 7 December 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #49
I normally enjoy the cartoon in the weekly digest, but to be funny they need to have a resemblence to reality. In this case, any delay in finding a solution increases the cost of that solution, either in more rapid required emissions and hence a higher carbon price or regulatory cost to drive that rapid reduction, or in the cost of an extensive sequestration process, or through higher, more damaging impacts. But nevertheless there will be many opportunities for alternative solutions to AGW in the future - particularly as regards to very long term impacts.
-
scaddenp at 09:25 AM on 7 December 2015How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
foolonthehill - that is a very interesting news release. We share office with Landcare scientists and teatime conversation had more or less assumed SOC loss. I have heard this reported in conference as well. I wonder how robust this is since seems to be based on one drylands farm study? Earlier results were from more traditional dairying locations in Manuwatu and Taranaki.
I've never seen grain-fed beef at a supermarket here or in Wellington - is it imported? Huge fuss about suggestion of barning in Southland a few years ago...
-
foolonthehill at 08:10 AM on 7 December 2015How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
And one more thing...
Can we be a little more carefull as to how we are labelling people here.
Despite being a farmer that eats meat, I am still a tad disturbed by the way vegans and vegetarians seem to be referred to as some unified body that is opposed to all those that don't follow their lifestyle choice. I know a few vegans who make no attempt to proselytize their beliefs. I have come across many that do. I try to treat them as individuals.
If we were to replace 'rabid Vegan' with 'rabid Jew', I think we would all be horrified. Would 'activist' not suffice?
-
foolonthehill at 07:45 AM on 7 December 2015How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
And then again - just as I press send - this pops up in my feed.
intensive farming helps build soil
No mention of fossil fuel inputs or the environmental impacts of the water requirements but I guess it's early days.
-
foolonthehill at 07:24 AM on 7 December 2015How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
Redbaron, maybe I being thick here but going through your references, I am not finding evidence that your desired farming practises (which I fully agree with are superior to other common systems) are net carbon sinks.
I have to say that I am struggling with this issue too. The whole 'holistic' system appears to me to be based on faith and annecdote. There are many conflicting opinions and very few controlled studies that support it as a method of mitigation of GHG emissions. As a grass fed beef farmer, I would dearly love to believe the hype but I'm not falling for it just yet...
Grain-fed beef is practically unknown here.
It's certainly more common in Auckland than I have ever seen before and strangely, it seems to command a price premium. Maybe there is a demand from tourists. Visitors from the US certainly seem to prefer it. I find it usually very tender but completely devoid of flavour. Different folks and all that...
-
Tristan at 07:12 AM on 7 December 2015Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR
Steyr, someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe convention is that 1891-1910 is used for the pre-industrial baseline.
-
scaddenp at 06:48 AM on 7 December 2015How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
Redbaron, maybe I being thick here but going through your references, I am not finding evidence that your desired farming practises (which I fully agree with are superior to other common systems) are net carbon sinks. I find evidence that SOC increases which is good but to show net carbon sinks (or rather CO2e sinks), then rate of SOC increase per hectare must be larger than CO2e emissions (CO2 equivalents which are the methane fraction) per hectare. (and that SOC increase is sustainable).
On unrelated point, the other issue I would have with vegan diets would be one of land use. I do agree that feeding grain to raise beef is bad news, but I would love to see much protein vegans could raise on farmlands where we currently raise sheep and beef cattle. Good luck on that. Grain-fed beef is practically unknown here.
-
scaddenp at 06:29 AM on 7 December 2015Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming
"eating a plant-based diet would still be the single most effective action an individual could undertake, short of going off the grid."
If you look at where the individual contributions of energy use are (eg the MacKay analysis for UK is here - I have done similar for NZ), you would see that food and even going off grid arent that big a deal (particularly if you use non-FF heating). Getting off the plane is probably the biggest saving you can make. Finding ways to get out of the car would be next followed by sharply reducing your consumption of stuff.
-
Tom Curtis at 03:19 AM on 7 December 2015Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
Charlie A @38, the BAU (scenario A) projections from the IPCC FAR are shown on this graph:
By pixel count, I have determined the increase from 1990-2015 to be 0.64 C [0.48-0.91], leading to a mean decadal trend of 0.26 C per decade [0.19-0.36]. Your estimate of the BAU prediction is, therefore, [0% and 65%] to high. Given the 0.163 C/decade trend over that period (GISTEMP), that means the BAU estimate from IPCC FAR is 60% to high compared to the observed rate. Already we detect significant exageration by Ridley and Peiser. (That is probably based on based on treating the trend to 2015 as equally the trend to 2100, which as you note is an error.)
Further, the Scenario A projection is not the IPCC FAR prediction. The reason for the various scenarios, and for calling them projections is that the IPCC does not attempt to predict the future growth of forcing agents. Rather it considers various plausible scenarios and makes predictions for those so that the uncertainty in the projections is not further exagerated by uncertainty regarding political and economic decisions into the future.
In this case, and in particular the Business As Usual in 1990 assumes:
1) No massive reduction of British coal production under Margaret Thatcher;
2) No breakup of the Soviet Union and consequent massive reduction in very polluting Soviet block factories;
3) No Kyoto protocol with the consequent massive reduction in CFC emissions;
4) No plateauing of CH4 concentrations through the 1990s; and
5) No major uptake of renewable energy and reduction in energy intensity due to the e-revolution.
I presume the difference in forcing between the BAU scenario and the very much not BAU reality accounts for the additional difference between "predicted" temperatures as noted in the scientists letter. Certainly that difference means the 60% overestimate is the upper bound of the overestimate by the IPCC FAR.
MA Rodger and Michael Sweet have already raised these points - but it is useful, I think, to remind people how very much not BAU the 1990s was. The lazy assumption that what happened was automatically BAU repeatedly made by deniers is as intellectually impoverished as the assumption that the first few decades of trend will be the same as the centenial trend.
-
MA Rodger at 01:26 AM on 7 December 2015Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
Charlie A @33.
If you scale Figure 9 from the FAR SPM, the Scenario A central projection 1990-2015 comes out at +0.67ºC which is not greatly less than the +0.75ºC from the average over the 21st century. But if you examine the rest of the SPM it is evident that Scenario A poorly represents the outcome 1990-2015. GHGs in 2015 - CO2 lies between the Scenario A & Scenario B values, CH4 lies below Scenario B & CFC-11 well below all scenarios. So, as michael sweet argues @37, Scenario A is inappropriate to use. There are however the other scenarios. Scaling Figure 9 for the other scenarios instead of Scenario A (they are still pretty closely grouped in 2015) and the rise is +0.44ºC which fits with the +0.35ºC to +0.6ºC you were enquiring about as well as being close to the rise of a linear trend through the 1990-2015 global temperature record +0.42ºC±0.1ºC(2sd).
-
Vincent Duhamel at 00:33 AM on 7 December 2015Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming
Very interesting. Thanks for putting things in perspective.
However, it seems like this confirms part of the "Myth" you wished to debunk:
"Becoming Vegan or cutting down on your own personal meat consumption could be the single most effective action that you can do to help reduce green house gas emissions."
Short of going off the grid, that is. You have compared emissions from agriculture to emissions from the fossil fuel industry. Since your case seems to be built for the US where much power/electricty comes from fossil fuel, a person can hardly act so as to stop using fossil fuels. Even by selling their cars. However, they can stop eating meat.
So it seems, although the impact of animal agriculture is sometimes overblown, eating a plant-based diet would still be the single most effective action an individual could undertake, short of going off the grid. No?
-
michael sweet at 22:16 PM on 6 December 2015Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
Charlie A,
You ask for explainations of the letter. It was written by a group of experts who do not post on this board. If you want an answer from the authors you need to post where they read and post. I would try RealClimate.
I do not understand your calculations at 34. You say the maximum increase in temperature was projected at about 0.3C per decade. You say you discount the rate and over 2.5 decades you expect 0.75C warming. Since 2.5 times 0.3 is 0.75, there is no discount in your calculations. Your error bars are also incorrect. If you discounted the rate (as you claim is necessary) you would get what the letter says.
This post analizes the FAR. the key point is:
"The collapse of the former Soviet Union led to a decimation of Soviet Block industry which nearly halved Eastern European emissions. In addition, the Montreal Protocol put an end to manufacturing of some of the most potent chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs, which are greenhouse gases), and its effect has been swift. Also, growing global recognition of the threat of climate change has rapidly increased the adoption of renewable energy, both in the US and especially in Europe; government subsidies such as feed-in tarrifs have encouraged this trend. Meanwhile, the rising price of fossil fuels has led to slower economic growth than most would have predicted in 1990.
"If we look again at the temperature predictions for Scenario D, the FAR predictions were increases of 0.25, 0.17, and 0.11°C per decade, based on sensitivities of 4.5, 2.5, and 1.5°C for CO2 doubling, respectively. The central figure of 0.17°C, based on the best sensitivity estimate, is virtually identical to the actual observed temperature increase over the past 30 years (Figure 4). Foster & Ramstorf (2011) puts the increase at 0.16 +/- .02°C per decade."
You cannot take the worst case projected in 1990 and say it is incorrect when the forcings were for a different case. You have to take the increase projected for the forcings that actualized. Your estimates of projected increases are double what was actually projected.
You can answer your questions in your other post by using the search button at the top of the page.
-
Steyr at 20:59 PM on 6 December 2015Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR
How do you align GISTEMP (or other data sets like HADCRUT) to a 1765 baseline?
-
MA Rodger at 20:51 PM on 6 December 2015Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
Tom Curtis @31.
You suggest we could be fair to the authors of CFACT in that they are but "guilty of of inadequate research in this context." You then continue suggesting that this is also indicative, but only indicative of, greater crimes.
There is actual evidence of such greater crimes.
The second bit of quotation supporting the CFACT assertion that "Sea level is only rising 1mm to 3mm and has been for generations" fundamentally mis-represents their reference Dangendorf et al. (2015) 'Detecting anthropogenic footprints in sea level rise.' The paper makes very plain that it discusses local and global Mean Sea Level and that these must be addressed seperately. The quote from CFACT entirely ignores the distinction and so makes fools of those who read it unquestioningly. As there is no sign that I can find of this being the work of others, so with no signs of plagiarism CFACT cannot claim the defense that they were made fools of themselves.
The first reference supporting the SLR claim is also worth a few words. The link no longer works. Indeed, this was predicted by a denialist website that also uses the link. This denialist website page is suggesting that nod-nod-wink-wink such censorship is/will-be used to stop embarrasing AGW facts being spread around. Such a view is a little strange given the same embarrasing AGW fact is provided by the NOAA site's FAQ page and there it is attributed to IPCC AR4. Indeed AR5 gives a figure for GSLR in the SPM that is marginally lower. But quoting from that NOAA FAQ page or the IPCC SPM is less satisfying for denialists as the rate of GSLR provided there obviously applies to the last century not to the present.
-
Charlie A at 16:51 PM on 6 December 2015Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
The next bullet point in the article says " A recently-released UN study found that both the frequency and intensity of storms and floods has increased over the past decade, and that weather-related disasters are occurring at almost twice the rate as they did two decades ago."
In the link to the EM-DAT (not IPCC) Report there is a section on page six that appears to be the source, but the very next sentence starts off as "While scientists cannot calculate what percentage
of this rise is due to climate change, ....... "Yes, the previous sentence says "In total, EM-DAT recorded an average of 335 weather-related disasters per year between 2005 and 2014, an increase of 14% from 1995-2004 and almost twice the level recorded during 1985-1994." But then the next sentence channels Bjørn Lomborg and Pielke Jr by saying "While scientists cannot calculate what percentage
of this rise is due to climate change, predictions of more
extreme weather in future almost certainly mean that we will
witness a continued upward trend in weather-related disasters
in the decades ahead"Is this the section of the report you relied upon, or is there some point in the report by Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters that discusses climate change and observed increases in disasters? I have noted several places where the report ties observed increases with better reporting, but none that link observed increases to climate change.
-
Charlie A at 16:37 PM on 6 December 2015Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
This article says "The statement that the world has warmed at half the rate predicted in 1990 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is false. The IPCC predicted that warming between 2015 and 1990 would be between about 0.35 and 0.60 °C."
What is your reference for that 0.35 to 0.60 °C range?
Looking at the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC first assessment report (SPM link) I find on page 5 the following text: "Based on current model results, we predict:
• under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A)
emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of
global mean temperature during the next century of
about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of
0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade),"I note that the prediction of the trend is over the next century, and assume that the predicted trend rises with the passing of time, so the expected numbers over the first 2.5 decades should be lower.
Assuming a lower, constant, trend, I read the central IPCC prediction for 1990 to 2015 as 0.75°C, with an expected range of 0.5 to 1.5°C.
Please explain how you read the FAR to get a 1990-2014 range of 0.3 to 0.6 °C.
-
ryland at 13:26 PM on 6 December 2015Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
Tom Curtis Read Philip@24 to see why I went into the details in 29. I was responding to not initiating what you state is "left field"
-
RedBaron at 13:02 PM on 6 December 2015How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
@Andy Skuce #68
Absolutely you are correct! Of course there are uncertainties. Most notably because we are talking about complex biological systems that have highly nuanced interactions, interdependancies, and symbiotic relationships that cause unexpected emergent properties of the system.
One of those unexpected emergent properties with respect to ruminant animals is that a properly managed pasture is actually a net methane sink as well as being a net carbon sink. This is unexpected because while ruminants may produce more slightly methane (even if not grazed, grasses will decay and produce methane anyway), the other parts of the grazer/grassland system also increase. As you pointed out, the soil biota can increase, which not only reduce that methane, also in the process fertilise the system which allows even more plant growth, which allows even more grazing. That's why to get meaningful conclusions you must use systems science/holism. You must look at plants, animals, atmosphere and soil biota in all their functions and interconnections, rather than treating any area as a single-product system.
A properly managed grazer/grassland system is not only a net carbon sink, but also a net methane sink. I already posted one citation of this earlier, but look it up if you are skeptical. Also a properly managed grazer/grassland system has more animals on it not less. I know that is counterintuitive and many people can't grasp it, but maybe this riddle will help you understand.
You are driving down the road on the right side you see 10 fat cows, on the left side 5 skinny cows. All else is equal, no grain supplements fed, same breed and age of livestock, the cows are getting all their nutrition from the grass in their pasture only and the pastures are equal in size with the same soil type. No cheating. The only difference is one is being overgrazed and one is managed properly. Which pasture is being overgrazed?
This matters because for example in the US roughly 1/2 the pasture/rangeland is overgrazed, 95% of livestock reaches a feedlot eventually, and both overgrazing and feedlots are net emissions sources for both methane and CO2. Basically what is happening is the land is being overgrazed, so the animals won't get fat, so cropland is growing grains in an unsustainable manner to fatten them in feedlots, cropland being yet a third emissions source.
What needs to happen is the 10 fat cows on pasture instead of the 5 skinny cows that later get fattened in a feedlot. In other words we need more, not less, ruminants on pasture, but managed properly. I know it is very counterintuitive. Every vegan I ever met except one was completely incapable of making the connection. But this is what needs to happen to turn agiculture from the net emissions source it is now to a net sink. It is also what needs to happen to reduce the deforestation that is happening to support animal husbandry.
Again, any agriculture of any type that increases the stable carbon pool in the soil is not creating AGW, but rather is helping mitigate AGW. The type of production of livestock that increases the stable carbon pool in the soil produces more yields per acre, not less. We don't need people eating less meat. What we need is people boycotting any food production model, animal or vegetable, that doesn't increase the net carbon in the soil, and replacing it with food that does increase SOC. It's there. The models exist. They produce more food not less. They produce more real profit not less. There is no down side.
The primary reason it ever changed to the unsustainable models we have now is subsidies, misguided government regulation, and cheap fossil fuels. Yes green revolution agriculture was an improvement over traditional subsistence agriculture. So once upon a time those subsidies/regulations made sense. Now those same factors that advanced agriculture are preventing the next revolution in agriculture, carbon farming/ecoagriculture. So the same policies that were the future in the 1940s 50's and 60s are now Luddite.
Vegans are not helping.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:56 PM on 6 December 2015Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
ryland @40, of course the funding of the Climate Commission was done for a political purpose, although given that - at least the Gillard government had the good sense to appoint people with relevant competencies including several climate scientists, a leading public servant with domain knowledge, two business men including the president of the australasian branch of a major fossil fuel company (BP), and whose reports have been highly praised by leading climate scientists. In contrast the "concensus center" could only drum up as its lead head a man found not guilty of scientific fraud only on the basis that he was no scientist; and whose "consensus" methodology is to cherry pick experts based on known position in various issues to ensure the proper balance in the final outcome.
And of course GetUp's campaign was political. That does not change the political nature of the funding in the first place. It does not change the fact that the Liberal party tried to white wash the center with academic respectability by bypassing normal funding and hiring proceedures that are based on academic merit. It does not change the fact that given the clearly political nature of the funding, no university should have had a bar of it as a matter of academic integrity, just as they should not have a bar of dismissing academics because their opinions are politically unpopular.
Your problem is that you want it both ways. You want to criticize UWA and Flinders because rejection of the funding was based on his views (which is not actually true); but think it would be OK for them to accept funding to set up his center when that funding was only made available because of his views on climate change. If the former is unacceptable (it is), then the latter is also unacceptable. And what you are ignoring was that it was not just GetUp that protested the funding, but a large number of academics on the principled grounds I have defended here.
Similarly, you want to pick out three cases as people dismissed, rejected, or not renewed in positions because of their views but ignore the very many more scientists who lost their position due to the Abbot government cut backs on research funding (again politically motivated).
Finally, I have reread the moderators direction @29 and it was specifically directed at you. I assume it was directed at you because of the way you went of into left field rather than defending the obvious flaws in the "references" or the CFACT/WUWT article. Having failed in your argument there, you redirected. And now, having failed again you have begun a campaign of moderation complaints to get the very clear evidence (quoted and linked) that your charges are without basis deleted.
-
Andy Skuce at 10:50 AM on 6 December 2015How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
RedBaron: I'm not for a minute dismissing the importance of good farming practices that increase the amount of stable carbon in the soil. My argument was just on the basis of other things being equal, which, as you point out, they may not be. Surely we agree that both carbon enrichment of the soil and reduction in greenhouse gases are important. If animal husbandary can be done that enriches the soil with carbon and that does not increase methane in the atmosphere, I'm all for it, since I have a hankering for cheeseburgers as much as anyone else does.
I have found the key reference for fossil versus biogenic methane GWPs, it's Boucher et al (2009). The process of methane removal from the atmosphere is more complicated than the simple oxidation that I imagined earlier. Some atmospheric methane falls out as formaldehyde to the surface where some of it is absorbed by soils or oceans and the rest oxidized, finding its way into the atmosphere as CO2.
Some atmospheric methane is taken up directly by soil biota that convert it to methanol and formaldehyde. Some proportion of those chemicals may be in turn taken up and stored as stable carbon compounds in the soil.
So, the overal difference between biogenic and fossil methane amounts to about 1 or 2 points to the GWP values, less than the 2.75 I (mis)calculated earlier. The biggest absolute and relative effects is on the longer-time interval GWPs as this table shows:
This is a fragment of a table from AR5 WG1 Chapter 8, page 731
Fossil methane has a roughly 7% bigger 100-year GWP than does biogenic methane. But there are uncertainties, of course.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:41 AM on 6 December 2015Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
Phil @27, the Tilling quote does not, as you indicate, come from the Guardian article. It does, however, come from a BBC article. So the quote is misreferenced rather than nonexistent. That said, the full quote reads:
""It would suggest that sea ice is more resilient perhaps - if you get one year of cooler temperatures, we've almost wound the clock back a few years on this gradual decline that's been happening over decades," said Rachel Tilling.
"The long-term trend of the ice volume is downwards and the long-term trend of the temperatures in the Arctic is upwards and this finding doesn't give us any reason to disbelieve that - as far as we can tell it's just one anomalous year.""
It is evident from the following sentence which I have highlighted that the quote is taken out of context rather. Being fair to the authors of the CFACT piece, the quote was repeated by a number of other news sources, some of which may have taken it out of context (I am certain the one at the Telegraph did). They may merely have been guilty of inadequate research in this context. The mis reference, however, is highly suggestive that they were trying to launder a report from an obvious denier source by referencing an article from a more credible source.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:32 AM on 6 December 2015Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
With the hopeful permission of the moderator, and in respect to ryland @29:
1) Bjorn Lomborg was not denied a position at the UWA. Rather, the AGW denied and then PM of Australia offered the UWA a special monetary grant on condition that they set up a "consensus center" administered by Lomborg. The center was not to employ Lomborg, but other researchers by his invitation working on his flaws "Copenhagen concensus" model. This was money entirely outside the normal academic grants process, and was not based on any academic assessment of the merits of Lomborg's work. It was quite rightly rejected as a blatant attempt to provide Lomborg an additional platform for his pontifications which were considered desirable by the government not because of academic merit but because of political convenience.
No attempt by Lomborg to be employed in Australia via normal academic processes has been rejected, and nor should it be.
2) Salby was sacked for: a) Not undertaking his prescribed teaching load; b) failing to teach a course he was directly instructed to teach; and c) using university funding without permission to undertake a trip to Europe he was expressly denied permission to make as it conflicted with his teaching duties.
3) Bob Carter was not sacked from James Cook University, and nor could he be as he had already retired. He was not offered a renewal of his annual, unpaid position of adjunct professor because he was not undertaking the duties thereof. That the failure to renew the offer was not due to his opinions on global warming is evident from the fact that the position has been renewed annually from 2002-2012, ten years over which he has been as vocal on climate change as he is now. From JCU:
"Dr Carter’s very prominent public contributions to the climate change debate is not something new. He has been promulgating his views, which of course he was entitled to do, for many years while holding an adjunct appointment. But what has changed over the years is the level of his contribution to the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences where he held his adjunct appointment.
Academics holding adjunct appointments are expected to contribute on a regular and ongoing basis to one or more of the following University activities:
• Teaching;
• Collaborative research;
• Postgraduate supervision; and
• Staff and student consultations.The key question for an adjunct appointment is: “Proposed activities and Perceived Benefits to the School”. While Dr Carter has continued his own research and gives “public talks and advice about climate change and climate change policy” – again as he is perfectly entitled to do – such outreach activities are not related to the work of the School, and do not meet the need to contribute to the School as outlined above.
The simple fact was that in the School’s view Dr Carter was no longer undertaking any of the activities within the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences that is required of an adjunct."
In short, the adjunct professorship was not renewed because he was no longer teaching, undertaking collaborative research, supervising any post graduates or consulting with staff or students. Rather, he was merely using his office for non-academic purposes.
Moderator Response:[Rob P] I'll let this one slide in the interests of having 'both sides of the story', but no more thanks.
-
RedBaron at 08:51 AM on 6 December 2015How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
@Andy Skuce #65
You asked, "Still, reducing beef and dairy consumption would help reduce our short-term impact on the atmosphere and our longer-term impactt on the environment generally, while being good for our health, so why not do it?"
There is a very good reason why. As I stated in post # 21, what matters is the net flux from stable to active carbon cycles. Any agriculture of any type that increases the stable carbon pool in the soil is not creating AGW, but rather is helping mitigate AGW. That includes animal husbandry. If anyone wants to help mitigate AGW by giving up certain foods, give up foods produced from land decreasing in soil carbon, and replace it with food produced from land increasing in soil carbon. One emergent property of agricultural systems that increase SOC is that they also improve the nutritional qualities of that food too. Yes even animal products. [1]
This is an important distinction that is overlooked on many dogmatic advocate sites. No question we must change angriculture to production models that are more ecologically sound, but the good thing is that those same changes also make our food healthier too. There really is no down side to it, unless you operate a confinement dairy or feedlot. BUT if you refine your eating habits to increase demand for ecologically sound methods of production and reduce demand for those that cause AGW, you provide financial incentive for those confinement dairies and feedlots to change their operations. What does a confinement dairy or feedlot care about vegan boycotts? Vegetarians are not a customer no matter what the producer does. But a wise businessman will change their production methods if their customers demand it. If you want to change agriculture, you need to change the demand in the marketplace. A blanket boycott or reduction does not do that unless there is a corresponding increase in demand for products that help mitigate AGW.
-
ryland at 07:54 AM on 6 December 2015Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
Philip64@26
You comment "But in 15 years of following this subject quite closely I can't remember a single instance of someone losing their job in a significant scientific institution or failing to secure one becauser of their views about climate change or any aspect of it."
Perhaps you need to follow it a bit more closely. Bjorn Lomborg was denied a university position here in Australia because of his views of climate change. He is not a "denier" but believes the dangers of climate change are overstated and there are more pressing problems. (see here)
You will note no doubt that the vice president of the Academic Staff Association states
"This isn't about censorship at all ... Lomborg is not a climate [change] denier; he believes the scientific evidence which overwhelmingly shows that climate change is happening, he just debates the economics of how we should deal with it," Mr Bunt said. But he would say that wouldn't he?
A more telling quote is from Greens Senator Rachel Sieweret who is reported as saying:
"It was very clearly the Government's design to get someone in place that was running a different argument on climate change, to try and suggest that climate change isn't as significant an issue as it is," Senator Siewert said.
"It was bad science, and I'm pleased that UWA has realised that.
"[The Federal Government] clearly had a political agenda, and it was a mistake for the University of Western Australia to go along with it."
As you can see Bjorn Lomborg's views cost him a position at UWA, which is where I got my PhD from. I do not support the actions of UWA in this instance.
You also may not of heard of Murry Salby and Bob Carter both climate change sceptics. Salby was dismissed from his position and Carter was not re-employed. You can read about it here and here. The two references, the second of which is by Dana Nuccitelli give quite different views
Moderator Response:[Rob P] This whole persecution discussion has run its course. Any more comments in this vein will be considered off-topic and result in deletion. Stick to the science.
-
Jim Eager at 06:58 AM on 6 December 2015Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
Philip64, Genoa's rant is nothing more than argument from incredulity and alleged anecdote, both logical fallicies, and offers nothing what so ever in the way of verifiable evidence. Frankly, there is nothing there to believe or disbelieve.
-
Andy Skuce at 05:54 AM on 6 December 2015How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
Here is a blog post and a link to a paywalled paper (which I can't access) that asserts the opposite of what I assumed above. According to this, the IPCC GWP estimate would be appropriate for short term biogenic methane but not for fossil methane, which should be higher.
But it's from 2010, so it may be out of date now.
Added: Doh! The footnote to the table I posted said that the fossil methane should have a GWP of 1 or 2 higher. So, I was wrong. Apologies for posting first and doing the due diligence later. I will correct my original comment when I have a moment, later.
-
Phil at 05:40 AM on 6 December 2015Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
Looking at the article referenced by ryland @7, I found this statement
Arctic sea ice is up by at least a third after a cool summer in 2013. “It would suggest that sea ice is more resilient perhaps,” says Rachel Tilling, University College London.” – The Guardian, July 2015
If you follow the link provided by WUWT to The Guardian here you will see that the quote WUWT provide is not from Tilling at all, but is in fact from the main body of the article. Tilling goes on to place this "resilience" in context:
Tilling said: “You see Arctic sea ice as dwindling and in decline, but then there is a cold year and you get some of the ice back. It shows there is hope for Arctic sea ice,if you can turn the clock back to colder temperatures, which would need huge reductions in carbon emissions.”
(my emphasis)
But this slopiness appears to be a prevalent feature of WUWT.
-
Andy Skuce at 05:11 AM on 6 December 2015How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
The questions about whether we should treat methane emissions from fast biogenic parts of the carbon cycle differently from emissions of fossil methane are interesting. I would have expected this to have been addressed in the literature, but I haven't found much. Admittedly, I haven't looked very hard.
Note: Much of the following was off the top of my head and is incorrect. I have struck through the wrong bits. See later posts for more correct inffromation
By my calculations, the GWPs of biogenic methane from agriculture should be reduced by 2.75 compared to fossil methane releases. Basically, the biogenic methane removes 2.75 kg of CO2 from the atmosphere while it is kicking around as 1 kg of methane. (GWPs are measured according to mass, not moles. If you combust 1kg of methane you get 2.75 kg of CO2.) Fossil methane adds new carbon to short-term cycles.
This would mean that the 20 year GWP for biogenic and fossil methane for 20 years should be 83.25 and 86 respectively. Here's the graph for methane from AR5:
The GWP curve asymptotes (if that's a verb) towards 2.75, as it would for methane introduced from fossil fuel, the 2.75 representing the residual CO2. If the methane were instead sourced biogenically, in effect replacing CO2 for a short while with CH4, then we should shift the incremental GWP line down by 2.75 so it asymptotes towards zero, since once essentially all of the biogenic methane in the pulse is back to CO2, we are back where we started from.
And here's the table
For 100 years the methane GWP should be 31.25 (bio) and 34 (fossil). For very long time periods it would be ~zero and ~2.75.
It's possible that I have miscalculated and misunderstood matters here. I can't find any mention of this in the IPCC reports, which raises a red flag that it's likely me who has the wrong end of the stick. The standard emissions accounting treats both kinds of methane equally.
Still, even if I'm right, biogenic methane is still ~90% ~93% as bad as fossil methane, using the conventional and somewhat arbitrary 100-year timeline. Considering that methane emissions of all kinds are really hard to measure precisely, this discrepancy may not matter. Also, the GWP used for reporting for methane is currently 25, lagging the latest research, so we are nowhere near using the "correct" number.
What this boils down to is that anthropogenic methane of all kinds is a significant contributor to the climate crisis over human timeframes and we should take reasonable steps to reduce it. Perhaps biogenic anthro methane is a little less bad than that sourced from fossil anthro methane, but it's still a problem and the GWPs the policy makers are currently using are still too low.
However, as Tom, Ray Pierrehumbert and many others have pointed out, the priority has to be reducing the long-lasting emissions of CO2.
Still, reducing beef and dairy consumption would help reduce our short-term impact on the atmosphere and our longer-term impact on the environment generally, while being good for our health, so why not do it?
-
Philip64 at 05:05 AM on 6 December 2015Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
@Ryland 10.
You write: "I am appalled that any scientist or indeed anyone, who questions the perceived wisdom of the modellers is excoriated and may well be dismissed from their position."
I'm sorry but your indignation is as unconvincing as it is unmerited. If this was really happening we would have actually heard about it by now. But in 15 years of following this subject quite closely I can't remember a single instance of someone losing their job in a significant scientific institution or failing to secure one becauser of their views about climate change or any aspect of it. If they had, they would have nothing to lose by coming forward and citing chapter and verse. So where are they? And yet we hear this feeble mantra wheeled out regularly without any supporting examples. The simple fact is: the claim of academic suppresion is a fallacious and fictitious notion used to explain the almost complete absence of peer-reviewed science supporting the various (and mutually contradictory) contrarian positions - such as the ones set out by Genoa.
Real scientists, retired or otherwise, know that general views on broad subjects are irrelevent to careers in science. What matters is research and publication, usually in a very narrow field (unless you happen to be Albert Einstein or someone of that stature). Generally speaking, the more surprising the conclusions, the better.
In short, I don't believe Genoa's claims. They're as incredible as his fulminations about cherry picked data points, and just as divorced from reality.
-
dcpetterson at 05:03 AM on 6 December 2015Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
Regarding frequent reference above to claims from WUWT that global warming "stopped" or "paused" or "slowed" or whaever beginning 1998 or so...
Most of the articles at WUWT regarding this were written by Chris Monckton, who proclaims whenever RSS releases its monthly data, "No global warming for xxx months!" and provides a graph to prove it. Put aside 1) the reality of regression to the mean, as has already been mentioned above, and 2) Mockton's flatline of "no temperature increase" is at a point significantly higher than the current temperature trendline over the last century (which means some natural phenomenon, unexamined by Monckton, created a sudden climate discontinuity that raised global temperatures far above the current ~1 C warming that most climate scientists accept).
This means, if one were to accept the Monckton/WUWT thesis that there has been no warming since c. 1998, then one would also have to accept not only that regression to the men doesn't happen, but also that the world is significantly warmer than any dataset currently shows, and that this sudden discontinuous leap was caused by a phenomenon no one has even hinted at, no one understands, and even Monckton hasn't acknowledged.
But as I said, put that aside. The biggest problem I see with the Monckton/WUWT thesis is that the date of when the "pause" started keeps changing. If you examine Monckon's graphs over the last couple of years, you'll see his start date keeps creeping forward in time. (I have documented this elsewhere, in an article where I also steal a graph or two from SkS.) Whatever physical process started the "pause" keeps altering its starting point somewhere in the past. Mockton doesn't adequately explain how this happens.
The alteration of "pause" start date indicates the "pause" itself is nor more than a statistical oddity, not a reflection of any physical reality or actual physical process. It also indicates the denier meme about a "pause" is based on an intentional and clumsy bit of fraud.
-
Tom Curtis at 03:34 AM on 6 December 2015Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
MA Rodger @21, what is missing from your comment is the record of adjustments made to the UAH dataset since that 1990 press release:
Of course, we are not onto version 6. Aparently ryland is of the opinion that a reference that is 22 years out of date (dating from that first adjustment) is suitable. Of course that it is so dated must be carefully kept from the intended audience of the CFACT/WUWT article.
I submit, by the way, that ryland's challenge to you implicitly requires the same standard of himself. That is, if he questions your right to rebut the article without "... you yourself [having] checked the references given in WUWT" and established that the"... peer reviewed papers cited by WUWT scientifically inferior to those cited by SkS or RealClimate", then he is not entitled to link to the article as worthy of discussion without having himself checked all the references and endorsed them as being up to scratch. Sauce for the goose, as they say.
And on that standard, he has clearly attempted to mislead the reades at SkS as to the quality of the articles to be found on WUWT - endorsing them as being worthy of consideration and well referenced when they are based on references that are out of date, non-peer reviewed, out of context and (at the very best) outlier positions.
If we apply the expectation that he checks the articles he puts up, and stands by the quality of their argument and/or references we can perhaps get rid of his endless, mendacious repetitions that he is "merely putting it forward as a point of view supported by appropriate references to the peer reviewed literature", when we all know he is using them as stalking horses for opinions he agrees with but is not prepared to defend with any integrity.
Moderator Response:[RH] Tweaked image size.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:42 AM on 6 December 2015Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
The popularity of claims made by the producers of unsubstantiated nonsense and gossip is indeed part of the challenge of getting leaders who can tend to allow their decisions to be swayed by popular opinion to act contrary to the rank ranks of the supporters of undeservingly popular and wealthy people.
Science will always stuggle to be as popular as appealing gossip and nonsense claims that many people are inclined to like to hear because they suit their self-interest.
-
Joel_Huberman at 00:43 AM on 6 December 2015Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
Eclectic @20.
I have a climate denier friend who references Judith Curry's web site far more often than WUWT. Based on my limited reading at both sites, I think that Curry's site may outrank WUWT as "the best of a bad bunch."
-
MA Rodger at 00:15 AM on 6 December 2015Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
Ryland @13.
I didn't miss your closing comment @7. You ask of me @13 “Have you yourself checked the references given in WUWT? Are peer reviewed papers cited by WUWT scientifically inferior to those cited by SkS or RealClimate? If so why?” If you can point me at these “peer reviewed papers cited by WUWT”, that would be helpful. I'm not sure I see any. The first bold assertion is certainly not supported by such references.
I particularly like the third reference, quoting NASA. This is of course a link to a cutting from that well-known scientific journal The Canberra Times from the April Fools Day 1990 edition. Anyone with half a wit would find that there is a better reference to the quote which turns out to be our old friends Spencer and Christy, dear old Woy having been a NASA man until he left to go to join his chum Christy in 2001. I don't think the passage of time has been very kind to their findings presented in that paper.
-
Eclectic at 22:36 PM on 5 December 2015Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
Tom, reading between the lines of Genoa's @9 comments, does give me the strong impression that he is a technician rather than a scientist in the proper sense of the word.
Not that there is anything wrong with being a skilled technician in a narrow field : but it is certainly a pity that there seems to be a concomitant lack of that broad outlook on the physical universe, and a lack of that logical and dispassionate appreciation of reality (so requisite in a true scientist).Especially in the climate change field, where the physical signs are so obvious!
The WUWT website is indeed an interesting case in point. Years ago, WUWT was halfway reasonable in its propaganda campaign against the findings of mainstream science. Well, perhaps not quite halfway. And even then, it was the "best" of a bad bunch. However, in recent years it has detereiorated markedly : and nowadays, sadly it rates as moronically desperate. Even more sadly, it still rates as the best of a bad bunch.Will WUWT still exist in 10 years? I certaiinly hope so, because its entertainment value (as an example of human folly) will doubtless be accompanied by continuing writhing and twisting as it metamorphoses through the many varying levels of denial of reality. Fascinating in its way : yet not worth a site visit more than every month or two.
-
bozzza at 22:24 PM on 5 December 2015Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
@ 15, in ten years you'll be too busy securing the border from those who know you killed the world.
-
michael sweet at 22:09 PM on 5 December 2015Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
I always think of Arhennius when I read a screed like Genoa writes. In 1896 Arhennius calculated (with a pencil) the magnitude of the AGW effect. He was within a factor of two of what has been measured in the 120 years since then. He predicted that warming would be greater over land than water, greater at high latitude than low latitude, greater at night than during the day, greater in the winter than in the summer and greater in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Suthern. All these porjections have been shown correct by data in recent decades.
If it is so hard to project climate decades in advance, how did Arhennius do so well? I would have thought that scientists today would have more understanding than Arhennius. Another recent critical poster claimed we needed to wait another 20 yerars to see if scientists are correct. What is wrong with using the forecasts from 120 years ago to show that the globe is warming as projected?
-
Tom Curtis at 21:18 PM on 5 December 2015Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
ryland @7, the CFACT article posted at WUWT is critiquing the science of the IPCC. Therefore the correct comparison as to references is between that article (with its one, often misrepresented reference per point) to the IPCC reports with their literally hundreds of references. Given that, the curious thing is that you are not outraged by CFACT and WUWT for cherry picking outliers from the scientific literature and treating them as overriding the vast majority of the scientific literature, while keeping that contrary literature carefully out of sight and refusing to discuss the relevant issues.
Your view appears to be that public discourse is intellectually primary to scientific research, no matter how transparently that public discourse misrepresents the actual research.
As one example of the sort of misrepresentation indulged in in the CFACT article, consider the quotation:
'“Global sea level is less sensitive to high atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations than previously thought.”
– Stanford, Geology, August, 2015'
Here is the full quote from the Stanford article:
"To understand the isotopic composition of Pliocene ice, Winnick and Caves began in the present day using well-established relationships between temperature and the geochemical fingerprint. By combining this modern relationship with estimates of ancient Pliocene surface temperatures, they were able to better refine the fingerprint of the Antarctic ice millions of years ago. In re-thinking this critical assumption, and by extending their analysis to incorporate ice sheet models, Winnick and Caves recalculated the global sea level of the Pliocene and found that it was 30 to 44 feet (9 to 13.5 meters) higher, significantly lower than the previous estimate.
“Our results are tentatively good news,” Winnick said. “They suggest that global sea level is less sensitive to high atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations than previously thought. In particular, we argue that this is due to the stability of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, which might be more resilient than previous studies have suggested.” However, a rise in global sea level by up to 44 feet (13.5 meters) is still enough to inundate Miami, New Orleans and New York City, and threaten large portions of San Francisco, Winnick cautioned."
(My emphasis)
A long term sea level rise of 9-13.5 meters is not good news. Nor is it consistent with the message the CFACT article tries to sell with regard to sea level. Further, as the Stanford article goes on to indicate, the finding has no bearing on sea level rises over the next few centuries, the timescale of interest to the CFACT claims. There is no question, therefore, that the article is quoted out of context.
Like the creationists before them, AGW deniers never have a shortage of "references". They need only take articles out of context, misreport their significance, shepherd a few articles through the peer review process with the aid of unscrupulous friendly editors, and establish "speciality journals" where 'peer' review is entirely restricted to other deniers. Given this, merely counting the number of references in a popular piece is irrelevant unless are prepared to commit yourself to verifying that the references are from genuine peer reviewed sources (not specialty denier magazines), that they are quote in context and not misrepresented, and that they fairly represent the literature rather than being cherry picked outliers.
Unless, of course, your only point is that we should stand in awe of the unscrupulous propoganda by CFACT and WUWT.
-
Tom Curtis at 20:53 PM on 5 December 2015Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
genoa @9 says:
"I have several colleagues who find the warmist "data" amusing but we would never speak out against this junk science because of the career repercussions."
If we are to take his ravings at face value, and I see no particular reason to do so, this amounts to a confession that he and his colleaques put career advancement above scientific integrity. Yet on the basis of this we are supposed to take his unsupported word that those scientists he disagrees with are similarly ethically challenged.
@14 he says:
"Worst of all, when long periods such at the period post 1998 don't adhere to the models, real scientists would admit that the models are inadequate and that suggests they don't really understand the underlying processes being modelled."
He thereby commits himself to the view that the trend for any system from localized high points will be the same as the trend from any other point. Absent this commitment, the expectation is that the trend from such localized peaks will be less than that from other points. There is a name for this phenomenon. It is called "regression to the mean".
Given his clear commitment to the idea that regression to the mean is an invalid concept, we can conclude either that he does not have the scientific expertise he claims (likely), that he is prepared to dishonestly ignore what he knows for his political diatribe, or that his political views so bias his understanding that he cannot find fault with denier cherry picking.
Finally, it is evident that his contribution is sloganeering of the worst sort. Perhaps he would like to raise specific detailed criticisms rather than these wild rants that so clearly show his political bias, and render very dubious his claim to scientific expertise.
-
genoa at 20:41 PM on 5 December 2015Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
Moderator
Thanks for the censorship.
In reply to your assertion that AGW models are physical and not statistical I would only say that a single die is also physical but only an idiot such as yourself would argue their primary analytic focus is not statistical.
Thanks for the "privilege" of briefly visiting your joke site and joke discipline.
See you in 10 years when your religion is dead.
Moderator Response:[RH] Moderation complaints are off-topic and thus against policy. Please review the commenting policy page.
-
genoa at 20:32 PM on 5 December 2015Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
Eclectic
Like most warmists what you call science is simply choosing the data sets you prefer (I won't even go into the cat fights I've read between alleged warmist analysts over what data sources are credible), transformed and filtered the way you prefer and weighted in the way you prefer to provide a model which, over hundreds of runs, pumps out a performance range you like. Then you pick a date you prefer to identify a trend you prefer and call other date picking "cherry picking".
Hence a date from 1998 looks like a flat or reduced trend and other dates before that can be chosen to identify a warming trend- if you so wish. I would not call that science or even prediction.
Worst of all, when long periods such at the period post 1998 don't adhere to the models, real scientists would admit that the models are inadequate and that suggests they don't really understand the underlying processes being modelled. Nope, in climate "science" there is always another "probable" process to bolt onto the models in an ad hoc way. Anything, anything at all to make the data fit. I believe the latest "bolt on" obvious explanation is that the heat is in the deep ocean areas. Perfectly obvious old chap- except it wasn't obvious until the models failed and another excuse had to be invented. Oh and we have no data for that assertion, but it's perfectly obvious that that's the process that's missing. And so it goes, on and on and on and on.
You do know that the yield equations for the first Bikini nuclear test underestimated by a factor of 3 and led to widespread fallout and evacuation of pacific islands. Even now, yield estimation of nuclear weapons is a very tough problem yet it is several orders of magnitude less complex than a climate projected 100 years ahead.
Really, what you call a science is just tea leaves, graphs and pick-my-preferred-starting-point-for-the-system-under-observation.
Then pretend you know more about hugely complex processes working on massive scales than nuclear physicists know about much simpler processes and thereafter leap into nonscientific arguments about "prevention" etc. in order to distract from the "science"
Basically another 10 years of model massaging and the public and politicians will have had enough. At that point, real scientists will again be able to enter the debate without being stoned to death for being a heretic to the faith and people like Hanson and Mann will be preserved in history as classic examples of what happens- even to science- when it is overpoliticised and turned into a new McArthyism.
The real damage however will be to science itself. People will and rightly so have much less faith in science and scientists and that is most definitely a bad thing. We already fight crazy anti innoculation loons and this will only add ammunition to the anti-science crowd.
Moderator Response:[Rob P] - "Hence a date from 1998 looks like a flat or reduced trend"
The 'eyecrometer' has been found to be a wholly unreliable scientific measuring instrument. This is where statistics comes into play. Only one data set, but Karl et al (2015) found global mean surface temperature warmed at the same rate from 2000-2014 as it did from 1950-1999. Other data sets will come into line in due course as the planet continues to warm.
-
ryland at 20:09 PM on 5 December 2015Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
@12 you clearly missed my closing comment which, to refresh your memory, was "Which report is the more credible is, of course debatable, but the WUWT piece is supported by references to published literature and IPCC reports whereas the refutations in the WSJ are not." That comment clearly shows I am not "repeating their error filled nonsense" merely putting it forward as a point of view supported by appropriate references to the peer reviewed literature. Have you yourself checked the references given in WUWT? Are peer reviewed papers cited by WUWT scientifically inferior to those cited by SkS or RealClimate? If so why? And I think some of your remarks are verging on ad homs which I thought were verboten here
-
MA Rodger at 18:59 PM on 5 December 2015Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
Ryland @7.
Do get a grip. All you are saying here is that the Wattsupia web site presents the same garbage to the world that the GWPF do. If you do not yet even recognise that there is a profound difference between scientific discussion and the error-filled nonsense presented both by Watts and his chums and by GWPF, then you really should start looking. It might save you making a fool of yourself repeating their error-filled nonsense. Unlike the science, Watts and Co don't don't give a monkeys who they make fools of.
-
Eclectic at 18:23 PM on 5 December 2015Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
Genoa @9 : genoa, you seem to have lost touch with reality.
Worldwide temperatures are rising, sea-levels are rising, and the world's ice is generally [with the possible exception of East Antarctica] melting away. And yet you have a focus on "statistical masturbation" ~ rather than looking at the real world.
Get real, man. Please exit your mathematical rabbit hole.
The real world is the actual test for what's going on ~ and since your mathturbation disagrees with the real world, then, quite clearly, you are in the wrong.
-
ryland at 16:56 PM on 5 December 2015Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
@9 Your comment "I have several colleagues who find the warmist "data" amusing but we would never speak out against this junk science because of the career repercussions" is extremely disturbing. As an ex-scientist. now retired, I am appalled that any scientist or indeed anyone, who questions the perceived wisdom of the modellers is excoriated and may well be dismissed from their position. Science conducted by intimidation and haranguing and threats isn't science. It is more reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition where heretics were tortured until they recanted. Here we have eminent professors who attack those that disagree with their views claiming that Ridley and Peiser are obfuscating. No they're not, they're putting forward a different point of view. That is not obfuscation but scientific discourse. The paper by Zwalley et al that states the Antarctic is gaining ice, is dismissed as an isolated paper that has numerous uncertainties and is contradicted by many other observations. None of these many observations are specified. Significantly there is no mention of the comment on Antarctic ice by Dr Eric Steig, a Climate Scientist with many publications on Antarctica.He comments at RealClimate “I think the evidence that the current retreat of Antarctic glaciers is owing to anthropogenic global warming is weak. The literature is mixed on this, about 50% of experts agree with me on this.” Dr Steig can hardly be described as a denier so why no mention of his view?
Moderator Response:[Rob P] - The Zwally et al (2015) paper does contradict a whole bunch of research on the Antarctic ice sheet. Very difficult to reconcile with Holocene sea level change too. It is only one paper, so care must be taken not to develop single study syndrome. Science will get to the bottom of it.
-
genoa at 16:18 PM on 5 December 2015Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
The name of this site suggests skeptical minds but instead is simply a play pen for statistical masturbation committed to an ideology.
I model complex fluid flows and can tell you three things [1] There is absolutely no doubt that the force and temperatures I measure in my lab are agreed upon as valid and real [2] There is no doubt that my ability to model flow is quite limited and these are systems that are orders of magnitude more simple than a planetary climate. [3] If I was stupid enough to model complex flow around a propeller a thousand times (as many climate models do) and take statistical averages I would actually have the guts to admit I do not know anything worthwhile about the processes involved and leave it at that until I had better analytic techniques.
In the mantime I read junk science from climate modellers who cannot even agree on a valid, workable data set that has not been adjusted, transformed, filtered to suit their arguments. That is not science. It's a joke.
Second, any "sciience" that needs this number of runs to determine confidence limits simply means the "science" has no predictive value worth having. The stability of the models are a joke.
The fact that many scientists go along with this politicised joke merely reflects the involvement of government and research funding priorities. Contrary to popular opinion, scientists do not die in a ditch, abandon their jobs, mortgages or family financial health to fight against an ideological mob with pitchforks.
I have several colleagues who find the warmist "data" amusing but we would never speak out against this junk science because of the career repercussions.
Meanwhile I'm sure you will enjoy looking at statistical tea leaves for a while to come.
Moderator Response:[PS]
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
It particular, you appear to be asserting some very tired denier talking points as if they were true with no supporting evidence at all. This is pure sloganeering and suggests and extremely low level of knowledge of the basic science. Present either data or references to support your arguments in future or your comment will be deleted. Conformance with the comments policy in not optional.
I would further point out that AGW is not founded on computation models. The models are physical not statistical. I suggest you actually read the IPCC WG1 so you can make more informed commentary.
-
ryland at 14:30 PM on 5 December 2015Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
My final comment is not factually correct. There are some references given in the WSJ refutation piece.
-
ryland at 14:25 PM on 5 December 2015Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
Coincidentally there is a discussion in WUWT disagrees with several of the points raised here. (See here). The specific items discussed in WUWT are that:
1 Global temperatures are lower than models predict
2 Sea level is rising only 1-3mm per year
3 The polar bear population is now about 5x that in the 1960s
4 Extreme weather is historically normal
The discussions of each appear to be appropriately referenced.
I am aware that WUWT is anathema to most who comment here but it is one of the most, if not the most, widely read climate blog site. Consequently a lot more readers get their information from WUWT than from other such sites and in this instance will get an entirely different perception on global warming than will readers here. Although overall there are, probably, more readers of the WSJ in total than readers of WUWT but the percentage of these WSJ readers interested in climate matters is unknown.
Which report is the more credible is, of course debatable, but the WUWT piece is supported by references to published literature and IPCC reports whereas the refutations in the WSJ are not.
Moderator Response:[Rob P] Sea level is currently rising at 3.32mm per year.
And the climate models are doing are reasonable job of matching the observations - when adjusted forcings are used (to account for increased volcanic aerosols for instance). As in Schmidt et al (2014).
-
Tom Curtis at 12:25 PM on 5 December 2015How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
Trevor_S @63, I refer you to Clark Williams-Derry's response to the claims about dog food. In short, the claims made in New Scientist are based on underestimate SUV impacts 80% if you just consider onroad energy costs. It is far worse than that because Robert and Brenda Vale claim to include emobdied energy of manufacture as well (not included in the above calculation). Further it includes only energy costs in the estimate, not the ecological footprint from pollution, including carbon pollution, thereby significantly biasing the comparison in favour of SUVs.
Worse, the Vale's do not take into account that pets primarily eat waste products - ie the cuts of meat that humans will not eat. From that and the fact that pet food expenditure in the US is just 1% of that spent on humans, the additional ecological footprint of pets to that of humans alone is negligible. That is, if we eliminated pets and pet foods, there would be no reduction in the number of live stock in the combined human/pet food chain.
To conclude in the words of Clark William-Derry:
"Let’s be clear — I’m not claiming that we should ignore the environmental impact of dogs. That’s one of reasons that I, personally, am reluctant to own one! But I think that making an empirical claim without doing solid research does a grave disservice to public discourse. Being wrong can have consequences — including, potentially, encouraging people to make the wrong choices, even if their heart is in exactly the right place.
So I say to the folks who made the original claim: Bad Researchers! Fur Shame!!! And to the rest of you: let’s consider the “dogs are worse than SUVs” meme debunked: buried in the back yard, put to sleep, and whatever other bad dog pun comes to mind."
-
MA Rodger at 10:00 AM on 5 December 2015Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
For those who can cope, the offending WSJ nonsense-filled garbage is available outside a paywall here. And those who remember that the GWPF (Gentlemen Who Prefer Fantasy) include within their number both Benney and Matt will not be surprised by any misguided nonsense from the pair of them. Dogs bark. Bears misbehave in woods. Benney & Matt have a problem with denial.
Prev 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 Next
