Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 Next
Comments 33351 to 33400:
-
Tom Curtis at 21:47 PM on 30 October 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
karly @300, if he is so arrogant as to not present his views for peer review (where they can be examined by qualified experts) before going public with his results, why should I give any consideration to his request? That initial arrogance suggests to me he will not listen to rebutals in any event.
-
CBDunkerson at 21:08 PM on 30 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
ubrew12 @58, I recalled and was able to locate a Slate article from a few years ago on why windmills are white.
-
MA Rodger at 20:26 PM on 30 October 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
karly @300.
I am not sure why you feel the comment @299 was aimed just at you. And to dot the 'i's, I have taken the liberty of linking the comment @299 to a comment @duncansteel.com even though "I am not a physicist, astronomer or climate scientist, nor am I associated in any way with Dr Steel."
-
michael sweet at 20:04 PM on 30 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Donny,
You are long on opinions and short on references that support your position. You have made many claims where others have provided documentation to show your claims were false. You are adding to the noise, not the substance of the discussion. That is why the moderator is warning you. Provide links to support your position and you will be better received (even a link to WUWT is better than nothing). The unsupported opinion of a random internet guy does not mean anything at this site.
In your respose to Scaddenps at 56 you do not address the subject of your post that Scaddenps linked. You change the subject and complain about Scaddenps. Since you did not address your off topic link, I presume you agree with Scaddenps that you were out of line with your post. You started the fight and now you are complaining that you do not like Scaddenps's reply. This type of changing the subject does not go over well with the moderators. Try not to insult other posters. Support your claims with links.
-
karly at 19:52 PM on 30 October 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
Mr Curtis, your criticisms are wasted on me. I am not a physicist, astronomer or climate scientist, nor am I associated in any way with Dr Steel. I have only a layman’s interest. If you believe his analysis is erroneous, please respect his request, and discuss the matter with him directly.
-
nigelj at 17:29 PM on 30 October 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
One Planet Only Forever @ 54.
I think Al Gores “The Assault on Reason” was very good and convincingly put. It was well “reasoned”.
I think The Inconvenient Truth was very good, and a good summary of the science in simple terms, but it made a couple of claims that stretched things slightly about rates of possible ice melt. This gave the sceptics ammunition and they then attack one small element to discredit the whole.However I personally think we are at risk of very significant sea level rise. But that is my view, and beside the point.
I think Gores book on alternative energy is pretty good. I would have a few minor criticisms though, but any book like that will never be perfect. I have another of his books on "The Future" on the pile of books to read.
I agree ideally humanity works on considering long term goals ( based on sustainability) and then sets short term measures consistent with those goals. Just like your own life or running a business. My point was we have to consider both short term and long term survival issues in a constant state of flux, but if humanity has a decent long term framework everything becomes easier. Selfish damaging short term goals are a problem.
One problem is current economic thinking stresses market mechanisms and opposes longer term planning especially by government. Not that I favour massive government planning or oppose the market, but perhaps it requires a balance of both market and some government goals as well.
I think that in the past damaging environmental activities, including entertainment of certain types, has not been an issue, but we are now pushing the boundaries. This is uncomfortable and challenging especially if your personal interests are threatened. However there is always a reasonable compromise, or clever solution and ultimately I’m sure we will deal with climate change that way.
Alternative energy sources will improve and life will go on without massive compromise. Alternatively maybe we need a more radical adjustment, and a less materialistic lifestyle, but the policy goal should be to "have the best of all worlds" and see where that gets us.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:47 PM on 30 October 2014Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Donny @176, it is a bit hard to rebut "another article" when you provide no link so that I can read it myself. Nevertheless, the article probably refered to this graph from Harries et al 2001:
The graph shows the difference in OLR between April-June, 1970 and April-June 1997 over the eastern central tropical pacific (10 S to 10 N; 130-180 W). It shows that the OLR has increased slightly (top), but that the observed increase was matched by an predicted increase in the models (middle). The graphs are offset to allow easy comparison.
The question you should ask is why did the models predict an increased OLR even though the CO2 level had risen. The answer is that the region observed is right in the center of the ENSO pattern of variation. If you look at the pattern of ENSO variation, you will see that while there were slightly cool ENSO conditions in that zone in 1997, they were very much cooler in 1970:
Remember, warmer temperatures increase OLR, and the 1997 temperatures were distinctly warmer, and warmer beyond the mere expectation from global warming due to the ENSO pattern. That additional warmth above the AGW trend increased OLR beyond the additional reduction due to the slight increase in CO2 over that period. Indeed, it was only because of the additional warmth due to ENSO that the OLR increased. Had the increase in warmth been only that of the trend, the net OLR would have declined slightly.
Harries et al did not leave it there. They used a model to correct for the temperature difference, thereby showing the impact of greenhouse gases apart from the changes in temperature:
As expected, the change in GHG concentration reduces OLR.
I know that pseudoskeptics attempt to dismiss this data because a model was used to generate it. It was not, however, climate model. It was a radiation model (specifically Modtran3). This is the sort of accuracy you can get with radiation models:
Because the adjustment was done with radiation code, denying the validity of the adjustment is tantamount to denying radiative physics altogether. It puts those who do it into flat earth society territory as regards to the level of their pseudo-science.
Moderator Response:[PS] Isaac Held has also blogged on this.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:36 PM on 30 October 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
Nigelj,
You mentioned you had read many of Al Gore's books. Are there a couple you felt were more effective presentations of his thoughts?
You have prompted me to evaluate and clarify my thoughts about short-term vs. long-term. I prefer to keep the focus on activities that would develop a sustainable better future for all life.
Investigations to better understand anything are helpful by default. They identify things that would be beneficial. And they identify things to be avoided or already developed activity that is to be curtailed. Leadership of societies and economies needs to focus on using the constantly improved best understanding of what is going on to ensure that short term actions, the things policy and investment decisions can affect, constantly evolve to best support the development of the ultimate long term objective.
I would consider any short term activity that does not deliver a benefit in the distant future to be entertainment for a current generation or sub-group of a current generation. Entertainment is not a bad thing unless everyone cannot develop to be as 'entertained', if the most entertained have to fight off others who want to be as enetrtained as they are.
Also, if the 'entertainment' would delay the development of a sustainable better future it would be a bad thing. Economies and societies that stick to relying on unsustainable activity rather than evolving and adapting their activity to be sustainable are destined to fail in spite of their potential short term appearance of affluence.
And I would consider any activity that deliberately increases the difficulty of developing a sustainable better future, such as promoting and protecting a damaging ultimately unsustainable activity just for short term 'entertainment' of one group to the detriment of other groups, particularly to the detriment of future generations, to be almost criminal.
p.s. I use the term sustainable in the sense of a perpetual motion machine, but knowing the sun's input is what keeps the machine going. I dislike the many cases where people use the term 'sustainable' when they are talking about prolonging popular support for a harmful and ultimately unsustainable activity.
-
nigelj at 13:19 PM on 30 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Donny #56
You say "I would never hinder a wind farm from going up because of birds.... or a hydroelectric plant because of fish. I was merely stating that I know of many people who hate using fossil fuels but complain about alternative energy options."
You are stating the obvious and wasting time. Do you have something constructive to add on how to convince people to look at the issue differently?
And who cares about whether CO2 as a pollutant? This is pedantic, time wasting, nonsense argument. The evidence is excessive quantities in the atmosphere are harmful. That is what matters.
-
Donny at 12:13 PM on 30 October 2014Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
I read an article on another site that eludes that OLWIR should be decreasing over the last few years as co2 has risen. ... but instead had increased. I am trying to understand this relationship. It seems like if the LWIR was decreasing because more co2 was trapping it.... it would result in warming. Is that correct?
-
ubrew12 at 11:59 AM on 30 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
While we're on the topic of windmills would somebody, pulleezze, tell me why windmills are White? Just ask a Landscape Architect (you know: an expert) what color they should be. "Anything but white", she would say. An English study showed that, as regards bird deaths, the worst possible color you could paint a windmill is White (best is Purple).
"Arguing about whether CO2 is a pollutant or not is a waste of time" Its the kind of argument lawyers make, because lawyers are about conflict and not resolution. Conflict pads the wallet of lawyers. If you're of a scientific bent, you have got to be saying, to most of this discussion, 'what the...?'.
-
Donny at 11:49 AM on 30 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Paul D @51... I would never hinder a wind farm from going up because of birds.... or a hydroelectric plant because of fish. I was merely stating that I know of many people who hate using fossil fuels but complain about alternative energy options.
-
Donny at 11:43 AM on 30 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Scaddenp@ 52.... why are you attacking me???? All I said was there are people who don't want to make sacrifices that sometimes come with renewable energy. Then I gave examples. Hydro power and fish. I think hydroelectric is great but the fisheries departments don't like them. Wind farms on Cape Cod ran into major obstacles because people didn't want their water views to change. I am not sure what was so offensive about that.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:39 AM on 30 October 2014Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Donny, the OLWIR radiation is acting as it should, ie, as a function of surface temperature and greenhouse gas concentrations. You have provided no evidence to the contrary. Indeed, the TOA energy imbalance that is demonstrated by the rising Ocean Heat Content shows the current OLWIR radiation to have increased significantly less than would be expected from the increased surface temperature alone. Indeed, without a decrease of OLWIR due to CO2 (and other greenhouse gases), we would expect a negative imbalance (oceans loosing heat) due to the rise in surface temperatures alone.
-
Donny at 11:23 AM on 30 October 2014Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
I am trying to figure out why the OLWIR would not be acting like it should. ... if that is even the case.... is that wrong to do?? I am confused. Why do you say I have repeatedly violated?
-
Donny at 11:19 AM on 30 October 2014Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
John.... I am not sure what I said that violated the policy???? Can you be more specific so I know?
-
PhilippeChantreau at 10:02 AM on 30 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
"Arguing about whether CO2 is a pollutant or not is a waste of time and just pandering to another skeptic/denier distraction."
I can't think of any way to argue with that.
-
mancan18 at 09:46 AM on 30 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
I am not sure whether an argument about the semantics of whether CO2 is a pollutant or not actually serves any purpose, and is just more of "the science is not settled", "CO2 is a harmless gas" and "CO2 is fertilizer " type arguments that skeptics are so fond of.
Whether CO2 is a pollutant or not is an argument for lawyers. We know more of it will warm the planet and that it can kill you if there is too much of it. The Lake Nyos disaster in Cameroon in the 1980s certainly shows that CO2 can be deadly, when several thousand people and many cows were killed by the CO2 bubble that was released from the bottom of the lake.
In relation to 19th century visionaries building sewers in our cities, the reduction of the number of people dying from colera would have had a far greater economic impact for the better on our modern industrial society, which far outweighed the cost of building them, than just leaving conditions as they were by not building them. The same is true for alleviating CO2 emissions.
Discussing the levels of CO2 in our atmosphere is a similar to maintaining chlorine levels in a swimming pool. The pump puts it in and it evaporates out. If the pump does not keep up to the evaporation rate then there will be too little chlorine, algae will grow and you can't swim in the pool. If the pump puts in too much then you won't have algae but you still won't be able swim in the pool because you will get burnt and possibly die. The same analogy can be applied to fertilizers and land use. To little, you get weeds, a little more and you get a greater yield, too much and plants die. CO2 in the atmosphere is the same. Too little and we freeze. Too much and we will all be living in the tropics and people in poor countries will die.
What is a safe level? Well the IPCC and climate scientists have already indicated what they think is safe. Pity the skeptics never give a figure that can be put under scientific scrutiny. Arguing about whether CO2 is a pollutant or not is a waste of time and just pandering to another skeptic/denier distraction.
-
John Hartz at 09:23 AM on 30 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Moderator's Comment
Donny:
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.
-
nigelj at 09:05 AM on 30 October 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
One Planet Only @ 50, 52.
Thanks for your comment. Regarding my comment "It undermines Gores book". I was just referring to his (alleged) speech "on the science being settled" as being too general and this undermines the quality of his books or their credibility, in the eyes of the general public. I can’t recall any of his books specifically claiming the science was settled, they are more nuanced. Perhaps I wasn't clear.
Regarding your comments in your post no 52, on how we fit into the planet etc. I see it much the same way. Obviously we only have one planet and better take care of it. Obviously organisms can push environments beyond the limits and successful ones fit in.
Humans do have a unique attribute of looking ahead, or it is more developed than in animals. However it is very variable, Im thinking of Jared Diamonds book "Collapse", where various civilisations didn't see the consequences of their actions on the environment. Easter Island is the classic example, but I think we are getting better, with better awareness and ability to calculate. There are still big limitations. We are good at responding to short term risks, but less so with longer term risks, yet we are aware of our own inadequacies. It is like a constantly developing consciousness, which is maybe your point.
I think you are onto something in differentiating how different people respond. Some think very selfishly and short term. Others seem almost programmed to think longer term, and we need to listen to each other. I wouldn’t want to say thinking short term is somehow entirely wrong though, we need both. This is hard for me to explain, and this is where internet missundertandings occur. But anyway I generally concur with your ideas, and hope I have added something.
-
wili at 09:01 AM on 30 October 2014The role of the ocean in tempering global surface warming
The place where SSTs are increasing the fastest are surely in the Arctic Ocean, particularly around the perimeter--places like the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS). Consequences of such extreme (relatively) heating in these particular places are potentially quite, well, consequential.
"Arctic Methane Spikes Continue — 2666 Parts Per Billion on October 26th"
-
scaddenp at 06:31 AM on 30 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
From the facetious response of Donny, I would conclude:
Donny prefers ignorance of problems to information that challenges his preferences
Is prepared only to consider technological solutions. I am guessing Donny is not prepared to consider what to do politically if alternatives are more expensive than even unsubsidized FF.
I would strongly suspect that Donny is not interested in any information which would imply taking higher immediate personal cost to avert future cost. In short, ideologically-driven pseudo-skepticism. DNFTT.
-
Paul D at 04:45 AM on 30 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Donny said "If we reduce our co2 emissions by reducing the amount of energy we use and try and institute new energy forms.... there will be sacrifices.... birds and wind mills"
I assume you propose to knock down all buildings and kill all pet cats?
All of which are much greater causes of bird fatalities than wind turbines.
You appear to be the subject of the usual misinformation.Pet cats for instance kill about 1060 times more birds than wind turbines.
FYI regarding bird fatalities
Wind Turbines less than 0.01%
Buildings about 58%So I suggest maybe you need to live in a tent.
Moderator Response:[JH] Please keep it civil.
-
Paul D at 04:37 AM on 30 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Donny said "Longjohn. .. there is a huge difference between co2 and asbestos. CO2 is not pollution. Neither is heat."
Wrong on all accounts.Noise Pollution
Light PollutionPollution can and is caused by anything. CO2 is a pollutant in the context of climate change and ocean acidification.
-
ubrew12 at 03:40 AM on 30 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
That 'Great Stink of London' article is an important analogy, in how waste can become a pollutant, and how sometimes the only way to deal with our common waste problem is 'commonly'. When people say they don't want to pay for a common fix for our common gas waste problem because it empowers the 'big government' I generally ask "Did you use a toilet today? If you did, did you feel that big government sucking away your freedoms?'. These kinds of solutions become so universally expected that, today, its actually the Absence of a toilet, when you need one, that is mostly likely to engender a blistering harangue at 'that stupid government'.
-
Tom Curtis at 03:22 AM on 30 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Michael Sweet @45, this may have been the article you had in mind, although as explained in the article, the original exposition (as an analogy for tackling climate) comes from Richard Alley in Earth: The operator's manual, which I highly recommend.
-
Ashton at 02:54 AM on 30 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
I'm at a loss to know how better to express my view on CO2 other than stating again "However too much CO2, like many things, could be classed as a pollutant". Prior to that I had said "CO2 per se is not a pollutant" Perhaps it would have been better if I had written "at low concentrations CO2 is not regarded as a pollutant but at high concentrations is regarded as a pollutant". I had thought my command of the English language was reasonable but it appears I was mistaken.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:47 AM on 30 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Philippe... That echoes Steven Schneiders words quite well, where he said, "“We also knew that you had to stop using the atmosphere as an unpriced sewer to dump your smoke stack and tail pipe waste..."
Also interesting is the fact that, at this point, what we're talking about is probably <2% of GDP. It's a very similar problem.
-
michael sweet at 02:35 AM on 30 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Tom@37,
I once read an article (sorry, no cite) that discussed when sewers were first installed in major cities (specificly London). Deniers at the time said sewers would be too expensive and the human manure was being used as fertilizer on nearby farms so it would be unfeasible to bild sewers to take it away. New Your did not treat all its sewage until 1986!
Do these arguments remind you about AGW skeptic arguments at all? Sewage costs about 3% of GDP but most people feel that is a good investment. If we invested 3% in combating CO2 pollution we would see great straides made in containing this problem.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 02:07 AM on 30 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Donny says " people wanting other people to pay."
That is not the meaning of the word "investment." I have no problem at all with fossil fuel companies getting a return on their renewable energy investments in the future. There has been discussions before on other threads of how utilities are run in the US, and it unfortunately boils down to private companies telling the public: "you buy me a power plant and then I'll run like it's entirely mine." Talk about having others pay.
It reminds me of a situation in which mega banks and investment companies mismanage their money so badly that they're all about to go under and wreak most of the World economies along with themselves. So, the only option is using the public's money to salvage the whole mess. Having others pay. Such a bad thing, that is.
-
Tom Curtis at 01:59 AM on 30 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Ashton @38, as the full quote of John Cook indicates, he was arguing that it was quite appropriate to call CO2 a pollutant. You, however, quote him without quoting the second sentence and use that isolated quote to suggest that calling CO2 a pollutant was inappropriate. Hence you were quoting him out of context. To be more specific, you might reasonably quote Cook as supporting the view that it is a matter of indifference as to whether you call CO2 a pollutant, or not. But that indifference does not support a condemnation of the use of the term as inappropriate, as you clearly try to force it to do when you write "If adjectives had been used appropriately the above argument need never have occurred."
I apologize for my sentence which has caused you confusion. I miswrote it, and had intended to indicate that it was entirely appropriate to call the third effluent polution. I attribute my failure of copy editing to a bout of insomnia that has afflicted me over the last 24 hours (as you could probably determine from my posting times).
-
PhilippeChantreau at 01:53 AM on 30 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
About Tom Curtis post #34, for those who did not follow the link, let's point out that the figure for research spending is on annual basis, whereas the oil companies profit number is a quarterly result.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:50 AM on 30 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Ashton... "That suggests John Cook realises that CO2 can be both a pollutant and a non-pollutant."
That is true of every substance known. In certain concentrations it is harmless. At other concentrations it causes harm. It's all of function of how we humans are changing the concentrations.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:46 AM on 30 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Ashton... "Clearly CO2 is not a pollutant per se on earth..."
Radioactivity at natural background levels is also safe. It's at increased levels that it becomes hazardous. CO2 at natural levels, seen over the past 10k years, is perfectly fine and necessary. But that doesn't mean that doubling natural concentrations of atmospheric CO2 is safe. In fact, it has been very clearly determined to have potentially severe consequences.
There is little doubt that a business-as-usual emissions path that takes us past 4C over preindustrial would be horrendous. All from a gas "without [which] the earth would not support life as we know it..."
-
PhilippeChantreau at 01:46 AM on 30 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
"That suggests John Cook realises that CO2 can be both a pollutant and a non-pollutant."
It does not do this at all. It shows unambiguously (not "suggest") that J. Cook is aware of the roles of CO2 on Earth and of its overall negative effect when massively released on a short time scale. Ashton's spin tactics are of rather low quality. It is abundantly clear to me what Tom Curtis' opinion on what constitutes a pollutant is.
-
Ashton at 01:27 AM on 30 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Tom Curtis, the piece to which I refer is titled "Is CO2 a pollutant?" You could hardly class that as being "out of context" when I'm commenting on the conversation beteen you and Donny on CO2 It is in fact far more appropriate as a posting place for Donny than the article to which you refer.
The entire quote from John Cook in "Is CO2 a pollutant" is:
"How we choose to define the word 'pollutant' is a play in semantics. To focus on a few positive effects of carbon dioxide is to ignore the broader picture of its full impacts. The net result from increasing CO2 are severe negative impacts on our environment and the living conditions of future humanity"
That suggests John Cook realises that CO2 can be both a pollutant and a non-pollutant
I cannot see what I have quoted out of context for, as you will notice, John Cook uses the adjective "increasing" to define what constitutes CO2 as a pollutant. That is exactly what I have done. Perhaps you might prefer the example of commensals and pathogens where a commensal, or a "non-pollutant" can become a pathogen, "a pollutant" if it translocates to an inappropriate place or is present in the appropriate place but in overwhelming amounts.
Finally I am entirely mystified by your comment "Calling the third natural effluent of mammalian existence, the gas first discovered by its ability to extinguish animal life a pollutant is entirely untoward" Surely that comment should be directed to the EPA raather than to me? As I thought I had made plain whether or not CO2 is classed as a pollutant largely depends on its concentration. In addition, it seems a total non sequitur to your comment "I have never yet seen that advanced as a reason to stop wasting money or sewage treatment plants, nor to not call a beach awash with sewage heavilly polluted". It is very unclear, at least to me, whether you regard CO2 as a pollutant or not.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:13 AM on 30 October 2014Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project
BarbaraB... The challenge here is that it's a little more complex than things just getting a little warmer. A small increase in global mean temperature actually increases the number of hot and extreme heat days per year, which can have strong negative impacts on crop production.
Then you have to add in what's known as arctic amplification, where the poles heat up faster than the equator.
Consider how challenging it is today, with good crop production, to feed 7 billion people on this planet. Up that number to 9 billion and throw in reduced crop production, now you have the recipe for political unrest, wars, and refugees attempting to escape those conditions.
Suddenly, a little bit of warming becomes a very big problem.
-
John Hartz at 00:44 AM on 30 October 2014Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Moderator's Comment
Donny:
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.
-
BojanD at 00:37 AM on 30 October 2014The role of the ocean in tempering global surface warming
Tom Curtis @6, exactly, you can go in circles forever if you concentrate on short term trends.
Tony @8, interesting point and I actually saw a denier response to this. They feign that 0.2 increase is nothing special since you sometimes see this kind of volatility on per-month basis. They think in trends when that suits them but quickly turn to noise when it doesn't. -
John Hartz at 00:33 AM on 30 October 2014Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Moderator's Comment
Please refrain from responding to Donny's future posts until a Modrator has had time to review their content. Given Donny's propensity to repeatedly violate the SkS Comments Policy, his future posts are likely to be deleted. If they are, your responses to them will be deleted as well.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:08 AM on 30 October 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
nigelj,
My reply to your comment @49 has led me to come up with a different way of presenting my current best understanding of what is going.
Science and other fields of investigation into improved understanding of what is going constantly question what has been done before to improve on previous investigations. That constant challenging of what has already been studied and developed, and the conclusions made based on what was studied, is a miracle of humanity.
Nature does a similar thing through the random creation of new types of organisms that may find a 'niche' in the overall diversity of life on the planet. Organisms that try to dominate but do not limit their impacts ultimately fail to 'find a niche they can be sustained in' because they consume the finite resources for their way of living. However, such organisms typically only meet their inevitable failure after causing massive damage to the diversity of life in the locations they affect.
Humans have a rather unique ability to evaluate a current situation and try to determine what is likely to happen in the future. That ability could be used to strive to develop the best understanding of how to develop humanity to be a sustainable part of the diversity of life on this amazing planet, a planet on which the developed diversity of life is the reason for each human's amazing opportunity. That ability could be used to identify and curtail human development that is not going to be sustainable before too much damage is done.
The ability to try to understand what is likely to happen in the future could also lead people who have decided to strive to thrive through unsustainable and damaging ways to realise their pursuits and interests are threatened by any expanded better understanding of the unacceptability of what they are doing among the rest of the population. They will then fight to protect themselves with a shield of created but ultimately usustainable popularity. And the higher profitability of the ways they are willing to pursue profit, their competetive advantage over more considerate people, can result in them having more resources to significantly delay the development of the spread of better understanding among the population of the planet.
Ultimately those who are not interested in the development of better understanding to more rapidly develop a sustainable better future for all humanity, humanity adapting to become a sustainable part of the robust diversity of life on this amazing planet, have no future and will produce no sustainable good thing. Those type of people being successful is therefore a significant threat to the future of humanity.
That is all just a theory and would be difficult to examine parts of it analytically and consolidate the understanding of the isolated parts into an integrated whole, but I believe it best explains the extensive observed behaviour of people related to climate science, global warming, and climate change and the policy changes that the science is clearly indicating are required for humanity to adapt to develop to become a sustainable part of this planet, to deveop a better future.
-
billthefrog at 00:03 AM on 30 October 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
@ Tom Curtis (#44 and #46)
Thank you for the pretty comprehensive attribution of the "science is settled " quote/misquote/non-quote debacle.
This is yet another classic example from the plethora of accidental or disingenuous "quotes" that so many are prepared to accept without the slightest hint of genuine scepticism. (There is, of course, nothing new under the sun. Carl Sagan had to deal with this sort of thing billions and billions of times.)
Sort of gives more emphasis and support to the comment "I do wish people would please read what is actually written ", doesn't it?
Cheers Bill F
-
Tony Noerpel at 23:10 PM on 29 October 2014The role of the ocean in tempering global surface warming
An interesting observation is that there is a 0.07 degree gap between the red line and the orange line in Figure 1 in 1998. If we were to accept this story that the warming slowed down after 1998, then that gap has to be explained by some physical mechanism. This is much worse for the "global warming stopped in 1998" canard because now a denier has to explain about a 0.2 degree instantaneous warming.
-
Tom Curtis at 21:07 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Ashton @36:
"Clearly CO2 is not a pollutant per se on earth as without it the earth would not support life as we know it and it is an essential by product for mammalian metabolism as without it cells would not produce energy via entities such as the Krebs Cycle."
Oddly, faeces and urine are also (indirectly) essential for life as we know it, and are certainly natural products of mammalian existence, just like CO2. I have never yet seen that advanced as a reason to stop wasting money or sewage treatment plants, nor to not call a beach awash with sewage heavilly polluted. Calling the third natural effluent of mammalian existence, the gas first discovered by its ability to extinguish animal life a pollutant is entirely untoward. Quoting John Cook out of context does not change those facts.
-
MA Rodger at 19:55 PM on 29 October 2014Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project
BarbaraB@25.
It can be said that being "quite relaxed about the climate getting warmer" puts you in good company. Some eminent climatologists have also reached that conclusion. Svante Arrhenius (often credited with discovering AGW) and GS Callender (AGW was called the Callendar Effect once-upon-a-time) both thought the world would benefit from warming. Arrhenius (or perhaps a colleague of his) even toyed with the idea of setting fire to coal mines to help it on its way. Then if you live in chilly Sweden you probably would think 'warm' was 'good'. And I'm told it can be nippy in Sussex during an Ice Age, which was Callendar's concern.
Of course, both are now long dead so their views on the outcome of AGW are a particularly outdated. So maybe they are not such "good company" after all.
-
Ashton at 19:42 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
The arguments above regarding whether or not CO2 is a pollutant seem to be due to imprecise use of English. Clearly CO2 is not a pollutant per se on earth as without it the earth would not support life as we know it and it is an essential by product for mammalian metabolism as without it cells would not produce energy via entities such as the Krebs Cycle. However too much CO2, like many things, could be classed as a pollutant. This topic was covered extensively in Skeptical Science in 2010 (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-CO2-a-pollutant.html)
As John Cook said then "How we choose to define the word 'pollutant' is a play in semantics". If adjectives had been used appropriately the above argument need never have occurred.
-
cosmicomics at 18:39 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
“For example, as Lee Papa has pointed out, McConnell had no hesitations in expressing his opinions about dealing with the threat of Ebola and deferring to the experts at the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),
I’m not an expert on this, but it strikes me that it would be a good idea to discontinue flights into the United States from that part of the world ... I think we ought to listen to what the CDC thinks they need either in terms of financing or certainly they’ll decide the procedures for travel and all the rest. I think we need to follow the advice of the experts who know how to fight scourges like this"
The post wrongly gives the impression that the Republican Party defers to expertise in areas other than climate change. The above quote would indicate that the experts recommend discontinuing flights from affected areas. There are no direct flights to the U.S. from these areas, and the experts have been quite clear in opposing travel bans. Climate change is not an outlier. It is completely justified to say that Republicans exist in an alternative reality that is driven by ideological expediency, rather than respect for facts.
-
BarbaraB at 15:38 PM on 29 October 2014Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project
Just a psychologist so I'm sure I don't count here, but I do know something about people and the herd instinct which I think is working here to a large extent. There is also, I am not a theologist, some evidence of the sin of greed. So many billions of dollars changing hands over a theory, really just a theory which looks more like a religion since you can't oppose it without retribution. Wise men should be skeptical.
I am quite relaxed about the climate getting warmer, I like summer better than winter, don't you? The people with coastline properties are probably those terrible "rich" people anyway whom we have all been told are sucking on our vital juices for their own benefit. Terrible people.
Moderator Response:[Dikran Marsupial] Welcome to SkS (psychologists are most welcome). Please take time to read the comments policy, SkS is intended to be a site for productive discussion of climate science and closely related topics, but it is not a forum for the sort of trolling that is all too common on climate blogs. Further comments of this nature will be deleted. If you disagree with the mainstream position on climate science, then I would encourage you to pick a specific argument (see the list of climate myths on the bar to the left) and explain your objection clearly. I'm sure you will find plenty of people here willing to discuss the science with you in a rational and friendly manner, provided that you behave in a similarly mature manner.
-
Tom Curtis at 15:32 PM on 29 October 2014Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Donny @168 and 169, increasing CO2 decreases outgoing IR radiation all else being equal. Increasing surface temperatures increases outgoing IR radiation all else being equal.
-
Tom Curtis at 15:29 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Donny @24:
"take most of the grant money away from the climate change crowd and invest in renewable energy innovations. Let's just assume that we are going to have a .1 or .2 per decade temperature rise and start solving the issue."
That is really two suggestions. The second, assuming that temperature increase will not be greater than current mean rates of increase and are likely to be half of that over the forthcoming century simply ignores the relevant science.
The former, is even more absurd. The current investment in climate research in the US is $2,658 million annually. Much of that is used for launching satellites, and a fair portion is already used in research on "renewable innovations", but we can ignore that.
The current profits of US oil companies are $20 billion for the top three alone. They already, no doubt, spend significantly on research for more efficient extraction, and to find new reserves, money that is counted as business expenses, and hence not taken out of profits, but we will ignore that. It follows that for the top three oil companies alone to match the proposed research into renewables, they only need to commit 13.3% of their profits which a small price to pay. And that is just the top three oil companies.
GE has announced an intention to spend $10 billion through to 2020 on energy research. That is 54% of the climate change research budget from just one company. Other energy companies will also be spending. Although GE calls the funding part of its "ecoimagination" budget, it will be spent on making gas turbines more efficient, and improving fracking technology (ie, on fossil fuels).
The idea that problems with climate change can be solved just by throwing research money at renewable energy is already close to magical thinking. It makes the task harder from the get go by setting a higher bar for a successful solution (ie, one that undercuts fossil fuels in price). To pretend that doing so on current federal research budgets, which are already massively out spent by fossil fuel and energy company research budgets is fanciful. If just throwing money at research will generate a successful solution (the assumption in such suggestions), then throwing more money at research by fossil fuel companies will generate a counter solution.
Consequently it is far better to raise the price of carbon emissions. That way the private enterprise research money will be preferentially directed at solving the problem rather than making it worse.
Prev 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 Next
