Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 Next
Comments 34401 to 34450:
-
duncansteel at 15:00 PM on 31 October 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
Responding to #307:
Rob Honeycutt asked:
"You're clearly capable of publishing research. So, if you're so confident of your "essay" why is it not published in a respected peer reviewed journal?"
The answer is because I make my living generally in other ways than gathering funds from government grants, and therefore do not need to publish in journals (in order to gather yet more grants); and also choose not to spend the considerable time required putting things into the necessary format for journal publication. On my own website I can publish what I like, and what I believe to be correct, without being forced by referees with vested interests to alter what I want to say.
In terms of actual publication of the more-complete story in that 'essay' (someone else's term for it), it will eventually appear as a monograph published by a leading university press, in perhaps a year from now.
You wrote: "I did a quick search and couldn't find anything by you on this subject." Ummm. The subject here, as such, is celestial mechanics: the insolation changes come about directly from understanding the celestial mechanics. That is an area in which I have a record of something like 140 (peer-reviewed!) original research papers, four books in several editions, many book chapters, around a thousand articles in major newspapers and magazines, and ... But none of that means anything, in terms of whether my calculations of the insolation changes are right or wrong. They either are, or they're not.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:29 PM on 31 October 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
duncansteel @305:
1) It is not me or the readers here you should be trying to convince. It is the editor and peer reviewers of a suitable journal who will be far more able to pick up any errors in your assumptions or calculations than I. That you have avoided that step shows you are more interested in propoganda (or book sales) than in science IMO.
2)
TC:"As it happens, he is claiming AGW is a smaller contributing factor because the difference in his calculation sprind insolation (on a particular day) over a 1000 years is greater than the radiative forcing over the last 250 years. "
DS: "No. I gave plots for both the past 1000 years and also the past 250 years..."
From the blog post:
"I note in passing the scale showing the changes in insolation for the correct (left-hand) graphic. These changes range from ─8.1 W/m^2 up to +4.4 W/m^2 (over a full millennium). Recalling that the IPCC has estimated that the AGW climate forcing is about 2.3 W/m^2, it appears that these intra-annually varying insolation changes cannot be ignored."
3)
"On the item in parentheses "(on a particular day)" - no, I used that red bar to illustrate the change at the vernal equinox, but the graph that was copied above from my website has the overall intent of showing that the insolation over the (almost complete) first half of the year is higher than in the second half of the year. That is, at each instant during the first half of the year the insolation is greater than at the equivalent instant in the preceding year"
I showed a copy of one of those graphs, so it was quite clear as to your intent. The "on a particular day" draws attention to the fact that the calculated values reported in the text only apply on that day (with other days typically having a reduced effect), and to the fact that over the full year, the net effect is very near zero.
4)
TC: "Unless you wish to entertain a change in the laws of thermodynamics so that they only apply on the spring equinox, that alone refutes his conjecture."
DS: "As I noted above, the insolation changes (some positive, some negative) continue across the whole year; they are also latitude dependent, as I show in some detail. The spring equinox is simply an astronomically-defined instant used to register the years against each other."
Perhaps you have difficulty recognizing sarcasm. In virtue of the fact that the total insolation is effectively unchanging, the net effect on the Earth's energy balance over the full year is also likely to be effectively unchanging (on which more later).
5)
TC: "Further, his theory does not even match the evidence. As noted, his theory predicts a near linear change over the last thousand years."
DS: "Entirely incorrect statement. Not only are the insolation changes not linear, but also the consequences are not to be expected to be linear, as I explain in the essay."
This is in some ways the crux of the issue. In his blogpost DS writes:
"The precession of perihelion therefore is causing not only the nature of the seasons to alter, through the intensity of the sunlight arriving at the Earth changing for corresponding times of year, but also the lengths of the seasons are varying for the same reason. Obviously enough, this must cause the climate to change in different ways in different locations."
From this, and other related passages, I formed the idea that the effect DS describes is a function of the precession of the perihelion (relative to the vernal equinox). Here is DS's plot of the precession of the perihelion:
It may not be precisely linear, but for the time scale involved its departure for linearity is non-consequential.
Of course, DS can (and should already have) calculated the change in insolation at the northern spring equinox over the last thousand (or two thousand) years, and plotted it against changes in temperature over the same period. Such a plot would largely resolve this issue one way or another. He may also want to do the same for his calculated change in annual energy budget (due to differences in albedo at different locations and seasons along with the changing time of insolation). If either plot shows a hockey stick shape with an inflexion point in the late 19th century, he may be on to something. If not, the emperical data, which he has been so carefully avoiding, refutes his hypothesis.
(More in a following post)
-
Rob Honeycutt at 12:18 PM on 31 October 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
"Curtis ended: 'I would not waste my time on it.' - Well, he didn't. He has made it clear that he did not read my essay, nor understand it..."
Ruh-roh.
I don't think Mr. Steel is familiar with Mr. Curtis.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 11:28 AM on 31 October 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
duncansteel... Quick question in response to the repeated comment "in my essay."
You're clearly capable of publishing research. So, if you're so confident of your "essay" why is it not published in a respected peer reviewed journal?
I did a quick search and couldn't find anything by you on this subject.
-
duncansteel at 11:27 AM on 31 October 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
Responding to #304: " (eg see the results for the forcing in common use here.)" The linked page is the specific NOAA resource to which I have drawn attention in terms of incorrect application of valid data. Berger's results for the latitude-dependent insolation are made available there. Those values are tabulated for equal steps in ecliptic longitude (30-degree steps from the vernal equinox defined as the zero point) in different epochs. However, equal steps in ecliptic longitude are not equal steps in time! That is, the steps are not each 1/12th of a year. Therefore, when one takes from that website the values for 1950 CE (Berger's "present") and for 950 CE (one millennium previously), you cannot subtract the value for the first epoch from that in the other in order to deduce an insolation change! This is precisely what many climatologists have done, because they do not understand Kepler's Second Law. This really is pretty simply stuff - anyone who has done Astronomy 101 should be able to follow it - and yet no-one seems to have pointed it out previously.
To summarise: the insolations from Berger on that website are valid, but one cannot subtract his insolation values in one epoch from those in another if one wants to know the insolation change, because the insolations presented there are not for consistent time steps during the year: the time steps vary from epoch to epoch due to apsidal precession. The way one could achieve valid values for insolation changes - as I did, as a check on my own independent calculations - is to download Berger's FORTRAN program from his FTP site, and run it for equal time steps (e.g. day-by-day time steps) for any two epochs one might like to choose: say 1900 and 2000. The differences in the daily insolations between the two epochs will then show how much the insolation has actually changed at each and every latitude you care to chart.
-
duncansteel at 10:46 AM on 31 October 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
This is a brief response to #299 from Tom Curtis, after someone kindly pointed it out to me.
Virtually everything in #299 is incorrect.
"As it happens, he is claiming AGW is a smaller contributing factor because the difference in his calculation sprind insolation (on a particular day) over a 1000 years is greater than the radiative forcing over the last 250 years. " - No. I gave plots for both the past 1000 years and also the past 250 years; and note that from 1000 CE through to 1246 CE perihelion is approaching the winter solstice, then passing it, and since then having an accelerating effect on the insolation variation. On the item in parentheses "(on a particular day)" - no, I used that red bar to illustrate the change at the vernal equinox, but the graph that was copied above from my website has the overall intent of showing that the insolation over the (almost complete) first half of the year is higher than in the second half of the year. That is, at each instant during the first half of the year the insolation is greater than at the equivalent instant in the preceding year, if one registers the years against each other on a scientific basis (rather than using calendars that are based on religious considerations).
"The effect he calculates appears, however, to be linear over time" - No, not at all, and I state that in my essay; and have said so again above. Now, that statement I have just made applies to the insolation itself, but a far greater non-linearity to be anticipated, and which I discussed in my essay, is the effect of the changing insolation in terms of altering the albedo values and distribution, and therefore the overall consequences of that changing insolation.
" In fact, the total effect sums to zero over the course of the year so that the net forcing from his mechanism is in fact zero." - The statement is false. I explained in my essay in some detail, and several times, the ice albedo feedback effect, and gave an illustrative calculation. Curtis appears to have missed that. It would seem fairly obvious that an increase in the insolation in the first half of the year, and a reduction in the second half of the year, must have some effect in terms of climate change. This insolation change appears to have been hitherto missed in all reports and papers I have read, and you will not find mention of it in the IPCC reports. I have drawn attention to it in the hope that its overall effect can be assessed.
"Unless you wish to entertain a change in the laws of thermodynamics so that they only apply on the spring equinox, that alone refutes his conjecture." - As I noted above, the insolation changes (some positive, some negative) continue across the whole year; they are also latitude dependent, as I show in some detail. The spring equinox is simply an astronomically-defined instant used to register the years against each other.
"Further, his theory does not even match the evidence. As noted, his theory predicts a near linear change over the last thousand years." - Entirely incorrect statement. Not only are the insolation changes not linear, but also the consequences are not to be expected to be linear, as I explain in the essay.
"Berger (1978), from whom he draws his algorithms" - False statement. I did not draw my algorithms from Berger's wonderful papers. I derived the algorithms from first principles. It was only after the fact, when I saw what my results must imply, that I turned to Berger's FORTRAN program to do check calculations, as I have described in some detail. It is noteworthy that, as I discuss in my essay, essentially the only parameters needed in order to derive a good-enough calculation of the insolation changes are the lengths of the mean tropical year and the anomalistic year. The difference between those indicates the circa 58 years it takes perihelion to shift by one day closer to the vernal equinox. The use of the changing orbital eccentricity and obliquity of the ecliptic is nice, for completeness, but over only a century or two those slowly-altering values have little effect. Just the comparative values of the two year lengths are all that is required, to first-order.
The rest of the paragraph by Curtis discussing Berger (1978) is also entirely incorrect. In all his calculations Berger uses the vernal equinox to register the years against each other, whether he is making calculations of insolations in equal steps of the true anomaly or the mean anomaly. Unfortunately it is necessary to have a good command of the celestial mechanics involved if one is to be able to understand Berger's papers. If one does not understand the language/jargon, then stepping through Berger's FORTRAN program line by line may be instructive.
"his refusal to calculate a total year energy balance" - At this stage, no such calculation can be made, because I have calculated in detail only the changes in the incoming energy (the insolation) as a function of time-of-year and latitude; I have estimated also the effect upon the insolation absorption through a change in the Arctic albedo. Because I have not looked at the re-radiation, of course I have not calculated a "total year energy balance" - to state that is like complaining that I have not discussed the history of the Louvre in Paris: it's not relevant.
In any case, no balance is to be expected! Things are changing; and what I have introduced here would seem to be a major contributor to that change.
"inflation of the effect by using unequal comparison times" - Untrue. I used the interval 1750-2000 in most cases, using the past millennium (1000-2000) when I was driven to do so by considerations such as avoiding too-close cluttering in graphs and plots. In terms of criticizing specific comparisons of figures, Curtis misses the opportunity to note that the IPCC AGW climate forcing figure is for the whole Earth surface (4 pi r2) whereas the insolation is intercepted by only a quarter of that area (pi r2).
"a hypothesis he has not presented for peer review" - False statement. I have had it reviewed by several of my fellow astronomers with expertise in celestial mechanics (i.e. true peers), and I have presented it in research colloquia to others with broad astronomical expertise. As of yet no-one has found any flaw in my analysis/calculations. I have made a fairly simple-level account available on my website, and it is available for review by anyone. If someone out there can identify an error, please do let me know.
Curtis ended: "I would not waste my time on it. " - Well, he didn't. He has made it clear that he did not read my essay, nor understand it, just as he has demonstrated his lack of understanding of Berger's work.
karly: Thank you, appreciated.
The natural phenomenon I have described in my essay and associated graphics and movies (see http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/category/climate-change) is a surprising omission from previous climate change/global warming modelling. All constructive, valid criticisms and debate are welcome. The reality is, though, that one will need a good command of fundamental astronomy and celestial mechanics in order to understand what is going on, and so be able to identify any flaws, if they exist. True scholars are always pleased if someone identifies an error in their own calculations: that's the way we move forward.
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link. Please note our comments policy, and in particular avoid bulk quoting. It is easier to refer to the original.
-
Ken in Oz at 10:36 AM on 31 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
It does sound like McConnell chooses to avoid openly stating his true views ie will not unequivocally say that he rejects mainstream science on climate. This is how Conservatives here in Australia work; what they say can and will strongly suggest that they reject the science but, through being uninformative, vague and contradictory they retain the the option to deny that they deny. For audiences that agree with them their sidestepping and occaisional concessions that climate is a real issue is made to look like a mocking and insincere submission to an imaginary eco- political correctness. ie forced on them by the unfortunate popularity of environmentalism. Those that take the issue seriously are no more fooled than those that reject it - but a big portion of community and voters, who aren't well informed and hold no strong views look to leaders to know what they are about - and are being let down.
With this style of politicking, direct expressions of rejecting science tend to come from a smaller group of outspoken colleagues or from allied conmentators, which can be used both to say what's not expedient to say directly as well as make their own utterances seem more moderate. It's really about doubt and delay and keeping climate lower down in community concerns. When the problem is one that's ongoing, cumulative, with long delayed impacts with costs that will come out of irreplaceable capital, delay, like ignoring the abundant and clear expert advice from peak science agencies is dangerously irresponsible.
It's deeply dismaying to think that the next Republican US President could very well come to office with a conviction that climate science is wrong and that climate as a policy consideration must be eliminated as far as possible from government business - like Australia's Prime Minister is doing - hinting at but never clearly articulating that belief or goal. Like Australia's Prime Minister did.
-
Phil at 09:05 AM on 31 October 2014There is no consensus
KR @636
We can also note that even when scientists are wrong, they are often right enough (e.g. Newton's laws of motion)
-
scaddenp at 07:03 AM on 31 October 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
Milankovich first did these calculations by hand in jail in 1913 and they have been repeated many times by other researchers (eg see the results for the forcing in common use here.) When someone says they have done them and got a different result and yet not published it, then I am, shall we say, very skeptical. Publish the results and show why the standard ones are wrong and then we might be interested.
-
There is no consensus
Andy Robinson - We can certainly agree on that, as well as noting that
- d) Usually the majority of experts are indeed correct, and
- e) Holding minority positions (far less than 1% per hypothesis, as there are multiple and contradictory proposed 'climate skeptic' mechanisms) means holding to a position that most people familiar with the subject(s) feel is in no way credible.
- f) For people not deeply versed in a complex subject, expert opinion makes for the most reasonable heuristic in deciding policy - to do otherwise is a very bad, and in fact irrational, bet.
To act as if the minority opinions are in fact correct is to fall prey to the Galileo fallacy - if people perceive you to be wrong, you usually are wrong. There are far far more loons doing living room 'science' than actual geniuses out there.
-
Andy Robinson at 05:43 AM on 31 October 2014There is no consensus
If we acknowledge that 97% of climatologists agree with the concept of anthropogenic global warming can we a) agree that 97% is less than 100%, and b) that scientists have, throughout history, repeatedly come to majority conclusions that were wrong, and therefore c) admit that consensus on issues of scientific inquiry conveys no moral or intellectual prerogative?
-
MA Rodger at 02:50 AM on 31 October 2014New research quantifies what's causing sea level to rise
The title of this study by Perky et al. is "Relative contributions of ocean mass and deep steric changes to sea level rise between 1993 and 2013." The two methods used to calculate the SLR due to mass increase give the same results but for different (overlapping) periods. The Abstract suggests identical results stating:-. "The global mean trend of ocean mass addition is 1.5 (±0.4) mm yr-1 for 1996–2006 from the residual method and the same for 2003–2013 from the GRACE method." And the post says this agreement extends to regional measurements.
Yet there has surely been an acceleration in global ice loss. In recent years GRACE is showing something like 750Gt ice loss per year from Greenland, Antarctica & other glaciers which would equal 2mm yr-1 So I'm not sure it is entirely correct to say the two methods yield a complete agreement given we should perhaps be expecting a difference for the two periods as ice loss has accelerated.
Of course, the other ingredient in changing ocean mass is changes in land water storage (recently put at +0.77mm yr-1 SLR by Pokhrel et al (2012) averaged for 1961-2003) which might be recently providing a compensating deceleration.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 22:14 PM on 30 October 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
Karly@300 The purpose of this site is to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of scientific arguments. If you raise a scientific argument here, then you should expect its strengths and weaknesses to be discussed. It seems unreasonable to then say " If you believe his analysis is erroneous, please respect his request, and discuss the matter with him directly." as if Tom's post was disrespectful by discussing the problems with the theory here.
The WWW is already too full of misinformation, especially on climate, and so those with theories they wish to promulgate really ought to submit their ideas to peer review to give a reasonable chance for obvious flaws to be pointed out, rather than promulgating them immediately to laypersons who might accept them without seeing the flaws.
-
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.
Prev 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 Next
