Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 Next
Comments 27551 to 27600:
-
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.
-
howardlee at 00:33 AM on 12 September 2015The Exception Extinction
Tom @ 3 makes many good points. I just have to correct the tropical temperatures/greenhouse forcing point: Recent literature supports Gondwanan ice from the mid-Ordovician on, and the CO2 levels coupled with the polar continent and weaker sunlight are compatible with this coolhouse scenario. The temperatures in the figures are tropical, not global. It's not clear to me that if there was also northern sea ice. Without substantial northern landmasses it's not clear if that northern sea ice was sustainable. That might be a factor in reducing ocean turnover.
Given the geochemistry and sediments it's clear the oceans were indeed anoxic, but why they were so is a key question. The literature explains it with nutrient load and low atmoshperic oxygen, but sluggish turnover was probably also a factor.
The ACC is a much later phenomenon, arriving at the Eocene-Oligocene transition. As Tom notes, Ordovician land configuration does not support an Ordovician equivalent, perhaps clearer on this image from Colorado Plateau Geosystems:
-
Tom Curtis at 22:14 PM on 11 September 2015Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
Ignaz @36:
1) Hansen supports not picking winners with the dividend fee. He explicitly supports picking a loser with regard to coal power plants. As with your misrepresentation of reports on the flooding in New Orleans, you misrepresent by taking an opinion about part of the topic, and representing it as the whole opinion on the topic. I should note (for completeness) that favouring a carbon tax over an emissions trading scheme and using a flat per capita dividend rather than (for example) a dividend scaled with taxable income both increase the economic distortion of his preferred policy relative to alternatives and can therefore be described as "picking winners". None of that in anyway contradicts that his reason for preferring a dividend structure rather than direct funding of emissions reduction schemes with the revenue from the carbon tax is a desire to not pick winners, but neither does that restricted application of that principle imply that he supports "not picking winners" unequivocally, or across the range of policies he supports as you implied.
2) You misrepresent me as denying the toxicity of items on your list when I explicitly stated (several times) that all substances are toxic in sufficient dosage. Some of the items on your list are highly toxic, and some are included even though they are hardly toxic at all except at extreme doses. In one instance (buckyballs) you include it on the list even though only toxic (LD50) at 0.5% of total body mass. The reason you use such a laundry list is that, first, you are unable to show that the toxic substances cannot be safely used, and second, you are unable to show that manufacture of renewable plants involves more release of toxicity into the environment. You are even unable to show (because it is not true) that the toxic elements are even necessary for the renewable industry (as opposed to being used in particular products).
3)
"More over, this futher claim you make, "Some evidence suggests that nickel may be an essential trace element for mammals", and Cobalt is "... is a very small part of our environment and very small amounts are needed for many animals and humans to stay healthy," is another example of intellectual dishonesty, because we both not that to fullfill the world's need of ~25TWh and growing, massive amount of these substances will have to be mined and process. So the impact to the envirionment is unlikely to be "small doses" needed for animal health."
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. To be toxic, the substances need to by ingested or respired in circumstances normally only found during manufacturing processes.
On a personal basis, if it were not so the amount of time I spent playing on tailings dams in Kitwe (contaminated with copper and cobalt) in my youth would have killed me of.
I disagree with mancan18 (@43) that toxicity from manufacture of solar cells cannot become a problem with scale up of the solar industry, but it need not become one; and will probably require far less mining and toxic waste than the normal mining processes associated with modern industry. That is particularly the case as all of the technologies used in solar and wind have alternatives that do not use noxious or rare compounds.
4) It is a well known fact of economics that high demand for a substance increases the price. The greatest demand for carbon is currently for standing power, and for fuels. If those uses can be replaced due to a carbon tax, then the price of carbon in chemical uses will fall. Particularly as many of those uses will not result in emissions (the compounds are chemically stable) and hence will not attract the tax.
-
mancan18 at 17:22 PM on 11 September 2015Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
Ignaz @29
As many other commentators have already indicated, Governments do pick winners and losers. In fact every time they support a piece of new military technology they pick what they think are winners all the time. In fact, historically, many of the products and the science that gave rise to those products were a direct result of the research paid for by Governments (and a few wealthy individuals - not the Koch brothers) who were more interested in studying the science and what can be done than actually developing saleable products. The LHC and the Human Genome Project are cases in point. They are supported by Governments from many nations, and would not be possible if they had to rely purely on the operation of the market.
As regard the operation of markets, I would have thought that if Governments did ensure that companies paid for the negative externalities of the products they produced then that would not be the Government intervening in the market as you seem to see it. It would ensure that the market operated properly. In fact, Governments already do enforce taxes upon some products that have a negative externality involved in their consumption. The car market is such an industry. It requires car owners to pay a premium to an insurance company to ensure that any third party damage that arises from your use of your car will be covered, not by the taxpayer, but by the industry and consumers. We are all required to pay a premium each year based on the ascertained risk and the possible damage cost so that we can all drive our cars without taxpayers having to foot any damages bills. If it can be done with the car market, then it can certainly be done with the risk and potential damage that comes from using fossil fuels.
As regard James Hansen and his views. I agree with Tom Curtis @32. You have misrepresented Hansen's views.
Also, you miss Tom Curtis's point @35 regarding the toxic by-products of producing renewables. Those toxic by-products are not being produced in sufficient quantity in the manufacture of renewables to have a huge impact on the environment and can be easily contained if disposed of properly. This is quite unlike the CO2 by-product from energy produced using fossil fuels which is changing the very composition of the atmosphere in a remarkably short time, warming the planet and changing the climate to one not seen since humans first walked the savannah.
Moderator Response:[PS] I think this particular line of discussion with Ignaz is closed. No more please.
Oh, and transcript of relevant part of the video with Hansen:
Questioner: (Directed to Jim)
"If funds allocated from a carbon tax were directly allocated to carbon capture instead of being redistributed to the American people as you outlined in your remarks, would you still support it?
Hansen: No, because we should not decide what the winning technologies are. Give the money to the public and let the market decide on what is the best way to reduce the carbon emissions. ....
-
Ignaz at 15:22 PM on 11 September 2015Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
Moderator The politics is precisely appropraite, because Citigroup is making an argument for the biggest government intervention in the economy in our entire history! The whole purpose for the "green lobby's" existence is getting government to intervene in the economy and impose artificial conditions. It is perfectly legitimate to discuss historical examples of govenment economic intervention.
Moderator Response:[PS] I repeat politics is expressly forbidden. Politicians on all side defend their stance by appeals to history. Argue it somewhere else. Try Thinkprogress.
Note also: "Any accusations of deception, fraud, dishonesty or corruption will be deleted."
Your attacks on citibank run periously close. Discuss content and science or dont bother.
-
Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
Ignaz: "you are implicitly assuming that governments fully understands long-range outcomes, and furhter assuming that they have the best interests of all stake holders in mind."
Strawman, Ayn. Show me how you constructed the implication from my text. I will say this, though: governments have the potential to collect and organize information to an extent far, far beyond that of any individual. At this point, individual cases need to be assessed. Social organizations, whether governments or businesses, all have the potential to be both beneficial and destructive. Governments have proven extremely useful in organizing the response to large-scale disasters. A response by private enterprise on the same scale would be chaotic to the point of amplifying the disaster. If private enterprise was organized in its response, it would be nothing more than a government. When one fails to recognize what would happen in the absence of government, it's easy to criticize government. It's also an error in thinking to assess and evaluate a government without considering the development of that government within the broader context of the economic mode.
I'll wager this conversation will now disappear.Moderator Response:[PS] Any further politics and slides into offtopic conversation will indeed vanish.
-
Ignaz at 14:30 PM on 11 September 2015Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
For those that missed them, here are the links describing Citigroups investment psotions and scope of their world wide operations.
http://www.citigroup.com/citi/environment/opportunities.htmhttp://www.citigroup.com/citi/environment/operations.htm
And keep in mind that this is only one investment bank. It would amont to professional malpractice for other investment banks - public and private - to not be positioning themselves to take advantage of forthcoming regulation and industry subsidies.
And Mr. Al Gore, who has already become the first "green billionaire" on the back of his well publizied hyperbole, is doing the same. (See below)https://www.generationim.com
Moderator Response:[PS] Skip the politics and the posturing.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.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.
-
Ignaz at 14:21 PM on 11 September 2015Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
DSL Although this is not a political tread, I have to respond. In your statement, "The problem with free markets is the same as the problem with democracy: these processes only work in their participants' best interests when the participants fully understand the long-range outcomes of their actions. That's not working out so well..." you are implicitly assuming that governments fully understands long-range outcomes, and furhter assuming that they have the best interests of all stake holders in mind. There's enormous amounts of historical evidence that belie both your implied assumptions. They are not so much statements of fact as they are statemenst of leftwing dogma.
Moderator Response:[PS] Correct, it is not a political thread. If your interest is climate politics, then there are plenty of other web sites for your amusement. This is not one of them.
-
Ignaz at 14:04 PM on 11 September 2015Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
Hansen explicity says that the government should not be picking winners and losers, that Democrats are prone to that error, and that he supports the market operating to find optimal solutions.
Are you all denying he said that in the video I posted?Moderator Response:[PS] Hansen explicitly supports tax and dividend. (which means government is not picking a winner like CCS). That is what other commentators are telling you but you seem to fail to understand. The video in no way contradicts this.
-
Ignaz at 12:38 PM on 11 September 2015Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
By the way, Tom Curtis, I don't like people who lie about the opinions of others either, as you seem to have done regarding what I heard from Dr. Hansen's own mouth. But perhaps you're just that good. You know his mind better than he knows his own
Moderator Response:[PS] Nothing but inflammatory comment.
-
Ignaz at 12:36 PM on 11 September 2015Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
Tom Curtis see video at 40:22 to 41:54 for what Dr. Hansen believes about the economics. Evidently, Dr. Hansen, at least in this symposium, does not agree with out interpretation of his position on the economics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGY2cjSfsRA&ab_channel=UyrekaNante
As for the toxicity of the list of elements I list, which are taken from abstracts linked to the Nocera Lab and NAS website, a simple goolge seach with bring up each and every one of them as being toxic and/or carcinogenic. I guess I incorrectly thought that a person with and open and inquiring mind as your purport yourself to have, would take the ten minutes or so that it would take to google these elements or ask a chemist you may know. To even question that cadmium, lead, cobalt and phosphine are toxic, or that ruthenium is a know carcinogenic, just says that you ought to spend less time pandentical correcting others, and inform yourself instead.
And the point of highlighting "organic," which obviously went right over your head, is to point out that carbon mined from somewhere is still part of the "renewables" picture. Moreover, a technology that I didn't include, but which may interest you, is the work being done with graphene. It may very well turn out that the electric future of your dreams will be based on the near-supercondutivity at room temperature of this allotrope of carbon. Is it's a well known economic fact that one tends to get less of something that's taxed, it would be shooting oursleves in the foot to tax carbon and thus disincentivize this technology.
You continue by saying about me, "In short, he does not show whether switching to renewables will increase or decrease the risk of toxicity in the environment; nor whether any risk involved is intrinsic or can be controlled by proper manufacture." However, I believe you are confused about you had the onus to show such evidence. I am not the one claiming that these are "clean green" technologies, thus implying to the general public that they are without externalities. To the contrary, failing to expose data that you know undermines the claim of "clean energy," is intellectually dishonest.
More over, this futher claim you make, "Some evidence suggests that nickel may be an essential trace element for mammals", and Cobalt is "... is a very small part of our environment and very small amounts are needed for many animals and humans to stay healthy," is another example of intellectual dishonesty, because we both not that to fullfill the world's need of ~25TWh and growing, massive amount of these substances will have to be mined and process. So the impact to the envirionment is unlikely to be "small doses" needed for animal health.
You also studiously ignore that fact that the majority of lanthanide production is control by China, which has imposed export controls. Lanthanides, as you may or may not know, are not only vital to the "clean" energy industry but they are also vital to any modern weapon of war worth building. Again, are you ready to come out in support of a massive increase in open pit mining in this country? Or, would you rather keep the externalities in China and give them a trump card over our armed forces?Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link. Note that in that video, the question Hansen is answering is whether he supports carbon tax money going to CCS instead of redistribution to public. His reply reiterates the position claimed here by Rob and Tom. As with Nordhaus it seems you are not understanding video that you are putting forth in support of your own arguments.
[PS] Please step back, take a deep breath and stick to arguing the facts. Skip the rhetoric and sloganeering. If you make a claim, back it up with references. (eg the "vital" to clean energy).
This discussion is going off the rails. 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.
Fruitful discussion happens when participants acknowledge points where they agree and state why they disagree with references and without the rhetoric.
Prev 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 Next
