Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 Next
Comments 27501 to 27550:
-
knaugle at 03:26 AM on 19 September 2015In a blind test, economists reject the notion of a global warming pause
@Sunspot,
Well, it's not. Not really. Summer-like periods in fall are pretty common. Still, the NOAA state of the climate report seems to affirm what you are saying. From Long Island to Maine looks like it was about 5°F warmer than usual. Particularly since the June report shows much of New England was maybe a couple of degrees below average, it was a nice swing.
-
Sunspot at 02:10 AM on 19 September 2015In a blind test, economists reject the notion of a global warming pause
Seems strange to me: here in New England today it's in the mid-80s. Again. Temps have been above normal for most of the last two months, and not by just a little. But yet, I haven't seen or heard ANYONE anyone even suggest that this might be due to global warming.
Moderator Response:[RH] Please don't use all caps.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:16 AM on 19 September 2015Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
Joris @10... If Exxon had come out at the time stating that their research showed that CO2 emissions were a serious problem, as their research clearly did show, then the entire dynamic of the discussion would have changed for the entire FF industry, and for the entire world.
-
barry1487 at 00:02 AM on 19 September 2015Skeptical Science reader survey - your chance to give us your feedback!
Done (yesterday).
-
PhilippeChantreau at 23:31 PM on 18 September 2015Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
I too am concerned about Joris' ability to participate in a constructive fashion. I see words like "bona fide", "honest" and "truth" all loaded with emotional content, all that tend to be heavily used by, fo instance, candidates running for elections. This is obviously a discussion for another thread, but there are alternatives to nuclear for GH free baseload. As for Exxon, them "loosing" a few billions over a project that had a lot of merit is not going to make me shed a tear. They only lost because their expectation was that it would return within certain time frame. If they had stayed the course, they would have eventually had a good investment. Now we could get into the debate about the merit of being in this world for the long run, vs considering quaterly reports.
Furthermore, I find it funny that one would be so outraged by what he considers a "fear, uncertainty and doubt" campaign on a given subject, while ready to find excuses for a corporation that has done exactly that for decades. Honesty cuts both ways.
-
barry1487 at 21:36 PM on 18 September 2015Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
Part II is here.
insideclimatenews.org/news/16092015/exxon-believed-deep-dive-into-climate-research-would-protect-its-business -
betlem at 21:36 PM on 18 September 2015Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
Joris van Dorp #10. There was a third choice. There was also the choice NOT to get into the desinformation business and NOT to start discrediting each and every critical voice.
-
Joris van Dorp at 17:35 PM on 18 September 2015Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
Betlem #7 I'm suggesting that Exxon (like other major FF companies) attempted to find alternative energy sources but did not find them. They were left with two choices:
1. Get out of the fossil fuel business and be praised for a day or two by environmentalists, while their competitors take over their market share and global fossil fuel polution would continue anyway.
2. Stay in the fossil fuel business and try to make the best of it, generating revenues and jobs for the american people.
They chose the second option. What option would you have recommended?
@Dcrickett #9. That's a recognisable annecdote. It makes a lot of sense.
N.B It is true that I am a supporter of nuclear energy technology development and implementation. I believe that this technology is the only credible hope humanity has of eliminating GHG emissions and solving the totality of the energy/climate nexus in a timely fashion, thereby securing our common future in a bona fide way. I know from personal research and twenty years of talking to people in all walks of life and in all civil societal capacities, that the single most important barrier to rational and effective nuclear power development is fear, uncertainty and doubt. And I know that this fear, uncertainty and doubt is manufactured by antinuclear propaganda organisations which for the most part constitute well known major environmental organisations. I know this for a fact. I request to not be unfairly censored or banned again for holding this to be the honest truth to which I would swear under oath on the lives of my family and children. Thank you.
Moderator Response:[PS] Joris, I argued for your reinstatement here because I think you have valuable things to contribute to the discussion and because I hoped you would in future abide by the comments policy. The earnestness, honesty or even the correctness of your beliefs does not give you some right to boorishly inflict those beliefs into every conversation nor give you licence to ignore the policy here. Furthermore, you are asking for your views to be respected but when I see words like "propaganda", I have grave doubts about your ability to respectfully discuss the topic with someone holding different views just as honestly.
If I am interested in the debate about nuclear power, I go to BraveNewClimate. For discussions around the science of climate change, I come here. I strongly suggest you do likewise.
Abiding by the rules in not optional here. Before you press the "post comment" button, you need to review your comment for compliance with the comments policy. If the topic is not about nuclear power, then chances are that any comment on nuclear power is offtopic and in breach of rules. If you want respect, then show respect. Should this prove too onerous, then your posting privileges will be removed.
-
Dcrickett at 04:34 AM on 18 September 2015Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
Joris van Dorp #6 — I think I agree with what you wrote. However, I would venture that corporations (or more accurately, the folks who wind up running them) tend to balance their short-term and long-term interests and those of the outside world inconsistently and differently. An interesting example is the US automobile industry and air pollution.
In the 1950’s, Arie Haagen-Smit established the link between automotive exhaust and Los Angeles air pollution. (He later became the first Chairman of the California Air Resources Board. First he was nominated by CA Gov Ronald Reagan, then he was fired a few years later by CA Gov Ronald Reagan for speaking truth to power.)
Thru the 1960’s, the automotive industry denied the cause-and-effect, “persuading” the US government to agree. In the early 1970’s, there was a massive change of attitude in the auto industry. At that time I was working at the GM Tech Center (in Warren MI). All of a sudden engineers were taken from other areas and put to work on fighting automotive air pollution. (I was taken from development of novel forms of shipping cars from assembly plants to dealers.) Some novel ways to reduce or even eliminate pollution were under development, several of which we engineers felt were highly promising. Unfortunately, the most promising would involve long development times and costs. In not too much time the catalytic converter was chosen because it could be made to work within the mandated time frame. (We engineers referred to it as “the Catholic converter” and several deletable expletives. It was and is a kludge.)
Had the R&D work begun in the 1950’s, history would have turned out different and much economic + personal trauma might well have been avoided. (At least as far as automotive air pollution is concerned. Peak Oil (et al), Global Warming, they’re other stories.)
By the way, the GM Tech Center is still a worthy place to visit, look around at and enjoy, even today. But the guys (all guys, back then) who decided to do nothing but deny and then do a Chairman Mao type great-leap-forward all retired rich and today are buried in the finest, most prestigious cemeteries.
-
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.
Prev 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 Next
