Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 Next
Comments 32301 to 32350:
-
Phil at 02:15 AM on 5 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
M.A. Rodger @32
I concur wholeheartedly. The societies that William describes will probably be currently supplied with electricity from a petrol or kerosene generator, supplied to local (town or village) distribution network which will be operational for a few hours each day. The fuel will probably be supplied by trucks slowly traversing potholed roads. There will be no transmission network or associated infrastructure (substations) thus rendering "baseload" irrelevant
In such a scenario, small scale solar and/or wind installations are a significant improvement in life quality, especially if coupled with battery usages (such as electric bicycles). The installation can grow incrementally without large up-front infrastructure costs.
There are interesting parallels with the telecommunications developments in the third world. Most, if not all, of Africa has mobile phone access (supplied by companies such as MTN), without having gone to the expense of building an extensive static copper/fibre infrastructure to support the now largely redundant land-lines.
-
Michael Whittemore at 01:54 AM on 5 January 2015A Relentless Rise in Global Sea Level
This is the image below
-
Michael Whittemore at 01:21 AM on 5 January 2015A Relentless Rise in Global Sea Level
@Rob P,
You linked me to the paper Balancing the sea level budget - Leuliette & Willis (2011) which I gave a quick read.
The paper explains “Using GRACE measurements alone, for regions near coasts, it is impossible to distinguish whether gravity variations are influenced by water changes on land or in the ocean.” I was thinking sea level rise could be slowing because the sea water is progressing inland. A example can be seen in the diagram below.
If you treat the coast as a barrier you could get sea level rise A but if you include sea water inundation of coastal areas you could get sea level rise B.
Another factor I dont think is discussed in the paper is if the amount of cold water from melting ice is reducing thermal expansion? -
MA Rodger at 01:13 AM on 5 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
William @26.
You will really have to try a lot harder if you wish to "look at the position of the developing world through unbiased eyes not through the prism of the privileged Westerner." If a society is as you describe @22 lacking "access to clean water, medical care, sufficient food, education and all of the other trappings of life we in the West, take not only for granted but as our God given right," the adjective "developing" would be a bit of a misnomer as 'development' has jet to begin. The best options for providing power within such societies are probably renewables which, once set up, do not depend on the arrival of the next coal truck from the coast. "Base load" or "transport options" are hardily applicable for the initial power needs of such communities.
And the relevance of such societies to discussion of AGW mitigation is low when compared with societies that are actually developing.
Even so, the total CO2 emissions of all societies beyond the 'privileged West', when the carbon footprint of goods manufactures for export are factored in, their emissions remain the smaller part of today's emissions. So to suggest that there is some reason for the west to re-evaluate its position in light of the situation facing the developing world (or some paret thereof) is at best exceedingly foolish. At worst, it is trollish.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 00:52 AM on 5 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
Incidentally, anyone throwing around ridiculous concepts such as "common sense science" should not be expected to be treated kindly on a site where a lot of moderators/contributors have a record of peer-reviewed publications...
-
PhilippeChantreau at 00:50 AM on 5 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
Fossil fuels are cheap only because the vast majority of their associated costs are hidden or "externalized." If these costs were factored in, FF would become more expensive than renewables. Beyond a certain point, hiding becomes impossible. We're running a huge credit card bill on our planet, the debt is cumulative and will not go away. We're in a race, in which Thermodynamics always win. We're just having the attitude that it's ok because it's a generational relay race and we'll have handed the stick over when the finish line is crossed, so someone else will have the sour feeling of no winning...
For what it's worth, my electricity is from hydro.
I've lived in countries of the kind mentioned by commenters above. By far their worst problems are human problems: corruption, cronyism, misallocation of resources, leaders who don't give a rat's about their people. The West caters to it so long as they benefit. It is no less physically possible to implement sustainable solutions in these countries, just more difficult because of the human factors of governance.
-
william11409 at 00:47 AM on 5 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
Manacan @28. Can't see where I used the term "common sense science" or even implied that I believe in it. I'd be grateful if you could point to the comments I made that lead you to the conclusion that I did. I am aware alternatives to fossil fuels are being used to some extent in the cement and aluminium industries but, with the exception of hydropower, these have not yet entirely replaced the use of fossil fuels nor seem likely to in the near future. I'm surprised you don't comment on the role of nuclear power.
-
mancan18 at 22:37 PM on 4 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
Gac73 and william
There is no such thing as common sense science. Common sense is not science. Science is observation, hypothesis, collecting and tabulating data, verifying, peer review and then other scientists accepting the hypothesis so that it becomes a part of mainstream scientific theory. What you call common sense science is either basic science or not science at all.
The basic science of climate change is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases due to the burning of fossil fuels are increasing to levels not seen for millions of years. This increase in CO2 is and will heat the planet, and this heating is and will cause a climate shift. Despite all their rhetoric, the denier hypothesis, in simple terms, is that increasing greenhouse gases won't warm the planet. Unfortunately, deniers don't ever seem to be required to prove their hypothesis with peer reviewed research.
So far we have seen arguments that deny warming, nothing strange is happening, or it's all just natural. None of this rhetoric stands up to significant peer reviewed scientific scrutiny. Now the latest argument from the climate doubting community seems to be that increasing the CO2 level and changing the chemistry of the earth's atmosphere doesn't matter, even though it is a greenhouse gas and will heat the planet. They cite times in the planet's history when CO2 levels were high, like around the Cambrian, when trilobites were the dominant species, or during the Cretaceous when, for a time, dinosaurs roamed Antarctica. Mind you the configuration of the continents was different and the Sun's radiation was significantly less than it is today. But that doesn't seem to matter to a denier despite the reality that at no time in human existence have CO2 levels been as high as they are today. Also, at no time in the Earth's history has the CO2 levels changed as quickly as they are today. While the worst case IPCC scenario would cause some fairly extreme changes in climate, which will seriously impact significant parts of the planet, there has never been the suggestion it would cause a runaway greenhouse like there is on Venus. It may, however, severely impact ecosystems that are important for sustaining humanity at its current standard of civilisation.
As for the "coal is good for humanity" argument that Australia's PM Tony Abbott seems so fond of, it too doesn't stack up as a long term solution to alleviate poverty in the Third World. A simple calculation based on known fossil fuel reserves world wide and consumption rates used by high emitting nations like Australia and the US, indicates that fossil fuels are not a viable long term energy solution to their problems. If they consume fossil fuels at the per capita rates that the high emitter nations do, then there would only be about 50 years of fossil fuel energy left. Also, this would put the CO2 levels to well over 1000 ppm with all the global warming consequences that that would incur. The only long term solution are renewables. Unfortunately, no-one seems to know what an economy will look like in a mainly solar powered, wind turbine world. This is because solar panels and small wind turbines, which have a lifetime of decades, on the roof of every self-sustaining energy household does not easily fit the current corporate mine/power company/consumer model for supplying energy.
-
michael sweet at 22:24 PM on 4 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
Rob and William,
Why worry about Bangladesh when there are so many problems in the USA (or Australia if you live there). Miami is designing new sewers to attempt to keep high tide out of the city center. This will work as long as it never rains during high tide. Beach nurishment costs hundreds of millions of dollars each year in the USA. Much of that work is required because of sea level rise. As sea level rise increases it will become impossible to protect the beaches. The only question is how long before low lying areas are no longer defensible. Already inland states complain that they do not want to subsidize insurance rates anymore. If insurance goes to market rates the Florida real estate market will plummet.
China would not have agreed to build out renewables if they were not suffering through choking smog. Reports of children with lung cancer from the smog are common. Reports of Companies installing solar power in India because fossil energy is unreliable are also common. For homes in many developing countries solar is the only choice, no grid exists. You are claiming that they will be better off building two systems. First a fossil grid and then a renewable grid. Why pay twice for the same service? They will save money by building the renewable grid first.
Texas would not be the state with the most wind energy installed in the USA if wind was not the cheapest way to generate energy. The argument about baseload is a red herring. Actual economic studies show that renewables can provide baseload power. Currently utilities subsidize night time rates because they have excess baseload they cannot use.
William, your argument amounts to claiming that people are too stupid to be able to build out renewables. What do you expect civilizations in the future to do after all the fossil fuel has been burned?? Perhaps they will be smarter than we are. That time is not so far in the future. China and India already have difficulty sourcing their coal. Should we wait for all the carbon to be gone before we implement the replacement?
-
william11409 at 21:44 PM on 4 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
No, Rob Painting, I wasn't "just trolling". Why would you make such a comment? Do people from the developing world post here? It is true that Renewables are becoming cheaper than fossil fuels but are you suggesting that developing countries should rely on renewables as the sole source of their energy supply? Surely not, for, as yet, renewables do not supply the constant baseload power required to develop an economy. And do renewables provide the cheap transport options that oil does?
I was trying to look at the position of the developing world through unbiased eyes not through the prism of the privileged Westerner. Perhaps it is that you refer to as trolling. And on that, my thanks to gac73@ 24 for the comment "I highly doubt that William is a troll for merely expressing his point of view". It is refeshing.
-
Rob Painting at 20:15 PM on 4 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
Fossil fuels fail on cost. They are prohibitively expensive compared to renewable forms of energy even if one excludes all the many lives lost each year to particulate pollution, and the medical cost of treating those that survive, because fossil fuels are warming the atmosphere and oceans and are causing seawater to become corrosive. Furthermore, rising sea level will drown many of the poor island states and nations such as Bangladesh. These are costs that must be borne at some stage, and pretending that they don't exist isn't a particulatrly convincing argument.
-
gac73 at 19:49 PM on 4 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
@Rob re William
Fossil fuel is abundant and cheap. It is affordable for third world countries that must lift the living standards of empoverished communities.
Renewables are at this point unreliable, expensive and costly to maintain on a scale required to provide energy to hundreds of millions of people.
Fossil fuels are supporting the exponential economic growth in China and has lifted millions out of abject poverty.
Until renewable energy can be obtained as cheaply or at lower cost, fossil fuels will be the playform that continues to lift hundreds of millions out of poverty.
I highly doubt that William is a troll for merely expressing his point of view.
-
Rob Painting at 19:22 PM on 4 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
Why would such energy need to be in the form of fossil fuels? Or are you just trolling?
-
william11409 at 17:55 PM on 4 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
Unfortunately those who are most affected both by climate change and who are most affected by the lack of the cheap and reliable power that fossil fuels supply, are not represented at this web site. Comments made here are exclusively from those with comfortable lives, probably (but by no means definitely) economically relatively untroubled and who owe their comfortablr lives to the cheap and reliable power that their society has enjoyed from the burning fossil fuels. The discussions above on socio-economic problems and differences are laughable in the context of the terrible problems faced by so very many in the world who lack access to clean water, medical care, sufficient food, education and all of the other trappings of life we in the West, take not only for granted but as our God given right. These people live in low emissions societies but would welcome without any question the advantages they could get from the cheap, reliable energy provided by burning fossil fuel. I would be very, very interested in posts from those in these societies.
-
Trevor_S at 12:50 PM on 4 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
I approached this a little differently some 5 years ago and thought well, I need to live this life if I expect others to. No one pays attention to obesity advice off an obesie physician, for example. So we did. We moved to a milder climate (adaption will ensure migration is necessary), we reducued our emissons by living off the grid, reduced our emissions by not flying for holidays, not driving, not owning a meat eating pet, cutting back on meat comsumption and growing lots of our own produce. I gave up my job, enforced penury does marvels for comsumption reduction. At first I thought look at all I am giving up and that's exacty why people don't want to move to a low carbon life. It's taken me years to realise everything I have gained.
What I do know now after living an ultra low emissions lifestyle, is that the people understand and accept the science are the problem, they refuse to mitigate, blaming others (politicans, business etc) for their own profligate emissions.
We have not yet begun to counternace the changes we need to make, Ted Trainer aside, and it's already to late. Until people actually start living a low emssions lifestyle, engaging with freinds and peers about why and voting only for politicans who are serious about climate change, we will never get anywhere in regards emissions reduction, just more yak yak.
-
denisaf at 11:48 AM on 4 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
Unfortunately this is an anthropcentric discussion that is misleading about what sound decisions can now be made by people. the reality is that technolgical systems do the work, positive and negative. The objective to 'avoid or minimize destruction of ecosystems' does not take into account the fact that industrialized civilization is irrevocably destorying ecosystems at a high rate. Irreversible climate change is already under way. The best we can do is make smart decisions about the use of technolgical systems to mitigate or adapt to what is happening. But, for example, closing down coal-fired power stations will not be a popular decision. The discussion about 'climate sensitivity' presumes people can make sound decisions even when they do not understand the stark reality. The discussion of 'survival of the human species' does not take into account the irreversible aging of the vast infrastructure that provides the goods and services that society has become so dependent on. What will people decide to do when, for example, the grid can no longer supply electricity and fuel for cars, airliners and ships runs out?
-
gac73 at 11:43 AM on 4 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
@Moderator
I respectfully accept the warning regarding the struck out statement above.
But it doesn't change the fact that there are those who seek to exploit current circumstances on both sides of the arguement.
Perhaps I should have chosen my words with a little more precision.
The point I made above is actually neutral, neither for or against the science of anthroprogenic catastrophic warming. The point that I am making is that the case has not been made in a manner which the majority are willing to accept. The majority are and always will be creatures of common sense appeal. Counter intuitive evidence is not something that the majority accept easily. So when there exists a common sense perspective, that is intuitive, it appeals to the majority i.e The Cambrian Explosion and c02ppm 5 to 22 x higher than today.
I am very interested in the science, which is why I am here on this site. But I'm not here to discuss politics or economics, despite my intense interest in both of those areas as well.
Moderator Response:[Rob P] - so, in other words, you admit that you have no idea what the carbonate saturation state (corrosiveness) of the oceans were back then. One thing is for sure, it cannot be calculated with only one known parameter of the ocean carbonate system. See Zeebe (2012).
-
Tom Curtis at 11:04 AM on 4 January 2015Don Easterbrook's Heartland Distortion of Reality
Interesting to note that Easterbrook was still using the graph shown at Fig 5 to present his predictions as recently as Jan 21st last year (2014) (WUWT link). One feature of that graph not discussed above is the supposed "observational data". Looking at it today, I was wondering what temperature data set was usd for the graph, as it does not look like any I know (and I am very familiar with most). It turns out that Bob Tisdale has the answer:
(WUWT)
Easterbrook merely appended the UAH temperature record to very early 2009 from the peak of the 2008 El Nino. As satellite temperature records show much larger fluctuations due to ENSO events, that has the effect in his graph of shifting the post 2000 temperatures below those of the 1990s. By also appending the "IPCC predictions" at the same peak he at the same time off set the IPCC predictions upwards. That is because individual model runs will show El Nino events, but will not show them in the same years.
He also got a lower "predicted" temperature by appending them to the bottom of the 2008 La Nina fluctuation. That represents a triple offset to exagerate the predicted cooling as it incorporates the offset introduced by using UAH data instead of the simply using the NCDC data over the whole period, adds an additional offset by using the bottom of a La Nina event as a start year, and exagerates that La Nina event by using a satellite temperature record to show it while using instrumental record data for the predictions.
Easterbrook has not, to my knowledge, either confirmed or denied Tisdale's conclusion as to how he constructed his graph. The evidence that Tisdale correctly determined the method is, however, fairly undeniable as can easilly be seen at Woof for Trees (using HadCRUT3 non-adjusted in lieu of NCDC).
Each of these acts must be considered mendacious in anybody trained in the sciences (as Easterbrook is). Bob Tisdale to his credit indicates as much.
Finally, I dislike linking to WUWT or to Tisdale as both are woefully wrong as a general rule. As when I investigated the issue, I found he had uncovered the deception, I am compelled to give him due credit. That should in no way be taken as an endorsement of any of his other views.
-
LaramieHirsch at 10:11 AM on 4 January 2015Don Easterbrook's Heartland Distortion of Reality
Also, the video you are referring to has been taken down. Do you know if there is any other videos of the same lecture put up on youtube?
If Easterbrook is wrong in this, I would like to know to what extent.
-
LaramieHirsch at 09:48 AM on 4 January 2015Don Easterbrook's Heartland Distortion of Reality
Hello. I am taking a careful, close, and critical look at Dr. Don Easterbrook.
I really wish that, in this article/post, you would have first posted his global temperature graphic presented during the 2010 Heartland conference. Putting his claim at the top of the article would have provided a better starting point, and it'd have been easier to follow your train of thought in this.
Instead, you first posted a conglomeration of different predictions in your own model, which made it more confusing.
Nevertheless, the information is still here, and so I'll have to sort of start with my observation of Easterbrook's chart in the middle of this post.
-
sailrick at 09:46 AM on 4 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
Jenna @12
Like you, I am a layman who has spent much time learning all I can about the science. And I have similar experiences talking to friends, co-workers about climate change. You said your skeptic friends were also well equipped to debate you. More likely is that they are well equiped with all sorts of misinformation that they are practiced at using in arguments. Someone who spends 5 years at sites like WTFUWW is very well confused and willingly so. "Skeptics" arguments often have just enough "truth" in them to make them plausable to a great many people.
-
sailrick at 09:27 AM on 4 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."Albert Einstein
-------
Thanks to Jim Eager, Tom Curtis and others. Now I know the rebuttal to yet another skeptic argument that I hadn't heard of before.
-
Cocoa Jackson at 08:19 AM on 4 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
Appreciate the comment and context Jen,
you wrote: '...this evolving into a 'socio/political' discussion...they don't care because they are suffering from media fatigue...I guess what I'm saying is that the reasons a large percentage of Americans don't care about Climate issues are many...'
For what it's worth I agree with all your experiences and have come across similar mindsets.
What is central to all arguments is the understandable media overload as you pointed out. This overload was the prime strategy employed to successfully counter the international scientific consensus that tobacco was harmful to human health; and they still do in emerging economies as you are aware.
A strategy where the vested tobacco interest; that is employed professional lobbyists, dedicated advertising agencies, business or political partners who all colluded to create dissention, distrust and doubt.
Naturally because of diversity of levels of education, experience, age, family history, politics region etc.etc. means the emotive triggers this professional group hit vary greatly. I call all that 'diversity and variability' simply a group or individual's 'life conditions'.
This same tobacco industry strategy as you will have realised is employed on denial of the warming and acidification of our ecosystems oceans.
Realistically unless you personally are involved as a working earth or climate scientist who specialises, publishes and carries the credibility these disciples have; countering the closed loops of denial science is generally fruitless. Circular reasoning chasing denial logic works like that. As the individual or group caught is affected by the ability to focus. They simply get confused by fallacious circular logic created by the attack on the consensus.When it is understood it's the international consensus that is the greatest threat to the carbon industries in this paradigm shift in energy production.
That is; simply making others appreciate that deferring to those who are experts as working earth and climate scientist is the clever decision.
The interesting benefit in the exploration of the logic of deferring to experts is generally it unearths the emotive trigger hit by those professionally attacking the international consensus. This information in turn gives leverage to build on in any future discussions around the actual science.
However this is where greatest issue in my experience dealing with the denial in North America is and what I have labeled 'team support' for the last five years. Where the individual or group falls into the simplistic Liberal or Conservative stance. This roughly speaking breaks into two further subcategories. Those who believe in creation or don't. As the last Gallup Poll in North America found only 21% of North Americans believe the bible is a fable.^ So the challenge of all the diversity in religious ideology comes attached.
Once it is established this denial is due to political and or religious ideology. Then it is a matter of getting the individual to understand what their position is.It must be said; the choice between ideology and science seems simple. But when others confuse science with ideology it gets very difficult.
As any skilled critical thinker will tell you it is crucial to be able to recognise personal biases, setting them aside and analysing any information.
No one will be forced into believing what we know are facts. It is only with all the interior questions answered or as the truism goes 'being honest with ourselves'. Without it, no amount of logic will convince anyone. So all we can sometimes do is establish an individual's biases firmly front and centre of their thinking.
Make them own their biases, rather than defer to their 'team' as their default position.
If change in thinking is possible it follows this awareness.
-
Daniel Bailey at 07:50 AM on 4 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
"I can never help to wonder if I am to be part of people when one mentions insulting people's intelligence"
...my usual inclination is to reply,
"then stop saying stupid things when the subject of climate change comes up"
Which is generally unproductive in terms of eliciting a positive dialogue.
-
ubrew12 at 07:35 AM on 4 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
jenna@12: perhaps, as this article suggests, you could 'turn' your skeptical friends by referring to risk. As in, 'what is the consequence of your being wrong versus the consequence of my being wrong?'.
-
Dean at 06:34 AM on 4 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
Regarding the "This isn’t about survival of the species, but survival of our civilisations" there was an Oxford expert survey on Global Catastrophic Risks. But perhaps somewhat suprisingly climate change was not in the top list of existential threats to humanity.
However, I think this survey missed that different problems interact with each other. Even if a couple of meters sea level rise is not an existential threat to humanity, the greatest risk with climate change may well be that it risks starting conflicts including use of nuclear and future molecular nanotech weapons. This could also very well be the main risk for humanity.
-
Bob Loblaw at 06:00 AM on 4 January 2015Another year and glaciers are another metre thinner
What michael sweet said @17: I should have said "Dr. Inferno", not "Dr. Doom" @9.
As for why Dr. Inferno hasn't posted anything recently? - perhaps it's just too hard to come up with new parody that can still be distinguished from the worst of the bat-crap crazy denier sites that take themselves seriously. Dr. Inferno definitely has a skill... Read through the comments over at DenialDepot - there are readers there that take a bit to realize it's parody.
-
jenna at 05:41 AM on 4 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
Since this evolving into a 'socio/political' discussion (to borrow gac's phrase) I'll offer my .02 cents, for whatever it's worth....
I am part a close group of 20 or so friends, age range late 20's to mid 30's. As you can imagine, we have many lively discussions on a wide range of topics that directly affect our lives (jobs, healthcare, family planning, etc). We are a very diverse group, and not particularly Conservative, and don't hold back with our opinions.
When we do talk about Climate issues (which is not very often) there is a distinct shift in the 'atmosphere' (pun intended). There are usually 3 sides involved, the side (most of my friends) just roll their eyes and lose interest, then there is me with my strong arguments for action to stop Climate Change and finally a very vocal 2 or 3 friends that oppose any such action for all the usuall reasons.
I say all this because I hope this will represent what I think is really happening in the Climate discussion these days. I don't think there are many that avoid the discussion because they don't want to deal with the consequences, they don't care because they are suffering from media fatigue on this issue and could care less. The few that do argue have been following things at least as long as I have, more that 5 years, and are well equipped to defend their point of view. These few make it very hard for me to gather support, the follow the growing list of exceptions to the main stream pov. That is why I read SKS, in hopes of countering their arguments, it doesn't always work though! :(
I guess what I'm saying is that the reasons a large percentage of Americans don't care about Climate issues are many; apathy, studied skepticism, laziness, whatever. Let's not paint them all with one big brush.
Jen
Moderator Response:[Rob P] - I suspect your friends are likely to be in a comfortable space. It's easy to reject reality when it is not yet impinging on your lifestyle. That comfort will not persist given our current trajectory of fossil fuel emissions. Their two main choices will be to either accept the gravity of our predicament, and do something to help turn the ship around, or retreat further into their fantasy world.
-
John Hartz at 05:20 AM on 4 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
Is "uncommon sense" the opposite of "common sense"?
-
John Hartz at 05:17 AM on 4 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
Philippe: Like beauty, "common sense" is in the eye of the beholder.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 03:06 AM on 4 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
I can never help to wonder if I am to be part of people when one mentions insulting people's intelligence. And then there is that newfangled "common sense science", a concept begging for definition if I ever saw one. Are there degrees in it? Like a scale following the sensibility of the common sense according to how many beers have been consumed before exercising it? I wonder...
Common sense would be to ask oneself the following question: what would happen to all the life currently existing if conditions were suddenly (say, no hurry, over 500 years) to become what they were during the Cambrian explosion? Interesting thought experiment that is. One could say that we really don't know what could happen, but that there was such a thing as the Cambrian explosion so it couldn't be all that bad, right? So we might as well party on, right?
Common sense, for sure...
-
Jim Eager at 02:58 AM on 4 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
Re gac73: The problem with citing "common sense science" is that it often doesn't really make sense of the real world.
Take gac's example of the Cambrian Explosion during CO2 levels of 2,000ppm to 8,000ppm. Notice that gac did not make any mention of how CO2 got that high, or the timescale involved, e.g. how long it took to reach that high a CO2 level during a period of Snowball Earth glaciation, and how long it took to fall to a lower level through the formation of cap-carbonate sediments during the Cambrian.
Time during which, as Tom Curtis pointed out, silicate rock weathering produced sufficient CaCO3 to both mitigate ocean acidification and to reduce atmospheric CO2; time during which marine life evolved to deal with a more, then less acidic ocean. Nor did he mention the fact that the sun was several percent dimmer in the Cambrian than it is today, which means it took a higher level of CO2 to produce the same increase in greenhouse warming than it does today.
It seems gac's "common sense science" doesn't take any of these factors into account, only the simple fact that CO2 was much higher during the Cambrian than it is today. And from that gac concludes that all was fine. Well, it was, but Earth was not quite the same planet that we live on today, was it? Nor was it inhabeted by the same species it is today.
So much for "common sense science," but then gac does lace his drive-by comment with the phrases "self interested politicians and gravy train riders" and "anthroprogenic catastrophic runaway greenhouse", even as he decries the socio/political nature of this post, so it's clear gac isn't really interested in the science anyway.
-
r.pauli at 02:42 AM on 4 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
Thank you SO much for this important prologue. This is key, and yes often overlooked.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:37 AM on 4 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
gac73@3,
The description of the purpose of this site makes it clear to me that it is about developing a better understanding of what is going on regarding climate science and is specifically striving to address the deliberate unjustified attempts to discredit climate science or fool people regarding what is understood regarding climate science.Regarding your comment about the certainty of climate science (and not specifically a reply to you but more an observation of beliefs that are 'out there'), shouldn't people who want to benefit from an activity be required to prove with certainty that there will be no harmful consequence to other life and that the entire human population could develop to enjoy that activity if they choose to rather than fighting to maintain the ability to benefit more than others can? And shouldn't the measure of improved ways of living be the ability for humanity to continue living that way into the distant future? And if an unsustainable and damaging activity is allowed to be done shouldn't it be cutrtailed as soon as possible with the vast majority of the benefit being the development of a sustainable better future for all with no one who already has their basic needs met benefiting from the activity? Why is there an expectation that more certainty is required regarding the unacceptability of the clearly unsustainable and clearly damaging burning of buried hydrocarbons? Again I am not referring to you personally. I am referring to what can clearly be seen to be going on around this amazing planet we all should share the joy of life on.
What is clear is that a few, far from the majority, put their self interest so high above the development of a better future for everyone that they have deliberately been playing a deceptive public relations gambit to delay the development of, and broader acceptance of, the better understanding of what is going on. Those people have a lot to lose if effective measures get put in place that would limit their ability to continue to unacceptably benefit.
The most powerful and wealthy who do that are unlikely to change their mind. It is quite certain that they know how unacceptable what they do is. And they also know how to temporarily tempt other people into sharing deliberately fabricated and completely unjustified beliefs regarding issues like climate science and the harm of burning dug up hydrocarbons (and the harm of tobacco and alcohol, and the dangers of overuse of chemicals to kill forms of life that are inconvenient for humans, and the unsustainability of making plastic things, and so much more profitable damaging activity that can be made temporarily popular in spite of the developing better understanding regarding their unacceptability).
Globally, it is appears that the majority actually want 'everyone' to have to behave better. And it is clear that the biggest trouble makers have the most to lose if they are effectively forced to behave better and care to share, hence their motivation to try to get away with unacceptable misleading marketing to prolong their ability to benefit from unacceptable behaviour. Winning one election in a nation any way they can get away with gives them 4 or 5 years of regionally unrestrained ability to try to do as much damage as possible (restarined only by things like public protests that effectively change public perception and civil disobendiance that effectively blocks what they try to get away with). Thankfully those types currently holding the reigns of power in Canada and Australia and having significant influence in the USA have not got the global power to keep meetings like Lima and Paris from happening. All they can do is try to make those meetings as unsuccessful as possible.
I believe it is possible for everyone to better understand what is going on. There really is not that much of a mystery behind the temporary successes of the people who currently mask who they really are by hiding behind the political Conservative banner around the world. Most of them carefully appeal for the temporary support of people who may be inclined to not want to accept climate science or any other developing better understanding that is contrary to their personal pursuit of what they want to get away with.
Success in climate science can be seen to be constantly developing the better understanding of what is going on even if that is challenged by the fact that it highlights the biggest trouble makers among us as the damaging people they actually are. Many of them do not care about reducing the global harm done by human activity or want the development of a sustainable better future for all because being wilfully uncaring was a competitive advantage that allowed them to become wealthier and more powerful. And that way of being is what they hope to continue getting away with. They simply need to be seen for the damaging uncaring people they are. And the type of people they actually are is being made clearer by the continued improved understanding of climate science and so many other issues that are contrary to their interests.
-
Dcrickett at 01:47 AM on 4 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
I suspect many people reject «the science» (maybe I should refer to it as «emerging awareness of reality») when they feel uncomfortable, for whatever reason, with its consequences. An example: in the 1950’s, when I was a teenager, on several occasions I heard adult White people say words to the effect of “If I am no better than [derogatory work for Black people], then who am I better than? My dog?” I do not refer only to unintelligent, uneducated, or bad people. Many years later most of these same people were far less uncomfortable (if not altogether comfortable) with folks of a swarthier persuasion.
Some attitudes changed due to reason, or to religious awakening, or to experience. In all cases it involved coming to comprehend that manifestly different folks offered no real threat.
It is interesting to note that many anti-climate demagogues couch their propaganda in terms of climate scientists and others intending to change society into what they hold to be unappealing forms. They advise paying attention to pronouncements that they say provide no discomfort. Like Paul Simon’s reference to Comfort Words in «The Boxer»: “All lies and just; still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest…”
-
Tom Curtis at 00:54 AM on 4 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
gac73 @3, the problem not that so much of climate science disagrees with "common sense science". Typically when experts disagree with "common sense" the normal reaction has been to trust the experts. There is a simple reason for that - the experts know so much more than we do about the subject. For example, they know that the ocean acidifies in the face of rapidly rising CO2 because the CaCO3 washed into the ocean from chemical weathering of rocks is used up. Over long periods, with increased CO2, there is increased warmth and hence increased precipitation so that more CaCO3 is washed into the ocean. So, high CO2 is perfectly compatible with relatively lower ocean acidity than is current - but rapidly rising CO2 will still cause an ocean acidification problem.
We recognize, as I previously suggested, that "common sense science" is based on very limited knowledge. That those who relly on it don't know enough to know that the scientists are wrong; and what is worse, don't even know that they don't know enough (which represents a stunning sort of arrogance IMO). But when we are invested in the scentists theory being wrong - whether because it challenges our love of motor sports, or our adherence to an extreme free market ideology, or calls into question just how much good we in fact handed onto our grand children after a long life of productive contribution to the community, or some other reason - we suddenly think our ignorance gives us enough knowledge to know better than the scientists.
-
Tom Curtis at 00:30 AM on 4 January 2015Another year and glaciers are another metre thinner
With regard to chriskoz's substantial point @15, all glaciers by their nature must have an extent above the snow line (the accumulation zone) where by definition temperatures are on average below freezing. Further, with rare exceptions, most glaciers will extend below the snowline were by definition temperatures are on average above freezing (the ablation zone):
(Source)
Because of this, most glaciers will have sections affected by both temperature patterns mentioned by chriskoz, so while the difference in effect on accumulation and ablation zones is a relevant factor in the variation of glacial behaviour, I suspect the causes of differences in change is far more complex than that.
This can be seen in the different patterns in change of glacial length between the Findelen,
which has an initially slow decline which has become precipitate in crecent years, and the Gries
which, although it has a similar length reduction over the twentieth century, has had a far steadier decline.
-
gac73 at 00:24 AM on 4 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
Is this a science disussion forum website or a socio/political website?
The problem isn't people being self interested. The problem is that anthroprogenic catastrophic runaway greenhouse has not sufficiently made it's case. People will never accept the theory when there exists so much accepted common sense science that refutes what self interested politicians and gravy train riders bleat out to people with no respect for the people's intelligence.
For example - the oceans will gradually acidify when atmospheric c02 continues to rise. So why did the Cambrian Explosion happen when c02 was between 2,000ppm and 8,000ppm. That's just something you can't make disappear from common knowledge. These are the simple reasons why anthroprogenic catastrophic runaway greenhouse will never take in the minds of the majority.
Branding the majority of humans as being predominantly self interested economically above their own planet is misinterpreting the data - if I can put it that way.
Moderator Response:[PS] Please read and comply with the comments policy. It would also help if you studied some of the material here (eg "CO2 was higher in the past")
[Rob P] - "So why did the Cambrian Explosion happen when c02 was between 2,000ppm and 8,000ppm"
This is a frequent problem, people who think they understand a particular aspect of science when in fact they don't. You cannot acquire the prerequisite knowledge by reading spoof science sites like WUWT or Climate etc. Of course you could prove me wrong by informing readers what the carbonate saturation state (i.e. corrosiveness) of the ancient oceans was back then. I'll be waiting......
-
John Hartz at 00:19 AM on 4 January 2015Another year and glaciers are another metre thinner
As documented in the below article, personal observations in New Zealand, Peru, and Greenland also support the underlying message of MarkR's OP.
New Zealand Glaciers Ebb and Tour Guides Play Catch-Up by Mike Ives, New York Times, Jan 2, 2015
-
Tom Curtis at 00:07 AM on 4 January 2015Another year and glaciers are another metre thinner
chriskoz @16:
"Big variations are visible in Swiss glaciers on Fig3: Gries has melted twice (34m) the global average while while Findelen has barely thinned by 2m."
The third figure can easilly mislead, and evidently has. Records of glacial thickness are more recent and fewer in number than records of glacial length. The earliest glacial thickness records start circa 1945, hence the initial point in the x-axis of that graph. For each glacier, its first year of record is then the first year for which the WGMS has a glacial thickness record. For Findelen and Silvretta, that happens to be 1959, so Silvretta lost 14 meters from 1959-2009* (below the global average). In contrast Findelen lost 32 meters from 1959 to 2009. That turns out to be 0.63 meters per year, compared to the 17.5 meters from 1980-2014 in the global average shown in the second figure, ie, 0.5 meters per year. Ergo, it loss was above average by about 25%, but the periods are not strictly comparable.
At the other end of the scale we have Gries with a loss of only two meters from 2004-2009, ie, the period of observations for Gries. That turns out to be 0.33 meters per year, or 34% below the global average but again over a not strictly comparable period. It is, however, faster than the average rate of loss for Silvretta (0.28 meters per year) over not comparable periods, and over two short a period to be statistically significant. Over strictly comparable periods (2004-2009) Silvretta lost 5 meters and Findelen lost 7 meters. The global average dropped about 4 meters over the same period. (Figures eyeballed from the graphs, so not exact.)
* The caption says the data extends to the 2010-11 season, but on the graph it definitely ends in 2009. I assume that it was the 2010-11 report, which was only up to date to 2009.
-
michael sweet at 22:38 PM on 3 January 2015Another year and glaciers are another metre thinner
Alun,
I teach High School abd College Chemistry. One of the few ways to always lose points on labs is to make a graph that does not fill the page. There must be a reason to make a graph that does not fill the page. Deniers frequently use this tactic to hide the slope of graphs they do not like. Read the article referenced above by Dr. Inferno (labeled Dr. Doom) in post 9.
Does anyone know why Dr. Inferno has stopped posting?
-
chriskoz at 21:01 PM on 3 January 2015Another year and glaciers are another metre thinner
Speaking of individual glacier melt variations.
Big variations are visible in Swiss glaciers on Fig3: Gries has melted twice (34m) the global average while while Findelen has barely thinned by 2m.
It is well known that ambient warming (that can be deduced from nearby T records) does not have proportional influence on the melting. In fact, the ambient warming can sometimes result in growing ice! E.g. in the most extreme case: warming from -40C to say -30C at high altitude on the glacir top with increased moisure in the air results in more snow precipitation & the glacier gains more ice on top than it loses through sublimation and melting/sliding at the warmer bottom. That's why, East Antarctic IS is currently gaining ice. The very simple glacial melt models that I played with, do show that process.
So, the talk about glaciers becoming thinner but "there is substantial individual variation... a very necessary caveat" per Tom Curtis@15, is a necessarily incomplete picture. I think the individual variations could easily be explained by the differences in altitude, precipitation patterns, absolute ambient temperature (yes, absolute value is important here), slope gradient. For example, would I guess right if I said that said Gries glacier lies at much higher elevation than said Findelen? It Gries' ambient temp during precipitation season increased from say -10C to -5C then snow is falling on it and keeping it healthy. On the other hand if Findelen's ambient temp increased from say -2C to +2C, then rain started falling on it instead of snow, with obvious consequences.
Does Marzeion et al. (2014) talk about this obvious point or just does not bother? I think any study which tries to measure individual glacier melt variations should at least mention it. I'd be also interested in a more comprehensive study that would try to explain the variations in question, rather than blindly concluding that global warming resuls in accelerated glacier melt.
-
Michael Whittemore at 15:49 PM on 3 January 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #1A
Thank you for both of the links. It would seem with all the heat in the southern ocean and the lack of sea level rise, there might be a good chance the paper that found no significant warming in the abyss was right. Even though they used huge error margins.
Moderator Response:[Rob P] - the warming, or lack of warming, of the abyssal ocean is only a tiny proportion of the thermal component of global sea level rise (SLR) and is not likely to influence the rate of SLR, but the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) and it large influence on multidecadal-scale precipitation and continental water storage certainly would. See:
Balancing the sea level budget - Leuliette & Willis (2011)
and
A Relentless Rise in Global Sea Level
Like many others, I'm looking forward to an explanation for the lower-than-expected rate of SLR. Perhaps the effects of cabbelling, and the large changes in ocean circulation associated with the IPO, are involved? I would, however, point out that the greater southern ocean warming demonstrated in Durack (2014), prior to the Argo roll-out, would reduce the expected rate of SLR.
-
Tom Curtis at 14:34 PM on 3 January 2015Another year and glaciers are another metre thinner
Alun @14:
1) Dismissing information with a pat phrase ("Gee Whiz Curve") is, unlike the graphs above, always an attempt to evade thought about the information thus dismissed. I would be far more suspicious of the motives of somebody introducing such phrases into the discussion than of somebody introducing the graphs above. Especially if that person failed to note the standard use of graphs truncated such that the data occupies the entire space was standard in all sciences, and (come to that) in economics but rather cherry picked for mention their use by marketers and political advocates. (Given the cherry picking involved in that, it is rather ironic.)
2) It is never the case of any graph that it can be fully interpreted without referenence to the axis, and a clear description of the contents of the graph. Suggesting that graphs can be so interpreted, and that it is a desiderata that they be designed to be so interpretted is simply to invite the use of graphs as political or marketing props rather than as conveyors of actual information.
3) You have failed to specify the universal depth of all glaciers that we would need to provide the information in percentage terms; or failing that, why it is interesting that some glaciers have only lost 15% of their depth (because they were initially very thick) while others have lost 100% of their depth (because they were initially very thin) is a matter of particular significance such that the average of all those percentage terms would be in any way meaningfull (see my comment @7).
In contrast, knowing that the worlds glaciers are on average 18 meters thinner than in 1980 (and that consequently, glaciers originally thinner than 18 meters have typically now vanished) is usefull information. Still more so if we are aware (as the third figure above indicates) that there is substantial individual variation even within small regions, and still more so globally (a very necessary caveat).
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:38 PM on 3 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
One thing I believe is obvious and understood by everyone, but is never admited by those opposed to the developing better understanding of this issue is:
"Many people are simply not interested in limiting the benefit they can personally get for themslves in their lifetime. They will argue against any understanding that would constrain their freedom to do as they please no matter how clearly unacceptable what they want to do may be."
That simple unacceptable attitude applies to many matters, not just climate science. Some people deliberately refuse to better understand things that are 'not in their interest'. Those people will never be convinced to care about consequences someone else will face. And the current socio-economic-political system of deceptive creation of temporary popularity and profitability encourages people to choose to develop and hold on to that unacceotable attitude.
The power of misleading marketing and the ability to create unjustifiable impressions is a serious problem. Susan Cain pointed to some of the changes of attitude that occurred in the 1800s in her book "Quiet: The Power of Intorverts ...". She pointed to a transition of society from admiration of substantive credibility to adoration of image.
So a major challenge to helping others better understand an issue like climate change is to find out if the person is even willing to better understand the issue. If they are not you might try to challenge them regarding their resistance, but perhaps the better use of your effort would be to move on to someone more receptive to better understanding the issue.
Everyone does not need to accept the better understanding of what is going on. Those who will not willingly limit what they do just need to face imposed limits on their behaviour, no matter how wealthy they are at the moment.
-
Alun at 12:33 PM on 3 January 2015Another year and glaciers are another metre thinner
I think this discussion misses the point. This type of graphs is called a 'Gee Whiz Curve' for a reason. Much admired of marketers and political advocates. The factual, numeric content isn't the point. It is the visual representation. A steep decline across the width of chart is wonderfuly impressive. Telling people to look at the axes and labels doesn't help.
From a factual point of view the graph shows the actual loss of ice which is fine. In the context of the debate, however, the issue is also about how important this loss is. This needs to be demonstrated in the context of the actual thickness of the glaciers. Looking at the labels doesn't provide this context so the chart is just a Gee Whiz.The chart does however provide the evidence for the comment that the deniers got it wrong so for that it is fine.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 07:35 AM on 3 January 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
CBDunkerson
I have heart similar and in the Arctic it seems true. However one of the team at RealClimate commented on that reccently that because most of the melt in the Antarctic, particularly West Antarctica flows under the ice sheet it emerges at the sea floor not the surface. So it is too far down to impact salinity in a way that influences freezing at the surface.But it can freeze in situ when it hits the slightly colder, saline water at depth. -
ubrew12 at 05:14 AM on 3 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
Climate denial can't be separated from gun ownership, free-market anti-tax faith, gated communities, redistricting, libertarianism, and the US Supreme Courts Citizens United decision. All of these social movements suggest a mindset that can, in fact, ignore the commons, with enough wealth and power. "I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you" comes with its own logic in a World of 7 billion people and an unspoken but deeply held belief that everyone else should just go away. Powerful news agencies now preach this idea that everything would be OK if people would just keep the nose to the grindstone and mind their own business. Hence, although I think there's going to be an unacknowledged general push to transition the economy toward non-fossil sources (with everybody acting in the interests of their own self-preservation), arguing for it, celebrating it, advocating for it, is going to be subject to knee-jerk reactionariism, as people trained to 'read between the lines' (i.e. insert Faux News bias into your mouth) continue to find clues in such talk of a 'deeper threat to the union'. So, I guess what I'm saying is that if you're waiting for the lowest-common-denominator to recognise the logic of your (plainly reasonable) arguments above, its not going to happen. Continued general improvements will have to move forward steadily and broadly, victories celebrated quietly, so as not to arouse the passions of a public stoked into fury over 'Green is the new Red' preaching. For some time into the future, this is going to remain 'the crisis which cannot be named'.
-
MarkR at 02:08 AM on 3 January 2015Another year and glaciers are another metre thinner
sgbotsford:
Working out how best to present data is really important. In this case, I think that the WGMS have done it right.
Firstly, it's common to cover as much of the graph as possible to see changes and how big they are. This is taught in university physics and meteorology courses as a valid way of presenting data in many situations.
Secondly, anyone who can read a graph looks at the axis scales, and although the units in this case are a little opaque, I tried to make this as clear as possible in the caption.
Thirdly, it's not easy to work out the zero point here. Some glaciers like Chacaltaya are 100% gone. Others are much thicker, so much less is gone.
Finally, as others have pointed out, it's often misleading to use true zeroes, as the wonderful DenialDepot posts show.
The WGMS graph is a report on the mass balance of glaciers, and that graph is a clear and fair way of showing that. I agree that there is a risk that some people will misinterpret the graph, but that is true of almost any way of presenting data. The way this graph is presented is clear to anyone who has any experience of reading graphs and I'm pretty sure that any other way of presenting it would be much more misleading.
I agree though, that it's not able to answer every question and it doesn't clearly say much about impacts. That's why we have lots of other research!
-
Michael Whittemore at 01:52 AM on 3 January 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #1A
Happy New Year everyone.
I hope you this is the right places to ask but I wanted to know if anyone had some information about the heat that was found in the Southern Ocean.
Its from this paper "Quantifying underestimates of long-term upper-ocean warming" (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n11/full/nclimate2389.html)
Moderator Response:[JH] See Rob Painting's article,
[Rob P] - try this one instead:
Prev 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 Next
