Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 Next
Comments 32801 to 32850:
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:58 AM on 22 November 2014Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus on climate change
Russ @12... No one participating in the rating of abstracts did their ratings as you're stating. Nor did any of the author self-ratings get applied that way.
Once again, this is a case of deniers attempting to reframe the study in a way that deliberately misinterprets the paper.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:55 AM on 22 November 2014Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus on climate change
Russ... My point was that, it's not unjustified for OFA to make such a statement. It was a tweet after all, not an official presidential memorandum.
On a business-as-usual path, per the IPCC position (which Cook13 was referencing), climate change is very likely to be dangerous. Cook13 did not test for "dangerous" but it's perfectly rational to infer that position based on IPCC reports, the APS statement, NAS statements, etc.
Spoken/written language is not math. You cannot apply mathematical precision to words. There is no need to issue a correction for the use of the word "dangerous" because, if we do not take action, climate change is very dangerous. The OFA was making broader, and perfectly justifiable, inferences in their use of language.
The other thing I would note is, the issue of the OFA tweet always comes up as a distraction to the overall point of Cook13. There is a misperception in the general population relative to how certain science is about human causation for climate change. The exact phrasing of a single tweet does absolutely nothing to address or respond to that issue.
Here's what keeps happening. "Skeptics" (a term I'm getting very tired of using because deniers are clearly not being skeptical at all) jump on the most tiny nuances of accuracy in order to try to reject what is blatantly obvious to the broad scientific community.
-
Russ R. at 02:08 AM on 22 November 2014Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus on climate change
JH,
If anyone can show me where the authors made any effort to publicly correct the error (the word "dangerous") in the Obama/OFA tweet, I'll very happily stand corrected.
Moderator Response:[JH] Please reread my previous comment. It's all about the prohibition of excessive repetition by commenters.
-
Russ R. at 02:03 AM on 22 November 2014Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus on climate change
Tom Curtis,
"The did, however, test the conensus on whether or not humans have caused at least 50% of recent warming."
Yes, and they found that 64 out of of 4,014 abstracts which expressed a position (1.6%) offered "explicit endorsement with quantification".
Abstracts that were rated Level 2 ("explicit endorsement without quantification") or Level 3 ("implicit endorsement") cannot generally be claimed to support the position that humans caused "most" global warming (>50%) if they only endorse the weaker position that humans are a cause of warming (>0%).
And yes, I understand that abstracts which explicity or implicitly minimized human contribution (<50%) are categorized as Levels 5, 6, and 7.
Including the Level 2 and Level 3 abstracts which only offer the weaker endorsement of human responsibility as >0%, with those papers that attributed >50% to human activity, and claiming that all of them endorse "most" warming is, in my opinion, a misrepresentation of the study's findings.
Moderator Response:[JH] If my memory serves me correctly, you have previously gone around this track with Tom Curtis and other commenters on the threads to other posts about The Consensus Project. There is no need to regurgitate those discussions on this thread.
-
Russ R. at 01:31 AM on 22 November 2014Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus on climate change
Rob Honeycutt,
"The fact is, climate change is dangerous on a business-as-usual emissions path."
The fact is, Cook et al did not test the consensus on whether or not AGW was dangerous.
It's understandable if a third party (Obama/OFA) mistakenly misrepresents a study's findings. It's unacceptable that the author(s) of that study made no effort to correct the mistake, and instead promoted and perpetuated the misrepresentation.
Moderator Response:[JH] You are entitled to express your own opinions on this website. You are not entitled to repeat them ad naseum. Per the SkS Comments Policy:
- Comments should avoid excessive repetition. Discussions which circle back on themselves and involve endless repetition of points already discussed do not help clarify relevant points. They are merely tiresome to participants and a barrier to readers. If moderators believe you are being excessively repetitive, they will advise you as such, and any further repetition will be treated as being off topic.
-
Antarctica is gaining ice
dvaytw - Long story short, that title is based on a misunderstanding. Frezzotti et al 2013 is discussing the surface mass balance, which is the amount of incoming mass in Antarctica, comparing ice cores to models for that quantity. This is an input quantity only.
They are not looking at the total mass balance, the total change of ice mass due to the balance of input (snow) and output (melt, glacier calving), which show Antarctic mass loss.
I suspect the emphasis of that 'skeptic' title is due to a misunderstanding of that point.
-
Composer99 at 00:03 AM on 22 November 2014Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus on climate change
ubrew12:
If Cook etal are casting about for another project, it would be fun to determine through abstracts just how long this overwhelming consensus has existed. I'm guessing, since around 1980.
Cook et al did look at the extent of consensus over time, at least back to 1990, as per Figure 3 in the paper.
-
John Hartz at 23:45 PM on 21 November 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
@dvaytw 367:
For a detailed discussion of Zwally et al (2005) and similar papers, see Robert Way's article, New and Improved Ice Loss Estimates for Polar Ice Sheets posted on Oct 1. 2014.
-
dvaytw at 21:55 PM on 21 November 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
I know someone in the comments section must've already brought it up, but I don't really want to fish through eight pages. Can anybody tell me what's the deal with the papers from Frezzotti et al and Zwally saying that in fact the Antarctic is actually gaining ice overall over the last 800 years?
Antarctica gaining Ice Mass (balance*) — and is not extraordinary compared to 800 years of data
Moderator Response:[JH] For future reference, the SkS search engine is a useful tool.
-
ubrew12 at 13:42 PM on 21 November 2014Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus on climate change
"scientists should be talking about evidence, rather than consensus." That's valid... for Scientists. But the debate in the media and public venues is not a Scientific debate, it's a Policy debate. This is what the general public should debate, not the Science, for which they are naturally ill-informed. Indeed, as any denier can tell (as every denier has told you), a single Scientist (a Galileo, if you will?) can with evidence win the Scientific debate. But policy, as every Galileo will tell you, is made through consensus.
Doubly strange, many deniers will pledge fealty to the concept of 'meritocracy', and in the very next sentence, unaware of the irony, will tell you 'those Scientists' don't know their Science.
If Cook etal are casting about for another project, it would be fun to determine through abstracts just how long this overwhelming consensus has existed. I'm guessing, since around 1980.
-
wili at 11:29 AM on 21 November 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #47A
Al Jazeera now has this coverage, too:
Cold snap caused by climate change-weakened jet stream, scientists suggest
-
Paul W at 11:05 AM on 21 November 2014Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus on climate change
JoeK @4 & Rob @ 5 & 6.
While I agree with Rob's comments, the danger is not just BAU emisions for the future but that the inertia in the climate system at 400 ppme CO2 means that with out reduction to 350 ppme CO2 or lower in the next 100 years approximately we have lost the worlds coastal cities! It's not just a metre of sea level rise but 12 -25 metres at equilibrium.
What is not talked about anywhere near enough is that every developed country person needs to remove 300 tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere for all the coastal cities to be kept and the oceans from loosing fish. People talk about being carbon neutral as if it's the mark to aim for. That is the just "for now" mark to aim for but we really do need to stop coal use dead and then take the 300 tonnes Carbon per westerner out of the air!
The state of WAIS is that it's now too late to save it from sliding into the sea in the next few hundred years with out a drop to 350 ppm. That is the largest lost of our best arible land since the end of the last ice age.
The world economy and coastal land is closely tied to the survival interests of a large part of the worlds current population. The inability of a significant portion of the wealthy to end the funding of fossil fuels (at the rate that would pay for the switch to sustainable non carbon energy) is a real and current threat to civilisation for the next 10,000 years as a minimium.To end humanities civilisation in one ignorant generation of one eyed wealth is remarkably dangerous by anyones definition of dangerous.
The danger is that the current CO2 levels take us out of the Holoscene climate state of the last 7 - 10,000 years that has allowed civilisation to develop. The cost to make the needed changes is do-able currently but the door is closing. -
Rob Honeycutt at 10:41 AM on 21 November 2014New study shows warm waters are melting Antarctica from below
Same with the Hillier and Watts paper. Neither of these have any relation to climate change or changes in ice mass loss rates in Antarctica.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:33 AM on 21 November 2014New study shows warm waters are melting Antarctica from below
Sorry dorje... But the actual Schroeder paper makes none of the assertions you or "tech times" claim.
-
dorje at 10:19 AM on 21 November 2014New study shows warm waters are melting Antarctica from below
Dusty Schroeder, lead author of the article announcing the results, helped lead a team that used aerial surveys to create radar maps capable of penetrating the surface of the ice. They found two bodies of water under the glacier which interacted with each other, distributing heat in the process.
The source of heating is believed to be a tearing apart, or rifting, of the crust under the Antarctic ice sheet. This allows movement of magma and creates volcanic eruptions, melting the ice. Liquid water and geological activity under the sheet allows the massive feature to slip off the continent.
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/8278/20140610/underwater-volcanoes-climate-change-reason-melting-west-antarctic-ice.htm#ixzz3Jec2ZNjB
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
In 2007, oceanographers Hillier and Watts surveyed 201,055 submarine volcanoes. “From this they concluded an astounding total of 3,477,403 submarine volcanoes must reasonably exist worldwide,” said this article by John O’Sullivan.
Hillier and Watts “based this finding on the earlier and well-respected observations of Earth and Planetary Sciences specialist, Batiza (1982) who found that at least 4 per cent of seamounts are active volcanoes.”
According to Batiza’s survey, the Pacific mid-plate alone contains an incredible 22,000 to 55,000 underwater volcanoes, with at least 2,000 of them considered active. http://www.themoralliberal.com/2011/05/09/volcano-heats-high-mountain-lake-to-108-degrees/
-
Tom Curtis at 09:30 AM on 21 November 2014It's cooling
pbjamm, if you follow the link to find out how to obtain your free copy of his book (it turns out you can obtain the free book by sending him $5 - and I doubt very much you will be sent the hard cover version shown, and suspect you will be emailed a PDF), you find a list of his basic arguments. They are in order:
1) Climate Science is a conspiracy for financial gain (maintained without evidence, emphasizes the amount at stake by confusing "border protection" with customs and immigration control. Perhaps that is an American usage, but I would have taken border protection to include the entire activities of the Homeland security department plus the military, on which basis his claims are egregiously false.)
2) It has not warmed. Based solely on RSS over the last 39 years. He makes the outrageously false claim that temperatures have only been measured for the last 39 years (news, of course, to the Hadley Center, University of East Anglia, NOAA, GISS, BEST, and the maintainers of the Japanese index, whose name currently escapes me).
3) Global warming has paused (based solely on RSS temperatures which he incorrectly also attributes to NOAA and NASA on the basis that those agencies use the data. If he is a scientist, he knows that his attribution on that basis is fraudulent.
4) The oceans are getting colder, for which his evidence is:
5) Arctic sea ice extent is growing (based on the fact that 2013 had more ice than 2012)
6) There is no consensus (based the fact that Al Gore emits CO2, and on the fraudulent claim that the Cook et al consensus is actually 1%)
7) Climate has changed before; based on the unsupported claim that climate change was a big factor in Alexander the Great's conquest of Persia (which is possible, but news to me), and the LIA.
He then goes into his own version of it's the Sun, based on mathturbation which is presumably in the book so I cannot comment further, except to note that it is not original (not even in 2007) and is definitively refuted by direct measurements of solar forcing.
Finally he finishes with the obligatory UEA email hack out of context quotations.
All these have been copiously discussed on SkS before, and most feature in the climate myths. If you want a more detailed rebutal, you will need to spend $5 US for your "free" book that even the pseudoskeptics consider a scam, but I am not going to waste my money (which is better spent on one seventh of a scientific paper).
-
Tom Curtis at 09:07 AM on 21 November 2014Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus on climate change
JoeK @4, Cook et al did not test the consensus on whether or not AGW was dangerous. The did, however, test the conensus on whether or not humans have caused at least 50% of recent warming. Monckton, Michaels, and Spencer all reject that claim and are not part of the 97%. What is more, one of the very first "skeptical" critiques of Cook et al was that it redefined the target in that the IPCC "consensus" was that 100% or warming over the twentieth century was anthropogenic. That claim was made by Nicolas Scaffeta, and was the basis of his claiming that Cook et al incorrectly categorized his paper (which claimed in the abstract that the Sun contributed "as much as" 25-35%" of recent warming, and hence by elimination that AGW was responsible for at least 65%).
The fun bit is that those skeptics who claim that they are part of the consensus because they accept that adding CO2 to the atmosphere does not cool it also claim that Scaffeta's paper was incorrectly rated - which is an inconsistent position. The point is that both claims are rhetorical, and are not expected by their proponents to actually be logically cohesive, only to serve a purpose.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:04 AM on 21 November 2014Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus on climate change
JoeK... The "skeptics" who've claimed to be part of the 97% are deliberately misreading the research. None of those you listed endorse the IPCC position on climate change, which is the fundamental basis of the study. They all minimize human contribution, thus they are clearly part of the 3%.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:02 AM on 21 November 2014Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus on climate change
JoeK... The fact is, climate change is dangerous on a business-as-usual emissions path.
-
JoeK at 08:45 AM on 21 November 2014Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus on climate change
Do you think that Obama's tweet was a fair representation of your study? I'm thinking particularly of the way that he added 'dangerous' to the consensus. I may have missed it, but I couldn't find the word danger in your ERL publication, or the Guardian blog post you linked to announcing it.
Does this matter? I think it does. Many skeptics (including e.g. Christopher Monckton, Patrick Michaels and Roy Spencer) have claimed that they are part of 'the 97%' on the grounds that they believe climate change is real and man made.
I suspect that if the consensus was 'real, man made and dangerous' then they would have a much harder time claiming to be part of the consensus.
To quote one of your critics, Andrew Montford:
"Differences over extent of any human influence is the essence of the climate debate. The vast majority of those involved – scientists, economists, commentators, activists, environmentalists and sceptics – accept that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that will, other things being equal, warm the planet. But whether the effect is large or small is unknown and the subject of furious debate. The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report shows a range of figures for effective climate sensitivity – the amount of warming that can be expected from a doubling of carbon dioxide levels. At one end are studies based on observations and suggesting little more than 1◦C of warming per doubling. If true, this would mean that climate change was inconsequential. At the other end are estimates based on computer simulations, which would, if realised, be disastrous."
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/09/Warming-consensus-and-it-critics1.pdfIn short, these skeptics often claim that your study simply missed the point.
It may be that you're not interested in engaging with skeptics such as Montford or Michaels, and are more interested in talking to a wider 'unconvinced' public (although even there, I believe you have things wrong). Have you considered the possibility that some of the "criticisms from scientists who accept the science on climate change" arose because those scientists are engaging with a different audience, skeptics such as Montford and Michaels, where simply asserting that climate change is 'real and man made' does indeed miss the point?
-
wili at 08:30 AM on 21 November 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #47A
Doh!
Thanks. Good to see that Slate is on top of it, as are you guys. Thanks!
-
pbjamm at 03:17 AM on 21 November 2014It's cooling
Agreed but I am compelled to respond to my Dad in what I am sure will be a vain attempt to inform him.
-
It's cooling
pbjamm - He's clearly a scam artist, there's probably little need to waste time on him, or to give him publicity.
-
Composer99 at 02:46 AM on 21 November 2014Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus on climate change
topal:
No, John Cook is correct.
The majority of people attacking Cook et al 2013 are people who reject climate science.
If you really think "[n]obody rejects science when it is real science" then I am sorry to say you are, at best, extraordinarily misinformed.
-
Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus on climate change
topal - Nobody rejects science when it's real science??? Please tell that to climate deniers who say that CO2 isn't being increased by anthropogenic activity, that it has no effect on temperatures, that it's all some unknown long term cycle, that it's cosmic rays, that all of the science is a malicous plot by the Illuminati, etc. etc. etc.
Because those are people documentably rejecting real science.
Scientific consensus on complex issues is notable because we (the public) use it to evaluate those issues. And like tobacco research, climate science and consensus is under constant attack by those who wish to disuade any action on the subject. Which is both a rejection of science, and a campaign of disinformation intended to prevent public policy changes, by a very small segment of the population.
-
pbjamm at 02:40 AM on 21 November 2014It's cooling
Thanks KR. I worked up a response and included Leif Svalgaard's comment. It is kind of long winded but there is so much wrong information in the article that it is hard to cover it all. If anyone is interested I can post it here.
-
topal at 02:00 AM on 21 November 2014Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus on climate change
"We expected our work would be attacked from those who reject climate science. We weren’t disappointed." You mean "attacked from those who reject consensus as science". Nobody rejects science when it is real science, not just opinions of "scientists".
Moderator Response:[JH] Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
It's cooling
pbjamm - Given comments from long-known denier organizations like JunkScience:
"We think he’s a scam artist trying to get his hands in your pockets but couldn’t see how he expected to do so — now he’s told us. He’s looking for ‘meaningful funding’ and he thinks the skeptic community might be eager enough to slay the catastrophic warming myth to fork over some cash"
or blogger Tom Nelson, who thinks that SSRC is a scam, and longtime WUWT commenter Leif Svalgaard:
"The ‘Space and Science Research Center’ and John Casey should not be relied on for valid research. I know of Mr. Casey and have checked his credentials and they are not legitimate. He has tried to recruit even me into his band of ‘experts’. I would not place any value on the ramblings ofthe press release."
SSRC is not a source to be relied on. Even known loons think so.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:19 AM on 21 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Glenn @36,
Thanks for the link. Interesting presentation.It is unfortunate that the writer did not simply state that the 'different Republican Party' needed to be developed to have a future needs to actually focus on development of a sustainable better future for all life. The Democrats also need to change, just not as much as the Republicans.
The current group behind the Republicans is trying to win through momentarily potentially successful but ultimately unsustainable actions like: appealing for the votes of intolerant people, gerrymandering, tricky voter ID legislation and deliberate mass-misleading marketing efforts. That effort is inevitably leading to damaging future failure.
The appearances of success obtained by those actions and attitudes will ultimately collapse because they are fundamentally at odds with the development of a sustainable better future for all life on this amazing planet.The population will inevitably become more aware caring and thoughtful, or its society and economy has no future. And as more thoughtful aware and caring people vote based more on their 'thoughtful consideration of all the facts' than their 'selfish impulse of the moment' the people who fight to try to prolong their ability to succeed from unsustainable harmful (unhelpful) actions and attitudes will fail more frequently.
History is full of examples of 'moments of apparent success' by those who only cared about themselves in their time. Humanity only progressed to a better future when those people failed to succeed. And humanity will continue to progress, in spite of the damaging delusions that can be generated in the minds of easily impressed people immersed in a mad mass-marketed consumptive unsustainable chase for an unsustainable 'impression' of success.
-
pbjamm at 01:03 AM on 21 November 2014It's cooling
I am a long time lurker and occasional commenter here and I need some help. I received a link to this article from my Dad yesterday and it is so full of nonsense I dont even know where to start debunking it. I can find no outside information on the 'scientist' John L Casey. All claims about his expertise and history seem to come from the bio on his website.
The Dark Winter linked to reads like an elaborate scam to get money from the gullible and paranoid. It is full or random unsourced claims, about Al Gore, Global Cooling, and scams. Please help me out guys and gals. If there is a more appropriate "Help Me" page
-
wili at 00:12 AM on 21 November 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #47A
It would be great to include something about the mega-snow event in Buffalo, but I haven't seen a MSM news story that includes GW in it, even though it has GW fingerprints all over it. Yes, lake-effect snow is common. But the fact that these extreme levels of snowfall broke records shows that this event was quite uncommon.
After a warm summer and fall, some of the lake temps were at record highs. Then you had the odd "Warm Arctic, Cold Continent" effect that is becoming more common as GW proceeds, displacing lots of Arctic air over those warm water bodies...and record lake-effect snows were a rather predictable result.
If anyone does see someone connect these dots in the MSM, please to provide a link here. (And of course, if I've botched something in my reasoning here--not at all unlikely--please let me know that, too.)
Moderator Response:[JH] See the seventh listed article in the OP.
-
Christian Moe at 19:58 PM on 20 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Peru's point @9 about intermittency matters. Fisk et al's test subjects were exposed to elevated CO2 concentration for a 2.5-hour period, and the test was administered over the latter half of that period. Their bodies would have little time to adjust. That's fine for Fisk et al's purposes, looking at office-building conditions. They draw no conclusion about the effects of permanently elevated atmospheric CO2, and I don't see how such conclusions can be drawn on the basis of their study. As Marcin admits in @30, studies of long-term exposure would be required. That would have been a fitting conclusion to an article seeking to relate this study to global change.
Why the speculations about IQ? Are there studies that find elevated CO2 lowers IQ? Fisk's didn't test IQ.
I concede that my argument from incredulity @25 about naval nuclear submarine crews was not compelling. I guess reduced "initiative" could be seen as a feature rather than bug when you've got a tin can of young males confined handling the world's most dangerous weapons — in line with KR's anecdotal evidence @31. And though you'd care about anything degrading the decision-making performance of officers hunting and being hunted by other submarines, they'd start from a very high baseline performance, as Marcin pointed out @30, and could count on the other side breathing at least as much CO2.
-
shoyemore at 18:44 PM on 20 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Just to re-inforce my last point:
A Dem Congressman will support the GOP on Keystone to "pave the way" for compromise
-
shoyemore at 18:40 PM on 20 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
"So all the Democrat Senators should be an essentially indivisible block like the Republicans chose to be through the past 6 years."
Unfortunately, that is not always true. In the recent election, Democrats ran away from the President, the healthcare improvements achieved by his Administration, and the improving economy. Again, they allowed the Republicans to write the agenda ("Things are cr*p and everything is the fault of Big Government"), every Democrat fought for survival as an individual and allowed himself or herself to be picked off.
If the Democrats stop being defensive and mount an aggressive campaign for collective action with a simple message, they have much better chance in 2016.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 17:47 PM on 20 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
And here is a Republican supporter (of the old fashioned sensible conservative variety - remember them) who thinks the GOP is in big trouble in 2016; Presidency, House Senate.
Maybe all the policies the Dem's need is 'America Needs You To Vote'. High voter turn-out and the GOP is toast. -
One Planet Only Forever at 14:05 PM on 20 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
The Republicans will not have 67 seats in the new Senate. And only a delusional Democrat would believe their vote for XL would get them votes in 2016 from 'voters who only care about getting the best possible personal benefit to the detriment of developing a sustainable better future for all'.
So all the Democrat Senators should be an essentially indivisible block like the Republicans chose to be through the past 6 years. That way the only approval of XL comes paired with significant dramatic meaningful curtailing of other 'unacceptable profitable activity'. I would encourage that to be far more significant curtailing of coal burning in the US and curtailing coal sales out of the US than can be accomplished by "Executive Order', along with banning the burning and exporting of Petroleum Coke, a byproduct more damaging than coal resulting from trying to make something conveniently burnable out of the crud from Alberta.
Any approval of XL based on a promise by its supporters to agree to such actions 'at a future date' would be an absurd deal to make given the proven history of those type of people to 'Never accept No' as an answer to their incessent demands to get away with unacceptable unsustainable behaviour.
-
Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Anecdotal evidence, but...
A friend of mine who spent his twenty in the navy, mostly in the sub service, told me that the low O2 and high CO2 levels were preferred because they _did_ slow the sailors down mentally, leading to more time in the bunks and less energy to cause trouble in confined quarters. After all, damage control and many other duties require rote learning, not considered decision making. Follow The Book, don't reinvent it.
-
Marcin Popkiewicz at 09:23 AM on 20 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Thank you all for valuable remarks and links. Yes, it's debatable, how elevated CO2 concentrations influence our ability to process information. I also agree that it's quite possible that Robertson's opinion is too extreme. It's true that our bodies have strong balancing mechanisms, buffering us from too strong blood acidification and enabling us to function under such conditions, allowing us to perform simple or routine tasks. But, as research of Fisk et al (as well as ventilation norms and observation of crowded meeting rooms, who wake up after a short draught) suggest, CO2 concentration of 1000 or 2500 ppm seems to hamper our information processing and strategic thinking abilities.
In case of submarine crews their extensive training allows them to perform their duties on a routine level, mostly without real need for learning "on the fly". Their officers, who have to make such decisions, have high intellectual abilities - even if one's IQ decreases from 130 to 125 pts (or even 120), he still will be a highly intelligent and capable individual.
Maybe we don't have to worry much. Maybe. But none of the research cited answers this question in a direct and unambiguous way. It would be much better to be sure, by performing experiments similar to Fisk et al., but with a much better statistics and longer exposures time for various CO2 concentrations. Then we would know whether after staying at high CO2 concentrations for a long time we will adapt without any measurable loss to our IQ or not.
-
Composer99 at 08:48 AM on 20 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Ashton,
What evidence is there that Keystone or fracking were key policy planks motivating voters in the 2014 midterms?
-
John Hartz at 07:04 AM on 20 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Recommended reading:
Democrats block Keystone pipeline, but GOP vows new fight when it takes over by Paul Kane and Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post, Nov 18, 2014
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:32 AM on 20 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
shoyemore... The Republicans have far more seats in play in 2016 than do the Democrats. The Dems have 10 up for reelection, where the Republicans have 24. [Source]
-
shoyemore at 06:03 AM on 20 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Rob Honeycutt, #27
Ok, thanks for that. One Democrat Senator, who is in a runoff (from Louisiana, a state not really affected) broke ranks on this vote because she looks like she will lose her seat. So there is a risk that more Senators will waver, afraid of a voter meltdown in 2016.
But I agree that a veto override is unlikely - thanks for the information.
However, there is always a risk that the Preisdent will bargain Keystone for what may seem an advantage elsewhere.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 05:37 AM on 20 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
marcf... Yeah, I think the Republican lead Senate next year will still come up short of the 67 votes necessary to override a veto. And Obama has been taking a much firmer stance on climate change.
I also think that, even though there is popular support for KXL, it's fairly soft support. It's not a pivotal issue for most voters.
-
marcf at 05:23 AM on 20 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Chrizkoz @19, Rob - Some of the Senate votes for the pipeline will not change even with the new Congress. For example Landrieu (likely to lose runoff) and Begich from Alaska will be replaced by Republicans but both voted for the pipeline.
-
wili at 04:02 AM on 20 November 2014Turbulent week for global climate policy leaves many questions
And now there's this:
China To Cap Coal Use By 2020 To Meet Game-Changing Climate, Air Pollution Targets
-
Ashton at 03:38 AM on 20 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
I'm surprised that in the 27 comments to date no-one has commented on what is probably the major reason the US will develop the XXL pipeline and will increase shale oil fracking. As shale oil production has increased so the US has become less and less reliant on the supply of oil from Saudi Arabia and other OPEC countries and is in fact exporting more oil than some OPEC countries. For decades now the West and particularly the US, have been held to ransom through threats to and manipiulation of oil supplies by OPEC. The US, will not, if it can possibly help it, return to that scenario. That many Americans do not agree with President Obama is shown clearly by the result of the mid-term elections. This quote from USA Today on November 13 2013 is relevant :
"The United States tiptoed closer to energy independence last month when — for the first time in nearly two decades — it produced more crude oil than it imported, federal officials said Wednesday.
The nation has been moving toward this milestone, because two trends are converging. Domestic oil production is at a 24-year high while foreign oil imports are at a 17-year low. The result: production exceeded net imports for the first time since February 1995, although the nation still imports 35% of the petroleum it uses.
Production has been booming partly because of hydraulic fracturing or fracking, which extracts oil by blasting water mixed with sand and chemicals underground to break apart shale rock. Meanwhile, consumption has been falling as high gasoline prices have reduced how much people drive and more efficient cars and buildings have also lowered energy use.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:58 AM on 20 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
From wiki: "Senate rules permit a senator, or series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn" (usually 60 out of 100 senators) brings debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII."
So, it's 60 votes to stop a filibuster but 67 votes to override a veto.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:57 AM on 20 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
christoz... The vote yesterday was short by one to avoid a filibuster. The 2/3 vote to override a veto would be 67 out of the 100 senators. So, even if they'd gotten the necessary 60 votes yesterday they still would have faced a veto. Next year might be a different matter, but Dems may also close ranks with the new Senate, meaning the 67 votes to override a veto may still not be there.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:53 AM on 20 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Russ @23... "That's seriously flawed."
I posted 5 articles that say KXL would likely raise prices nationally. That was just the first 5 I got in a google search. There were tons more.
You seem to be applying an overly simplified idealization of economics to the question. There are other issues that come into play relative to restrictions on re-exporting crude oil.
-
John Hartz at 01:32 AM on 20 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Recommeded reading:
Keystone XL: A Tar Sands Pipeline to Increase Oil Prices by Anthony Swift, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), May 21, 2012
Prev 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 Next
