Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 Next
Comments 27451 to 27500:
-
CBDunkerson at 23:28 PM on 17 September 2015Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
IMO, the transcript of Black's speech shows that, while he acknowledged much of the prevailing science, there was also already a clear 'skeptical' slant. The word 'uncertainty' is everywhere, he argues that the polar ice caps would likely be unaffected, and he even claims that the atmospheric CO2 increase might be natural rather than caused by fossil fuels... despite covering the fact that the atmospheric increase rate was roughly 50% of the fossil fuels emissions rate - which indeed proves that fossil fuels are responsible for 100% of the atmospheric increase.
Basically, it seems like Exxon was willing to spend money on global warming research so long as they could convince themselves that they might not be causing it or that it might not be too bad. Once they'd established otherwise they stopped funding research and started funding disinformation.
-
betlem at 23:12 PM on 17 September 2015Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
Joris van Dorp. Are you suggesting Exxon acted responsibly all along? And why the stab on 'psychological desirability', when you could also stick to the facts?
-
CBDunkerson at 21:50 PM on 17 September 2015Republicans are becoming the party of climate supervillains
I'd say rather that the Republican disinformation campaign has gotten so bad and gone on so long that it is no longer just their voters who are deluded... there are now party leaders who have spent their entire lives believing in a completely fictional reimagining of the world around us.
It isn't that they are 'stupid', 'evil', or don't care... it's that they are so misguided/brainwashed that they really believe fossil fuels do no harm and efforts to curtail them are driven by financial anarchists who want to destroy civilization, rather than by actual concern for the planet's ecosystem.
In their minds, environmentalists and other 'liberals' are the 'stupid' and 'evil' people who don't care about human society or even their own children. Republicans are heroically attempting to save the world... it's just that the world they are 'saving' doesn't really exist.
-
Joris van Dorp at 19:10 PM on 17 September 2015Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
There is more untold history about Exxon, namely that Exxon was the first US company to seriously invest in solar power R&D, and became the first major purchaser of solar power technology in the 1970's. In the '90's an even greater wave of investment in solar technology manufacturing from many major oil and gas companies (including Shell and BP) laid the foundation for solar power technology as we know it today.
http://alternativeenergy.procon.org/view.timeline.php?timelineID=000015
Exxon also invested heavily in nuclear power, as did many other fossil fuel companies.
However, neither solar power not nuclear power were able to compete with the bargain basement fossil fuel prices which persisted until the early 2000's, so their investments in solar and nuclear ended up being multibillion dollar losses. In the case of nuclear, persistent, international antinuclear propaganda made commercialising the advanced 4th generation technologies pioneered by these oil companies even harder than it already was. Hence virtually all solar and nuclear business components were spun-off and the fossil fuel companies returned to their core business as we know it today.
This is just to say that the history described in this article is incomplete and misleading. The article paints a picture of an evil industry callously disregarding the hazards of co2 emissions and hindering the solution to these hazards. In reality, things are not as cut and dried. The poor economics of solar power and the extraordinary resistance to nuclear power application (no matter how advanced, sustainable or safe) have been important factors defining the history of the fossil fuel industry, which cannot be said to have not tried to develop zero-carbon energy sources that could compete with fossil fuel. They did in fact try quite seriously, and they lost billions doing so.
While it may be psychologically desireable for some to believe that Exxon and other fossil fuel companies are Satan's bedfellows, such an understanding does not necessarily contribute to an accurate perception of reality.
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link. However, I will repeat (again) that you must avoid sloganeering. I frankly think you will stand a better chance of maintaining your posting privileges here if you avoid the temptation to turn every comment into a pro-nuclear statement.
-
bozzza at 16:36 PM on 17 September 2015It's not bad
Loss of sea ice is currently the greatest in the Barents Sea area, York explained, where the summer ice-free period is now 20 weeks longer than when records began in 1979.
How can a "summer ice-free period" being 20 weeks longer than 36 years ago be a good thing
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:41 PM on 17 September 2015Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
Other examples, let me count the ways. Rather than count them all I will present an example and an explanation for why there are so many of them.
In the late 1970s when the need to dramatically reduce sulphur emissions was clearly understood, a significant number of wealthy US people and the industries they invested in declared that, unlike Europe, the US economy would not survive the technically possible reduction of SO2 because of 'the cost'. Even now the US standards for sulphur in diesel fuel are below the levels in Europe. That keeps the more efficient and cleaner diesels of Europe off the roads in the great US of A.
The reality is they simply wanted to get as much unfair economic advantage as possible by getting away with the least acceptable behaviour. That is also why they continue to burn so much coal in the US (and Alberta, and Australia)
That desire to get away with the least possible acceptable behaviour fueled efforts to expand the rate of extraction and sale of Oil Sands in Alberta to irresponsible levels taht are now declared to be a perception of prosperity that cannot be allowed to diminish.
And that unacceptable desire fuels the development and prolonging of all manner of unacceptable activity. The potential to win through the ability to create perceptions of popular support contrary to the understandable unacceptabilty of pursuits of profit is evident in almost every "area of economic pursuit".
-
Digby Scorgie at 13:27 PM on 17 September 2015Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
Sugar.
When the WHO was established after the Second World War, one of their first reports included mention of the dangers of sugar in diet. The US sugar industry was outraged; at their behest the US government blackmailed the WHO into deleting reference to sugar in exhange for the funding the US had promised.
Also, DDT.
Think of the vilification to which the chemical industry subjected Rachel Carson after she published her book "Silent spring".
Any others?
-
Ian Forrester at 11:20 AM on 17 September 2015Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
Agricultural pesticides https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/monsantos-sealed-documents-reveal-truth-behind-roundups-toxicological-dangers
-
gregcharles at 10:07 AM on 17 September 2015Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
Lead, particularly leaded gasoline.
-
uncletimrob at 08:18 AM on 17 September 2015Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
Just the same corporate behaviour:
- Asbestos mesothelioma.co/mesothelioma/understanding/the-role-of-asbestos/
-Tobacco http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/16/6/1070.full
Any others?
-
Tom Dayton at 02:37 AM on 17 September 2015Models are unreliable
dvaytw, I'll expand scaddenp's answer: Models are fed actual ("historical") values of anthropogenic and natural forcings up through some date that the modelers decide has reliable forcing data. The actual running of the models can be years after that cutoff date. The vertical line you see in model projection graphs demarcates that cutoff date. For dates beyond that cutoff, the modelers feed the models estimates of future forcings. Although those are "predictions" of those future forcings, the modelers rarely are very confident of those "predictions," because those modelers are not in the business of predicting forcings. Indeed, those models themselves are not predicting forcings; these models take forcings as inputs.
An ensemble of model runs such as CMIP5 generally uses the same forcings in all the model runs. See, for example, the CMIP5 instructions to the modelers. Differences across model run outputs therefore are due to different constructions of the different models, and tweaks across runs within the same model. (CMIP5 has more than one run of each of the models.) The goal is replication in the sense of seeing whether the fundamental characteristics of the outputs are robust to what should be minor differences in approaches. See AR5 WG1, Chapter 11, Box 11.1 (pp. 959-961) for more explanation. See Figure 11.25 (p. 1011) for detailed graphs of only the CMIP5 projections.
Modelers almost never rerun old models with new actual (historical) forcing data, because too much time, money, and labor are required to run the models. Instead they run their latest, presumably improved, version of their model. But several authors have made statistical adjustments to model results to approximate the effect of rerunning those models with actual forcings.
Dana wrote a post with separate sections for the different reports' projections, but it is three years old so does not show the recent upswing in temperature.
I know there are graphs combining all the IPCC reports' different projections, but I can't find one at this moment. Somebody else must know where one is.
-
Tom Curtis at 22:34 PM on 16 September 2015There is no consensus
KR @709, Verheggen et al argue that the percentage of respondents excluding undetermined results (ie, "unknown", "I do not know" and "other") for both the qualitative and quantitative responses are equivalent. Specifically, 84 +/- 2% of respondents agreed that 50% or more of "global warming since the mid 20th century" can be attributed to "human induced increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations"; while 86 +/- 2% agreed that greenhouse gases had a moderate or strong warming contribution to the "reported global warming of ~0.8 degrees C since pre-industrial times".
As an aside, the unequal time periods for the quantitative and qualitative questions substantially weaken that argument. However, I think it is a no brainer that "I do not know" and "other" responses should not be included. On the other hand, arguably "unknown" responses claim scientific ignorance (ie, it has not been determined adequately by scientists) rather than mere personal ignorance, and so should not be included. Against that, an "unknown" response may merely indicate the respondent thinks it is not yet determined whether the greenhouse gas contribution was 75-100 or 100-125% (quantitative question) or a moderate or strong warming contribution (qualitative question). Therefore while presumable some respondents answering "unknown" do not agree with the consensus, it is problematic including the "unknown" figures because doing so assumes that all who so answered disagreed with the consensus which is not at all certain.
More important are the figures with no "unconvinced", ie, those deliberately invited to participate because of their "skeptical opinion" rather than because they are just scientists. Excluding both "undetermined" responses and "unconvinced" invitees, 87 +/-2% agreed that 50% plus of recent warming has been due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. That does not lie in the uncertainty range of Doran et al. As Verheggen et al. is much more recent then Doran et al, we must therefore either conclude that there has been an approximately 10% slide in agreement with the concensus among climate scientists; or that differences in the questions made a substantial (approximately 10%) difference in the response. The later is what I argue above, based on the difference between "a significant contributor" and "the major contributor".
I completely agree with your final two paragraphs, but do not think that reason to by imprecise or selective when quoting determination of the size of the concensus. That is, to the best of our current knowledge, ~87% of climate scientists (on attribution), and ~97% of climate science papers. IMO those figures show that the approximately 13% of climate scientists who do not agree with the IPCC on attribution do not do so based on publishable evidence. Put another way, it means that political opinion has influenced the scientific views of some climate scientists, but against the IPCC position, not for it (ie, in the opposite direction of the bias claimed by "skeptics").
-
There's no empirical evidence
The atmosphere does not work according to a CO2 layer circling the planet for climate changes purposes and then you lose too much time and efforts making comments on this negligible aspect. The REAL and TRUE atmospheric behaviors are described in the ES papers. The journals where they were submitted make strong peer reviews as well as the author is firmly aware on the physical principles on which he writes about. True science can be written even onto a napkin, but scientists who are not aware on the corresponding true physical principles are not scientists.
Moderator Response:[DB] Welcome to Skeptical Science. In this venue, we discuss the evidence surrounding the science of Climate Change. In doing so, it is incumbent upon participants to themselves use evidence and source citations for claims running counter to the primary literature, and to also compose comments that comply with this venue's Comments Policy.
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. -
r.pauli at 14:28 PM on 16 September 2015Republicans are becoming the party of climate supervillains
We may try to judge the difference between intentional stupidity and evil intent. Some think there is no difference.
-
There is no consensus
Tom Curtis - I would agree that little attention has been paid to the uncertainty ranges on consensus estimates. However, as you yourself have noted WRT Doran, with perhaps the smallest sample, the uncertainty is <5% - meaning that even at the extrema we are still looking at a >90% consensus on AGW in the literature, and in at least some surveys of the expert opinions. (As I understand it, B. Verheggen is of the opinion that the lower number in their survey was actually due to a much more detailed/specific question, rather than the mean range thought appropriate - that the respondents didn't think they could narrow it down to the specificity given)
And when you look at actual attribution studies in AR5, the fraction of warming due to AGW has a mean of 110%, with less than a 5% chance of anthropogenic causes being responsible for less than 50% of observed warming. That makes AGW not just a significant, but a dominant cause.
Quite frankly, the various arguments on consensus (and denial thereof by the pseudoskeptics) are equivalent to discussing the number of angels who can dance on a pin, given that by any measure the scientific consensus on AGW is as high as that on ozone depletion by CFCs, acid rain, or the dangers of smoking tobacco, in all of which we found the consensus sufficient to act.
We know enough to take appropriate action.
-
michael sweet at 11:08 AM on 16 September 2015The cause of the greatest mass-extinctions of all? Pollution (Part 1)
Tom,
The paper I linked (only the press release, but the paper can be Googled) only varied the CO2 content of the air. They had a small sample size but the data was striking that performance decreased even at 1000 ppm CO2. Many schools have CO2 that high from respiration. As the atmosphere increases in CO2, interior spaces will increase a lot. The jury is still out on how much effect this will have on function. Even a small effect will be on the entire human population.
Airplanes are probably due to lower O2 concentration at flying altitude.
-
scaddenp at 07:16 AM on 16 September 2015Models are unreliable
Others can probably give you a more detailed answer but models predict the outcomes from given forcings. Predicting future forcings is uncertain so hardly unreasonable to update a model run done is 2005 with what the actual forcings to 2015 to see how it fared. That is very different thing to tuning a model to reproduce a particular time series which is of course of little value.
When doing obs/model comparisons, the interesting question is how well did the model perform actual forcings rather than how well did researchers predict when volcanoes would erupt or how much CO2 human would produce.
-
funglestrumpet at 03:37 AM on 16 September 2015Republicans are becoming the party of climate supervillains
"The point being, Republican leaders don’t seem to have any interest in the long-term health of the planet, human society, or even their own political party."
And worst of all, even their own children.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 01:58 AM on 16 September 2015There's no empirical evidence
ES, I wholeheartedly agrees with you that CO2 is "not decisive for building and changing" the temperature of Jupiter...
Aside of that, your kind of post is one of the reasons why it took me very little time to find where reality resides when I first started to read about climate. There is the real science, and then there is all the rest. Guess where your ramblings fall...
Moderator Response:[PS] Please watch your tone.
-
There's no empirical evidence
ES, your post is going to get deleted for several violations of the comments policy. Before it goes, though, I just want to point out that I'm laughing my posterior off at your claims. Where in the heck did you get the idea that anyone believes evaporation is the creation of water?
It's easy to build a powerful argument against ideas that no one believes in the first place.
Moderator Response:[PS] Please watch tone.
-
There's no empirical evidence
Science must be objective, impersonal, not subjective (through polls, for example), in order to find the true scientific ways for the benefit of the humankind. Since we all live on a same planet, these correct ways are important and decisive for all. Therefore, I kindly invite you to read the papers "Climate Changes: How the Atmosphere Really Works" and “The Physical Principles Elucidate Numerous Atmospheric Behaviors", which ones demonstrate the true physical principles of the atmospheric behaviors that were also confirmed by experimental data and calculations. And everything there is consistent, coherent and transparent. These articles were strongly reviewed by peers as well as the author is firmly aware on the correctness of the physical principles that he writes.
There you will learn, among many other things:
- the planet works according to two systems of the solar energy area: a solar still and a solar evaporator, and not according to a CO2 layer circling the planet or to a common greenhouse without water;
- the current science on global warming or climate changes caused by the CO2 says that when the atmosphere warms the evaporation increases, but it is demonstrated physically and mathematically that this is wrong. For example, if temperature or warming created water, the Sahara would be the most humid place on the planet;
- the true explanation and solution for the “evaporation paradox”. The corresponding empirical “solutions” found for such incomprehension violate the fundamental laws of the nature or of the physics, such as the law of conservation of energy and mass;
- cloud covers reduce the wind and the evaporation and can increase the warming below them. Clouds do not work only as a cooling medium, as considered until to date;
- through true graphs and calculations, the theoretical influence of the CO2 on the air temperature is shown to be less than one percent, thus, an insignificant influence. Ingenuous arguments such as the rudimentary and incipient ones of the 19th Century used by NASA, for example, to justify the power of the CO2, merely inform that the this gas has a greenhouse effect, but say nothing about how much is its power;
- the CO2 is not decisive for building and changing the temperatures of Venus, Mercury, Mars, Jupiter and Earth;
- the radiation is not the only heat transfer mode for determining the air temperature and is much smaller than the evaporation one, and then among many other conclusions this is why the "hockey stick" is invalid;
- the Sun is not the only heat source for the atmosphere;
- the geoengineering is an absolute insanity and demonstrates the deep lack of knowledge on the true atmospheric behaviors;
- ice cores are invalid for "determining" "past" temperatures or climates of the planet;
- how an igloo works;
- that's incredible, humans can influence the climate, but not as has been said to us up to now;
- the New Hydrological Cycle, discovered by Sartori;
- which is the most accurate equation for the evaporation rate;
- much, much more.
You can also see a summary of the Sartori theory as well as a scientific comparison between the thermal behavior of the Amazon and of the Sahara at
http://sartori-globalwarming.blogspot.com
And further info at
http://sartori-aquecimentoglobal.blogspot.com
Thank you.
All the best.
Moderator Response:[PS]
Thank you for taking the time to share with us. Skeptical Science is a user forum wherein the science of climate change can be discussed from the standpoint of the science itself.
Please take the time to review the Comments Policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
In particular, note comments must be on-topic, with no Gish Gallops. Find a topic you wish to challenge with search function and discuss only that. Furthermore, if you wish to make extraordinary claims, then you must be prepared back your position, preferably with reference to the peer-reviewed literature. (OASRP Journals certainly dont count)
Your claims show a profound misunderstanding of climate science and I strongly recommend you work through the resources provided.
-
dvaytw at 18:45 PM on 15 September 2015Models are unreliable
"Climate Lab Book has a comparison that is updated frequently."
Thank you, Tom. I would like to ask a question about this. A guy is giving me crap that:
"So when you post a picture from AR5 which was published in 2013, the question people may ask, is this predictions vs observed from the original 1990 predictions, or is it predictions from 5 minutes ago which were modified and have had the goal posts moved?"
On the graph, it shows a cut-off between historical and RCP's at 2005 (I assume "historical" means post-predictions?) However, I looked up CMIP5 and their site says
"Februrary 2011: First model output is expected to be available for analysis".
This is confusing to me. So these projections are from around 2011? Why does the chart say 2005? And how do these projections compare with earlier models? Also, the guy in the argument is claiming:
"The IPCC has revised its predictions and on each occasion it was down from what was previously predicted."
Far as I can tell, this isn't true... but I can't find a nice graph with all five ARs' projections compared... best I can come up with is the first four (and that one clearly shows SAR as lower than the other three, so already he's wrong on that).
Any help here?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:44 PM on 15 September 2015Republicans are becoming the party of climate supervillains
Chemware,
I acknowledge that this climate issue involves the deliberate pursuit of unacceptable activities to the detriment of others in today's world. Far too much can be gotten away with because of the ability of deliberately unacceptable people to create regional temporary perceptions of prosperity (popularity of understandably unacceptable ways of living, benefiting and profiting). But there is more to it than that.
Unlike the actions in today's that are to the detriment of remote people who would have difficulty affecting those who are making their lives less enjoyable than it neds to be, the people of the future have almost no way of 'affecting' the predecessors who benefited from creating future difficulties.
It would probably be more appropriate to add "Crimes Against the Future of Humanity". And an important related one is "Crimes Against a Future Robust Diversity of Life on this Planet", because being part of a robust diversity of life is the best chance for a lasting future for humanity.
And it may even be appropriate to bring charges against any leadership group of a nation that tries to justify their unacceptable desired actions by claiming that the costs and consequences that will be imposed on a future generation are excusable if a perception can be created that those future consequences are less than the lost perception of prosperity today if those unacceptable pursuits had to be stopped.
-
Chemware at 10:58 AM on 15 September 2015Republicans are becoming the party of climate supervillains
I think it is time to start talking about Crimes Against Humanity, in particular the sections on:
- (deportation or) forcible transfer of population;
- other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering or serious bodily or mental injury.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:18 AM on 15 September 2015There is no consensus
KR @707, I think insufficient attention has been paid to uncertainty intervals with regard to the concensus. In particular, in the case of Doran, Kendall and Zimmerman (2009), the sample size for question two, ie, the question on attribution, is only 77.
Calculating uncertainty depends not only on the sample size, but also (weakly) on the size of the total population. In the case of climate scientists, the total number of climate scientists in the world is an unknown. However, based on a literature review, Verheggen et al (2014) found the emails of approximately 8000 people, of which approximately 7600 where climate scientists (the other 400 being contacted because they where known "skeptics". On that basis, the total number of climate scientists in the world is likely to be greater than 5000, but less than 50000.
Using these figures and a confidence interval calculator, it is possible to determine that the 99% confidence interval is approximately is between + 2.6% and - 4.64 to 4.68%. The larger of the two figures assumes 50 thousand climate scientists. Of course the confidence interval calculator assumes a normal distribution, which is not possible in this case because there cannot be more than 100% concensus. That is likely to mean the lower bound is understated by a small amount, but the 95% confidence interval almost certainly has a lower bound less than or equal to 4.7% based on these figures.
More troubling for Doran is the actual question, which is:
"2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
(My emphasis)
By asking if human activity is "a significant factor", it allows that other influences are as, or even more significant.
Taking significance to be "statistically significant", it asks whether global temperature increase since the "pre-1800s" would have been less than that observed by a statistically significant amount absent human influence. Given the statistical uncertainty in determining pre-1800s temperatures (see graph below) that requires greater than 50% of the warming be attributed to anthropogenic factors. I think this means the question must be understood colloquially, where "significant" does not imply "statistically significant".
Colloquially, something contributing 25% of the effect would be considered "a significant contributing factor". Arguably something contributing just 10% of the effect would also be considered "a significant contributing factor" but that is more dubious. Taking the 25% benchmark, we can compare Doran et al to Verheggen et al, in which just over 90% agree that 25% or more of the warming is due to anthropogenic factors. Allowing for the inclusion of approximately 5% known "skeptics" without regard of their scientific qualifications (and in most cases absent relevant scientific expertise), that result is qualitatively equivalent to Doran et al's.
The upshot is that unless we are making the weak claim that the consensus is that anthropogenic factors are a significant factor in recent warming, we should no longer be citing Doran et al, and hence the 97% figure, for the percentage of scientists who accept the concensus position. That is particularly the case given Bray and von Storch (2010) and Verheggen et al (2014), both of which post date Doran et al, have larger sample sizes and support a consensus figure in the high 80 percents. In particular, Verheggen et al, excluding those invited because of their known "skeptical" opinion and without regard to their scientific qualification, find a concensus figure of 87% (85-89%).
-
There is no consensus
For a survey of scientific opinions, rather than the published work, see Doran 2009, whose survey found that among scientists who had more than half of their recent work on climate (i.e., who are actively researching the matter), 97% agreed that:
"...human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures".
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:54 AM on 15 September 2015There is no consensus
LeonD... I think that's a very common mistake. Relative to the Cook13 paper, many people fail to discern the difference between "position" and "opinion."
-
LeonD at 05:51 AM on 15 September 2015There is no consensus
My mistake, I thought they were querying the authors on their own views not on what their papers were saying.
-
There is no consensus
I cannot find the reference at the moment, but as I recall Naomi Oreskes noted that as a scientific consensus grows the explicit mention of that consensus declines - because, again, there's no need to repeatedly tell your audience that water is wet, or that a clear sky is blue...
-
There is no consensus
LeonD - I'll repeat my question: do you think the high percentage of biology papers that fail to state a position on evolution are in fact evidence that biologists disagree with it? Or that the infinitesimal number of modern physics studies stating a position on the existence of atoms represents evidence of major disagreement there?
There's no need to repeat known facts, especially in the limited space of a paper or even more so the 200-500 words of an abstract - your argument is absurd.
-
LeonD at 05:16 AM on 15 September 2015There is no consensus
The source is the paper itself:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Specifically Table 5
I am referring to the self-rated results but the abstract results are even less in favour of AGW.
-
There is no consensus
LeonD - I expect you're doing a 'drive-by', rather than actually engaging in conversation, but I would ask you to consider just what proportion of peer-reviewed biology papers make explicit statements for or against the validity of evolution in their abstracts? And whether you, for some reason, think the large percentage of such papers not restating known facts is in some fashion disagreement with evolution?
The same holds of climate science. In fact, I suspect the estimated percentage of disagreement on climate is biased towards the negative (that the percentage might be lower than 3%), since authors disagreeing with the consensus have far more reason to mention AGW than authors who treat it as a known and understood background to the data.
Bzzzt.
-
LeonD at 04:03 AM on 15 September 2015There is no consensus
Interesting that you emphasise the 97% agreement of those expressing a clear view. On the surface this sounds convincing, however when questioned 37% of authors in the sample either did not present a view/ were undecided or rejected the idea of human produced climate change. Even in this, a paper that claims to show consensus, there is a large proportion of climate scientists who are not actively supporting the hypothesis.
Moderator Response:[JH] Please document the source of your assertions. Thank you.
-
John Hartz at 04:02 AM on 15 September 2015Republicans are becoming the party of climate supervillains
For a historical perspective of the potential global consequences of Republican and Tea Party denial of what the overwhelming majority of scientists are telling us about manmade climate change, see:
The Next Genocide, Op-ed by Timothy Snyder*, Sunday Review/New York Times, Sep 12, 2015
*A professor of history at Yale University and the author of “Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning.”
-
John Mason at 17:03 PM on 14 September 2015The cause of the greatest mass-extinctions of all? Pollution (Part 1)
dudo39 - there are plenty of detailed accounts of the Lake Nyos incident, if you want to do some online searching. That was a clear-cut case of asphyxiation due to the gas displacing the air. CO2 can also be a serious problem underground, in badly ventilated mineworkings, such as blind raises or winzes. Again, some searching will provide details. I recall collecting a pocket of pyromorphite specimens in the 1990s, up a 5m winze accessed by a ladder, and spending too long up there working in a strenuous position. Got breathless and very light-headed, with symptoms coming on suddenly. Descending down into the main workings, recovery was swift.
Moderator Response:[PS] The problems with C02 levels in Apollo 13 and with Biosphere 2 would be other examples of adequate O2 but excess CO2. But the relevance is??
-
bozzza at 12:22 PM on 14 September 2015Republican leaders should take their own advice and listen to climate scientists
If they have any money they could buy a copy of this!!
-
Tom Curtis at 07:28 AM on 14 September 2015The cause of the greatest mass-extinctions of all? Pollution (Part 1)
dudo39 @32, increasing CO2 content to 1000 ppmv decreases O2 content from 209,460 to 208,860 ppmv. The effect on respiration is less than that of going from sea level to 30 meters above sea level - ie, unnoticable.
Michael Sweet @31, the effect of moderate CO2 in ventilation is not a direct effect of CO2. Rather "high carbon dioxide concentrations in offices" is "an indirect indication of poor ventilation and contaminant build-up". The list of other contaminants in office (and school) air is quite extensive. It is not known which of these, or which combinations of these lead to the loss of cognative function you mention - but it is not attributable to CO2 alone.
-
dudo39 at 02:16 AM on 14 September 2015The cause of the greatest mass-extinctions of all? Pollution (Part 1)
michael sweet,
Your comment and the study you cited bring up an interesting point: People in "Closed" enclosures will change the air composition within by increasing CO2 concentration at the expense of lowering the oxygen concentration [which the study does not mention]. The point, or question, is what is really affecting human performance? Too much CO2, too little O2 or both to various degrees? The chicken or the egg?
In my opinion, lack of O2 is the main problem in buildings and airplanes.
Moderator Response:[PS] As interesting as the toxicity level of CO2 to humans is, I am failing to see how this has relevance to the argument or conclusions of this article. If there is some relevance to the article rather than intellectual curiosity, then can you please outline your argument? Otherwise, this seems rather offtopic.
-
michael sweet at 07:33 AM on 13 September 2015The cause of the greatest mass-extinctions of all? Pollution (Part 1)
Dudo39,
This study found cognative decreases that were sigificant at 1000 ppm CO2. when the ventelating air increases to 500 ppm, it will become common to have air in buildings that is 1000 ppm or greater, some buildings already exceed those amounts. I am not as sanguine as you that increasing CO2 does not affect human mental performance. Think how sleepy people get when they do not ventelate the air enough in airplanes.
-
dudo39 at 01:57 AM on 13 September 2015The cause of the greatest mass-extinctions of all? Pollution (Part 1)
The first question is based on the comment "at much higher levels it [CO2] becomes an asphyxiant": thus it is valid question that should be answered.
Please don't cherry pick: My entire comment was "moderated".
-
dudo39 at 01:47 AM on 13 September 2015The cause of the greatest mass-extinctions of all? Pollution (Part 1)
Tom Curtis @ 27,
Please note that I mentioned that the relatively high CO2 concentration in exhaled air as an indication that CO2 in ambient air is not harmful or toxic to humans.
While the inspired air currently has about 400 ppm of CO2, the residual air in the lungs has about 4% of CO2: as the inspired and residual air volumes readily mix the resulting CO2 concentration may be in excess of 1%.
I did not say, nor imply, that the anthropogenic CO2 has something to do with direct physiological impacts. -
PluviAL at 18:03 PM on 12 September 2015The Exception Extinction
Beautiful article, one of the best I have seen here or anywhere. Al along reading I was groping about the pendulum swings and stabilizing mechanics which was the conclusion.
One of the stabilizing factors I was groping for is the increasing masses of both carbon in storage factors, and in the capacity of the biome to reach plane adjusting scale.
Finally, the one point that very little attention is given to, is the possibility that CO2 affects cryosphere dynamics and inertial mass, and potentially volcanism. If so, then mechanisms that adjust CO2, also adjust volcanism. The mechanics are enhanced by direct and indirect effects on storage systems. For example: CO2 to temperature, to clathrates and permafrost, to temperature, to volcanism, to temperature, to greater clathrate releases, etc. This is just a guess, but it sure seems plausible in the clear and colorful light of this article.
The other thing is that we are working these mechanics by ignorance and so, we can work them by knowledge too: We can adjust climate, and subclimates, if we chose to.
-
Climate change and Hurricane Katrina: what have we learned
The agenda is clear. Ignaz, in a monumentally simplistic move, reveals that government is evil because of the flawed design of one section of a Corps levee project. I'm surprised Ignaz hasn't mentioned Obama.
Moderator Response:[DB] Ignaz has recused himself from further participation in this venue, finding compliance with this site's Comments Policy a too-onerous burden.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:56 AM on 12 September 2015Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
I have responded to Ignaz' first point @46 above where it is on topic. I cannot help but observe that I already made a detailed rebutal of his point on that page, showing Ignaz to have clearly misrepresented the situation. Ignaz appears unable to counter that rebutal, and has certainly avoided doing so. Instead he merely repeats his refuted claim elsewhere, where he can hope some have not read the rebuttal. Again (and typically) he provides neither citation nor link in support of his claims.
Moderator Response:[DB] Ignaz has recused himself from further participation in this venue, finding compliance with this site's Comments Policy a too-onerous burden.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:52 AM on 12 September 2015Climate change and Hurricane Katrina: what have we learned
Elsewhere, Ignaz has again asserted that "As per the Army Corp of Engineers, New Orleans flooded because of flawed levee design". I think his refusal to discuss the topic here, where my response to his nonsense is immediately available is telling. Typically for Ignaz, he provides no citation and no link for his claim. I presume, therefore, that he is again rellying on the testimony of Lt General Karl Strock that he reffers to above. The only direct report of that testimony that I can find states:
"In the closest thing yet to a mea culpa, the commander of the Army Corps of Engineers acknowledged Wednesday that a "design failure" led to the breach of the 17th Street Canal levee that flooded much of the city during Hurricane Katrina. Lt. Gen. Carl Strock told a Senate committee that the corps neglected to consider the possibility that floodwalls atop the 17th Street Canal levee would lurch away from their footings under significant water pressure and eat away at the earthen barriers below. "We did not account for that occurring," Strock said after the Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing. "It could be called a design failure.""
The report makes it very clear that Strock reffers only to the 17th street canal failures, not to all levee failures.
His restricted admission is appropriate, as the USGS discussion of the levee failures makes quite clear. That is because the majority of levee "failures" were the result of the levees being overtopped - ie, of "storm induced" failures in the wording of the legend of the first map @7 above.
Yet again it is very plain that Ignaz is taking restricted evidence applicable to only a few of the levee failures, and explicitly stated in connection to the 17th street Canal failures only, and treating them as an admission regarding all failures, contrary to the facts.
Moderator Response:[RH] Yes. Ignaz is quickly running out of rope and is trying the patience of moderators.
-
mancan18 at 08:42 AM on 12 September 2015Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
The experience of dioxin, the toxic waste by-product from the manufacture of chlorine products, is relevant when discussing the toxic by-products from manufacturing renewables. It is true that dioxin is a toxic waste product that has had a global impact, as it has been found in the food chain and associated with some cancers in humans. There is no doubt that the unfetted production of solar panels would no doubt lead to an accumulation of toxic substances in the environment if there were no effort to control them. Due to the unforeseen problems that dioxins have caused in the global ecosystem, dioxins are now treated in a highly regulated manner, i.e. Governments have intervened in the market to ensure that dixoins do not accumulate any further in the environment and cause any significant future harm. The toxic by-products from manufacturing renewables could be treated in the same manner making it mandatory for manufacturers to expidite proper disposal or seek alternative methods. Also, this is likely to be much more viable than any of the so called CO2 sequestration or geoenginnering schemes where the CO2 storage problems are immense and unintended environmental consequences are unkown and likely to be detrimental. Simply, toxic waste from widespread solar panel manufacture is unlikely to have the global impact that CO2 is currently having if a proper regulatory framework is in place.
-
Ignaz at 07:17 AM on 12 September 2015Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
Tom Curtis
1) As per the Army Corp of Engineers, New Orleans flooded because of flawed levee design, i.e., govenrment incompetence, not because of a category 3 hurricane. Dance around it all you want, that is essentially what they reported.
2) The reason for including buckballs, and "organic," is to piont out the fact you seem to studiously ignore, that the extraction of carbon is still part of the mix. (See graphene as well)
3) Asserting that these toxic substances can be used safely is mere opinion. Thousands of so-called Superfund sites around the country, including ones which occurred after 1968 and the EPA's creation, belie your confidence. Moreover, assserting solar and wind "will probably require far less mining and toxic waste than the normal mining processes," is an absurd, unsupported specualtion, not a fact. You clearly have not looked into the envirionmental impacts of China's rare earth industry.
4) You ignore the supply side of economics. Carbon fuels have increased in efficeincy as they have dropped in price. Remember when "peak oil" was a thing? I was a thing precisely because government created a shortage by edict. Now Obama tries to take credit for the innovation of private industry and the exploration and extraction that has occurred on prvate land. The inconvenient fact is that innovation and progress are agnostic. It is happening just as fast in the carbon-based economy as it is in the alternative fuel economy. No alternative fuel, except nuclear, can keep up with the energy denisty of carbon.5) You ignore the so-called "energy sprawl" problem, as well as the environemental impact of sprawling solar and wind energy projects, which yield orders of magnitude less energy per acre. Solar and wind have an outsized land use footprint, which includes mining and generation, compared to any other energy source.
6) On a personal note, if trailings from copper and cobalt mines were not a health hazard, then why would the government, let alone environmentists, be so concerned with their clean up? Silly boy, clearly you're using a personal anecdote to dispel concerns. The EPA evidently doesn't have as cavalier an attitude as you do.7) Again you make a disingenous, unscientific statement by assertind, "If the mere presence of these items had massive toxic effects, then we would all have died out alread for they are present (except for the few artificial compounds) in massive quantities at the Earth's surface already." I is obvious, and I should have to address this nonsense, that the prescence of the elements in TRACE AMOUNTS in the earth is qualitatively different than their industrial aggregation and refinement. If that is the best you have to dispell concerns about externalities, than you make a pathetic case for their safety.
-
Tom Dayton at 07:05 AM on 12 September 2015Republican leaders should take their own advice and listen to climate scientists
mdenison, related is Tamino's showing of the trend of RATPAC radiosonde data from 850 to 300 hPa.
-
mdenison at 03:53 AM on 12 September 2015Republican leaders should take their own advice and listen to climate scientists
RSS provides an interesting discussion of satellite and radiosonde comparisons at www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature/validation. In section 'Sub-Sampling Satellite Data to Match Radiosonde Locations' they give trends of
'HadAT Trend 0.189 K/decade' (radiosonde)
'Sampled RSS trend 0.181 K/decade' -
Rob Honeycutt at 00:59 AM on 12 September 2015Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
Ignaz @28 states, "Dr. James Hansen has stated that he does not support a carbon tax and he does not support the government picking winners and losers."
I just went to the Youtube link you provided and watched. He's not at all saying what you think he said. The question posed to him was, "If funds collected from a carbon tax were directly allocated to carbon capture, instead of being redistributed to the people, would you still support it?"
The question pre-supposes his support for a carbon tax and dividend system, but he's saying he wouldn't support having the funds diverted.
Prev 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 Next
