Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 Next
Comments 32601 to 32650:
-
jimlj at 05:52 AM on 15 December 2014Global warming continues despite continuous denial
William, not to be piling on, but in your own comment you showed why the difference. NOAA is measuring 0-2000 meters, and you state
"the ocean abyss below 1.24 miles (1,995 meters) has not warmed measurably"
So by your own reference they are measuring different things.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 03:28 AM on 15 December 2014How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
Gac73... There's also a good site explaining ocean/atmosphere coupling here:
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_atm.html
-
michael sweet at 03:10 AM on 15 December 2014Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Gac73,
I posted a response to your question here.
-
michael sweet at 03:08 AM on 15 December 2014How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
Gac73,
The simple answer to your question of how can a warmer atmosphere heat the oceans is this:
1) The ocean absorbs heat from the sun and is warmer than the atmosphere above.
2) According to the first law of thermodynamics, the ocean loses heat to the colder atmosphere. The atmosphere radiates the heat into space. The system is at equilibrium.
3) AGW causes the atmosphere to become warmer.
4) According to the first law of thermodynamics, the ocean now loses heat more slowly to the atmosphere, since the heat gradient is reduced.
5) The ocean is now losing heat more slowly than before, while still receiving heat from the sun at the same rate. The heat remaining in the ocean causes the ocean to warm until equilibrium is restored.
6) Winds and current affect where and how fast the additional heat is distributed through the ocean. Because the ocean is so huge, compared to the atmosphere, it retains the majority of heat from AGW.
-
Global warming continues despite continuous denial
william - The only issue here is semantic. There is a considerable increase in ocean heat content for 700-2000m (often referred to as deep) ocean, some warming in the 0-700m layer (increased transport to depth, apparently), and _so far_ only a small amount of warming in the >2000m ocean (abyssal).
There are significant regional differences; the Southern Ocean near Antarctica is showing a great deal of deep warming, right where the thermohaline circulation dives, for example. And the changes evident in the abyssal ocean are as one would expect given the time delays for circulation - you can actually see the decades or centuries delay for abyssal circulation in the observed temperature changes. The spread of warmth from the Antarctic downflow is quite evident. But there simply hasn't been time for much of the abyss to be affected, _yet_.
So the confusion seen (and pushed by some of the denial sites, I'll note) is due to confusing a warming deep ocean with the time capsule of the abyssal, where most AGW effects haven't quite reached yet.
-
william11409 at 02:18 AM on 15 December 2014Global warming continues despite continuous denial
The findings in the NOAA paper discussed above do not agree with findings from scientists at NASA published in Nature Climate Change in October 2014. NOAA consider "When you look at the oceans, the so-called pause is simply a redistribution, a burying of heat to deeper waters" while NASA states "NASA Study Finds Earth’s Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed" (http://tinyurl.com/ou66qzo).
The report states"Scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, analyzed satellite and direct ocean temperature data from 2005 to 2013 and found the ocean abyss below 1.24 miles (1,995 meters) has not warmed measurably". The leading author of the study states: "The combination of satellite and direct temperature data gives us a glimpse of how much sea level rise is due to deep warming. The answer is — not much."
-
gac73 at 22:10 PM on 14 December 2014Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Hi All,
I'm new here and hope, although this question is indirectly related, that it is not too far off topic to not be answered.
I understand how the oceans absorb c02 and the forces at play.
What I would like to know is how does c02 absorbed 'heat' from the atmosphere get into the ocean itself. What are the mechanisms at work that makes it possible for the ocean to be a 'heat sink' for atmospheric heat?
i.e "90% of the atmospheric heat ends up in the ocean" - Tim Flannery.
This assertion on face value appears to be in violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics.
i.e Two thermodynamic systems that are not in equilibrium with each other must have net sum energy transfer move in one direction only.
Because clouds are the observable evidence that net sum energy transfer occurs from the ocean to the atmosphere, and that net sum energy transfer between the atmosphere and the ocean can only be in one direction, how can the ocean be a heat sink for atmospheric heat as it would have to be a net sum value, which would be a violation of thermodynamics?
Any assistance here would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Moderator Response:[DB] This post explains how increasing levels of CO2 heat the ocean. For continued questions on that mechanism, place those questions there, not here. Thanks!
-
CaptHillWalker at 20:00 PM on 14 December 2014Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
Many of the above statements make sense within their own context.
But just to ask a few more questions while making one or 2 Vital observations
ALL C02 was here at some point thats how the fossil fuels were created by absorbing C02 - creating Oxygen, becoming fossil fuels and the massive population now burns them in every activity we do to keep the population increasing feeding a flawed econimic model that requires continual growth.
The average tempeture is not the real issue, its the return to climate extreme´s that are causing panic amongst political powerhouses as it will impact on the their Economic gravy train.
All C02 - Oxygen - organic matter, fossil fuels etc are part of the Carbon cycle over geological time.. nothing is exempt...
Question...has any calculation or consideration been taken regarding the effect on temp that 7 Billion people and the remaining living creatures have on recorded or calulated temp.. we carry a lot of heat.
Humans we ...
Store a lot of water in our bodys and plastic bottles
We are mobile heat cells that are warm blooded
we displace a lot of air while creating hotspots.
Unless we find a economic model that can work with natural population shrinkage we will never reduce the effect we have on the carbon cycle...
The Climate will change as it always has and always will. with or without us.
We need to adapt to a new way of living with each other and the planet we are guests on...
-
michael sweet at 10:00 AM on 14 December 2014Cutting carbon pollution is the key to curbing global warming
Denisaf:
Here is the Skeptical Science response to the Skeptic myth the carbon dioxide has a short half-life. The individual molecules have about a five year lifetime. The increase in concentration caused by the release of those molecules lasts for hundreds of years.
-
scaddenp at 19:33 PM on 13 December 2014Cutting carbon pollution is the key to curbing global warming
Not entirely true. Fossil fuels have no C14 and a different C13/C12 ratio.
See this article.
-
denisaf at 19:04 PM on 13 December 2014Cutting carbon pollution is the key to curbing global warming
That comment about carbon dioxide stays aloft for centuries is contrary to the reality that carbon dioxide has always circulated. Industrial emissions has just increased the rate of generation of carbon dioxide to couple with respiration and other sources to more than counter the rate of absorption by photosynthesis. There is no possible way of identifying the source (fossil fuel or respiration) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. However, measurements have established that the concentarion level has increased rapidly in the past century and is continuing to increase rapidly, largely due to the high rate of emissions from fossil fuels.
-
michael sweet at 06:07 AM on 13 December 2014Skeptical Science at the 2014 AGU Fall Meeting
Nine presentation from people at SkS!! This demonstrates the strength of the site that John Cook has built.
-
BaerbelW at 04:28 AM on 13 December 2014Skeptical Science at the 2014 AGU Fall Meeting
For those who cannot be at AGU: Sou from HotWhopper.com explains how to "Get ready to (virtually) attend AGU Fall Meeting 2014 "
-
knaugle at 00:24 AM on 13 December 2014Is Earth’s temperature about to soar?
The blog link pointed to a graphing tool at the University of York, Chemistry Dept of all things, that is a useful addition to the woodfortrees site I usually visit for charts. It is interesting that most of the warming in the datasets appears to be from ocean temperatures, since land only data is a bit flatter.
As for the moderator's comment that 1998 was a hot monster year, that is true. However, plots show that its El Nino effect was mostly from Jan through Aug 1998. Also NOAA says 1998 was only 3rd warmest, soon to be 4th. So it may be that WRyan did in fact mean 1998 will soon fall out of the top 10. That's a rather sobering thought.
-
Riduna at 10:31 AM on 12 December 2014Global warming continues despite continuous denial
We seem to discuss this topic ad nausea while studiously ignoring where ocean heat goes to and what its effects on the cryosphere are. Pity. Is it too scary?
Moderator Response:[JH] Please enter the the term "ocean heat" into the SkS Search box. You will see that your claim is entirely unfounded with respect to this website.
-
Jim Eager at 09:06 AM on 12 December 2014Is Earth’s temperature about to soar?
And best of all, Tamino simply does not suffer run of the mill false-skeptic fools. At all.
-
gws at 07:03 AM on 12 December 2014More research confirming large methane leakage from shale boom
UT released the next installment of their larger study with EDF, this time in ES&T; Press release here. One main finding: few large sources dominate the overall source sector (here: pneumatic controllers, liquid unloadings), aka non-normal distribution of sources, consistent with other findings presented in this series.
Moderator Response:[JH] For future reference, please spell out names rather than use "naked acronyms" which many of our readers may not be familiar with.
In this particular case:
UT = University of Texas
EDF = Environmnetal Defense Fund
ES&T = Environmental Science & Technology
-
michael sweet at 03:34 AM on 12 December 2014Is Earth’s temperature about to soar?
For those who are not familiar with Tamino (who wrote this post), he is a statistician. These analysis are his specialty. He accounts for the autocorrelation (the modified dice calculation mentioned above) in the OP by:
"I’ll also take into account that the noise doesn’t even follow the simplest form of autocorrelation usually applied, what’s called “AR(1)” noise, but it can be well approximated by a somewhat more complex form referred to as “ARMA(1,1)”
95% confidence is the normal choice in science (discussed in the OP just under the spoiler alert). If you do not understand the jargon ask a question.
I am not a statistician so I do not question Tamino when he does an analysis. I have seen a lot of people question Tamino's choices, mostly people who are not statisticians, and he always has a good rational for his choices.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:13 AM on 12 December 2014Even climate change experts and activists might be in denial
CBDunkerson,
My pursuit is not impossible. It is only challenging because the current socioeconomic system grossly promotes the temptation to be inconsiderate and intolerant. That pairing of support can be seen as the core vote support target group of all political groups wanting to get away with unacceptable actions and attiitudes, from the vicious dictatorial and military controlled styles of leadership in developing nations to the vicious pursuers of financial gain any way they can get away with in developed 'democratic' nations.
Altruism is also a fundamental human nature. It is naturally evident in young children (see a report here). And the beauty is that once an adult 'indoctrinated in a selfish consumerism society' realized that they actually have the choice regarding how they behave and they choose to be more altruistic and helpful to others, no amount of deceptive misleading marketing will change their mind again.
I am only sharing the attitude I have learned from others. There are many people striving to develop a sustainable civil society and socioeconomic system. And this is nothing new. It was what Charles Dicken's was pushing for in his time.
Admittedly mass-marketed comsumerism with its power of temptation increases the number of people who initially grow up to be selfish pursuers of their personal interest. But they can grow out of that attitude if they care to.
Eventually those who don't care won't matter. As the problems their actions and attitudes create become unacceptably obvious they lose popular support.
Hopefully this current spurt of successful bad behaviour won't be able to create too much damage before the 'unjustified success' is ended. And hopefully humanity learns how to keep future generations from ever again allowing the incosiderate and intolerant to succeed. That would be the way to ensure a constantly improved development of sustainable better future for all.
-
Joel_Huberman at 00:15 AM on 12 December 2014Is Earth’s temperature about to soar?
Very nice post! That said, I want to repeat Rocketman's concern about the dice analogy. Adjacent years are not independent of each other. But there's probably a way to take that partial annual interdependence into account when calculating the statistical implications of the whole series of years not exceeding the significance limit--a modified dice calculation.
I also have one question. In the second graph, why are data points shown for years after 2008?
-
CBDunkerson at 22:50 PM on 11 December 2014Even climate change experts and activists might be in denial
One Planet, I wish you the best of luck in your quest to make fundamental changes to human nature. I think you are basically beating your head against a wall, but I'd be more than thrilled if you somehow achieved the impossible.
John Hartz, I've never really gotten the 'artificial intelligence' thing. Why would we even want to make an artificial intelligence? If there is one thing we don't have in short supply (just ask the 'overpopulation' people) it is natural intelligences. There are billions of natural human intelligences out there... many of them barely being used (especially if they watch Fox News). So why would we want to make even more artificial ones?
At this point people usually start talking about computing power and repetitive tasks and yadda yadda... but none of that is intelligence. Rather, that is processing speed and automation... which indeed could be vastly improved if guided directly by an intelligence rather than indirectly by a programmer or system user. So, why not give existing natural intelligences direct access to computer processing and automation? Same result, but no artificial intelligence required. Technology to transfer data to and from the human brain already exists, and will almost certainly be perfected long before true artificial intelligence. By the time we can create a true AI it shouldn't be any danger to us because much of the human race should be able to operate on a level playing field. Adding direct human decision making to existing computer automation yields the same results as full AI. Take automated vehicles for instance. Right now the state of the art can handle stop signs, pedestrians, traffic lights, and the vast majority of other situations which a car might encounter... but every so often they run into something they aren't programmed for (e.g. another car coming the wrong way down a one way street). Why would we need to wait for true AI to resolve that? Send the situation to an operator (in the car or remotely), they decide what to do (e.g. back out to let the police car going the wrong way pass) and then the automation software carries out that decision. Yes, it might take a human a second or two to make a decision like that while a computer could do so much faster, but we're talking about the difference between automating 99.99% vs 100% of most tasks. Both would fundamentally transform everything we do and create a world where 7 billion intelligences would be vastly more than we would ever need to make the requisite remaining decisions. The question then becoming... what will all those people do?
-
rocketman at 13:28 PM on 11 December 2014Is Earth’s temperature about to soar?
Very interesting analysis. Statistics is not my forte but I have a few observations and comments.
The test seems to be set of as a two tailed test determining whether the later period is different, not slower. I think this is justified on a purely impartial scientific basis but may not be as convincing if one is biased to believe in the slowdown.
I don't think the dice analogy is valid. Whether the dice are loaded or not, each roll is independent of the others. However, in your analysis, 1999 shares 94% of its data with 2000. That is why the plots have a smooth curve instead of the jagged pattern you would see if you plotted throws of an honest die.
It would be expected that the probabilities drop off as time approches the present becasue ther is less and less data. If tomorrow were the coldest day globally on record by a full degree, it wouldn't constitute a significant trend.
My thoughts on the 95% confidence standard are that, in a lot of areas, being right 90% of the time is pretty darn good. The NOAA graph gets close to that but that is just cherry picking from the data sets. (Hate to give the deniers ideas).
Looking at the curves, the most striking thing is the similarity of the three surface data sets, the RSS satellite data(!) and the Berkely land data. These are also the sets showing the highest probability of a slow down. Doing an eyeball average of these five, it may be as high as 80% in 2006. Not terrible, but not too convincing either.
Interesting that the C&W and the land-only CRUTEM curves are so similar. I think C&W made a good case for their improved handling of missing data and it is no surprise (based on the trend they demonstrated when it was published) that this data set shows the probability of a slowdown at 60% or less.
UAH? Ironic that it shows essentially zero probability since it is the denier's darling data set. Of course what it really shows is that this data is just noise. If the lower atmosphere caught fire, would UAH notice?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:23 PM on 11 December 2014Is Earth’s temperature about to soar?
WRyan,
I agree. The unusually warm for its time 1998 will be cooler than most years in the near future and possibly all years after 2020. In the not too distant future even an extreme La Nina event won't temporarily produce an annual average as low as the 'high' of 1998.
-
WRyan at 10:45 AM on 11 December 2014Is Earth’s temperature about to soar?
According to NOAA and GISS datasets, the temperature trend since the mid-70s has been about 0.165C increase per decade. if that conitnues we can expect the temp at 2050 to be about 0.57C warmer than now, which will be about 1.5C warmer than the 1880's values.
On the topic of the 1998 temp, it was about 0.175C higher than the trend value for that year. So that equals the trend value for 2009. By 2020, on its current trajectory, the trend value will be 0.175C higher than the 1998 temp. So if the current trend continues, after 2020 we are unlikely to see a temperature as cool as 1998 again during our lifetime (unless you are currently very young and live a long life). If there are no La Nina events or large volcanic eruptions over the next few years, we won't see a temp as cool as the 1998 temp again this decade either.
Moderator Response:[PS] I suspect you mean 1997. 1998 was a hot monster El Nino year.
-
wili at 10:04 AM on 11 December 2014Is Earth’s temperature about to soar?
Thanks, KR, for the pointers, and for this:
we appear to be near the bottom of possible short term variations right now with a combination of ENSO, low insolation, and (relatively) high volcanic aerosol injections into the stratosphere. As these variations regress to the mean I fully expect any sign of a short term (and statistically insignificant) 'hiatus' to vanish as a fairly sharp upward variation.
That's pretty much what I was thinking, plus perhaps some feedbacks kicking in.
Don't worry about denialists ability to deny, though. If the data doesn't do what they want it to, they just make stuff up or reinterpret it in ways so insane it will make your head spin. -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:56 AM on 11 December 2014Is Earth’s temperature about to soar?
I'll be curious how the satellite data sets play out as we move into a phase more dominated by El Nino. I could imagine UAH/RSS might actually over play the rise in temperature.
That might be a pretty pickle for a number of climate denial blogs.
-
Is Earth’s temperature about to soar?
will - The underlying trend is not expected to suddenly change slope in the next few decades, certainly not as it did in the early '70s. But that underlying trend heads to ~2C by 2100, with a trajectory largely determined by our emissions path; it could be as high as 4°C if emissions follow the high-end RCP8.5 "business as usual" path, or as low as 1°C if we aggressively cut emissions. I would suggest reading IPCC AR5 WG1, Chapter 12 (12.4, to be more specific) for some of those details.
However, we appear to be near the bottom of possible short term variations right now with a combination of ENSO, low insolation, and (relatively) high volcanic aerosol injections into the stratosphere. As these variations regress to the mean I fully expect any sign of a short term (and statistically insignificant) 'hiatus' to vanish as a fairly sharp upward variation. Leaving the pseudo-skeptics to search for a later short term low variation to start chanting about their fantastical upcoming Ice Age...
-
wili at 08:22 AM on 11 December 2014Is Earth’s temperature about to soar?
DId I miss something? Where do you address the question that is the title of the article? Or is that supposed to be ironic in some way?
In any case, I would like anyone's opinions on whether there are reasons to expect an increase in the rate of GW in the coming years and decades? Another inflection point, as happened in about 1970.
The linear red lines and dashes on the last graph suggest not. But aren't lots of people talking about hitting 2 C above preindustrial levels well before 2050?
If so, when should we expect to see an increase in the rate of warming, exactly?
-
wili at 05:21 AM on 11 December 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #50A
Something to add to the next news roundup? Or worthy of its own post?:
First El Niño in five years declared by Japan’s weather bureau
"Agency becomes first major meteorological bureau to declare weather phenomenon which can bring severe droughts to south-east Asia and Australia"
-
steven11438 at 04:51 AM on 11 December 2014Is Earth’s temperature about to soar?
Hi,
Great post, however no matter what you say or how sound the math, science or data is you are dealing with the political extreme who will never listen. I will add though that this is great ammo for me when I stand up to such extremists out there on the Internet. Can but hope we win this....for all our sakes.
-
John Hartz at 02:20 AM on 11 December 2014Even climate change experts and activists might be in denial
Here's a timely article speaking directly to some of the issues raised by commenters on his thread.
How Millionaires Buy Up Farmland And Hoard All Our Water by Karen Piper, Alertnet, Nov 26, 2014
The subtitle of Piper's article is:
When FOX News stands up for "family farmers," they are really fighting for Murdoch's rich friends.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:49 AM on 11 December 2014Even climate change experts and activists might be in denial
CBDunkerson,
From my perspective.
When you say "Would it be wonderful if we all worked for the mutual benefit of our fellow humans? Sure... but that's fantasy land." you are affirming my assertion regarding the unacceptable attitudes and actions that are promoted by the socioeconomic system I assert needs to change.
And when I refer to electricity for the poor I am referring to the technology you point to that is helping in Africa. That techjnology is not there through pursuits of profit. It was develeoped and deployed there through volunteer efforts and charitable actions contrary to the motivations of the global trade market. Smae goes for much of the clean water technology being developed and deployed to help the poorest of the poor.
I also challenge your correlation of any benefit for the poor from mass-consumption industrialization. It can just as easily be claimed, and potentially more likely be justified, that 'labour laws and government intervention and progressive taxation to get the benefit of much of that activity delivered for the benefit of the poorest was required because allowing the wealthiest to benefit as much as they could get away with did not work well for anyone but the richest'. I admit some of the richest took their obligation to aid the poorest very seriously, but not all the richest were required to and those who cared least had the competetive advantage, and still do.
I always have and always will say the ability of inconsiderate and intolerant people to succeed is the problem, and is never a potential solution. Many more fortunate people do care to help others. The problem is the more fortunate ones who have no such interest. Your attempts to group all rich vs. all poor is 'your perspective' not mine.
The only way for all others, especially the poorest of the poor to have sustainably better circumstances far into the future is socioeconomic system changes to discoiurage the belief that inconsiderate and intolerant people should be able to succeed if they can drum up enough temporary unsustainable popular support or figure out a way to be profitable temporarily. There really is little defense for the current system. The global economy has grown many times faster than the global population yet there are still very many incredibly poor people. And the system has developed unacceptable unsustainable activities and entrenched resistance to the required changes to decent sustainable developments.
-
John Hartz at 23:54 PM on 10 December 2014Even climate change experts and activists might be in denial
@Tom Curtis #16:
The human race is on the cusp of creating Aticificial Intelligence (AI). Once that occurs, a new paradigm will exist. What this portends for the future of homo sapiens is a topic that is being hotly debated as we speak. For example, see:
Stephen Hawking warns artificial intelligence could end mankind by Rory Cellan-Jones, BBC News, Dec 2, 2014
and
Google’s Eric Schmidt: Don’t Fear the Artificially Intelligent Future by Izzie Lapowsky, Wired, Dec 9, 2014
Your thoughts about this matter would be greatly appreciated.
-
CBDunkerson at 22:50 PM on 10 December 2014Even climate change experts and activists might be in denial
One Planet wrote: "Many wonderful developments, like the electricity and lighting for the poor you refer to, have been the result of deliberate defiance of the motivation of the socioeconomic system by a few caring and considerate people."
Frankly, I don't see how you can believe that. Thomas Edison invented the electric light bulb (and direct current), not for personal gain, but instead solely because he wanted to help the poor? Solar and wind power developers have no interest whatsoever in making money?
No. The competitive greed driven 'socioeconomic system' which you villify is responsible for vast improvements in the standard of living of the human race as a whole. Would it be wonderful if we all worked for the mutual benefit of our fellow humans? Sure... but that's fantasy land. Analysis of the world based on fairy-tale foundations will always yield incorrect results.
Also: "I went further and said the already more fortunate should not be allowed to further their benefit from the activities."
I disagree. Apply this philosophy to any point in the past and the limits you place on the 'more fortunate' would do grievous harm to the 'less fortunate'. No coal powered rail-roads... no increase in mobility of poor populations. No great increase in fossil fuel burning to fuel the computer revolution... no advancement in computer driven technologies that benefit the poor. Many advancements which have benefited the rich have always also benefited the poor. The same seems inevitably true of the present and the future.
Finally: "But unless there is a fundamental change to the socioeconomic system 'both rich and poor' will not benefit from the change."
Again, I disagree. The limits on self-serving competition have been weakened in many parts of the world in recent decades and need to be rebuilt, but the general practice has been vastly beneficial to the human race. The 'socioeconomic system' requires tweaks to reign in the very very rich and give more opportunity to the majority, but nothing more.
In some sense we seem to be debating percentages. You accuse something like most of the wealthiest 10% (?) of the global population of destructive self-interest... while I would instead limit it to a subset of the wealthiest 0.001%. The problem certainly exists, but I consider it concentrated to a few bad actors while you instead argue that it is systemic with only a few 'caring charitable people' keeping the whole thing from collapsing.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 15:07 PM on 10 December 2014How the world's economic growth is actually un-economic
This is indeed a more relevant and rational way of evaluating 'success and progress' than the currently touted economic indicators. And the measures can be adjusted as more is learned about the impacts of developed and developing popular and profitable activities. Ultimately the best measure is global total GPI with the GPI improving in all regions of the globe, no real losers (except for the less deserving among the already most fortunate).
It is only possible to have sustainable growth of the global economy if there is sustainable improvement of the entire global society (sustainably better circumstances for the least fortunate). And global society can only be sustainably better if the global ecology is robust and diverse.
-> Healthy Sustainable Diversity of Life is required for
-> Healthy Sustainable Diversity of Societies which is required for
-> Healthy Sustainable Economic Growth. With economic growth coming from the development of better sustainable ways of living as part of the robust diversity of life on this amazing planet.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:29 PM on 10 December 2014Even climate change experts and activists might be in denial
Tom Curtis,
I may be more optimistic about the future of humanity. I genuinely believe that humanity can thrive in constantly improving ways of living as a sustainable part of the robust diversity of life on this amazing planet for the 1.75 billion years it is estimated to be habitable.Your reference to a civilization is a limited view I must admit I do not see as relevant to the discussion of the global action required for the benefit of the future of humanity. And even the future for humanity is a limited perspective on the issue. The totality of life on this amazing planet is what matters. I would say there is room for many evolving civilizations to find niches as sustainable parts of the robust diversity of life. And any civilization that tries to survive without being a sustainable part of the robust diversity of life is indeed destined to fail if far less than 1000 years, hopefully before ruing things for everyone else, a common result of the motivations of the current socioeconomic system, trying to benefit in ways that are better understood to be damaging and unsustainable.
As for the sustainability of a global civilization that consumes non-renewable resources surviving 200 years being considered 'sustainable' I would say that is getting into the semantics of the term. Admittedly sustainable can be the term something that continues or is sustained for one year. It is sustainable for the short term. The future for humanity is not short term. In fact, I believe once humanity figures out how to live sustainably on this planet it will have the ability to sustainably expand far beyond this planet.
As for sustainable energy, we have always had the means to reduce our global energy demands and meet most of the demand with far less damaging and far more sustainable energy supply than the burning of fossil fuels, but that was never motivated to be developed by people acting in the socioeconomic system. The people acting in the system with its motivation to get benefit as quickly as possible any damaging and unsustainable way that can be gotten away with developed to the almost untenable position we are at today, and the wish is clearly to continue that way if it can be gotten away with.
Another factor that comes up is something I referred to in my previous comment. People will only be willing to change to behave better if it is cheaper and more enjoyable for them than getting away with less acceptable behaviour.
As for fresh water and food, there has always been more than enough, if there were no excessive and wasteful consumers. As you say it depends on what those consumers are willing to accept. And those consumers are motivated to be over-consumptive and less sustainable by the socioeconomic system.
As for total global population the following report here indicates the peak expected global population could be less than 12 billion, not the 17 billion you refer to. The article refers to a book being written by Wolfgang Lutz and his colleagues at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Vienna, Austria, that suggest the peak global poppulation is likely to be less than 10 billion.
There are many ways to think about this issue. I admit my thoughts are not that common. They always end up at the need for the socioeconomic system to be fundamentally changed so that humanity can actually most fully achieve what it can. Humanities best achievement requires each global generation to strive to develop the gift of a better future for all rather than pursuing the best possible present for themselves, especially when the ways that best present is pusued ruin things for the future.
-
dana1981 at 14:12 PM on 10 December 2014California just had its worst drought in over 1200 years, as temperatures and risks rise
scaddenp @9 is correct. The problem with the NOAA report is that it's not a drought report, it's a rainfall report. There's more to drought than just precipitation, with temperatures being another significant factor.
Humans may or may not have influenced the Ridiculously Resilient Ridge and hence the low precipitation indicated in the second figure above. I think NOAA is being overconfident in saying there's no human connection, but we can't yet say for sure either way.
However, humans indisputably played a role in the severity of the drought via global warming and higher temps. This causes soil dryness, higher demand, decreasing snowpack, etc. etc. For NOAA to ignore these influences and make claims about "drought" is misleading. Unintentionally so - they're just defining "drought" in a very limited (and IMO kind of dumb) way, but misleading nonetheless.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:46 PM on 10 December 2014Even climate change experts and activists might be in denial
CBDunkerson,
I would counter your claim about the 'developments' achieved so far by suggesting that few of them are a result of the motivation of the socioeconomic system to try to maximise personal benefit from activity that has become better understood to be unsustainable or damaging. That motivation has clearly been the fundamental drive of development in the past and the present. It is also the main driver against accepting the developing better understanding of climate science.Many wonderful developments, like the electricity and lighting for the poor you refer to, have been the result of deliberate defiance of the motivation of the socioeconomic system by a few caring and considerate people. I see the efforts of caring charitable people who act contrary to the motivations of the socioeconomic system as admirable but challenged by the increased creation of troubles by those who prefer to be guided by and excuse the motivation of the socioeconomic system.
And I never said this was a fight between rich and poor nations. I said the most fortunate should not be trying to obtain even more personal benefit from the unsustainable and damaging burning of buried non-renewable hydrocarbons. I went further and said the already more fortunate should not be allowed to further their benefit from the activities. Since necessity is truly the Mother of Invention, the ones who are fortunate, even if only by the luck of being born into the nation they were born in, should be expected to strive to be inventive and creative to more rapidly develop better sustainable ways of living. They should not be motivated to excuse the unsustainable and harmful way they obtain more comfort and convenience or wealth and power.
In the end we agree that the future needs to be without the burning of fossil fuels. But unless there is a fundamental change to the socioeconomic system 'both rich and poor' will not benefit from the change.
-
scaddenp at 12:42 PM on 10 December 2014California just had its worst drought in over 1200 years, as temperatures and risks rise
I think wording does have a lot to do with it. NOAA is pointing out there is no trend in rainfall. Availability of water for plants is what to a fair extent defines drought. This is what PDSI and the tree-derived proxies reflect. Rainfall by itself is not as informative.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:33 AM on 10 December 2014Even climate change experts and activists might be in denial
One Planet Only Forever @14, our species is just 200 thousand years old. Mammal species on average become extinct within 1 to 2 million years of evolving, and those with more rapidly changing conditions of life (which certainly includes humans) tend to have shorter durations than average. It is, therefore, absurd to cite the expected time until the Earth's oceans boil due to the increasing heat of the Sun as the expected life span of our species, or the benchmark for sustainability. In under half that time, life on Earth went from bacteria and archaea, to eukaryotic life and then multicellular organism on up to modern species. In a fifth of that time, all fossil fuels formed. If humans and nearly all modern life went extinct tomorrow, there is no reason to think the process could not largely repeat itself well before the Sun draws the veil on life on Earth.
A far more sensible horizon for sustainability is a thousand years. If a civilization can live for a thousand years with no substantial change in its resource base and environmental conditions, it can do so effectively for ever. Arguably the same could be said if we reduced that horizon to 200 years.
With that in mind, almost the sole precondition for a sustainable civilization is abundant, cheap, sustainable energy. That possibility may be just decades away. The recent entry of Lockheed into the area of fusion gives some (guarded) reason to hope. More certain are the prospects of wind energy dropping to a third of current costs within less than a decade.
With sufficient sustainable energy, water needs can be provided through desalinization so that sustainability of water supply is not hard limit. (Indeed, absent revolutions in energy storage technology, water desalinization is a ideal marriage with intermittent sustainable energy, being able to soak up excess power when generated, and cease operation when energy generation is low.) Land use for habitation is not a problem. The current 7 billion only occupy 3% of the world's surface in urban areas, so a doubling or even trippling of population is compatible healthy ecosystems in that regard.
The other genuine concern is food. We already eat in excess of sustainable quantities of wild food, and (probably) use more than sustainable land area for agriculture. With sufficient cheap energy, however, low quality food can be produced in whatever quantity we need via hydroponics. The question of whether the Earth can support a sustainable population of 3.4 billion or 34 billion (ie, double the expected peak population) therefore becomes a question of what dietary quantities and qualities are we prepared to live with.
More importantly, as the 17 billion is essentially locked already, the real question is can we find a way to transition to sustainability with a population of 17 billion in 2050. If we cannot, discussion of sustainable populations is moot in any event as the Earth's population and technological capability will crash. If we can, and I think we can, then the sustainable population will be a lot closer to that 17 billion than to 7 billion or else we would not be able to make the transition.
-
PluviAL at 08:30 AM on 10 December 2014California just had its worst drought in over 1200 years, as temperatures and risks rise
Perhaps it is the wording that is the problem. The NOAA article argues that there is a pre-existing mechanism which causes drought in CA. It does not argue that global warming is not a factor. It seems valid to show alternative mechanisms. The next task is to show how they fit in and to what extent they may cause exacerbation or reduction in the effects of climate change.
Proponents of the science should show subsequent and consequent mechanisms etc. It probably will happen in the peer review process which has not occurred for this paper yet.
-
michael sweet at 06:10 AM on 10 December 2014California just had its worst drought in over 1200 years, as temperatures and risks rise
William,
It seems to me that Dana is arguing that there are two opposing scientific opinions. Dana favors the increasing drought argument. NOAA says the drought is likely natural and fails to mention the opposing opinion. A respected voice like NOAA should mention both sides when there is still active debate. It appears that Mann and Trenberth disagree with NOAA so it is clearly debatable. I agree that NOAA is doing a disservice to the public when they leave out a prominent opinion. If it turns out that the drought is caused by AGW, NOAA has misinformed the public and contributed to a lack of effort to take action.
Moderator Response:[JH] A number of prominent climate scientists have expressed their opinions about the NOAA paper to NBC News.
See: Global Warming Isn't Causing California Drought? Report Triggers Storm by Miguel Llamos, Dec 8, 2014.
-
ubrew12 at 05:43 AM on 10 December 2014California just had its worst drought in over 1200 years, as temperatures and risks rise
In the first graph, above, the variability strongly suggests that most of the current drought is natural. However, I was struck by the average value. It indicates that drought became slightly less severe from 800 AD to 1880 AD, after which it abruptly changed its trend, and became rapidly more severe throughout the last century. An abrupt trendline reversal at 1880 AD is also seen in global temperature.
Correlation is not causation, but its hard not to ignore the average trendlines of CA PDSI and global temperature, both abruptly changing direction around 1880.
-
william11409 at 03:45 AM on 10 December 2014California just had its worst drought in over 1200 years, as temperatures and risks rise
Thanks Dana. Yes the comment from Prof Mann mentioned in Will@3 was present in the article I linked to as was a comment by Kevin Trenberth "This study completely fails to consider what climate change is doing to water in California,". As both are well respected climate scientists I guess NOAA will address their comments in due course.
I note you consider "NOAA is doing the public a disservice by claiming otherwise". while the Moderator's opinion is "What you are observing is the scientific process at work. Over time, the seeming contradictions will be sorted out. This sifting and winnowing process occurs in all scientific disciplines". So is the sifting and winnowing a disservice to the public or just a necessary part of the scientific process?
He also berates me for suggesting " that conflicting explanations are unique to climate science is bogus". Actually ` didn't suggest that at all if I had meant to make that suggestion I would have written "in contrast to other branches of science only in climate science are two opposing explanations are put foward for the same event" That would clearly be utterly incorrect.
Moderator Response:[JH] You are skating on this thin ice of moderation complaint. Please read and adhere to the SkS Comments Policy.
-
dana1981 at 01:58 AM on 10 December 2014California just had its worst drought in over 1200 years, as temperatures and risks rise
william @1, see wili @3. The NOAA report is flawed in its failure to consider the drought influence from human-caused warming, as I discuss above. The human influence on CA precipitation is a mixed bag, with 2 studies finding no connection and 2 finding a connection. NOAA focused on the former 2 (having authored one of them), but frankly I find the other two (Diffenbaugh and Wang) more convincing.
Nevertheless, there is indisputably a human influence on the drought due to warming. NOAA is doing the public a disservice by claiming otherwise.
-
CBDunkerson at 23:46 PM on 9 December 2014Even climate change experts and activists might be in denial
One Planet, it isn't that simple.
You say, "...common sense is all that is required to recognise that the consumption of non-renewable resources needs to be curtailed from human activity...".
Sure, that makes sense... except that consumption of those non-renewable resources may eventually be replaced by renewable options that wouldn't have been possible without the advancements made using the non-renewables. If we had curtailed use of coal we wouldn't have had the abundant cheap electricity which allowed a mass computing environment... which led to the development of solar and wind power cheap enough to now begin replacing the coal.
Ditto, "Every very fortunate person should be required to behave far better, stop trying to benefit from the burning of the stuff...". Again, that seems 'fair'... except that those fortunate people, by virtue of their better resources, education, stability, et cetera have the ability to develop new technologies which then in turn greatly benefit the less fortunate people. Look at what solar PV, previously a toy only affordable by the rich, is now doing in remote areas of India, Africa, Australia, and other places that never had electricity before.
Personally, I don't see the 'conflict' over global warming policy as between 'populations of countries with high standards of living vs those with low standards of living' at all. At this point, it should be clear that moving away from fossil fuels will be hugely beneficial to both of those groups. The only people who will really be hurt by such a transition are those who make profits from selling fossil fuels. Pitting 'wealthy' vs 'poor' populations just plays into the hands of those selling the lie that prosperity depends on fossil fuel use. That used to be the case, but for much of the world (and soon all of it) there are now better options.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:23 PM on 9 December 2014Even climate change experts and activists might be in denial
I challenge any suggestion that 500 million people would be sustainable by highlighting how long humanity should be able to enjoy being a sustainable part of the robust diversity of life on this amazing planet.
The accumulating impacts of pollution are one thing, but a more relevant issue is that the consumption of any non-renewable resources, particularly burning them up, is unsustainable for almost any amount of human population.
The University of East Anglia recently released a report here forecasting that the Earth could be habitable for humans for 1.75 Billion more years.
With that knowledge, common sense is all that is required to recognise that the consumption of non-renewable resources needs to be curtailed from human activity in order for humanity to sustain itself through that amount of time. Some may argue that figuring out how to live that way is someone elses problem, or that they will be willing to live that way if someone else makes it cheaper and more enjoyable for them to do so (and refusing to accept higher costs for not living that way). Those are clearly poor excuses for not wanting to participate in supporting the rapid development of what is required for the future of humanity.
What is clearly required is the rapid curtailing of any benefit being obtained by already fortunate people from the burning of buried hydrocarbons. That would 'motivate' the development of sustainable ways of living. And there needs to be no different national rules for that requirement. Every very fortunate person should be required to behave far better, stop trying to benefit from the burning of the stuff, no matter what nation they are in. The only justified beneficiaries should be the poorest of the poor who would only benefit for the short time it takes the more fortunate to help them to transition to a sustainable decent life, with none of the 'helping more fortunate people' getting any benefit from the assistance being provided.
I believe that can help clarify why there is so much resistance to climate science and so many other developing better understandings of the unsustainable and damaging nature of popular and profitable activities. Many people do not like the thought of it. It requires an admission that they are not fully deserving of the 'good life they are enjoying'. And some of them prefer to believe that all would be great if there were fewer people. What they fail to realize is that the best benefit for the future of humanity would be for the 'reduced population to be exclusively the lowest consuming and impacting humans.
My preference would be for the highest consumption-impact people to willingly change their ways rather than being forced to behave better. However, it is clear that some people are very reluctant to participate responsibly toward the rapid development of a suatainable better future. And there is little point in asking them 'what they are willing to do'. They are clearly willing to try to get away with the most unacceptable behaviour they are able to.
Hopefully the number of real considerate leaders has increased since the last time global representatives tried to collectively effectively develop toward a sustainable better future for all. What is required is clearly understood by all the global representatives. Who stands in the way is also easy to see.
-
wili at 09:39 AM on 9 December 2014California just had its worst drought in over 1200 years, as temperatures and risks rise
william (who is, may I point out, not the same as me!), your question is directly addressed in the article:
There’s been some confusion about the human influence on the drought because two studies published this year didn’t find a connection to the lack of rainfall. However, as Mann noted, those studies did not consider the three mechanisms listed above. They were incomplete.
-
scaddenp at 09:35 AM on 9 December 2014California just had its worst drought in over 1200 years, as temperatures and risks rise
The actual statement in the article is "in fact, there are at least three different mechanisms that are potentially relevant to the connection"
I am not sure that "potentially relevant" is the same as "strongly implied". However, the 3rd mechanism is important. While there have undoubtedly been low rainfall periods in the past from other causes, higher temperatures worsen the intensity of drought ( which is what PDSI attempts to quantity).
It is extremely difficult to link any particular weather event to climate change - in general climate change only affects the probability of a weather event happening and its severity.
As far as I can see, the NOAA study only considers rainfall patterns, and the article above says, it does not consider changes to jetstream (very unsettled science admittedly).
-
william11409 at 07:43 AM on 9 December 2014California just had its worst drought in over 1200 years, as temperatures and risks rise
This report is like so many in climate science in that two opposing explanations are put foward for the same event. Here it is strongly implied that the Californian drought is due to human activities whereas a report from NOAA scientists states it is not (www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/12/08/california-drought-cause-noaa/20095869/) Who to believe?
Moderator Response:[JH] What you are observing is the scientific process at work. Over time, the seeming contradictions will be sorted out. This sifting and winnowing process occurs in all scientific disciplines. Your suggestion that conflicting explanations are unique to climate science is bogus.
Prev 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 Next
