Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 Next
Comments 31351 to 31400:
-
Rob Honeycutt at 12:03 PM on 4 February 2015How we discovered the 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming
Stranger... In terms of the big picture, that hardly matters. Cook et al took the extra step of allowing researchers to self-rate their papers, and the results were nearly identical to the SkS raters' results.
If Soon and Idso self-rated their papers, then their ratings were recorded there.
-
Stranger8170 at 11:21 AM on 4 February 2015How we discovered the 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming
I’ve been having an exchange over the Cook et al paper and would like some information concerning Willie Soon and also Craig D. Idso’s claim that they were mischaracterized in the survey as being neutral instead of showing that they were in opposition. I’ve looked for a response to the claim but I’ve been unable to find it. Can someone steer me to an explanation?
-
Dcrickett at 07:37 AM on 4 February 2015Republicans have one option to eliminate EPA carbon regulations
The Carbon Tax, fully Pigovian, is as compatible with conservative economic viewpoints as one can find. Its regressive nature can be eliminated by returning it to Americans on a "count-the-noses" basis, which makes it compatible with liberal economic viewpoints.
The only reason so many politicians oppose it is that they are in the pay (who cares what be the medium of payment) is that the payors do not want anything to interfere with their profits from fossil fuels. "Follow the money." Cui bono.
-
John Hartz at 07:08 AM on 4 February 2015Water is far more valuable and useful than oil
Recommended supplemental reading:
National Geographic takes a look at four arid regions looking to renewables for the energy-intensive work of squeezing drinkable water from the ocean in...
Can Sun and Wind Make More Salt Water Drinkable? by Marianne Lavelle,
National Geographic, Feb 2, 2015 -
knaugle at 04:43 AM on 4 February 2015Republicans have one option to eliminate EPA carbon regulations
Check out:
for a very similar story that goes beyond TEA party simple opposition to climate science, but shows opposition to mainstream science on nearly every hot button science issue.
Moderator Response:[JH] Link activated.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 04:22 AM on 4 February 2015Climate researcher Bart Strengers wins wager with climate sceptic Hans Labohm
Tony, I don't totally agree. Once again, the statement only pertains to the probability of either very high or very low sensitivity. Technically, what you say is true: Because that probability is greater for very high, there is indeed greater chance that the real sensitivity could end up very high than very low. However, I think that calling that "underestimate" is a little misleading. It would be more accurate to say that, if senstivity is much more than predicted, it is more likely to be higher than predicted instead of lower. A little long and convoluted but more in line with the original statement.
-
CBDunkerson at 02:07 AM on 4 February 2015Water is far more valuable and useful than oil
The article suggests that we will need to improve our 'water use efficiency' in the future. That is obviously the preferred course and would be very beneficial even ignoring climate change. However, I suspect we may go another route entirely... desalination. There is a ridiculous over-abundance of water on this planet, even considering our wasteful means of using it. The problem is just that most of it is 'salt water' in the oceans rather than the 'fresh' water we use for most applications. There has been a lot of research into more and more 'efficient' ways to desalinate ocean water. Logistically, it may be 'easier' (read, 'less expensive') to continue using water in all the wasteful ways we do currently and use desalination to make sure that enough is available than it would be to find and implement efficiency improvements separately for each of the thousands of ways we currently use water.
Clearly we are going to need to make changes for our water usage to remain 'sustainable' in the future, but increasing usage efficiency is not the only solution. Though it is the better one.
-
Tristan at 00:36 AM on 4 February 2015Global warming not slowing - it's speeding up
I know the Sks energy widget uses Hiroshima bombs, and has also used kitten sneezes(I think?), but one of the "skeptics" sarcastically suggested that it count the number of T-Rex bites, which is a pretty sweet idea.
-
TonyW at 16:51 PM on 3 February 2015Climate researcher Bart Strengers wins wager with climate sceptic Hans Labohm
Oops. I wish there was editing on these posts. Of course, the last piece of the last sentence of my last comment should read "with an average of 0.15 (1.5/10)".
Hits forehead with hand, and wishes he's prood-read the comment before posting. especially as "Combinine" should have been "Combining". Oh well.
-
TonyW at 16:46 PM on 3 February 2015Climate researcher Bart Strengers wins wager with climate sceptic Hans Labohm
Just to try another stab at what Phillippe wrote, in response to Paul W. I think another way of paraphrasing the first quote that Paul disgrees with is, "Regarding the estimate of climate sensitivity, it is less likely to be an overestimate of the real sensitivity than it is to be an underestimate of the real sensitivity". Or, to put it another way, "the real sensitivity is more likely to be higher than the estimate than to be lower than the estimate".
Wili, yes, that sounds counter intuitive but consider that the average temp increase over the last 5 years was 0.1C. That's the same as 0.1C of warming (above the 2000-2009 decadal average) every year of the first 5 years of this decade. I suppose the trend continuing would be a further 0.1C of warming, on average, over the next 5 years which would be the equivalent of having each of those years being 0.2C warmer than the average temp of the last decade. Combinine those hypothesised next 5 years, with the last five years (5*0.1 + 5*0.2 = 1.5) and you end up with an average of 0.5 (1.5/10).
-
Zeke Hausfather at 16:43 PM on 3 February 2015Cowtan and Way 2014: Hottest or not?
Kevin and Victor,
Robert Rohde published a white paper two years back doing something similar, sampling CMIP5 outputs at station locations and seeing how well different approaches do at reconstructing the correct field.
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/robert-rohde-memo.pdf
Moderator Response:[RH] Hotlinked URL.
-
ryland at 16:29 PM on 3 February 2015Cowtan and Way 2014: Hottest or not?
Kevin C thanks for your considered reply. I think your comment "Of course by creating a new version of the temperature record we have made things worse by increasing the scope for disagreement." does you a disservice. Not at all. As you say in the next sentence "I hope it will be offset in the long term by the biases being addressed. And projects like ISTI and UKMO's EUSTACE are doing exactly that." Exactly.
-
Tom Harris at 15:26 PM on 3 February 2015Tom Harris' Carleton University Climate Misinformation Class
Most of the attacks against the course were not worthy of anything more than laughter. The video has a fair number of hits (2410). Will you help it "become widely known?" Hope so.
Here is is agin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zeb5XWjSKlA
Moderator Response:[PS] Then perhaps you would care to supply some actual substance with references as to why you think the attacks were laughable. This site is to discuss science. Participation depends on adherence to the comments policy.
-
citizenschallenge at 15:06 PM on 3 February 2015New research reveals extreme oxygen loss in oceans during past climate change
Good article. It reminded me of very interesting video on YouTube posted Apr 7, 2013 "Crude - The Incredible Journey Of Oil." At about an hour into the 90 minute program it discusses past periods of low oxygen ocean, high atomospheric CO2 and how that ties into oil formation. Quite an interesting show. Quite an amazing planet we are part of:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e44ydPIQGSc&t=59m00s
How sad that so few appreciate it and want to learn about it. :- (
-
Tom Curtis at 13:54 PM on 3 February 2015Tom Harris' Carleton University Climate Misinformation Class
Tom Harris, your "case closed" video again fails completely to show any case of mistaken argument by your accusers. Rather, you resort yet again to the ad hominen argument that because your accusers are biologists, ergo they must be wrong. This in a news report that talks of "the gospel of global warming", which repeatedly shows banners of "Green & Mean", "Enviro-fanatic crusade", and "Greenie Smear Job". You are not responsible for the actions of the news program. However, that you draw attention to the video rather than apologize for involvement in a program which is clearly a tawdry smear job, rife with misrepresentations and logical errors is damning to your case. That your involvement consists merely in attempts to laugh of the accusations, and to damn by argumentum ad hominen suggests that (as above) you have nothing substantial to say in your defense.
Perhaps it is case closed afterall, for it is hard to see either your case or your reputation recovering should that video become widely known.
-
Tom Harris at 13:18 PM on 3 February 2015Tom Harris' Carleton University Climate Misinformation Class
I think the best way to understand how ridiculous and dishonest the attack on my Carleton course above is is to watch my TV interview on the topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zeb5XWjSKlA
Case closed.
-
Kevin C at 10:19 AM on 3 February 2015Cowtan and Way 2014: Hottest or not?
Victor: Emma Dodd's paper does exactly that: Start from a reanalysis and create a list of pseudo-stations using the coordinates of the desired stations. Create a synthetic temperature record for each pseudo-station from the reanalysis data at that coordinate. Then do a temperature reconstruction from the pseudo-stations, and compare with the known global temperature field.
We do something similar (following Hadley) to get our uncertainties - the difference being that it is grid based rather than station based. It would be easy to answer the question 'how would the results improve if we had a station in this cell'? That's one possible approach to investigating the difference with Berkeley in Antarctica.
-
VictorVenema at 10:06 AM on 3 February 2015Cowtan and Way 2014: Hottest or not?
Would it be possible to study with this dataset how much more accurate estimates of the global mean temperature would become with N additional stations in the Arctic, Antarctic and Africa? It would be nice to be able to put a price tag on better estimates that way.
-
Kevin C at 09:59 AM on 3 February 2015Cowtan and Way 2014: Hottest or not?
Ryland: Exactly. The public discourse is focussed on meaningless metrics which they demand scientists produce and discuss as if they are meaningful. Which puts scientists in an impossible position. Either we talk about what society wants us to talk about, which is a betrayal of the science, or we talk about the science, in which case the public draw the wrong conclusion based on the metric they are wrongly fixated on, i.e. we betray the public.
The major motivation behind our work was the fact that a big chunk; likely the majority of the difference between the major records is probably bias (which can be fixed) rather than uncertainty (which can't). And the differences are being used to promote confusion, like this:
- If 2005 wasn't hotter than 1998 in every version of the record, it wasn't the hottest year.
- If 2010 wasn't hotter than 2005 in every version of the record, it wasn't the hottest year.
- If 2014 wasn't hotter than 2010 in every version of the record, it wasn't the hottest year.
- If none of 2005, 2010 and 2014 were the hottest year, then it hasn't warmed since 1998.
Now no rational person would make the argument in that form. But our cognitive biases enable us to make precisely this kind of argument to ourselves without thinking about it, and we do it all the time on all sorts of issues.
Of course by creating a new version of the temperature record we have made things worse by increasing the scope for disagreement. That was a known risk, but I hope it will be offset in the long term by the biases being addressed. And projects like ISTI and UKMO's EUSTACE are doing exactly that.
-
ryland at 09:26 AM on 3 February 2015Cowtan and Way 2014: Hottest or not?
In the January 17th post by Dana stating 2014 was the hottest year on record I commented that the UK Met Office said it wasn't possible to categorically make this assertion. This lead to some interesting discussions but it does seem from this study that stating 2014 is the hottest year ever may be premature. The comment by Kevin C "Whether 2014 was hottest or not doesn’t really change our understanding of the science, but the media coverage should make it very clear that it is important for social reasons" is somewhat disconcerting.
-
Kevin C at 08:25 AM on 3 February 2015Cowtan and Way 2014: Hottest or not?
JCH: ERA and MERRA show February as cold too, so I think it was genuine and global. Outlier months like that appear at other points in the record.
Micheal: Thanks!
-
JCH at 06:57 AM on 3 February 2015Cowtan and Way 2014: Hottest or not?
This is probably obvious to everybody but me, but February is the lowest month of 2014. The news in February was full of stories about the polar vortex. I was expecting Cowtan and Way to take a smaller February dip than it did. A bunch of arctic air, air that was up there in January, left the arctic and swept south, making Feruary very cold versus the rest of the year. What replaced that polar vortex arctic air, and how did it get so much colder than the arctic was in January?
-
michael sweet at 05:56 AM on 3 February 2015Cowtan and Way 2014: Hottest or not?
Kevin C.
Your posts are always easy to read and informative. They help the rest of us keep up to date on what is known about the temperature record. Thank you for posting again.
-
scaddenp at 05:36 AM on 3 February 2015Cowtan and Way 2014: Hottest or not?
This is about the surface temperature reconstructions and the reasons for the differences. RSS and UAH are measurements of tropospheric temperature. While surface and lower troposphere (lower 3000-4000m of atmosphere) have very similar trends, the satellite measurements react more extremely to ENSO (hotter in El Nino than surface record and colder in La Nina).
-
knaugle at 04:49 AM on 3 February 2015Cowtan and Way 2014: Hottest or not?
It would have been informative to include RSS in the table as well.
Or perhaps a disclaimer that this is not a "temperature provider"? -
One Planet Only Forever at 14:57 PM on 2 February 2015Water is far more valuable and useful than oil
Treesong2,
Though the article did not clearly explain the many ways that the economic activities related to the burning of oil are threatening water supplies, those activities are well understood to be threats to clean water supply.
Another point is that climate change projections have indicated that 'regional' access to clean water will be dramatically reduced by climate changes. These regional changes of access would require global open borders to ensure everyone can go wherever they need to get what they need. But even then there would be significant effort related to the relocations. And the relocations may need to be made many times as the regional climates go through stages of change.
Saying there will still be water somewhere on the planet fails as a defense of the damaging and unsustainable burning of oil.
The article's assertion, as I see it, that 'the unsustainable attempts to benefit from burning non-renewable buried hydrocarbons are less valuable than the human need for clean water in the regions humans live' still seems to stand in spite of your suggestions so far.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 10:15 AM on 2 February 2015Climate researcher Bart Strengers wins wager with climate sceptic Hans Labohm
Paul W, the text you quoted does not support the statement that you prefer. One way to paraphrase that text would be to say: the probability that sensitivity will be very low is extremely small whereas that of being very high is very small; both "very" and "extremely" are clearly quantified.
This is quite a different statement than saying that there is higher probablility for the range of sensitivity currently considered most likely to be either higher or lower than real. In fact, it is different enough that nothing from the text you quote can translate into such a statement. That would be a different problem entirely. It just says that the chances of sensitivity to be very low is less than to be very high. Nothing else can honestly be extracted from these words.
-
Paul W at 09:44 AM on 2 February 2015Climate researcher Bart Strengers wins wager with climate sceptic Hans Labohm
I agree with the article but I think the heading
"The chances of overestimating climate sensitivity are smaller than those of underestimation"
should read
The chances of underestimating climate sensitivity are smaller than those of overestimation.
The body of the text gets it right with"It subsequently states that it is extremely unlikely (less than 5% probability) to be smaller than 1, and very unlikely (less than 10% probability) to be higher than 6. In other words, very low values are less likely than very high values, which substantiates the above statement."
Personally I wish the worlds governments were habitually over estimating the climate sensitivity like every good "conservative" should be doing!
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:44 AM on 2 February 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #5C
Unfortunately the reluctance to accept the importance of significant action towards the changes of the way the most fortunate enjoy their life is very popular and powerful among those who are the problem.
The successful denial that their overconsuming enjoyment and pursuits are a problem is the real problem. The popularity of that attitude fuels the profitability of activity that is clearly understood to be unaccepable.
Through the past 25 years, the combined power of the profitability and popularity of a lack of concern for the future has created the horrible present day situation. As mentioned, there now is little chance of avoiding significant future consequences. And there is significant resistance among the real trouble makers to any action that would be a 'sacrifice to their potential to personally benefit more just for the potential benefit of others, no matter how minor their sacrifice is compared to the magnitude of trouble others would face if the sacrifice was not made'.
The ability of people to personally succeed through activity that clearly has no long term future, and actually adds to the future challenges to be overcome by others, distracts effort from the important essential tasks that need to be focused on.
It is clear that the socio-economic-political system has never been very good at developing toward a sustainable better futre for all. It actually has no interest in that type of development. It even motivates people to try to get as much wealth and power no matter how unacceptable their means are, because there is ample evidence that unacceptable activity can be gotten away with.
That is the barrier to the amount and type of research and development that is required.
-
DSL at 08:43 AM on 2 February 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #5B
Moderator, I was hoping to drag it back to climate science. JWRebel seems anxious not to connect what he's trying to get out with climate science.
Out with it, JW! You're not saying anything! You claimed I didn't understand what you were saying, and then you explained exactly what I said, but failed to apply it to the issue at hand (climate). Insinuation is fine if no one wants to go anywhere. We can insinuate all day.
Moderator Response:[PS] Unless someone has something of serious substance to contribute, I would say drop it.
-
MA Rodger at 06:01 AM on 2 February 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #5B
JWRebel @1&3&5.
Give us a break.
First. Nobody here is saying AGW is a philosophical "fact". And 'in fact' it is not even being presented here as some form of scientific fact. Rather it is to be taught "as a fact" and is also being described by the National Academies of Science as "settled facts", the latter because the science has presently run its course.
Second, "fact" is generally what people accept to be true. @1, you strongly suggest that you accept AGW as true, as 'being fact.' So why all the philosophy? You don't even present your philosophy convincingly!
Thirdly, it is always better to use Pythagoras's Theorem not Euclid's for such an example. Not only can Pythagoras be proven mathematically, importantly, it can be proven very simply on the back of an envelope. So, bar space not being flat, Pythagoras's Theorem is evidently more than mere "theory" . And for good measure, its discovery has zip to do with Pythagoras.
Fourthly, that some mathematical construct is provable but is still call a theorem has zip to do with what you are trying to argue.
Moderator Response:[PS] Please note "no dogpiling" from the comments policy. I think this discussion is in danger of descending into semantics and philosophy with little to do with climate science. Please desist.
-
Treesong2 at 05:52 AM on 2 February 2015Water is far more valuable and useful than oil
OPOF, I agree with denisaf. Water is a renewable resource, though usable supplies can be reduced by contamination. If I flush my toilet thirty times a day, that will not reduce the amount of water available here by Lake Erie twenty or a hundred years from now, except possibly as a result of climate change because of extra energy used to pump the water up to provide water pressure.
Water shortages are local problems, due to climate, overpopulation, or contamination. Saving water in one place does not help shortages elsewhere, except maybe downstream. The real problem with wasting water is the concomitant waste of energy, and I don't think the article makes that connection clear enough.
-
Daniel Bailey at 05:42 AM on 2 February 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #5B
JWRebel smears the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory.
Occasionally, scientific ideas (such as biological evolution) are written off with the putdown "it's just a theory." This slur is misleading and conflates two separate meanings of the word theory: in common usage, the word theory means just a hunch, but in science, a theory is a powerful explanation for a broad set of observations. To be accepted by the scientific community, a theory (in the scientific sense of the word) must be strongly supported by many different lines of evidence. So biological evolution is a theory (it is a well-supported, widely accepted, and powerful explanation for the diversity of life on Earth), but it is not "just" a theory.
Words with both technical and everyday meanings often cause confusion. Even scientists sometimes use the word theory when they really mean hypothesis or even just a hunch. Many technical fields have similar vocabulary problems — for example, both the terms work in physics and ego in psychology have specific meanings in their technical fields that differ from their common uses. However, context and a little background knowledge are usually sufficient to figure out which meaning is intended.
Below is a generalized sequence of steps taken to establish a scientific theory:
1. Choose and define the natural phenomenon that you want to figure out and explain.
2. Collect information (data) about this phenomena by going where the phenomena occur and making observations. Or, try to replicate this phenomena by means of a test (experiment) under controlled conditions (usually in a laboratory) that eliminates interference's from environmental conditions.
3. After collecting a lot of data, look for patterns in the data. Attempt to explain these patterns by making a provisional explanation, called a hypothesis.
4. Test the hypothesis by collecting more data to see if the hypothesis continues to show the assumed pattern. If the data does not support the hypothesis, it must be changed, or rejected in favor of a better one. In collecting data, one must NOT ignore data that contradicts the hypothesis in favor of only supportive data. (That is called "cherry-picking" and is commonly used by pseudo-scientists attempting to scam people unfamiliar with the scientific method. A good example of this fraud is shown by the so-called "creationists," who start out with a pre-conceived conclusion - a geologically young, 6,000 year old earth, and then cherry-pick only evidence that supports their views, while ignoring or rejecting overwhelming evidence of a much older earth.)
5. If a refined hypothesis survives all attacks on it and is the best existing explanation for a particular phenomenon, it is then elevated to the status of a theory.
6. A theory is subject to modification and even rejection if there is overwhelming evidence that disproves it and/or supports another, better theory. Therefore, a theory is not an eternal or perpetual truth.For a good discussion of science terminology (especially for the "Evidence, not Proof" bit), see here.
-
JWRebel at 04:45 AM on 2 February 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #5B
You are right DSL — you are not sure what my point is: it has nothing to do with certainty. Surely you don't think that I have doubt's about Euclid's theorem. Still we do not call it a fact. Because, as I stated already, theories are a different kind of thing: they require thought (about cause and effect).
Let me give you two facts: Eddy was hit by the bus. Eddy died shortly thereafter. A convincing theory would be that the bus killed Eddy. But it is not a fact that the bus killed Eddy. Maybe he threw himself in front of the bus and killed himself. Maybe the bus driver hit him on purpose and it was the bus driver that killed him. Maybe he survived the bus accident but was hit by lightning right after. Note that the theory could be a convincing explanation even if I told you that I made up the facts.
And that is why AGW is a theory. If you knew everything about temperatures and CO2 and CH4 in the air, but nothing about burning fossil fuels, you could even have more or better facts than we do have, but you would not have a theory. Theories can be tested, but facts can at most be verified.
Moderator Response:[JH] You have made your point more than once. Please note that excessive reptition is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:06 AM on 2 February 2015Water is far more valuable and useful than oil
denisaf,
Oil is not being carefully and exclusively used to advance to a sustainable better future for all. And the 'frivolous' pursuit of benefit from oil threatens water quality and the reliability of water supply. That is the crux of the issue. So your comparison in the context of this article is not really relevant.
-
jenna at 01:09 AM on 2 February 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #5C
Really enjoyed Dave Robert's article, and also Revkin's support of Dave's views on this. I was sad to see Joe Romm attacking their pragmatic approach :( We need some serious planning to actually move forward on this issue, as opposed to Romm's 'Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead' attitude. We also need to present a unified front on Climate issues in general, this kind of infighting is well noted (and laughed at) by the 'opposition', if you get my meaning.
Jen.
Moderator Response:[JH] Thank you for the positive feedback.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 17:22 PM on 1 February 2015The Most Terrifying Papers I Read Last Year
Chris G
From the paper "in substantial areas of the global breadbaskets, >60% of the yield variability can be explained by climate variability". Yikes!!!
jja
"The food insecurity issue is not as significant as the related political unrest...."
Not yet, Perhaps say it is currently a 'fear of food insecurity' issue at present. But a few decades from now actual food insecurity may come to dominate. Then all bets are off, the world starts to go ape!
-
denisaf at 13:04 PM on 1 February 2015Water is far more valuable and useful than oil
Water recycles naturally, oil does not. Water is very valuable and will remain very valuable in the difficult times ahead. Oil temporarily plays a major role in the operation of technological systems. The artcle is comparing apples to oranges so spoils the valuable message on water.
-
DSL at 11:51 AM on 1 February 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #5B
I'm not sure what your point is, JWRebel. Is it simply that you object to the theory being called a fact? Or is it that you don't think that the theory has been amply demonstrated in, for example, direct surface-based measurements of the greenhouse effect, e.g. Puckrin et al. 2004 — amply demonstrated to the extent that A) no one--even a very large percentage of "skeptics"--thinks more evidence is required, and B) a number of successful products rely on the existence of the effect to operate correctly?
If the first, yah, ok. Absolute language. Probably a bad idea where science is concerned. Even what you describe as "facts" aren't really absolutely and universally known. The general public (that part that doesn't really get science), of course, wants absolute certainty. So how should the science be communicated? With uncertainty--ala the IPCC--or representative of the level of certainty that has become actionable in the minds of those who do understand the science (in other words, "we're certain enough that we demand action"?
-
JWRebel at 10:07 AM on 1 February 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #5B
You're kind of missing my point: Euclid's theorem is not less true or certain because it is called a theorem. It is a different kind of a thing than a fact. Climate change is not a theory because of some degree of uncertainty, but because you cannot discover anthropogenic global warming somewhere except in a book or human discourse. A single fact is rarely very remarkable outside the context of a theory that it supports or falsifies. A theory is a whole more than a fact. A theory can even be very convincing despite uncertainties about many of the facts involved, as if often true of court cases. Scientific theories are often about relationships of cause and effect. Sometimes it can take a long time and a lot of ingenuity before you discover cause and effect, even if all the facts are already present at hand. You cannot state: here we have a weight, there we have a number of sightings, here are some temperatures, there some distances, oh, and then we tripped over a bunch of causes while crossing the gully.
-
Daniel Bailey at 08:14 AM on 1 February 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #5B
Anthropogenic climate change (ACC)/anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a robust theory, referred to as "settled fact" by scientists.
Per the National Academies of Science, science advisors to Congress and the Office of the Presidency since Lincoln, in their 2010 publication Advancing The Science Of Climate Change (p. 22):
"Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small.
Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts.
This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities."
And note that the above National Academies paper is available for free download after a free registration. No purchase necessary. And the quote is from page 22.
-
JWRebel at 05:23 AM on 1 February 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #5B
New science standards require students be taught climate change as a scientific fact.
Climate change is not a fact but a theory. Facts pertain to measurements of temperature or green house gas fractions, etc. Climate change cannot be discovered as a fact in nature, but is an explanation of many facts and ties them together. Facts without explanation and theory are pretty random and boring. It's not that I'm unconvinced. I fully expect climate change to be humankind's major challenge in a future which is likely to be nearer than most think. It's a matter of terminology. You have data, facts, hypotheses, theories, and laws. Data itself means nothing (thermometer readings), they have to be combined with context and some interpretation (was it night or day? what kind of thermometer?) before they emerge as facts. Hypotheses construct a possible working explanation (a "story") about causes and effects that tie facts together. Theories are hypotheses that have passed a lot of tests and discussion and have proved convincing. Even in mathematics we talk about Euclid's theorem, not because it is not true (theorems have to be proven), but we still do not refer to it as a fact. Theories are about relationships, and even if they are true, positing and formulating relationships require thought and cannot be discovered solely from experience or observation.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:15 AM on 1 February 2015Water is far more valuable and useful than oil
In addition to regional shortages of water, contamination of water is also happening on a massive scale, including contamination by plastic waste.
Burning buried hydrocarbons, or turning them or anything else into plastics, are clearly not sustainable activities, except in the minds of people whowant to claim that prolonging the ability to benefit from those actions is 'sustaining something' and can therefore be called sustainable action.
Many fossil fuel industry related companies have created departments for 'Sustainability'. And those groups promote all the ways they 'improve their activity' without ever admitting it ultimately cannot be sustained.
-
Jim Eager at 01:03 AM on 1 February 2015Water is far more valuable and useful than oil
They found it out in Akkad, Angkor, and Canyon de Chelly quite a while ago.
-
wili at 14:09 PM on 31 January 2015Water is far more valuable and useful than oil
"Water is far more valuable and useful than oil "
They're fiding that out in Sao Paulo now.
-
jja at 04:41 AM on 31 January 2015The Most Terrifying Papers I Read Last Year
Chris G @7
when you say, "I suspect food (in)security will hit us harder, faster than sea level rise."
realize that the syrian destabilization and much of the political unrest in the region was catapaulted by an historic regional drought that drove rural populations into the cities looking for work and caused an explosion in the price of grain.
The food insecurity issue is not as significant as the related political unrest, economic destabilzation and societal dissolution caused by (associated) regional conflict. This "threat multiplier" of climate change is why the U.S. military considers global warming to be the greatest existential threat to the U.S. today. -
billthefrog at 22:42 PM on 30 January 2015Climate researcher Bart Strengers wins wager with climate sceptic Hans Labohm
jja #18 & 19 (& Michael #13)
Thanks for the IOP reference in #18 - it makes interesting reading and was certainly more concrete than the earlier paper I looked at.
I did, however, notice some weasel words in there. For example, at the bottom of the second page...
For instance, in China installation and increased operation of flue gas desulfurization (FGD) for existing and new plants (Xu 2011, Zhang et al 2012) has caused a reduction of emissions compared with previous expectations
The last 4 words in that sentence open a real can of worms. Also, the text box accompanying Fig 2 of the paper does refer to estimates, rather than empirically derived values. (I could be splitting hairs here, but reducing an estimate ain't necessarily the same as a real reduction.)
The authors also observe that the aforementioned FGD improvements only really apply to power generation, not to transport, domestic usage and non-power related industry, where they continue to spiral upwards. They also point out that, consequently, the relative contribution from power is rapidly declining viz-a-viz these other sources.
Worryingly, India does not appear to be following China's lead in trying to retrospectively clean up its act.
Finally, can I just point out that the paper in question was specifically addressing the issue of anthropogenic SO2: it was not looking at other aerosols, and it may be a step too far to assume that these are also on the wane. I don't think we can necessarily just write off the grey literature on this one.
However, I do hope you're right and I'm wrong. If aerosols concentrations are still on the rise worldwide, then this will serve to hold back the worst excesses of climate change - but for a limited period only. The shit will then really hit the fan when we see a sudden significant aerosol reduction at some indeterminate point in the future. All the while, the ostrich brigade will be taking us on an irreversible "burn, baby, burn" route.
On that cheerful note... Bill F
PS I totally agree with your assessment in #19
-
jja at 17:47 PM on 30 January 2015Climate researcher Bart Strengers wins wager with climate sceptic Hans Labohm
We are very soon approaching the "locked-in" 2C warming threshold.
-
skymccain at 17:42 PM on 30 January 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #5A
The Weekly News Roundup is perhaps the most informative and vital contribution to climate change public awareness. Thanks for all the work.
Moderator Response:[JH] Thank you for the positive feedback.
-
jja at 16:57 PM on 30 January 2015Climate researcher Bart Strengers wins wager with climate sceptic Hans Labohm
I believe that these are underestimates (the pre-2008 values were actually higher than reported)
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/014003/pdf/1748-9326_8_1_014003.pdf
The last decade of global anthropogenic sulfur dioxide: 2000–2011 emissions
Klimont et. al. (2013)
Prev 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 Next
