Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 Next
Comments 2951 to 3000:
-
MA Rodger at 20:24 PM on 7 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
Art Vandelay @12,
I fear what is not remotely sustainable is your argument.
Does not the developed world construct cars, build high rise commercial developments, manufacture steel and concrete? They will be doing this in a net zero economy, indeed a net-negative-emissions economy. This is the future of the developed world. You argue that the developing world will not be a part of this because they will be constructing cars, building high rise commercial developments and manufacturing steel and concrete just like the developed world, but will be using FFs. Why would that be? -
iamwebmaster at 13:10 PM on 7 November 2022Extreme heat makes pregnancy more dangerous
Dress to keep cool. Wear loose, light clothing, and a hat and sunglasses if you go outdoors. Cotton is cooler.
-
nigelj at 11:54 AM on 7 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
Art Vandelay @12
First read my comments @10.
Secondly you make youself look like a denier if you promote that humans breathing is the problem. Humans breathing is a carbon neutral process. Look it up on the list of climate myths on the LHS of this page. And obviously we cant stop breathing so the point is moot.
Thirdly, while I agree that population growth is a problem, what do you suggest we do about it? Because we obviously can't line people up and shoot them and enforced one child policies are a big problem. About all government's can do is make contraception freely available and make sure family planning is taught in school. However even that gets contentious.
In fact the demographic transition and spread of contraception means population growth is slowing in most places, two child families are becoming the norm, and population growth will probably stop eventually even in Africa. There's just not a whole lot more we can do to influence Africa and the established downwards trends in developed and most developing countries. And that is why the focus must be on renewable energy, electric transport, and trying to reduce levels of per capita consumption.
-
Art Vandelay at 10:24 AM on 7 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
MA Rodger @8 ...
" you assert will see rising emissions resulting from the underdeveloped societies "seeking a more first world existence in coming decades," a "first world existence" that has itself become non-emitting."
You're overlooking emissions as a consequence of building 'first world' infrastructure and industry, which includes transportation, high rise commercial development in towns and cities and first-world housing etc. That's a lot of concrete, steel etc and those materials must be mined, refined and transported, often from other countries and over vast distances.
"You are generally ignoring the goal of developed societies to reduce their own emissions to net zero, indeed to go beyond into the realm of net negative emissions."
Not ignoring, just focused on the developing nations who are responsible for the bulk of global emissions, and importantly, the majority of future global emissions this century.
"You also assert that "the transition towards a low carbon future" will involve a period of increased emissions. If a portion of the carbon-emitting economy is put to the task of building the non-emitting infrastructure, it may be thus engaged in more carbon-intense activities but I would be surprised if any impact on CO2 emissions were significant, especially given the delivery of non-emitting power follows close behind."
Leaving aside rebuilding the world's energy sector, replacing one billion motor vehicles alone is surely an enormously carbon intensive transition, necessitating the mining, processing, and transportation of raw and processed materials on an enormous scale. Studies indicate that EV's incur a higher carbon footprint than ICEV's during the manufacturing process, and the payback peried is over many years. Assuming that new demand for motor vehicles will also come from developing nations it raises the prospect of perhaps double the number of motor vehicles globally in coming decades. It begs the question of whether that's remotely sustainable.
NIJELJ @8 .."However I personally think both fossil fuel emissions and population growth are problems."
Population is definitely a huge issue if we deem current first world standards of living (and consumption) as a point of reference for the future. And regardless of our living standards humans will emit CO2 because humans are essentially organic combustion engines. Not only do we exhale about 10% of global CO2, our existance is at the expense of vast amounts of natural forest for both habitation and food production, both of which are highly emissive, with or without renewable energy.
At some point in the not-too-distant future we will be forced to have some difficult conversations to do with sustainable lifestyle and population, and come to an acceptance that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels is just one aspect of a much larger problem that no amount of wind and solar energy energy can ever solve.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:30 AM on 7 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
nigelj @10,
A minor nitpick.
Though "The other alternative of just not using energy is not realistic.", the other 'other alternative' of reduced energy use by the biggest energy users, in parallel with the rapid development of renewable energy systems, would more rapidly end the increasing harm done by continued fossil fuel use.
Reduced energy demand would also reduce the harm done by the renewable energy systems. There would be less energy demand.
Limiting the harm done is the objective, or should be. The alternative would appear to be 'no long-term future for humanity'.
-
nigelj at 05:58 AM on 7 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
MAR @6
Great graphics. Very useful.
-------------------------------
Art Vandelay @7
"Regardless of population rising or not, the "developing world" still consitutes 2/3 of global CO2 emissions.....Given that >50% of the developing world is still living in poverty it amounts to a large number of people who will be seeking a more first world existence in coming decades, so we can only expect CO2 emissions to rise for many decades, as a result of increased energy demand, food production, land clearing, transportation, urbanisation etc. "
There is a sliver lining to the cloud. Africa is in the developoing world and aspire to better lifestyles (and their population is increasing) but their per capita emissions are low because they dont have much fossil fuel infrastructure. This means they could in theory transition directly to renewables without going through the whole fossil fuels phase. This is happening to some extent with rural areas buying solar panels. Its not a panacea because they will be importing panels, but it helps a bit.
"Take-up of renewable energy will offset this to some extent but development itself is a highly emissive process. Indeed, the transition towards a low carbon future will itself also involve an enormous 'burp' of CO2 due to the mining, manufacturing, transportation and construction on enormous scales required to upgrade the world's energy and transport sectors.
If fossil fuel energy isnt used to build solar and wind power it will be used to build coal fired power or something else, so isn't the point somewhat moot? The other alternative of just not using energy is not realistic.
-
nigelj at 05:49 AM on 7 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
Want to briefly clarify that my statement that poor people and poor countries still have a huge environmental footprint was a general statement about impacts. For example conversion of natural habitat to farming, altering of water courses,etc,etc. Such people clearly have low per capita CO2 emissions. And my intent was to show that we shouldn't ever downplay potential crises, whether population problems or climate change or anything else. However I personally think both fossil fuel emissions and population growth are problems.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:10 AM on 7 November 2022Climate Change's Controversial Policy: Loss & Damage
My comment @4 brings to mind additional considerations regarding the challenges of determining the Truth and proper Reconciliation of climate change Loss and Damages.
An obviously challenging developed reality is that people who want to benefit, or who have benefited, from harmful beliefs and actions causing Loss and Damage cannot be allowed to influence the determination of how much Loss and Damage has occurred or the appropriate Reparations.
And that challenging developed reality, harmfully developed human behaviour - not fundamental human nature, applies to far more cases of 'Benefiting from causing Loss and Damages' than the beliefs and actions causing continued climate change impacts.
-
MA Rodger at 18:42 PM on 6 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
Art Vandelay @7,
You shift you argument onto entirely new ground with this latest post.
You new position is that emissions will grow as underdeveloped societies become more wealthy. You are generally ignoring the goal of developed societies to reduce their own emissions to net zero, indeed to go beyond into the realm of net negative emissions. All this is in those same "coming decades" you assert will see rising emissions resulting from the underdeveloped societies "seeking a more first world existence in coming decades," a "first world existence" that has itself become non-emitting.
You also assert that "the transition towards a low carbon future" will involve a period of increased emissions. If a portion of the carbon-emitting economy is put to the task of building the non-emitting infrastructure, it may be thus engaged in more carbon-intense activities but I would be surprised if any impact on CO2 emissions were significant, especially given the delivery of non-emitting power follows close behind. The explanation of China's high CO2 emissions is surely because China took on so much of the existing high CO2-emitting activities previously carried out by the West. Again, the building of non-emitting infrastructure is not a factor that I see at work.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:39 PM on 6 November 2022Climate Change's Controversial Policy: Loss & Damage
Walschuler and Art Vandelay have presented some valid points.
There is more to consider regarding climate change impact Loss and Damages.
Loss and damage, or reparations, is challenging (and challenged). It requires the development of adaptations by the highest harming per capita portion of the population. They need to make amends for harmful past, present and future actions they benefit(ed) from. They need to:
- admit that harmful beliefs and related actions developed in the past and continue to be popular and profitable today. The past harm includes the injustice of developed perceptions of prosperity and status and the inequitable advantages that development created.
- recognize the current continuing harm and harmful developed systemic problems.
- understand that there will be future harm done that people need to be compensated for until the harmful beliefs and resulting actions are effectively limited. The improvement of awareness and understanding, especially among the wealthy and powerful, needs to be significant enough to ensure that collective governing will limit the harmful impacts.
A key consideration is that undeserving beneficiaries of harmful beliefs and actions will try to delay corrections that reduce their perceptions of prosperity and status. Delaying the reduction of harmful pursuits of benefit makes the required future adaptation more severe. And that can make it harder to get support from people who understandably should suffer any required negative consequences.
The delayed reduction of per capita impacts by the harmfully over-developed portion of the global population is building a more damaging situation, including more vicious fighting against deserved losses by undeserving (damaging) wealthy and powerful people.
A major impediment to the understandably required corrections is the perceptions of prosperity and status hat developed via benefiting from unjustified beliefs that excuse harmful unsustainable beliefs, systems and actions.
Admitting to the need for compensation for loss and damage due to climate change impacts understandably includes compensation for harm done by the past harmful development of perceptions of superiority. That is a slippery slope for the wealthy and powerful. Some wealth and power is legitimately obtained by developing sustainable improvements for humanity. But a lot of current day wealth and power is almost certain to be due to harmful actions and the promotion of harmful unjustified claims and excuses.
Admitting to the need for Loss and Damage requires the current day wealthy and powerful to admit that they do not deserve their developed perceptions of status. And it requires them to decide how they will:
- collectively penalize themselves to stop the developed harmful pursuits of benefit
- adequately compensate and correct for all of the harm done everything that contributed to their acquisition of higher status.
Regarding insurance:
The wealthy profit from private insurance programs. They have been reported to harmfully operate private insurance to maximize their profitability. Their actions include declaring that the circumstances some people needing assistance are in make them ineligible for insurance. In addition, the harmful among the wealthy and powerful have a history of abusing their influence on leadership to limit government assistance programs or have those programs implemented in ways that they benefit from.
The required adaptation is clearly the dramatic rapid reduction of harmful unsustainable pursuits of perceptions of prosperity and status relative to others.
The obvious challenge is overcoming the developed powerful resistance to the required adaptation actions.
-
Art Vandelay at 21:30 PM on 5 November 2022Climate Change's Controversial Policy: Loss & Damage
walschuler @1. says:
"Perhaps the role of already industrialized countries should be first and most urgently to subsidize renewables world-wide, to the extent that developing countries get them at a cost that undercuts the cheapest fossil plants by some modest amount.".
That's the argvument for a global carbon credit scheme.
-
Art Vandelay at 20:40 PM on 5 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
MA Rodger @6,
Regardless of population rising or not, the "developing world" still consitutes 2/3 of global CO2 emissions. The importance of that stat is to underscore the significance of population as a metric for emissions. Given that >50% of the developing world is still living in poverty it amounts to a large number of people who will be seeking a more first world existence in coming decades, so we can only expect CO2 emissions to rise for many decades, as a result of increased energy demand, food production, land clearing, transportation, urbanisation etc. Take-up of renewable energy will offset this to some extent but development itself is a highly emissive process. Indeed, the transition towards a low carbon future will itself also involve an enormous 'burp' of CO2 due to the mining, manufacturing, transportation and construction on enormous scales required to upgrade the world's energy and transport sectors. This already explains much of China's CO2 emissions.
-
walschuler at 08:23 AM on 4 November 2022Climate Change's Controversial Policy: Loss & Damage
I would add that to the extent developed countries subsidize developing ones to establish renewables, the action ought to include establishing the production and installation industries for them in those countries, so they are self-sustaining.
-
walschuler at 08:17 AM on 4 November 2022Climate Change's Controversial Policy: Loss & Damage
I would add to the excellent presentation that some of the key questions include:
What precedents exist for dealing with other forms of environmental damage? Can those who pay damages specify how the money is spent by the damaged populations? In view of the universal nature of the climate crisis and the size of the damages already caused and upcoming due to inaction can we afford not to have pretty good control of how the money is spent? Private insurance has a role to play for some cases, perhaps the most localized cases. Also, the government insurance might have roles. In the US the Price-Anderson Act limits the liability of power companies operating nuclear reactors to $450mill per reactor plus up to about 100reactors at $120mill each or $12bill. This money is either by private carriers or assessed as fees to the power companies, which might possibly be recovered later in their utility rates. There is also an arrangement for cases of US makers whose reactors are in foreign countries. See https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10821. Perhaps there are lessons there. I wonder if there are similar arngements for nukes in Japan or Germany. A downside of such insurance schemes is that they often take al ong time to settle, and we need action world-wide. China is ramping up its solar rapidly and has caused a drop in its costs which has contributed to adoption in the US and elsewhere, but has also installed and continues to install more coal powerplants. India is building coal fired powerplants too. Perhaps the role of already industrialized countries should be first and most urgently to subsidize renewables world-wide, to the extent that developing countries get them at a cost that undercuts the cheapest fossil plants by some modest amount. Such subsidies might count against past damages. Electrification network costs, which might be mostly independent of power source types and costs, ought to be borne by the developing countries and installed with future capacity needs in mind. (The future capacity is another problem. Should we all be looking to cap it or to make it indefinitely expandable?)
Moderator Response:[PS] Link activated. Please create links yourself in the comment editor. They are not created automatically
-
scaddenp at 05:34 AM on 3 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
scvblwxq1 - why dont you look at the actual temperature trends for those cities which your source helpfully provides that as well as deviation from long term average? You seem to missed showing that in what you posted.
Moderator Response:[BL] scvblwxq1 has chosen to continue to violate the comments policy and had now recused himself from posting here.
To inform the casual readers, in portions of comments that were deleted, scvblwxq1 was under the misconception that he could determine warming vs cooling by whether or not a city had set a new record high temperature this year. scvblwxq1 does not seem to understand averaging, let alone trend analysis.
-
scvblwxq1 at 05:07 AM on 3 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
All the big cities in the US are seeing cooling and that is not relevant? Maybe if you are pushing a point of view and deceptively calling it science! My aim is to get facts to the readers and let them make up their own minds instead of having a fake website that is only interested in pushing false Climate Change dogma. I sure won't bother posting any more climate information since it will just get deleted 10-20 times as many deaths due to cold as heat isn't relevant if you are just pushing dogma. Goodbye.
Moderator Response:[BL] I'll leave this intact.
Your assertion that "cities in the US are seeing cooling" is not supported by any sort of analysis. Looking at maximum temperatures is "not even wrong".
You have been repeatedly shown that your "climate information" is wrong, and you cannot do anything more that regurgitate incorrect "talking points".
-
scvblwxq1 at 04:37 AM on 3 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
nigelj,
1988 was the hottest year on record, up to that date. That probably helped spawn the Global Warming movement. It never warmed enough to matter to people much, so that movement didn't flourish, and we are still seeing lots of migration in the US to warmer cities.
Moderator Response:[BL] Frankly, you have no idea what you are talking about. I was an undergraduate student in the 1970s, when global warming and climate change was part of the curriculum.
..and the factors causing migration in the US have little to do with climate change.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/non_sequitur
-
scvblwxq1 at 04:12 AM on 3 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
The top 9 cities in the US had no warming last year and all were below their recent high temperature. There was no data on the NOAA site for San Jose, the tenth-largest city, so I stopped at nine cities.
City, Recent High-Year, High-Temp, 2020-Temp, 2021-Temp (yearly averages)
New York 2012 57.8 57.3 56.9
Los Angeles 2014 65.1 63.8 62.7
Chicago 1998 55.1 53.4 53.4
Philadelphia 2012 58.4 58.1 58.0
Houston 2014 74.5 73.4 73.0
San Antonio 2006 72.1 71.8 70.4
Phoenix 2017 77.3 77.2 76.3
Dallas 2012 70.4 68.5 68.1
Moderator Response:[BL] These useless trivia bits are not adding anything to the conversation.
-
MA Rodger at 20:12 PM on 2 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
Art Vandelay @5,
I think if you look properly, the emissions from countries with significant rising population is far lower than 'around two thirds' the total. The territorial emissions from what we can call 'the developed world' does constitute a third of the global total. Add in China and it becomes two thirds.
And China's population is not rising any more.
The place where there is a significant projected increase in population is Africa.
But Africa is presently the source of just 3.7% of CO2 emission.
-
Art Vandelay at 17:23 PM on 2 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
Scientists have attributed recent rain in Australia to the Tongan volcanic blast earlier this year. The blast has temporarily increased stratospheric water vapor over the Antarctic, resulting in a strengening of the polar vortex - and a positive 'SAM' "When the polar vortex and SAM are stronger than usual, like they are now, the powerful westerlies stay closer to Antarctica. Therefore, southern Australia sees fewer colder fronts and less windy weather.
This allows the east coast, between about Brisbane to Hobart, to see more days with onshore winds bringing extra wet weather."
Unfortunately this has conspired with La Niña as well as IOD (Indian ocean dipole) to increase the liklihood of rain across eastern Australia.
https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/how-a-tongan-volcanic-eruption-almost-guarantees-a-flooded-summer-for-australias-east-coast/news-story/3b1be3a36b5681ce70d7327392ed0129
-
Art Vandelay at 16:54 PM on 2 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
"Some of this is very high per capita consumption in developed countries, but even lower consuming people in poor countries have a huge environmental footprint, because of the sheer size of their populations."
True, and in fact developing countries account for around two thirds of global emissions, and rising, so population is indeed the elephant in the room.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:39 AM on 2 November 2022How sea level rise contributes to billions in extra damage during hurricanes
The following quote from the opening statements of the article provide an example of the difficulty of clearly communicating in English, a language that is very flexible in its use and interpretation.
"Had Ian hit a century ago, when sea levels were about a foot lower, the storm probably would have caused billions less in storm surge damage, ..."
When I read that statement I understand the point that lower sea levels would result in less less storm surge damage, and that recent human climate change impacts have resulted in a higher sea level. But someone not wanting to understand that 'fossil fuel use needs to be rapidly ended because of the harmful climate change impacts' could 'fail to read and understand the entire document' and simplistically argue that "Of course there would have been less damage 100 years ago. There was less built back then. This big article and its referenced studies are just another verbose presentation of non-sense"
It usually takes more words to be clearer with little chance of 'alternative understanding'. That is why legal and insurance documents are so wordy.
A clearer statement would have been like:
"Had a storm of recent climate change intensified strength like Ian, intensified by being over warmer waters with more energy and moisture in the atmosphere, hit with sea levels as low as they were a century ago, before the human induced climate change increase of sea levels, when sea levels were about a foot lower, the storm probably would have caused billions less in storm surge damage to the current day developments hit by Ian."
Harmful Populists promote harmful misunderstandings by keeping their statements simple in harmfully selective ways. Their claims are irrational and difficult to defend, making them unable to be common sense in a 'learning population'. That is why they attack anyone who would 'ask embarrassing questions they cannot provide common sense answers to as explanations of their claims'. Harmful Populists also 'evade questions they cannot answer with common sense explanations' and attempt to discredit anyone who presents better, more sensible, understanding that contradicts what they want 'common people' to believe.
-
MA Rodger at 19:58 PM on 1 November 2022CO2 effect is saturated
The commenter currently shown @667 and naming themself 'Spooker' claims to have been awarded a PhD in Physics and asks whether it should have occurred to others that perhaps 'Spooker' "already know(s) the basic science behind the GHE."
It is not unknown for those who are very well versed in Physics to be for some reason incapable of grasping the mechanisms of the greenhouse effect and deny it exists. William Happer was such a one (I think recently he has been used as a co-author in work that does present the existence of AGW but of a much diminished form, a la the likes of Dickie Lindzen), although he does have the excuse of being very old and, as the adage goes, 'you can't teach an old dog new tricks'.
What I would ask this commenter presently calling themself Spooker, and ask in a sciency-physics sort of way, if all the IR emitted by the planet surface is absorbed by the CO2 in the atmosphere above within metres of the surface (which for the central specrtum of the CO2 emissions spectrum at ~666cm^-1 is true) and thus cannot impact the planetary energy balance at the top of the atmosphere, where does all the other IR come from? For instance, what is the source of all the downwelling IR that can be seen by instruments on the surface.
The graphic demonstrating such measurement below was sourced from here.
Moderator Response:[BL] Snipped portions that referred to a comment that has been deleted. Informative sections left intact.
-
Eclectic at 19:50 PM on 1 November 2022CO2 effect is saturated
Spooker @667 & many now evanescent posts :-
You are far too modest about your PhD in Physics (Acoustics, I hear?). And you are even more modest about your double Laureate ~ which is in the pipeline (as I hear, from friends in Stockholm).
Which all makes it so puzzling that your confidence you understand "saturation" (re GHE) seems in a clear contradiction to your evident failure to comprehend GHE.
(~ At least, as far as can be determined from your many posts.) But perhaps you can clarify why you think some form of "saturation" is relevant to GHE . . . and at the same time clarify how & why you are correct about GHE while the generality of atmospheric physicists are grossly wrong about GHE.
Moderator Response:[BL] The comment in question has been deleted.
-
nigelj at 14:30 PM on 1 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
scvblwxq1
"Dear negelj, I don't know the details of the past Global Warming movement or while they were formed but when it collapsed ..."
Previously you implied you were quite involved in this alleged movement "I've been through the Global Warming movement in the 80s that said that the world would be very hot by now" and now you cant remember a thing about it. How convenient. Do you have a serious memory problem? Do you seriously expect anyone to believe a single thing you say after an answer like you just made?
-
nigelj at 14:22 PM on 1 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
scvblwxq1
"Americans are up to 30 percent more likely to have a heart attack in winter because the cold weather narrows blood vessels which raises blood pressure and pulse rate, increasing the risk of a heart attack."
Factoid of no use because it doesnt say what climate change will do to cold and heat related deaths. This proper study is far more relevant:
"This winter warming is expected to reduce the number of direct cold-related deaths, but the decrease is projected to be smaller than increases in heat-related deaths (see the Heat-Related Deaths indicator) in most regions.2/08/2022"
Moderator Response:[BL] Note that the portions of the comment you have responded to have been snipped, until scvblwxq1 responds to counterarguments made on this thread:
https://skepticalscience.com/heatwaves-silent-killer.html
Further note to scvblwxq1: you must respond to any criticisms such as this one before you will be allowed to make any further new assertions.
-
scvblwxq1 at 12:24 PM on 1 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
Americans are up to 30 percent more likely to have a heart attack in winter because the cold weather narrows blood vessels which raises blood pressure and pulse rate, increasing the risk of a heart attack.
The increased blood pressure and increased heart rate from the cold of winter also raise the risk of stroke.
Below 60 degrees people without much clothing on, can and do get hypothermia and freeze to death.
https://survivaldispatch.com/freezing-to-death-in-60-degree-weather/
In Cleveland, the average high temperature is 61 and the average low temperature is 44, so there is a significant risk of dying from hypothermia if a person is outside for a long time with few clothes on. There are homeless shelters to protect homeless people from the cold weather.
Moderator Response:[BL] Until you address criticisms of your comment on the Lancet article on this thread, further posts on heat vs cold will be deleted.
-
scvblwxq1 at 11:09 AM on 1 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
The climate of the Earth for the last 11,700 years has been an interglacial period within the Quaternary Glaciation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial
Moderator Response:[BL} Excessive repetition of off-topic material deleted.
-
scvblwxq1 at 10:55 AM on 1 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
Dear Moderator,
My only point about the robot CO2 sensor was that it measured both CO2 release and absorption by the ocean so both those two actions are happening. I saw it on a video a while back so I didn't have a link to post.
Moderator Response:[BL] Oh, my! Stop the presses! Sometimes oceans absorb CO2, Sometimes they release it!
I would say that your point is trivial, but when you first brought up ocean CO2, you claimed that warmer oceans released CO2. Twice. No, three times. Then you made reference to the "robot CO2" stuff in an attempt to justify those bogus claims.
You are back-pedalling, and it exposes your poorly-thought-out arguments.
-
scvblwxq1 at 10:49 AM on 1 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
Dear negelj, I don't know the details of the past Global Warming movement or while they were formed but when it collapsed the next movement couldn't be called Global Warming since that name had already been used and Global Cooling had also been used they decided to use the slogan "Climate Change" for their movement. They basically are calling the weather the climate of the Earth which is false. The climate of the Earth is a 2.588 million-year ice age called the Quaternary Glaciation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
Moderator Response:[BL] I will leave this intact, because your use of phrases such as "Global Warming movement", etc. give as clear an indication of your bias as could possibly be seen.
And once again, you have your "facts" wrong. "They changed the name..." is #89 on our list of most common myths.
-
scvblwxq1 at 10:22 AM on 1 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
Here are two large international studies that show that deaths caused by excess cold substantially exceed deaths caused by excess heat.
e have 4.5 million people dying each year from moderately cold weather-related causes, mainly from strokes and heart attacks caused by moderate cold, while only about 500,000 are dying from heat-related causes and most of them were also from moderate heat.
RTICLES| VOLUME 5, ISSUE 7, E415-E425, JULY 01, 2021
'Global, regional, and national burden of mortality associated with non-optimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019: a three-stage modeling study'
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext
"Globally, 5 083 173 deaths (95% empirical CI [eCI] 4 087 967–5 965 520) were associated with non-optimal temperatures per year, accounting for 9·43% (95% eCI 7·58–11·07) of all deaths (8·52% [6·19–10·47] were cold-related and 0·91% [0·56–1·36] were heat-related)."
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltextHere is another recent study that found that the excess death caused by cold exceeded those caused by heat.
ARTICLES| VOLUME 398, ISSUE 10301, P685-697, AUGUST 21, 2021
Estimating the cause-specific relative risks of non-optimal temperature on daily mortality: a two-part modeling approach applied to the Global Burden of Disease Study
Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
"Acute heat and cold exposure can increase or decrease the risk of mortality for a diverse set of causes of death. Although in most regions cold effects dominate, locations with high prevailing temperatures can exhibit substantial heat effects far exceeding cold-attributable burden."
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01700-1/fulltextModerator Response:[BL] Repeatedly linking to the same articles constitutes a violation of the Comments Policy of excessive repetition.
Your erroneous interpretation of one of those studies was pointed out by another poster earlier, on another thread. Until you return to that thread and address the criticisms, further posts that refer to the same paper will be deleted in their entirety.
-
scaddenp at 06:28 AM on 1 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
Also see the "Lessons from Past Predictions" series which compares predictions made by scientists to how it has panned out. I would say you are listening to peddlars of strawman fallacies because you like what they say instead of reading what the science actually says.
-
nigelj at 06:13 AM on 1 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
scvblwxq1
"I've been through the Global Warming movement in the 80s that said that the world would be very hot by now and here it is 40 years later still saying it will be very hot sometime in the future. I'm skeptical."
Please provide a link to back up your claims and precisely what you mean by very hot. There might have been some environmental activists and a couple of scientists thinking the world would be very hot by now , ( meaning I assume at least 2 or 3 degrees of warming above preindustrial?), but there was no consensus of climate scientists back in 1980s predicting such a thing.
The first IPCC report was released in 1990. It reviewed the scientific work of thousands of scientists and concluded we could have several degrees of warming by the end of this century, and that warming between 1990 and 2025 would be about 1 degree C. Warming has been about 0.75 deg C over that period so not far off. And bear in mind the modelling back then was not very advanced. This is from the 1990 summary for policy makers:
"Under the IPC C Business-as-Usual (Scenario A ) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global-mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade); this is greater than thaat seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result in a likely increase in global-mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025 and 3°C before the end of the next century. The rise will not be steady because of the influence of other factors"
www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ipcc_90_92_assessments_far_wg_I_spm.pdf
The full 1990 report is here:
www.ipcc.ch/report/climate-change-the-ipcc-1990-and-1992-assessments/
You basically dont know what you are talking about.
-
Eclectic at 21:13 PM on 31 October 2022CO2 effect is saturated
@668 ,
you are mistaken ~ I do not object to your postings. They are entertaining to a certain extent, but do not rise above Bronze Medal for skill of disingenuousness.
Moderator Response:[BL] Response to deleted comment.
-
Eclectic at 18:10 PM on 31 October 2022CO2 effect is saturated
@666 , once again you demonstrate a disconnect from GHE concept.
The fault is not in your stars, but in yourself [excuse Caesar misquote].
Please start afresh. Forget "saturation". Look at the molecules, look at the intermolecular distances, look at the absorptions & radiations. Think about what is going on at that basic level. This is basic physics. This is reality. Scientists (excluding Angstrom) understand GHE because it is straightforward ~ when you stop to think it through.
Moderator Response:[BL] Response to deleted comment.
-
scvblwxq1 at 16:41 PM on 31 October 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
Americans are fleeing the colder northern states and moving to the warmer southern states a new study finds.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2022-01-03/americans-moved-south-in-2021-a-study-finds#:~:text=Americans%20flocked%20South%20%E2%80%93%20and%20to,a%20driver%20in%20moving%20decisions.
Moderator Response:[BL] If you have a point, make it. Simple assertions of irrelevant factoids will not be permitted.
Final Warning
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, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. 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, as no further warnings shall be given.
-
Eclectic at 16:17 PM on 31 October 2022CO2 effect is saturated
TheSpook @664 ,
again and again in this thread, you seem to be struggling to understand the concept of saturation and its relevance to GHE. This is stuff which is in textbooks and it is straightforward, if you put your mind to it. And yet your thoughts seem locked in a futile circle of misunderstanding, and therefore you are wasting your time with excessive repetition.
Best if you start with a clean sheet ~ firstly define the term saturation (as you understand the meaning and significance of the term). Then link that to the concepts of the mechanism of GHE.
Somewhere, you yourself have a semantic and/or logical problem which is impeding your your understanding of what is basically a straightforward concept, namely GHE (of one or several gasses).
Moderator Response:[BL] Response to deleted comment.
-
scvblwxq1 at 13:26 PM on 31 October 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
Southern Ocean storms cause outgassing of carbon dioxide
January 25, 2022
University of Gothenburg
Summary:
Storms over the waters around Antarctica drive an outgassing of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, according to a new international study. The research group used advanced ocean robots for the study, which provides a better understanding of climate change and can lead to better global climate models.https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/01/220125112530.htm
Moderator Response:[BL] After several attempts to get you to do so, you finally provide a link to your "robot CO2" claims.
Now that we see the actual paper, we see that it refers to one area of the ocean (Antarctic), and refers to specific meteorological conditions (storms). A quote from the paper:
"We show how the intense storms that often occur in the region increase ocean mixing and bring carbon dioxide-rich waters from the deep to the surface. This drives an outgassing of carbon dioxide from the ocean to the atmosphere. There has been a lack of knowledge about these complex processes, so the study is an important key to understanding the Southern Ocean's significance for the climate and the global carbon budget," says Sebastiaan Swart, professor of oceanography at the University of Gothenburg and co-author of the study.
Once again you confuse a local pattern, under limited conditions, and treat this as if it represents a long-term global effect. You really need to read past the summary of the paper.
And please turn your links into links. You've been told how.
-
scvblwxq1 at 12:50 PM on 31 October 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
-
scvblwxq1 at 12:49 PM on 31 October 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/oh/cleveland/KCLE/date/2022-10-27
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
Moderator Response:[BL} Link-only posts are explicitly banned, according to the Comments Policy.
-
scvblwxq1 at 12:43 PM on 31 October 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
The 297 observations from the Weather Underground site is a large enough sample so that approximate methods, when other methods are not available, is a good way to analyze the data. Taking a small sample of 10 is definitely not a good way to compare categories. I am not saying that it is any kind of proof, next year might warm up, but it is suggestive of cooling rather than warming since the beginning of the year in Cleveland. I don't use Twitter for anything serious and seldom use it at all.
https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/oh/cleveland/KCLE/date/2022-10-27
I've been through the Global Warming movement in the 80s that said that the world would be very hot by now and here it is 40 years later still saying it will be very hot sometime in the future. I'm skeptical. The Climate Change articles usually do not even mention that the current climate of the Earth, as a whole, is an ice age called the Quaternary Glaciation and that won't change until all the natural ice melts and we will probably have another glacial period before that occurs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
It should only take a few years to find out if Dr. Zharkova is correct or not. Dr. Zharkova was the one that asked for a retraction, the other authors disagreed, maybe they just wanted to add a correction.
Moderator Response:[BL] Sample size has nothing to do with the failures of your "count days above or below normal" technique.
You have been pointed to articles here at SkS that cover glacial climates. Here is another one:
https://skepticalscience.com/from-email-bag-Ellis-Palmer.html
The idea that people are ignoring glacial climates is absurd, and a figment of your imagination. In the above article, you will find additional links to SkS and other posts on glaciation. It also serves as an example of how "published" papers can be horribly wrong.
Frankly, it is obvious that you will not read or cannot understand anything that does not fit your misconceptions.
You are getting your Zharkovas mixed up. V V Zharkova is the first author, and did not agree to the retraction. S I Zharkov is the third author (VV's son), and agreed to the retraction. And none of the authors requested the retraction - it was the result of other pointing out the obvious gross errors, and the editors of the journal realizing that the paper was not worthy of publication. If you read the PubPeer discussion of the retracted paper, you will see that V V Zharkova doubled-down, tripled-down, and quadrupled-down on the legitimacy of the paper, in spite of people explaining her errors to her.
https://pubpeer.com/publications/3418816F1BA55AFB7A2E6A44847C24#
-
MA Rodger at 19:06 PM on 30 October 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
The TSI data linked by scvblwxq1@6 shows the TSI for sunspot cycle 25 to-date, so TSI for the period 2018-to-date. The same website also gives TSI data back to the start of the satellite record, so since the end of 1978 (sunspot cycles 21 to 24). Comparing the two data sets (they need splicing together) shows the rise in TSI so far for sunspot cycle 25 has yet to top the peak of sunspot cycle 24, itself a rather weak sunspot cycle, as the graphic of sunspot numbers below suggests.
Moderator Response:[BL] Thank you for your efforts. This is yet another case where the sources quoted by scvblwxq1 do not support the position argued by scvblwxq1. We are seeing out-of-context quotes, inaccurate descriptions of the contents of papers, and selective presentation of data.
If scvblwxq1 was unaware of how the recent TSI data fit into the long-term trend, scvblwxq1 needs to reflect on why (s)he was unaware - and how to avoid such errors in the future. If scvblwxq1 was aware, then scvblwxq1 is not engaging in proper discussion.
-
scvblwxq1 at 13:59 PM on 30 October 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
The comparison between heating and air conditioning is misleading. There is way more spent on heating than air conditioning. Around half the total energy used is spent on heating.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/08/we-need-to-rethink-the-way-we-heat-ourselves-heres-why/
The Weather Underground history section averages the value for each day during the day so a person can look up the average for any day and compare it to the historical average, which is also provided. I went through all the days of 2022 and compared the average for that day with the historical average for that day of the year.
Moderator Response:[BL] You are still not turning your links into links, even though you have been told how.
The wording of the AC issue I used in the moderator's comment on #6 is virtually identical to your own wording on heating. You now claim that it is a misleading comparison. This is because both statements are trivial - there is far more to it that the short talking points you are making.
Costs associated with heating are a different issue than heat/cold deaths, and a different issue from temperature trends. You keep bouncing from one trivial argument to another, hoping something will eventually stick to the wall.
Again, comparing daily temperature to the long-term mean, and simply assigning a "higher/lower" label to each day is an extremely poor way of trying to evaluate temperature trends. Consider the following two scenarios. In both cases, the long-term mean temperature we want to compare to is 10C. If we look at two 10-day periods:
- Eight days of 9C temperatures, two days of 16C temperatures, average of 10.4C for 10 days is warmer than long-term average.
- Two days of 4C temperatures, 8 days of 11C temperatures, average of 9.6C for 10 days is cooler than average.
Yet your method of analysis says that the first case has many more days of cooler-than-average temperatures, and the second case has many more days of warmer-than-average temperatures. Your method gives the completely wrong answer to the question of whether the 10 days are warmer or cooler than average. Your method is too simplistic, and cannot correctly assess a simple example, and there is no way it would be able to handle a more complex example.
Your trivial Cleveland example gets it horribly wrong. This is the problem with your trivial examples and talking points. Until you learn how to do a proper and through analysis, you will continue to fool yourself and come to incorrect conclusions.
This forum is not Twitter. You are expected to provide a proper analysis, with proper sources to back up your claims.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:10 PM on 30 October 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
Doug Bostrom (and a bit for nigelj),
Regarding corrections to the use of GDP to measure ‘improvement’:
The Human Development Report 2020 does a pretty good job of presenting many of the ‘improvements’ to the currently obviously flawed GDP evaluations of improvement. The most glaring flaw is that GDP measurement does not subtract harmful unsustainable economic activity. As an example, when done simplistically, the costs of recovering and rebuilding from harmful climate events is a GDP Plus even though most of that Positive GDP only gets things back to where they were before. There is no improvement. The ability to improve was displaced by the need to recover.
Regarding the global population problem:
The following Lancet article “Fertility, mortality, migration, and population scenarios for 195 countries and territories from 2017 to 2100: ...” indicates that the peak population could potentially be less than 10.4 billion, especially if the Sustainable Development Goals are achieved and improved on more rapidly. The other benefit of achieving the SDGs is the reduction of the harm done by humans, especially by the most harmful consumers.
Harmful consumers are a more serious problem than total population.Fewer harmfully over-consuming people (causing harmful lasting impacts including consuming renewable resources faster than they renew) allows the total sustainable population to be larger. Many studies indicate that if meat eating was reduced more food would be available for humans with less negative impact, or misery inflicted, on other life.
There are now many presentations regarding the merits of reduced consumption. An enlightening one is a study by sufficiency researcher Maren Ingrid Kropfeld mentioned in J. B. MacKinnon's book "The Day the World Stops Shopping". The study compared the amount of harmful impact of 4 different consumers:
- Environmentally conscientious about their consumption (but not limiting it)
- Frugal (seek out and buy bargains)
- Tightwads (dislike spending)
- Actively choose to consume less - pursuing limited consumption (only buying what is 'needed' and buying and repairing more durable things).
Consumers who 'Choose to consume less' and Tightwads had the lowest level of harmful impact. The Frugal and Environmentally conscientious had far more harmful impact because they did not limit their consumption.
A closing point about harmful actions:
Competition for status, with a lack of effective ‘constantly learning’ governing to limit harm done, can produce some very harmful and hard to correct results, including systemic injustice and inequity which includes the development of harmful laws (Florida officials ban the terms 'climate change' and 'global warming') and harmful enforcement of laws (The Supreme Court curbed EPA’s power to regulate carbon emissions from power plants. What comes next?)
Ibram X. Kendi, in his book “How to be an Antiracist” presents the understanding that Racism is unjustified excusing of harmful actions by making up and defending beliefs about undeniable harmful actions, inequity and injustice. It's useis recorded to have started centuries ago as European leaders tried to explain and excuse their harmful colonization and exploitation pursuits (the Doctrine of Discovery is a harmful part of it - ASSEMBLY OF FIRST NATIONS Dismantling the Doctrine of Discovery January 2018). And making up beliefs and excuses for benefiting from harmful injustice and inequity applies to far more than visible differences among humans.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:16 PM on 30 October 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
nigelj,
I agree that looking back without considering the alternative futures that could have developed can lead to incorrect conclusions. You could conclude that there was no choice for humanity but to end up in the mess that has been developed by the lack of effective collective governing to discover, stop, and correct for, harmful human pursuits of personal benefit.
As an engineer I learned to seek improved understanding of the worst things that could happen regarding what I am designing and check to ensure that the design will safely protect the public and the environment if those ‘worst things’ actually happen in the future.
As a structural engineer I am painfully aware of people who claim that the lack of frequent structure failures ‘proves to them’ that engineers unnecessarily over-design things.
-
scvblwxq1 at 10:11 AM on 30 October 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
The Earth has feedback systems like clouds and rain and storage system like the deep ocean that can maintain the temperature of the Earth when Solar input increases for a time but Solar irradiance increases it will eventually increase the temperature. The Sun is by far the major source of heat to the Earth, radioactivity contributes a small amount but CO2 at best is only moving the heat around.
Here in Cleveland we have had 161 days colder than average and 136 days warmer than average, using the Weather Underground average daily temperatures, which suggests cooling supporting Dr. Zharkova Grand Solar Minimum.
https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/oh/cleveland/KCLE
Solar irradiance has increased greatly since 2020, warming the Earth even more than the 50 years of high irradiance reported by Dr. Penza. https://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/data/tsis_tsi_24hr/
We have 4.5 million people dying each year from moderately cold weather-related causes, mainly from strokes and heart attacks caused by the cold, while only about 500,000 are dying from heat-related causes and most of them were also from moderate heat.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltextHalf the energy we produce goes to heating. We live in heated houses, work in heated buildings, drive around in heated cars, wear lots of warm clothes and shoes much of the time so we probably don't appreciate how cold it is. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/08/we-need-to-rethink-the-way-we-heat-ourselves-heres-why/
Moderator Response:[BL] Your assertions about CO2 are false.
Your statements about Cleveland temperatures do not mean what you claim them to mean,and you have stated them before.
The link you provide for solar irradiance shows a change of about 1 W/m2 in the past 4 years. After accounting for earth's albedo (0.3) and the 1:4 ratio between the area of the terrestrial disk and the spherical area of earth, this amounts to less that 0.2 W/m2 of radiative forcing. This is minor compared to the forcing by CO2 over the past 50 years. The data does not mean what you think it means. The variation you see in your own graph is simply part of the 11-year solar cycle, which last peaked in 2015 and is currently rising from the recent minimum. Look at figure 3 in the following paper.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-87108-y
Your repetition of the Lancet study still does not mean that your interpretation is correct. You have had responses to your first mention of that study that you have not responded to.
We live in houses with air conditioning, work in buildings with A/C, drive around in cars with A/C. We probably don't appreciate how hot it is. {See how easy it is to turn your words around and use them against you?]
Unless you change your posting style to follow the Comments Policy, expect to see increased deletions of your posts and eventual removal of your posting privileges.
-
scvblwxq1 at 09:02 AM on 30 October 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
The Solar Irridiance data shows that the Sun has been emitting more energy in the last 50 years than at anytime in the last 500 years. That is where the warming is coming from, the Sun.
The robot CO2 measurement experiments that circled Antartica and the southern oceans clearly showed that the oceans were both emitting and adsorbing CO2.
Moderator Response:[BL] You made these assertions in the exact same words less than 48 hours ago. It was moderated because you did not provide any link to any information to support your assertions.
You have been pointed to threads where information is available that demonstrates your assertions to be wrong. If you know of measurements, you need to point to a source of those measurements. You need to discuss how those measurements support the argument you are making. You do not get to simply assert a conclusion.
Note that the Comments Policy includes the following statements:
- Comments should avoid excessive repetition. Discussions which circle back on themselves and involve endless repetition of points already discussed do not help clarify relevant points. They are merely tiresome to participants and a barrier to readers. If moderators believe you are being excessively repetitive, they will advise you as such, and any further repetition will be treated as being off topic.
- No sloganeering. Comments consisting of simple assertion of a myth already debunked by one of the main articles, and which contain no relevant counter argument or evidence from the peer reviewed literature constitutes trolling rather than genuine discussion. As such they will be deleted. If you think our debunking of one of those myths is in error, you are welcome to discuss that on the relevant thread, provided you give substantial reasons for believing the debunking is in error. It is asked that you do not clutter up threads by responding to comments that consist just of slogans.
You are violating the "excessive repetition" clause of the policy.. You are violating the "simple assertion of a myth" policy.
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.
-
nigelj at 11:04 AM on 29 October 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
scvblwxq1.
Your solar theory of the recent warming period since the 1970's is wrong. There is only a very poor correlation between surface warming and solar irradiance over the last 50 years. Solar irradiance increased early last century until about 1960, then levelled off or fell slightly for about 30 years, then fell sharply from about 30 years ago to presently, but warming steadily increasing over that same total 50 year time frame. So you have a poor level of correlation.
skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
If global warming over the last 50 years was being caused by fluctuations in solar activity, you would expect a near perfect correlation between solar activity and warming over that 50 years, because the effects of solar irradiance on surface temperatures are reasonably instantaneous. Instead we see a very low level of correlation if any.
Fluctuations in solar irradiance over the last 50 years have also been quite small in terms of WM2, and not enough to account for the quantity of warming measured. So nothing in the way of causation.
With the climate issue the devil is in the detail like this. The fact that solar irradiance is generally a bit higher than 100 years ago doesn't explain the recent warming trend when you look into the details. Thats why we have climate scientists to look at the details.
The grand solar minimum during the little ice age is suspected of contributing to that cool period, but the little ice age only affected part of the northern hemisphere, temperatures dropped only about a degree c and over hundreds of years. So a similar thing now would clearly do very little if anything to offset the predicted 3 - 5 degrees of warming this century and 8 degrees of warming over 2 - 3 centuries. A grand solar minimum, If it actually happens, is clearly not going to save use.
-
scvblwxq1 at 02:24 AM on 29 October 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
I apologize, the site I have been posting on does not allow links so I got in the habit of not including them.
The error in the Zharkova article was a small error in the calculation of the Earth-Sun distance which was n0t a part of the main point of the paper. The error was fixed and did not effect the main point of the paper and a new version is available.
The article 'modern Grand Solar Minimum will lead to terrestrial cooling' wasn't retracted and is still in effect.
I know the the 2.588 million year ice age called the Quaternary Glaciation is the climate of the Earth as a whole and is in effect until all natural ice melts. The warm interglacial period where the Earth's orbit is more circular that we are in will come to an end sooner rater than later. The interglacial periods usually last about 10,000 years and this one has lasted 11,700 years. Then the Earth's orbit will get more elliptical under the influence primarily of Jupiter and we will get 90,000 years of a cold glacial period and the cycle will repeat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
Here in Cleveland, Ohio, we have had 136 days warmer than average and 160 days cooler than average so far this year using the weather underground figures.
https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/oh/cleveland/KCLE
Moderator Response:[BL] Links activated.
The web software here does not automatically create links. You can do this when posting a comment by selecting the "insert" tab, selecting the text you want to use for the link, and clicking on the icon that looks like a chain link. Add the URL in the dialog box.Your opinion that the Zharkova paper had a "small error" that "does not effect [sic] the main point" is not shared by the editors of the journal that made the decision to retract it. In their retraction notice, they state (emphasis added):
The analyses presented in the section entitled “Effects of SIM on a temperature in the terrestrial hemispheres” are based on the assumption that the orbits of the Earth and the Sun about the Solar System barycenter are uncorrelated, so that the Earth-Sun distance changes by an amount comparable to the Sun-barycenter distance. Post-publication peer review has shown that this assumption is inaccurate because the motions of the Earth and the Sun are primarily due to Jupiter and the other giant planets, which accelerate the Earth and the Sun in nearly the same direction, and thereby generate highly-correlated motions in the Earth and Sun. Current ephemeris calculations [1,2] show that the Earth-Sun distance varies over a timescale of a few centuries by substantially less than the amount reported in this article. As a result the Editors no longer have confidence in the conclusions presented.
In the And Then There's Physics blog post (the author of which is a Professor of Computational Astrophysics), it is stated (emphasis added):
However, in the case of the Zharkova et al. paper, the error is completely elementary. It’s something we teach our first-year students.
Papers do not get retracted for small errors that do not affect the main point of the paper. That Zharkova et al published a paper containing errors that a first-year student would fail on tells us that Zharkova basically has no idea what she is doing in this subject area.
The second Zharkova paper you mention may not have been retracted, but it is just as useless as the first.
As for the Grand Solar minimum, you should place your comments on this thread - after reading it first.
https://skepticalscience.com/grand-solar-minimum-mini-ice-age.htm
As for what is happening in Cleveland - Cleveland is not the globe, and this year is not climate. Over large areas, and many years, hot records are being broken much more often than cold records - exactly what you would expect in a warming climate. You can read about it more on this page (basic and intermediate versions):
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-cold-weather-basic.htm
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-cold-weather-intermediate.htm
...and counting the number of days above or below average does not tell you if this year is warmer or colder than average. You actually have to, well, average the daily values. It depends on how much the days are above or below the long-term average. A simple count of days throws out a lot of important information. You have made an error that a first-year student would lose marks on.
-
scvblwxq1 at 13:54 PM on 28 October 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
The Solar Irridiance data shows that the Sun has been emitting more energy in the last 50 years than at anytime in the last 500 years. That is where the warming is coming from, the Sun.
The robot CO2 measurement experiments that circled Antartica and the southern oceans clearly showed that the oceans were both emitting and adsorbing CO2.
Moderator Response:[BL} You continue with incorrect assertions containing vague "references" to information of unknown origin.
If you wish to continue to post in this forum, you need to provide explicit links to your sources of information. You have shown no indication that you actually read any of the references provided to you, and you show no inclination to actually engage in constructive discussion.
If you continue with this pattern, expect to see more and more of your postings edited or deleted, and eventually your posting rights will be rescinded.
Up your game. Provide proper references. Engage in discussion, not assertion. This is a place for dialog, not monologue.
And read the Comments Policy.
