Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 Next
Comments 2651 to 2700:
-
PrzemStep at 19:46 PM on 18 February 2023The Problem with Percentages
@Eclectic - Can "hydro" expand linearly? I don't know. That said growing linearly hydro from ca 4300 TWh would grow to ca 5000 TWh, so 700 TWh, so it is pretty insignificant given the scale of change needed. Or the numbers above. In total I assumed hydro and other renewables only add 1050 TWh by 2032. And as you said: you can only analyze the trend, you can't make an exact prediction. I'm just saying that there was an underlying mistake in the trend analysis, because hydro mutes wind and solar growth.
-
Evan at 11:28 AM on 18 February 2023The Problem with Percentages
PrzemStep, thanks for your comments.
Fossil-fuel usage seems to have stalled before the housing crisis, then started back up again. I am aware of the apparent stalling during the Covid pandemic, and am also aware that economies are starting to ramp up again. Will fossil-fuel usage stall or start back up? I am not making predictions, but simply showing where the overall trends have been leading for a long time, and what looks like a plateu may in fact be a temporary trend. Nobody knows the future, but trends are useful for showing the general direction.
What I'm really suggesting in this post is that isolated, impressive-sounding percentages can often be misleading, and in the case of population, show the opposite trend to what is happening. I am suggesting that people look at the totals, and not just isolated percentages. I am not making specific predictions about the future, but rather showing that based on long-term trends, renewable energy is far from replacing fossil fuels, even though the impressive percentage growth of renewables makes it sound like renewables are replacing fossil fuels.
-
Eclectic at 10:07 AM on 18 February 2023The Problem with Percentages
China is somewhat of a special case, owing in part to the rather complex financial rivalries between provinces (despite Beijing policy).
PrzemStep @2/3 , you are right . . . predictions are difficult, especially of the future [as the saying goes]. Probably the Third World countries will continue to be open slather re fossil fuels, and even the First World countries will continue to use colossal amounts of gas/petroleum for decades. And . . . our mathematical trend analysis really needs to be firmly based on the underlying physical situation (plus guessable politics).
Can "hydro" expand linearly? Or must it plateau out soon? And will we eventually find domestic electric power supply being "shaped" by smart-meters (a la ISP download speeds) according to wind/sun ? Or will new-technology batteries come to the rescue? Crystal ball needed.
-
PrzemStep at 08:38 AM on 18 February 2023The Problem with Percentages
It seems in all honesty that you should revisit the math, calculate wind/solar growth separately and then adjust this piece with the new numbers. I'm afraid that in its current form it is simply misleading. As to the possibility of fossil fuel generation stagnation - I expect this to at least be discussed.
-
PrzemStep at 08:31 AM on 18 February 2023The Problem with Percentages
Hi there,
Unfortunately I'm posting because I noticed what can only be called bad trend analysis.
1. The renewable energy growth trend is simply badly done.
a) Renewable energy has four distinct components with different growth trends. Wind, solar, hydro and the rest (primarily bioenergy). Hydro and other renewables is following a linear growth trend, while wind and hydro are growing exponentially. However this exponentiality is hidden if you throw them in together: the dominant hydro represses the actual growth rates of solar/wind. This means your analysis is inherently flawed.
b) Solar is growing from 2011 to 2021 by 38,8% annually, while wind by 16,5%. Assuming hydro and other renewables continue linear growth they reach respectively 5000 TWh and 1100 TWh by 2032. By comparison if solar and wind retain 38,8% and 16,5% annual growth rates they will reach 37600 TWh and 9900 TWh respectively, so jointly renewables would have 53600 TWh by 2032. That would be the result of a proper trend analysis. Surprisingly you seem to have had a problem with percentages...
c) Now both solar and wind seem to be following more of an S-curve, so 38,8% and 16,5% growth rates seem unlikely to hold. Basic analysis of trends suggests average growth rate for 2022-2032 at 25,5% and 14% respectively, worst case scenario 20% and 11%. This average scenario would mean 26300 TWh renewable energy by 2032, while the worst case scenario 19000 TWh. As you can see all result put it much higher than your wrongly done trend analysis suggests.
2. The fossil fuel usage graph has an even simpler flaw. It suggests continued linear growth, but absolutely ignore the fact that fossil fuel usage seems to have stalled in 2018 and shown little growth. We seem to have hit peak oil consumption. IEA notes all these facts. No does this mean that fossil fuel usage will stop growing or even start falling? No. But you should have at least noted the recent stagnation of fossil fuel growth as the sudden jump from 2022 is odd to say the east.
-
Doug Bostrom at 03:07 AM on 18 February 2023Skeptical Science New Research for Week #7 2023
Yes indeed, John.
Beyond the repugnant cynicism of this tactic in support of the strategy of "prolong monetization for as long as possible," it has a notable side-effect, or so I think.
Something I've observed is that on "our" "right" side there's tendency to conflation of all CO2 removal schemes with the fossil fuel industry's tactical adoption of a particular mode of so doing for purposes other than intended or claimed.
Leading to (as in some other areas) a spectrum of what are effectively beat-downs of researchers daring to investigate CO2 removal. "They're just greenwashing!" The criticism is ineluctably a form of ad hominem attack, if unpacked at all.
Accompanied by "moral hazard" conjectures and "we can't walk and chew gum at the same time" appeals in support of monolithic solutions that as a practical matter can't be executed in an instant.
-
John Hartz at 14:47 PM on 17 February 2023Skeptical Science News: The Rebuttal Update Project
John M, Baerbel, Ken & Doug:
At the risk of preaching to the choir, I believe the Climate Feedback website offers a rich lode of high quality rebuttals which can be mined by SkS volunteers working on the rebuttal project you have set forth in the OP.
-
John Hartz at 14:32 PM on 17 February 2023Underground temperatures control climate
Suggested supplemental reading:
Fact check: False claim the rotation of Earth's core is responsible for climate change by Eleanor McCrary, USA Today, Feb 14, 2023
-
John Hartz at 14:30 PM on 17 February 2023Skeptical Science News: The Rebuttal Update Project
John M, Baerbel, Ken & Doug:
As an aside, I have noticed a welcome and recent uptick in the number of news media outlets which are now generating their own versions of rebuttals of climate pseudoscience. A case in point is the national newspaper, USA Today. It's most recent rebuttal:
Fact check: False claim the rotation of Earth's core is responsible for climate change by Eleanor McCrary, USA Today, Feb 14, 2023
I believe this "fact check" directly relates to the SkS rebuttal, What influence do underground temperatures have on climate?
-
John Hartz at 09:55 AM on 17 February 2023Skeptical Science New Research for Week #7 2023
By coincidence, Greta Thunberg adresses CCS head-on in a recently (yesterday) published Op-ed that I today posted a link to on the SkS Facebook Page. A key pragraph from Thunberg's Op-ed:
"Also, the carbon-removal facility in Iceland has some serious scaling up to do. Yet that is clearly not happening, which makes no sense at all. Why foster the idea that this underdeveloped technology could be a substitute for the immediate, drastic mitigation needed? Why bet our entire civilization on it without making the slightest effort to make it work? Why make the world picture a potential solution so vividly that we include it in every possible future scenario and then fail to invest in it? Could it be that it was never even meant to work at scale? That it was just being used — once again — as a way of deflecting attention and delaying any meaningful climate action so that the fossil fuel companies can continue business as usual and keep on making fantasy amounts of money for just a little while longer?"
Source: Greta Thunberg: Global leaders are dropping the ball on climate change, Op-ed by Greta Thunberg, Winston-Salem Journal, Feb 15, 2023
-
ubrew12 at 04:16 AM on 17 February 2023The Problem with Percentages
"renewable energy grew 25% in a single year, recent, historical trends indicate that the growth of renewables is not even keeping up with growing, global energy demand." Global energy demand may be accounted in terms if 'fossil energy in' rather than 'electricity out'. As mentioned a week ago on this website, 60-70% of 'fossil energy in' is lost as waste heat upon combustion, the remainder becomes electricity. For fossil energy, the 'energy in-to-power out' conversion is as low as 30%. For renewable energy, it's closer to 80%.
-
RichardBryan at 17:55 PM on 16 February 2023The escalator rises again
I asked someone to think about climate related trends in terms of what a stock market chart might look like. People can immediately picture and understand that a stock price which declines over the course of a year would nevertheless have periods of days or weeks or months wherein the price was rising and falling and rising and falling, only to close lower at the end of the year. So when looking at charts describing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, or surface air tempertures, a short segment in the middle of the graph won't be an accurate representation of what's happening (i.e., a global warming "pause"); looking at the long term is what matters. People intuitively understand stock market charts and I've found this analogy to long term climate changes to be helpful in day to day conversation.
-
John Mason at 17:35 PM on 16 February 2023Skeptical Science News: The Rebuttal Update Project
John - thanks for the imput. "It's not bad" is in our next batch i.e. at an advanced draft stage and bearing in mind what you said, we'll likely take a look sooner rather than later.
-
John Hartz at 05:05 AM on 16 February 2023Skeptical Science News: The Rebuttal Update Project
John, Baerbel, Ken & Doug:
I have been sifting and winowing through the internet for more than a decade now to identify quality news articles about manmade climate change and related matters.* During this time, I have seen a signifigant growth in debunking articles generated by journalists, scientists, blog authors, and others.
One such article was posted just two days ago. It is:
Myth-buster: Why two degrees of global warming is worse than it sounds by Daisy Simmons, Climate Explained, Yale Climate Connections, Feb 13, 2023
In the context of the rebuttal update initiative described in the OP, I thought it would be interesting to see which of the Skeptical Science (SkS) rebuttals Simmons' article best pairs up with. It appears that would be the SkS rebuttal, #3 It's not bad.
Having said the above, the existing SkS rebuttal, #3 It's not bad covers almost the complete universe of climate science. Therefore, the best Advanced version of the rebuttal would in essence be the most recent scientific report of the IPCC.
My basic recommendation re this ball of wax is to slice and dice the the SkS rebuttal, #3 It's not bad into distinct chunks.
___________________
*The first SkS "Bi-Weekly News Roundup" was posted on Nov 16, 2012.
-
John Hartz at 02:35 AM on 16 February 2023Skeptical Science News: The Rebuttal Update Project
John, Baerbel, Ken & Doug:
Kudos for taking on this much needed and somewhat overdue task. I will help out as much as I can.
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:40 PM on 15 February 2023Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
The Climategate and Peer-review link I gave above is #95 on SkS's "Most Used Climate Myths". (This thread is # 17.)
If you really want to read about corruption of the peer-review process, you should look at # 205 on the list: "How contrarians used pal review to publish contrarian papers". In the contrarians' world it is easy to imagine that the mainstream climate scientists are corrupting the process, because that's exactly what the contrarians are willing to do when they have control of a journal. Accuse your opponent of doing what you are doing...
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:24 PM on 15 February 2023Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
JonJC, Eddie:
I suspect that the video in question is the one recently discussed on the "It's the sun" thread. MA Rodger's comment provides a link to the Curry/Peterson part of the video, with a pithy comment about the quality of Curry's blatherings.
I also suspect that there is nothing new in Curry/Peterson that isn't the result of a gross misrepresentation of the email contents. For the peer-review aspects, you should also read this SkS post on the subject:
-
Eclectic at 20:40 PM on 15 February 2023Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
JonJC @85 ,
the Climategate biz is rather ancient history by now ~ but the science-denialists are desperatey short of ammunition . . . so they have to keep dredging it up (and they can never admit they got it wrong).
My favorite discussion of it is by science journalist "Potholer54" , back in about 2010. Google his youtube video titled "Climate Change - Those hacked e-mails".
His video runs 9 minutes, and you will find it amusing as well !
( The issue has had no significant developments since since then.)
-
EddieEvans at 20:11 PM on 15 February 2023Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
JonJC
I'd like to listen to the suspect climate gate program. Do you have a link?
-
JonJC at 16:54 PM on 15 February 2023Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
Judith Curry recently did an interview on Jordan Peterson's podcast - and she still leans very heavily on Climategate. She made some points which I've not seen covered here - about emails where climate researchers were bullying editors into silencing critics - it would be good to have some of that rebutted here (just because Peterson's reach is huge).
If you're not across it I'll suffer through listening to it again and will provide a summary - please let me know if you'd like me to do this. -
John Mason at 20:47 PM on 14 February 2023Temp record is unreliable
Please note: the basic version of this rebuttal has been updated on Feb 14, 2023 and now includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @
https://sks.to/at-a-glanceThanks - the Skeptical Science Team.
-
John Mason at 20:44 PM on 14 February 2023Hockey stick is broken
Please note: the basic version of this rebuttal has been updated on Feb 14, 2023 and now includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @
https://sks.to/at-a-glanceThanks - the Skeptical Science Team.
-
John Mason at 20:44 PM on 14 February 2023It's the sun
Please note: the basic version of this rebuttal has been updated on Feb 14, 2023 and now includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @
https://sks.to/at-a-glanceThanks - the Skeptical Science Team.
-
John Mason at 20:43 PM on 14 February 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Please note: the basic version of this rebuttal has been updated on Feb 14, 2023 and now includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @
https://sks.to/at-a-glanceThanks - the Skeptical Science Team.
-
John Mason at 20:41 PM on 14 February 2023Antarctica is gaining ice
Please note: the basic version of this rebuttal has been updated on Feb 14, 2023 and now includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @
https://sks.to/at-a-glanceThanks - the Skeptical Science Team.
-
John Mason at 20:40 PM on 14 February 2023CO2 lags temperature
Please note: the basic version of this rebuttal has been updated on Feb 14, 2023 and now includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @
https://sks.to/at-a-glanceThanks - the Skeptical Science Team.
-
John Mason at 20:39 PM on 14 February 2023Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
Please note: the basic version of this rebuttal has been updated on Feb 14, 2023 and now includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @
https://sks.to/at-a-glanceThanks - the Skeptical Science Team.
-
John Mason at 20:37 PM on 14 February 2023Climate's changed before
Please note: the basic version of this rebuttal has been updated on Feb 14, 2023 and now includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @
https://sks.to/at-a-glanceThanks - the Skeptical Science Team.
-
John Mason at 20:35 PM on 14 February 2023Ice age predicted in the 70s
Please note: the basic version of this rebuttal has been updated on Feb 14, 2023 and now includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @
https://sks.to/at-a-glanceThanks - the Skeptical Science Team.
-
John Mason at 20:32 PM on 14 February 2023It hasn't warmed since 1998
Please note: the basic version of this rebuttal has been updated on Feb 14, 2023 and now includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @ https://sks.to/at-a-glance
Thanks - the Skeptical Science Team.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:10 AM on 14 February 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
ubrew12,
Well presented point about the fundamental, and glaringly obvious, harmfully misleading nature of the proponents of fossil fuel use.
I would go one step further, to be more general. Harmfully misleading promotion of fossil fuels is part of the larger developed collective of harmful misleaders regarding so much more.
There are other harmful impacts of many of the things 'harmful misleaders' want people to 'fear not being able to continue to believe, desire and enjoy'. In almost every case there is a less harmful, but more expensive, alternative that does not require 'petroleum'. In every case it is possible to enjoy life with less of the 'promoted consumption'. And in many cases it is possible to enjoy life without the 'developed desires'.
The reality is that almost everything 'unnecessary but desired' today could be obtained less harmfully at a: higher cost, lower level of convenience, or reduced perception of superiority. That reality contradicts the developed interests of a person who has allowed themselves to be fooled and indoctrinated into 'desiring' understandably harmful beliefs and related actions.
-
Eclectic at 23:24 PM on 13 February 2023Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
EddieEvans @55,
there's a large number of Dr Curry's own articles (among others) to be seen on her blog "Climate Etc" (at judithcurry.com) . But you may find it rather tiresome to wade through a good sample of them. Her modus operandi is to be vague & misleading to the naive/layman reader, by throwing up clouds of maybe & could-be & might-be.
At first glance you might feel that she is being a cautious scientist, in keeping her mind open to possible alternative explanations for modern global warming. But as you look at her track record and persistent line of do-nothingism "until we are really truly exactly sure of the precise amount of warming which is anthropogenic if any" . . . then you see that her AGW policy is in lock-step with the Oil Lobby. Basically she is a propagandist who seriously distorts mainstream climate science, in her own unique way. Plus a smattering of grievance about her persecution by those dreadful mainstream scientists (i.e. the 99%) .
# Thank you for the 2019 article you link to. A short but interesting article, authored by an economist Guy Sorman [age 78]. Sorman seems to have genuine virtues personally . . . though being an Old School free-marketeer (the Market is the solution to all problems).
However, Sorman has re-hashed much of Dr Curry's usual blend of half-truths and misleading information ~ great grist for his "conservative" readers of that City Journal for which he is a contributing editor ( I gather ). But very bad science.
-
EddieEvans at 22:17 PM on 13 February 2023Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
One Planet Only Forever at 05:42 AM on 13 February 2023
It's the sunI should have read the Curry comments this morning before posting comments. Your post hits the mark.
"People who want to prolong harmful misunderstandings demand that presentations of harmful misunderstanding must be 'protected freedom of thought and expression'
Those same people declare that it is unacceptable to ridicule people who present understandably ridiculous beliefs. They have a ridiculous belief about community-building. They believe that community-building requires acceptance of harmful people who want to promote and prolong harmful misunderstanding. Ridiculing people who persist in resisting learning to change their mind about harmful misunderstandings is deemed to be 'harmfully divisive'." -
EddieEvans at 21:46 PM on 13 February 2023Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
I received an email from an old acquaintance mired in conspiracy theories. An article, Climate Science’s Myth-Busterboosting, by Judith Curry.
Would anyone share a remark about “findings”? I see that SKS has much about her past denialism.
Wikipedia has a nice description of Curry, I know. I'm just curious if there's something recent, more revealing, if that's possible.
-
Eclectic at 17:35 PM on 13 February 2023It's the sun
Jim Hunt @1314 ,
Judith Curry's denizens are, as you well know, much uninclined to engage with you in any true sense. They tend to operate by deflections and faux misunderstandings. (Commenters Joshua, Willard, and David Appell are very much the exceptions ~ but they appear rarely.)
The Curry-ites are somewhat more upper class than the WUWT-ites, on the whole. But you may have noticed that many of them have a sort of Schroedinger Feline brain ~ you cannot be certain whether inside the cranium is something which is brain-dead or brain-alive. Or a brain which is both at the same time, or is rapidly alternating. This might explain how so many of them know that you [Jim Hunt] are correct in what you have (so often) said to them in the past . . . and yet they usually seem ignorant of that information (and are not wishing to know it).
BTW Jim, with my newest VPN version, I do not get to access your website GreatWhiteCon.info ~ stuff comes up like "cannot access this site" or "this site does not support https". Presumably the fault is mine as a computer ingenu . . . but would you mind checking your https status ? Thanks. [No need to reply]
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:42 AM on 13 February 2023It's the sun
Jim Hunt @1314,
The reference to "Brave New World" is noted. But it can be understood to be the "Same Harmful Old World".
There is currently a resurgence of people demanding the promotion and protection of harmful misunderstandings that excuse understandably harmful developed aspects of the Status Quo. Many people dislike learning that excuses of harm done are misunderstandings. They resist learning evidence-based evaluations done in pursuit of limiting harm done and developing sustainable improvements.
What is seen to be happening regarding Twitter and other media, and clearly dominant in politics, can be well explained as follows:- People who want to prolong harmful misunderstandings demand that presentations of harmful misunderstanding must be 'protected freedom of thought and expression'
- Those same people declare that it is unacceptable to ridicule people who present understandably ridiculous beliefs. They have a ridiculous belief about community-building. They believe that community-building requires acceptance of harmful people who want to promote and prolong harmful misunderstanding. Ridiculing people who persist in resisting learning to change their mind about harmful misunderstandings is deemed to be 'harmfully divisive'.
The future of humanity requires this cyclical resurgence of harmful selfishness to fail. Ultimately what is required is social transformation that limits the harm of attempted resurgence of harmful selfishness. But, unfortunately, as the climate science case proves, the current system is substantially compromised by harmful selfishness. It allows a lot of harm to be done by the promotion and prolonging of harmful misunderstandings. And climate science is not the only matter where more harm is being done due to the ‘ridiculous freedom of harmful selfish people to believe and do whatever they desire and resist being restricted and corrected by Others’.
-
Jim Hunt at 00:42 AM on 13 February 2023It's the sun
As blind chance etc. would have it I currently find myself engaging with Judith Curry's denizens under her article about the recent joint venture with Jordan Peterson.
This is presumably the cause of some or all of the "it's the sun, stupid!" nonsense currently being promulgated in the Twittodenialosphere?
As a consequence my Arctic alter ego felt compelled to bring the following NASA article to the attention of one such Dunning-Kruger sufferer:
https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/
Elon's new thought police helpfully suggested that I might want to reconsider my attempted violation of Twitter's community guidelines:
The allegedly "offensive language" was merely echoing that of the DK sufferer in question.
What a "Brave New World" we currently inhabit!
-
ubrew12 at 21:16 PM on 12 February 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
"Our world would be unrecognizable if the products we rely on just disappeared" According to Energy Transfer, sunlight cannot cause skin cancer because it makes plants grow. Put another way, if "Petroleum used in plastics" is "apples", and "Petroleum used for energy" is "moldy cheese", then I refuse to stop eating moldy cheese, because apples are good for me.
-
MA Rodger at 19:14 PM on 12 February 2023It's the sun
Philippe Chantreau @1312,
While Curry is evidently referring to the ACRIM gap of 1989-91 when she talks of "a gap in the satellites measuring the sun's output that occurred at the time of the Challenger shuttle disaster" of 1986, mainly because there is no other "gap". But her reference to AR6.6 'Short-lived climate forcers' as giving discussion of some "great uncertainty in the amount of solar forcing in the late 20th century" that "arises" from the ACRIM gap is deluded nonsense. AR6.6 concerns aerosol forcing and thus the solar aspects of this and nowhere considers any gaps in TSI data.
As you say, the ACRIM gap was an issue of long ago although I think it remains an issue when used in historical proxy TSI reconstructions and whether the Maunder Minimum TSI was 1Wm^-2 or 2Wm^-2 lower than today. But this is not apparently what was Curry attempting to describe in her deluded rant. (The graphics below are from an Andy May discussion of TSI dated 2018.)
-
Philippe Chantreau at 09:10 AM on 12 February 2023It's the sun
MAR, is this an allusion to the ACRIM gap or the old ACRIM vs PMOD debate? If it is, both of these horses have already been flogged to death as far as I recall.
-
Eclectic at 07:56 AM on 12 February 2023It's the sun
MA Rodger @1310 , thank you for extracting some classic Curry.
I particularly liked :- "... huge amounts of [solar] variability ... a lot of issues related to UV and stratosphere and cosmic rays and magnetic fields and ... things that really aren't being factored in [to models] ..."
A quote so typical of Dr Curry. A bit of smoke & mirrors, vague handwaving, followed by more sciencey-sounding vagueness, plus the magic word Uncertainties uttered thrice. And at this point, every Denialist is nodding in agreement, with all critical abilities set in the OFF position. Her style is unique.
If Dr Curry were pressed on some of that nonsense, she would walk it back ~ by retreatiing into more vagueness. She outclasses Dr Peterson in that way ~ he at least can look slightly embarrassed when he is caught out in some of his own nonsenses (and he does, when caught, walk his mistakes back . . . temporarily).
Dr Curry's style of discourse reminds me somewhat of another speaker, but she has never actually suggested fixing solar problems by injecting bleach into the sun.
-
MA Rodger at 02:10 AM on 12 February 2023It's the sun
The link given @1305 leads me to a bunch of YouTube adverts but if you specify a time with the link, the Curry/Peterson nonsense appears. Thus:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q2YHGIlUDk&t=60s
Below the video there is a box that can be expanded with a 'show more' tab and that shows a list of a couple of dozen parts to the video (called Chapters) and one of these does mention things solar (which was what panhuag @1306 was asking about) 'The Challenger explosion, how the sun affects climate'. This provides the following from Curry:-"Once you get into the sun, it's even crazier. The IPCC has pretty-much dismissed the role of the sun in the last 150 years but the interesting AR6.6 finally acknowledged the great uncertainty in the amount of solar forcing in the late 20th century and this arises from ... a gap in the satellites measuring the sun's output that occurred at the time of the Challenger shuttle disaster... So one solar sensor was running out and they were supposed to launch another one but all the launchers were put off for a number of years until they sorted out... (the launchers). So there's a so-called gap which depending on what was happening in that gap, you can tune the solar variability to high variability or low variability. So all the climate models are being run with low solar variability forcing.
For the first time in AR6.2 (2.2.1), the observational chapter acknowledges this issue, that there are huge amounts of variability.
And this doesn't even factor in the solar indirect effects.... It's not just the heat from the sun. There's a lot of issues related to UV and stratosphere and cosmic rays and magnetic fields and all these otehr things that really aren't being factored in. They're at the forefront of research but they're certainly not factored into the climate models so there are so many uncertainties out there that affect certainly the projections of what might happen in the 21st century but also our interpretation of what's been going on with the climate for the last 100 years and exactly what's been causing what.A quick look at AR6.2.2.1 shows Curry is doing particularly well ast spouting nonsense here.
-
EddieEvans at 01:19 AM on 12 February 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #5
The Hamburg Report - - It's in a social change pipeline, and it's not pretty.
-
EddieEvans at 23:52 PM on 11 February 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #5
The Hamburg Outlook seems to agree with us, and the drive for technological fixes to humanity's stupidity will not stop what's in the pipeline. These seven social drivers remain stuck in ignorance, superstition, and greed.
"Seven social drivers from the Hamburg Climate Futures Outlook 2023 - -
The recent Hamburg outlook sounds grim enough for my take on the prospects for future generations. I just don't see a wake-up call any time soon.
climate-related regulation
climate protests and social movements
climate litigation
fossil-fuel divestment
knowledge production
Corporate responses and consumption patterns continue to undermine the pathways to decarbonization. media remains ambivalent insofar as its dynamics. are volatile, both supporting and undermining decarbonization."I'll read the full pdf over the weekend. I think I need the reality check.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:06 AM on 11 February 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #5
EddieEvans,
Thanks for the words of encouragement in your comment @11.
I plan to continue to be 'anonymous' on the internet. As an anonymous participant I have no copyright on the thoughts I share. I am still learning from others and I am happy to have others adopt aspects of what I share as part of their learning.
I agree with your current understanding that significant social change is required to limit the harm done by misleading pursuers of personal benefit. Without that social change harm will continue to be done by pursuers of status and personal benefit. A 'technological transition' that appears to address the climate change problem could end up being like putting new wall-paper on the walls of a dwelling that is continuing to rot, be burned-out and be pest-infested, but the walls will look nicer - for a little while.
-
Bob Loblaw at 08:04 AM on 11 February 2023It's the sun
Yes, the links in the "Recent Comments" page still do the wrong page number. On the list to fix.
This gets you to your comment properly:
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=18&p=53#140262
This is the borked link on the Recent Comments page.
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=18&p=27#140265
The trick is knowing whether 2x27 will be 53 or 54... Whichever one you guess, it will probably be the other one.
I did not watch the video. I just saw the names in the text description below it. That was enough, until panhuang tells us more. (I won't hold my breath.)
-
Eclectic at 05:43 AM on 11 February 2023It's the sun
Moderator @1305 [note: 3 additional scroll & clicks were required to reach Page 53 of Comments in this thread]
Thank you Bob, it likely my VPN "blocks" the video. But the VPN is not worth circumventing, if that video is by Curry and/or Peterson. As you say, both Dr Curry and Dr Peterson have poor track records.
(Personally, I have never seen either of them put forward an argument which invalidates the scientific evidence found in IPCC reports. Panhuang @1305 has a great deal of explaining to do. )
-
Eclectic at 21:03 PM on 10 February 2023It's the sun
Panhuang @1305,
my computer says your video is no longer available. Error at my end or at your end ?
Either way, please have the courtesy to explain the video contents.
If the IPCC is wrong on global warming, then the World needs to know! And there might be a reporter's Pulitzer Prize in it for you . . . and just possibly your share in a Nobel Prize for Physics.
On the other hand, you may be misunderstanding the basics. Likely?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 12:39 PM on 10 February 2023It's the sun
panhuang... How about you explain what you think the IPCC is claiming rather than sending people off on a wild goose chase?
-
panhuang at 12:20 PM on 10 February 2023It's the sun
What about the admission by 6th IPCC assessment about uncertainty in solar related data?
Look at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q2YHGIlUDk
Moderator Response:[BL] Three points:
- The web software here does not automatically create links. You can do this when posting a comment by selecting the "insert" tab, selecting the text you want to use for the link, and clicking on the icon that looks like a chain link. Add the URL in the dialog box.
- The Comments Policy specifically states "Any link or picture should be accompanied by text summarizing both the content of the link or picture, and showing how it is relevant to the topic of discussion. Failure to do both of these things will result in the comment being considered off topic." As Rob Honeycutt states, just providing a link without much context is just sending people off on a wild goose chase, and is considered bad form.
- The link does work for me, but the first two names that I see are Judtih Curry, and Jordan Peterson. Neither are particularly reliable. Details on Judith Curry are available here and here. She has a reputation for beating the Uncertainty Drum as if it was a rented mule. Jordan Peterson has no background in any sort of atmospheric science, let alone climate science. You can read more about him here.
If you wish to continue this line of thought, you are going to have to provide some sort of coherent discussion and argument.
