Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 Next
Comments 28651 to 28700:
-
Yail Bloor III at 01:48 AM on 17 June 2015Climate, Politics, and Religion
It's fairly clear (to me) that much of the opposition to AGW stems from a toxic stew of financial self-interest, sociopathic political ideology, and a sectarian religious worldview. Many of the individuals that reject AGW without cause have been conditioned by a barrage of misinformation and outright propaganda emanating from shadowy ideological groups and certain nefarious individuals with a financial interest in maintaining the status quo. They are highly resistant to reason be caused they've been conned into thinking AGW is a money-racket, a spearhead for a leftist agenda or even a power grab from the UN. 25 years ago it was just science. Margaret Thatcher and George H.W. Bush were among those sounding the warning. No longer. I have to admit my skepticism...in human nature. The Heartland miasma hangs over our heads like the pall of smoke and methane smothering the Arctic. Will people wake up in time? I wonder.
As far as using the Bible as a reason to reject AGW, they may need further study. (Whether you agree with my interpretation or not, it's thought provoking.) The "Great Tribulation" described in Revelation is a horrendous time where huge numbers of humans are dying of famine and concomitant pestilence and warfare. Food is scarce and too expensive for most to purchase. Since Jesus described the GT as a time that "unless it were cut short, no flesh would be saved," one could reasonably conjecture that it's the end result of the "clathrate gun" being fired. The promise that "those destroying the earth will be destroyed" in Rev. 11:18 lends weight to that thought. (The Greek word translated as "earth" in that verse is Gaia...aka Mother Earth.) When the destroyers of Gaia are destroyed, who are they turn out to be? The business class, the governments and false religion. The same ones doing the AGW denying? Didn't see that coming. (s)
-
dcpetterson at 01:42 AM on 17 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
KR,
Thanks for the correction and additional information. Was B. Tinsdale actually arguing that the Earth is warming (perhaps as an ENSO-caused natrual phenomenon unrelated to human activity), or that there are ENSO-caused sawtooth cycles that keep resetting the overall global temperature back to where it previously was?
-
KR at 01:34 AM on 17 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
dcpetterson - "...no denialist has argued that the Earth is warming in steps..."
Actually, that's not the case. B. Tisdale who frequently posts at WUWT often claims 'step changes' based upon ever-shrinking areas of Pacific sea surface temperatures. Neglecting ocean volume data and the rest of the sea surface, the effects of a warming atmosphere on ocean energy loss, and for that matter anything resembling statistical significance by claiming steps separated by as short as 5-10 years.
The trick there is he's claiming these steps are some kind acyclic variation of and by themselves, that ENSO is driving all of recent climate change (he participated for a while on SkS discussing this here, before leaving in a huff without answering any real questions), and that CO2 changes have had no effect. In short, "it's not us".
Sean, on the other hand, is just being disingenuous.
-
dcpetterson at 01:21 AM on 17 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
Sean's rhetorical argument misuses three important details. I think these are important in a general sense for considering the techniques of denialism, even in the face of record-setting global temperatures (whcih is the toic of this thread).
1) The difference between the denialist view and the staricase/escalator view is that denialists refuse to acknowledge one step is connected to the next. Each step is seen in isolation. Joe Romm et al would draw connecting lines from one step to the next. Denialists do not, and instead use each step as "proof" that nothing is happening (or even that the Earth is cooling). This matters in a general sense, as denialists argue in part by taking short-term data in isolation. 2) Sean is attempting to argue that denialists and Joe Romm actually agree on what's happening, i.e., that there are "steps". Yet, as has been pointed out, no denialist has argued that the Earth is warming in steps. This matters in a general sense as an example of dishonest argument; Sean is implying (though refsues to state, since it is so absurdly and obviously not true) that Joe Romm agrees with and supports the denialist argument.
3) Sean is arguing about the analogy as a way to distract from the actuality. Analogies are a useful pedigogical tool in teaching complex concepts. Their danger is that all analogies have limits. Denialist can seize on the limits of any analogy, and use it to argue that the underlying concepts are themselves false. Ex: since the atmosphere isn't made of wool or any other woven fabric, carbon dioxide cannot really "act as a blanket". Same here; by engaging in argument about the escalator/staircase analogy, Sean is attempting to cast aspersions on the whole science of climatology.
It's useful to be aware of the techniques being used, so as to not get caught in the content-free traps being set by denialists. Sean should simply be asked if he prefers to say the Earth's temperatures are rising in the form of a staircase or an escalator, or if he prefers to conentrate on the even longer-term trendlines that smooth the shrot noise into insignificance. In all cases, the overall trend is upward. Right, Sean?
-
Leto at 00:57 AM on 17 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
Like Tom, I don't for a moment think Sean is stupid enough to believe he has a substantive point... But there is a subtle issue with the combination of the graph and the wording. 'Skeptics' do not see the temperature trend as a series of similar steps. They see (or claim to see) all previous steps as unimportant noise on a ramp and the last step as the one true step that indicates waming has stopped.
The graphic might be better to replace all previous steps with a ramp, and highlight the one true step (which is always the last step) as being somehow magically different to the previous ones. Or the previous steps could be labelled false steps with the final step being highlighted as the true step. The animation imples that 'skeptics' are willing to see a series of similar steps, when in fact they only want to talk about the last step.
-
Stephen Baines at 00:01 AM on 17 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
Tom,
I agree, one should be able to understand the point without too much effort, especially if you actually read the associated text. And Sean should be able to make the point as a suggestion for improvement rather than as a point of confrontation.
But, I'm not so sure that there isn't some original confusion that ended up with some doubling down when pride got in the way. I'm also not sure no one is that stupid...pride can make people pretty dumb.
If we take the initial confusion at face value, I think there could be a subtle problem with the header to the animation, which states "How "skeptics" view global warming". That's confusing because a skeptic would not characterize the record up to each step in temperature as indicating global warming. It might be less confusing to say "How "skeptics" view the temperature record."
It's a small thing, but being in the classroom all the time, I get to see first hand how subtle things like that can send people completely off into the blue. And once there, they don't want to fall to earth in a heap.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 23:45 PM on 16 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
KR, the back-and-forth between me and SkepticalinCanada is related to two of the 4 IPCC Reports, the Report on Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerabilities as well as the IPCC Report on Mitigation.
However, the discussion has gone as far as I am taking it. This is my last attempt to convey the point that how humans fit into the robust diversity of life and how they treat each other is the key consideration, not a population number.
- The more that humans live collectively in ways that can be a lasting part of the robust diversity of life the larger the number of humans who can live decently on this planet can be virtually forever.
- The more that humans compete to be the ones who are able to live in ways that are not a lasting part of the robust diversity of life, the fewer humans can be living decently. There may be short bursts of perceptions of increased prosperity, but ultimately there would be a constantly reducing number and ultimately no future until there is a shift to living in ways that can be a lasting part of the robust diversity of life on this amazing planet. -
Tom Curtis at 23:41 PM on 16 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
Stephen, the mistake is assuming Sean does not know that already. He is clearly being disengenuous in order to make a vacuous rhetorical point. Anybody who doubts that need only follow "The Escalator" link on the right sidebar, and from their to the first article, "Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1", posted 5th Nov, 2011 where they will read:
"As Figure 1 shows, over the last 37 years one can identify overlapping short windows of time when climate "skeptics" could have argued (and often did, i.e. here and here and here) that global warming had stopped. And yet over the entire period question containing these six cooling trends, the underlying trend is one of rapid global warming (0.27°C per decade, according to the new Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature [BEST] dataset). And while the global warming trend spans many decades, the longest cooling trend over this period is 10 years, which proves that each was caused by short-term noise dampening the long-term trend.
In short, those arguing that global warming has stopped are missing the forest for the trees, focusing on short-term noise while ignoring the long-term global warming signal. Since the release of the BEST data which confirmed the global warming observed by all other global temperature measurements, climate "skeptics" have been scrambling for a way to continue denying that global warming is a problem, and focusing on the short-term noise has become their preferred go-to excuse."
In other words, from the first introduction of the escalator, the point very clearly being made was that pseudo -skeptics focus on short term trends to argue that AGW has stopped (and ergo that the next "tread" of the global temperature series will be no higher than the one from which they draw their inference); whereas history shows that there are many such treads, each of which has been successively higher generationg a long term rising trend in temperature; and that ergo it is foolish to argue from the existence of the latest tread that AGW has stopped.
This point has been explained very clearly to Sean, several times. If he was at all honest in his rhetoric, his response to jgnfld @7 would have been to acknowledge his misunderstanding of the escalotor rhetoric, and to acknowledge further that properly understood he had no point.
Instead he doubles down.
Nobody is that stupid. He is deliberately indulging in dishonest rhetoric. Possibly he is doing that just to generate noise in the discussion, or because he gets a kick out of generating responses to ridiculous claims (ie, he is trolling), or maybe he just wants to get a rise. Whatever his motivation, treating his comments as serious is a mistake. He is making an absurd, empty point and the only thing he proves thereby is his dishonesty or his atonishing stupidity. End of story.
That has been duly noted and the only response he should now recieve is to be ignored until the moderators undertake the tedious task of cleaning up yet another denier vomitus utterings.
-
Nick Palmer at 23:29 PM on 16 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
Sean wrote 'Part of the time it is labelled "How Contrarians View Global Warming"'
I find it hard to see why you don't understand that the phrase means that 'contrarians' see only the short term trends (blue lines) and not the long term trend (red line). By looking at short term trends which are influenced by things other than greenhouse gas forcing, 'contrarians' see one cooling/pause phase after another and proclaim these to the world as some sort of evidence of the invalidity of cliamte science. They do this by turning a blind eye to a long term trend, which is what the global warming signal shows up as. -
Sean OConnor at 23:27 PM on 16 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
No, the title of the graph is "The Escalator". Escalators don't just have 'flat periods'.
It's clear from that title that the point of the graph is to deride contrarians for thinking that the temperature has gone up like an escalator.
If not, then I'd advise updating the animated gif so when it shows how realists view global warming it shows the flat periods and the steps up. In other words exactly how Joe Romm has described it: as a "staircase".Moderator Response:[JH] As has been pointed out to you by more than one commenter, you are completely missing, or stubbornly refusing to acknowledge, what the Escalator graphic was desgined to illustrate. In any event this conversation has run its course. You have violated the SkS Comments Policy's prohibition of escessive repetition and your future posts on this topic will be summarily deleted.
-
Stephen Baines at 23:26 PM on 16 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
Sean,
You are misinterpreting the figure Sean and that is why you are talking past people. This figure is not deriding contrarians for saying that temperatures have risen like an escalator. We wish that climate contrarians would see the temperature graph as an esacalator. That would be a step forward...or upward! Instead, we get repeated claims that climate has stopped warming in recent years, that climate is a flat runway, or a cycle that will return to some long term mean.
Th animation points out that these claims of stasis in global temps are just a form of cherry picking...if you pick a short enough interval, you can depict virtually the entire tempreature record as a series of pauses in warming. Adopting this approach since the 70s would have lead you to the conclusion that the climate had "stopped warming" for 40 years!
But of course that isn't the case, because each of these supposed flat periods are each higher than the next, forming an escalator or staircase. The repeated periods of stasis are a statistical artifact, a result of short-term natural variability in the climate system superimposed on the longer-term upward trend.
After this El Nino they will probably start doing it again, using 2015-2016 as a starting point for their trends showing no warming.
-
CBDunkerson at 23:12 PM on 16 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
Sean, where you are going wrong is in the belief that, "Skeptical Science [is] deriding contrarians for saying the warming is an escalator".
The 'escalator' terminology for that graph was created by SkS... not 'contrarians'. The derision comes in reference to their insistence on looking only at the 'flat' periods and not the overall trend.
-
Sean OConnor at 22:48 PM on 16 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
> Who has derided anyone for saying warming is an escalator?
Just go scroll up on this very page until you see the animated gif called "The Escalator"
Part of the time it is labelled "How Contrarians View Global Warming".
It could equally well be labelled "How Joe Romm Views Global Warming".
-
Yail Bloor III at 22:42 PM on 16 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
Sean, think of it this way: stairs consist of a rise and a run. Contrarians stubbornly focus on the "run" while ignoring the "rise." On a real set of stairs, a head injury is usually in the offing. Whether you use a "stairs" or "escalator" analogy is unimportant. Both inevitably step up and not down. In order to reduce the size of the rise on those steps, we need to reduce the amount of carbon we're pumping into the atmosphere. There's no other way...as yet.
-
jgnfld at 22:41 PM on 16 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
Who has derided anyone for saying warming is an escalator?
Q: How is warming like an escalator?
A: a. No matter what you do scampering around like a child, you generally get carried upwards.
b. If you track the line of the stairs as they go by through a slit on the side they wiggle in a saw tooth way.
c. So long as the power stays on, you will continue to climb.
Methinks you are strugging mightily to no particular purpose.
-
Sean OConnor at 22:23 PM on 16 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
> either staircase or escalator is a reasonable analogy.
OK, then why have an animated gif on the front page of Skeptical Science deriding contrarians for saying the warming is an escalator?
Is it? Or isn't it? -
Yail Bloor III at 22:18 PM on 16 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
Sean O'Connor, either staircase or escalator is a reasonable analogy. The reason "escalator" fits slightly better is that it illustrates very nicely that "Time's Arrow" is pushing us up those steps whether we like it or not. It's been 17 years since we've had a really powerful El Nino and this year looks like it's building to a record-breaking size. This year's "step up" may be twice (or more) the size of 1998. Time will tell. The hideous stripe of red stretching across the the Pacific to the Indian Ocean may signs that a fair amount of that so-called "hiatus" heat is being kicked out into our faces. IMHO, this year will convince a lot of genuinely skeptical folks that AGW is very real. The ideologues...probably not.
-
bozzza at 21:46 PM on 16 June 2015Mars is warming
@43,
I would request a link to where Venus is used as an example of the greenhouse effect, thanx !!
-
bozzza at 21:40 PM on 16 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
@6, consensus starts with nomenclature: you can't deal with logic like that!
-
bozzza at 21:37 PM on 16 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
'I'll take,"What is statistical significance?", for $500, thanx mom'! (Who happens to be a maths teacher btw lol!!)
-
Sean OConnor at 21:18 PM on 16 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
> where I a moderator I would delete your posts as off topic sloganeering
That's a strange thing to say as I'm only pointing out that the final piece of text in the actual article itself seems to contradict how Skeptical Science has been telling us *NOT* to view rising temperatures as.Either you should view the rising temperature as a staircase/escalator or you shouldn't. I can't see how you can be of the point of view that climate scientsist can say it's a staircase but then berate contrarians for saying it's an escalator.
-
Tom Curtis at 20:59 PM on 16 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
Sean, where I a moderator I would delete your posts as off topic sloganeering, ie, for deliberate violation of two requirements of the comments policy. As you well know, the pseudo-skeptics repeatedly argue during any interval of flat or negative short term trends that those flat or negative short term trends "show global warming has stopped" or "falsify the models". They do not project continuing long term warming at the long term trend. Rather they project it at the short term trend, or less. The escalator comes about solely because every few years the lumpy progress results in a new record high temperature, and a new "pause" that "shows global warming has stopped" or "falsifies the models", at least according to those pseudo-skeptics.
That contrasts sharply with Joe Romm who projects long term trends at or above the current levels but merely points out that the long term temperature evolution, while consistent with the long term trend, will show a series of flatter short term trends, each followed by a short term rapid rise in temperature.
But, of course, as jgnfld has noted, you already know this. You are in fact deliberately ignoring that which you know in order to make an empty rhetorical point (hence off topic and sloganeering). That you resort to such underhanded tactics shows the bankruptcy of your intellectual position.
-
michael sweet at 20:46 PM on 16 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
Sean,
The contrarians are not calling the increase a staircase. They are claiming the temperature is going down by selecting short periods. Either a staircase or an escalator is fine, as long as you acknowledge that you are always going up.
-
jgnfld at 20:44 PM on 16 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
Depends on how you like your metaphors. Given how greenhouse gas warming works, "escalator" works fine for me. We are indeed being carried upward. I suspect it works fine for most people who understand the science.
Maybe you should ask the authors.
-
Sean OConnor at 20:02 PM on 16 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
OK, so it's correct to call it a "staircase" but completely incorrect to call it an "escalator"?
-
jgnfld at 19:40 PM on 16 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
The escalator shows that deniers can always say the temps are decreasing if you intentionally misinterpret noise hard enough. The ramp shows that if you look at appropriate lengths you get a linear rise.
The escalator does not show, though such a graphic could be made, that at short intervals the temp gain is not smooth. But that was not it's purpose. No one understanding the science ever expected a smooth, monotonically precise increase month over month year after year. As such, "pauses" and "jumps" have to occur over short runs when the trend is an order of magnitude less than the noise.
Of course you know this.
-
Sean OConnor at 19:25 PM on 16 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
Your article states:
"I asked climate expert Dr. Joe Romm, Founding Editor of Climate Progress for his thoughts. He reminds us,Historically, the global temperature trend-line is more like a staircase than a ramp. It now appears we are headed for a step-jump in global temperatures that scientists have been expecting."
But on your home page you have an animated gif titled The Escalator which shows "How Contrarians View Global Warming" as a staircase then shows "How Realists View Global Warming" as a ramp.
Does this mean that Joe Romm is a contrarian? -
scaddenp at 14:14 PM on 16 June 2015Mars is warming
I think you need to explain your problem a little more. GHG play a part on both Venus and Mars. Exactly the same equations are used to calculate the change of surface temperature due to GHE on Venus, Mars, Earth (or any other planet). Try here for detailed comparisons. I dont see a claim that is using Venus to support AGW and Mars to reject it.
-
0-mj-0 at 13:42 PM on 16 June 2015Mars is warming
Hi There, I know it has been a couple of years, but since bad arguments against AGW tend to stick around, I recently tried to explain to someone how mars' specific characteristics make it a bad earth analog in this case. I was then tripped up by the fact that we do use Venus as an analog for the greenhouse effect. I'm sure there's an explanation of how these things do not refute each other, how it isn't hypocritical to use both concepts in explaining our understanding of AGW, but I'm having trouble wording it. Can anyone help me out. Why do we accept Venus as an example in support of AGW hypothesis, but reject Mars as an example in opposition. Thanks!
-
jja at 10:20 AM on 16 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
it is time for us to all realize that we have effectively doubled the Top of Atmosphere energy imbalance in only the last 7 years.
The energy imbalance value used in the "hiroshima bombs" graphic is only 0.6 Watts per Meter squared. These Ocean Heat Content and observed surface temperture records indicate that we are rapidly approaching 1.2 Watts per Meter squared of additional energy being absorbed by the planet, over the entire surface of the earth. -
scaddenp at 10:01 AM on 16 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
Actually the wikipedia article on UAH contains a lot of useful information about MSU-based measurements.
-
scaddenp at 09:54 AM on 16 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
JoeK -RSS and UAH attempt to estimate lower troposphere temps (the lower 4km approx of atmosphere) rather than surface temperature. These temperature parameters shows a much stronger response to ENSO than surface temperature does (colder in La Nina, hotter in El Nino). 1998 and 2010 were El Nino years and 1998 was a monster. We have had an unusual run of La Ninos/neutral condition since 1998. You would not expect a record in RSS or UAH unless El Nino is present (there is a few months of lag). El Nino is building. I would expect a new record at a smaller ONI value than 1998. 2015/2016 might be that year if the index gets to 1.6-1.8 or so.
-
Bob Loblaw at 09:48 AM on 16 June 2015CO2 effect is saturated
commonsense:
To add another analogy to the concept, if you had a person suffering from hypothermia, witha low body core temperature, and all you had on hand was a blanket, do you think it would be worth wrapping the person with the blanket? After all, that only adds insulation on the outside, not the body core. The fact is that the body core will continue to lose heat to the body surface, and insulating the surface (reducing the heat loss to the air) will help maintain core temperature. A heavier blanket --> higher core temperature.
The earth-atmosphere system is similar: all portions of the system are linked together, and changing one component of heat transfer will cascade through the entire system. To know exactly how, you need to apply the known physics and "do the math". The math says "increasing atmospheric CO2 leads to increased surface temperatures".
-
JoeK at 09:15 AM on 16 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
What to make of the satellite records that post 1998 look considerably flatter than GISTEMP? The new version of UAH seems to be much more in line with RSS. Does that mean that this looks now like a consistent measurement, but with satellites measuring something other than the surface temperatures? Or is it likely that they are measuring same thing as the surface stations, but the differences mainly arise from biases and errors? If the satellites are measuring something different, can they be compared to the corresponding values in models? If the satellites are more sensitive to El Nino warming then should we expect to see them really shoot up with the next El Nino peak? Where can I find the best discussion of these questions?
Moderator Response:[TD] What scaddenp wrote. A consequence of those satellite-measured altitudes' temperatures varying more than the surface is that confidently detecting trends in satellite tropospheric data requires data across longer spans of time (the trend is the signal that must be teased out of the noise). Also, satellite temperature measurements are far more complicated to construct and rely on a great many more assumptions than surface measurements do, making them inherently more finicky and suspect than surface measurements. For example, because the satellites peer down through the stratosphere that cools due to greenhouse gas increase, satellite measurements of tropospheric temperatures must be constructed by removing the temperature of the stratosphere, else tropospheric temperatures will be measured as not warming as much. (RSS relies on a climate model to construct its measurements.) Similarly, satellite measurements of "upper troposphere" and "mid troposphere" and "lower troposphere" all must be constructed by attempting to remove the other layers. But those "layers" are not really sharp layers, making the whole exercise quite fuzzy. And then there is the disagreement between balloon-borne radiosondes and satellites. Read the Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced tabbed panes of the post "Satellite Measurements of Warming in the Troposphere." Then read the "More Evidence" section of this post about the tropospheric hot spot.
-
wili at 08:35 AM on 16 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
"2015 is a whopping 0.1°C (0.17°F) hotter than last year"
So where does that put us wrt pre-industrial levels?
It seems to me that this is the temperature that should always be referenced in such articles. It's hard enough for those of us who follow this stuff closely to keep these various metrics straight. A casual reader, remembering that he had heard that we were already at about .8 degrees C a few years ago might take these latest readings as good news.
Clear, consistent communications and all that...
-
scaddenp at 07:38 AM on 16 June 2015CO2 effect is saturated
A lot the trouble here is around trying to make a plain english explanation of physics as opposed to the "shut up and calculate approach".
So commonsense, you have identified an issue with the explanation but not with the physics. At the heart of this is the Radiative Transfer equations. Solve these and the hard-to-explain stuff like saturation, stratagraphic cooling etc fall out of the solution. The solutions to the RTEs can be verified with equisite accuracy by measurement. (eg Harries 2001, Evans 2006, and most recently directly see here).
-
scaddenp at 07:20 AM on 16 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
Good luck convincing your countrymen then to accept extremely expensive technologies like marine and CCS to preserve your rural serenity. Why does it aggravate people here? Well because it seems such a trivial and highly subjective value compared to the stakes involved. Upholders of this value are usually to the fore in slowing down a move away from FF - costing other people far away. If you are prepared to pay for it by taking on nuclear and extremely expensive renewables, then that is a choice I am quite ready to grant you. Good luck.
-
SkepticalinCanada at 05:17 AM on 16 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
@27. Perfect, thanks. I did enter "population growth" a while back in the SKS search engine, and did not see those threads so was unaware that they exist.
-
KR at 04:19 AM on 16 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
OPOF, SkepticalinCanada - While population stress is an important aspect of planning for our future, it is not the subject of this thread, and is increasingly off-topic.
Might suggest Part 1 and Part 2 of the Economic Growth and Climate-Change threads, with explicit discussion of the impacts of population growth, as a more appropriate locale for this discussion?
-
SkepticalinCanada at 02:50 AM on 16 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
@24. I keep asking, "how many" and "how much?" You keep implying that we can just keep adding to our numbers provided that we radically shift our consumption and so on, despite the evidence that what we are doing right now is unsustainable, and is even unsustainable if the "certain types" are taken out of the picture. You seem to think that we can feed a much larger number of people sustainably if we just change what we are doing agriculturally, despite the hints that that is not possible. How many? The only possible future is that we learn to live sustainably on this planet, and the hints are there that doing so will require far fewer people than we have now. I'm not sure how many, but the numbers from those who might know are much lower than our current population.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 02:09 AM on 16 June 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
Sea ice is frozen sea water. Can you explain the mechanism behind your assertion ghoward?
-
DSL at 01:58 AM on 16 June 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
Perhaps I'm dense, ghoward. Could you explain further? Could you also give a method that results in global net sea ice increase over a meaningful time period?
-
DSL at 01:56 AM on 16 June 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #24
May GISTemp L-OTI is out. The graphed figure is 0.68C. The tabled data says 0.71C. With the re-adjusted data (through 1996 anyway), this May tied for the 2nd-warmest May in the record and 32nd-warmest month. May ended the warmest 6-month and 36-month periods, and the 12-month period was the third warmest following March and April of this year.
-
ghoward79 at 01:42 AM on 16 June 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
Everyone should be happy, more sea ice means less ocean level rising. FACT.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:06 AM on 16 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
@22,
Here are some things to think about related to my position.
- Envision a set of parameters that determine the carrying capacity of the planet. Do any of the items create accummulating harm to any other life? If so revise the parameters since maintaining the robust diverity of life is essential to the future of humanity. Have you included any consumption of non-renewable resources? If so then revise the parameters to eliminate those things because they are not essential to life, and they are things that only a few can enjoy the benefit of. And entertainment is only OK as long as it does not cause any harm to other life. If it harms other life it isn't entertaining, no matter how popular it may be able to be.
- Now that a realistic and meaningful set parameters for the carrying capacity of humanity are established reflect on how far from that the current developed ways of living of the most fortunate are. Consider why it is that so much has developed so far away from the direction that is essential for a lasting better future for humanity.
- Now envision the mix of life circumstances currently on the plant at a level of total consumption and impact that exceeds the identified carrying capacity. Then while maintaining the same dispairity of life circumstances and impact reduce the population to the carrying capacity. As a comparison, reduce the population by removing the highest impacting people. As a last comparison, reduce the population by removing the lowest impacting people. You should have 3 clearly differnt numbers, not one.
- Now instead of reducing the population number consider the result of reducing the consumption of the highest consuming and highest impacting people. In this case all that is required is for the most fortunate to lead to the development of and setting the standard for lower impact and lower consumption ways of living. It is possible that no population reduction will be required to meet the carrying capacity. Take this one step further. After the highest consuming and impacting have reduced their consumption and impact they will likely still be living excessively decent lives, better than a basic decent life. However, there will still be desperately poor people suffering brutal harsh short lifes in situations where they correctly understand that their only chance of being cared for in their old age is to have a surviving child who will take care of them, leading them to try to have as many children as possible since many children die (or in a culture where it is believed that males matter more than females so a male can force women to bear children for them until a son is born). Now have the most fortunate strive to help the least fortunate advance to a basic decent life. The most fortunate would have to give up some of their potential for benefit to do that but they would still be living excessively decent lives.
All of the above creates a variety of possible futures. One of which is hopefully understood to be more fundamantally decent than the others. Think about why that most decent future for humanity has not been the objective or result of development to date, in spite of efforts by some in the population to get things to develop that way.
That should get your thoughts to the roots of the real problem. And the population is indeed a concern, as I said at the opening of my first comment in this string. However, it is actually certain types of people in the population who are the real problem.
-
Tom Curtis at 00:00 AM on 16 June 2015CO2 effect is saturated
commonsense @390, in the troposphere, convection induces a lapse rate (fall of temperature with altitude) of about 6.5 C per kilometer. The exact value depends on the specific heat of the atmosphere, the local graviational acceleration, and the mixing ratio of water to dry air in the atmosphere. Because of this, any change in temperature at any level of the troposphere will in general be reflected across all altitude levels in the troposphere. Specifically, if a 1.2 C increase in temperature at the effective altitude of radiation to space is required to balance the energy effect of doubling CO2, because of the effect of the lapse rate that same temperature change will also be felt at all lower altitudes.
This is not a magical effect. Suppose the effective altitude of radiation to space increases in height, ie, lifts to a cooler altitude. It follows that less radiation to space will occur, so that the temperatures will warm. The warmer temperature at higher altitudes will then slow convection, reducing the rate at which energy leaves the surface, which will in turn warm the surface. This process will continue until the lapse rate is restored to its former value, ie, the temperature increase at the surface equals that at altitude.
All this ignores feedbacks. As it happens, one of the feedbacks, the lapse rate feedback slightly decreases the lapse rate due to increased water vapour in the atmosphere with increased temperatures (the cause of the tropospheric hotspot). This is more than balanced by the increased greenhouse effect from the water vapour (the water vapour feedback) so that the net feedback is positive. Consequently the final change in temperature is much more than the 1.2 C found in the no feedback case (and mentioned above).
-
KR at 23:56 PM on 15 June 2015CO2 effect is saturated
commonsense - Two words: lapse rate. Rising air decreases in pressure and cools, descending air rises in pressure and warms (by the ideal gas law, PV - nRT). Surface temperatures will be directly related to tropospheric emission temperatures by altitude difference and the lapse rate. See Fig. 4 at this Realclimate article.
At the surface IR in GHG wavelengths is absorbed within meters - but the real action takes place around the tropopause where pressures and absolute amounts of GHGS decrease to the point that ~50% of IR escapes to space. And the more GHGs, the higher that altitude is, and the larger the difference between the emission altitude temperature and that of the surface.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 23:11 PM on 15 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
@22,
The fundamentals of my point are not related to a specific set of conditions. The most impacting and consuming people reducing their impacts and consumption makes more room for others. Do you acknowledge that?
-
SkepticalinCanada at 22:26 PM on 15 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
Sorry, forgot the link.
-
SkepticalinCanada at 22:22 PM on 15 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
So, how many? Under your ideal conditions, what is the carrying capacity of the planet?
Daly's is not the only analysis which indicates a much smaller number of people than we have now. Other analyses (soil scientist Peter Salonius, for example) indicate that even those promoting much more organic and non-technology based agriculture misunderstand our relationship with the planet.
And further, given the evidence that we are not living on this planet sustainably at present, what population number would correct that?
Prev 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 Next
