Recent Comments

Prev  678  679  680  681  682  683  684  685  686  687  688  689  690  691  692  693  Next

Comments 34251 to 34300:

34251. Tom Curtis at 04:44 AM on 6 September 2014
       When their research has social implications, how should climate scientists get involved?
       

       One Planet Only Forever @8, a policy or vision of "flourishing" that is not sustainable cannot be a long term policy.  It expends (social, environmental, or economic) capital.  Once that is exhausted, those doing so will revert to a worse state than if they had never spent the capital unless the expenditure has been in the nature of an investment.  The current expenditure of our fossil fuel capital an be so regarded.  It has allowed a flourishing or wealth, technology, medicine, art, science and food production such as have never before been seen.  The investment will only pay off, however, if we an secure the gains (or a significant part of them) by putting the energy consumption invovled onto a sustainable footing.  That is, if we switch from fossil fuel to renewable energy.

       It is evident that fossil fuels are not the only captial expenditure involved in industrialization.  We are in danger of killing the ocean from overfishing.  We are also in danger of destroying the worlds forests, and of over populating in general.  Clearly we need to put population, food supply and drawing of ocean and forest resources also on a sustainable footing.  A sustainable footing, however, need not mean reducing resource acces (or population) to preindustrial or early industrial levels anymore than a sustainable basis for energy requires reducing total energy consumption.  Our investment of capital may "pay of", allowing a sustainable basis with much higher than preindustrial populations, resource access from forests and oceans, etc.

       Further, I am a quasi-optimist on this point.  I am an avid reader of science fiction, and as a youth I was promised the stars.  I will not see them, but I hope some future descendants of our civilization will.  That is an investment worth expending capital on.  I am quasi-optimistic on this because while I hope we take up that bold adventure, we may fail.  Our investment may not be enough.  However, in that case, our descendants will "enjoy" a life not much different than if we do not even try.  If we retreat to mere sustainability as a goal, eschewing all investments to go to new levels of sustainability; we will retreat to a dark age in which populations will be too low to sustain either our current level of technological achievement, or even our globalist aspirations (which does not equal aspirations for a single world government).  

       Given your name, you are not going to agree with me on this.  Fine, but neither am I going to give up my vision:

       Per ardua, ad astra

34252. saileshrao at 04:37 AM on 6 September 2014
       When their research has social implications, how should climate scientists get involved?
       

       Tom Curtis @10:
       
       Having seen the kinds of shenanigans that goes on in the carbon "offsets" market, I'm glad that the AGU doesn't participate in it. I'm also cognizant of the necessity that scientists have to get together once a year to network and learn from each other. Since scientists are busy people, I therefore consider air travel to be a necessity as well.
       
       However, I respectfully disagree that the deliberate consumption of animal foods during the course of the AGU fall meeting is a necessity, by any stretch of the imagination. There are plenty of nourishing, low-impact, plant-based foods locally available in the San Francisco Bay area for the AGU to provide its Fall meeting attendees. If the attendees wish to go out and dine on steaks and lobsters, that's their prerogative, but providing such fare at the official meeting undermines our communications efforts tremendously.
       
       The SF Bay area is also in the grips of a tremendous drought and there is an ongoing "Ditch The Dairy" campaign on BART trains and stations, pointing out the huge water footprint of dairy, with each gallon of milk being the equivalent of 27 daily showers.
       
       
       

34253. Tom Curtis at 04:22 AM on 6 September 2014
       When their research has social implications, how should climate scientists get involved?
       

       saileshrao @9, it may well be the case that the Earth cannot be supplied with meat at high levels of consumption even if we avoid grain feeding.  However, as far as climate change policy goes, I do not need to know that or consider it.  I need only require that all products (including meat) have a carbon tax imposed on them based on their CO2e emissions.  If meat consumption is then too great a burden in emissions, meat will become correspondingly more expensive relative to grains, reducing consumption.  Grainfed meat will become relatively more expensive at a much faster rate.

       As carbon emissions are not the only relevant issue with regard to meat, you are quite entitled to also argue for further taxes on grain fed to livestock (for example), with the tax going in foreign aid in food supply projects (either direct food aid in famine areas, or in aiding agricultural development); or such other subsidiary policy as you think suitable.  That is not an issue that the AGU needs to pay attention to on the grounds of consistency, nor an issue that is on topic at this site.  For the issue that is relevant to the AGU and here, your focus is wrong.

34254. Tom Curtis at 04:11 AM on 6 September 2014
       When their research has social implications, how should climate scientists get involved?
       

       Smith @7, I think you may be reading too much into my comment.  Had saileshrao suggested that the AGU should run its meetings on a carbon neutral basis by making planning choices that minimized emissions (eg, holding the meeting in a carbon neutral city), and paying for the sequestration of any carbon emissions resulting from the meeting (including those from the consumption of beef), I would have supported that wholeheartedly.  Instead he focussed on meat consumption only, ignoring the far greater emissions from air travel, and power consumption for the meeting.  His focus suggests that reducing carbon emissions is a side show for him, used only as a stalking horse for his real issues - and that is what I objected to.

       With regard to scientists speaking out on global warming, I am definitely in favour.  It is often argued that they should remain silent so as to not jeopardize the perception (ie, their reputation for) impartiality.  However "silence is consent".  When scientistific research shows the prospect of grave harms to society, a scientist who does not speak up is consenting to those harms.  When policy is inadequate to meet the challenge, scientists who do not speak up consent to the current inadequate policy, an its consequenses.  Such scientists are surrendering the reality of objectivity for its perception.

       This does not mean scientists should grab banners and start marching on the Whitehouse.  It is quite clear that the obligation to speak up as a scientist extends only over their area of expertise.  That means all scientists have an obligation to publicly speak up when they see science misrepresented in the media, or on blogs they actively read.  It extends beyond that, however, because expertise knows no sharp boundaries.  A scientist whose work shows a distinct probability of a seasonally uninhabitable tropics with unmitigated climate change is quite within their perogatives to point out that economic models that show only minor net harms in that circumstance are rubbish.  

       Beyond that, scientists do not cease being citizens (which to my mind is - just - a higher calling).  They have an obligation to form a view and express it even in areas where their expertise is not just germaine, but not even clearly relevant.  Thus a physicist is quite entitled to form a view as to which is better, a carbon tax or a cap and trade scheme even though they have no relevant expertise to distinguish between them.  When expressing a view on the subject, however, they should be quite clear that they are talking only as a citizen and that their expertise gives them no special incite on the topic.  

       The idea that scientists cannot advocate for a particular solution because their expertise is not immediately germaine if carried out consistently means that nobody should advocate for any policy.  Certainly not scientists whose expertise is not in policy, but not economists or social scientists whose expertise does not allow them to assess the actual harms from outcomes.  It also means that even politicians and journalists, who are very much not expert on the topic, should remain silent.

       Clearly a "democracy" in which no-one should express an opinion is an absurdity.  That being the case, the idea that scientists have somehow signed away their rights to be vocal citizens is also absurd.

34255. saileshrao at 03:51 AM on 6 September 2014
       When their research has social implications, how should climate scientists get involved?
       

       One Planet Only Forever @3:
       I agree that the expectation of exemplary action applies to all leaders, but as the primary prognosticators of environmental disruption, climate scientists bear a great responsibility. People watch what scientists do, especially at well-attended scientific gatherings such as the AGU Fall meetings, and not merely what scientists say.
       
       From an energy conversion standpoint, beef is perhaps the worst, with efficiencies of less than 2% for the conversion from plant calories input to meat calories output. However, all animal foods average about 4%, when we take into account all meats, eggs, dairy, etc., combined. Please see, e.g., Chapter 7, of the textbook, "Energy and the New Reality" by L. Danny Harvey. Animal foods are undoubtedly energy hogs, accounting for a majority of the energy use among all human activities.
       
       Pluvial @4:
       I'm merely pointing out the ineffectiveness of scientific communications that will occur when the communicators are not acting in accordance with what they say, especially at well-attended scientific gatherings.
       
       Tom Curtis @5:
       For starters, 98% of the meat produced in the US is grain-finished. But even if we determine that meat consumption can be sustained at, say, 50%, of current levels, we need to understand that such a worldwide reduction requires a substantial number of present meat consumers to eschew it altogether.
       
       Take for example, tobacco consumption. The percentage of smokers declined in the US by 50% over the past 49 years since the Surgeon General began the anti-smoking campaign, and yet worldwide consumption of tobacco did not reach its peak until 2010 and is miles from reaching 50% of the consumption of 1965.
       
       Indeed, if everybody in the world consumed meat like Americans do today, world production of meat would need to triple instantly. That would mean converting all the forests of the world into livestock production facilities right away. Surely, we all agree that would have adverse implications for the planet's climate..
       
       

34256. One Planet Only Forever at 03:50 AM on 6 September 2014
       When their research has social implications, how should climate scientists get involved?
       

       Tom Curtis,

       The term 'human flourishing' you used is open to interpretation and requires clarification.

       Activity by a 'fluorishing sub-set of humanity in a moment of geological time' that cannot be continued indefinitely by humanity through the hundreds of millions of years this amazing planet is likely to be habitable, and that does not have all of humanity living decent lives, is not sustainable.

       Such 'development' is what has been occurring and it is not really 'human flourishing'. It is something very different from what that term could imply. 'Flash in the Pan' would be a more appropriate term than 'flourishing' for the types of development that have been occurring.

       I agree that climate science research and advocacy needs to focus on the climate science. But it is important to understand that climate science is integrated with the other fields of improving understanding of what is going on that indicate the need to significantly change what is considered to be acceptable development of human activity and what is required of 'leaders of humanity', with all those who are 'reasearching and reporting to constantly improve the understanding of what is going on' as essential parts of that leadership.

34257. Smith at 02:56 AM on 6 September 2014
       When their research has social implications, how should climate scientists get involved?
       

       Tom Curtis @5:

       A truly insightful comment.  One which many science communicators should heed.  Often opposition to such wedded social, economic or political notions is mistakenly characterized as opposition to science. 

       When science communicators like the author depart from strictly communicating science and advocating for or against potential solutions their scientific qualification does not follow with their departure.  As such they should sould not expect to rely on their scientific qualification to add merit to their non-scientific communications.

        

34258. One Planet Only Forever at 02:42 AM on 6 September 2014
       When their research has social implications, how should climate scientists get involved?
       

       In my comment @3, I forgot to include the link to the scientific research basis of my contention that if any meat consumption was to be stopped at meetindgs as a show of leadership, beef should be the meat consumption that is stopped. See Here.

34259. Tom Curtis at 01:52 AM on 6 September 2014
       When their research has social implications, how should climate scientists get involved?
       

       saileshrao @2:

       1)  Much of the Earth's territory can sustain a beef or mutton industry while being too dry, or having soil quality too poor, to be cropped.  Running cattle in those territories does not reduce food production.  It enhances it.  Therefore there is no basis to eliminate meat from the human diet for the purpose of sustainability.  (The same does not apply to grain fed meat products.)

       2)  Reducing cattle production is a very long way down the list of priorities for mitigating climate change.  Making it front and center on the basis of "consistency" merely advertizes to interested (and hostile) observers that concern about global warming is wedded to a hair shirt view of human existence, where every luxury must be forgone for the cause.  As such, it paints us untruly as fanatics, and people hostile to human flourishing.

       As somebody who is neither fanatical, and fervently wishes for human flourishing, I resent attempts to hijack concern about global warming for other causes.  In particular I resent it because no matter how helpfull it is for those "other causes", it is harmful to the prospects fo getting real mitigation happening.

       If you want to be a vegetarian - I'm fine with that.  If you think we all should be vegetarians - fine.  Argue your case.  But do not try to use AGW as a stalking hour for issues that are periferally related at best.

34260. PluviAL at 01:29 AM on 6 September 2014
       When their research has social implications, how should climate scientists get involved?
       

       Sailsharo: On both of your posts you are off topic, the "moralizing" is not the topic. The topic is balancing of one's training with one's concern, and the value of that concern.

       I do think scientists who are seriously at the forefront of understanding and that find an important reason for concern are brave in committing their livelihood to the issue. However, there is the question of funding, scientific inquiry into subjects of social concern are not often funded by private industry, they are funded by governments. If so, then there is a conflict of interest built into their work; the more important their findings the better funding that they may establish, and thus a tendency to overstate, and it may be systemic. It's kind of a built in reason and mechanics to conspire.  

       True contrarians may have a valid point in this argument, hence, scientists should make very certain of their understanding, and commitment to action on a concern.

       I am always thankful for their activism on climate, it is much to subtle for the public to understand without deep understanding, yet is it may be critical to global civil conduct resulting from unsustainable development.

       As you may know, I think we will handle this OK, but we, the public, must understand the depth of the problem to instill sufficient motivation to establish necessary developments.

34261. One Planet Only Forever at 00:25 AM on 6 September 2014
       When their research has social implications, how should climate scientists get involved?
       

       Saileshrao @ 2.

       While I agree with 'leading by example' I would argue that the expectation of leadership regarding the 'changes of human activity that are being better understood to be required' needs to be highest for the ones who are benefiting the most from an identified unacceptable activity, as well as from all 'leaders of humanity'.

       Another consideration is the rate of impact created by a behaviour. Modest consumption of animal based foods is sustainable. However, base on the best current understanding "Beef" could be eliminated from the meals at a meeting addressing this sustainability related issue.

       However, I would argue that the sustainability of human activity is the subject of just about any meeting of wealthy and powerful people. The requirement would be for the richest and for all political leaders, including opposition leaders, to 'lead by example' by not eating beef and severely limiting their activities to things that minimize the burning of buried hydrocarbons.

       Leadership is required of all our 'leaders', even the rich ones who do not wish to 'accept what is being better understood to be required to lead to a sustainable better future for all'. Those who got rich and powerful by getting away with popularizing actions contrary to that direction of development, and who want to prolong and maximize the benefit they can get in those better understood to be unacceptable ways, are the ones who really need to change their minds and ways.

       The scientist's most important job is to continue to improve the understanding of what is going on, including efforts to effectiovely improve the understanding and awareness of the general population. The leader's job is to accept what the science indicates and support the changing of minds in the general population. And a rich person's job is to lead toward a better future for all in accordance with the developing better understanding of what that requires, even if it requires them to be 'less rich compared to others'.

       So any expectation for a climate scientist's actions as examples of how to live needs to be a stronger expectation of every leader and leadership hopeful, and of every wealthy person.

34262. saileshrao at 23:17 PM on 5 September 2014
       When their research has social implications, how should climate scientists get involved?
       

       At a minimum, scientists should witness the social transformation that needs to occur by becoming living examples. It is truly disconcerting to find scientists saying one thing while living the exact opposite. For instance, the AGU fall meetings continue to serve animal foods and the 2014 meeting makes no mention whatsoever of diet in the "sustainability" section on its web site.
       
       How is that sustainable? Do we not understand the implications of the projected doubling of the consumption of animal foods by 2030?

34263. Dikran Marsupial at 18:13 PM on 5 September 2014
       Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
       

       jmath@118 I have answered the first of the points your raised in your first post on this thread.  Scientific discussion requires depth, rather than merely breadth, so please do not raise other issues until the more fundamental ones have been dealt with first and we have reached agreement on those.  To do otherwise is essentially a Gish Gallop, which is usually an indication of rhetorical intent.

       I have explained why water vapour being responsible for 50% of the pre-industrial greenhouse effect does not imply that it is responsible for 50% of the post-indistrial warming.  Please provide the details of your calculation of the proportion that actually is due to water vapour (hint: climate sensitivity is not 1).

34264. dvaytw at 17:15 PM on 5 September 2014
       Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
       

       PS - sorry, make that Muoncounter#49...

34265. dvaytw at 17:15 PM on 5 September 2014
       Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
       

       muoncounter#46: 

       May I know the source of this graph?  Haven't been able to dig it up.

34266. dana1981 at 11:38 AM on 5 September 2014
       Fire and water – how global warming is making weather more extreme and costing us money
       

       Yes thanks Tom for saving me the effot of responding.  It's kind of appalling to delete the part of the sentence that links the event to AGW and then ask where the link is to AGW.

34267. jgnfld at 09:50 AM on 5 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       @60 ashton

       Again...the ulcer "analogy" fails totally as an analogy to denial as no one in the world denied ulcers existed. It is simply a totally false analogy if applied to denialism.

       
       If applied to the well-there-must-be another-mechanism, first, ashton will have to agree that warming is occurring right now at an accelerated rate compared to past eras. Second, ashton will need to cite some mechanism which BOTH negates the known CO2 warming effects AND substitutes its own effects to create the magnitude of warming we see. Third, ashton will need to show why this causative factor is only acting at an accelerated rate here and now and not in the past. This all violates parsimony pretty seriously though in principle the necessary epicycles could be the case. Ashton has provided no evidence whatever the said mechanism might be, however.

34268. Rob Honeycutt at 07:22 AM on 5 September 2014
       Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
       

       Agreed with John Hartz...  Let's let Dikran take the lead here.

34269. John Hartz at 07:10 AM on 5 September 2014
       Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
       

       All: If he is willing to do so, I suggest that we task Dikran Marsupial with the responsibility to respond to jmath on this comment thread.

34270. michael sweet at 07:08 AM on 5 September 2014
       Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
       

       Jmath,

       JasonB made his post you are replying to in July 2013.  He may not see your comment here.  If you answer the recent comments you get more interaction.

34271. jmath at 05:11 AM on 5 September 2014
       Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
       

       The period 1910-2014 has 4 epochs of interest.  From 1910-1940 was a period of rapid warming without significant increase in CO2.  The IPCC also agrees by selecting the period after 1950 that it agrees the pre-1945 time was not a period of rapid greenhouse gas accumulation yet the warming in this period corresponds roughly to the warming with CO2 from 1975-1998.  The period 1945-1975 and the period 1998-2014 both had rapid increase in CO2 yet no appreciable temperature change.  Therefore 3 of the 4 epochs and 75% of the period from 1910 - 2014 contradict the idea that CO2 is the primary driver of temperature.   I have not seen adequate explanations for these variances.  Using the period 1975-1998 over and over again as proof is not convincing as the other periods appear to contradict this.  The ideal thing would be to show how during the period 1945-1975 CO2 increasing was apparently counteracted by other gases.  Oh wait, no gases changed so so I'm confused.  You are trying to make it easy for people to understand but you fail to understand that people are also aware of the obvious problems.  1945-1975 was described as a period of high aerosols yet we are recently discovering that it was primarily an ocean current phenomenon previously not understood that caused that period.  Neither of these explanations however fits with your tidy little charts.  So, if all I knew about the theory was what you wrote above I would be at a complete loss to explain anything outside the period 1975-1998.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] More than one of our regular readers have responded to the issues and questions you posited in you initial post. Please have the courtesy to acknowledge their responses and let them know if their responses have satisfied you. Ignoring responses and proceeding to a new topic suggests that you are not here to learn, but to stir up trouble.

34272. jmath at 05:02 AM on 5 September 2014
       Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
       

       JasonB "But pointing it out in this context is like a driver complaining to the cop who just pulled him over for speeding that it's the turbo's fault that he was going so fast and not the position of his foot on the accelerator."

       The graph presented was not about what was causing warming.  It was about what the relative contributions of the greenhouse gases.  It was an effort to demonstrate that CO2 is important.  Including water vapor and clouds s necessary just to show the relative contributions.  

       If you want to talk about what was causing the warming you would need to show how each of those components changed over some time and show that CO2 was the dominant contributor.  

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Please explain why you are responding to JasonB.

34273. Dikran Marsupial at 03:13 AM on 5 September 2014
       Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
       

       I think we need to avoid dogpiling here.  Jmath's attitude to the correctness of the science will be evident in his response to my question on the first of the issues he raised.   We shouldn't expect him to be able to answer it immediately, so lets give him time to perform some background reading.

       Jmath, this advice is genuinely well intentioned:  You are much more likely to get a hostile response to the issues you raise if you present them in an arrogant and hostile manner.  If you think an article is wrong, it could be that this is because you don't understand it rather than because it actully is wrong.  If you point out non-existent errors with hubris, you will make yourself look silly.  If you ask questions, or ask for explanations, you will make yourself look like a true skeptic and student of science.

34274. Doug Bostrom at 02:59 AM on 5 September 2014
       Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
       

       Jmath's rich inventory of superficially impressive but fundamentally vacuous talking points as well as prickly presentation ("hubris, "third grade" etc.) suggest it's highly unlikely any useful communication will flow in that direction because jmath's dominant subtext here isn't about science but policy implications.

       That said and imagining for a moment that jmath were actually here to seek information through dialogue, Rob's basic point is worth repeating:

       "I don't understand it" does not equate to "it's wrong." 

       Regardless of one's willingness to accept what science tells us is happening to Earth systems thanks to CO2, ignorance isn't a substitute for understanding. Stop being ignorant and see where that choice leads.

       It shouldn't be necessary to point out such an obvious thing; most of us have struggled in one course or another in school and have probably rarely or never confronted an instructor with news such as "your linear algebra is wrong because I don't understand it." More typically one would seek more information and more skill so as to surmount difficulty and frustration. That of course won't necessarily pertain if passing the course isn't the primary objective. 

34275. DSL at 01:47 AM on 5 September 2014
       Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
       

       jmath, I'll emphasize what Dikran and Rob have said, and I'll add that there's a document that summarizes climate science.  It directly references 20,000+ publications, and those directly reference tens of thousands more.  It's a well-ordered document, and it was written by ~850 unpaid experts who publish regularly in their respective sub-fields.  It was peer-reviewed by several thousands, and the review resulted in 150,000+ comments.  You can find this unprecedented "state of the science" document right here.  

       If you want a historical look at how the science has developed over the last 150 years, you should read Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming in hypertext at the American Institute of Physics website.

       Beyond that, could you provide evidence for this: "The point you make that CO2 contributes heat is fine (with my caveats) but to go beyond that and ascribe it as the sole reason for temperature variation is reaching and weak"?

34276. Rob Honeycutt at 01:33 AM on 5 September 2014
       Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
       

       jmath...  [sigh] It's amazing to me how many times all these issues have to be explained and repeated. If you'll take some time to read through the other materials on this website, you'll actually find answers to everything you've mentioned here.

       More interesting to me is your approach. You seem to think you're being "skeptical" of the science, but it's clear that's not the case. You've certaintly identified several areas of climate science which you don't yet understand, and that's good. But what you immediately do is jump to the conclusion that the entire field of research is somehow mistaken and you can somehow, even though you have very limited understanding of the research, see the truth for what it is.

       You need to start thinking of those "gaps" in the science as being your shortcoming, and not that of the researchers. There are many 10's of thousands of research papers out there on the subject of climate change. My suggestion is, if you're genuinely interested in understanding the answers to the questions you raise, go read the research. You don't even need to rely on SkS to deliver it to you. Go to google scholar and start searching the published materials on what you don't yet understand.

       Get a few hundred of those papers under your belt, then come back and you can discuss these issues a little more intelligently.

34277. Dikran Marsupial at 01:30 AM on 5 September 2014
       Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
       

       jmath, lets start with the first issue.  Water vapour is not a long lived GHG, the amount of water vapour the atmosphere contains depends on temperature (the Clausius–Clapeyron relation).  Thus while water vapour may accont for X% of the pre-industrial greenhouse effect, that doesn't mean it accounts for the same percentage of the enhanced greenhouse effect that gives rise to the recent increases in temperature.  Thus it seems to me to be correct not to give it a great deal of a mention in a discussion of global warming (i.e. the increase over pre-industrial temperatures).

       Now anthropogenic emissions of long-lived GHGs can be expected to result in warming, which will in turn support higher concentrations of water vapour as a positive feedback.  However, this additional water vapour is only present in the atmosphere as a result of anthropogenic emissions.

       Now if you can provide a calculation that shows how much of the observed global warming has come from the additional water vapour, then do present it here.

34278. jmath at 01:18 AM on 5 September 2014
       Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
       

       This document is misleading:

       1) Water vapor accounts for 50% of greenhouse "effect" and is counted as a greenhouse gas.

       2) Clouds account for 25% of the greenhouse effect

       3) CO2 is 20%

       The graph is obviously more impressive by leaving out these 2 more significant contributors.

       I also find the graph showing ocean heat content increasing to be highly questionable.  Since it is 90% of the retained heat and we still know so little about the ocean, in particular the ARGO floats have been in existence for only 15 years and even they do not capture the entire ocean heat content it is impossible to believe the graph as fact.  Even if we assume the graph is correct ocean heat content is enormous and obviously contributes as part of the "blanket" that is unmentioned in your blanket analysis.   You seem to be implying that the atmosphere provides the full explanation for the slow movement of temperatures on the earth when a large part clearly belongs to the oceans which store 1000 times the heat content of the atmosphere.

       You are very good at leading the first parts of the argument, i.e. the greenhouse effect and the increase in co2.  However, the conclusion that our temperature increase over the last 50 years is due to co2 is not proven because you exclude 75% of the greenhouse gases and their changing composition, you exclude the ocean which is 99.9% of the heat storage.   If 90% of the heat went into the ocean and the ocean did not re-radiate that heat back in some form the oceans would rise negligibly in temperature and the atmosphere would be similarly little affected.  

       Also a smart student would notice another big hole in the argument.  The earth is volcanically active and has a hot magma layer that is leaking into the environment under the ocean and the surface.  There are also other concerns as pointed out by the IPCC which include albedo and aerosols which could have major impacts on the heat retained by the earths atmosphere.  

       Your argument appears oriented to a 3rd grader not a high school student even.  A smart science high school student would see the missing pieces or be very upset when told you were excluding more than 75% of greenhouse gases and didn't mention the incredible role of the ocean.   I think you can still make the argument but it has to include these complexities.  

       Something I didn't understand from the beginning was the hubris of climate scientists to speak as if this is so simple even though it is plain even a high school student could see the holes in the argument.   The point you make that CO2 contributes heat is fine (with my caveats) but to go beyond that and ascribe it as the sole reason for temperature variation is reaching and weak.  You simply rush to the point without explaining the complexity of how the system will respond to the changes.  I think you are better off if your purpose is to show the effect of CO2 is proven to leave off the latter part of your argument.  

       It would also be very important to show a graph of how the radiation at the surface has changed because of the changing CO2.  Showing a single graph implies that you could simply leave all the other elements the same and move the co2 contribution up or down exactly based on the movement of co2.  Having such a graph of real data would be the "proof" that would complete this argument nicely.

34279. ajki at 00:44 AM on 5 September 2014
       When their research has social implications, how should climate scientists get involved?
       

       The question mentioned in the first paragraph is adressed at newspaper readers. I know this is not the place to comment general issues - but: I for one do seriously not like this kind of "cooperation" with news outlets. Keep this kind of citation work to the News Roundups.

34280. John Hartz at 22:54 PM on 4 September 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #36A
       

       The links in the OP have been fixed. Thank you for your assistance.  

34281. Glenn Tamblyn at 22:35 PM on 4 September 2014
       Fire and water – how global warming is making weather more extreme and costing us money
       

       Topal

       ''The only source of energy I know of is the sun, do you know of any other source?'

       Nope. Certainly not large enough. But the sun is a source of energy that flows through the earth and back out to space. If nothing changes the ease with which that flow can occur then the total heat here on earth doesn't change. However if something does change the ease of that flow, like, I dunno, something that restricts the flow back out to space then heat could certainly start to accumulate here.

       Someting like, I dunno, maybe something that increases the effectiveness of the GH Effect!

34282. Glenn Tamblyn at 22:28 PM on 4 September 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #36A
       

       Link 10 - the Bureau here

       Link 12 - Polar Vortices here

34283. chriskoz at 20:36 PM on 4 September 2014
       Fire and water – how global warming is making weather more extreme and costing us money
       

       I want to commend Tom Curtis for his time relentlessly pointing the irrationality of all denial talking points that appear in SkS comments. Even in case of topal@4, a comment so irrational and absurd that I feel like it barely hangs above the comment policy bar, Tom does not mind typing comprehensive response & debunking the absurdity, as moderation sword could easily cut it. Thank you Tom!

       Maybe topal@4 (and Tom's response) could stay unmoderated as an example of irrational logic or denialist talking points.

34284. Sapient Fridge at 20:35 PM on 4 September 2014
       Fire and water – how global warming is making weather more extreme and costing us money
       

       Topal, if I put a coat on then my skin temperature increases and I feel warmer.   Does this show that my body started producing extra heat when I put the coat on, or is there another explanation?

34285. Tom Curtis at 18:19 PM on 4 September 2014
       Fire and water – how global warming is making weather more extreme and costing us money
       

       Perhaps an analogy will help Topal.  Imagine there is a person on a single income, who spends some of their money and saves the rest in a zero interest account.  Over a period of years we find out that their savings have increased dramatically.  The question arises, is that because they are earning more?  Or spending less?  Finally, we get access to their wage records which show conclusively that they have actually been earning less.  Clearly the increased savings have come from reduced expenditures.

       Now somebody might want to challenge this on the basis that they only have one source of money (their wage) so that any savings must come from that wage.  In a way that is true.  Never-the-less, it should be clear that it is not the change in wage that has resulted in the increased savings, but the reduction in expenditure.  The person pointing out that any money they save was originally recieved as part of their wage is pointing to an irrelevant fact.

       Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere in fact reduces the energy from the Earth to space, at least initially.  It is analogous to saving more.  Ocean Heat Content is stored energy, so it is analogous to saving, and energy from the Sun is analogous to the single income.

34286. MichaelK at 17:12 PM on 4 September 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #36A
       

       There is also a problem with the links to articles 10 (No, the Bureau..) and 12 (Polar Vortex..).

34287. topal at 16:18 PM on 4 September 2014
       Fire and water – how global warming is making weather more extreme and costing us money
       

       @scaddenp: "Ocean Heat Content has been steadily increasing. If you think that is "natural", then tell me where the energy stored there is coming from?"

       The only source of energy I know of is the sun, do you know of any other source?

       Moderator Response:

       [Rob P] - Radiative output from the sun has declined in the last 3-4 decades:

       

       Whereas ocean heat content (OHC) up to June 2014 has undergone substantial warming:

        

        

       It's safe to conclude that the sun is not responsible for ongoing ocean warming. Greenhouse gases on the other hand......

34288. Tom Curtis at 15:10 PM on 4 September 2014
       Fire and water – how global warming is making weather more extreme and costing us money
       

       topal @4, it was very nice of you to flag what followed as being "very weak and vague" and "not really convincing".  Given the low opinion you appear to have of the ideas you expressed, one wonders why you bothered.

       Turning to those "not really convincing" arguments, we first have the tried and true tactic from all sorts of deniers of breaking up sentences to remove context.  Thus the first sentence you quote clearly expresses an opinion about the impact of global warming:

       "A paper led by S.-Y. Wang of Utah State University found the high pressure ridge is linked to a precursor of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), but also that human-caused global warming has amplified the strength of these ridges."

       You, however, break it at the comma removing the context and then facetiously enquire, "What's the role o global warming?" as if that had not been expressed in the immediately following clause.

       Here's the rule:  Breaking a quote up into individual clauses of sentences to comment inline is always quoting out of context; and when the comment it to ask why something explained in the immediately following clause in not explained in the preceeding clause, the out of context quotation is always dishonest.

       In response to the second clause you ask the inane question, "Only "human-caused" warming?"  Based in the IPCC AR5, anthropogenic warming accounts for 108% of warming from 1950-2010, with the extra 8% countering a probable cooling trend had natural factors alone been acting.  That is well established.  Scientists do not need to repeat the evidence for it every time they mention anthropogenic warming any more than astronomers need to repeat the evidence for heliocentrism everytime they mention a year.

       Nor, as regards your second sally, has the warming from 1950 to 1998 suddenly vanished over the last 15 years, even if we accepted the false proposition that there has been no warming since 1998.

       Finally, as regards to projections you venture that we cannot make such projections because there is a very low probability of much worse catastrophes.  Really?  Are you that short of a decent argument that you have to run that absurdity.  In case you don't get it, if the argument was valid, all planning ever would be pointless for there is always a very low risk ultimate catastrophe that would render it pointless.

34289. scaddenp at 15:09 PM on 4 September 2014
       Fire and water – how global warming is making weather more extreme and costing us money
       

       topal - your argument is basically a variant of "its natural". Ie unforced variation. The science says all recent warming is forced (if we didnt have CO2 induced warming we would be cooling). See here for more discussion.

       You can see more discussion of the probability distributions used by IPCC here for attribution.

       In short, what you are seeing is postulated to be due to a warmer ocean. Ocean Heat Content has been steadily increasing. If you think that is "natural", then tell me where the energy stored there is coming from?

34290. PhilippeChantreau at 14:45 PM on 4 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       One thing I've learned by debating science with trolls is that they also can vary their technique. For example arguing the same old trolling points by first adding a disclaimer such as "this is not m opinion but that of some people I've talked to." Then proceed on mildly defending the trolling points, which the reality based contributors will throroughly beat into the nonsensical pulp that they were in the beginning. Then move on to the next distraction without any acknowledgment of the thickness of the pulp mentioned earlier. Sounds familiar?

34291. Glenn Tamblyn at 14:25 PM on 4 September 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #36A
       

       wili

       The link is here.

34292. wili at 12:28 PM on 4 September 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #36A
       

       Your first link doesn't work for me.

34293. topal at 11:59 AM on 4 September 2014
       Fire and water – how global warming is making weather more extreme and costing us money
       

       Very weak and vague statements. Not really convincing.

       Wang of Utah State University found the high pressure ridge is linked to a precursor of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO)

       El Nino is a natural phenomenon. What's the role o global warming?

       but also that human-caused global warming has amplified the strength of these ridges

       Only "human-caused" warming? Do those ridges know who or what caused warming, if any. How do those ridges sense warming if there hasn't been any over the past almost 2 decades?
       

       the journal Climatic Change estimated that in a business-as-usual scenario with continued reliance on fossil fuels, by 2085 the annual area burned by wildfires in California will increase by 40–70%

       How do they know what California will look like in 70 years from now? With the ongoing draught, there might nothing be left that could burn. Or one of those earthquakes might have extinguished California alltogether.
       

34294. scaddenp at 10:34 AM on 4 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       I would further add that the rapidity  by which the matthews original paper was cited after publishing and the number of cites doesnt fit well with the portrayal as an ignored Galileo.

34295. Tom Curtis at 09:32 AM on 4 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Rob Honeycutt @70, the parallels are even closer.  H pylori had been identified (although not by that name) by a number of researchers prior to Warren and Marshall.  Wikipedia summarizes the history:

       "Previous to the research of Marshall and Warren, German scientists found spiral-shaped bacteria in the lining of the human stomach in 1875, but they were unable to culture them, and the results were eventually forgotten. The Italian researcher Giulio Bizzozero described similarly shaped bacteria living in the acidic environment of the stomach of dogs in 1893. Professor Walery Jaworski of the Jagiellonian University in Kraków investigated sediments of gastric washings obtained from humans in 1899. Among some rod-like bacteria, he also found bacteria with a characteristic spiral shape, which he called Vibrio rugula. He was the first to suggest a possible role of this organism in the pathogenesis of gastric diseases. This work was included in the Handbook of Gastric Diseases, but it had little impact, as it was written in Polish. Several small studies conducted in the early 20th century demonstrated the presence of curved rods in the stomach of many patients with peptic ulcers and stomach cancer. Interest in the bacteria waned, however, when an American study published in 1954 failed to observe the bacteria in 1180 stomach biopsies."

       Marshall and Warren (1984) draw particular attention to Freedman and Barron (1940), which is analogous to Arrhenius (1896) in the history of climate science.  The interest in the connection between those spirochetes and ulcers was quashed by Palmer (1954), "Investigation of the gastric spirochaetes of the human".  He failed to find the spirochaetes, thus damping interest in the theory and delaying the proper treatment of ulcers by 30-40 years.  In the analogy, he is a clear parallel to Angstrom (1900).

34296. Synapsid at 09:13 AM on 4 September 2014
       Fire and water – how global warming is making weather more extreme and costing us money
       

       PluviAL,

       The terms "ridge" and "trough" are descriptive.  In an area of high pressure a given pressure is found at a higher elevation than in the surrounding region, hence "ridge"; in a low-pressure area a given pressure is found at a lower elevation than in the surrounding region, so the feature is called a trough.  Ridges and troughs determine wind direction near and around them, and thus the movement of weather systems; the pattern around a ridge is the opposite of the pattern around a trough, and the associated weather is completely different.  As an example:  If the ridge off the west coast of North America had not been there for the past couple of years, or if a trough had been there instead, California would not be in the present devastating drought.

34297. Tom Curtis at 09:09 AM on 4 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Ashton @69, from the same interview we read:

       " Well, immediately after the rejection [in 1983], my boss, David McGauchie, at Fremantle, said he knew somebody who was the world authority on these bacteria in England, Martin Skirrow, and he said, 'Why don't you give him a call on the telephone?' In those days it was pretty heroic to call someone in England and get permission from the hospital authorities to use their long distance number. So I did that and I spoke to Martin Skirrow, and he said, 'Oh, that sounds exciting. Send some bacteria over.' So we did that, and he cultured them. 

       Then I went to an international meeting right after the publication in the Lancet. So at that point there was a lot of enthusiasm in England, because Martin Skirrow, who was an authority, was now supporting me. So in the infectious disease microbiology fraternity I immediately had followers and in Australia one of the first people that was on my side was Professor Adrian Lee from the University of New South Wales, and we'd corresponded a little bit. And I met him there. And he was a chicken bacteria expert in those days. So we had a bit of a following, and then when I came back to Australia, still the gastroenterology community didn't believe it. And there is a bit of a history of people discovering bacteria all the time and always thinking they're important and they're just, you know, harmless. So for the 12 months I had this frustrating time of some enthusiastic groups around the world - and I'd actually spoken also to some of the top gastroenterologists in Europe, who were pretty excited about it."

       So as early as 1983, the theory had enthusiastic support from groups in England, and Australia, and Europe.   However, there was a history of similar claims in gastroenterology which was a reason for substantial skepticism about the hypothesis.

       Despite that, we read later:

       "And when I went over there [to the USA] I assumed that everybody would be on board with this thing, but, of course, they were totally sceptical in the States and I had to really step back a couple of years and repeat all the work that I'd done in Australia back in the US, plus get my doctor's ticket over there, a lot of exams and things to do. So it took another three or four years after that before people in the US started becoming excited and we had some diagnostic things coming on the market in the United States which meant that I didn't have to have a private practice, I could stay in research once again. And it was about 1993, '94, that we had respectable treatments and good data in the United States, and at that point the authorities over there put their imprimatur on it.

       So internationally it was accepted after about 1990, but people didn't have a good treatment for it, so a lot of patients had to stay on the old medicine. Then by '94 the Americans signed off on it and everybody was interested in the bacteria after that, it was totally respectable."

       So, acceptance was near universal by 1990, except to some residual rejection in the US based simply on US chauvinism.  Further, in 1990 they did not have a treatment but by 1994, when they did acceptance was effectively universal.

       All of this agrees with Orac when he says:

       "By 1992, multiple studies had been published establishing the causative role of H. pylori in peptic ulcer disease, and medical practice rapidly changed. That’s less than ten years, which, given how long it takes to organize and carry out clinical trials, is amazingly fast. Yet somehow a favorite denialist myth is that “dogmatic,” “close-minded” scientists refused to accept Marshall and Warren’s findings. It’s an example of a scientific consensus that deserved to be questioned, was questioned in the right way, and was overthrown"

       A statement you reject as false.  You have made no acknowledgement of your error, nor apology for it.  Nor have you apologized for quoting wikipedia in a way that suggests Marshall's comments about the level of rejection in 1984 applied in 1998.  Nor acknowledged that there was an element of hyperbole in Marshall's comment that you indirectly quoted, as shown by groups he mentions as supporting him in 1983.

34298. Doug Bostrom at 08:26 AM on 4 September 2014
       Climate sceptics see a conspiracy in Australia's record breaking heat
       

       Marohasy's the same highly imaginative person who detected a plot by ABC to cut off her interview midstream and replace her with the notorious, ubiquitous John Cook. 

34299. scaddenp at 08:21 AM on 4 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Ashton, if your analogy is going to make any sense at all, then there needs to be corresponding paper by a climate scientist with the level of research behind it that Marshall has. If there is such a paper, then please provide it. The reason why this argument comes up is because deniers, reading misinformation instead, fondly believe that such a thing must exist. Show us the beef.

34300. Rob Honeycutt at 08:01 AM on 4 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Ashton...  You do realize, I hope, the analogy you're presenting applies to climate science just after the turn of the 20th century (that's two-zero, i.e., in the early 1900's) with the heated debates between Arrhenius and Angstrom.

       Now what we have in climate science is, many many decades of research on a very broad range of interconnected areas of research that all confirm the same thing. And, in the case of Dr Marshall, you're presenting a very narrow area of research that had to, reasonably, rise to a high level of proof in order for it to be accepted by the broader research community. And that change happen rapidly even within that field. Ten years is nothing! 

       Today, if we were getting vastly different answers from the geologists, and the modelers, and the phycisists, and the biologists, and... all the others whose fields AGW encounter, then there would be legitimate reason to be highly skeptical of this issue.

       Problem is, that's not the case. All the research fits very neatly together across a wide range of fields. You have nearly all researchers today looking at each other nodding, saying, "Yup, we have a big, big problem with atmospheric CO2."

       Those who are rejecting this are very few in numbers. Their research is internally inconsistent with any other research, and when you dig a little deeper, you almost always find some sort of political/ideological spin going on. In other words, they just don't like the implications of the problem and are trying to find reasons to believe there really isn't a problem.

Prev  678  679  680  681  682  683  684  685  686  687  688  689  690  691  692  693  Next